 We have a fabulous conversation for you this morning, and I was joking with both Frank and Des. Nearly the feet of getting these two gentlemen in the same city on the same day, in the same hour, was probably our most challenging aspect of organizing this conversation. This summer at two separate events, I had an opportunity to spend some time with Des Brown with Frank at a separate dinner, and I realized we needed to bring them together for a conversation. We had hoped to do this, of course, before September the 18th, before the Scottish referendum, but schedules didn't align, and we thought, well, one way or the other, we're going to have something to talk about regardless of the outcome. And today, we thought this would be a great opportunity a month after, a little bit more than a month after the Scottish referendum, to take a step back, look at the results, how everyone is feeling, both in Scotland and in England, and where this process goes from here, how it impacts defense issues, security, transatlantic issues, and then we'll widen the aperture out a bit and talk about what comes next year, British general elections, the new strategic defense and security review, the 2015 defense spending review. There's a lot going on in British defense policy that we'd love to tease out a bit, and then at the end we'll talk a little bit about what is this transatlantic security relationship doing in the wider global context, whether that is vis-a-vis increased Russian aggression in Europe, whether that's ISIS in the Middle East or even challenges in the Asia Pacific region. So lots to talk about, fabulous colleagues to help us tease out these important issues, and again, we welcome you into this conversation. So let me begin by introducing Des Brown, who's the, let me make sure I get this, I love wonderful, rich titles, the right honorable Lord Brown of Ladington. Des Brown. But in America, the informality is always, hi, Des, welcome. Des Brown is the vice-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. We share something in common. The chairman of NTI is Sam Nunn, also the chairman of CSIS, so we hold a great commonality there. Des, extraordinary service to the United Kingdom elected a member of parliament. In 1997 served to 2010, but has served in a variety of government positions, parliament under secretary of state to Northern Ireland, minister of state for work. The list goes on, but in 2006, he was appointed secretary of state for defense, and that's where I think we worked most closely with you, and of course, in 2007 and 2008, you combine that role with the role of secretary of state for Scotland. So well poised to help us understand the complicated issues, certainly British defense and Scotland's role in that welcome so much, Des. And then we're delighted to have Frank Miller with us, a principal of the Scowcroft Group. Frank, also these two have an extraordinary amount of distinguished public service. Frank had worked in the government for well over 30 years, 22 of those in the Defense Department held incredible senior positions, also served as special assistant to President George W. Bush in the National Security Council, a senior director for defense policy and arms control, where I had the good fortune of working with Frank. And speaking of titles, you have won yourself, my friend. In 2006, Frank was awarded an honorary knighthood and knight commander of the Order of the British Empire. So congratulations on that. And Frank currently serves on the Defense Policy Board and serves on the U.S. Strategic Command Advisory Group. So as I said, incredibly knowledgeable, we're about to have a great conversation about after the Scottish referendum implications for Scotland, the United Kingdom, for the United States, for NATO, and what comes next. So Des, let me turn to you for some opening comments and we'll turn to Frank. We'll get into the issues and bring you in. Welcome again, Des. Thank you very much, a detailer for those kind words. It should be easier for the foreseeable future to get me in the same room as other people I will be in, working and living in Washington D.C. for the next couple of years, working for NTI. So for at least that period of time, I'd be happy to come here. It's an honour and a privilege to be invited to contribute to a discussion in this great institution. And it's a real pleasure to be on a platform with both you and Frank. I've crossed lots in the past and we, I think, can say we know and respect each other. We don't always agree, but that's a good thing. So, okay, just a few words to start with. They will not be comprehensive because the implications of what happened on 18th of September and before in Scotland are quite significant and far-reaching and they are continuing. And Scots are still trying to work out what that result meant and will mean for them in the future and there are processes ongoing. And those of you who follow UK politics will know that this is implications for the constitution at large in the United Kingdom and the English in particular, or at least some of them, although the English are utterly tolerant of the Scots' constant complaints about having to be part of the same island group as England and I find them. The patience in relation to the people of Scotland is manifest and admirable, but I don't think the majority of them obsess about this, but there is a discussion going on about what is called English votes for English jobs. I'm happy to discuss that if people want to, but it kind of muddies the water about Scotland. So, rather than just making reference to it, I'll go into that only if people are interested in the conversation or if the conversation takes us there. Okay, so let's start with what we know. I mean, there are some certainties about this. On the 18th of September, the people of Scotland voted by a majority of about 10% to stay in the United Kingdom, so this is still a British accent. Okay, which I'm delighted about. Let me make that clear. I am very much in favour of the United Kingdom and keeping it together. I argued in Scotland with my fellow countrymen and women and those who live with us who had the vote that we had in the cooperation among distinctive nations and in the islands, a level of cooperation and sharing that many parts of the world are looking for and it seemed absolutely mad to break that up when other people were aspiring to it. And we should be celebrating that and maybe when we get our feet out of the clay of the aftermath of this then we will find a way of doing that, but it is quite a difficult thing to do. So 45%, 55%. I mean, I'm sorry Heather, but the first three or four questions on your fire for this are relatively easy to answer. You know, there is a process going on in terms of constitutional reform for Scotland because the Unionist parties, the parties that form or are likely to form the government of the United Kingdom promised collectively, individually and collectively laterly that the people of Scotland would get more devolution. Should they stay, they would get more devolution. There are a number of different phrases for that, Home Rule, Devo Max, which is obviously pretty obvious what that is, it's kind of drawn from Coca-Cola's great marketing. So Devo Max, one or two other phrases, but it essentially means increased powers for the Scottish Parliament, the parts of the powers that those who favour independence or more Home Rule are interested in is getting their hands on fiscal powers. They want their hands on the ability to be able to set tax rates. Whether that's a sensible thing in the long term or not to do, time will tell, but we have in Europe examples of the separation of fiscal and monetary policy that were not greatly successful. And we have to reflect on that, but Scots are not stupid and they will reflect on that. And in passing, I say to you that because we've been in this debate for a long period of time, the Scottish people are very, very, very knowledgeable about these issues. I mean, this is a very well informed electorate, 86% of whom voted in the independence campaign and in the area of Scotland that I live in, 92% of the people voted. I mean, these are extraordinary turnouts for developed, sophisticated societies and their engagement in politics, but it was a relatively simple question in the sense of yes, no, there was no complication about it. So, I mean, I think we can put to rest the question as to whether or not that process, which is in the hands of a man called Lord Smith of Kelvin and is therefore known as the Smith Commission, we can put it rest as to whether or not that will devolve further powers to Scotland in the area of defence or intelligence or foreign affairs, it won't. I mean, I have here for those of you who doubt a printed copy of the Scottish Government, the SNP's submission to the Smith Commission and in page 13 of it, they specifically say that defence, intelligence and foreign affairs, among other areas of policy should be left under the control of the UK Parliament. So, there is no possibility of us having a split responsibility for defence. They're not arguing for it and the Smith Commission is unlikely to. In fact, it will not recommend that that be devolved. So, we're back, you know, with the UK Parliament and UK Government making decisions in relation to defence and intelligence. Let me just share with you a couple of other observations and you make of them what you will. The common view is that the vast majority, that's the phrase that all politicians love, the vast majority of people, the