said if we had to make any concessions whatsoever to the iranians to get the hostages back would be better for them to stay there and to make any concessions. the head, more hawkish on the issues and even reagan was. ..

>> win re again with the american people i think he close the sale with the three minute summation when he looked at the camera and people's living rooms are you better off did you were four years ago? but what is interesting in the days after merger with linear times and cbs all of the american people said he won the debate. [laughter] they said the distinction between the two was the difference retrained

chardonnay and a frosty cold bottle of beer. [laughter] >> host: it has been absolutely terrific to have you here and it has been a great to asking questions of you. it is so and stifel and i personally found your book terrific so if anybody has not read it is worth your while. thank you for coming. [applause]

hot. >> quetzal of you for being here and giving us a chance to talk. this is the beginning we're unfolding in new century they have ways of acquiring labels. the 18th century was a time of the classics, the 19th was the industrial revolution the 20th century was of mammoth wars. a war that never got hot the rise and fall of communism communism, and now be open the 21st century progress could be that this would be known as the century of terrorism.

i hope not but we kicked off this century with the events of 9/11 so that must give one pause so the question i want to talk about today whether nuclear proliferation, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitable. the good news coming it is not. we are masters of our own fate. just wind back to the-- of john kennedy when he first assumed the presidency 50 years ago. at that time john kennedy announced his fears that within 50 near 20 years we would have 20 nuclear states. that is not the way it has turned out. we only had nine. half a dozen sit there like the game about going nuclear but pollute -- proliferation has been dead of what went

right and what went wrong. let's start with the seven nuclear states that wanted to be nuclear but backed down. the first to that most would not even think of considering is the post world war ii neutral switzerland and sweden. those were industrial superpowers and the structure was in fact, they saw nuclear-weapons to maintain their safety between them growing blocks of east and west. so they embarked on very serious nuclear weapons programs. that is not a non sequitur as they both had very serious scientific capabilities and einstein came from cirque, lisa wagner who basically invented the phrase nuclear

fission lim chin this week in. there fitting serious programs and a documentation from the mid-60s fifth showing there were focused on the inventory of 250 nuclear weapons but yet happily what happened is the internal democratic process worked and within those countries that the local process people began to "esquire" redoing this and how much does it cost? those states concluded nuclear weapons really were not worth it because they were not weapons and decided resources and political capital could be sent anywhere so switzerland and sweden were to of the first nations to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. the other couple states that were embryonic states were brazil and argentina. and the '70s they had the same cozy relationship has

in dat and pakistan today. descendants of the spanish and portuguese history i believe they created uruguay just to keep those countries' support. when the military dictators came over they developed nuclear weapons for the balance of power in the south america. fists it started in 78 and the argentinian people had a serious program they had reactors and money and talent but yet happily the cold war ended the military dictatorships were swept aside and democracy returned and the united states began to lean on them and other countries but they leaned on argentina and brazil cahal and said this is not a good idea. in 1991 they signed a

bilateral inspections agreement to assure each other they did not have nuclear weapons programs and signed the treaty which made all of south america a nuclear-free zone. two more states marching down the nuclear path. there is also what i would call three paranoid states that started down the nuclear path and why they started in why they quit is important. taiwan's started down the path from 1971. why did they do that? because they were voted off of the ireland. but technically there were voted off in manhattan when they lost their seats on the security council. 1971 the un and other political powers decided to recognize beijing instead of tie one as the capital of china and then they lost their seats on the security

council that led the government to conclude that the americans will be abandoning us, we better have nuclear weapons to do with a huge chinese model with on the of me man so taiwan embarked on a serious nuclear weapons program and they had very good scientific staff and a lot of money. and then have 250 pounds of plutonium but at the end of the cold war is the active u.s. involvement they leaned on the tide one-- to convince them it is not a good idea. it does not do any good that is why all of these relationships that is what convince them to quit. we bought the plutonium is now in the u.s. energy

stocks and it sees being the embryonic nuclear power. the other place is south africa they've had nuclear weapons and the south african nuclear program started interestingly enough in this plan because e and 1974, the portuguese dictatorships the wartime dictator ships were thrown out in a peaceful revolution in the new democratic government decided we would not support colonies in africa and the more so they withdrew from mozambican and angola and those countries neighboring south africa immediately became havens for the guerrilla forces that wanted to open the south african government that meant it is surrounded by a states harboring guerrillas and after a few years the soviets saw the

