no excuse to take on the soft power. i woke up in 1945 when nuclear bombs were dropped on nagasaki when the united nations came then immediately placed on the new world organizations atomic energy and atomic weapons and they are still there. one crucial question is how we can harness the enormous potential to harness atomic energy safely that could predict a humanity with a suicide. the one that i warned about already in the '60s is how

we can ensure those civilizations of a quick suicide by the use of nuclear weapons in this existentialist issues on this battle -- a panel is a key person to help make nuclear power save so the world recognize it as a viable major way to meet our energy needs without greenhouse gases that pollute the earth's atmosphere. . .

tells us when was an unimpaired ice, the lord told him that he would henceforth have to use his own energy to survive and with one of my breaths, the lord said. welcome as you know, man has developed a great talent to use this outside of the body. fire, wind, hydro forces, and this includes exploitation of oil and gas.

this became possible. today developing countries and industrialization and a global population reached out in this and some gave problems to solve. one is geopolitical. during the 1979 oil embargo, access to oil is used as political leverage. one way was to respond with nuclear power and today they ukraine's is lucky that it is less jeopardy and half of it is nuclear. and this is a problem. the second problem is environmental as developing countries accelerate their use of fuel, in the industrial world we have to stopped and explained that we have our he put so much

carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere that the climate is in jeopardy already. so while this is in a high energy use in the poorest parts of the world, we will look for measures that can result in more effective generation and use of energy. in order to get more miles of the gallon and to use energy-saving insulation as well. replacing the co2 fossil fuels is more difficult. many say that even though the price of solar and wind power has gone down, we also have the problem and it is harder to

announce to the passengers that we have to wait for a while until it starts working again. we need some of this almost everywhere and i think the the principal cause is fear or radiation, reaching us and it is necessary to explain to the public but compared to fossil fuels, nuclear radiation has cost little damage to life and the environment and this is clearly not enough. so for all of the improved technology needed to ensure this, i spent six years of my life indiana to help build and strengthen an international regulatory infrastructure for the safe use of nuclear energy. it was the heaviest lifting in this area that lies in technology innovation and the

national regulatory authorities. for a time i was happy to be associated with those who deal with this in american companies and similar companies that you may not have ever heard of. including this way of producing nuclear power. and i would like to ask if she thinks that some types of reactors of the generation that they have coming here now and new regular tory requirements will be able to ensure this with emissions into the environment. and is there an expectation for this that can bring us safety and operation and long live

this. and if so, when you think we can get it on the market. turning to the need for this in a world with nuclear weapons. it is created a muscular system for security and it's very much behind it and it is the creation of the organization. this includes the general principle and it was based on the practical knowledge that some analysts are all more equal than others. and it would continue within the new security council to maintain world order. members are allowed to use force

only in individual or collective self-defense and the council was given authority to take action to meet the threats and the five members gave themselves this in the security council. and it was a radical that as we know the cold war stopped the former allies to act in unison. under the u.s. leadership when it came into being and this is sexual policy of containment was against any commonest expansion. and this includes the military arsenals agree with a number of weapons peeking at some 75,000 weapons in the world. nuclear war was never closer and anguish number greater than during the 1962 cuban crisis. and i remember and the cold war,

there was a danish poet in my lifetime. he said the noble acts may one day save the human race. well, we have been wide and we have reached an accommodation together a consistent of the russians and the u.s. from turkey. and that was the same part of it. [inaudible] and that includes the political left of the crisis that was formulated in 1984 as president reagan said he nuclear war cannot never be caught. in today's conflict regarding this in the ukraine, i believe that the major nuclear weapons situation will happen to seek to avoid direct confrontations. mutual economic dependence is an

added reason between europe and russia and perhaps we should not recognize that globalization, including accelerating economic interdependence is an important thing standing against war. in crisis is like the ukraine in cuba, the military body language commands most public attention and you will must provide this return to peace. in the case of the ukraine, it is of key importance to understand that the ukraine must not become a member of nato, bringing this military system up to the borders of russia. and that includes the incursions in eastern ukraine and they are not, of course, excused by earlier western breaches.

