board is to speed up the development of tests, treatments, and the vaccine keeping you up to date with what's happening on the ground in the ward and in the lab. now, more than ever, the world needs w. h. making a healthier world for you. everyone. a diverse range of stories from across the globe from the perspective of our networks, germany on al jazeera. ready the news. hello, i'm mary. i'm new mazda in london with all of our main stories now president joe biden as welcome the 1st pilot of afghans who worked alongside american forces in the united states. 221 people on board the flight and were taken by boston for the

military base and the state of virginia. so far, $20000.00 have applied for special immigrant visas and what's been a long and complicated process. many of them are interpretive, who are considered a major target for the taliban. we were fighting for the country that we have never seen it, even in our dream and all of us, we have a us flag on our shoulder. and we were fighting for 2 years for the flood, and we thought we were american, we considered our self as an american because we were, we were serving this country. our diplomatic editor, james bade, has more on this now from the african capital capital. the security situation is not going the way the african government or the americans would like. you might well have interpreters who are in parts of africa, song who would find it very hard to get to cobble. let me tell you about the latest

on the security situation. around can the ongoing flashes in helmand also in the south, the neighboring province to canada. clashes that we understand there's been as strikes again, we believe those might well be u. s. s strikes, but the real focus of attention in recent hours is actually on the west of afghanistan and iraq, the regional capital, the part, the big city in afghanistan closest to iran. well, we understand the taliban. i've been pushing around herat in a number of places, a number of different security instance. and most worryingly, i think, for the african government, according to local reports, is this fighting on the road between herat city and herat airport? we believe the airport is currently closed because of that fighting. we're also hearing the un compound which is on the road from the city to the airport has come on the attack. i'm hearing from local sources that no un stuff had been killed or injured. but there were guards working for the african government around that

compound. and there are reports that some may have been taken injured. the reports were taken hostage. there also reports that some been injured and i've got one report that at least one has been killed in are all the top stories. unicef is one that more than 100000 children. integra could suffer life threatening acute malnutrition in the next 12 months and less 8 is allowed into the region. the children find the saying half of all pregnant and breastfeeding women and to ry are acute, malnourished, leaving them. and that babies, prior to sickness fighting between the european government and the 10 grow people's liberation front, intensified as a t p. last captured much as we can last month. tens of thousands of people have been displaced. food stores have been looted without sufficient humanitarian assistance. child malnutrition will rise beyond the already alarming levels leading to increased risk of mortality among normal population unit that as ditch dispatching supplies now to meet new emergency needs in

a fire and i'm horror and long soon rains of triggered more line slides and swept away bridges. and roads in northern india at least 7 people have died in this landslide and hemisphere pradesh say, well than 200 missing and in the indian administered territories of german kashmir . this was the damage cause when a bridge collapsed and the roads caved in. 160 people have died across the country in the past week. can years extending its nighttime curfew and binding old public gatherings as it struggles to control a surgeon cove. at 19 cases, the health minister is wanting the hospital so overwhelmed, and people who fall sick won't get to bed. kenya has some form of it's had some form of cuff you since march last year. and the court of ours crisis, nealon picks, house countries growing, worrying japan's expanding state emergency to for more areas, as well as keeping restrictions in place in tokyo until the end of the month. i'm

going to say she does. suga says the virus is spreading after the unprecedented rate and it's mostly because of the delta variance. we get into us politics in the bottom line, not is with steve comments coming up next. oh i hi, i'm steve clements and i have some questions for the countries that have nuclear weapons . how many is too many? and are we witnessing the start of a new arms race? let's get to the bottom line. ah,

just one nuclear warhead can wipe out almost half a 1000000 people. yet the united states and russia have thousands upon thousands of these weapons. and 7 other countries are armed with nukes as well. since the weapons created the threat of mutual assured destruction, that's where any country using them basically destroy itself and its enemy at the same time. maybe they made some sense during the cold war between the united states and the soviet union, or today with the current cold war between pakistan and india. these days, the 3 biggest nuclear power, the us, russia, and china, are all upgrading these very old arsenals. they claim they want global stability and fewer nuclear warheads, but their actions really say something different. arms control talk seem to be out of style these days, the race is to create usable, nimble nukes that can be concealed and launch from anywhere. think about that for a 2nd. so are we witnessing a new nuclear arms race? today we're talking with former congressman john tierney, who is the executive director of the center for arms control and nonproliferation.

