It's not a lot of time, and I want to go back to Ambassador McRae.
First, I want to thank him for acknowledging, at least implicitly, that the missile defence argument has two sides. Sometimes we are presented with arguments that it doesn't have two sides. Again, as I've always said, we're having a debate about something no one's asking us to join, at an unknown cost, with unknown reliability.
In the international context, I want to ask you about the argument that it's always cheaper to build more offensive ballistic missiles than it is to build the defence system. Doesn't this really raise the danger of contributing to the nuclear arms race?