Next Arms Race: Are We Ready?

the policy the president my own hair club heaps of time ol turtle this everything else he’s done with extensive experience in government and writing capacities of rules and academics that Hoover the American Enterprise number is it not the Heritage I bet so Andrews available and he wasn’t said you know interested in your Center I’d like to tell you about the work we’ve been doing an NPC and that’s what I don’t know if you saw first of all let me thank the Tanner center I think it speaks to the spirit of the solution center was so willing and able to pick up on my offer to come speak it was very short and this is more than a forum I’m an address so first of all thank you second what I’m going to do today is give a presentation it’s gone from a three year study that my Senate conducted on strategic nuclear weapons trends and nuclear energy trends for the next one or two decades I come to this I worked in an office and Pentagon call the office that assessment if if you even worked in that office and not thinking about what my half of the next 10 to 15 of 20 years you aren’t working very long that is all good and I worked on those issues there and in some some work with Nash apologies Council which also used to be trying to think about wanna see try to look backwards make the worst out of here investment language in any case recent Tatian reflects the findings of 15 security experience that I Commission security produce in-depth reports in their own a variety of game changing trends in teaching nuclear areas several of this overall efforts key findings have already been creating the last four months to the Defense Department of Congress intelligence this is going to be a truncated version under severe instructions not to go over an hour its original instructor but more like a half so we’ll try to keep within those limits but it will attempt I arrival to have to go deeper than the present popular treatment nuclear energy weapons trans I think that debate as we will see both station focuses a bit to a fault on what the US and Russia get on it should regarding nuclear weapons weapons materials now ensure the experiment to say that you know while these two nuclear superpowers are important to whatever might be doesn’t reduce the risk of nuclear weapons are required I think the takeaway from today’s presentation that like you have is that if we fail to pay more attention to the nuclear activities the states other than Russia worrisome nuclear competitions and possible abuse far more likely the next 20 years then they have been previous pit an additional take away would be that we need to pay more attention to these other states and that that will require us take steps that are quite different quite different in our current quality and this is a problem I like and reaching out to state policy planning staff people who know this we can’t do much about it because you’re under instructions with orders and it is

a frustration I might add for people working on the line because there are instructions to don’t look the controversy at not already impressed so something here for anybody no matter where the earth yeah you think with all the news about Iran and North Korea this more of this recommendation take away them coming up with about other countries say I think the competition on the facts you’d assume that it be unnecessary to dwell on this it’s in the newspaper you know just open or not you did like this until you looked at us and nuclear control policies and the current debate over these managed in each case you decided the debate and the US policy the matter of lesser nuclear weapons space and nations Amy the development options I think gets to be diplomatic little or no seriously kiss lips what is baked booklet wow what does any debate national debate on a complex of policy issues well it’s always reduced to a span during a question are you for or against tax right this works very well on television by the line blocks and there’s a reason why politics reduces things down these simple things I’m reminded though of something supposedly I slice the night’s not setting and that is it’s very important to simplify as much as possible but no more I am here to suggest leave on way that’s kind of life in sauce Jeremy would say over the top OTT now this question bits of only two possible answers in the case of nuclear weapons which is how its framed you’re either for them or you’re handsome yes or no let’s take the s side first those that say they’re against nuclear weapons are for moving illuminate as soon as prayer now analyst backing this position and there’s a whole crop of them because there’s been a ton of money thrown out from foundations to investigate literally I’d say some are like 10 million per year a lot of a lot of energy I think I got some thing at all they explain why a world without nuclear weapons is preferable to our current world how such a world would work and how he might prevent a regression or relapse into nuclear weapons competitions on such a little is G unfortunately there’s not so much detail given about how one gets states the hand of the weapon to them up instead it’s argued that well if the u.s. supports nuclear reductions and negotiates get Russia to do so other nuclear-armed states will fall into line for the deep reductions it will make it evident to everyone the nuclear weapons really are not all that valuable I militarily except possibly to deter the use it unfortunately this last observation is a little tricky and called a double edged if nuclear weapons after all really not all that valuable militarily yeah I wonder what the urgency is the room on the other hand if nuclear weapons really deter other states from using theirs we would see that they were quite valuable perhaps be resistant Lisa point this out to the young enthusiasts who was getting funded by he still cross-eyed and he’s having hard time with this because of the paradigms perhaps out of desire to have a fuller consideration of this last point rates it’s almost uniformly so that those that hold these views are pretty quick to move beyond this point and to argue that the real worried about in the weapons is not their possible use by States but rather by non-state actors might steal it or use it in a terrorist adventure I think this argument has had an incredible success and I have the cycle word incredible I served on two commissions spread out by a decade copper’s and the latter i was told my mission was to confounding with facts because the commission’s don’t generally