vast majority of people in Scotland want to see the tried nuclear defence system out of Scottish waters. It's not true. I mean, there are a majority of people who would favour its removal from Scotland. It's not a vast majority. In February of 2013, the campaign for nuclear disarmament commissioned polling and that polling showed that 60% of people did not want... 60% of people in Scotland did not want Scotland to invest in the future of its strategic defence with large nuclear weapons systems, namely the tried missile-based system. But subsequent polling, which was carried out to challenge that in a more independent and less leading fashion, suggested that perhaps that figure was more like 50%, 49% or thereabouts. More independent polling revealed that 51% of people in Scotland were happy to see a renewed nuclear system be retained in Scotland and invested in. But 39% of that 51% argued for a much smaller, much less expensive system. The arguments for that, I think, were probably disposed off in any event, but another independent review that was carried out, and I'm, you know, although fundamentally a disarmament, I'm not in favour of that in any event. I don't think it's a wise thing for those of us who would like to see fewer nuclear weapons in the world, to show the world that a pocket nuclear weapon system, which is less expensive, is a thing that you can achieve. And I think it's a good argument. Many more people will want them, in my view, and it will be an injection to proliferation, and I'm not in favour of bolting nuclear warheads onto all sorts of missiles. We've done that in the past, you know, we know the downsides of it. So the final point I wanted to make just about the motivation of the Scottish people is that post the referendum polling revealed that when people were asked what motivated them to vote the way in which they did, only 29% of the people in Scotland suggested that defence or related issues were of any relevance to their decisions when they were offered from a menu to pick three. So I'm not, it was only 29% of people motivated at all to put it in a basket of three. So these issues, you know, were important rhetorically to the debate, but they were not significantly important or decisive in relation to people's votes. Having said that, in my view, attempts on the part of the unionist, the no-vote side to make this a big issue in their favour backfired on them. I think we could actually empty rooms in Scotland when people tried to argue that the 7,500 jobs at Fas Lane, you know, should be kept there and that being the home for the strategic defence of the country was a good thing for Scotland. Nobody was really interested in discussing that and even those people who make the argument best would get groans from the audience when they raised these issues. So this is a complicated psychology as far as the Scottish people are concerned and traditionally, and we were talking about this privately before we opened this discussion up, Scots are mercenaries. Scots have gone across the world traditionally for years. They are disproportionately represented, particularly in the army, although that's changing presently because of the separation between units of the army and locations in Scotland with modernisation of armed forces. But Scots make a disproportionate contribution to defence and to government, indeed, in the United Kingdom, but they have made a disproportionate contribution to defence all across the world and moved as mercenaries in previous centuries. So despite all of that, these issues were not that important. Just maybe a couple of words, they will be very generalised. Heather, I don't want to take up all the time here, but I think it's important. We will next year have a strategic defence review combined probably or following on from yet another financial review. My friend and some erstwhile colleague Malcolm Chalmers has recently written at Russey on this. I recommend his paper to you. The probability is that we may find ourselves as a result of the combination of these two processes for the first time spending less than 2% of our GDP on defence. And actually, if all the dire predictions of further cuts in public spending and their implications work their way through, and if you take from our spending on defence, which we currently credit to it, the current spending in Afghanistan, the historical spending in Afghanistan because we will be out of Afghanistan by 2020-21 is not beyond the bounds of possibility and probable that we will be spending about 1.5% of our GDP on defence. There are two dynamics that cause this. One will be continued austerity, which is the flavour of the month with all governments across the world in the face of the continuing economic challenges and a desire to reduce the percentage of GDP that is spent by the central government to the 30% as opposed to the 48% which is presently in. But also there will be a revision of the way in which we calculate GDP to reflect changing international accounting standards that will cause an increase in the GDP in financial terms of the United Kingdom because of the effect it will have in our public accounting, so therefore the percentage will go down disproportionately because of the effect of these two processes. I think I'll leave it there. There are lots of other things that you want to talk about and you have been given tasters of the possibility that we may even get into more global issues in the effect of the Scottish referendum on them. I'm not sure that I can live up to that, but I'll leave it there. These are just some facts I share with you in order to inform and hopefully help the discussion. Does that was fantastic. Thank you so much and it gives Frank a great entrance into talking about from the view from the United States. How do we look at these issues? Well, it's a pleasure to be here, Heather. Thanks for having me and it's a pleasure to be on a podium with my friend Des. When our mutual friend George Robertson, Lord Robertson, was in the United States in April at Brookings, he said that a decision by Scotland to go independent would have been cataclysmic, would be cataclysmic, for which he got a lot of stick north of the border, so to speak. But I think he was right. I think a cataclysm was averted. If we think about it realistically, it would have meant first and foremost a diminution of the UK's role in the world. And I think at this point in our history, we can ill afford to have the UK play a smaller role in the world for the remaining United Kingdom as that phrase emerged. It would have been the loss of vital geography. It would have been a loss of talent. It would have been a blow to the economy. And it would have been the loss of some military assets, which will be needed by a robust UK in the world. And at the end of the day, it would have left Scotland alone and undefended because an independent Scotland could not muster a defence capability, which would have been worth very much. It would not have gotten into NATO. Indeed, it would not have gotten into the EU. And one of the lines that I wish Alastair Darling had deployed in his debates was that the SNP's version of an independent Scotland was one which outsourced its national security to the United States and its financial resources to the Bank of England, but it didn't. And then there's the question of Triton. I think I have believed for decades that the United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent plays a critical role in global affairs. And I think that that continues to be true now, particularly now, even more so now with the deterioration in relations with Russia and with Putin's heavy-handed nuclear blackmail diplomacy and his overreliance on nuclear weapons. So I think that a UK nuclear deterrent is vital to the United Kingdom. It's vital to the United States, in fact, and it's vital to NATO. As part of that, I believe that the UK deterrent must always have an SSBN at sea on constant patrol. If Scotland had voted for independence, and if the Trident fleet had been expelled from Faslane, it might or might not have been the end of the UK deterrent, reverting to phrases that Des and I both well know. With sufficient will and sufficient money and sufficient time, London could have found a new home for not only the SSBNs, which was the easy part, but for the warhead storage. But whether that time, will, and money existed would have been a very difficult question. So it certainly is something from a deterrent standpoint to celebrate. I absolutely agree with Des and everything he said. There will be no devolution of defence for an intelligence or nuclear policy to Holy Root. I think the near-term impact of the strategic defence review for Scotland, which remains in the United Kingdom, is that there will be continued business in the shipyards along the Clyde, as the new Type 26 destroyer is built. And that's good for Scotland and it's good for the UK. The question facing the British defence budget, indeed the British defence role in the world, foreign policy role, Britain's role in the world, is not dissimilar to the questions which will face a new American administration in 2016. We're all under budgetary pressure. We are all weary of having been involved in the wars in the Middle East since 2001. And yet, and yet, there are no replacements for American and British leadership in the world. If we do not do it, whether it is in Europe or in Asia or in the Middle East, vacuums will exist or existing vacuums will become larger. And at the end of the day, we'll get sucked in