opportunity and began to pour in forces and support large cuban forces. therefore south africa decided it needs to walk down the nuclear path to protect themselves given themselves the surrounding the threat they also acquired in interesting ally, israel. they had a challenging 1973 involved in the yom kippur war there really could have had a tough time had the u.s. not enter the logistically so after this 1973 war they decided to make a deal with the south africans. the israeli officials went to south africa and they would supply the technology needed for boosting weapons. south africans would provide uranium which is a byproduct

as well as real-estate. the nuclear-weapons program got off to a serious start and then one decade later, the south africans were producing nuclear weapons. the enriching uranium and by 1982 when they first produced there but been that a bomb was a very efficient type similar to the american one used at hiroshima and using one per year. but in 1989 changes came along that change the perception. 1989 the cold war ends and the soviet union goes broke and can no longer support forces in the amoco led neighboring states and cannot support them so the threat of the neighboring countries begins to go away. ben he decides to change

things. he decides to abandon apartheid and nuclear weapons by the time he made this decision south africa had assembled six. but in 1989 the clerk began to unwind the whole process two years later would be for florida parliament and said here's what they cost here is how many people are involved and they call on the international atomic energy agency. they agreed and they were taken apart they recycle the energy and south africa ceased being a nuclear state. the third paranoid state is even more interesting. libya. libya is run by a certified cuckoo berry mr. khaddafi. once he came to power the oil revenues began to flow

and to embark on a serious campaign of terrorism supporting the ira and blowing up airplanes over scotland for the final insult was from berlin in 1986 there was a nightclub frequented by gis and a bunch were killed. the american president decided he had enough and therefore decided on massive air raids in the attempt to knock off mr. khaddafi and his staff. these took place a 1986 or succeeded in killing a lot of people including mr. gadhafi's daughter but did not get him. the death of his daughter understandably make him very unhappy. after that may come with the terrorism stopped so conventional wisdom says he

has gone quiet and will stop blowing up airplanes. rahm. he shifted to nuclear terrorism and began to march down the path acquiring nuclear equipment. for four years too basically did business with a bunch of hustlers and did not getting anywhere but in 1990 he crossed paths with a.q. khan in pakistan and the equivalent began to flow and starting in 1990 with the help of a.q. khan, a centrifuge, a design, a package weapon design that a.q. khan got from try net and made its way into libya. this continued through 2001 where libya was marching down the nuclear path. slow but steady. i'm sorry. 2001 the events of 9/11 happened and mr. khaddafi

and his advisers were struck by the very speedy and effective response of the american army in iraq and regardless of how i played itself out, that capabilities of the american army were very impressive and oppressed mr. khaddafi that the u.s. could lead and troops in tripoli and take the town overnight. in addition, what is important to look at is the inter generational issues because mr. khaddafi sun does not live in the be above the and and he is a banker and made it clear you do not want to blow up london because i want to bank there so these generational discussion started to take place with the assistance of american and british agents and diplomats. by the end of 2003 mr. khaddafi decided to quit. he decided to quit and call

in the iaea with full disclosure it was not begrudgingly but here is how the a.q. khan network worked coming here is a centrifuge machines that are packed up and live in oak ridge tennessee and he even turned over a bag of drawings how to build a nuclear weapon and receive from tried a. by the end of 2003, libya was not a nuclear state and it is clear there are no longer marching down the path. they could change their mind but it is not likely. the be acquit. in addition to those states states, there are three other very important big-time nuclear powers that you do not think about buy carry an important lesson because they are seen as a potential disaster. the republics emerged

through the whole soviet union, 1991 the soviet union dissolved and left behind for a nuclear states with large numbers of nuclear weapons. kazakhstan and belarus had 6,000 nuclear weapons. missiles and so forth. those states were impressed that they were nuclear powers. and ukrainian government said we're now in nuclear-powered and we can sit at the head table and we're part of the world stage and this is a very big deal. and an enormously important and i noticed achievement bill clinton's secretary of defense spent five years lobbying the ukraine and having

dealt -- nuclear-weapons is a bad idea they're hard to take care avandia genoa to be a target on the american list in virazole list that will persuade you not to have nukes. he worked the complicated transactions were the deal was the ukrainians would return the nukes to russia and would provide fuel for the reactors in the ukraine and similar types of transactions the attitude was different. they wanted the nuclear stuff out. but after five years bill perry and day dedicated diplomats convince them to turn is 6,000 nuclear weapons. there are no nuclear weapons in my opinion in those countries. want enormous achievement. lastly there are ways they

