from nuclear weapons when we know that in this current world there are so many problems and conflicts and the world is involved in so many difficult areas including power centers in the multipolar world so it's hard to see how you would get to a nuclear-free world. >> that's the aspiration of president obama and the aspiration of other governments. there is a cross party group in the united states of america that puts henry kissinger and others who've been proposing that this is the final destination of our defense and security policy. with the non-proliferation treaty did and we are now proposing with this document to 2010 was two things. one, it said we should get access to civil nuclear power to

the non-nuclear states and we should do so by then relinquishing or sending the idea we would ever have nuclear weapons but we would in return help them get civil nuclear power. what is it was the nuclear states themselves would seek to produce nuclear weapons. so this is still in my view the nature of a bargain if you like a covenant between states in the world, but as we renew the nonproliferation treaty we get an understanding that in return for relinquishing nuclear weapons and that includes iran and other countries, relinquishing the possibility of having nuclear weapons or having them secretly we would say we will make it possible for you to get access to the facilities that need to be there for you to have nuclear power and we will do it under the conditions we are satisfied with that is safe and not leading to the creation

of nuclear weapons for example may be a iranian bank or bond created in a third country, and neither one of the questionable states nor a nuclear state but you have a uranium bond available and so you answer this problem lots of countries want access to civil nuclear power they don't need to have nuclear weapons we can actually give them the technology without the risk of their moving to nuclear weaponry. but in return countries have got to be prepared who have got nuclear power to nuclear weapons to reduce their weapons. >> but your aspiration is what we've already had the past 30 years. the non-proliferation treaty was set up on that basis. your statement also says as soon as it becomes useful to be included in a broad negotiation

britain stands ready to participate and to act. when we put our nuclear arsenal and to such broad negotiation what is our own? is it just to reduce or is it to eliminate british nuclear weapons? >> this is to be done on a multilateral basis. we are not making unilateral -- nursing if there were discussions about the reduction of nuclear weapons and america, russia, france, other countries with nuclear weapons we are prepared to be part of these discussions. i think you are talking about a reduction of nuclear weapons. i think also you got to remember we are at a critical moment. 50 years ago there were five nuclear weapon states. now there are nine, ten. the danger in the next few years is if one of the countries that is threatening to develop nuclear weapons gets nuclear

weapons, then a number of other countries would insist they have them and this is a critical and defining moment where russia and america are saying they are prepared to reduce crew clear weapons but we haven't made an offer to the non-nuclear states that we can help them sufficiently could secure nuclear power. we have not found the basis giving civil nuclear power to states without feeling we are at risk they might develop nuclear weapons so we have got to have a far better offer. we've got to develop that over the next year nuclear weapons outside the previous non-proliferation treaty and that would be of disastrous consequences for the world because even if that were held by countries that were not prepared to use these nuclear weapons but would be a greater danger of nuclear weapons would get into the hands of terrorism. >> i asked -- are you seeing that putting our own weapons

into this brought negotiation which is presumably at some point in several years down the line would be just to reduce or would it be to eliminate? >> the long term aim of the countries is on a multilateral basis. that nuclear weapons would no longer be necessary but that is a distant goal as things stand at the moment. we would be prepared to be part of a multilateral negotiations which we would be the lead could be prepared like other countries with reductions. >> we have come in to around leader but we are going to now go to james to get questions about afghanistan and pakistan. >> prime minister, thank you for the letter to the chairman of the committee about the -- in which you pay a great tribute to the forces. and you said despite the tragic losses morale remains high and i can report the assistant to commanders on the ground that

the current operations are succeeding in their objectives. tell us exactly prime minister what we are achieving in afghanistan. >> first of all the current operation i was referring to is designed to make it possible for an area to be free of taliban influence as we approached the elections and for people in that area to feel they have the state of afghanistan weather than to be a part where they feel under the web of the taliban and that operation is moving through this area backed up by afghan national army and police with governor of helmand as you know ready to provide services in that area so that people can see that the afghan government and the afghan civil society is able to support the local people in

that area and it will lead to thousands of people in the election being able to vote free and fair without intimidation because the polling stations will be able to be placed in that area. so this is part of the operation and helmand and part of the operation being done by the americans also in the region and it's part of our determination that these new elections in afghanistan can pass freely and a space result can be achieved. now what are we trying to achieve in the afghanistan, and i'd say afghanistan and pakistan together? our strategy set out in april was recognition that the terrorist threat that this country faced was in this crucible around the borders of afghanistan and pakistan that we have to take action in relation, but the future late not simply in military action but in