anyway. I'd make one quick point on the 2%. I myself, heretically, am not a believer in the world. Heretically, I'm not a believer in 2%. I believe 2% is an input figure, not an output figure. And I'm more interested in output than input. And indeed, one way, one way you can, you can increase your defence budget's percentage of GDP is to drop your GDP. Grease has recently gone over 2% for its defence budget because its GDP has dropped. This is not a course that I would recommend for anybody. But I think more importantly, and Heather's heard me say this too many times, I think, from your perspective, the critical thing that we Americans don't recognize is that the British military is not only our most capable ally technologically, but in terms of forces which are available to be deployed around the world at any time and which are on a par with our own. There is no other equal. If you look at a well-trained, relatively well-resourced British Army in the 80 to 100,000-person band, if you look at an Air Force of, tornadoes and Eurofighters and soon F-35s, a navy which deploys nuclear-powered attack submarines and four SSBNs and soon aircraft carriers, as well as modern surface ships, three commando ships and a Royal Marine Commando Brigade. This is an incredible fighting force which is of great value to global stability. So I would urge people to focus on that. I have no prediction on where the SDSR goes and it will be the classic situation as the new British government of whatever stripe it happens to be. Struggles with austerity, struggles with the National Health Service Funds and struggles with the world, which is unfortunately becoming even more messy. But why don't I stop there? Thanks, Frank. Great food for thought. Let me start getting the questions going here, giving colleagues a chance to formulate their own questions. Des, I want to pull you back a little bit on the politics post-referendum and then let's get into the meat on the defense side. I'm going to challenge you to say, is this really over? Because some have argued that by reaching 45% voting for independence in some way this has been a trajectory that has been growing and building momentum since 1997 when this first became a possibility that should, and there's some questions about, should the Smith Commission not able to deliver and the challenges that now Westminster is facing with the West Lothian question and trying to figure out the political formulation here. Will this be revisited? And I'm also thinking, should Prime Minister Cameron be re-elected next May, which then brings us to the EU referendum by 2017, that will also spark a reaction by Scotland to say that's not the direction I want to go, I want to go in a different direction. Again, depending on the May 2015, we could build some electoral reverberation. That's the next time the Scots go to the polls and perhaps us and people do even better, Labour may suffer from that. Help us understand, again the aftershocks may continue to be felt and maybe this question hasn't been settled for a generation and so I'd welcome your thoughts on that and I will say just from watching and analyzing this from Washington, I felt in some ways, Washington and London had the same problem. We didn't believe any of this could happen. No one was looking at this very seriously until those polls started to tighten and then we all went, was there something to look at here? And we all felt, I think we got a little flat footed about the implications of all of this. We weren't paying attention because we didn't think a 20% gap in public opinion, we didn't think this was a problem. Did we miscalculate here in Washington and certainly in London that this could have been a possibility? That's a pretty straightforward question. Yeah, that's all right. Let me try and pick it a bit without trying to answer all of it because it kind of, I think, I mean other people will want to make contributions so let me before I do that just, Frank and I agree about lots of things but Scotland would not have been alone and undefended and it would have got into NATO and it would have got into the EU and part of the problem I think with the Scottish people is, I mean the Scottish people are not stupid and saying things to them like some of the things that we were urged to say to them in terms of trying to keep the United Kingdom together was not wise. I'm not saying that they would have gotten it immediately. I mean they wouldn't have become independent and become members of it immediately and of course there would have been a significant challenge with the European Union because what was happening in Scotland was energizing nationalism and independence minded people across Europe and in particular Spain has a very heightened antenna to these issues and flitted with telling the Scottish people you'll not get in or we'll make it difficult oh no we don't really mean that. I mean there are just some things that are improbable in modern democratic societies and it is improbable that five million people who are members and citizens of the EU will be denied that status because they vote for self-determination. On what conditions they would have been allowed to join as an independent country is an interesting discussion but they would have gotten it and I think we should put that kind of canard to bed. The Scottish National Party realized that an independent Scotland in its size could not defend its assets unless it was part of an alliance. Their actual preference as a political movement was to find some synergy with northern European Scandinavian countries whom they think the same as they do about these issues but they discovered that the majority of them and those that had the capabilities were all in NATO so they rethought their policy in relation to NATO now they dressed it up in all sorts of other different ways but that was what happened they then fought with their party which is still in a significant minority opposed to membership of NATO to change the policy and would have sought membership of NATO now it would have been an interesting discussion that a party which set its face against nuclear weapons it would have been an interesting discussion between NATO and them as to in what terms they could join and how they could as a non-nuclear country become part of a nuclear armed alliance these were in the too difficult basket for them to answer in the course of the debate so they were just part for another day but we would have sorted them out and we would have sorted them out I think in some fashion it might not have been entirely the way in which they wanted it sorted out and they would have had to make the compromise because there is no way that the NATO alliance would have left that big chunk of sea and land undefended and not part of its jurisdiction so with respect Frank we need to stop saying this and that's the sort of stuff that was emptying rooms and people were saying these sorts of things that's the best I get out of you then I chuck opposite success and I'm happy with that so it is not over of course it's not over and the probability is that it will never be over because it's been going on all of my lifetime in politics since 1997 and it will continue because there are at least a third of the people of Scotland who emotionally want independence and they're not going to go away we live with them and they're not going to change their minds so they will continue and that will have implications and ab reactions from other parts of the United Kingdom and elsewhere and people will make arguments if we had some English members of parliament or commentators here then they would make very strongly the point that you cannot have a UK parliament in which former members or members like I was of the House of Commons vote for laws in relation to health that affect to English when I don't have the power to vote for laws that affect health in relation to Scotland now I mean that's a respectable position and we have to engage with it but we have had an asymmetric country almost all of its existence post 1707 when Scotland and England negotiated and merged their parliaments not their kingdoms but their parliaments we retained a separate justice system, a separate law a separate legal system we retained a separate health system when we developed one we retained a separate education system markedly different than the English of course with the shared parliament over time because the same parliament has been passing legislation to converse but we have reinstated that difference in the early part of the 20th century Northern Ireland it was part of the United Kingdom had not only its own parliament it had its own prime minister because ruling Northern Ireland in that fashion suited the policy intentions of the UK government and presently we have significant devolved powers to London we have police commissioners in some parts of the United Kingdom and not on others we have elected mayors in some places and these people all enjoy different forms of power all of this is constantly in a state of flux and has to be worked through personally I think trying to trying to resolve the conundrum of the West Lothian question the English votes for English laws you know will cause you to have a breakdown you know I mean when almost 90% of the country is represented or by England what decision is made that relates to England that doesn't affect anyone else I mean I give you just a simple example an issue of great contention in the United Kingdom is whether or not there should be a third runway at Heathrow