quit when israel comes and explains it. this happens with iraq saddam hussein once he had oil revenues embarked on a nuclear weapons program and by 1981 he had a reactor and the israeli air force came and blue with a way. mr. sadam had plenty of money with a nuclear determination he started down a different path and was signed isotope separation which does not with as big of a footprint and was of starting all over again. subsequent expectations vectors feel 1991 at the time of the 2/8 war, he was a few months away from having a ball but then the u.s. air force came along him blew them up and then he was out of the business because the inspectors come embargoes and the clear ambitions were quick. same with syria they decided they wanted nuclear weapons

and made a deal with 10 north korea as to build along the euphrates rivers september 2007 the israelis blew away. so much for syria. those of a dozen states. now bear in mind there are a handful that i want to talk about. south korea, japan, germany our industrial states with plenty of money and talent and have everything it takes but they trust the u.s. nuclear umbrella but it is inconceivable south korea, japan could stand by if the u.s. could stand there across the street from china. there are big industrial states because they rely on the nuclear umbrella as was defined and we start thinking about how do we

care rid of nuclear weapons? in addition, there are three muslim states better on the cusp of a nuclear capability and really have not decided and we need to pay attention. the first is algeria but it turns out in 1983 they contract with the chinese to build a plutonium producer 90 myers sell the belch years. then the intelligence world we did not learn about that until 1991 and that is only because at that time algeria went through at the internal political war between the militants and fundamentalist we got to see what was going on and a government that emerged decided the reactor was not worthwhile therefore the new government decided to put their reactor under

iaea supervision. but it is a very big chinese design plutonium producer or at least is idle in the desert but perfectly capable of producing plutonium if they wanted to do so. another embryonic state is saudi arabia. it doesn't have a weapons lab by the notion of stuff that is better. the saudis in 1985 brought some intermediate range ballistic missiles and they made the deal and were delivered in the saudis are supposed to be our friend but did not tell us until 1988 and now they have the supply of several cs2 missiles. it is interesting because it is not very good with accuracy that means it is

only suitable for carrying a nuclear weapons but i fear that is why the saudis have them. they will not develop duke's for i suspect the opportunity presents itself they will buy them from pakistan. pakistan and saudi arabia have close relationships and the ousted leader and they could go nuclear from buying nukes from pakistan when or if the occasion arises. the third state on the cusp it is iran. pursuing a nuclear program doubt they had a second uranium enrichment facility most knew that one year ago that the near times confirmed a few weeks ago they have a weapons design capability undoubtedly will test their relying on the

first dupont weapons. when they do they will do so because it fits their political needs but that is a subject for another seminar but i will quote from "the washington post" a few months ago a crippling combination to diplomatic pressure, economic stations and military coercion offers the best prospects for controlling this kind of proliferation. we need to pay attention. that is a history. let's talk about the real world and the united states that did go nuclear. what can we learn from our experience? what is a history what happened to the nine states that did go nuclear? they all have an interesting story.

the american a bomb develop them loss alamos. a good product absolutely not. the americans ran the cafeteria but the science was done by europeans. my partner and i took the directory and looked at the division directors and the various chiefs and scientific quote sandisk dae eight -- found out the leading group was brits and canadians which is logical because there were the first to see the possibility of making a nuclear weapon to leave london it went to canada then los alamos. the senior scientific staff was u.k. and canadian. the u.s. was 21% but the germans and austrians were also 21%. hungarians 17%.

the point* is that los alamos is not an american and achievement or city the technology spreads that is very important to understand. technology knows no boundaries. the second nation to go nuclear was the soviet union dead decision of political effects told the scientists to go do it they had a lot of technology the soviets first fired 19494 years later in the interesting thing is the first soviet device is the exact copy of the nagasaki weapon. the third to go nuclear was the brits. the u.k. when nuclear after the zero board and the reasons are lost to history. that is what we do and it was thursday it or something

like that. [laughter] but what happened is u.s. elections and 1946. fortunately for president truman his name was not on the ballot by his party was beaten big-time in the congressional elections. the first ones after the war the opposition and gained 12 seats and more and house but the point* is they elected staunch isolationist in the campaign was no more in europe, but that is somebody else's problem and we will not go there. we came to the conclusion here we go again. but nonetheless they could be perceived to u.s. would abandon them and leave them on theron again and there for two months after the elections of 46 the advisers made the decision to go nuclear and made them with