not various movies they’re the greatest dispose of something it’s very central to you but having done it twice I really don’t never want to serve justice but in any case we had someone on there quite famous academic very prestigious streams to protecting different party and he was all about nuclear terrorism he wanted to make this the centerpiece of our Commission’s threat assessment someone on the staff after I whispered years suggested we might take a look there than any specific intelligence about a threat of nuclear terrorism in the last 15 years now the centerpiece of that Commission’s work was shifted quite immediately to biological emphasis result in any case it has an incredible success our president as well as his Republican critics my tribe have supported the idea that these threats are the most eminent and dangerous my quote of all the security risks our country in the world on faces hence I don’t know if you’ve tracked that there was a meeting solely focusing on how to get countries to secure materials might be used for nuclear weapons purposes and there has been a sustained fascination for plastic remote by Democrats and Republicans with multi billion dollar homeland security programs that are designed to help prevent domestic nuclear terrorism some in controversial literally technically sound very expensive okay putting aside however that these threads may or may not be it is interesting that this alarming set of worries is married to a relatively optimistic view about the near inevitability more nuclear weapons so those that are against to do weapons of a deeper nuclear weapons cuts point to the progress to date for doing more take a look at our first they’re how it turns out that you’ve been watching the actual employee numbers for the last almost half century it’s quite dramatic if you look at Russia and you look at the United States the Russians have upwards of forty five thousand we had upwards 35,000 we’re now both easily by any measure deployments well by an order of magnitude now I have to add the reason these productions occurred primarily it’s not harmful it was because any accuracies were so great and improves so profoundly that you could hit what you wanted and not get with didn’t walk which was innocent they started to use conventional weapons for the nuclear weapons and reduce the yields and reduce the numbers military science has a sort of arms control attraction with its own this is a pretty strong endorsement of that idea so oops this is the future which keeps getting amended this was in 2011 this is this was the future which is will move down from these numbers to a thousand each but now there’s been some speculation in the press that the new goals are to go down perhaps to a thousand three hundred so somewhere in here this is pretty impressive the argument is why not now there is some discussion of things related to the corporation but it’s kind of self-congratulatory I mean it you here I know how many times have you ever gone to oh maybe I should we do I don’t know how many times I go into the gathering where someone has to say you know John F Kennedy wall you know he said there be 20 states by nineteen seven and it has a nap by the way he was giving a warning that we didn’t do certain things there could be that money and so few people who glory in this observation you know haven’t even read the high road you know I it’s quite amazing but they they say that and then they say well we’re on a North Korea or exceptional cases and they deserve all the parts special treatment and really if you take a look it’s not that bad the

US and Russia that’s which had installed into through weapons and then UK France have a nominal amount pakistan india north korea and we don’t even want to admit any and Cheyenne well we like to think they only need two hundreds and say they only have 200 and Israel we don’t talk about so this isn’t so bad it’s contained and you work this now this was a church this developed and state policy planning under the Bush administration but it’s been embraced by the Obama administration’s this is another way of saying everything’s fine you’re okay yeah there are countries that have nuclear weapons but dirt-eater in NATO or they’re not NATO allies that we’ve designated by law wonderful or they are not non-nato Ally setbacks in this room there’s strategic partners you can sense the sarcasm I mean this is the country that can’t bring itself to reduce its consumption of Iranian oil it’s a strategic partner well by the way that doesn’t mean we are friends but strategic partner who knows something more fun fairs Russia is a strategic partner and that causes certain partner China well at least we have the decency to say it’s a stable you don’t go as far as saying is this by the way it used to be a strategic partner under the Reagan research anyway the argument is well all of these partners really are spokes in a hub