WATCH: In SASC Hearing, Kelly Raises Alarm as Arms Control Treaty with Russia Set to Expire Today

"I really worry about the future for our kids and our grandkids living in a world where we have multiple countries with potentially thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons."

This week, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the expiration of the New START treaty, the last major U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control treaty, Arizona Senator and Navy combat veteran Mark Kelly pressed witnesses on how the U.S. can maintain strategic stability, warning that a rush toward a costly Golden Dome missile defense could undermine deterrence and spur an unconstrained nuclear buildup by Russia and China. The treaty is set to expire today, February 5, 2026.

Kelly warned that the administration's push for a costly Golden Dome missile defense could undermine mutual deterrence: "That challenge is getting more complex as New START approaches expiration. At the same time, this administration is trying to throw billions or hundreds of billions eventually, at this Golden Dome concept, a homeland missile defense supposedly scaled to counter full salvoes of nuclear ballistic missiles from both Russia and China. Physics favors the offense. Intercepting ballistic missiles with decoys present, at hypersonic speeds, and mid-course or terminal phase is extremely hard. Countermeasures are cheap. Tests are scripted, and real adversaries adapt. A defender must stop everything. The attacker only needs a few to get through. In my view, missile defense can undermine mutual deterrence, and I think a shield can be a false sense of security."

Kelly also raised concerns that spending $1 trillion on an unreliable system could put future generations at risk in a post-New START treaty world: "I am very concerned that we could throw $1 trillion at a problem that ultimately, we will find is unsolvable, that we will not be able to get a four nines kind of reliability out of it. And we just wind up encouraging our adversaries to build more ballistic missiles, more warheads. And then this problem ultimately grows out of control. I mean, we've seen this before. We've got the numbers down. And I really worry about the future for our kids and our grandkids living in a world where we have multiple countries with potentially thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons."

Sen. Kelly questions Admiral Richard during a SASC hearing.

Click here to download a video of Kelly's remarks. See the transcript below:

Sen. Kelly:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for being here. Admiral Richard, during your tenure at STRATCOMM, you underscored the growing challenges of deterring two nuclear armed peer adversaries at once. That challenge is getting more complex as New START approaches expiration. At the same time, this administration is trying to throw billions or hundreds of billions eventually, at this Golden Dome concept, a homeland missile defense supposedly scaled to counter full salvoes of nuclear ballistic missiles from both Russia and China. Physics favors the offense. Intercepting ballistic missiles with decoys present, at hypersonic speeds, and mid-course or terminal phase is extremely hard. Countermeasures are cheap. Tests are scripted, and real adversaries adapt. A defender must stop everything. The attacker only needs a few to get through. In my view, missile defense can undermine mutual deterrence, and I think a shield can be a false sense of security. So, here's the question. In a world without arms control limits and with two major adversaries potentially expanding their nuclear arsenals, what are the strategic implications for pursuing this kind of defense?

Admiral (ret.) Charles A. Richard, USN:

Senator, first, I would support, additional defenses, air and missile defenses for the United States in terms of the way it enhances our security. I think the success of the Israeli system is an example-the technical challenges that you just described can be addressed.

Sen. Kelly:

You feel they can be addressed at scale, with full salvoes of ICBM?

Adm. Richard:

I do. Absolutely, because the goal is not to-you're not going to intercept every single weapon going in, but you will intercept enough of them that one will drive your opponent to have to consider a much larger attack than they might otherwise have. There's a deterrent value in that alone. And then, introducing a lack of confidence on the part of your opponent that their attack is going to be successful, yet they will carry all the consequences of having started it, I think enhances our security.

Sen. Kelly:

But, Admiral, would you agree, decoys are pretty cheap?

Adm: Richard:

I would agree decoys are pretty cheap. I would agree that there are ways to discriminate through that. I also think directed energy is pretty cheap. And so, I think there is a technological competition not unlike other ones we've had in our history that we can win.

Sen. Kelly:

Yeah. And I'm not opposed to a missile defense. What we have at Fort Greely, having 44 interceptors for a Rogue Nation concept makes perfect sense to me. And I think that's where our investment should be. I think the risk-I think we often underestimate that risk. But when you look at the math on this, the number of interceptors, especially if we're going to put them in space, space-based interceptors, the math becomes unworkable rather quickly. And all Russia or China needs to do is expand their magazine depth. And in my view, and I want to get the ambassador's opinion on this. Ambassador, do you feel this is a destabilizing approach?

Ambassador Rose E. Gottemoeller:

It depends on what the "this" is, Senator?

Sen. Kelly:

Well, the Golden Dome system that we could spend upwards of $1 trillion on to build a system of space-based interceptors to try to intercept a full salvo of nuclear weapons from Russia and or China.

AMB Gottemoeller:

I support what we agreed and recommended in the Strategic Posture Commission report. That is, limited missile defenses against, conventional and nuclear threats to the United States integrated air and missile defense, I stress, because there are also a lot of air breathing systems. We spent a time this morning talking about Russian exotic systems. These new nuclear propelled systems are not on a ballistic trajectory.

Sen. Kelly:

Right.

AMB Gottemoeller:

They are air breathers, and they come in under that ballistic trajectory. So, I think we need to take a comprehensive look at this, including the very long experience the Russians have with countermeasures of all kinds, and figure out what will buy us the most effectiveness in countering limited, opportunistic, attacks on our critical targets.

Sen. Kelly:

Yeah, I agree with you on the limited opportunistic attacks. We need something. I am very concerned that we could throw $1 trillion at a problem that ultimately, we will find is unsolvable, that we will not be able to get a four nines kind of reliability out of it. And we just wind up encouraging our adversaries to build more ballistic missiles, more warheads. And then this problem ultimately grows out of control. I mean, we've seen this before. We've got the numbers down. And I really worry about the future for our kids and our grandkids living in a world where we have multiple countries with potentially thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

### 

For Immediate Release: February 5, 2026 

CONTACT: [email protected]

Follow U.S. Senator Mark Kelly on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube