 begin and I'm not going to engage in what might be kind of a traditional debate format here only because I was the captain of my high school debate team in the in the early 1960s in Salt Lake City, Utah and it's been that long since I actually engaged in those kinds of debates. So I do recall that and in those days and I assume it's still it's true in high school you had the same topic all year long and and you just collected you would go back and forth on the same topic and my senior year I remember was should the United States adopt a government financed health care system and it is ironic that here we are many many years later debating the same topic but that's not what we're talking about tonight. It is sort of unusual though that I'm here tonight taking the taking the affirmative side of the case looking at whether or not global zero would make the world more secure because again referring to my my past but updating it to the 1980s as some of you in this room will remember and there are some people in this room that are as old if not older than I am not many but some will remember that I was frequently sort of dragged out of my office in those days in the State Department to go on television to make the case for building more nuclear weapons making the case for nuclear deterrence and and fighting the then very very energetic and vociferous anti-nuclear movement in the United States you'll remember the famous freeze movement movement among others some of you will and and in fact there was probably one of the most watched made for TV movies of that era the day after which had by the way a big impact on President Ronald Reagan really I think crystallized the kind of anti-nuclear movement not only in the United States but elsewhere and of course particularly in Western Europe so how is it that the guy that made the case for nuclear weapons in that era is here to make the case for global zero and there are two possibilities one is that I've suddenly fundamentally changed the scales fell from my eyes and I've now had this moment on the road to Damascus and seen seeing the way well that's not what I'm going to tell you tonight my main argument tonight is that from the end of the Cold War to the present the world has fundamentally changed in some very important political military and technological ways that particularly for the United States and US interests would make our country and and other countries more secure if global zero could be achieved now I am not going to argue tonight that we're going to achieve it I'm not going to argue tonight that it would be easy I'm not going to argue that that anybody in this room is going to be alive as President Obama has said probably by the time it is achieved that's not the issue we're debating we're not debating the issue of feasibility I think we're debating the issue of desirability and that's what I want to talk about tonight and the first key point I would make is that and I'll do it in shorthand because I want to stay within my 10 minutes is there has been a fundamental shift in international relations and the nature of conflict from the end of the Cold War into the 21st century and there's more than one of these shifts one one is that we are moving from an era I would argue of the dominance of geopolitical power into a period of geoeconomic power now what does that mean it means that the great powers of the 21st century are going to be seen and judged and have influence principally in terms of their economic capacities not so much in terms of their military capabilities and the reasons for that are I think that people have learned lessons from the experience of the 20th century and perhaps some of the close calls of the Cold War period to recognize that for the most part interstate warfare has become no longer really cost effective and what's what's interesting to me is we kind of survey military conflicts around the world today you can't name many really ongoing or potential interstate conflicts what you can point to is a number of interstate conflicts like the ones underway in Syria like the ones still underway in Iraq like the ones underway in in Libya so the likelihood it's not entirely ruled out but the problem of international security especially for great powers is going to be one of dealing with interstate conflicts and not interstate conflicts and power as we define it increasingly into the 21st century is going to be defined in terms of economic wherewithal the brick countries the Chinese we asked there's a military buildup underway in China but what people really are concerned about and what is going to be a game changer for China is the fact that its economy is going to be larger than the United States sometime the next 10 or 15 years and so I would I would argue that today the most important strategic dialogue underway between and relationship underway between the United States and Europe is no longer NATO NATO is kind of become an artifact a relic of the past the most important process underway today is t-tip the opportunity that the United States in Europe the tool still the two largest economic blocks are going to have the opportunity if they can reach a trade and investment partnership are going to be able to set the rules of the road for trade and investment for the rest of this century that is a key strategic development t-tip in my view is the new NATO now part as I said part of this reflects I think a shift from interstate warfare to interstate warfare and the result of all of this is that the political and military advantages conferred by nuclear weapons especially for the great powers and I want to underscore that the United States the former Soviet Union Russia now China written in France and others is dissipating they don't get that much bang from the buck as you used to from having nuclear weapons and that is I think largely because the existential character the threat posed by nuclear weapons in a time of the Cold War when there was a realistic chance of conflict between the two superpowers is gone what is the likelihood of a war today between a major war where nuclear weapons would be employed between the United States and Russia there I can just quote my old adversary and the bureaucracy Richard Pearl who's been quoted recently saying it is zero what is the likelihood of a conflict that would lead to nuclear war between Russia and China at a time when they're growing closer together their members of the of the same kind of security organization they're doing energy deals together the Russians need to sell their energy and that's what makes them a power today not their nuclear weapons but their energy resources and China zero what is the likelihood between a nuclear war between China and the United States with China nuked the United States when we owe them so much money it's zero and I would argue the same the same kind of probability also exists I want to go off