when looking for this i think that we would do well to remember that as necessary that is bent on expansion. in today's russia, many feel the need for containment of the north atlantic alliance that has crept ever closer to russia and that enables operations in the black sea. not only in africa but the black sea. many think it is naïve of them to see containment and respect rather than imperial expansion. there will be many common answers that can and need to be pursued, even though this will naturally incur some limits. and it is one such common

interest that will tell us of possibilities and problems. and that is the excessive nuclear arsenal in russia and the united states following up on this treaty. and this includes many more items of this agenda and we have a long catalogue of it since 2006 and this has certainly been achieved. on that agenda i would place this comprehensive agreement that neither ratification of the united states and china and a few other countries to enter into the forest and it should be realized that leaving this treaty in limbo as it is now done by the u.s. senate has been left in limbo and that includes

some of the countries and then we might be in there for another round. this could start a new nuclear arms race. and let's just talk about this. despite the iraq war in 2003 and the security council at that time, the council never returned to what prevailed during the cold war. many matters have agreed and the great number continued to be taken and there are even those that are reset and corporations on some highly specific issues. and it is a bilateral

corporation forced by the decision of the security council and this includes the iranian nuclear program and all talks with notice in geneva and deanna and with the understanding that it will be brought one day to the security council trying to find a solution. and despite much of the intention to between current members, the council is gradually emerging as the authority where actions are global legalities can often be recited. and in your thoughts about global security, it could be in

future use of the security council and i would also do about your work to continue and on the comprehensive test ban and i was much engaged with the value and importance of independence or vacation. we have faced that problem and i have faced it as well in 2002 and 2003 and we know the importance of the independent verification. you have it in a bilateral agreement and a tradition in this includes other cases as well. and so you need the impartial that are not subject to any corruption her and her till i would like talk to you about the

importance of independent verification and i thank you very much. >> thank you very much, doctor hans blix. i now realize more about this thanks to your not retiring multiple times. [applause] and i think the you define what a public servant is. so thank you for your service and thank you for your continuing of pushing the government in a holistic way so thank you very much. i'm thrilled to be here with this great panel. you come out well, much better than i assure you that i have done and i am honored to be here with the madam of undersecretary

and i would like to say that i am biased a little bit and in tonight you will be able to define that later. but again, we work together and i think as the doctor mentioned, not only has she been at the forefront of these issues, but i should say that i have worked with her on the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty and if i think about one of our biggest successes of the obama administration in working with secretary clinton, that was over great odds and i'm just thrilled by the work you did in the energy in working the hell and trying to get us to move forward. take you for your service and as you know, the director of the carnegie center, we thank you as well. and mr. sherman and allison macfarlane.

thank you both for coming. allison is an expert with safety regulations. a doctorate of geology from mit. and prior to taking on this position, she was a chairman and serve as the american nuclear futures in 2000 and 2012. and what is clear to me is that i have the lowest iq of anyone on this panel. so is a little bit intimidating. and since i get asked the questions, we will see how it all works. and so help me think about russia. and all of us can pick up the newspapers and understand that presdient vladimir putin, the competitions with our viral relations sanctions that we are

imposing on the government seems to be an international outcry for much of the activities. and at the same time as the doctor mentioned, we have worked on this with the nuclear capabilities not only to fulfill the obligations of this treaty, but we need to move forward. can we walk and chew gum at the same time. can we decide this idea on this as well as negotiating and help us to think about that. >> thank you very much and thank you for the highly respected colleague that you are and i have admired the work of allison macfarlane over the years. it's a great pleasure to be here today and be on this panel with tom and my boss when he was the deputy or deputy secretary of state and with allison as well who is a good friend and also somebody who has a very tough

job as the head of the regulatory commission and so i'm very honored to be here today. so hans already talked about this terrible crisis between russia and the ukraine and the international community and their profound concern about the way that russia has stepped beyond the bounds of international law in so many ways and i agree very much because international law, these are the basic principles on which the order of our planet is maintained. and so this has caused great concern and i think that the power of of the sanctions regime

is an important way to impart the consequences of what they have undertaken and at the same time i like to stress that historically we have always found that the very top of our national security challenges, getting our hands around the problem of weapons of mass destruction, how are we going to address this existential threat to the international community as a whole. so for that reason traditional even in the darkest days of the cold war when we face a grave crisis with the soviet union, we always try to pursue continuing limitations and reductions in nuclear weapons and this is following the cuban missile crisis which brings us to the brink of this and i think that

that's a real wake-up call on both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats have recognized that the weapons of mass destruction, where they are concerned, we need to push that up till no matter what crises are part of this otherwise. so we have worked very well with russia over the past year to get those chemical weapons out of syria. we have cooperation with them including chemical weapons and precursors from syria that have now been destroyed. and we have cut that cooperation on and we would not be where we are today in terms of international security and preventing chemical weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists in that region of the world. so that is a great illustration

of what i am talking about. it's another area where we continue to work hard to implement the treaty in the interest to get the number of nuclear weapons since the dawn of the nuclear age in the late 1950s. and so we need a partner and at the present time russian federation is not willing to take this off of the table last july when he talked about this up to one third further below the numbers in the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. when it's implemented they will have these deployed nuclear warheads and we have more work to do to get those numbers lower. so this would bring it down somewhere in the neighborhood of