two finance ministers and he could pay for it and then did not even tell the defense committee that they would turn on a weapons program for almost one year. one britt who had been at los alamos had flown on bed nagasaki mission they fired in 19525 years after the decision to go. the fourth nation is france another interesting tale how technology travels and paris france was of the core of nuclear science in the late thirties and a nobel prize winner really did some of the first experiments on understanding chain reactions as a result. the war came and france was overrun and then most of the

high-tech major the scientific staff in paris left. they went to montreal. that is one of the first reactors that was the outpost of the weapons program. french scientist went to montreal they took with them the heavy water and very important. now it is july of 1944 and charles day gaulle goes to montreal to visit. when he gets there he mips -- meets with the refugees scientist despite the rules and security clearance, they all tell him what they have been doing and give him a briefing on the nuclear weapons program. and general day gaulle the leader of the french urged several of them you must come back to paris. which is what they did.

so then they came back to paris but when they got there they briefed their mentor who did this thesis but unfortunately he was a card-carrying communist and here is another that goes from montreal to paris to joseph stalin. the french fired in algeria and 1965 years after their decision to start. they did not start a weapons program right after the board but were basically working on reactors that is why the french are so good at the reactor business today by . they turned their attention after the suez crisis. the fifth nation was china. china, mao took power and the nuclear weapons were not on his agenda at all.

he wanted to return chided to greatness but the trigger was a nuclear threat by the eisenhower administration for understandable reasons. mao fell to turn on the war and eisenhower turned on and gets elected immediately threatens north korea and tied with nuclear use if we do not have a cease-fire so very short order corrientes then there is the taiwan straits crisis the following year and the following year threatened with a mainland invasion but then the nuclear cards were played that would convince mao you need weapons of his own and turned on his program january 1955. he had massive help from the soviets until 1958 when they change their mind, but he had helped.

some of us are old enough to remember klaus. he was a super spy at las alamos. and whiskey in the design of the u.s. atomic bombs used in world war ii and a very good physicist and a bright guy but also huge amounts of data. when it is over he goes back to england and then a couple years later the cryptographer herb breaks the code of the wartime traffic and put the figure on a bunch of people including klaus convicted of stealing trade secrets in 1950 and thrown into the present system and we assume that is the end. rahm. klaus gets out and 1959 and bridges edo?

he moves to east germany. what does he do? he has a summer steady for an important people ahead of the chinese nuclear program he gives the chinese of how well los alamos program worked. the technology moves and wondrous ways. the six nation to go nuclear was israel. that is an interesting story because israel all they decided to have paid program after the suez crisis. two refresh your memory 1956, the brits and french and israelis decide to invade egypt and retake the suez canal. they did not consult the americans before doing this but they invaded and eisenhower's said stop and

threatened with economic retaliation so they withdrew. febris already had nuclear-weapons france and israel came to the conclusion we cannot count on the americans to become our security blanket forever. the suez crisis was an october 1956. november, golden bear and went to france and made the deal to undergo a joint program and they have the physics and technology but they would do the heavy lifting of building of facilities. the interesting thing is a few years later it was said when the french fired the algerian desert here was the first time two nations went nuclear with one-shot.

several thought with india the triggers a border war with china and the exclamation point of the chinese test of 1964 and with that the and dank community began to give serious thought parker it is a country with a lot of talented people but ghandi put the stamp of approval in 1967. the initial massive health in terms of technology and the first was me 1974. interesting thing about that test, first of all, we never saw it coming. was at the pentagon then we said the indians had done in nuclear test but the satellites showed nothing but that is because they dug the test told by hand. maybe they did not want it to be seen that for whatever

reason they dug it by hand. and something most bureaucrats wedded meyer is the minister of defense or her foreign secretary or any other national operatives that she had a nuclear weapons program until four weeks before the first test. they inspired a few years after they decided to go. pakistan number eight. that is the scary part. it was a 1971 civil war in bangladesh that was off of the mainland and that civil war was assisted and the next impetus came from a nuclear test in 1974 the pakistani program was not under way but really not anything done.

and technology was stolen but not much happened until 1982. in the early '80s paying came to power and consulted china and it is very creed the effect their to me and my a co-author paying it made a conscious decision to proliferate nuclear weapons into the third world. we have 40 talked about algeria saudi arabia and other places. the chinese pumped the technology all over the place but pakistan was a principal beneficiaries. they got weapons designs point* reno that because they showed up and libya and in fact,, the first pakistani nuclear test was not and pakistan. the first test of place at a chinese test site eight years after their decision to go ahead.

