think i'm all and it wasn't all in one way or another on the ship and be good. wait for join me for there for the full report on data from the for villas of correct. so the battle fields around most of our job is to get to the truth and empower people through knowledge. ah, me, it's 1200 hours gmc here and al jazeera, come all santa maria. and these are the headlines emergency cruise in turkey. still trying to control the biggest fires in the region which have killed at least 6 people been burning for 3rd consecutive days, while dozens of villages and hotels have been evacuated. cruise numbering more than a 1000 have been involved in this operation. at least 14 wildfires burning and have a look at the satellite images showing the extent of the wildfires. we've got at least 5 planes and 45 helicopters being used to put out the flames as well spreading across more than a 1000 sites. the u. s. and the

e u nations have extended their support to turkey, his more from russell soda. he's been one of up in antalya problems. the situation is quite city here because this is from the 1st report. so the 1st report that came out of that message, if i wrapped it just moments after this continuously, there'll be other reports as well. in 26 proven says on the news that has the forest fires going on at the 85 different location. so starting from the agent, cost to city is mayor all alongside the mediterranean course. the city is filled with all of that lined times over the cities. how witness the matthew wildfires so far and now 10005 fighters are trying to extinguish the fires fighting to the the blazes and also turn the aircraft as well. just how to cook as

an a cross or getting water from the mediterranean sea and groping for the fires. students wish them, but their job is quite difficult because out of thought. and because the new files are just pulled out on the road, this region and not only along side of the coastal cities, but even the central natalia cities like could kind of case they also have reported their forest fires. so far, the weather, the temperature is quite high and make it easier, the fires to spread around so quickly. now the headlines and i've got sounds, western city of her aunts is coming under increased intense pressure from the taliban. a un compound was attacked on friday, killing an afghan policeman. the taliban took control of the airport on wednesday. you assume nastic style simone files is pulled out of 2 mill finals at the tokyo olympics. the. she focuses on mental health. the 24 year old join, some of her teammates on

a shopping trip in the whole city on saturday. bio has now withdrawn from 4 of his 6 events and richardson with more from tokyo. i think it looks unlikely now, and possibly unlikely will ever see her at another olympics again. i mean the us elliptic teams saying they all going to continue to evaluate her on a daily basis. but there are now only 2 more events in which she can compete. she may not be too active in gymnastics at the moment, but she has been active on social media in the last 24 hours. i talking to fans about what she describes and what gina described as the twisty, not in gulf, in the ships. i guess it's basically where mind and body nor instinct can, regardless of what the mind tries to tell the body to do that on corporate. and she posted some footage on instagram of her falling flat on the back when she was trying to dismount and land on her feet from the uneven ball so clearly still at the moment. she's not in any physical or mental shape to compete at these games is going to have to change pretty quickly if we all going to see her again. but once

again, it is still bringing out that discussion about mental health in sports and so onto a big platform, there are more protests taking place in the french capital, paris against plans to implement so called virus passes. the proposal would mean people would have to prove that coven 19 vaccination status before they can into restaurants, or cultural venue parliaments expected to vote on the bill this weekend. hundreds of people have rallied against malicious prime minister for his handling. if the pandemic, i wasn't kidding, you seem to resign infections of search despite emergency measures in place since january really 9000 people have died. that and you as president joe biden, is warned for the guidelines or restrictions could be introduced after a surgeon corona virus. cases comes a day after rules were tightened for millions of federal employees. those are your headlines on al jazeera. the bottom line with steve clemens is coming up next the.

ready 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 u. s. 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 in launch from anywhere. think about that for a 2nd. so 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 haldeman, 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 would 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 that 1050. both the 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, i mean the 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 weapon 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 weapons or the answer to this. but yes,

to the 1st part of that, where they think that there's been a change in the atmosphere. former secretary of events, bill perry very clearly said that he thinks this is dangerous, more dangerous. now that was in that is because people are talking to each other way that they used to even in the worst times, starting with reagan and globe across the countryside to talk to each other and have ongoing discussion. so low the temperature to make sure that the distinction 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, a prospect that have been out and out by the missile treaty, other countries as well, what really works doesn't. what of those work? and the only defense we would have to overwhelming. so lots of data to upgrade and increase the number of others that we have. so there's a little bit of a race on that. it's not just united states as seeking to modernize,

