On the recordDecember 19, 2010
Mr. President, I would ask to be advised after 4 minutes have lapsed. Mr. President, I think Senator Risch is correct and Senator Chambliss is correct to make the point that tactical nuclear weapons are more available for theft and to transship than strategic nuclear weapons, and it is a high priority of the United States to reduce the risk of terrorists obtaining weapons of this kind, and this treaty does nothing about that. It does nothing about tactical nuclear weapons, which the Russians do care about. It is a big part, apparently, of their defense strategy, and they gave not one whit on it; whereas our President, who says he wants to move toward zero nuclear weapons in the world--a fantastical view, really, and one that endangers our country and would create instability around the world and create more national security risks--did not negotiate this in any effective way. I think that was a failure of the treaty, a failure of negotiations, and another example of the fact that we wanted the treaty too badly for what, I guess, are primarily public relations matters rather than substantive matters. That is just the way I see it. So the Russians have been steadily reducing their strategic weapons, we are reducing ours, and this strategic relationship has been moving along. There does not have to be a treaty. We would like to have a treaty. I think the Russians would probably like to have a treaty.…





