saturday. centers will continue work on the 1.2 trillion dollar bipartisan infrastructure bill it funds roads, bridges, public transit, or railways water products airports internet vehicle and electric vehicle charging stations. in the senate is back in session you can see live coverage on cspan2. now on book tv historian margaret mcmillan author of the book of war, how conflicts shaped us. this conversation was hosted by the new york historical society. >> good evening everyone. the new york historical society president and ceo. i am thrilled to welcome you to tonight's program. tonight's program was part of the distinguish speakers

series which is part of our public program. before introducer speakers i want to recognize and thank several trustees are joining us this evening. first and foremost the charmer board the executive committee and trustees brian kain. [inaudible] i would also like to thank the members of our counsel we are so very grateful to each and every one of you. especially at this challenging time. professor of history at the university of toronto and emeritus professor of international history at the university of oxford.

doctor previously was on the faculty of the university before going on to serve as provost of trinity college at the university of toronto and saint anthony college at the university of oxford. she is the author of war how it shaped us which is published this last phone or previous books in 1919 dangerous games and women. [inaudible] joining us as moderator this evening at columbia law school. as a leading constitutional to have an extensive history of government service. he serves in all three branches of government during six administrations both republican and democratic and most recently director of intelligence program director

for critical infrastructure and senior director for strategic planning at the national security council. thus an hour including 15 minutes for questions and answers. questions can be submitted via the q&a function on your screen. so please do remember to use the q and a. our speakers will get to as many questions as time allows. i know it's my great pleasure to turn our virtual stage over too tonight speaker, thank you. >> thank you louisa welcome margaret lovely to see you. >> thank you. >> you say war is the most organized of human activities. constitutional lawyer like me might have said governance is the most organized human

activities. that's because the relationship between war and the emergence of state is one of the great strengths of this wonderful book. you had ao need to make wars when the driver of every organization. i wish you just expand on that a bit. >> it's a pleasure to be here. i wish it was not virtual i have very happy memories are of the new york historical society part we may have to argue a bit the most organized of human activities because i think were in government are so closely intertwined. but what i mean by anything youe think about what is needed to make war, mobilization of not just people but resources. the control of the resources of the people to disciplining, the direction of often very large numbers of people seem to take tremendous

organization. as you pointed out this is driven ahead or drove ahead the organization of state. that it became necessary for state to require greater and greater power but more successfully the wars were more powerful they became. i've always thought it was difficult to say which came first, war of the high level of organized states. i think the two are really intertwined you one drives the other. >> that is excellently put. you also say the organization persisted in peacetime. the need to monetize resources and create structures that do not disappear at the end of war. after a mission for the state we should rollback on their gaining and wartime quest for

government we will give up freedoms during war. perhaps the colored pandemic we understand that the greaterh good at steak and crisis. societies are recognizing the need for the governments to do thingsla i think it's often the end of wars it rolls back. once government has achieved a level of society doing it for peaceful purposes.

they could do. the thoughts of things they suspend what they're getting out of society on. no go partly back to the prewar situation the authority and the powers find many other good purposes to use them. >> you said war is one organized group fighting another organized group using violencer of the other organized group. this sometimes might include gang warfare. perhaps some is said organized crime syndicates.

as the leadership into two or more states they are intolerant of the idea to have war not have a date. they maintain at one point. >> i sympathize very much the point of view but they're trying to get the essence of war. we all have different definitions. i was trying to distinguish war from random violence. or at a canadian hockey game. this to me is not organized violence but as you know there's often quite a bit of violence involved. what i'm trying to get at organized groups that made war have some sort of thing that keeps them together. they have a blissful goal. i would say there's a blurred line between large-scale gangs for example who often use criminal methods to make their money of a crime but might have more political purposes

than just making money out of crime. we saw the same thing in northern ireland. the men fighting on both sides flipped over too criminal activities but they had a larger goal in mind. one of trying to get out was the notion your organizer some sort of purpose. they're trying to do something with whatever force you have it. it's not so you can sell more illicit goods or take other people's illicit goods. >> you acknowledge there's some broad historical sectors geography, plagues and epidemics that are not altered or at least not transformed by political decision making. but in this book you write so powerfully and so winningly about the historic and cultural consequences of war. suppose the persians had

defeated the greeks, supposedly charles had been defeated they had stormed a vienna, or as you say the spanish conquest for the americas had failed. could you expand for a minute the broad sweep you've given the leader on how the alter the course of history. these pivots that have changed the place we are now by. >> to very good question is something historians argue about a lot. flows well under the service there are times when you see war, the outcome of wars difference. we have been very difficult but i think you just raise some. think europe would've been different the americas could have been different they're different outcomes of the war. north america might have been

different if the british should war run the war of independence perhaps include mexico h the outcome can determine for generations often longer than that religion, political organization, whose estate wars on the surface. doesn't change things very much. he can see what certain wars they ended differently in thein world would be different but. >> several points in this book you refer to the mystery of war, it's incredible intensity perhaps part of this is the idea which you refer you can die at any moment every leaf matters. why does war bring up the best and worst in mankind? is it simply a risk of poor.

