in 2020, new s.t.a.r.t. comes to an end and the united states begins a new arms reduction negotiation with russia. the russians said we have regard this system as threatening and we are going to withdraw from all future arms reductions with the united states after new s.t.a.r.t. ends or we might even withdraw from new s.t.a.r.t. at some point because we are so concerned about this. and i can tell you that people i'm working with and some of them are big pentagon insiders are very worried about this. and they should be. because i think the russians are very serious. all right. but why are they worried about this system? because i just told you, it's worthless. it's just your money, but, you know, after all, wall street took care of that as well and of course the people in the white house are protecting you from wall street just as they're protecting you from these foreign missiles. and incidentally that's not an accident because i used to be sick over this missile defense issue, but then i saw what we did with

the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty in 2010. bringing in france and china and the u.k. into the arms control. >> a republican from texas. welcome. >> caller: good morning. and right now, iran is threatening us or they're threatening to build a nuclear weapon. we have iran surrounded right now. and we have what you just said over 5,000 nuclear weapons ourselves, plus we're the only country in the world that drops nuclear weapons. what gives us the right to tell any country what they can build a nuclear weapon or not when we've already dropped one? >> well, i think your point is well taken, but, you know, i would go back to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty which was signed decades ago which basically was an agreement among all countries that, you know, nuclear weapons are kind of a genie that's out of the bottle. we need to kind of stop it. i mean, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was signed when there was a fear that, you know, at the time there was a handful of countries that had nuclear weapons. there was a fear then that decades from the '70s that there would be

-- made an effort to include tactical nuclear weapons at the time that we were looking at the new s.t.a.r.t. program. and as it is right now, it's about a 10-1 advantage of russia over ourselves. do you have any -- do you agree or disagree with plea that that should be a part of the plan? >> i agree it should be a part of the plan, yes, sir. >> all right. thank you very much, mr. charm. >> thank you, senator. senator nelson? >> thank you mr. chairman. thank to both of you for your service and for your kind remarks this morning. i appreciate that very much. general kehler, and general alexander, the comments today and all of the discussion for some periods of time has indicated the growing threat of cyberwarfare to the threat to the united states national security. as we engage in this discussion there is an ongoing restructuring of stratcom's headquarters with the new headquarters. general kehler, can you give us some indication why an aging facility would not be an appropriate facility as we take on new responsibilities but particularly as it relates to the high-tech cybersituation? genera

general kehler, the senate support for the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty was tied to modernization of the united states nuclear complex and strategic delivery system. specifically during the senate confirmation the president committed to modernization in what became known as the 1251 plan that was incorporated in the 2010 nba a. is that right? >> yes. >> if you will look at that commitment in the 1251 plan, there was an initial plan submitted in may of 2010 and a month before the ratification of the senate treaty there was $4.1 billion added over five years to the plan. isn't that right? >> yes. talking about the dod? >> yes. specifically reflect a month before the ratification of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty put into the 1251 plan to incorporate the 2010 nbaa. >> that was before my time but i think that is right. >> that was done because modernization was such an important issue to getting that treaty through the united states senate. and because modernization is very important for our nuclear program. is that correct? >> yes it is. >> the 2013 budget req

general kehler, the senate support for the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty was tied to modernization of the united states nuclear complex and strategic delivery system, and specifically during the senate confirmation, the president committed to modernization in what became known as the 1251 plan that was incorporated in the 2010 ndaa, isn't that right? >> senator, yes. >> okay. and if you look at that commitment in the 1251 plan, there was an initial plan submitted in may of 2010, and then a month before the ratification of the senate treaty, there was $4.1 billion added over five years to the plan. isn't that right? >> yes. you're talking about the d.o.d. -- >> yes. but that was specifically reflected a month before the ratification of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty put into the 1251 plan as incorporated in the 2010 ndaa. >> senator, i think that's right. that's a little before my time but i think that's right. >> the reason that was done is because modernization was such an important issue to getting that treaty through the united states senate, because mode