building up the afghan army and of course helping the pakistan authorities and giving people in the areas the sense they have a stake in the future of the country, and i believe you've got to look at the operations that were involved as a part of an afghan stand and pakistan strategy and you've got to look at this by being and not simply a military campaign but military action with a brave and dedicated soldiers and once again like you i know on many occasions i pay tribute to british forces and our sympathy to those families who have lost lives but to train more of the afghan people to be in the armed forces and police, and of course to provide the means by which economic activity in afghanistan can -- >> do you think people in afghanistan feel more secure? >> i think in many areas of afghanistan people do feel more

secure. >> and helmand? >> i think and helmand we are making progress in the areas in which we are active. you've got to remember a lot of helmand is densely -- sparsely populated and in the areas of higher population i think we are making progress with operation as the americans are with the preparation as well, but i accept the long-term future of afghanistan and our ability to defeat a terrorist threat depends not only on what we can contribute militarily but on what we can achieve by civilian as well as military effort in treating the afghan army which would have to be higher than 130,000. its 80,000 at the moment. the plan is 130,000. nobody has doubt its territory as big as afghanistan we have to trade a higher number and of course the trend of the police has to be a sufficient standard to avoid corruption and i will

be a group of the already about 70,000. so you've got to have a big basis for an afghan civil society. >> would you agree to many people both in this country and abroad have very little idea what our troops are there for? and do you think that more needs to be done to persuade people why our troops are there and of precisely how they are going to succeed? >> i think that is true that to show people the reasons why we are there and still there and what has happened since 2001 to 2009 and what we envision being able to do in the future and i've been quite specific about the things we can do. we can help build up the afghan army and police and help create the means by which economic and social development can take place and we can help particularly also in pakistan as well so that they can deal with

their terrorist threat. and i think we've got to explain that, yes, to the british people. but in the last year and a half i think we did a statement on this and april. i think previously in december -- and we've continued to force the pace with our coalition allies in saying that we've got to be quite clear about what we are trying to achieve and the military action is going to be complemented by what i just talked about. >> xu you will be spending more of your own time on it? >> i've spent a great deal of time on issues related to afghanistan and it's not surprising because we have a very big contribution to the allied force with the numbers of soldiers whose safety is our responsibility. and i will continue to spend a great deal of time. i spent quite some time in conversations with president karzai because i think it's important we talk to whoever is the elected president of afghanistan -- we talk about

what they can do. and i'm very clear the afghan party has got to do more. i'm very clear where we are and helmand we need to complement of more troops and police and i also clear that we have a role to play and will be a continuing role after the election for some of our troops to mentor and treen the afghan security forces. >> the trouble is in the most recent visits that i've done, the defense committee security seems to be getting worse and not better. why do you think that is? and do you think it might be because we have few troops on the ground? >> i.t. the issue first of all ages the change in approach of the taliban campaign in afghanistan, and i think there are defense experts far better equipped than me to explain the nature of what has happened. but clearly the afghan taliban and associates are operating in

guerrilla tactics and using roadside bombs and electronic devices to cause maximum damage. they are not in the same way as happened in the past taking on the troops had on. they are hoping that by this method and to cause dismay and loss of life -- >> so did this come to surprise to you? >> this is a tactic the taliban have been pursuing obviously. it was a tactic pursued by others in iraq and obviously the military have changed their tactics to deal with that in a far more engineers dealing with the bomb threat and equally our tactics have had to change as a result of that. the number of taliban involved in these activities do not need to be massively high for them to have an affect through the use of these devices, and i think it

is the change in the tactics of the taliban that we are having to deal with, and i do pay tribute to those people who have been diffusing devices and making the road safer for our troops. >> did their change in tactics come as a surprise? >> i don't think it is a surprise because what is the purpose of or the means by which terrorist and insurgent activity has been pursued in all parts of the world, but there was a change in tactics and i think we recognized. >> a few days ago the times had a head wind which was the army asked for 2,000 extra troops. government sent 700. i'm going to break that down into three questions and ask you all three separately and then asked if he would like to comment on them. first question will be the chief