that centered on the US and everything else that might go on between them really doesn’t matter we’re doing fine we’re ok now this then you know brings us to what’s going on in other words if you have all this is context what do you conclude what you conclude is you the u.s. arms control agenda is the right point point this is the agenda growth this came from the fraud speech if you go to state policy planning and you suggest anything that’s not on this list they say that’s fascinating we’ll take it down for notes but we’re busy with this now the problem with this I won’t get into my substance opportunities I think they’re over rated in some respects to be physically to a country which does not address the Civil production of weapons usable matures at all which is a pitiable problem traveling in a fat let’s just observe one thing the Russians are not about to agree to another deep cut that is we don’t know if they will according to top advisor to the President and I quote for another three years if n well it’s reelected three it’s kind of shaping closed with a very comprehensive test ban phys material poetry assuming you could get Congress to that means you have the problem of other countries you have North Korea Pakistan India Israel Egypt Iran and a minimum at odds and they’re not about the route so again I think this suggests the takeaway threatening and push this presentation and that is that third parties other states that either going to get nuclear weapons have already happened sighs Russia may matter more than a fear of focusing now this then brings us to the folks that look at this agenda say oh that’s terrible idea they’re the ones are afforded mostly actually my friends now why do they argue the dear we should for nuclear weapons well because nuclear weapons have got the piece they are because if you push deeper cuts it can undermine our security alliances with and Turkey and others which in turn they argued would only increase the risks of war this argument like that of the zero proud as a certain appeal but I think it too is incomplete and its own way turns it ten years of the importance of nuclear reactors besides the key nuclear superpowers so what’s wrong with the argument first at some level we’ve got to know the nuclear weapons haven’t

returned wars I mean what was the Korean Vietnam I mean that didn’t work out turn the argument would suggest not only that the countries with nuclear weapons didn’t really feel all that Detroit and helping out pretty substantially in having AIDS sent to keep these countries Fighting’s so I don’t know maybe you have to adjust the urgency well it prevents major Wars the argument is well Korea was just the police amount now you’re north green a million of you don’t live in it’s pretty major but you know this is called the rough justice of analysis he said well it wasn’t me so problem here though is proof of why something didn’t happen like a major war has got to be essentially speculum I mean here to here how do you prove the causation of something didn’t happen by the way this is the problem of non-cooperation histories how you describe the history of non-cooperation the success rate of depending things from happening I you know by the way he wrote a book trying to tackle from the best of intentions alright but there’s a second bigger problem and that is that you know allowing the nuclear weapons may have matured some Wars what do you make of this observation if they did deter and this is desirable with more nuclear weapons that are more advanced to turn more by the way the answer to that if you believe your for nuclear weapons is whisper yes so let’s resume the through testing don’t acid let’s see if we get more of these things but if they’re good for us what about states that lack such arms wouldn’t their acquisition help deter Wars as well but it is a whole academic community that argues more might be better and that they’re basically in the law lethal more from this group as well at the very least wouldn’t the further proliferation of weapons to our friends be divided now at this point you should be business I mean you know maybe but the assumption operating here is that nuclear deterrence whatever it is will work perfectly as it supposedly did Russia problems without but again you can’t prove on the other and then it will work with every other noodle quick what happens state and the lack of nuclear weapons accidents that have resulted in actual explosions in the lack of the tears of the day the theft that’s been very significant will continue forever and I I refer to this as a problem in the long run this has to be a bet against the house you might win but the odds are really stacked against you I mean I think this is the reason why the face listen to the debate teach some quality out of both sides but I think in the end there is even in this side a key unspoken assumption that they that the smaller nuclear weapons States at states eat your development of weapons like Iran or what they used to call in the Cold War lesser included threats that if you can deter Russia the largest nuclear weapons state you’re safe against all the others and so there really is a focus again on Russia even on the other side of the debate now if you look backwards a half century row and for one or two decades I think it’s quite likely that these lesser parties will actually grow importance and will determine what the US and Russia of themselves will do or not do with the art of the nuclear arms capabilities let’s go through these charts well this was the world when a half century I thought I’d just say well what happened 50 years ago it turns out it’s a good good thing to play with because in 61 we had the Berlin crisis in June and there was some talk and discussion by using nuclear weapons at that time the UK had 50 nuclear weapons France had zero but it had actually tested the one and a half brush ahead about 400 n we had about 24,000 pounds so that’s a world that is different than today that is the world that this is 61 we’re dominant there’s really you can barely see the 50 on the top where we are now is what I would call a more compressed nuclear situation which ironically gets more compressed as we reduce the number of nuclear weapons we deploy as it is now we’re no longer the dominant one Russia and where we relied on nuclear weapons to make up for our conventional deficiencies now Russia is