1000 nuclear warheads on both sides. and it's a good step forward and up to this point we don't have a dance partner. even before this crisis began they have not been willing to pick that offer up off the table. we are continuing to try to make the case. so we have perforation treaty reveals coming up are you but we will continue to try to work with them and get some further reductions going. >> that was brilliant. i should tell you that as we sit back and look at the issues around syria, much has been written, but not enough about the successes of this administration and quite frankly the work that we have done to eliminate chemical weapons in syria that will historically five years from now the written

and we have done the world a great paper. just ask you one question. the war that was played has been widely publicized. do you concur with that role and how they work with the syrians or do they view it as a way for them to enhance their own position on the world stage? meaning that how do you think about accommodation of those two? >> i think that there are great and if it's for both sides in this and i do not see the u.s. want to go when and that is what they might have done from various sites and it really weakened the status. that would've been a strange thing if they had done this penalty and they said okay, go back and i'm not sure if that

would've stopped them, but i think will really stop them was the concern of development because we don't know what will develop yet. and this includes there would've been no support for the security council and i don't think it would have had this either. so what were the benefits? secondly i think that the u.s. public opinion and that was the benefit. on the russian side there was another benefit. russia has two great powers and they have this power of the security council and they have

this through the security council and the organized international security. and this includes organizing the international function where they participate in this. so for my part as a lawyer, i think that that was a good process. so without a risk of the terrorists grabbing them. >> just one question in regards to the disruption of the chemical weapons in syria, people talk about where they're going to move them, they had to be dug up and transported and how i think about that? >> very quickly there were a

priority one chemicals that were more or less for direct loose untrained use and they were removed from syria and taken to a ship to the u.s. defense department had any hydrolysis system that basically did this with massive amounts of water, these chemicals were the remains of that were taken to be treated in a normal commercial industrial disposition facility. and so everything was done in an environmentally safe way. no leakage or problems. it was a very solid effort. then there were a number of chemicals, chemical weapons are very similar to chemical fertilizer. including being used in producing chemical weapons are some of the same that go into those industrial processes. to some of the chemicals were not considered so immediately

dangerous is taken out of the country in the uk and finland and also in the united states at port arthur and they were talked about as a normal industrial process. >> thank you let me just talk about the work that the regulatory commission does. speak about what you do. when you wake up in the morning the on coming back to work, how does this group understand the role that you play domestically and internationally. >> [inaudible] okay, to answer the question, i really appreciate being here and being able to speak with you all. and it is a real honor to be

here and so what we do with other regulatory commissions as well is about the safety and security in this country. so it goes beyond ensuring that the nuclear reactors operate safely. and there are over 20,000 in the country. they may have experienced some of them and there are a lot of radiographers in the shale gas tracking field in oil exploration and in agriculture as well and so maybe some of you have personal experience with

that. so we do have an international role as well that is very important to us and we have cooperation programs and assistance programs and in cooperation we work with the energy agency and i was just over there been working with my international counterparts we were together and we share personnel and we exchanged lists and we also provide assistance to a variety of trans variety of countries as well, those that are developing nuclear regulators and those are thinking about developing nuclear power and we have worked with them in a variety of ways

as well. >> one of the experiences that i have is after the disasters in japan, as you recall we were hit by an earthquake and the synonymy and had enormous impact on japan in the people including being determined on a path for 50% on a pathway and it's a much cleaner power generation and many options right now. and on one side it happened and so help us do things that they

may have done, right or wrong, and is the nuclear power that they need this? i think that that is a much slower path. >> [inaudible] >> first of all, i can't speak for the japanese. but we do work very closely with our japanese counterparts. after the accident they rebuild from scratch the nuclear regulators and we have a very important relationship with them. they have basically been in existence for over two years and they have been working incredibly hard to try to develop new standards and work through the existing facilities,