tangent here but even take a case of a country that feels itself under great threat Israel and its nuclear weapons I understand completely why Israel acquired nuclear weapons in the 1960s and and deployed them in in and deployed them in the 70s that that was against an Arab threat that they defined in terms of superior Arab conventional forces Egypt Syria Jordan but Israel has has conventional preeminence today in the region the threat the key threat that that Israel faces today is again from groups like his Bala and Hamas now how do nuclear weapons solve that threat they don't they're not a reasonable they're no longer a reasonable military solution to the real threats that Israel has to address so that's the great powers and the role that nuclear weapons used to play but there's another development we now have to think about it's that's vastly different than the problem we faced in the Cold War and that as while great power nuclear threats have become for a variety of reasons and acronyms they have become a much more interesting option for weaker states nuclear weapons which were used to be the weapons of the strong are increasingly becoming the weapons for the weak nuclear technology is no longer cutting edge it has been around for over 50 years and has North Korea and Pakistan have shown anybody who has the necessary money energy and will can get ahold of them the result is that while traditional great powers get decreasing value out of having a nuclear arsenal smaller and weaker states see greater value in them they are levelers after the Gulf War is famous quote by the Indian Defense Minister said that the main lessons of the Gulf War was if you're going to go to war with the United States you better have acquired nuclear weapons and people said in the case of the recent Libya campaign G if Gaddafi hadn't given away his nuclear technology with the United States Britain and France have attacked him that's a good question the end results could be very bad of this trend for both international security and stability and in particular the United States now for international stability now Kenneth waltz who of course has passed argued in a very provocative book that a proliferated world that is a world where a lot of countries had nuclear weapons that world might be a lot more stable now I understand the argument because you'd have all these little deterrence relationships going on but I rejected the problem with that argument is just was in is just one word look at Pakistan here's a country with a vigorous nuclear weapons program one of the most energetic and vigorous in the world a country with a Taliban of radical not just one but several different radical Islamic movements a government that has had a suffered a breakdown in civil military relations arguably one of the most combustible dangerous radical countries in the world I think the Kenneth waltz argument falls apart there I would not like to see 30 40 50 countries possess nuclear weapons maybe the United States in the Soviet Union you knew had the command and control and necessary security and even there as you all know there were some close calls but I can't conceive that a world of 40 or 50 nuclear weapons would somehow be more secure but the implications for the United States right now are enormous unlike the 1950s and 60s when NATO deployed nuclear weapons to compensate for our perceived conventional weakness in Europe and the great Soviet Union and Red Army we possess conventional preeminence today in the same way that Israel possesses it in in in the greater Middle East why would why would it be in our interest at a time when this technology is obtainable to see several new countries become nuclear powers and thus be able to deter us from using those conventional forces to protect our interests so I I I think that that in this new era when we do possess unchallenged conventional capabilities and conventional technology which is precise discreet and can and can be used with much less collateral damage in drones just for one example the idea of nuclear proliferation is very dangerous so my conclusion we do need to strengthen the nbt it is very much in our interest to stop the spread of nuclear weapons we should support initiatives like the Obama administration's nuclear security summits and we should aggressively seek further reductions in nuclear weapons now I'm not a dreamer and it's just because of Russian military weakness and conventional weakness that they don't want to negotiate at this point and I and I guess if I were in their position I probably would take that position as well but there I would argue for them in the long run that's a losing game because what's interesting to me is the is the the the leading Russian military figure in response in this about six months ago some of you will remember this in response to NATO's missile defense program argued that well if this program continues and unabated that we're going to have to think about deploying forward deploying what was it SS 21's or 23's in Kaliningrad what was interesting to me about that threat is it hardly made it into a single American newspaper yeah if if if the if the chief of staff of the Russian Armed Forces had made that threat in the 1980s it would have been on the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post and why did it make it a newspaper because nobody takes it seriously nobody thinks that Russia is going to attack Europe with nuclear weapons and that I think makes my point what we need to do is the lit de legitimize nuclear weapons proliferation and continue to support as this administration has the long-term goal of global I apologize for the fact that CSIS moves into this new building and still has inadequate audio visual we should have at least three mics because we have three people are going to speak I want to say a few words about the role and value of nuclear weapons during the Cold War because I think there are still instructive lessons for us in the post-Cold War era and into the 21st century nuclear weapons are horrendous weapons in terms of their destructive power so horrendous that they changed the way human beings reacted when they were in charge of nation states that had nuclear weapons the Cold War ended it's remarkable and it's historic first that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union an ideologically driven war ended without nuclear weapons being used it also ended without a major war between the United States and the Soviet Union we know what a world without nuclear weapons looks like because we had one I had World War one in it and had World War two in it where you had 20 million casualties in World War one 50 to 60 million casualties in World War two nuclear weapons inhibit the risk-taking propensity of the leaders of nation states Pakistan and India have gone to war twice but they haven't resorted to nuclear weapons they were able to back