So its incorrect to say that there is no strategic difference. You have to define the scenario. And in a counter-deterrent role there's no question but that those MIRV missiles make a difference. Maybe we could go beyond that. It makes a difference, in terms of numbers of weapons, at least currently.
China has to follow the minimum strategy because it has such a small arsenal of weapons.
But if you proliferate the number of weapons you increase the size of your arsenal it opens up the possibility to follow a pathway to nuclear war-fighting strategies like what the Soviet Union had in the Cold War and Russia has today. In a regional context, in terms of the stakes there in Asia, it might be a more credible strategy for them to follow. I would like to solicit the Administration's opinion and see if they think that it doesn't make any difference if China has one hundred nuclear weapons or just five. The point I'm trying to make is that the current status and size of the Chinese force is the product of a deliberate decision, in my judgement, of the Chinese leadership to limit the resources that they put into size and capability of their nuclear weapons force. Now there is no question that they are keeping options open.