I don't have any insight at all.
What I would say to you from a land warfare tactical and operational standpoint is that the U.S. has treaties with a number of nations around the world where, with regard to any kind of invasion of those nations, the U.S. is treaty-bound to come to their defence.
Clearly, that is the case with NATO, and we're all well aware of that, but my understanding is that the U.S. also has commitments to other nations that, as I mentioned in my statement, are in troubled regions of the world.
The problem is there has been the experience of offensive operations on to those countries. The question is, are the defences satisfactory? Clearly, the United States sees there is a need for all of the tools out there. I cannot make a judgment call on that, other than to say that these weapons are clearly abhorrent.
It would also indicate from the other non-signatories the great concern they have in terms of their vulnerability.