all of which are close and they are in the process of re-certifying them. and they have recently issued a license through this plan and now it's up to the prefecture to approve that. and there are a lot of lessons learned in the united states was the only one to learn them. we have learned them with their international counterparts as well and what is your interesting is that many of the countries have basically come to the same conclusion learning the same lessons from fukushima. one of the main lessons was a nuclear power plant often has more than one reactor and out

more than one reactor could fail at the same time. so we didn't have the right preparations in place to ensure that we have backup power for a number of plants and not just one. and so in the united states we have been asking our plans through order initiatives that they ensure that they have this backup equipment and by 2016 they will all have this backup equipment. many of them already have much of the backup men seismically equipped to put these backup generators and palms and wiring and typing in and so they will be prepared for something like that and we have also been asking about emergency preparedness and we did a lot of learning about being able to communicate properly and that was one of the big things in japan. also asking them to talk about

the flooding hazards that were issued at fukushima as well. >> doctor, thank you so much. we have an international pr problem with the use of nuclear energy? is a clean, it's reliable, do we have a pr problem? >> yes, i think that we do, certainly. but it's very curious as to why this is strong and it it's a part of equanimity. the senator came here and we had long talks and he coined the expression that a nuclear accident anywhere is a nuclear accident everywhere. that is why we need to look not only at fukushima but also other islands and also at what can we

learn from that. and that includes 50% of electricity which is nuclear. and in germany there was enormous reaction and then fukushima came in the public opinion was so strong thing that they would take out nuclear power rather equated the beginning of the 1920s. in italy and switzerland as well they are also facing this and they decided that they wouldn't go on. in the uk when gas is coming out from the northeast, they were undecided on nuclear power and

they are going to have to make a decision on yet another one. the other one is the far east and china, south korea, india, and many others. turkey as well and lots of expansion. i think that the western world should remember about this expansion is that we feel the asian competition is very strong and they have this in many ways. including spending a lot of money on this that is very expensive. and we offer another competitive disadvantage for the western industry and we should be aware of that problem. the answer to these questions speaks about this and i think that -- correct me if i'm wrong,

but i remember safety was introduced in many plants so that there was, if there was less pressure and at the same time cap the radioactivity. i don't think that they had that in fukushima. but there's also questions about the placement of the generator and the electric generator and there's a lot of things that could be learned and that will have to be learned by the industry that is now in operation to make it even safer. and for the future i think that it is also what i asked you about and we have this which i am told has a much greater generation is superior to what we are seeing now and can we

also hope for this with more efficiency. >> thank you very much and thank you for answering the questions. and in terms of this in the u.s. we have or reactors and two in georgia in two in south carolina and we are overseeing the construction quite heavily in their everyday that they are in talks to inspecting this. and there are two of them there

that are under construction right now and you mentioned the epr design which was under construction in finland and france and they have unfortunately experienced incredible delays. we will wait and see in our job is to make sure that these things operate safely, not promote them but to make sure that they do so safely. and it does happen within a few weeks ago and they have a license to a new design that we approved a for this and we will see if that is constructed anywhere as well.

what sort of fair building their model of this reactor and four of them in the united arab emirates that does not have nuclear power and we work closely with the regulator as well. so in terms of this there is this only on paper and its something that we have not seen any reactors and nor do we expect to anytime in the next five to 10 years. and that is really out in the future and something we didn't mention which is part of this design and it's much smaller.

because right now you cannot buy small and medium. their only small. and so the small modular reactors we have been having discussions about with some of the u.s. domestic's potential reactors and they intend to submit this design certification application in 2016 and we will see what happens. because they havarti been delayed area and we will be how we go work. and it's embedded within this industry and there are multiple influences all around.

and they were facing a very different future and the expectation was there could be a renaissance and they could construct a lot of reactors and we are now just making sure and i'm not going to get too far out in some of my headlines. >> it's a much more easier topic and this includes prices and ebola. many people have not recognized that in less than a couple weeks we are meeting another deadline with the iranians. and many of you know the p5+1 is

the extension given and it helps the group understand the key negotiating issues because i think that people are a little bit confused and they are focusing on their civilian programs and this could be used against our allies and ultimately the understanding they are with the programs and the end goal. helping to think about this issue holistically and what we are doing about it. and we like to think about having this problem is having a couple of different parts to it.