the pakistani tasted further in 1988 but totally a product of chinese technology. pakistan is the real problem. why? because it was started for religious regions and others have developed for image or security ping and made it clear that to we will develop a muslim and we will share it with the muslim world. that may have changed. the general did not last long an office and generals never do. his plane exploded mysteriously but there is some brand of the philosophy that continues. today pakistan has no government but a president and his claim to fame is he

is benazir bhutto with a word which is how he got elected and spent six years in the slammer in pakistan for corruption. two him, everything is for sale and what does he have that as the most valuable asset? and nuclear-weapons satisfy i think they will buy weapons from pakistan. that is a good news because al qaeda will be in charge then you must understand getting nuclear-weapons before 9/11 the al qaeda operatives from the mountains and afghanistan met with a pakistani nuclear type who were believers and fanatics and had conversations about getting a new weapon i did the inventory into the hands of al qaeda. they did not exceed both the cia and musharraf intelligence committee was very effective but the point* is that is what al

qaeda has in mind. perhaps the most discouraging thing that i hear is my friends tell me that perhaps one quarter of the pakistani military is sympathetic to cockeyed up. the ninth nation was north korea. they probably started seriously with kim jong-il succession to power in 1994. the first shot october 2006. it was a fizzle but what they told the chinese and what we have learned is the design yield was not 20 kilotons a big fat man but the design yield was only four callow tons -- kilotons hopefully to be missile compatible and light weight. the north korea and tested again in the me 2009 they

have to kilotons. a problem with north korea is not just that they are a nuclear state but pumping technology and materials to all of the other guys that we were about. pakistan and north korea is a fountain of nuclear weapons technology. so that is the short history. what lessons did we learn? in my opinion there is a very significant nuclear event in the western world during this president's term. nuclear weapons we have not spent time talking about them but i have seen them go off i have designed them. it is a release of energy that is incomprehensible and damage and destruction even a very efficient weapon delivered by a truck kills everybody south of central park. they are terrible and there is a distinctive possibility

and technology does not keep boundaries you cannot keep the secrets but keep control of the fissile material. they are so involved in the decision to go nuclear they are not up his political statements. it takes the industrial state five or six years. the nation's can go nuclear proliferation and can be stock. that is the whole point*. it is a political cost we do not want to pay and can be stopped by a persuasion three forceful with terms of bribes and threats. not a good idea but that works.

on the positive side is not unreasonable to look at pakistan and india and the same frame as we saw argentina and brazil decades ago. half of the people say what are they spending money on nuclear weapons? if you can convince the nation's a good diplomacy having nuclear weapons is not a good idea. libya is an example if -- example model of north korea. maybe not this leader but the next thing is convinced as khaddafi it is pointless. the bad news is i cannot find any serious body of thought or any organization to what do we do in the event of a terrorist nuclear event? we may trace plutonium to a reactor and karachi or to a

uranium centrifuge but what will we do when it goes off? it goes off somewhere those governments pakistani, russians will apologize but what will we do? this is a clean-up problem with katrina times 1 million. what to redo next? to we blowup karachi? and a third the to preclude all of this would as a declaratory policy that goes with it. what do we say as a country of this sort of thing happens. what do we do? will be threatened to blow up back at if that radicals blow up new york? we're back where we started. john kennedy forecast nuclear weapons states but there is only nine of them today. man doesn't have backed off and half a dozen are thinking about it. it can be done but we better think through the downside if we fail. that is the assignment for

thoughtful people. there's a great bunch of people that need to think through what will we do if a terrorist device goes off in the western world crises of the challenges because the challenges for the 21st century are very different from the 20th. thank you very much. thank you for having me here. [applause] >> thank you for joining us here. i enjoyed reading your book and i want to cruise to hong about nuclear terrorism in the 21st century but also how to manage nuclear proliferation. you are confident we can and proliferation and will states back but that the

situation in 1998 when its debt and pakistan tested and reflective way the clinton administration sent those two countries to their room not until september 12 when we said who has control? we discovered the pakistani is had gotten out of their room and were cavorting with al qaeda. did use the ways to manage nuclear states with command-and-control technology and doing something other than once you become nuclear you will be banished and is sanctioned? but also preparing them for the custodial capacity of panting newt -- family nuclear weapons? >> will 100 other people allow you to get away with six questions? [laughter] >> i am not confident we can roll it back. that is the ambition but whether we do it we are masters of our own fate. is there a future in sharing

weapons security? we wanted to do that with the chinese with the u.s. government and those governments have problems with that because if you start talking about keeping weapons secure, you really get into what is designed in both the u.s. government want to do that with china and the chinese government wants to talk about it. that is what is on the to do list. because they are very secure the russians are very secure but the pakistani secure their weapons by driving around and trucks. that is not very secure. >> 32 years ago i was there and i have questions about our presence.