airport if a third runway is built at Heathrow airport which is an enormous hub airport dominates part of the world never mind part of the United Kingdom is that an English decision or does that have implications for Scotland you know what the answer is of course it does you know and we have a method of of calculating additional expenditure for Scotland called the Barnett formula that I would try to explain it to you but it operates on the basis of a percentage of what is allocated to England is allocated to you know to Scotland so almost every financial decision that is made for approximately 90% of the country has an effect on the other 10% you know so it's quite difficult to do this you know and if the Prime Minister wants to do it in lock step with the Smith commission whom he's charged to do to decide on additional powers for the Scottish Parliament by November well good luck to him I think we will pie the end of November and it will not be resolved and you know of course there are other dynamics there is UKIP you know we have this developing political agenda which is a manifestation of something that we all observe which is a kind of anti-politics vote that is growing in different places and indeed has created the Government of Hungary God help them you know I mean there is an anti-politics vote out there that is looking for receptacles you know and UKIP which is well led has been very successful in getting that vote and now you know sits in the mid to late teens of votes and all polling and will have a significant effect you know on the next election I'm not going to predict what will happen in 2015 but there are lots of very difficult decisions to be made particularly in the area of public spending and all of the parties aspire to and are likely to be in Government have set themselves on almost the same course about reduced public spending it seems to me and this will open up an interesting discussion it seems to me improbable that an inconclusive result and that's a possibility of the next election will allow a Prime Minister to say in series about doing things I am committed to further austerity and therefore cutting between 20 and 40 billion pounds out of public spending with the effect that that will have an education health, transport all the other public services that people depend on this situation will perhaps persist throughout the whole course of this parliament which is five years and by the way I'm just about to spend however you cut it 30 billion or 65 billion nuclear weapons is that okay? now that seems to me improbable I know that there are many people who argue that that is now settled but it seems to be improbable and if it is not a majority Conservative Government I say freely to people that my prediction I'm not a betting man I won't bet on it but if I was I probably would my prediction is that any other outcome will cause the Prime Minister to reach for the tool that all politicians do and have another review so in order to buy some time it's to resolve this conundrum but it is these are difficult issues and my final point is the outcome of the NATO summit and the ambition I agree with Frank about 2% because it's about what you do with the money that you spend and actually the United Kingdom gets better bang for its buck than anybody else arguably France does as well the way in which it spends its percentage of GDP in any other European country but the ambition was to get a commitment from NATO countries to some expression of investment and defence what they got was an aspiration at the end of it which is hardly worth the paper it's written on but they got an aspiration those who understand Europe understand why because almost every European country is facing a challenging economic environment and in those circumstances it is improbable that they will be able to go back to their parliaments and their people and expect to get re-elected if they significantly invest in defence because most of them are much more interested in issues of national identity than they are in the issues of physical security by that I mean most of the people who vote in Europe are interested in that and that's where the dynamic in discussion is going on if you look at the European papers you will see that they are dominated by illegal migration Islamisation you know crimes by foreigners domestic culture under threat taxpayer money wasted or need this is all about our national identities that's the debate in Europe at the moment not our physical security we don't think we are under any significant threat whether we are or not I'll be happy to hear what people say but that's the position Thank you Diz, I'm going to let all of you and I want to ask Frank one more question I'm so glad we have a lot of hands guys are you ready? CSIS audience has asked a really tough question Frank my question to you if you were sitting at the National Security Council today and you were charged with having a very detailed conversation with your British counterparts on the next year's SDSR and you saw that the costs for the two aircraft carriers trident replacement and looking at what's left and keeping the British military our most capable and able partner what advice would you tell them I remember I was in London the 2010 review came out and I think there was shock in Washington about the 8% cut in the defense of the British MOD they had to write themselves there was a lot of debt they had to they balanced themselves but what would your talking points be to them as we looked through this 2015 with all the pressures that Des just said general election in May a lot of promises and unclear how a new government can deliver all of them what would your advice be to your counterparts I think I think I would start by looking at the world situation and I think I would focus on the fact that we are facing a level of concern with respect to Russian military developments in the period of time since the wall has come down and that the United States and the United Kingdom as NATO's principle military powers have to bear that burden I'm not that worried about the cost of the nuclear deterrent because that will be spaced out over a 15 year period as the new boats are built and of course the United Kingdom derives enormous financial and economic benefit from being part of the Trident II system so that is rather a stretch cost and the cost of buying new kit is obviously a concern and yet the aircraft carriers give Britain a power projection capability which as Americans we certainly resonate with and welcome so I guess Heather I would say that if I were providing advice not knowing where our own defense budget is going that one has to be careful as to where one cuts further I mean the baseline today is a very different baseline than it was 15 years ago it's a very different baseline than the one that Dez was dealing with when he was Secretary of State for defense so this is one where we just have to be very cautious as we proceed notwithstanding that some of our NATO allies are not prepared to invest in defense that doesn't mean that we can short this burden which is unique to the two capitals absolutely I think I'm just going to go around the table so please let's identify yourself thank you Greg Tillman Arms Control Association Frank I think you accurately described very high caliber forces that the UK has land, sea and air I think it's also at least an arguable proposition that in the year 2025 if Britain modernizes its nuclear forces to maintain the same permanent presence that there will be a deep cut in those forces that you described and so my question really is from the US perspective are we better or worse off with the UK conventional forces deeply cut maintaining the current UK deterrent or maintaining the current level of forces and I guess my question for Des Brown is how does that look from a UK perspective I think Greg you won't be surprised that I would say that's a specious argument the cost of four new submarines over time is not that significant the cost of the UK deterrent as I recall over the next 30 years is 6% of the British defense budget the same argument is made by you and others with respect to US nuclear modernization but one of the legs of the triad again the cost of the US nuclear deterrent as a part of the overall defense budget is in the low single digits so at the end of the day and you and I are not going to resolve this it's a question of whether or not you believe nuclear deterrents is important whether or not you believe nuclear deterrents plays a role in preventing great power war if you don't believe that then you're not going to support the deterrent if you believe that particularly in a period of time when Putin is rattling the nuclear saber if you believe that another brigade in the US or British army is a better deterrent than a trident at sea you'll come to an obvious conclusion I come to a different conclusion sorry I don't think this is a specious argument I think it's a very relevant question not because I dispute Frank's we've been in the nuclear deterrent business for a long time in the United Kingdom but this is the second time that we are into heavy renewal I'm not saying there's an established pattern of doing this but there was a belief particularly in the military family that the capital costs of this system belong to the nation and we're not part of the defence budget and we had an accounting system that had a kind of contingency substantial contingency element to it and we paid for renewal before or any significant capital expenditure out