Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Well right now a new word about any fresh effort to reduce the number of the world's deadliest weapons according to New York Times.
The president will use tomorrow night -- the union address to -- -- his push.
For further cuts to our nuclear arsenal.
Not everyone's convinced isn't time to do that -- Stephen -- is one of that is just fun.
Resistant to the vice president for national security affairs during the Bush Administration -- -- to cram in CEO and DC international advisories to Stephen.
You say any move to reduce our nuclear arms is in the state got a number of levels why.
But they get the first you have to look at dealing with -- out of the box -- brings back the unfortunate image of the president suggesting you have flexibility with Russia after reelection.
But also strategically you look at there hasn't been any significant consultation with allies has -- visible.
And you look at where the presidents -- foreign policy priorities ought to be.
Looking at responses at the turmoil of the Arab Spring dealing with Russia wouldn't seem to be -- what's natural first.
-- -- right now.
One of the arguments though for doing that's according to the New York Times is that it would save a lot of money.
If we don't have to keep these nuclear weapon is in store them and watch them.
That's gonna save us a lot of cash to -- the -- financial situation we're in right now what.
Why isn't that a good argument.
Like there's two points and -- on that front anyone ever -- would like to save cash.
But really we've had five trillion dollars added to our national -- over the recent years and maintenance of our nuclear strategic capability contributed nothing to that.
And the proposed cuts they say -- would reduce about a 120 billion in spending over twenty years.
Which is really a drop in the bucket compared to approaching twenty trillion in national debt.
The second is the cut into the intellectual.
And capabilities well that should be stimulating economic development research and development and apply technology.
Hitting these areas especially the research labs is a bigger blow than just numbers of weapons.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- In numbers don't matter when it comes in nuclear arsenal yelling need a few of these weapons to cause a lot of damage it's silly press -- To just want to sit on so many simply because we can.
Well -- so reasonable question to ask a lot of people have in their minds but you have to think of it perhaps in this way.
If someone was looking to attack the United States may -- not even with -- nuclear weapons -- with a lot of missiles and there are a lot of nations with a lot of missiles aimed at us.
If we want to -- even just have one.
Nuclear deterrent threat going the other way we have to have a lot of options and a lot of places -- survive that kind of strike and retaliate.
These are extreme circumstances.
But as we learn with unfortunate -- the world sometimes these extremes are necessary.
Sometimes it's hard -- entertains in these scenarios scary.
As they are but it does come down to national security and -- -- at times as we were just talking about it comes down to the bottom line Senator McCain was on FOX News Sunday he had an idea.
For our way eighteenth save money when it comes to the department of defense's play that -- We have a proposal that for every three -- federal retiree.
We hire only one that would take care of the sequestration problem that would take care of it.
-- are simple answers to many years of this problems that we can address the problem without raising people's taxes.
What do you think about apropos of well.
Let's potentially constructive but he's a lot more context of we have an enormous wave that's going to be leaving the federal work force.
Thanks to a population and employment boom back in the seventies and eighties.
We have to look really carefully at the intellectual needs the institutional knowledge they'll keep us safe.
And look specifically at fields that are stimulus -- -- the economy like applying technology the government has to the private sector.
But also to keep America safe making good use retirees is a good idea.
But not hiring very many people -- critical fields I think would be shortsighted.
It -- for a -- do you have a sense that that either side.
Has a solution to fix this problem both keep us safe but also make the necessary cuts.
Unfortunately I don't really I mean we do have these twin imperatives of economic growth and national security.
I would like -- to be a more fulsome dialogue and how to fill that missing middle I just don't see it right now and Stephen thank you so much great -- perspective on us.
Thank you very much.
Filter by section