away from the cargo incident you've had horrific terrorist incidences supported by Pakistan take place on Indian territory including an attack upon the national legislature but the possession of nuclear weapons in that particular bipolar situation inhibited both the Indians and the Pakistan's from reacting to it nuclear weapons made the leaders of those nuclear weapons states cautious and afraid of breaking the threshold now I wish that interstate interstate violence was over it is true there has not been an interstate war since the Cold War since World War two between you know the most developed countries in the world but we're also in a situation now where we as some have argued we are in a second nuclear era where the kind of sectarian the kind of local conflicts that we see now are going to start appearing in a nuclear context Israel sought nuclear weapons in the 60s and the 70s for profound reasons while Iran is seeking nuclear weapons today and that's something that concerns the Israelis the concerns the United States greatly one of the reasons why Iran seeks nuclear weapons is for the same reason as Ambassador Burke said US conventional preeminence of course we're preeminent we don't want anyone else to have nuclear weapons we've already indicated by our own behavior that we are deterred by nuclear weapons we invaded Iraq twice to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon why because if is the Indian chief of staff recommended don't fight the United States unless you have a nuclear weapon well Saddam Hussein ended up strung up by the neck in a basement some place in Baghdad Gaddafi met an even more grisly death well that's not going to happen in North Korea because there's one thing that's absolutely true in terms of the historical record you have a nuclear weapon you don't get invaded and occupied and that motivation isn't going to go away it's not going to go away for France that looks at nuclear weapons is integral to their sovereignty and it's not going to go away for in North Korea and it's not going to go away for other regimes who face threats including perceived threats from the United States so that the desire the need that states feel to have nuclear weapons is not going away in fact I believe it's getting worse and I think you know there has been a nuclear taboo they've referred to since Nagasaki and Hiroshima but it's not really a taboo it's a rational calculation that the costs associated with the nuclear conflict far exceed the potential advantages of a war that involved the use of nuclear weapons and this is going to continue Ambassador Burt referred to the fact that the world has fundamentally changed since the end of the Cold War well the Perry Schlesinger Commission which was an attempt to come up with an attempt to unify to come up with a comprehensive consensus in the United States for what it should do with its nuclear weapons concluded that the vision of a world without nuclear weapons could not happen until there was a fundamental transformation of the 21st security environment until the kinds of conflicts that exist today no longer prevail and it's not just an Arab Israeli conflict it's also a Sunni Shiite conflict how many of us think that an Iranian bomb won't be followed by a Sunni bomb of course it will I think at this point I'll stop so at this point we're going to have questions so Ambassador you can ask Clark a few questions and then Clark will be able to ask you a few questions did I misread that that it meant I had five more minutes I thought it was cut it off but that's alright throw it open now I didn't even see her before I probably went over but okay but I'm like that am I supposed to ask questions yes you can ask well Clark I mean you've you've what you've said is you know this process of proliferation is is just gonna continue to happen you say that the you know you not only have the Arab Israeli conflict in the region but you've got a Sunni Shiite conflict and that there are all kinds of reasons that other countries might acquire nuclear weapons but remember we're okay I see those those those processes underway I mean you see them right now in Syria but I guess you know going back to what we're debating here making the world more secure you know are you just saying that that that we should sit back and just watch that happen and that's a that's gonna be just inevitable is that a good thing do we want to see that just happen as the world's most powerful conventional power you know my boss Les Aspen when he was the chairman of the Armed Services Committee used to say at the end of the Cold War if there was a big button that I could press that button and all nuclear weapons would go away tomorrow I'd press that button instantly because then that would leave us with no capabilities out there that can deter us but it's our conventional power itself that is one of the prime motivators there's a reason why Russia is more dependent upon its nuclear weapons now that it was during the Cold War because they are weak conventionally and they are relying more on nuclear weapons and the threshold of nuclear weapon use is probably getting lower with respect to Russia they've already talked about they've already talked about how they would use nuclear weapons for escalation control well for most of us I think the use of a nuclear weapon indicates a lack of control of escalation during this time and so I think that the motivation for states to acquire nuclear weapons is getting stronger in many instances and that when you have an era when the Chinese for example are engaged in substantial military modernization of their nuclear forces when asked why they're doing it they're doing it for precisely the same reasons that we in the United States say we can get rid of our nuclear weapons that is they're concerned about what we do with missile defense they're concerned with what we do about advanced conventional munitions they're particularly concerned with conventional precision strike all of which are capabilities that in global zero reports they say we need to do more with our conventional forces so they can reduce our alliance on nuclear weapons well it's precisely that that makes other states increase the reliance on nuclear weapons to offset our conventional superiority and so it strikes me we're in a situation where the reality of it is that nations seek nuclear weapons for many different reasons sometimes it's a form of national self-expression I think you see that with India I think you see that as well with Iran didn't matter whether you're part of the current regime in Iran or part of the opposition movement the Shah himself also wanted nuclear weapons during that time so that the reasons why nations pursue you know our first of all national self-expression they also do it for defense that's why the North Koreans have them that is why resuring preservation that's why the Pakistanis have them