Well, he keeps saying that, and as defense secretary, of course he has to think of a lot of potential enemies. I do not think it's a wise course to articulate this or to base our policy on it. And I do not see under modern circumstances what we would be fighting about.

I believe it is a mistake to isolate arms control from other areas of policy.

The emergence of a unified Europe is one of the most revolutionary events of our time.

The members of the Islamic Staye have cut the throat of an American on television. This is an insult to the United States, which requires that we demonstrate that this is not an act that is free. I would strongly favor a strong attack on ISIS for a period that is related to the murder of the American.

I don't think that that's a desirable option for us. Besides, it wouldn't work, because there are too many other countries that are willing to work economically with China. But I don't think the basic relationship depends on economics. It depends on a political understanding of what is required for peace in Asia.

The nuclear weapons were not useful for the achievement of political objectives.

To revolutionaries the significant reality is the world which they are fighting to bring about, not the world they are fighting to overcome.