and jacob halbrook, the editor of the national interest, one of the nation's leading journals on current and international affairs, is great to have you both here. john, let me start with you and ask you, you know, just a simple question. you know, how many nukes has too many nukes in his america beyond where it should be? well, some of us will tell you that any new committee do, given the danger that they present human, kind on that. but let's assume that people are still in the mindset of the parents wanting to have enough nuclear weapons so that anybody else who use them or has them would not use them against them for fear of being wiped out themselves. in that case, you know, in 2013, the military command, united states, that we do have committed 1050. you both united states and russia are allowed to have under the new stock re, is about higher than we actually need even for the parents purpose. so putting the rest of the military on statements. yes, we have too many by about a 3rd,

and every one that you have more than you actually need. the terrorist is a dangerous threat. any instance of miscalculation or a mistake, which happens more often has happened more often and we'd like to believe. and well, we don't want to believe that it's a very probable situation or iris in any leader. the country would actually use them purposely. there's always a prospect, although very, very unlikely. but the miscalculation of the state, but i think things that we always have the concern. well, let me frame it just 11 further element to this john. before i jump over to jacob, the, you know, we've got russia, which is a big proprietor of the nuclear weapons seen. and russia has been very aggressive in the world. we see china not quite up to that level, but trying is there to we have nations like iran that may very well want to be a nuclear power. that's in part what the g p o a and that iran nuclear deal was about was trying to seduce iran onto

a different course with economic investment. of course we have north korea that would love to find a way to, to get something for the threat of putting warheads on ballistic missiles. so the real world out there is complex and i understand that. but when it comes from the arm arms control community, do they think there's been a change in the international terrain where the world is far more dangerous today? and so that some of these investments in nuclear weapons are appropriate well known as the 2nd question, most people in the community don't believe that more or a more powerful, more targeted to be a weapons or the answer to this. but yes, the 1st part of that where they think that there's been a change in the atmosphere. former secretary of defense, bill perry very clearly said that he thinks it is dangerous, more dangerous. now that it was in that is because people are talking to each other way that they used to, even in the worst times starting with reagan globe across the countryside to talk

to each other and have ongoing discussion. so low the temperature to make sure that they just think it was calculations leading to a conflict to use nuclear weapons. and since the united states went on the path of trying to have missile defense, again, prospect that have been out and out by the missile treaty, other countries as well, what it really works. it doesn't, but there's one of those work. and the only that we would have to overwhelming. so lots of data to upgrade and increase the number of letters that we have. so that is a little bit of a racial and just the united states is seeking to modernize is able to increase the numbers in style weapons. what is all of the other nice states and then have nuclear weapons we doing some follow up later on that. and i know we'd like to blame it on russia or china. we have to do it. we've been doing it for a long time, and they are now doing the to, and it was respect to russia. they want us back when the united states pulled out of the abm treaty by george

w bush. that it was the lead to them having an observation, doing new types of weapons, and was just to give them powerful weapons. jacob convene intellectually, some of the best writers in think here is that i know when it comes to thinking about the broad dimensions of national security. and i'm interested in where current thinking is and where your thinking is on america's nuclear arsenal. it's aging parts of it. they are there. there have been discussions as i talked about, about how to make, you know, potentially, you know, in the last administration making more usable nukes, which was, you know, a shocking moment for me. but where is your thinking about how our nuclear arsenal and stockpile in our layers of defense should be shaped, facing the threats that america has? well, america has in many ways driven the arms race. i mean, we are, are still remain the only power. it has actually use nuclear weapons on another country, which we did in japan, in 1945 to try and speed up the end of the war. the genie is out of the bottle,

particularly since the obama administration led the attack on libya. aftermarket off gave up voluntarily as nuclear weapons, other smaller powers. now like iran and north korea, realize that you insure their own survivability and to deter potential american attack. nothing is better than a movie or weapon, or when you get to the big power level, russia, china, the united states, it appears to me that we are, in fact, since the bomb administration approved this massive upgrade of the american nuclear force, we are triggering a counter reaction, i'm not saying that the russians wouldn't be pushing ahead anyway. but there are lots of questions here to go right back to the genesis of the cold war. our is the amount of money that we're spending worth it on ease nuclear weapons. we're spending money on weapons, they're never supposed to be used in the 1st place. and so far to get to your some