because they are next door to a very powerful country that they are conventionally inferior to nuclear weapons aren't going to go away and if they're not going to go away we have to figure out how we use our nuclear capabilities in a way to stabilize things and to pursue our interests in a way that is safe for Americans okay well there are a lot of issues that you raise there but you you didn't address my question on you know whether it would it's you know we should sit back and relax and watch these countries as they inevitably will acquire nuclear weapons but I don't want to go back to that I don't know I'm not relaxed about it you are you argued in your opening remarks that you know that that in a sense nuclear weapons really sober people up that you know it was a good thing that the United States and this and the Soviet Union had all these nuclear weapons because they were afraid they didn't want to blow up the world so they were very cautious and that that could well be true that's exactly what I used to argue and in the Cold War period I think the nuclear weapons did play an important role in terms of deterring a conflict which was most likely to take place in central Europe but we got to draw a line somewhere I mean when when new when when what happens when totally irresponsible fanatical people get their fingers close to the button and that's a key issue I that's why I raised Pakistan I worry about the security of the Pakistani nuclear stockpile that is a country that is melting down in a variety of different ways and we know we know this isn't just hypothetical we know Al Qaeda has tried to obtain nuclear weapons there have been several efforts that have been documented now do you think that if Al Qaeda acquired nuclear weapons that they would be as responsible as the US command authority or the Soviet Politburo was of course not I mean that that it in itself I would argue is a bit of a silly beside the point question the issue here is do nuclear weapons go away Walter pink is that's not the no let me finish Walter pink is in an op-ed just this morning and this is an analyst who'd look for any occasion whatsoever to reduce the number of nuclear weapons so this morning it was sequester another opportunity to reduce nuclear weapons but then when he said you know the question was asked as he was talking about what to do he said go to zero forget it nuclear weapons aren't going to go away and as long as nuclear weapons exist the United States has to ensure that it has a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal that's the same position the president Obama takes that is as long as nuclear weapons exist the United States has to make a safe secure and effective nuclear arsenal well I don't see a world in which nuclear weapons aren't going to exist and if that is the case then we have to invest in our own capabilities and ensure those capabilities okay I got one time for one more question you you you did talk about Iran seeking nuclear weapons that is not by the way what the US intelligence community has decided at this point but I don't want to get into that argument what I want to talk to you about what's so bad about given your argument what's so bad about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons why should we worry about that if we know Israel has nuclear weapons we know Iran has nuclear weapons won't that create deterrence in the Middle East won't that be stabilizing if Iran acquires nuclear weapons first of all it's not at all clear that Iran can achieve nuclear weapons without a great deal of violence and instability within the Middle East because you know our president has said well that's a red line for us and the Israelis have said that's a red line for us because an Iranian nuclear threat an Iranian nuclear threat poses an existential threat to Israel so the process of that proliferation is hardly a stabilizing effect now as to what would happen in the region itself my feeling is is that an Iran acquires a nuclear weapon that will begin a cascading process of more proliferation of more nuclear weapons in that area I don't see Iran going nuclear without Saudi Arabia following closely yeah but you but you just said that's how countries behave what's wrong with that I'm saying that's how countries countries acquire nuclear weapons because they serve their interests and as long as nuclear weapons serve vital security interests for states there will be states interested in pursuing them and the case that you mentioned before both Gaddafi and of Saddam Hussein is proved positive from any of those states yes if we had a nuclear weapon we do not have to worry about say if you're North Korea about the United States coming up and invading Pyongyang and hanging drone by the neck until he's dead that's what nuclear weapons do they provide a mechanism to ensure regime survival and it's one of the reasons why nuclear weapons won't go away and if they won't go away we're back in the dilemma as President Obama puts it as long as nuclear weapons exist the United States has to have a safe secure and effective nuclear deterrent to me when you said before I don't want to talk about the feasibility of a world without nuclear weapons I want to talk about the desirability of a world without nuclear weapons well you can't talk about the desirability of a nirvana state that'll that is not feasible now Clark do you have questions for the master oh I think we've gone further and off the line I'm ready for questions now okay well then you might have already right only if you ask him a question not me before we turn it to the audience I just have one question kind of the same question but for both speakers phrase differently so ambassador if let's just say that global zero isn't feasible I was just hoping that you could discuss what measures do you think are important for the United States to take in the short term to mitigate some of the threats that you discussed and Clark I was hoping that you could discuss what measure short of global zero you might support to resolve some of the threats the ambassador discussed well I I never said that it wasn't feasible I just don't see it feasible in the foreseeable future for a lot of reasons I don't want to get into the breakout issue and the verification problems I bet we've looked at this very carefully but what I think we should try to be is on a path to zero at a time when as I think Clark is very eloquently pointed out to us tonight there are a lot of incentives for countries to acquire nuclear weapons and I don't think it's in our long term interests to see a proliferated world and I think we can control it he's talked about countries that could could acquire nuclear weapons we ought to remember there are countries that have not acquired nuclear weapons that have come very close and decided for reasons that they thought were appropriate whether it was Brazil in Latin America South