>> there is a debate about whether we are as a result of evolution prone to violence. i think you could equally argue we are prone to they have never felt, that everyone feels us but you'll say have never felt such comradeship as i felt in the war. i am with people i would die for and i know they would die for me. you don't usually get m that feeling in life. i suppose firefighters, first responders might have that sense. it's one thing to be puzzled about. i think because it's so complicated i think we are attracted to war. we find her something about it we wonder about. i think down to the centuries young men and perhaps young

women have said could i do it? they wanted to measure themselves up against it. seen as a a test. certain cultures, war was the supreme test. why do people do it? i think we keep thinking about it. the result of the intensity of the experience. tim o'brien twos novel i admire, suddenly a relief it stands out the sun is very bright you feel life is your possibly about to lose it. >> it was robert e lee who said it's good war is so terrible lest we fall in love with it. this is a rare book that addresses gender 99.9 in history have been men.

our men the warriors of culture all over the world at all different times because they are bigger, stronger, have more endurance is it a matter of evolution? then have other questions about that, when you think is the source of this? >> i'm not sure mira physical strength necessarily matters that much. there is a spectrum, there are women who can be as strong as men. but either end of the spectrum there are men who are probably much stronger than most women will ever be. and women are weaker than most men are. i think a lot of it has to do with culture. fear brought up in a world you must beat brave you must not show pain or fear if you were brought up in a culture and most cultures over time, not

always but it's always been men who spent the receiving end of those admonitions and those expectations were women have been expected to be the nurturers and to stay home. i think we know that when women do fight they may behave with each other differently and they react differently but they do fights with his much courage or as badly as men can do. a wonderful book about soviet women in the second world war they didn't stay behind the line into the support functions. their fighter pilots demand artillery brigades. it's possible to argue women simply have not fought as much because of the culture of society out of which they come. i suspect that is changing. lecture two people in the military knows how many women

are there. they are in combat roles. they're not just doing things like logistics or necessary things behind the scene. >> technology will facilitate this transition. equipment have often been recorded as motivators off war, as objects of tactics of the bosnian women but i have to ask i had not realized there's a good deal more physical evidence with the existence just so good about the other. >> one of the fascinating things i learned this is is doing the book is archaeologists and evolutionary biologists can tell more about skeletons. they can manage to get the ancient dna which simply was

not possible say 20 years ago. tombs have been found around the north shore of the black sea that contains skeletons it shows they been killed and some sort of violent struggle often buried with armor with the metal bits of the survivor of whatever else is made out of natural substances would disappear. and they are women. they been identified as women and have been given warrior burials. the number of viking women lawyers graves and now possible to identify the skeletons in a way it wasn't before. women have had a role in combat down through the ages. but as you pointed out a very, very limited role. the expectation is not been what we will fight. see what i'm going to try to keep us away from my 6-year-old daughter she already has amazonian tendencies. as we got better at killing we got less tolerant.

i think there's little question the nuclear posture of the cold war kept cold with the great powers. i would like you to discuss this, as were a thing of the past with the northern tier countries? >> i don't think it is. i do not want to predict because historians are usually hopeless at predicting the future. but it seems to me we have intended to assume because most of us have never experienced it. i grew up in the last days of the second world war so i grew up in the aftermath of the second rumble in peaceful canada. i never saw war and very few canadians sit and listen overseas to fight about from countries who experienced war. and so i think we've got used to the idea in a very large part of the world that war is something happens elsewhere. as you know before the first world war a lot of pure europeans felt that. the thought of something we never do again.

something others do. i think you'd never know until you feel threatened or until something happens. i don't know how many people were isolationist in the united states before 1940. josé possibly a majority. >> most yes. >> guest: pearl harbor changed alll that. americans said they would never fight were many unshed landing up. >> does our aversion to violence today, if it is true and there's less tolerance for body bags and the casualties of war, does this mean that we in the united states are more vulnerable to extortion by violence? >> that is a possibility yes. that's a very good t question. i think that is a possibility. the enemies a of countries like the united statesnt no, calculate and isis has often made statements the americans cannot bear the pain of losing

soldiers. eventually they will give up we just have ton make it so painful for them. ii think that is a lesson that guerrilla groups who fights are much weaker than the united states. one weapon they have is using public opinion in the united states in the world turning s that against the united states itself. think it is true we are very reluctant now to see the young in our society did a britishon of how many soldiers have died i think it's something like 1400, 2000 people died on the first day of the battle and it was accepted by don't think we accept that anymore but i think that's actually very good thing. we went on average in world war ii counting civilians in the military just 16000 people died every day. >> it would be unacceptable today for us. >> that is unimaginable simply unimaginable. how important and that

generations have grown up now, our generations those of my students, yours have not served in the armed forces draft ended inth the 1970s, i think it was a giant step towards a different sort of constitutional order. i wonder, what are the conditions if this is as inevitable as i believe it is of walling off the experience of service in a democracy? >> guest: it concerns me. it should concern us all. we don't want to see is a military cursed are people we expect to fight for us. we don't feel they are ours. i think certainly in canada there's been a power outcry we were not doing enough dealing with the vets coming backm from afghanistan help them readjust toro society. there so few of us knew any. the other thing that worries me about so few people having