very much concerned about and there are a lot of us who actually, in fact during the treaty, the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty was debated. we are concerned about these things and i still am. it's my understanding, and i remember and i want to read a quote by the president when the president was trying to get the additional signatures on board to pass the treaty. he made some commitment and he said i recognized the nuclear modernization requires investment in the long term and is my commitment to the congress that my administration will pursue these as long as i am president. and yet in fiscal year 13 budget, decreasing that amount by $347 million actually delaying the system of modernization. i have a quote that i've used recentlyby talks about, i can't find it right here but it talks about the fact that we have some 30 other countries to defend underwrite nuclear umbrella and do a knee -- make either one of you have any comments about this, which is not a proposal yet but it's a discussion of production of some 80%. >> well sir, that is news to me, and to what extent we may reduce or not our nuclear

general kehler, the senate support for the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty was tied to modernization of the united states nuclear complex and strategic delivery system, and specifically during the senate confirmation, the president committed to modernization in what became known as the 1251 plan that was incorporated in the 2010 ndaa, isn't that right? >> senator, yes. >> okay. and if you look at that commitment in the 1251 plan, there was an initial plan submitted in may of 2010, and then a month before the ratification of the senate treaty, there was $4.1 billion added over five years to the plan. isn't that right? >> yes. you're talking about the d.o.d. -- >> yes. but that was specifically reflected a month before the ratification of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty put into the 1251 plan as incorporated in the 2010 ndaa. >> senator, i think that's right. that's a little before my time but i think that's right. >> the reason that was done is because modernization was such an important issue to getting that treaty through the united states senate, because mode

it came up as a part of the new s.t.a.r.t. debate. the president submitted, sent a letter to us and promised it. but it's not occurring. the money's not there. so we're at a time of great

new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, another giant negotiation, very difficult negotiation is a part of. the last big one, wto worked with mr. cheval and the entire russian government to get the deal done a lot with our counterparts and was part of a team. they all know that. they do with me for three years and in my personal meetings of people, i've had no problems whatsoever. it is one thing for campaign organizers to say, you know, orange revolution. but at the highest level, i have had personal conversations to say, we are delighted we are here because we know we have somebody that is intimately involved with the execution under the policy. but for me personally have had nobody canceled any meetings. not that whatsoever in terms of the russian government. what happens on the internet and television is a different matter. although it's got to say, you know, engagement is our policy, so mr. pushcart wrote a program on me. he's the guy with television programming miscounted chairman of the international relations committee. if you saw it, you know it's pretty tough. there is a lot of in

the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is a good thing. to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and from our point of view to continue to have inspections and transparency that goes with that helps to keep us in a stable relationship with russia when it comes alarm in nuclear arsenals. iran. we started in a creative way and a cooperative way to make offers to iran about a way out of this impact and together with the russians and the french did some creative things to change that dynamic. tehran rejected us. we put together creative -- they rejected us and after that rejection they rejected russia as well as the united states and we cooperated with russia. as i mentioned to pass you and security council resolution 1929. after that canceled the s 300 contract and sent tens of millions of dollars back to iran which was paid as a down payment for that military system. the 123 agreement. north korea wto. less tension between russia and its neighbors. that is controversial but if you look at where we were in the beginning of the administration a

has to do with missile defense sites and what he did with nuclear weapons already as well as the new s.t.a.r.teaty and to reduce our missile defense sites in alaska, from the original plan. these are very sun fortunate developments and if he's planning on doing more, if he has things he's willing to do, this is without question our number one geo political foe, they fight every cause for the world's worst actors, the idea that he has more flexibility in mind for russia is very, very troubling indeed. >> you think russia is a bigger foe than iran or china or north korea, is that what you're suggesting, governor? >> i'm saying in terms of a geo political opponent, the nation which aligns with the world's famous actors. a nuclear north korea is already troubling enough, but when these terrible actors pursue their course in the world and we go to the united nations looking for ways to stop them, when assaad for instance is looking to murder husband own people. and who always stands up with the world's worst actors, it's always russia and china. as a massive nuclear power, russia is the geo politic

