have improved back home, they say to grass continue to be targeted because if they have and many problems are being reported and all becomes taken refuge conditions here. last time i again, i got into the top stories on al jazeera afghan forces fighting against the taliban in and on the outskirts of several cities, kandahar fort was hit by rockets. the runway has been repaired, but there is still no flights. and security situation is fragile, and last gar, taliban fighters as being close to the city center, an army reinforcements have been deployed as well in her rats. and these a live pictures coming to us from kabul from parliament where the african president

asked raff ghani, is about to address the setting. he's coming unquestioningly under pressure as the taliban continues to make advances on the mask as james space has gone for the facing attacks and multiple places across the country. most worrying, i think for the african government, those the fighting continues within the walls of kandahar city in a number of areas in kandahar city, we understand that they've been as strikes that by the african air force overnight. now the african military, we didn't have a response from the taliban saying that 35 taliban were killed over night. the other very worrying figure we have which comes from dr. mir weiss hospital is that 18 people were injured overnight including women and children. 3 dead said the civilian casualties continue to mount canada field. the government are saying that

they've made repairs to the runway and flights can resume, but we checked with airlines. for now, there are no flights going from cobble of the capital to can to half the 2nd city of afghanistan in alaska, golf fighting continues right in the heart of the city in the capital of a helmand province. again, the taliban of there and there in houses in the center that presents a big problem for the african forces because they do not want to have civilian casualties. have been fresh as strikes overnight in parts of laska, but trying to get rid of the taliban from those houses in the center is going to be a very major challenge for the special forces and commandos. because urban warfare, somewhere like laska is the most difficult source of fighting with any military can conduct. something we haven't looked at recently for some time. the east of africa got us done 9,

get ha province the province at july about as provincial capital in action. we understand has been a taliban attack on the government that taliban, claiming that they killed 10 soldiers and police. and finally to the west rat, the 3rd city of afghanistan, perhaps a little comma there. but still some fighting on going around the city and in the tech on the airport road between herat city and the airport overnight to tell about attack briefly there. that is a road that sometime a few days ago, we talked about actually held that and elsewhere in herat province shouldn't done air base, which was an important base for the americans, a nato. they've been attacks their overnight instructional olympic committee has belushi and elim pin. christina, to when the sky is safe in the hands of japanese or pharmacies, she says her limping team tried to force her to leave japan obviously puppets. he criticized her coaches. spoke to the virus athletes. christina

simon simon. new sky. directly last night. she was with the apple store, it is the airport and was time accompanied by a staff member of tokyo 2020. she assured us and has assured us that she feels safe and secure. she spent the night at an airport hotel in the safe and secure environment of the i see in tokyo. 2020 will continue the conversations with her. and the japanese will thought is to determine the next step in the upcoming days. mexicans are voted in a referenda, which if passed could lead to investigations of 5 former presidents. more than 40 percent of registered voters must take part for results be binding and you're up to date. now with all the headlines, i'll be back with another news update here on al jazeera. that's after the bottom line. they with us 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 destroyed 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 and launched 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 non proliferation . 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 and is america beyond where it should be? well, some of us tell you that, too many 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 that one

has them, would not use them against them for fear of being wiped out themselves. in that case, about 2013, the military command, united states that we do have committed, that 1050 people the united states and russia are allowed to have under the new sy fi is higher than we actually need even for the parents 1st. so putting the rest of the military's own 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 high risk in any leader. the country would actually use them. personally, there's always a prospect, although very, very unlikely, but the miscalculation of the state, but i think things that we always have the concert. 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 china 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 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 globe across the countryside to talk to each other and have ongoing discussion. so low the temperature to make sure the word interesting was calculations leading to a conflict of 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 does it really works? it doesn't, but there's one of those work. and the only defense we would have to overwhelming. so lots of data to upgrade and increase the number of weapons that we have. so that is a little bit of a race on that. it's not just the united states is seeking to modernize as they