and this includes the nonproliferation treaty. it says the program that it has pursued to put in place with nuclear power reactors, developing this enrichment capability, all of that is to produce nuclear fuel for its own nuclear power plants and yet over the years we have seen many that in fact could be a military aspect and there has been so much enrichment capacity. it's of great concern because it looks like it's way beyond the bounds of what is needed for a reasonable nuclear power program and there are long-running concerns in this story has been unraveling and epa for a long

time has been trying to work with the iranians to assuage international concerns including the various technologies that the iranians have been developing. and so that includes the u.s. and uk, france and russia and we have a big group of negotiators on our side and that includes

trying to get the enrichment capacity shrunk way down, looking at the heavy water reactors that the iranians had been building and so what possible use for this been a military nuclear program for these nuclear weapons. lots of questions of those kinds and frankly it's not the negotiation that i have been in charge of, but it's been run by mike counterpart and she is now working with the deputy secretary and secretary john kerry was part of this negotiation. so there are a lot of heavy hitters coming to the table to try to get progress and i

concede that the technical building blocks are at least four resolutions of these problems. but the big heavy lifting is on the political side. particularly will they be able to face the political steps or political decisions. >> thank you. one award winner at the table, i would like you to have the last word on a rainy and negotiation and the question is can we get a deal. >> at the current time when we have this crisis, we have lots of tensions going on. i think that we need a victory and we managed to get together and come to the conclusion and i

think that we will be a tremendous help to the whole international political scene if we discover this. we naturally spoke with the u.s. background in which he is right of what she has said. and it cements that in saying that the iranians had one research factor and then when they came to power, they had ordered this in the u.s. government stop it and they didn't deliver it and i don't think that they had time to get this. and so that is one reason why we have the enrichment. and then they go for this and

they spoke with us in regards to this for a long time. and so we have this it is part of pride and human humiliation. and that is what they have going on and the u.s. never forget the occupation of the american embassy. and so we have to come out of this as well. the interim agreement that was reached prolonged this and it is

one that the iranians stopped producing this and they did produce a 20% and it's not like the one that we have in iran and it is part of the credible verification. so they can do that and i think that some will never be satisfied. and i don't think that that is very likely to happen in the

developing countries feel, many of them feel that they don't want to be held back by this. >> thank you very much for your insight. i'm secretary, thank you all so much. and we thank you and that includes the most important issues that have served and not served and we take you. >> let me just end on one quick note. >> someone who worked in the state department and is in charge of this program is the best return on investment that

we have and it's a phenomenal program and it's something that we have talked about. thank you all for coming. let's give them a round of applause. matt. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> i was coming in at 9:40 a.m. and have to get out of here. >> okay, questions? [inaudible] >> okay, thank you. i didn't think that i needed a microphone sensitive drama throughout high school and college. this is wreckage with all of

you. doctor, i agree with you that they are is a fear factor since this incident in 1986. do you not think that perhaps much of the propaganda that circulated at that time and continued in the west, as well as the neighboring countries on this border between the east and the west, a lot has to do with literature and for example christa wolf, herpes, german-speaking countries and that includes working on different types of dome including the fear factor of nuclear weapons and how can

we deter this fear that we have towards nuclear energy? which i certainly am a proponent and supporter of. >> thank you. what is the real cause of this and that relates to this radiation. and this includes warning us from danger. and this includes getting this everywhere. and this includes how we work easily and we have also to be aware that we are exposed to radiation. many things contain radiant activity.

and so it the same thing has happened with other radiation. and as i explained in my introduction, it would not be enough to convince and we would also need to have an explanation of the function and have it function extremely well. and so we have ari talked about it once in regards to a new type of reactor. in some small reactors would not do very well. this small reactor and modular one cannot have this generator due to this construction. you may correct me. >> would you like to add a little bit to this matter part of the reason of the fear for

radiation is that you cannot sense it. we would not have any idea and by the way, you are right you just never know. [applause] >> bad choice, yes. >> unfortunately we don't have any radiation monitors in the room and that is the problem. and i think actually we will see what happens when we drop nuclear bombs and we have seen a large area of japan made uninhabitable and that's not something that you could in if nora. but i think if you could engage the public. listen to them and respond to them and develop trust.

if you don't have the trust, listen to me and trust me because of that, you are never going to get anywhere. you really need that engagement. that is the kind of thing that we need to talk about. >> i would like to thank the panel. thank you very much. >> thank you to the panelists were making their way off the stage. we have our presenters at the front. please take the opportunity. ..