Africa the Ukraine so I mean there are a lot of examples where for various political and economic reasons countries have not gone nuclear on on this on this you know what what I think we what we really want to try to achieve here over time is a process of of delegitimizing nuclear weapons and that means there has to be I think a growing consensus among countries that that you're going to run into serious political and economic problems if you try to cross that line in Iran to me is a very good example I think what has been has happened in the case of Iran is you have a very serious sanctions effort in effect the Iranian people are feeling that I don't think it was a coincidence that somebody like Rouhani was elected I don't see him as maybe Prime Minister Netanyahu does is a wolf in sheep's clothing I think that there is a faction in Iran that wants to find a solution short of acquiring nuclear weapons I think they're going to want a price out of that not just lifting sanctions but recognizing what they consider to be their legitimate rights to uranium enrichment I'm not saying that we're suddenly going to have peace break out there but I what I'm I guess I'm opposed to what I've heard earlier this evening was this sort of idea that you know this process is out of control we've got to recognize that it's going to happen nuclear weapons are going to spread what I find very interesting is if that were true if that were really true we wouldn't be living in a cut in a world where there are only nine nuclear powers today we would be living in a world where there were 39 nuclear powers there are a lot of oppositional forces at work and there are a lot there's a political and economic price to be paid for going nuclear and I think because of our interests we should try to raise that price rather than rather than to lower the question is is what kind of actions what I'd be willing to take in order to reduce I think when estimate what the size of US stockpile should be I think there's two very important elements because the United States nuclear weapons are not just simply for direct deterrence I think the case is pretty solid that if the United States had new new no nuclear weapons it would still be able to inflict catastrophic damage on anyone that threatened security but it's not just the United States that relies upon its nuclear weapons for deterrence we have allies that rely upon our nuclear umbrella that is still true in Northeast Asia where we have two non nuclear allies South Korea and Japan who are having to cope not only with a more assertive China it is modernizing its nuclear forces but also to cope with a new nuclear power North Korea which has demonstrated that by crossing the many red lines that previous administrations including this one it put in front of it never the less went nuclear and is enjoying an independence and autonomy of action that it did not before during that time is that they need the assurance that the United States provides with its nuclear forces to deal with a security situation in their region we have a Russia that's more dependent upon nuclear weapons a Russia of Russia that that engages regularly in nuclear exercises that practices alright that practices nuclear exercises and the making of threats and the Eastern Europeans are quite anxious about many of the things that Russia does there's a reason why NATO three times in the last five years has reaffirmed its support for the forward deployment of US nuclear weapons in NATO Europe so that the reliance upon US nuclear forces extends beyond the United States it also extends to its allies that note we're going to shift to audience questions I'll call on you if you could identify yourself and then if the speakers could just repeat the question into the microphone for those watching over the video yes science and so isn't a first step possibly you know reducing our our current stockpile to a reasonable level even unilaterally can that be first possible to bring in these other states and can you restate the question as I understand it there were two questions one couldn't there just be a normative goal of some kind that would well the thing about normative rules is that they have to be implemented and forced and unfollowed and it strikes me that you can establish a normative rule that says thou shalt not possess nuclear weapons but the question is who's going to enforce that particular norm who is going to for example make the North Koreans give up the nuclear weapon that they've tested are now developing it's okay to have norms that's what the vision of global zero is about is a world without nuclear weapons of which as my colleague says we're trying to delegitimize nuclear weapons so we can have a normal of gold the question is whether it's an operative or effective one and I would argue no in the case of of a norm that to me is counterfactual because nuclear weapons do exist and I don't see any as nor does my my debating partner see any feasibility for a world without nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future if it's not going to happen in the foreseeable future why are we maintaining that goal today and having an effect the actions that we take today the second question is talking with the Chinese absurd to talk with the United States at this time and as you put it if the United States would only reduce its weapons down to a reasonable level well what's reasonable it depends on what you're comparing it to for me when I look at the US posture I think two things right now one I want to maintain rough parity with Russia am I willing to go to lower levels with Russia sure depends on what kind of price we have to pay for it because the Russians have insisted upon you know some concessions with respect to missile defense that I'm not sure why or concessions on advanced conventional weapons which I also don't think are wise but am I willing to go further down with Russia sure but with China my belief is is that the United States has to maintain a pretty substantial superiority over China because of the dependence of our non nuclear allies upon US extended deterrence if the United States and China were to achieve parity I don't think our extended deterrence guarantees in Northeast Asia would be worth anything in which case the drive for both China I mean for Japan and South Korea to resume the pursuit of nuclear weapons which both nations did it earlier in periods of history this question might come but let's let's see if anyone has any questions first don't worry I'll come back to that I'm feeling they'll talk about it yeah well my answer is is that I never assume nations are going to act rationally nations do a lot of irrational things that's why I argue that a world without nuclear weapons would would be more secure because nations do screwy things and they make mistakes and it depends on how you read through the history of the Cold War there were