of defence come to see you? the second question did he ask for 2,000 troops, and the third question will be did you say no only 700 then i will ask if i may to comment did the chief of defence -- [inaudible] >> i don't think you understand properly the relationship of the chief defense and me. we talk regularly all the time. we have meetings. we have discussions. if our troops are in other countries than it is natural and right that is a case where there are regular discussions. >> so i would take this as a yes? >> we talked regularly and i would hope he would accept that is the right thing to do. >> i would. >> as to the second point we discussed both in committee and to get there and number of options and we decided upon the mission we are now engaged in and i think you will see from the statements i have made and the statements made themselves the troops necessary for the

mission we are engaged in now are there and so for operations and what we are doing in afghanistan we've provided the resources and the equipment necessary. we have agreed as you probably know from the statement because you were there on monday as well that following this period when you have the summer campaign and the elections we will review s president obama is doing we will review our commitment for the future and take into account what i just said of course and that is the need for the work to be done to mentor the afghans security forces. so that will be what will happen after the election campaign in afghanistan. >> very good. did the chief staff recommended an extra 2,000 troops should go to afghanistan? >> we've got 8,150 troops and

nobody is suggesting sort of 10,000 troops. >> i'm trying to get to a dance or a note here. >> you've got to let me explain a variety of options were considered. for the mission we are doing at the moment, we have the troops on the ground. obviously as anybody who says as a commander they would like more troops and more equipment and more of everything but we are equipped to do the job we are doing at the moment. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. we have agreed that we will consider that after the elections, probably august but possibly october because there could be a second round. and that is where we are and we are determined to do everything we can to a quick forces properly and determined to make sure that decisions are made in light of the needs of the commanders on the ground as well as a discussion with their

allies. there are two ways of dealing with select committees. you can answer the questions or you can appear not to answer the question and i really trying to get an answer whether the chief of defence staff recommended an extra 2,000 troops. and i'm not getting to that. >> you're not because i'm saying that we looked at and number of options and by saying if the number now is 9,000 -- >> but it wasn't his recommended -- >> i'm saying if the numbers 9,150 there was no recommendation for a 11,000 or 150. we discussed a variety of options. it's the right thing to do. i actually think that i've given you more information than you might have expected me to get about this situation because i am sure that we have done our best by those troops on the ground at the moment and i think people are wrong to suggest for the operation we are involved in at the moment we do not have the

troops we need and would be an unfortunate conclusion if people never went away with that impression. >> do you agree it would be a bad thing to send troops to take ground if you do not have enough troops to hold the ground? >> that's exactly the point that we have been asking the afghan national army through president karzai to make available more afghan troops on the ground. it would be by far the best way moving forward that once the ground is taken by our troops than local afghan troops and police are there on the ground and i am at one. i know that the general mentioned this and i've mentioned this in my statement on monday we want there to be -- there are afghan troops at the moment. more i get there have been ordered since monday and it would be very good if we could have additional afghan troops. there are troops available and i think it should be and helmand

for this campaign. >> all right. moving on. what did the chancellor meme and he said the minister defense wouldn't be short of money in this battle? >> i did what he meant is that the additional money we have spent on our spending on afghanistan amounts to 14 billion pounds. 4 billion of that is for operational requirements that is equipment needed for iraq and afghanistan. 1 billion of that is for 1500 vehicles that would be used in these campaigns. and therefore we are making available as a coach and operational requirements additional money to meet them. >> when i asked the question of the secretary defense on monday, he said that he simply meant he was increasing the urgent operational requirement payments from the treasury by 100 million pounds over and

above the 635 million pounds that had previously than promised. >> that is the treasury agreed with last week for one particular area of equipment and i think that is the hackles. >> does it concern you it is nevertheless 25% lower than it was last year? >> i think that urgent operational requirements mean that when the military put in a request for vital equipment that that request is met and that is what is happening throughout the iraq and afghanistan campaign. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. that is not exactly the position at all. requirements for equipment for afghanistan and iraq and that has been the right thing to do and i just have to say the chief of the defense staff has said that the british armed forces

are better equipped than ever before and while obviously no one wants to be complacent and we will always be vigilant about this it's important to recognize the level of investment that has been made in our forces over the last few years and we will do whatever is necessary and what is right to protect and equip our armed forces. >> but the ministry knows everything about 735 million pounds now that it spends on urgent operational requirements which are urgent and needed, required for operations would have to be borne by the military defense. does that concern you? >> but you have got to accept that 4 billion has been spent on of urgent operational requirements. >> [inaudible] >> i do accept that. if i may say so and i must be direct about this in the 1990's the defense budget was smashed.