title, which is brilliant. so far, nuclear weapons have kept the peace. the scary thing is george cannon among others pointed out who is the author of the cold war doctrine is one of the deterrent doesn't deter, the consequences are so catastrophic that they're intolerable. we have shrunk our nuclear arsenal. pulling out of the abm treaty was a mistake, we should be looking to downsize, not to increase our nuclear weapons. john tyranny, where are you on the subject of putting missile defense on the table? in negotiations, you look at missile defense, a stabilizing, and a responsibility to protect americans, or do you look at as a d, stabilizing investment? i'll try to make the st. steven study to do 1st of all we, we initiated that we circulating the signatures on or whatever. so our position is very clear that we think that the abandonment of the a b m 3 and the ballistic missile treaty was

a severe mistake. it came about because russian united states and realized that as long as somebody attended that they had missile defense of the other side would have no choice. but to their mind to increase the number of weapons they had to leave. the overwhelmed that purported the fence and became global john reagan and succeeding presence of both parties. all realize what that's ludicrous, we need to limit the number of defense that you can have or capital. and eventually treaty ends up just one site to be, protect my site if it gets assistance, the work which on the credibly. and then the saw people side having weakness and treaties that reduce the number of movie weapons in the world. so a long came george w bush and his crew, and they pulled the treaty and then you saw rush say, well then we're going to have the new types of weapons we do because we can't expose ourselves. if your system ever did were the means you can strike us 1st and

with no capacity like that because you know the defense. so a, we think it encourages the 1st like, but be in the is the only thing we can do depends we have many, many what you have. so then you then are still hesitant to come after us. so we spent a very destabilizing factor and you wouldn't want missile defense anyway, even if it did work because of those reasons. but the more credible part of this is $400000000000.00 kind of develop a system since i was that has never crude. and so credible it is reliable, it doesn't work, it's only past 99, making a lot of 19 tests, even those test. so there's not realistic world conditions. and just it's not gonna work out. we physically can't work people with hearings on businesses, we can in and say this idea of having a system that work is more the ology and it is technology. but we're spending more

more money in contactors and making more and more profits. profits receives moving dollars, directions, other destabilizing stack, your issue to begin with. and secondly, wasn't really the work. so yes, we should put it on the table. it doesn't mean you have to give up or whatever sale discussion and listen to russia's concerns about it. and then expect that they'll have to put some issues on the table that we have concerns. otherwise, the way that we get these patients started again and essential that we have, you know, i think the other side of the argument, i wanna jump to jacob on this would be, you know, i think some people would say we have in fact shown that the technology is there, they can say elements of missile defense is what israel has received from us in iron dome. and they've shown inability to, to intercept me. i've just representing the other dimension of the argument and that they look at this with our to see, say, well in mixing up. well, just tell you what they said young was the missile. yeah, no, i know the system that is not long range missile or whatever like that where. right

. so a whole different matter. different atmosphere, right? different testing, right. well the better the icbm this all depends. yes. but let them make sure that we don't let them know. i understand. i say that that's one of the arguments they make. but they also make the argument that what we have today is not enough. and they're, they're advocating for something called the next generation interceptor, which would move from these, you know, that would involve space and other dimensions of this to kind of do it. so the tech not net technology they say is rolling forward. but jacob, what are your thoughts on this issue? because, you know, i was very caught in the way you just frame the challenge that we let the genie out of the bottle. that there's, that there is this, you know, craziness if you will, and an insanity to sort of looking where you go logically with this. but once the genie is out of the bottle, how do you get it back? not how do you get it back, but how do you manage it in such a way that you don't end up in an endless cycle? you know, when you look at the amount of money as john tierney just said about the investment

in it's something that many people think is while the technology. so i'm just interested in what you think when it comes to missile defense when it comes to investments. when it comes to modernization, how do you get the equities? right? so that doesn't basically take over the entire pentagon budget, or that you don't end up in a slippery slope to the kind of horrible conflict you just talked about. well, you, you look what has fundamentally happened is that a regime that with codified during the cold war has frayed and maybe even snapping. we had regular consultations with moscow. we had the open skies treaty. we continually tried to push for more regulation on the competition. now when you had the george w bush administration, you had the unilateralism that police, the united states could do it all on its own. we didn't need to have any treaties with either great powers. we could just behave as we pleased. now, joe biden,