using nuclear weapons to compensate for what it perceives as its weakness and advanced conventional military capability is visibly NATO and China in any case this is a different world and that is a major change over 50 years the other big difference from 50 years ago I’m just bringing you up to now why would these trans women get one tends to show you what the trends have been the last you know in 1961 the ability of the country will ramp up a larger Arsenal quickly or to break out and get nuclear weapons quickly by exploiting civil stockpiles that have vanilla military stockpiles that actually turn into weapons was essentially zero because everything we have in the way of separation tum IAM highly duranium was put into a weapon immediately now this is not the case because there’s lots of plutonium and lots of highly enriched uranium that has been taken out of weapons that was produced for reserve capability during the Cold War not weapon and it’s just hanging around not only that but there’s a lot of civilian material in the case of Japan 2,500 crude weapons worth of plutonium on their soil that’s a pretty sporty food they haven’t done they could this is the world in which many countries could ramp up India for example has 1300 weapons worth who reckons worth two separate boots on you sitting around there pointing to Pakistan saying don’t make us do it now in 98 when I tested they claim they tested a weapon using this reactor great whether they did or didn’t it’s less interesting than that they climbed it this is sort of a different world again from 61 and as a trend that will get I think arguably worse if nothing is done then we have the matter of missiles in 1961 the number of countries that had nuclear-capable missiles as defined and i’m using a radial load standard the missile technology control regime this is a effort that i have a privilege overseen pensive teeth and it covers missiles that can carry a thousand roughly 500 kilograms pull over a thousand pounds which is what you need to deliver a prude nuclear device like a parachute device 300 kilometers now in 1961 you had two countries that have those that was it to now you have 27 and on the rise and they include christmas things which are very hard to defend against not the ballistic missiles are ready ok next headache establish nuclear Civil programs now why would that be a military well it turns out great britain france the united states russia india arguably north korea all had their plutonium production machines initially connected to the electrical grid do I have to remind anyone of the grande it’s a peaceful nuclear program these things also serve as a cover for covert activities that definitely worrisome with regard to weapons so 60 13 countries now 31 now bless you feel complacent the 31 is okay because actually most of those are in the european union or europe so it’s not replaced as it sounds hang on I redacted the world nuclear association is a very enthusiastic with me they like the clear power they come up with some stupendous number of additional states in the next 20 years that will have a larger reactor I kind of trimmed out a lot of their enthusiasm to just those things like they had reason to believe there was serious activity it’s still not a very nice picture what look where these

states are the Middle East scary places by the way scary because if you look in the last 20 years or 30 30 how many times have large research reactors and power reactors most of which have been safeguarded when I dat international inspectors bid him in a military strike 13 times that’s before they produce anything and it wasn’t just Israel and it wasn’t just the United States it was Iraq and it was Iran firing reactors this is one reason i’m not a big fan of having atoms for peace in the Middle East it’s it kind of insults one’s memory of history to think that’s a real practical I did by weight aye sanam big fan you wanted to have a piece reactor between Egypt and Israel I couldn’t think of something more misguided but this has a certain hold on our festival now let’s see here okay now you could argue well don’t worry as long as Russia and China the United States the emphasize the importance military importance of the others will get the message and they won’t they won’t go see the foolishness now that may be but what’s interesting is this picture I’ll show you another picture this is a facility that can hold 60,000 people for several months in Russia and he said oh well that is a cold war yeah problem is they started investing heavily after the volume and the Russians every you know also have dropped their no first use policy and they are relying more on the weapons under planning to deal with China and they go in the near fall that’s not something that’s going to be easy to work with for example they have a lot of tactical nuclear weapons I don’t think they’re going to give them up but if they do it ain’t going to come cheap this is not a group of people that think the same way as a lot of people here this one caused a lot of problems this is a