Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- our shared future.
And the unprecedented opportunity to meet.
Shared challenges together is what brings me to salt.
Over the next two days under president Lee's leadership.
We'll move ahead with the urgent work of prevent that nuclear terrorism.
By securing the world's nuclear materials.
-- this is an important part of the broader comprehensive agenda that I want to talk.
We -- about to that.
Our vision of a world without nuclear weapons.
Well that's -- president speaking in Seoul South Korea a little more than a year ago.
At that time in the United States was pursuing a policy to achieve a world without nuclear weapons and as we know it as of now that's still -- the policy of this administration.
-- editorial in the Washington Post this weekend -- RI because of that in it several prominent policy makers.
Say the president's policy and nuclear weapons is dangerous threats and they argue that with threats from Iran and from North Korea.
And making a no nukes policy is unrealistic and should be -- thought one of the authors -- that article Frank Gaffney is joining us the president of the center for security policy and former assistant secretary of defense.
In the Reagan administration also with this is just in Sione president of plowshares -- and the author of -- scare.
That -- history and future of nuclear weapons we talk to -- a few times about disarmament when it comes to.
Nuclear weapons nice have you both today -- pleasure thank you frank tell us a little bit about.
The main argument -- your editorial why do you think that this rhetoric they know new policies dangerous.
Well it's -- we're having this conversation today this would this whole idea of ridding the world of nuclear weapons would be -- -- classic.
April fool's hoax if it hadn't been going on for so long and if it weren't so serious and that's for basically three reasons you cannot -- this invent.
Nuclear weapons especially when their technology is in the hands of countries like North Korea and Iran.
You I think.
Even if you could somehow -- would find that a world without nuclear weapons is actually a more dangerous world it's one that we've experienced before we had to.
Cataclysm it's in the course of a world without nuclear weapons and I don't think we wanna go back to that -- finally the question of whether or not.
Just trying to get this is cost free or even desirable thing I think it's been proven by the North Korean crisis of the moment to be.
When the United States signals its desire to.
Which President Obama by the way is doing he's leaving from in front in this case trying to get the rest of the world to follow but nobody else seems to be fumbling at all in this respect.
When we do that I think it engenders a concern on the part of our allies and it's certainly.
Emboldens our enemies -- -- reasons I think this is a hoax at best and at worst it's really an invitation to disaster.
So a lot of -- there at the reasons there Joseph and I if you could pick up off of any that you'd like -- district draw a little bit of attention to franks -- last point.
But he talks about North Korea and he -- listen you know we can't get our enemies on board with this no -- policy then why she week.
But I was president Kennedy who said we have to abolish the weapons of -- before -- abolish us it was Ronald Reagan who said that his hope was to eliminate nuclear weapons.
From the face of the earth and Ronald Reagan started to do something about it.
He slashed the US nuclear arsenal by like 50%.
Getting the Soviets to come down the same way.
Bush cut -- another 50% George W.
Bush cut and another 50%.
President Obama hasn't made that many cuts but now he's listening to his military.
They say we have far more nuclear weapons -- we need and they're expensive.
The money we spend a nuclear weapons is taking money away from the troops particularly as congress starts fifth cut cut the US national defense budget.
So -- so what you when you look at North Korea they have maybe two or three nuclear weapons baby as many as ten.
How many do we actually need it's hard to imagine how many do we only Gabelli we hang our hat you can imagine that we might need -- Fifty you know -- -- it which using fifty would be a catastrophe unprecedented in history.
Maybe you want to be safe and say 500.
We have 5000.
Nuclear weapons that's what the military is telling the president you can cut that by a thousand maybe 15100.
And still satisfy all our national securities.
Needs and save hundreds of billions of dollars in the process.
So frank and Joseph were safe and we have what we -- -- and I save a little money.
And got the -- that we don't need listen to our military is to assess.
Joseph didn't respond to single one of the objections that I've raised about his objective which is to rid the world of nuclear weapons and -- Worked for President Reagan on nuclear weapons policy and I can tell you.
We are living today.
On the legacy of president Reagan's commitment.
To rebuild our nuclear deterrent we haven't done much of that sense and this is the problem is.
What Joseph -- accomplish with this strategy of denuclearization.
The United States.
In the hopes of everybody else will follow of course is.
Couldn't creating conditions under which we have weapons that are simply obsolete.
And not as safe not as reliable not as effective as they need to be.
And -- -- with a military I'd be concerned not simply about the numbers of weapons that we have but the quality of weapons we have and the ability to deter.
Countries that may behave as erratically as the north Koreans -- be having at the moment.
But that's a job I -- I think they need to be worrying about and don't seem to be as well as they should it.
If I could have been at this very moment frank on that point though when -- argue with you making editorial is that having nuclear weapons deters liberation but we have seen even though we have nuclear weapons it hasn't deterred.
Liberation and all we've -- North Korean -- up -- worried about Iran now so how much of a deterrent is it really have all these weapons.
Well I think the point -- making as we've had relatively little.
Nuclear proliferation during a period when the United States maintained a very strong very robust very credible deterrent.
Only for its own protection but for those of our friends and allies in the here's the real problem.
Is as people have begun to see that we're not serious about this following this global zero idea of the president's particularly.
They have begun to calculate maybe they better get their own and I think what you're going to see it as this proceeds.
Perhaps in places like South Korea and Japan and Taiwan in.
Who knows the Middle East Saudi Arabia and so on is going to be more and more people deciding they need to have their own deterrence because they can't rely on ours that's a formula for not only greater proliferation.
But for global instability.
I shouldn't think that any of us -- one.
And say job on this idea of you know speaks softly and carry the exec who -- the world is getting more dangerous.
Is -- something in the symbolism.
-- having a lot of nuclear weapons and just being more ready more prepared.
More -- -- lack of better term than anybody else in the world.
Well frank is so eloquent in in stating his rather extreme position -- Angelo can't characterize them my nice -- -- -- compliment I think.
Thank you -- nobody is talking about unilateral disarmament nobody is talking about getting rid of our nuclear weapons anytime soon nobody is talking about.
The nuclear force we used to have 35000.
Nuclear weapons so did the Soviets.
We've cut that went down to about 5000 now.
And we see the Russians coming down the same way this is still many many times more than the other countries in the world.
I have in their relatively small nuclear arsenals.
So you can see the argument is we can go further down together verifiable mutual steps step by step reducing -- and when we do that.
We build up the international cooperation you need to prevent new states from getting -- not to convince.
Key on yawn that they should follow -- but to convince the countries around North Korea to continue to pressure to contain and eventually roll back that.
It's two sides of the same -- you reduce your bill that's -- just not work a lot operation.
You build up the international cooperation you create the conditions -- that we do think there were fewer countries have nuclear weapons now in the worth thirty years ago.
-- countries trying to get him and an -- is not moral.
-- his true.
We didn't -- there's only North -- anybody describe just -- and a half a dozen that are that are going to go nuclear Joseph unfortunately because Lincoln -- are helping to create I don't believe that's true -- usually -- -- -- -- -- standing and we were absolutely yeah it does have.
Yeah we have but that debate to happen live on our air so over gonna leave it there for now thank you generally -- have you to -- back because it's a good conversation -- April fool's -- well.
-- that's -- gets CN threatening.
This is the only boy here right hey this report is right thank you for having no elections saying you very much -- -- -- my pleasure.
Filter by section