they say it's a good continue to be targeted because many of these are being reported and all they come to taking refuge conditions. here are some ideas i hello again, peter over here and though how the top stories on al jazeera took he's president is promising assistance. 2 areas affected by nearly $100.00 wildfires. 6 people have died in the places. most of the fires are now under control. a heat wave is scorching parts of the mediterranean and the g and the government says the fires may have been started deliberately. her to show it to mit. considering the possibility of sabotage and any other sources of the fire starting. and we will carry out the investigation to provide answers to these. we will not give up until

we have all the answers. argentina has declared a 6 month water emergency for the per on a river. it's one of the most important waterways in south america, connecting argentina, paraguay, and brazil, a severe rights affecting agriculture and trade across the region. through new left, his president, petro castillo, is facing anti government process just days after taking office supporters of his rival. in last month's elections rallied in the capital lima castillo narrowly beat, the conservative cake for the morning, and a bitterly contested boat that polarized the country. mariana sanchez, with worn out from lima. these are mainly opposition people. people that voted more take off with the money, but right now they are not processing and her but again, you mainly you things don't they, you know, as the prime minister, you know, the, you know. 2 i flexible person who has been considered

coverage more than anything a person won't get well up the line here. i don't care always in the government in full memory. there are people of family really carry on. 6 the i'm sure many people who are really feel real close. 7 and other people in the cabinet up some of the know syrian him government, you know, the effect of this part. you, this isn't the 1st 3 days of government have been that's changed from rule has fallen. it has lost her sense, the people who voted for pendergast, the, you know, many of them are discontent. there are anger is being showed in there. they're expressing the regular in the social media saying that they did not see you and to help him put extreme, if in the cabinet ramos,

to moderate in the cabinets, you help them in general. so people are processing and they are saying they are saying that they feel the federal seal has betrayed them. millions of americans are at risk of being thrown out of their own homes as a temporary ban on evictions is set to expire. it was imposed last year to help slow the spread of curve at 19 by eating, crowding in homes and shelters. the biden administration has been criticized for failing to challenge a supreme court ruling, preventing an extension of the moratorium. we're already fighting a battle in losing a battle because there are people left out last night the night with the night before. there are people who are already and how if we don't have enough, we don't have enough shelters. we don't have enough. we don't have the same housing for them right now. and that's a failure. that's another moral failure on our society. the african air force has

been blamed for bombing a hospital in helmand province killing at least one person. it happened as taliban fighters pushed further into the provincial capital. laska groups also making gains and hadn't and kandahar the police in france of class with protest as opposed to so called bank seen passports to be 3rd consecutive weekend. the demonstrations have taken place. the government's trying to make the health pass compulsory and bars and restaurants, and they say it limits their personal freedoms. the italian government has also a similar plans, prompting protesting milan, the prime minister mario drug, people to get vaccinated all risk, a new locked up. those are your headlines. the news continues here on out to 0 after the bottom line. i'll have another quick summary for you in about 25 minutes . i'll see you then. oh i

i am 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 is 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 is 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 new 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 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, 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 too. 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 nuclear weapons, are 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 this is dangerous, more dangerous. now that was in that is because people are talking to each other when 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, prospect that have been out and out by the missile treaty. other countries as well, what does it really works? it doesn't, one of those work, the only defense 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 race on that. it's not just the united states as seeking to modernize is able to increase the numbers in style weapons. what is all of the other nice states,

and then the weather's doing some form of upgrade 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 then doing the to and it was sent 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 ration, doing new types of weapons, and was just to give them powerful weapons. jacob convene intellectually some of the best writers and thinkers 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 had 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 the 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 nuclear weapon. and 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 the d stabilizing investment? i'll try to make the st. steven study to do it. first of all, we, we initiated that we circulating that the signatures on whatever. so opposition is very clear that we think that the abandonment of the abm treaty and ballistic missile treaty was a severe mistake. it became a valid 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 minimize increase the number of weapons. they had the overwhelmed that supported defense and that became global john reagan and succeeding presidents are both parties all realize that's ludicrous. we need to limit the number of defenses that you're going to 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 the credibly. and then you saw people side having

weakness and treaties that reduce the number of movie whereas 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 there were 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, whether 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 didn't work because of those reasons. but the more credible part of this is we spent $400000000.00 trying to develop a system since i was that has never, you know, food and so credible is reliable. it doesn't work. it's only past night. not making a lot of 19 tests. even those tests,

so 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 more money in contractors and making more and more profits. profits receives moving dollars directions, other destabilizing stacker 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, but say your discussion, listen to russia's concerns about it, and then expect that they will have to put some issues on the table, but 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 out ms with ours to say, well mixing up. well, i'll just tell you what they said young was the missile. yeah, no, i know it is a 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, it's better than the icbm. this was the fantasy. yes. but 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 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, the 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 bide, and 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, politically, ever since reagan gave the star we're speech in march, 983 the right. the republican party's 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 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 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 it 1st, right? capability able to wipe out, they actually talked about wiping out the soviet union and in one,

$900.00 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. well, john, let me ask you a question. you can absolutely like the conversation also wanted 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 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 after spending $1700000000.00 on it because they have to, it just wasn't happening. and now the little guy from the next generation business . so we've been, since the reagan era went through this over iteration of iteration, every one of them not testing out 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 let'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 there's not another dime for the 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 interest with 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. jim next move, hearing of the hearing on this thing. so i did have i paid for billy rating with review on lockheed martin. others on that basis and build back as we used to call them out when they tried to come out alive, or whether or not something was successful. and i did advise you 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 in every area. 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 didn't they cover their parents. and so like the rest of society, something that was being so we had a bunch of treaties that were decreasing numbers. now i think that or they think of when i was a problem is very dangerous. i can't think about. so we have to set up rounds

control and then 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 either side so that they can make a decision and deliver it and it continues 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 have been talking about. jacob makes the as to why that you'll do a question, occasions which can change it. 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 nuclear weapons. today, we're both bodies seem to think of the matter. we can get russia, we could get china and others and be and say, we're not even talk to them. but that's good. it's not of any reagan new. we've got 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 to 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 going along the lines that jacob suggests, or is it just basically we're going to be struggling through this with 2 sides. 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 they'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 matter gets elected their

republican democrat look, actions to organization accounts for a little world, use windows candidates, both parties with regularity. back in the days when you had jacob gavin's and you had brooks and those people does, everybody believe and ask for republicans and democrats. and now we can find republic is very thoughtful on 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, 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 limit anything, 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 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 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, the resignation because there was we only need to not to stop and all the country from coming at us, right. we don't have to spend the money that makes us more and more than they do. but russia stage the 2 and then going to 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 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 that more is better 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. 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,

he added to the fashion, the success and the popularity, and then he gave it all up for the love of his homeland football rebels. delves into the realm of footballing legend. rashid mac luthey for to the jury and national liberation front with his feet. rashid mackenzie and the f. l. n team on al jazeera after a one year delay the tokyo olympics are finally despite growing opposition and spiraling costs. fountains of athletes are competing in empty stadiums. amid the corona virus endemic al, just here, it will be inside the olympic bubble. bringing you the latest from again,

like no other. ah, hello again, peter, i'll be here and how you top stories from al jazeera. the turkish president is promising assistance to areas affected by nearly $100.00 wildfires. 6 people who died in the blazes, most of the fires are now under control of heat wave is scorching parts of the mediterranean and the g and the government says the fires may have been started deliberately. heritage shot at t. m. a. we are considering the possibility of sabotage and any other thoughts of the fire starting and we will carry.