picture of what is a very large tunnel system consisting according to the People’s Liberation Army announcements since 2009 of 3,000 miles by the way this was not handed up you have this image of Cultural Revolution the very best Austrian tunneling equipment high-tech done by a handful very highly trained second artillery Italian technicians at this work you can see the air conditioning work the lighting ways of illuminating moisture there is a rail line on here and they have we’ve seen rail mobile nuclear missiles that can fitness now why is that of importance well first of all it suggests would like the Russians the Chinese are not persuaded that it won’t be the glue war but whatever reason it could be about the least of which is historically threatened china blue people utilize and so they think located that message but beyond that it turns out that the driver of our estimates of how many of their weapons they may have isn’t the amount of ism terribly the amount of physical Cheerilee that is in fact a lot more than what we White Mountains no we go by the number of observed missiles have been deployed 3,000 miles what do they claim the state purpose of this is to hide the deployment of missiles and nuclear weapons now say what you will you know some people who said all this proves Elding ten feet tall with other peeps out you want to talk to these folks if I out thing I’ll tell you why look at this remember this was the throat ahead well if you go down from a thousand to three hundred you’re writing the bandwidth of the most conservative estimates of where everybody else is right now if however those tunnels are indicative of what

China may have or will get you here in trouble possibly now now one argument that is made is well maybe they have 3,000 equivalents because by the way it’s conceivable with the fizzle materiality think they have we don’t really know exactly what manner that they could perhaps make that the argument is well one PLA said that they need a mile in between each missile in the tunnel to make sure it doesn’t get knocked out so you have 3,000 miles 2000 yeah I mean it’s very crude well the arms trophy went nuts liners for obvious reasons because this is like tipping the cow oh my god now we got to worry about the Chinese how’re we ever going to get to any games with the new go asian so they bad mathis look but what they do the best analysts this crew said they couldn’t possibly have any more conceivably than 1660 that’s gold younger that’s a lot so you can see that these other countries start to become very important to the future of any arms negotiation military that we in our Alan’s they’re no longer just the lesser included problems you put everything together that’s the picture you get by the way I’m very proud of this this is 12 years old I keep using I never change this is the world of proliferation countries that could get nuclear weapons within two or three years and countries that may have them that I showed to one of my pocket friends he said well Henry that’s the reason why we just have to be more militarily prepared my return today ham was look we’re not gods that’s 1914 in the making except the ammunition will be nuclear you do not waltz into that they can you brave it through diplomatic or military science that’s beyond this I’m not a very religious person but that oughta make you humble not go nutty you say it do ok I’ll close with the good what do you do this is a much longer discussion I could go for easily another hour but roughly I think what you need to do is you really do have to clarify this question of China luckily enough I think Russia might be interested in working with us on that I’m not a big fan working with the Russians but here’s something you might be able to work with the Russians on because they have stated that they want to pull out of a treaty that fans missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons from 500 250 500 kilometers is called the intermediate nuclear forces treaty time entry / remember they said well either we got to get China n where we’re going to get out now I don’t know about that now but the idea get it shine in I like that by the way the US Navy it’s very keen because those missiles the chinamen are all capable of hitting the bases in western Pacific and her friends in India if they didn’t exist it would DNA see the world but you want to get more clarity with China and without i think in addition we need to do harms control restraints whether there missiles the time kind of favorable on focusing more on than just nuclear weapons that could be forgotten and this’ll matter particularly the ground launch was that that you have good command control that you can use of prompt first rate i would focus on in any case when you do these things i think here i start inviting the thinking about someone other than Russia lots of lots of candidates I put the names of their Pakistan China North Korea that may be straight voltage by the way our official policy on North Korea’s they don’t have nuclear weapons literally a briefing that said they have nuclear weapons that really put out how to be redacted to the state perfect so we don’t want to have them because we want to make sure that we bring them back into a state where they done that it’s kind of denial thing Oh the second thing is I think we’ve really got to tighten up the nuclear rules on civil exports we’ve got to make sanctions automatic for violators of inspections in the NPT country neutral we’ve got to make the conditions for sale much tougher and i would say you got four square maybe new