stable to increase the numbers in style weapons. what is all of the other nice states? and then at least the weather's doing some follow up later on that. and i know we 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, 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 i was ration, 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 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 that 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 anything 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 what have been a 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 destabilizing investment, trying to make the st. the study to do 1st of all we, we initiated that and we circulating signatures on whatever. so our position is very clear that we think that the abandonment of the ab entry 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 in their mind increase the number of weapons they had to make. it overwhelmed that purported the fence and became in global jaw reagan and succeeding presence of both parties. all realize that 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 none of ever done on the credibly. and then the saw people side having we missing treaties that reduce the number of movie weapons in the world. until a long came george w bush and his crew. and they pulled the treaty. and then you saw rush say, well the man, we're going to have the new types of weapons we do because we can't expose ourselves. if you haven't did were the means you can strike us 1st and with no capacity like that because you have a 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 we said $400000000000.00 kind of develop a system since i was that has never proven and so credible it isn't reliable,

it doesn't work. it's only past night not making a lot of 19 tests. even those test split. 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 come 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 contractors and making more and more profits for office receives moving dollars, direction, 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 with every sales discussion and listen to russia's 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, 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 say we have in fact shown that the technology is there they can see 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 representing the other dimension of the argument and that they look at out ms was already to see say well, you missing out. well, just tell you what they said was the missile. yeah, no idea 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 make sure that was not i don't let them know. i understand. i just want to 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 investments 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, 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 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, politically, ever since reagan gave the star worst speech in march 1983,

the right, the republican party's been 100 percent committed to the idea of some kind of a sense 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 or 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 not barking upon building a bunch of intercom. i c d 's with north korea. we're never going to get them to de 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 recent. pare back a little bit more. but i'm not too optimistic. well, thank you. well, john, let me ask you a question. can i, this is actually 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 interest. that type of thing. this would be the 3rd or 4th iteration of this i every one of those interceptor 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 they go back in the next generation of this. 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 whatever. 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 passengers. so what we like is, why are we building these things in deploying them before the proven to be credible and effective? we at least say that another coin, these systems, until you can show that they would work under credible conditions under real world testing, whatever that will never happen in my estimation, the estimation of business to testify on this issue. but at least it says, look, if you don't get to that point, then we can teach about whether or not even smart to do it then because it institutes a knowledge base. but we start spending a huge amount of money, 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 i was the next move that have hearing of the hearing on this thing. so i did have i favorability rating with radio and lockheed martin, others on that basis and military back as we used to call them out when they tried to come out and live whether or not something was successful and i did it on that basis. but this goes on and on, and 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 in color. so like the rest of society, something that was being so we had

a bunch of treaties that were decreased in numbers. now i think that, or they think when i was a problem is very dangerous and i can't do anything about. so we have to set up rounds control. and those who have reason does essentially, as i do educated form stamps. and those are kind of which, 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 it 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 focusing on the things that jake and i have been talking about. you know, that jacob makes as to why is there a classifications or strategic occasions. and it is gone a long way from the day when we try to be transparent and try to be conversant with other countries that have nuclear weapons. today, we're both seem to think on the matter. we can get russia, we could get a china of others and be done and say, we're not even talk to them. but that's, it's not any reagan new. we've got

a lot of disagreements with them. but you have to talk about this next class. but 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 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 to 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 songs 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 maybe 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 that would 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 is

a chance to get back there. that's why elections matter. matter will get elected. their republican democrat like ashes limitation accounts for a little world use windows candidates of all parties with regularity. back in the days when you had a jacob javits and you had brook and those people, those everybody believed and asked 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 republican conference will be all over me. if i do so, we've got to and more of those individuals who are willing to step forward, we've got to provide them with the background information, facts, 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 limit anything, weapons altogether 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, the least, 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 china. up until very recently, it was always talking like that. they only have 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 that money that makes us more, we're not more than 80, but russian united states to, to and then you and pakistan for different players. also have this notion that why have to have more big or 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, says you want to say that your predominant very is i just wanted 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 harbor, 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, the journey to work can be a challenge on its own. but for some peruvian villages, traversing one of the world's most dangerous way is a risk that comes with a job. we follow the journey of the people as they get to survive. risking it all peruse on outages era. the in 2011 al jazeera gains rare access to the piano gang film academy. and some of north korea's brightest young stars. ah,

what did it take to serve a national propaganda machine? ah, a compelling portrait of the privileged lives of the countries elite, rewind north korea. cinema of dreams. analogy 0. o. and again, i'm nora carlindo. however, the top stories on out to 0. gun forces fighting st battles against the taliban in several cities. and port has been hit by rockets. the runway has been repaired, but there is still no flights. security situation is fragile and lash guard and taliban are inside the city center. and army reinforcements have been deployed in harass, to mark as says i've gone for the facing attacks in multiple places across the country.