That's fine. If you could let the committee know, that would be great.
The second question is back to DND, not the the NORAD side but the NATO side, to pick up on the conversation with my colleague, Mr. Garrison. There's a disarmament conversation, and there's the deterrence conversation. I think this morning's article will invigorate both of those. I think they are part of a spectrum of discussion.
I wanted to see if you are willing to stipulate as to whether the article claims something that's factually accurate. In other words, is there a grade of weapons that has been developed or is about to be developed that is not interceptable?
Is this a conversation changer, a game changer in the sense that it will no longer be a tit-for-tat ratcheting up of efforts technologically to build faster weapons and intercepts? Are we reaching a threshold where interceptability is put into question permanently? How will that affect the discussion after that?