some very close calls I mean it wasn't until after my experience in the Reagan administration and I was some of you in the room know I was very much involved with a very difficult and controversial deployment of of INF missiles in Europe in the early 80s the purging twos and and the ground launch cruise missiles and the Russians work themselves up into a lather about the purging twos they had decided that this was a wonder weapon that was designed precisely to knock out their command and control and that this was going to give us some kind of escalation dominance in in the European theater and they there was a NATO famous NATO exercise some of you may have read of and if you haven't you should called able archer and the Russians believe that the able archer exercise was the prelude to a to a NATO nuclear strike against Russia and this was in a very very heated atmosphere of when we were beginning the deployments rhetoric was escalating and what's fascinating to me as you go back and read that study all you needed was somebody to make a bad decision all you know there is there is a there is a now a cottage industry of people who have studied the Cuban Missile Crisis and I'm old enough to remember watching Kennedy come on television in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis and if you any of you are fans of Mad Men you know the TV series you know that create I mean it we we believe my parents thought that we were going to nuclear war and there were a lot of people in Washington at that time who did and again there were some there were some close calls but these these were too arguably two of the more sophisticated political establishments in the world and that I'll just simply say this because of the because nations make big mistakes and we've seen a lot of those say in the last decade in my view and coming out of this city nuclear weapons are just simply too destructive and if you're a real supporter of global zero it's not the question of you know should we do this now if and when a nuclear weapon is used and given what my partner Clark is saying about the cascade of proliferation in the region to Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Egypt after Iran goes nuclear and so on and so forth there will be one used and I can guarantee you once one of those things are used the the the it's not going to be a question of our government's going to act but public opinion will act remember there there were there were how many people 4,000 people killed in 9-11 but a nuclear weapon used in Delhi used in Islamabad used some in some major city in China used somewhere in North America is going to lead I would believe to not just the national but an international drive to eliminate these weapons I want to return to the question of delegitimizing nuclear weapons I believe that's what the question was about weapons or weapons it's part of the human condition we used to use really primitive weapons to kill each other now we use pretty advanced weapons of mass destruction to kill each other question is whether the weapon is illegitimate it's the purpose for which weapons are used to me genocide whether it's done with gas chambers or whether it's done with machetes is important it's the purposes for which weapons are used weapons themselves are legitimate or illegitimate they just are it's part of the human conditions we've always used weapons we just passed the 68th anniversary of Hiroshima August 6 of this year at 68 years since a nuclear weapon has been used historically we've not invented weapons and not use them the destructive power of nuclear weapons is so awesome that it is inhibit inhibited people's willingness to use them do I think it's more likely that a weapon will be used a nuclear weapon be used during the next 20 years than it was during the last years yes for precisely the same reasons that ambassador bird is talking about they're proliferating to more irresponsible parties you know that the trends that have held forth since the end of the World War two are getting more and more remote I think the likelihood of use is greater but the fact of the matter is is that for 68 years we have not had a major conventional war you know World War one 16 people died World War two 50 to 60 million people died in these conflagrations nuclear weapons helped prevent that from happening sure there were some close calls but we didn't have World War one or World War two and I would argue that when you look at the inhibiting effect the nuclear weapons can have they make our leaders more cautious they make them less human if you like which is probably a pretty good thing when it comes to the use of weapons to pursue in the pursuit of national interest well that's a great question I think he kind of wandered into that argument because I don't think he wanted to make it necessarily but I don't think it's so much the I got it written down here okay I don't know I don't think it's so much the new technology because I basically support you know a lot of what I don't know enough about today the truth and so I think it's a little bit weird the prompt global strike thing I think it was sort of concocted as gee if we had had that when we knew where Obama was during the Clinton administration we could have got him before he left you know the village but so I don't I don't want to kind of endorse prompt global strike but but you know I do think that we've had a revolution in conventional warfare that has made conventional weapons more discreet as I said before less collateral damage and and and we have a standoff capability where we don't risk the lives of our people and and that I think that has conferred to us a certain political advantage I don't want to over overdo it but even if we didn't have that stuff you know after the Cold War we suddenly found ourselves as you know the French called us at the time a hyper power and and I think there was a certain incentive for countries to figure out but there haven't been many that have I mean I don't think North Korea and the final analysis has developed its its nuclear weapons capability to the extent that it has it and a few bombs because it wants to deter the United States I think they developed it as a way of blackmailing us and it's it'll it'll end they're an outlier I wouldn't base my strategy on what on what what North Korea does I think it's more how we use those forces when I said interstate warfare I wasn't going to say this in my early remarks and we're one of the last countries to realize that interstate warfare is not very cost effective you know I mean we did succeed in kicking Sodom Hussein out of Kuwait but you know the invasions I don't have to tell this group this the invasions of Iraq you know what we you know how our mission changed in Afghanistan even now Libya and what it's become and why there was a tremendous blowback that even surprised the president over you know using cruise