we did this in our last agreement the United Arab Emirates there’s a lot of controversy in Washington about whether we should stick with it oddly not bipartisan support continue to do it State Department and therefore the administration not sure what they want to do hold story there and I think the last one is we need to do more to reduce all states access to a production of nuclear weapons usable materials we need to be we don’t recycle and we don’t make finally rich Iranian I don’t think anyone else should either and we need to reduce our access and everyone else’s access Twitter stock rods they have ways of doing this these vectors of initiatives if you will are very different they also suggest when you fail what we’re going to have new military and puts you in a very good position those and more that ends my grief I’m afraid I’m Way over but i did finish because worse we have I would say several five minutes or so there’s another class that’s coming in the door yes well increasingly I’m becoming good in stockings I tend to it great you know people ask me are you guests for against nuclear weapons and my answer the standard answer and you like this I think is well we disinfect nuclear energy at least large reactors and nuclear weapons i think i would definitely think that would be worth the candle but i wouldn’t stop there I point out quickly I would also get rid of television now my wife immediately jets although now we watch Netflix so maybe if I the problem is you don’t get extra points for being right on these things there’s a lot of emotional resistance to the locus of your side I say this is somebody who actually serious about money different television and knows sec although by the way I watch a lot less that’s enough to do this larger logo as you know what are you okay it’s not a scratch in my way you shouldn’t assume that likely someone hasn’t given at the office on this point if you go to mind outside most of the work explaining why this stuff is not really not only North other countries but for us is on Edwards so I’m on board I’m just telling you haven’t exactly broken out the champagne on victory lap dance it’s a hard oh I think at a minimum the point that there are security risks with this stuff that are so great that we should not been subsidized in when it’s not economical is the police beginning of common sense i’m at a hard time getting people will focus on but that is arguing by the way if you do argue that I think nuclear power is hard old-growth hard road up because it’s very very very very expensive prepared so far in final agreement okay so essentially this was bad this focusing on a nuclear State campus but my question is yeah that’s what I heard in terms of your presentations my question is si so when I heard is something that’s in your heart ok so the roof which is what happens to the the state actor so you mentioned at the beginning and if we’re in here or do you not consider them I think I think for the moment that’s a convenient way of not focusing on what Margaret I’m not saying it’s not an important i was once asked what do you think the odds are going to being used next five years well that’s the point out well you can’t do probabilities above events that have never occurred by the way my friend from

that Eastern school when I said this out loud not because he had put a number on which is totally criminal illicit intellectual activity but I think that it is more probable than used to be but very far out of the bell curve of things that you attended to because the things you need most do the deal with that have to do with state same and by focusing on the mass you know the ski mask operative in Peoria it’s going to blow up a city you really draw tremendous money which is not so important but the tremendous political attention away from things that are going on so you rated which I can tell you 15 years from now are going to explode and they’re easy to nip in the bud now each of you an ounce of attention that is that I mean I don’t want to eat live and say hold on I don’t worry about I mean one of my critiques of my crew the Republican hawkish knew that if the weapons are good is that they go too far too far and dismissing what might happen in no longer which is most likely scenario is that you said which comes from a country the Percy stronger is durable in the consequence right using 11 well there’s that and you human history is is peppered with characters Napoleon Hitler listen yahoo who are really quite ingenious at one level but they it carried away length and three things out quite so and so you have that problem and I think you’re right you know that bit this is faith based policy making I mean you know if you do not believe in my church you can go to the other one that says we’re doing fine or will be better don’t worry I can’t prove my case other than to peel a little bit to your fears and a lot to these trends and figures to suggest let’s focus on this because your point it doesn’t cost very much to address this if you have to do dramatic you wait long enough and then what you have is your first when I point out some of these things Middle East it’s not a problem when you wait long enough and you have something like Iran and say well there’s no solution after acceptance let’s get out of that that Bueller cycle if it isn’t very much effort that’s required did that things about by the way I do have practical experience and I actually partially got a medal for dipping several programs turning them mostly I got the work is a fireman they found out it wasn’t true with something said about me so guilty you know by the way anyway gets a medal you if there’s a story it’s more interested in what they talk about that does that we’ve got another class come on you know we’re we have shoe runs in tour schedule on short notice and I’ll effect first of all about that design first purpose