Opening Statements

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, made the following remarks on the Committee's hearing," Outside Perspectives On Nuclear Detettence Policy and Posture":

"Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I too want to welcome our witnesses here. I completely agree with your statement that this is a very important topic and I believe it is useful to have some different perspectives on our nuclear deterrent. I start from a few fundamentals that I believe have been at the center of U.S. strategic thought for 75 years in both parties. One of those fundamentals is that a strong nuclear deterrent is the cornerstone of American national security. And while various books may say we've come close and obviously there have been some instances, Cuban missile crisis, etc. that were far too close. It still is the fact that since the end of World War II nuclear weapons have not been used. And I believe that is largely the result of U.S. nuclear superiority made it clear that an aggressor could not benefit from it. We've had numerous Secretaries of Defense testify before this committee over the years that this was the highest priority of the Department of Defense.

"A second fundamental is that the Russians and the Chinese are modernizing their nuclear forces, I would simply quote from an article in Real Clear Defense by Peter Hussey, that says in fact early in the next decade, around 2021, Russia will have modernized close to 100 percent of its bombers land based missiles and submarines and China will have by the end of the next decade have a fully modernized and expanded nuclear deterrent as well with mobile ICBM's a new missile armed submarine and long range cruise missiles. Now, I hope that this committee will get into a classified session at some point with our intelligence committee and get their assessment of what the Russians and the Chinese are doing, but the point is, it's not just about us. It's about them as well.

"Third fundamental, I believe is that our weapons and delivery systems were designed and built for a different time with different circumstances and need to be updated. Part of it is just because of aging, it's kind of like anything else in life, if you neglect your health, if you neglect your roof, sometime the bills are going to come due. And unfortunately, we are still dependent upon delivery systems and weapons that were largely built in the Reagan era. And so, it makes sense that we will have to make up for past neglect although at no point does that make up require more than 6.4 percent of the defense budget.

"Now, can we afford 6 percent of the defense budget for the cornerstone of American national security? That may be an issue where we have differences.

"Couple other fundamentals, number one, I mean number four in my list, we cannot wish away the existence of nuclear weapons. It seems to me that some of the writings that one comes across can kind of hope we can negotiate or wish away their existence--that's not going to occur. If we're going to fulfill our responsibilities to defend the country, we have to make sure that our deterrent is without question.

"And that leads me to my fifth fundamental assumption that has been at the center of American strategic thought for 75 years, and that is America and our allies depend on a U.S. nuclear deterrent that is credible, safe and reliable without question. And I think the big issue before us this year and at this time is the credibility of that deterrent. And if you are allies in Europe or allies in Asia, if that credibility starts to wane you start to think about other options. And that's part of the reason whether we modernize our delivery systems, in my view all three legs of the triad, whether we modernize the weapons themselves, is not just a question for us, it's a question of whether our allies trust that our superiority will be to such an extent that they can rest secured in not having to have their own nuclear deterrent--that they can rest secured in depending on it as well.

"All of those, Mr. Chairman, are part of the reason I agree with you that this is a big important topic that we should not take lightly or assume that slogans can and somehow overcome the U.S. policy of the last 75 years. I look forward to hearing these witnesses and others to come. I yield back."