. >> when you think about new s.t.a.r.t. treaty that demitri and i were able to hammer out and ultimately get ratified, that was a painstaking two-year process. i don't think it is any surprise you can't start that a few months before a presidential and congressional elections in the united states and at a time when they just completed elections in russia and they're in the process of a presidential transition where a new president is going to becoming in a little less than two months. jon: gop presidential candidate mitt romney calls russia, our number one geopolitical foe and blasted the president. >> russia is not a friendly character on the world stage. for this president to be looking for greater flexibility where he doesn't have to answer to the american people in his relations with russia is very, very troubling, very alarming. i am, i am very, very concerned. i think the american people will feel the same way. this is a president who is telling us one thing and doing something else. jon: the white house blasting back

the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, that's a good thing to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, and most important from our point of view to continue to the inspections and transparency that goes with that. that helps keep was in stable relationship when it comes to our nuclear arsenal. third, iran has just mentioned, we started in a very creative way in a cooperative way to make offers to iran about a way out of the said act and together with the russians and the french we did some jury creative things to try to change that dynamic. tehran rejected us. he didn't reject the overture we put together a creative overture in the research reactor. they reject it does and after that rejection, by the way, they got russia as well as the united states, and therefore, we then cooperated with russia to, again, as i mentioned, to pass the u.n. security council resolution, 1929. russia then after that canceled the s300 contract and sent tens of millions of dollars back to iran which is a down payment for that military syst

he got the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty proposed and ratified. had he been able to develop momentum from that and get the ctbt done, we would be in a much better position today on everything that we're talking about here, which leads us to what's going to happen to later this year. it's very hard to imagine an outcome in the november elections that will strengthen the possibilities for getting the ctp ratified in 2013. even if president obama is -- is elected to a second term. in fact, i suppose on this sort of nixon goes to china principle you could say president obama elect romney would be in a better position to surprise some people, many of whom unpleasantly by committing himself to ctp ratification. in any event, that is a melancholy note that i feel should be struck at the end of this conversation before we go to an open discussion. >> let me first thank the panel for all the enthusiasm they shared with us today. and let me now open the floor to questions. can i ask if you could identify yourself and affiliation and put a short question for

there are a number of segments in implementation of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty that have to move forward together. the first statement is we need to eliminate those launchers that count against the overall treaty limits, and have not been in use for a very, very long time. for example, we call them phantoms, simply because they count on the books but they have been be activated for a very long time ago. some number of bombers, b-52's that are in the boneyard and need to be dismantled. there are 100 icbm silos that have been empty now for a number of years. we don't have any plans to go back to, that need to be eliminated as well. not converted from nuclear to non-nuclear, but completely eliminated. those processes are under way. the wheels are turning. they are about to finish the environmental impact studies that go along with the, eliminating those silos, and so i'm comfortable with those pieces, are moving forward correctly. the second thing is we have to get ourselves down to the central limits of the treaty, and that's 1000-50 deployed warheads, 700

he got the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty proposed and ratified. had he been able to develop the momentum for that we would be in a much better position today on everything that we are talking about here which we do what we do have them later this year. it's really hard to imagine an outcome in the november election that will strengthen the possibility for getting the ct be ratified in 2013. even if president obama is elected to a second term. in fact i suppose on the sorted nixon goes to china principle you could say that the president-elect mitt romney would be in a better position to surprise some people, many of them unpleasantly, by committing himself to the ratification in any event, that is de mullen coley note the i feel should be struck at the end of this conversation. >> with the first think the panel for all of the enthusiasm they shared with us today and let me know open the questions if you could identify yourself and put a short question. >> we have the microphone coming up. >> i haven't been drinking this morning but i was sobered up