s.t.a.r.t. the president submitted a plan as requested by congress which said it is our intention to pursue programs and capabilities necessary to maintain a nuclear arsenal. our estimate was those capabilities will cost $85 billion over ten years. that is just for the nuclear complex part. that is separate from strategic launch vehicles. after the budget control act came into force there were new restrictions on how much the president would be able to request and so people wanted the president to basically break the law and say we re going to ask for money we legally can t ask for. the president said we are not going to do that. we went to work quickly saying if this is the money that is available and this is what we need how do we insure what we need. that is a very open process with the pentagon and nuclear weapons council and lab directors who said over the next ten years there s a reasonable estimate we can provide for with this will cost. congress chose not to fund that
weapons back in the united states will provide just as much protection, if i can call it that as those that are based in europe. so i don t think it s the numbers that is the issue. i think it is zero or more than zero that is the issue. and just one point of clarification. the defense review that was just released by nato in chicago states that the supreme guarantee of allied security are the strategic nuclear weapons of the three countries in nato with strategic nuclear weapons, the u.s., the uk, and france. it does not talk about the u.s. forward deployed tactical nuclear weapons as being voight toll that deterrent capability. and the last i noticed, our european allies are very supportive of further u.s./russian reductions relating to strategic nuclear weapons. jon, other points this? i mean, you know, when i was really young, jack mendelssohn used to call me into his office and explain the way the world had developed. of course i remember his lecture on why we have n