by the treaty is good deep penetration but even when we tried to do life expectancy or life extinction working on the weapons that we do have, the weapons control people say that is the capability so it is a new weapon. do you have any comments on whether we're losing our edge? >> the question revolves around the life of nuclear weapons, are they secured or will they be secured? first of all, u.s. nuclear weapons are highly secured. we can have one right here, here or use it for a coffee table. no way we can make it go off. you have to have the numbers the president has to make it arm and if you tamper with

it, it will melt down. the weapons are very secure. but the gene is another issue. they are not rocks you put in the crotch they are more like a ferrari. you need to charge the batteries and refill the bottles with tritium it has a half life of 13 years but other changes are to take place. alpha decay means you get bubbles in the plutonium and the issue of seem to fit the issues we have are incredibly at work. and it is something we need to pay attention to. but if we will rely on the turns three need to have 100 percent confidence that it will work.

>> you talk about carrot sticks keeping other countries to become nuclear. what characteristics do we have to prevent iran from becoming nuclear? >> the threats is not to be on the target list and the carrots were turning your weapons and you will get fuel for the reactors. my perception is that we treat iran as we did the soviet union. you must understand in my opinion that there like the soviet union of the cold war held by a but bench a very corrupt technocrats who have been skimming four decades. therefore they are not going to do irrational things. second made their mismanaging their country just as well and therefore.

>> terrible of employment and no gasoline because they did not fix refineries of the carrots and sticks our diplomacy. but the embargo threats support the oil industry, refineries, the oil business is no longer a stick in the:the ground if we had support for the industry that would really interfere with their revenue throw -- well. the bargaining cash flow with all of the mullis and are moving their money iran on to the former president is a millionaire it there. the embargo types of things there are sanctions that if you can do i am not an expert. but just as our approach is

we want to force the soviet government, i think a long-term cure was to get the longer generation to take back their country and forcing them all was to yield. >> we have time for one more question. >> one of the lessons that you have learned it takes a nation state roughly five years of the time it decides to go nuclear to be nuclear you may have its first nuclear physics explosion in? not a weapon, but a test? >> not only that but with the exception of the manhattan project which now is europe canadian and american but every other example had detail despite information. and it still took them five years. not only that comment i can only speak for los alamos

alamos, when the trinity explosion went off we had 2500 people working. the brits had over 2000 and the franchise well. i no longer have to worry about terrace making their own bomb. >> because the reason it takes five years is to build a bridge to get fissile materials. that is a stumbling block. wants you have fissile materials if you are not concerned about yield ratios you can deliver it in a truck or a boat instead of a reentry vehicle, then the technology floats if you look on the web or spies but the issue is how do i get my hands on plutonium. once you have that the rest is easy and therefore that is why you have to worry and the fissile treaty cut off is important part of weapons

can happen fairly rapidly. starting from scratch, if you can find a stashed in russia because they did not counted very well as you got some guys to steal it or other places then the time is very short. the challenge of want to leave with you is what will we do about this how we think it through because the threat of the nuclear event is sustained and what is our declaratory policy and what will we do? >> thank you for having me. [applause]

>> every month of press club coast and author night we have the author of defenders of eighth. -- defenders of eighth. let's start with the basic question. who was charles v? >> guest: charles v was the holy roman emperor and misaligned the neck of a cent was the tenth of the ottoman empire. and they too came to clash in vienna in 1532 and it was a clash of vampires and a

clash of civilizations and religion broker so we think we seeing we are the only ones that have the experience of jihad verses crusade but this is what i have been doing for the last four books is reminding people of people of episodes and history when islam and christianity came into conflict. the result was the islamic forces we're stopped in vienna. had they not been stopped come up what the mega miss it wanted to do was go all the way to the rhine river. had he prevailed, europe would have been at islamic to the rhine river in 1527. that is a major turning point* in history. >> host: what do your source is? >> guest: i have an office and the library of congress and that is the best library

in the world by far. with this book and others of medieval history, there are contemporaneously chronicles. those are the most immediate resources and the once that are the areas of people who were there. that is what we've up 427 you talk about the correlation between 9/11 and this period in history. with this research are you constantly reminded of that? >> i have never done any history not relevant to the current day. that is a litmus test for me. and it seemed after 9/11 it was important for americans to understand they were not the first ones to have this kind of clash with the islamic world. . .