I appreciate the focus on our nuclear weapons deterrent for this week. I think it is incredibly important.

I think we should maintain our policy of not using them first and using them as a credible deterrent.

Escalation is escalation, and nuclear use would be the ultimate escalation.

Anyone who thinks they can control escalation through the use of nuclear weapons is literally playing with fire.

I believe the New START Treaty remains in the national security interest of the United States as long as Russia complies with its terms.

We absolutely have to have a nuclear deterrent because, unfortunately, there other countries--and hostile countries like Russia, North Korea--that have nuclear weapons.

We were not entering an arms race because we bilaterally have a verifiable inspection regime for the weapons that are deployed.

we were not entering an arms race because we bilaterally have a verifiable inspection regime for the weapons that are deployed.

Credible deterrent is not just about how many nuclear weapons you have, but it is also about maintaining an open dialogue.

Is there a way that we can do this in a more cost-effective manner?

We have to have enough of a deterrent to make sure that they never use them because they know that it would lead to their own destruction because of the size of our deterrent.

I don't think we should simply say, 'Well, it is important so we are going to spend whatever it takes.'