of that pot so the defence budget was separate the 2010 SDSR and this passed in a kind of annex to it because the nuclear deterrent was not part of the review but it passed in an annex to it the Treasury won a battle that's been fighting for decades to get the people that wanted these things to pay for in terms of their budget so the comparatively small amount of money that's been spent on lead items for building SSBNs and anticipation of a positive decision in 2015 was paid for out of the defence budget since 2010 having established that the Treasury will not give that up so this 6% will be effectively a 6% part of a reduced defence budget and will deny investment in deployable capability so it will have a very very significant effect given that the nature of procurement and defence is such that it is planned for decades in advance and quite a lot of the money that they will be allocated whatever it is in the budget post the SDSR will already be spent in any event for them and then you take into account the fact that you have significant numbers of personnel there's very very little of the defence budget or indeed of any government's budget that allows any decision making a lot of it is committed for decades so I think the point you make is a good point and it is a point that I know is exercising the command of all of our services in the Navy who argue most vociferously for this investment because it puts them at the pinnacle of is there justification for saying they are the senior service is that they have responsibility for strategic defence so this is unknown territory for us in terms of debate and like here senior military officers are not shy at having a public discussion about these issues and there will be a significant public discussion about it and you know I mean I Frank won't say this but I suspect that if you made our greatest ally and our cousins here in the United States tell us what it was they really wanted they really want us to be there with them in deployable circumstances they want to be able to reach two eyes you know because despite the fact that both of us have difficulty sometimes in the world now because of the last 15 years or so and persuading people that we are doing the right thing we have a better chance of doing this if we are together both of us so you know I think that's it and you know NATO tried to find another way to get its European partners to invest in capabilities through pooling and sharing which was the obvious answer to reduce budget sufficiencies it was dead at birth it never took off interoperability pooling and sharing is the obvious answer to deployable capabilities but if you live in an environment in which individual national caveats are controlled by parliaments and decisions are made about what troops can do in the ground and debates and discussions to the national parliaments that cover very specific things then interoperability and pooling and sharing is very difficult to imagine so I think this is a discussion that we are bound to have and it will be a significant part of the international discussion in our relationship with the United States and from a European perspective you know I encourage and I did when I was in the executive office I encouraged people in the United States to the highest level to establish more of an engagement of leadership in this area you know Europeans often wait to see in this area of policy what does the United States want to do and try to get slightly, maybe a centimeter ahead of them so as it meets them there you just need to be much more specific I think to your European allies I want them to do rather than standing back expecting them to work it out because on a number of occasions not least a bit tactical nuclear weapons we made the wrong decision so I would quite like to have this discussion more openly across Europe and with the United States you know and leadership of the United States is important and that's really important also to the European Union in terms of its foreign policy as well as well as NATO you have to remember the European Union is a set of different institutions with different membership but they still look to the United States for leadership and if you look behind the one area where we have worked most closely together apparently successfully and that was in Iranian sanctions it was the threat of American rules implementing or engaging with European institutions and businesses that made the Europeans rather than a willingness to buy into these sanctions over their own volition I'm James McKianna with the Stimson Center I'm also a former staff member of the Scottish National Party at the UK Parliament Ward Brown question about kind of the 2015 general election I was on the phone with a UK Member of Parliament who will remain anonymous about that election and I mean they're being very optimistic as they always are about the elections this MP was talking about potentially looking at current polling number the SNP polling half of Scotland's 59 seats in Scotland let's say they're right which is definitely optimistic no matter how much their membership has increased since the referendum he also made the argument that if they get that representation they could potentially do some form of roadblock they would have more political will to be able to stop trident renewal in 2016 so I'd kind of like your opinion on that whether you think that's realistic or not the post referendum surge that this whole part of politics got is quite significant there is no question about that the SNP have enjoyed an enormous surge in their membership they're in the process at the moment of declaring the deputy leader, the new leader and she sold out an amazing kind of entertainment venue with 20,000 seats in it quicker than you two did or something I mean all of this is true, I mean this is the Green Party although we have the audience Green Party in the world I mean we have a Green Party that argues independent country based on oil sales I mean I don't get this well I don't get this I think they should be thrown out of the Green Party federation in my view you know I mean it's kind of we were supposed to leave this stuff in the ground I thought the Green Party is a bit, anyway but the Green Party has also enjoyed a significant increase in membership so there is a continuing dynamic which is going on if you go at the BBC Scotland website where the stories are about the aftermath and continuing debates about these issues and and that dominates the news although the actual poll for the referendum showed that the people who prefer the status quo are definitely a silent majority I mean they sat quietly most through most of the campaign and then went and voted in significant numbers for the status quo too the surprise I think of these very people who are now predicting that they're about to get half of the they had private polling I think they got Canadians to do which was unwise because they didn't understand that Scots can tell lies I just tell you a quick anecdote the bookmakers paid out the week before the poll on a no vote right and I went and spoke to some polls, I have polls for bookmakers and I went and spoke to the polls and they said well what you have to understand is that people tell pollsters lies and people who bet on no vote no so they said you know we knew this was going to be a no and we have known all throughout the whole from the betting and we paid out and closed the book because we didn't want to take any more bets on no so I'm not going to get into the basis of prediction and I don't know if they're still with the same polling company the people you're talking to but you're they're right to suggest that an increase in members of parliament from a number of possible sources not just the SNP could have a significant effect on this vote you know in 2006 when I had responsibility for what was then a decision that had to be made about the renewal of these votes if I had depended on those people who were standing behind me on the Labour benches voting for it we would not have won the vote so despite where our party sits and has done since the 1980s on this issue fundamentally we are an abolitionist party in terms of its representation in the majority and even members of parliament when they were on the government side of this decision voted in the majority from the back benches against the renewal of Trident so I'm not predicting what will happen but I'm just telling you this with a very complicated vote and it's by no means certain you know that a right wing that is made up of elements other than traditional kind of conservatives could carry the day it's by no means certain but we'll need to see what happens in 2015 I was going to say Frank does Washington think it's set? I don't think it's set I don't think the SNP would be entered into government I think if the SNP took that many seats in Scotland it would create some interesting some interesting questions as to how a coalition were formed and on what basis noting that what happened last year what happened last year is not necessarily predictive in 2015 it's at least useful to note that the parliamentary debate following the the government's completion of a study on renewing the nuclear deterrent showed both both major parties Tories and Labor to be supportive of renewing replacing Trident submarines and make no mistake I'm not going to get into a debate that I know that Des and I could have offline as to what the Navy said and didn't say when the vanguard boats reach a certain age they're going to have to be