Robert Gates

Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposing several cuts to save money, including the elimination of the U.S. Joint Forces Command, which has an annual budget of $240 million and is staffed by 2,800 people.

the task before us is . . . to significantly reduce [the department's] excess overhead costs and apply the savings to force structure and modernization

a dollar spent for capabilities in excess to our real needs is a dollar taken from a capability we do need.

I would strongly recommend a presidential veto of legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation of the C-17.

There are things that we need to better ensure the safety and the effectiveness of our warfighters, and to the extent that you take away money for those needs and simply use it to buy aircraft that we do not need, you put in danger our…

the lack of progress in the peace process has provided political ammunition to our adversaries in the Middle East and in the region, and . . . progress in this arena will enable us not only to perhaps get others to support the peace…

What we've seen is a change in the nature of the regime in Tehran over the past 18 months or so.

You have a much narrower based government in Tehran now.

Added economic pressures on top of the militarization, has real potential of pressuring Iran into complying with international controls on its nuclear program.

America's nuclear arsenal remains a vital pillar of our national security, deterring potential adversaries and reassuring allies.

We think that the North Koreans already have them.

Under the last administration, as well as under this one, it has been U.S. policy not to build a missile defense that would render useless Russia's nuclear capabilities.

Yes. Although the United States will 'de-MIRV' the Minuteman III ICBM force to a single warhead...

The Russians, the number of their strategic nuclear delivery vehicles is in fact below the treaty limits, but the number of warheads is above the treaty limits.

Development time for a new ICBM is dependent on the scope and complexity of the system.

I think that, from our national security standpoint, having this treaty that provides the transparency, predictability, and stability in that kind of an evolving environment is very much in the interests of the United States.

I think that the kind of missile threat that we face from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea is such a problem.

The treaty will not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defense possible, nor impose additional costs or barriers on those defenses.

As long as others have nuclear weapons, we must maintain some level of these weapons ourselves to deter potential adversaries.

No. The only nation that could potentially compete with the United States or Russia in size of its nuclear weapons arsenal is the People's Republic of China.

Whatever talks are going on are simply about trying to elicit their willingness to partner with us along with the Europeans in terms of a regional missile defense.

Although a decision on any follow-on ICBM is not needed for several years, studies to inform that decision are needed now.

I would just say that with that figure that you mentioned, there are placeholders for each of the modernization programs because no decisions have been made.

I would say, there's one other reason why I think we would need to do this, and that is because one of the elements of the intelligence that contributed to the decision on the Phased Adaptive Approach was the realization that if Iran were…

The United States is better off with this treaty than without it, and I'm confident that it is the right agreement for today and for the future.