missiles against Syria is you know it just doesn't work that well it hasn't been effective and I think other countries recognize that and that's one reason why I think there there's you know the the threshold for using military force in my view is as risen because people don't get what they used to get out of it and and you know when you talk about when you talk about you know World War one and World War two and all the people that were killed and G nuclear deterrence prevented another war as I said earlier I agree with that in the Cold War context but that's not the situation now that's not you know the Germans do not feel threatened by the Russian Federation there's there yeah they're there the Germany is the largest investor in Russia and you know this this community and they're represented in this room needs to really kind of change that paradigm and recognize that where power is in this world and how it's judged and evaluated maybe the Russian the aging Russian establishment guys like Rogozin in Russia and the military elites still think that they get a big boom out of having you know a military industrial complex but nobody else in the world does they see the demographic trends in Russia they see the fact that the Russians have failed to diversify their economy they they they've had serious technological problems and even developing and deploying a new generation of delivery systems that that's yesterday yeah I can talk to you right now are they still being produced or is there like a nuclear who stands to profit people aren't selling nuclear weapons to each other overtly we hope we hope that's right Russia is engaged on a nuclear modernization program presumably spending lots of rubles on it China is engaged on a modernization program producing nuclear weapons increasing its survival second strike capabilities and spending one on them the United States is committed to but is just starting to commit money to a substantial modernization program of both its complex and of its the nuclear triad its strategic capabilities estimates run 200 to 250 billion dollars over 10 years for both of those now just 250 billion dollars over 10 years sound like a lot of money it does in one hand on the other hand the annual Defense Department budget is about 586 billion dollars so there may be money to be made out of nuclear weapons there's a lot more money to be made out of other kinds of weapons this time in terms of the market so I don't think that that the profit motive has much to do with why nations want nuclear weapons during this time I think that nations pursue nuclear weapons because of national pride it's a form of national self-expression an Indian diplomat once told a close friend of mine when asked the question of why does India want a nuclear weapon they said well great nations have nuclear weapons India is a great nation of course we're gonna have a nuclear weapon the Iranian nationalism is somewhat of the same kind where you've had doesn't matter which elite you belong to there's a pretty strong national consensus that like India Iran too but then Pakistan why do they pursue nuclear weapons well they face a conventionally superpower next to them India so they're spending a lot of their treasure on nuclear weapons because they want to be able to deter India during that time so to me the reason why nations pursue nuclear weapons is not because of the profit motive but because of how they define themselves as nation and how they define what their core vital interests are I mean you know his history remark though I mean make me I think it's set up in my mind a kind of really interesting argument here which is you know I think and people have said this before this isn't original to me but there are really two reasons that countries get nuclear weapons they do it either for symbolic prestige reasons to want to be kind of a great power and I've argued tonight countries that do that have missed the boat because in today's world it's your GDP and not the number of warheads you have that make you a great nation or you do it because you feel you know a threat and as I argue tonight increasingly countries don't feel those threats not entirely because he mentions India Pakistan but increasingly it's it's internal threats that that countries have to address and not external threats but you know your point about t-tip and you know who profits you know one of the great things and sort of where you're coming from I'm sorry I have to give an advertisement for t-tip that has nothing to do with the weapons but where you're coming from you should be a great supporter t-tip because we're not this isn't a trade deal with countries that pay their workers less that have less regulation that have in fire bad environments we're talking about the EU here that pay their workers more that have more strict environmental standards and what this whole t-tip is about is trying to try to you know create commonality in these things and that is one reason why the unions in this country are not opposing this negotiation so get on the bandwagon here sorry so as we reached 740 I want everyone to save their questions because we're all going to be hanging out after this debate just outside and we're going to close with two short five-minute statements starting with Ambassador Burke followed by Mark yeah I don't know how much we really disagreed here because I mean this was I think people who by two people who who understand what the role of nuclear weapons has been and I don't think there's much disagreement there I do think though there are some important changes underway and we have to take them into account Clark made the important argument and it's one that it's it's non-trivial and that's the extended deterrence argument said hey it isn't just that we you know the United States is needs to be able to deter an attack but we have these commitments to other countries what's interesting to me is over time that argument is increasingly wearing thin I think if I'm not mistaken you you Clark you were involved in the Perry Schlesinger Commission the Perry Schlesinger Commission when it made arguments about maintaining extended deterrence with countries particularly in Asia they were refuted by those Asian governments and I and I and I have to say at global zero we spent a lot of time talking to both the Koreans and the Japanese and you know getting the Japanese to endorse nuclear weapons is something they're not going to do but more importantly I don't want to talk about facts because you've come back say well no they didn't really mean that when you're my my argument would be that there are different forms of extended deterrence having telling and a third country that you're going to use nuclear weapons to defend them first of all I don't think was ever very credible and ed if do I look at there was always in back in the old days people always the real question was who would an