retired so if you don't replace the vanguard boats the UK gets out of the deterrent business and if the United States were asked by British government do you want us to get out of the deterrent business or do you want another brigade I think the answer is the United States does not want to be the sole nuclear guarantor of the NATO alliance and so having the UK there with us providing a nuclear deterrent would be very important and finally if you look at the manifesto of the Labor Party concluded what month ago six weeks ago something like that right sorry what came out of the Labor Party conference what's the correct word it's just I mean it's a policy brief the policy brief coming out of the conference supports trident renewal silent on the number of boats that's fine as was the Labor Party spokesman spokespeople during the debate in the commons saying that they would whatever technology would provide in order to keep a boat continuously at sea so I think it's not utterly impossible what you say but I think it's unlikely all right we're going to go around the table yes sir please John Hurley I'm at Catholic University there may be another referendum coming up after the election there are increased indications that this could indeed occur as to whether or not the UK continues membership in the European Union this would have various implications of course but I'm thinking particularly of what this might mean with the continued strains that still exist in Northern Ireland and in the past it strikes me that the shared membership in the European Union had helped to kind of settle things down a little bit I wonder if you would have any particular thoughts on this devolution certainly has implications for Northern Ireland as well absolutely I mean thank you very much for that question actually this is my real love in politics is peace in Northern Ireland I have to say my mother was born in Northern Ireland and lived to the ripe old age of 97 a couple of years ago the greatest moment of my life was when I was appointed a minister in the Northern Ireland office in the context of the delivery of the Good Friday Agreement it was my proudest moment I love the people of Northern Ireland and I want to see them living peacefully a number of people supported us in that work and our new partners were very important but the most important people were friends in the United States there is no question that commitment by president success of president for the United States and very senior talented diplomats and others from here and the American Irish or Irish American depending how you look at it which was not a given at the beginning of the discussion given that the predominant inclination was towards a united Ireland because diasporas tend with respect to them to live a bit in the past you know was really important I am I honestly believe that although we're still challenged in Northern Ireland and that the job is not yet complete the reason the job is not yet complete is because in order to get peace and a settlement in the late 1990s we had to embed sectarianism in their politics there was no other way of doing it because we had to share power and therefore we needed a baseline for sharing so without boring you with the detailed constitutional elements of this you have to commit yourself to one side or other of the constitutional settlement long term in order to be in politics in Northern Ireland so that decisions that need cross-community support can provably get cross-community support from that baseline now that I use the word sectarianism I mean it's a political sectarianism but it is partly a reflection of a kind of religious sectarianism as well and significantly so we had to do that but those of us who were responsible for doing that were very conscious that we had to find a way of moving out of that at some stage with the people of Northern Ireland and that challenge is very difficult and it's that step that we need help with and I think you're probably right if we're living in a much bigger environment then that's easier to do than if we're trying to do that United Kingdom is outside of the EU that's only one of a significant number of downsides of us leaving the European Union if that's what the people of the United Kingdom vote for I mean I will do everything I can to try and keep us in it although that having been said I still think that the European Union and its institutions doesn't do itself any favours you only have to go to you know the part of Brussels that they dominate to see their ravagant investment in institutions and to see why people are so hacked off with them right across Europe thank you yes sir please Hi Alejandro Sanchez I'm a senior fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs I read today in the BBC that youth unemployment in Scotland is a six year low that 72,000 people aged 16 to 24 are unemployed which is 25 29,000 less than last year which is good of course but this reminded me how last year London closed 14 of 19 army recruitment offices in Scotland so again my question is how can the MOD continue to attract young qualified men and women to join the armed forces if first of all the economy is not really that bad at least for Scotland for the youth of Scotland and to if due to budget cuts there doesn't seem to be much of job security in the UK military today which serves as a reason for young people to join it thank you it's an excellent question but if you are reducing the size of the army then you need fewer recruitment offices I suspect it doesn't necessarily follow because life in the armed services is for the majority of people in the armed services are part of their life and not the whole of it you constantly have to refresh and it tends to be a young person's job although increasingly with technology that's not necessarily the case so you are right and actually more than just the implication and the expression of your question over time and during my time as a Secretary of State I was responsible for some of this we have actually broke the relationship between locations and regiments for very good reasons in terms of economy and professionalising armies sorry professionalising our services but you are absolutely right and the point and the point that you make and you are also right and I think the implication is obvious there because armed services tend to have a better opportunity to recruit in economic circumstances where there are fewer alternatives for young people but we are looking for a different type of recruit now I think than traditionally people think they are that we were in those times and I think we can still have professional expert and manned fully manned services in an environment in which there is whatever the definition of full employment is and we got very close to full employment when I was a Minister for Work I was a Minister for Work for a year it was probably the best year well because I only take credit for not having broken it it is improbable that anything I did delivered in that year but every day of that year there were more people working in the United Kingdom than ever before I could say that every day with confidence from the statistics but yet we had a much larger army and we had a much larger Navy in those days and a much larger Air Force and we were able to recruit, train and man it so I think the correlation between these two things is probably changing significantly Good morning my name is Simon de Galber I am a visiting fellow here at CSIS I would like to build on the question that was asked about the prospects of a new referendum which in my mind represents the heaviest strategic uncertainty in relation to the future of the United Kingdom and its place in Europe and certainly from the French perspective Brexit would necessarily be a geopolitical huge setback for my country, for France and so I would be interested to hear your views on the impact that such event could have on the UK-U.S. relation especially for the U.S. what would that mean strategically to have a United Kingdom outside of Europe Thank you very much Let me start and Des will fill in the holes that I make I think the first thing is from an American perspective a UK in the EU is clearly preferable the second a corollary to that though is that the EU that that Britain's thought they were getting into a common market arrangement has turned out to be far more of a nanny state than was anticipated and Des was talking about this behemoth in Brussels but this is a nanny state that reaches into all aspects of British life indeed it's been amusing I don't know if you find it I find it amusing to find adverts saying quit by these tea kettles and vacuum cleaners because the EU is about to ban them because they take too much electricity I mean these kinds of things that you read in British papers so the intrusion of the EU into parts of British life which is viewed as not subject to a foreign power has created political issues in the UK you add to that UKIP and you add to that the immigration problems and you have a political mix in the UK which is quite volatile not it's I think of a higher order kind of problems we have here with the tea party but it's of the same stripe so how the UK sorts this out and I think it will sort it out to remain in the EU is important but it's also important for the EU to stop acting like the imperial court that it acts like when the prime minister whether it's Mr Cameron or Mr Miliband try to claw back some things in the UK that don't affect the overall workings of the EU but that do affect British