is able to increase the numbers and style weapons. what is all of the other nice states, and then the weather's doing some upgrade on that. and i know we'd like to blame it on russia or china in doing this. we have to do it. we've been doing it for a long time. and they are now doing this too. and it was the russian, they want us back when the united states pulled out of the abm treaty by george w bush. that it was a lead to them having an i was ration, doing new types, weapons, and was just to get 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. there 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 whereas you're 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. are, is the amount of money that we're spending worth it on these 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 canon 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 there 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 defenses, stabilizing, and a responsibility to protect americans, or do you look at as a d stabilizing investment? i'll try to make the screen against the study to do it. first of all we, we initiated that and we circulating that the signatures on whatever. so opposition is very clear that we think to the banner, the entry into ballistic missile treaty was a severe mistake. it became a valid because russian united states and realized that as long as somebody tended that they had missile defense of the other side would have no choice. but to in their mind increase the number of weapons they had to make an overwhelming that supported defense. and that became and 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 i've never done on that credibly. and then you saw people side having weakness and treaties that reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world . until a long came george w bush and his crew. and they pulled out 3, 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 work, that 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 national 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 proved. and so credible isn't reliable,

it doesn't work, it's only past 99, making a level of 900 tests, even those tests so that they're not realistic world conditions and just is not going to work it out. we physically can't work. people with hearings out of businesses, we can then say this idea of having a system that work is more the ology and it is technology. but we're spending more money in contractors and making more and more profits. very profits receives moving dollars directions, other destabilizing stacker issue to begin with. the 2nd one is really the work. so yes, we should put it on the table. it doesn't mean you have to give up or whatever, but say your discussion and listen to rushes concerns about it. and then expect that they will 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 want to jump to jacob on this would be, you know, i think some people would, 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'm just representing the other dimension of the argument and that they look at like with ours to say, well mixing up. well, i'll just tell you what they said young listed missile. yes. no, i know it is a system that is not long range missiles or whatever like that where, right. so a whole different matter. different atmosphere, right? different testing, right. well, it's better than the icbm. this was the best, but well let them mix, you know, i don't let them know. i understand, i guess what, 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, it's 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 the 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 that politically, ever since reagan gave the star where speech in march 983 the right,

the republican parties been 100 percent committed to the idea of some kind of missile 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 in the 1900 seventy's nixon got through. carter was unable to exalt to formally 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 intercom. i c. d. 's 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 a 1st strike capability able to wipe out. they actually talked about wiping out the

soviet union and in 1900 fifties, 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 will john, let me ask you a question. you can absolutely like the conversational. so if you want to touch 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 the 3rd or 4th iteration of this i. every one of those receptor having failed miserably. the most recent one being cancelled in the course production have to spending $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 t j. 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 value for deploying 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 business is testified on this issue, but at least it says, what can you do get to that point. then we can teach about whether or not even smart to do it then because it institutes a race. but we start expanding 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 pentagon was on your very legitimate questions. thank you. you know what the next move has 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, or 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 the 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 do they cover their parents and cover so like the rest of society. so i thought that was being saw, we had a bunch of treaties that were decreasing numbers. now i think that or they think or

when i was a problem is very dangerous and i can't think about. so we have to set up rounds control and who have reason does essentially try to educate, inform staffs, and those are 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 now people focus of the things that jake and i've been talking about. you know, the jacob makes the point as to why this classroom occasions are strategic medications, and it has 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 of any reg new. we didn't have a lot of disagreements with them. but you have to talk about these next class,

but nuclear weapons gives russia a place in strategic matters globally. it also gives the united states. so is there another dimension to 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 that 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, no matter who gets elected their republican democrat look, actions to organization accounts for a little world, use windows candidates, a bull pines with regularity. back in the days when you had a jacob gap, it's brooke and those people does everybody believe and ask for 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 is not looking 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, facts that 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 limiting 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 that elise, you can lower the risk, which you have fewer of them and more transparency,

more conversations. so there's not going to be a mistake or michelle, elation. and that's the real danger, lice. and even the american military, as i mentioned earlier, says we can use fire fewer actual are determined purposes that we have now. up until very recently, it was always talking like that they only had about between the high 200 in the mid 3, hundreds of nuclear weapons. not all of them into the fighting structure, the 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 you and pakistan for different players also have this notion that why have to have more bigger, better than you not just to stop, you will make it and that's what we make a mistake. so we can get success. we can get back to that point, we raise the literacy level on this. there's absolutely asinine thing more given you want to say that your predominant theory is i just wanted to trip 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 hobbler and editor of the national interest. thanks so much for illuminating this complex topic for us. pleasure remains 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, with bank energy and say to every part of our universe, or small to continue the change all around the shape by technology and human ingenuity. we can make it work for you and your business. the merchant is big news in libya, but staging car and bike rather, it comes with its own particular risk club, couldn't take part in the 2016, rallied because we were fighting a war. and i said, i'll just do

a world trouble for the libby and just to see how fault on 4 wheel can be a unifying, pull water country lydia, or rally on our 0 o . again i'm can all centenary with a look at the headlines on al jazeera emergency cruise in turkey. still trying to control the biggest fire in the region which have now killed at least 6 people have been burning for a 3rd straight day while dozens of villages and hotels have been evacuated. there are at least 14 wildfire burning bristol, so that has more from man of us in until you province. it feels far away from being under the control because the reports regarding the new fires erupt in, in the different places. there's us come.