American president really give up New York to save Paris or to save London and nobody knew the answer to that question but there are other forms of extended deterrence and one is presence when we have people on the line that also counts big time and I will tell you the current Polish Foreign Minister and the polls feel the Russian threat more I think strongly than just about any of the other new members of NATO the Polish Foreign Minister said look you know we we we just want Americans in Poland so if something does happen they're going to get mixed up in this and that was the always the argument we didn't have nuclear weapons in Berlin during the Cold War there are no nuclear weapons in Berlin but we had a brigade there and we and and that reassured the superlinners that if the balloon went up that Americans were going to get killed and and so our presence I would argue military exercises our presence in South Korea our presence in Japan our presence even the military exercises we do with the with the Baltic States and the fact that we're going to have a military presence in Poland confers that kind of extended deterrence so you know I I don't think it has to be with nuclear weapons that just that argument doesn't resonate with me and and you know I I I have I would say that the argument that somehow we need nuclear superiority over China because that offsends their conventional advantages we never argued that we needed nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union in in Europe we wanted strategic equivalence once the Russians started in the late 60s to build up their ballistic missile programs and into the 70s we never said that we needed superiority and that was and I went through that whole drill I can tell you as an academic as a journalist and as a government official and some of you remember we we've changed our doctrine every three years we went from flexible options and we were reading what general old Garkov was arguing about how the Russians viewed their nuclear weapons as just another form of long range artillery and this and that but the fact is we wanted general equivalence the Chinese tell us and I've spent a lot of time in the last two years Chinese they don't want equivalence they they have always adopted a strategy of minimum deterrence and I do think there's a way through and that the problem isn't the Chinese it's the Russians the Russians right now are going through and I think it has a lot to do with Putin's own domestic politics where just like Nixon supported the hard hats he's lost the support of the urban majority in Russia and Moscow and St. Petersburg and he's he's appealing to the blue collar Russian types and he's doing it by being a nationalist so he wants to support military forces now that wasn't 30 seconds so you're cheating me what we have to do is I think if we could get the Russians to agree to go down to a thousand nuclear weapons and I believe a thousand nuclear weapons is enough to deter anybody that we could get the other other countries including China to cap their programs and we could get in over time into a truly multilateral negotiation on proportional reductions and that should be our goal you know we forget in the 1950s and 60s the idea of any kind of strategic reductions with the Russians was seen as science fiction as a fantasy but we did it and the what we've achieved in terms of verification and transparency with the Russian on their Russians with their nuclear forces nobody would thought was possible at this time so let's let's kind of ride the wave with Putin I think you know we've got a hiatus in the relationship now for domestic Russian political reasons in my judgment but then let's try to move towards a multilateral reduction regime that could in terms of this long-term effort be arguably consistent with our NPT obligations and the NPT is very important for our interests and put us on the road to arguably the global zero okay first of all I'd like to begin with expressing my appreciation for Ambassador Burt for being here and then followed up immediately with a cheap shot please global those global zero put out a report in in May of 2012 by its nuclear commission that was headed up by General Cartwright and you're a member of that commission and I just want to point out that in that report it explicitly said we need more missile defense more advanced conventional weapons including a conventional ICBM to compensate for the reduction in US nuclear weapons these are precisely the capabilities as we pointed out before that other nations find threatening there are the capabilities that China for example lists and and answering the question why are we modernizing our nuclear capabilities well it's the amount of missile defense the United States is doing it's it's conventional prompt global strike and so on so we are developing conventional capabilities that other nations view is threatening to their interests and increases their alliance upon nuclear weapons when I look we thought you would like that you're very disarming sir to me the issue comes down to feasibility if a world without nuclear weapons it's not feasible for the foreseeable future why are we adhering to that vision now in a way that keeps us from doing sensible things that could advance our security interests president Obama recently gave a speech in Berlin in which he called for a reduction by a third of our operationally deployed warheads a vision that many arms control enthusiasts found disappointing because it wasn't aggressive enough but nevertheless express that it create the vision I would argue of a world without nuclear weapons is creating what I call the senator sessions problem and what senator sessions said was well if George Bush had asked to go down to a thousand that's fine you know because that's reasonable but it's done by a commander in chief who looks at this as a way station down to zero well I can't support it under those kind of conditions and I would argue that the vision of a global zero is getting to be counterproductive as a vision because it's getting in the way politically of doing things that we can do now that might stabilize the number of weapons at lower levels it's one thing when you have a commitment to a ultimate zero point that most people many people would say is not a feasible vision and it's starting to get in the way with the kinds of actions that we could take now when you lose a Walter Pinkus on the vision you're losing an awful lot of your range of opinion on this two more minutes I come back again to the fundamental point is that nuclear weapons aren't going away they're not going to vanish and as long as nuclear weapons exists the United States needs to ensure as President Obama says that we have a safe secure and effective nuclear arsenal and that we treat nuclear issues with the seriousness with which they deserve thank you let's thank both of the debaters for doing