i think there is some good news here. joe biden is pushing for better relations with russia, and it appears to center on arms control. so i think, you know, some progress can be made on that front, but you're never going to persuade the hawks in congress to jettison missile defense. sorry, it's not going to happen. the success of the iron don't. yes, that may be, you know, a limited utility, right? now, but politically, ever since reagan gave the start, were speech in march $983.00 the right. the republican party's been 100 percent committed to the idea of some kind of defense. we need to try and it would be difficult for biden to even get congress to approve any strategic arms limitation talks. i mean, it was difficult and in 1900 seventy's nixon got through carter was unable to exalt

to formerly approved reagan. it here to it informally, but i would say, you know, we need to, we do need to try and reach some arrangements. we're trying with china as well, who are apparently now embarking upon building a bunch of intercourse with north korea. we're never going to get them to d nuclear arise. we just need to try and regulate it with some kind of understandings and accommodations. unfortunately, especially in this country, on the conservative side and during the cold war, people thought we should get it 1st, right? capability able to wipe out, they actually talked about wiping out the soviet union and in 1950 as part of a rollback strategy. so i don't think that you're going to get massive more massive nuclear cuts in the united states. we already are down to about $3800.00 weapons, $1700.00 of which are functional right now. maybe region pair back a little bit more. but i'm not too optimistic. well, thank you. well, john,

let me ask you a question. you can absolutely do this conversational. so if you think on one such on the subject that you mentioned about people believing this, this system is going to work and they come up with a new interceptor type of thing. this would be for the iteration of this, i every one of those receptor and having failed miserably. the most recent one being cancelled in the course production have to spend $1700000000.00 on it because they have to, it just wasn't happening. and now the little back on the next generation of this though, so we've been, since the reagan era went through this over iteration of iteration, every one of them not testing successfully, not being credible whenever. so most people make that argument. but here's the deal . if they don't want to look at teaching instability issues on this matter at least say to them as well as you're being hawks and you always want to build more more more you say that your customers. so that's what we like. it is. why are we building these things in deploying them before they're proven to be credible and

effective? can we at least say that and valuable coin these systems until you can show that they would work under credible conditions on the real world testing whatever that will never happen. in my estimation, the estimation of this is to testify on this issue, but at least it says, what can you do get to that point. then we can teach about whether or not smart to do it, then because it institutes a race. but we start spending a huge amount of money and wasteful amounts of money to go to more and better security interested united states until you can prove. but i'm just wondering what you think about the literacy of your former colleagues in congress and why? you know, when you were there, i'd love to hear what the interaction with both industry and the paragon was on your very legitimate questions. thank you. the jim next me hearing of the hearing on this thing. so i paid for billy rating with review on lockheed martin,

others on that basis and military back as we call them out when they come out alive whether or not something was successful. and i did advise on that basis, but this goes on on a members and a lot on your plate, and they have limited staff, so everybody can't be an expert and every year and they tend to focus on whatever committee assignments they have. so literacy level is not what it should be, not i used to be, i mean most of these younger members keep in mind not only and they cover their parents and so like the rest of society. so i thought that was being so we had a bunch of treaties that were decreased numbers. now i think that or they think or when i was a problem is very dangerous that i can't do anything about. so we have to set up rounds control and then who have reason does essentially try to educate, inform staffs and knows of congress. well, what's the current situation and what are the arguments on the side so that they can make a decision and deliver it? and it continues it and we're doing more and more every year. but it's not up to

where it has to be to make these ideas really, really sensible. and have people focus of the things that jake and talking about. you know, the jacob makes the point as to why this classroom cations are teaching my patients . and it is gone a long way from the day when we ought to be transparent and try to be conversing with other countries that have the weapons. today we're both body seems to think all the matter. we can get russia, we could get a china and others and be done and say, we're not even talk to them. but that's good. it's not any reg new. we didn't have a lot of disagreements with them. but you have to talk about these next. let's nuclear weapons gives russia a place in strategic matters globally. it also gives the united states. so is there another dimension in nuclear weapons about america's place in the world where we may have other things going shoddy, but, you know, nukes make sure that we were always there. and we always matter, jacob, well, i think it's more a quest for predominance. the idea is that the more you have them,