life on a daily basis I think people in the EU hierarchy need to stop acting as if they are emperors and kings and queens before I turn to Des to that answer do you think Labour will before the general elections pronounce that it would also seek a referendum or do you think that would not happen? That's a tough question Mr Miliband has been quiet on it I honestly don't know the answer to that question I quite often pretend to know more than I do about lots of things but on that I don't know the answer to that question it's not an easy or straightforward question to answer what is true even from my current view of Europe and I am still heavily involved in the development of an organisation which I helped found called the European Leadership Network with a man called Ian Cairns who I worked with closely and know and respect very well and I'm a European and Scots tend to be I see myself as European and I certainly don't want my country to leave the European Union but we're not being helped in trying to keep it in the European Union by some behaviour of aspects of the institutions of the Union itself and by commentary of others we're kidding ourselves as the political classes if we don't appreciate that this issue of national identity is driving lots of political debate that matters among the people who vote and I already gave a list that I drew from stuff that I read the other day I think it was written by Yanta Cow of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and I was just impressed by his list and I wrote it down for deployments but he's absolutely right that's what dominates the news and unless we find some way of engaging these issues in a way that makes politics relevant the politics that we think is the politics that is preferable politics relevant to these decisions that are concerning people then we are going to end up facing a campaign for coming out of the European Union because that's the only way in which it can be dealt with and I would regret that significantly and I'm critical of our Prime Minister David Cameron whom I admire in many ways and I have to say this he's not of my party and this man has admirable qualities but I wish he would stop suggesting that there are things he can do only to discover that he can't do them because he sits in the context of agreements that don't allow them so this just makes it worse and like you know Scottish independence if the world had woken up to discover that Scotland was independent and that the UK no longer existed those of us who had in the past worked together would all have been diminished by that quite significantly and the retrospective dawning of that realisation would have made a lot of people regret the fact that they didn't play in the game before and the same thing will happen I think over the European Union if that's what happens so I look to people who think the same way as me in Europe to try to find some way of working this out the United States of course will say this is a matter for the people of the United Kingdom at the highest political level because that's what we do but I have no doubt that the United States and those people who observe the world think that a European Union with the United Kingdom and for the leadership that it gives and the engagement there is a better thing than a European Union without the United Kingdom does I have to say sorry monitor's editorial comment I think was going to be interesting should there be a referendum on the UK and the EU you were going to hear the same tactics that were used implemented in the Scottish referendum so it is the this is the worst thing you can't do it by yourself and the companies will say you're not and I'm going to wait to see how they react to that and it's going to be very negative and it's going to be many of the Scots saying how do you think we felt when that was the message that we were delivered so the dynamics here are going to be really should it happen really interesting although I'm sorry I just have to say that the irony of this will be that the Scots who favour independence who are very pro-European will be making those arguments so they will be talking down the UK oh yeah yeah I'm just looking at the time with your permission can we bundle a couple of the next questions I want to make sure we get everyone so yes sir please thank you for taking my question Brian Bradley from the nuclear security and deterrence monitor Lord Brown you had said that budget austerity could present some challenges for the renewal of UK's nuclear deterrent in the next political term can you comment on any chances for a reduction of the nuclear posture in the UK and could both of you comment on whether global security objectives could be met through a reduced posture thank you we'll just keep going around the table I saw a few other hands Leo and then Bob yeah go ahead Leo sorry to stay on the nuclear issue I'm Leo Michel National Defense University ten years ago probably one would not have imagined that the UK and France would have signed an agreement the nuclear part of the Lancaster House agreement given some of the financial considerations that you've focused on France is facing some of those but responding in a bit different nature could you look ahead and say whether or not you see that there's a prospect for going further in terms of cooperation with the French if so in what areas and if not I'm Bob Becroft Department of State but most proud that I'm the grandson of Maggie Moffat of Coat Bridge I spent four years in Bosnia first a special envoy and then as ambassador and head of the OSCE mission working with an Ulsterman named Ashton I'm concerned that Pandora's box is open and that it can't be closed I'd like to hear how this issue of national identity which you raised and which was and still is fatal to the development of Bosnia and other countries in that part of Europe seems to be catching so my question is how can you possibly coordinate a managed devolution so that not only the English but also the Welsh talked about the Ulsterman and then there is Scotland can come out in a way that will preserve the United Kingdom as a United Kingdom and if you have a crystal ball handy how does the UK look to you in 10 years great does he want to start? I think the first two questions are related to each other actually I hope the questioners agree with that the if against that with the second first the Lancaster House agreement is a very significant step and although those discussions about cooperation were going on for some significant period of time it is not coincidence that they came to fruition at the point at which the issue of austerity was most keen it was the eventual agreement and the signing of the agreement was driven by the need to save money on the part of both countries I don't think there is any question about that it was trying to find efficiencies and of course it was trying to find efficiencies in an environment of the NPT in which you have to be very careful about what you share although that having been said we are both significantly dependent in the United States although the French would be less willing to tell the world that than I am we are both significantly dependent in the United States on technology and advice and other things all I hasten to add within the context of the NPT but so so I think for those who thought that this agreement having been reached was going to drive a dynamic they may be disappointed it's been comparatively slow in terms of its delivery but these are areas where you have to be very careful so I think there is I think there is potential in that and I think that governments will come back to that and look carefully and in other conventional areas we are working together and as always as you build trust and confidence in each other and working then this spreads in the military family and the expert family and it becomes more easy to do it Frank and I will disagree about this but I think it's idiotic that in an alliance you know that we have all of these boats that see all of the time I just don't understand it we are the only people that do it I don't understand why the rest of the world can sleep safe in their beds at night without them because we apparently can't and we have six at any given time or more now apparently I am told and I've always been told this by the experts that if you stop doing this then you'll have to get out of the game because this is the only way you can do it you have to keep these boats deployed all the time or you will not have an effective deterrent well that's fine because that means nobody else in the world has one nobody else in the world has one the Chinese don't have one why are we worried anyway so I'm being slightly facetious but this is also counterintuitive to everything else I was told by the military when I was the secretary of state for the feds deployment of capability deteriorates the capability training maintains it alright so we keep these people deployed all the time on the basis that that's the only way we can keep this credible deterrent we actually don't we don't keep the same people deployed all the time we keep boats deployed all the time and as far as I knew boats were in it right so we change the crews and we are having difficulty all of us in recruiting crews and training them to do this because it doesn't sit easily with people's lifestyle choices these days and some mariners are not going back and back and back so all of this I mean I think that part of the answer to staying in the deterrent business if that's what you choose