we have sustained and increasing defense spending every year and we've got the most sustainable increase in defense resources for 20 years and at the same time we've provided the additional money that is necessary for the afghanistan and iraq campaigns, and i regret people are making this an issue about zero nugent operational requirements. these urgent operational requirements are being met and i can assure you every occasion on which urgent operational requirements, urgent operations need these resources and these resources have been made available. >> the new system as it has been brought in means that there is a cap on urgent operation requirements so that above that everything is borne by the military -- >> but you are forgetting that 4 billion is being spent to meet urgent operational requirements and a billion has been authorized for vehicles that we have to find the 6 billion for helicopters for the future.

so not only from the defense budget but from additions to the defense budget we are making available resources to iraq and afghanistan. i think is right obviously that there is a debate about what is happening when our troops are facing difficulty in finding the campaigns as they have been in iraq and have been in afghanistan but i don't think that this committee should give the impression that our troops are not properly equipped. we have spent their right sums of money and are prepared to do more to make sure that our troops are properly equipped and i believe that that is the message that is from that committee. this is a government determined to make sure the troops are properly quote. >> negative michaud one question on the helicopters which you just mentioned. how many helicopters have you got in afghanistan? >> i could give the number but i've been advised from security grounds we should not get out the number of helicopters or equipment in a particular theater and i don't think it's been the practice of the

government to do so. i can tell you there's been 60% increase over the past two plus years in helicopters and because we've got more capability on the field, because we have more cruise on the field the helicopter pilots can be better used and that's 84% but i don't think it's been the practice of government to say what is the number of particular equipment in any particular theatre. this isn't because i want to hide the information but this is what i've been given in the past and it's the right advice to accept. >> would you be happy to say how many mastiffs have gone out to afghanistan? >> we've been happy to say there's a large group of mastiffs available -- >> you've been given the numbers? >> we've been happy to say there's a large group. it is not enough interest to get out a specific figure. >> not in our interest. do you know how many fast jets there are?

>> i haven't given a figure for fast jets. it is up to you whether you wish to pursue this but i think you are the select committee and i take advice from the military just as you. >> how do we measure if we have succeeded in afghanistan? >> it comes back to the original question that you put and i think it is rather unfortunate the discussion has gone the way that you have sought to take this because i think that there is consensus about the need to deal with the terrorist threat failing if afghanistan was left to the taliban to return to the government of afghanistan and to be part of afghanistan and and i think as i said you've got to compliment the action we are taking in afghanistan with the action we are taking in pakistan. so how would we know how we've succeeded, to build on the confidence to deal with the situation locally and i believe we have to think of higher numbers of afghan military forces as well as better

training of the police that there are on the ground. i think second we would be able to measure by the way we can handle the control of the province perhaps one by one to the afghan government and to the security forces and i think we've got to be sure that the action is being taken in pakistan as well as afghanistan. to deal with al qaeda having success. that was your last question but i'm happy to answer any more. [laughter] >> one more question about pakistan. >> that's fine by me. it's up to the chairman of the committee. >> it is a long-term issue of pakistan which needs long-term solutions but pakistan is nuclear-armed. there is a direct link into the community in this country that is a lot of instability in the area. we are given a lot of aid to

pakistan in terms of education. that's right and proper for the long term solution. do you think the long-term solutions will be in place in time to protect us against some of the risks that emanate from that region? >> i'm not quite sure what you mean by this question. i mean are you saying are the long term solutions so long term that there is no possible protection in the short term? i would disagree with you. what we've got to do in pakistan is work with the security forces and armed forces in pakistan so that they are continuing to do what they've started to do where i believe it is now a greater national consensus in pakistan than ever before and that is taking on the pakistan taliban and moving on to take on al qaeda. and we have seen in the campaign in viet swat valley they've been prepared to move on. we now see there's a group of internally displaced people and it's our duty i think to help so

that they do not become themselves people who will turn to militancy because of their displacement. we have then got to support the pakistan authority as they move into waziristan and take on not just pakistan taliban but al qaeda. so these are short-term campaigns to give long term results. but in addition to that we've got to back up our effort in pakistan by supporting the economic and social development of the country that will double in size the next 30 or 40 years. a large population of people in need of education and alternatives to madrassas. that is why we are shifting a great deal of development spending towards education particularly in the north of pakistan to help those people there. so yes, in the short term -- and you require the pakistan military forces to be more active. i don't -- an interview with the general of the afghan operations that he said exactly the