we're going insurance policy, you have the less other countries will be inclined to, to mess with you. but the truth is, it, it is as you point out at bottom, a colossal waste of money. we should be investing in the united states infrastructure. we should not be squandering these kinds of sans on nuclear weapons that contribute absolutely nothing. you could just as easily dig a hole in the desert, nevada and dumped billions of dollars into it. we're not actually beyond 1700. i mean, i don't know what buying more nuclear weapons is going to contribute. at this point . we have, we have other huge problems which by the way, impact our power in the rest of the world. and what about economics? what about our soft power, our reputation, our diplomacy is let me just ask you,

john, is there a way to leapfrog out of this moment that you know, your, your group, you know, the arms control networks, basically say hey, here's an alternative vision that has a real chance of, of going along the lines that jacob suggests, or is it just basically we're going to be struggling through this with 2 sides of the are those, you know, that the genie is out of the bottle. we're just going to have to deal with it. we're going to have to build more, but do you, do you think there'll be a real chance in the ours control community to come back to some of the proposals you've made, you know, and as you know, jacob said, take some of that money and apply it elsewhere there's a chance to get back there. that's why elections matter. metal gives a legit, their republican democrat look, actions organization accounts for a little world, use windows candidates, a bull pines with regularity. back in the days when you had jacob gavin brooks and those people does everybody believe in amsterdam, republicans and democrats. and now we can find republicans very thoughtful of the issue of the issue. but they'll say to you privately,

i can't bring this up. i can't vote differently because like congress republican conference will be all over me. if i do. so we've got to and more of those individuals were willing to step forward. we've got to provide them with the background information backs, so they can make the case. and this is sensible case to be made about not wasting the money that's spending it. but if you're not going to 5 luminated weapons altogether is in no countries probably going to be at that point for quite some time until they feel that conventionally they're safe, as well as the national sense. least you get a lower risk, which you have fewer of them and more transparency, more conversations. so there's not going to be a mistake or just calculation. and that's the real danger, lice. and even american military, as i mentioned earlier, says we can use fire fewer actual are determined purposes that we have now kind of a very recently it was always talking like that they only had about between the high 200 in the mid 3 hundreds of nuclear weapons and not all of them into the

fighting structure legislation, because there was we only need to not to stop and all the countries coming at us. right. we don't have to spend money that makes us more and more than they do. but russia, united states to, to, and then into pakistan for different players also have this notion that why have to have more bigger, better than you not just stop you're making and that's what we make a mistake. so we can get success. we can get back to that point, we raise a literacy level on this. there's absolutely asinine thing that more given you want to say that your predominant very is i just wanted to trick others from using them against us. i want to thank you both. john tierney, executive director of the center for arms control and nonproliferation and jacob hobbling editor of the national interest. thanks so much for illuminating this complex topic for us to see. so what's the bottom line? first, strike capacity. mutual assured destruction. icbm space based missile defense. the nuclear football,

these are not terms that most of us use in our daily life or think about global annihilation caused by nuclear conflict is the stuff of nightmares for very few people in the world. the truth though is that nuclear weapons exist and time doesn't go backwards. they're here to stay. nuclear ambitions exist, and a nuclear warhead can make a country, or even a small rebel group. very, very powerful. we don't live in the utopia. the nuclear powers will always have these weapons and their citizens will have to pay for them. the 2 most important things are number one, they should never be used, and number 2, governments aren't given a blank check to keep ordering more nukes, undermining stability, and sparking a new arms race. and that's the bottom line ah, the fuel, the dry change? following the removal of robert new gobby than bob way with

a country brimming with one journalist set out to record the voice of the people. instead of telling people what to think. how glad that gives them a chance to speak for themselves and captured or haunted? not sure, of the power and fragility of hope. borne free witness on al jazeera. there is no channel that covers world news like we do. we revisit places the day. i'll just there really invest in that and that's the privilege. as a journalist, the. ready i'm sorry, i'm was in london with a look at the main stories now. the united states has condemned an attack on the un compound in western afghanistan. at least one person was killed in the attack in the western city of herat,

us ambassador to the un describe the actors deplorable and said the perpetrators must be held to account as an intense fighting between government forces and the taliban in that region are diplomatic, added to james bay's has more according to local report, is this fighting.