to do given the challenges is to find ways particularly inside our alliance of genuinely doing what we talk about which is sharing responsibility and sharing that responsibility in a much cleverer way and it doesn't just involve agreements with France or the sorts of agreements we have with the United States but I think we ought to be smarter about how we deploy our capabilities so that we don't all have to have the maximum amount as if we were all independent nations because we're not effectively in relation to the way in which we work in this area despite the fact that we have to maintain a degree of independence about them but that's my view and I will continue to make that argument thus far I'm not winning the argument with Prime Ministers but eventually I think that I will coincide with costs to such an extent so we'll start to kind of wake up and smell the coffee about this Pandora's Box Yeah well Pandora's Box you know this is I have a personal answer to this question which will not surprise you having listened to me for a good part of this morning it's pretty wordy but it involves a kind of explanation of sorry it involves it involves taking all of the forms of devolution that there is that exist in the United Kingdom at the moment and creating as it were you know a kind of from minimum devolution to the maximalist devolution creating a spectrum of them you know and allowing the elements of the United Kingdom and I would prefer city regions for England as opposed to England in its own but this is a matter for the English people and not for me but I would prefer city regions that are beginning I think across the world to become interesting areas of regional development and identity I would offer to the component elements of the United Kingdom the opportunity to come into that spectrum wherever they wanted to with only two preconditions one is that once you come in you can go up but you can't come down right so if you go at a level you want to stay there at the very least and that you must take responsibility for local government locally however you determine how local government works you must do it locally now that would involve a much longer process than trying to resolve this by the end of November that the Prime Minister set himself the task of doing I think it's probably too late for me to get easier and suggest that maybe you should do that but that would be my preferred solution to it if you ask me to look into my crystal ball and tell you how the United Kingdom will look what was in 10 years time I think it will look pretty much like it looks now Betty Frank you may have a difference of opinion with Des on the nuclear challenge question you might I'm going to leave the pen doors box alone I don't want to comment on something that I'm not expert on the two questions I certainly agree with Des that there are opportunities for increased technical cooperation not only between the United Kingdom and France between the United States and the United Kingdom and France and I think that's important but I think that the question about reduced posture goes into two fundamental areas first whatever we do with the nuclear deterrent ought to increase stability not decrease stability and there is an ocean among Nick Clegg and his gang in the Liberal Democrat party that continues that sea deterrent should stop the United Kingdom that you send a boat to sea occasionally you send a boat to sea without warheads you could always rearm just in time well I'm in August 1914 comes to mind you don't get there just in time and as far as our ability to predict bad things happening it's not very good the Trident Alternative view which was produced by the government in London a year ago points that out anybody who wants to contest that can tell me how they predicted that the Russians would take over Crimea in 24 hours our ability to predict is not good or it's not yet good enough to be able to say that we should not be able to have a deterrent which is capable of responding at any time because that increases stability the notion that a French SSBN could provide a deterrent for the United Kingdom is just not on I mean the French Government I love the French nuclear force I love the people behind it I talked with the French a lot I started a dialogue between the Department of Defense and the French Ministry of Defense on nuclear deterrence 20 odd years ago the French government cannot even bring itself to sit in NATO councils on nuclear weapons neither the high level group nor the nuclear planning group so if you can't even sit in a NATO forum to listen to discussions there's no way that the French Government can allow a British submarine to provide deterrent cover for it and vice versa so that's that's just not on the other thing and I really I have to make the point there are other ways of maintaining nuclear forces on alert besides having a submarine at sea Russians have hundreds of ICBMs on alert right now the Chinese have ICBMs on alert Russian SSBNs are now once again on patrol desms so so because the UK has no nuclear bombers and it has no ICBMs the UK is going to maintain a deterrent 24-7 365 it has to have a submarine at sea and for the United States maintaining SSBNs at sea mitigates the prospect that a massive attack requires an immediate potential response and so I say again for US and UK and indeed French submarines at sea is stabilizing not destabilizing taking steps in the other direction would in fact undercut the stability which undergirds the relations that we have with the Russians and the other nuclear powers you know I mean I'm not I mean I'm just glad that we're having this conversation because it was off the table for a long period of time and I think we need to have and I'm also pleased that the arguments that used to be deployed are no longer being deployed because they're not credible so I think we we're not going to have this today but we need to have I think a conversation an intelligent conversation about this issue of crisis instability and I want to have it with particularly with Americans who by the use of ratcheting up and down their DEF CON standards have done the opposite for years the most recent example was when the North Korean young leader moved his missiles to the coast and threatened the United States it may not have been a credible threat in terms of his capability but I am told and I'm told by military leaders who take the credit for this that they deliberately flew dual capable aircraft near his borders to make it clear to him that there were nuclear weapons available to be deployed against him now that they claim credit and you could hear a deafening roar of that from this city when he stepped back that the very opposite dynamic was generated by that so I just I think this is not a true ism that the deployment of nuclear weapons leads to instability you know we have to I think we have to test this the same way as we would test all other arguments just because it's about nuclear weapons we don't have to stand back in awe of this you know we have on our boats at any given time nuclear weapons that may or may not be already alert but maybe at days of capability of using them we can move them up and down inside those boats in invulnerability underneath the sea and nobody knows what we're doing you know so there are great ways there are ways of doing all of this that could be to our advantage there is no definite correlation between the deployment of nuclear capability and increased instability and actually if you look at the United States history despite all of the challenges that this great country has gone through it has never once with nuclear weapons had to go to the highest level of death caught never once so you know I mean what is the possibility of us being in that environment in the future when we have not having lived through the whole of the Cold War the Cuban crisis and everything else never got to that stage I think we need to be more intelligent and engaging and honest about this argument and it starts here and I'm delighted we're having it I agree I'm delighted we're having it I'm delighted that Des made my point when he talked about SSBNs being at sea and invulnerable and you don't know what they're doing because that is exactly the point they're at sea and invulnerable and I would I think historically you're wrong on one that's point of war death con 3 which is maximum alert we have unfortunately gone to at least for the Cuban missile crisis and in the 73 Arab Israeli war but that's a historical footnote and the other thing is there's a difference as I think and this is part of the broader debate which I do welcome if we had no nuclear weapons on alert if the ICBMs were down and the SSBNs were all important and we suddenly started sending B-52s to fly over North Korea or fly near North Korea there'll be an entirely different situation than if we had the ICBMs on alert and the SSBNs at sea and this was just something else on top so anyway I do look forward to this continuation of a debate that Des and I have been happy for you you have just allowed us to have a great debate which we will continue we didn't even get to the rest of the world we didn't get to the Middle East we didn't have an in-depth conversation about Russia so clearly clearly we need to have I agree I think we should bring you back Lord Brown we are so delighted you are here in Washington so we can do this more often Mr. Miller thank you so much for your insights and colleagues please join me and thank you our two speakers for a very lively debate