Well I find it very difficult to conceive uh, military
uses for, for uh, highly accurate weapons against what are called
counterforce targets. Uh, there is a school of thought that believes we
should have the Trident or some other missile of that kind in order to be
able to destroy uh, the hardened uh, Soviet missile sites. Oh, I can't
conceive of that. Uh, we're not going to launch first. I'm positive of that.
No, no President, no Secretary of Defense in the last uh, 35 years has
supported a first-strike strategy. Therefore presumably uh, this highly
accurate missile to be launched against uh, Soviet missile sites uh, would
be launched after the missiles have left those sites. I find it very
difficult to conceive of why we need it for that purpose. Alternatively some
would say, "Well, uh, perhaps the Soviets would have launched only half of
their weapons and half would be left in their holes. And we need it for that
purpose." I can't conceive of fighting in a, a war under those
circumstances. It's beyond the human ability uh, to, to control uh, nuclear
operations in that situation. My God! We saw what happened in Chernobyl.
That was a, just a... a minor uh, uh, explosion of a civilian reactor.
Imagine what we would be facing if we had uh, a thousand, say half of uh, of
their uh, highly accurate uh, warheads detonating on our soil, what it
would do to our communications, what it would do to life in this, in this
nation and uh, why under that circumstances we would think it made any
difference, uh, whether we had a weapon that would destroy a thousand of
their uh, remaining missiles or not.