military experiences those leaders, most of them have not had direct military experience. if you have not experienced war first hand he't made more casual about going to war. it strikes me those political leaders in the period after the second world war who were cautious of going to war because they knew what it was like. if you have never been to war you may think of great we should do this. i do think, it may be bad for societies. >> host: is an annual dinner in washington i used to go too. well attended by politicians the president always is a humorous talk. the beginning of the dinner the band plays the various anthems and services. and the veterans stand up during this playing. as the years have gone by, and watched the time it's very to see someone stand up. you point out of the 18th

century very regarded common soldiers led by the aristocrats that was just mentioned. you say a removed cast was also bad for those. the victorian guard the audubon empire, why should we be wary of isolated military class? are we moving in that direction? >> it is a good question. i would like to say i hope not. i think the danger of having a military cursed as they can see themselves at odds with the rest of society. they are not understood or the rest of society is soft. i think that was very much the case in germany before the first world war when there is an elevated status in germany but also felt they were e special. i felt they were above politics. and did not feel any need to do with the political

leadership wanted. and did not inform the leadership of what they were planning. i think this can be dangerous. i think in democratic society i think we should want a millage of this part of our society not part is seen as separate and sees itself as separate. >> i used to give the opening lecture at the university to a couple hundred kernels, brigadier's. i would ask them, is victory in war the defeat of the enemy? they would agree it was tempered with a note victory in football. victory i in chess the achievement of the war do you agree with this? and if you do is the reason we fail to achieve victoryd in vietnam because our war aims were unrealistic?

or because our tactics and methods were inadequate? >> i think it can often be both. you're trying to win a war with methods that don't shoot suit particular terrain or struggle. but so often in war in his seat cap throughout history. groups of people go to war once we have defeated the enemy forces that is it. they don't really think about what happens next for the don't really think about achieve a piece. and i thinkea he is right. the danger is in focusing on military victory talks about the fixation and winning the t decisive battle. and having a planng for what you do and what it is you hope to achieve. tensions are groups going into work.

the longer it more costly comes the more and more it expands. i want to up for the sacrifices and the lawsuits. >> in warfare the law is silent you agree with this? i sense skepticism about the laws of war. >> i think we keep trying. i think we ought to keep trying. but it seems to mein there's an extraordinary we are trying to control something is always in danger of becoming uncontrollable it is about the use of violence and going all out to win. i think it is a credit trying too keep on limit the effects of war. we must not target certain kinds of people. the attempt down through the ages and a number of cultures to try and protect the

innocent preacher tried to protect women and children to protect those who are not causing any harm. i think is absolutely right. the temptation when a war starts is to throw respect for the laws out the window. >> you mentioned francis lever who was a columbia law professor had military order number one during the civil war that was the basis for a code and rules of war. the american civil war so the first appearance of total war and the modern era. there is a strategy replacing. do you see a relationship between the effort to impose laws of war, as lincoln attempted in the doctrine of total war that sherman initiated? >> the 19th century, you

would know better than me the century when there is an attempt to make laws in a number of areas and to regulate society. that may be driven in part by a sense that society is becoming too complex. the memes of destruction were getting too great. also in the 19th century certainly happened in other times and other places those doing the fighting and those got blurred, general sherman said we must make the south feel what it means to go on fighting print that means the women m and children burning the factories and the farms making it impossible to survive. we see on the one side this attempt to legislate, which we see in other areas of society. this is an age of lawmaking but we also see this blurring of the line because societies

getting more complicated. see this blurring of the line. >> host: which you discuss for this audience, i think will be duly interested in your answer , a lesser degree in the united kingdom, away from the teaching of diplomatic and military history in university. >> guest: i am concerned about it pretty don't quite know why it's happened. it's also happen to my own country, canada. in history departments there is a swing away from teaching international relations. even of the students once it's. the undergraduate course in toronto is of course called strategy. it is overwhelmingly subscribed but the department i think it's a bit leery of it. they're not quite sure. i think they are concerned about it. history has been moving in as it should and taking in these

subjects look at the histories of groups who have not been written into history for example. i think this is important. but because international relations and war can have such profound effects on the lives of people with different societies we need to be aware of it. unfortunately the study of wars come to be seen as toys for boys. people talk about tanks, regiments, that is not what war is about. michael how would you mentioned earlier said he was stating war in society. he is not stating military history war in society. it does concern me. i think those were going to lead us in the next generation need to know something about war. need to know something about international relations. for sure they're going to have to deal with issues at least involving those. >> returned to our theme of mutually affecting relationship between war and states, wrote after the battle

the history had ended. which produced history had ceased with the triumph of this imperial state. then you quote we read for our audience. from this place and from this date forward begins a new era of the history of the new world. you can also were present at its birth. would you just describe what he was writing about? >> 's for those historicald events i don't think deserve all the attention and symbolism loaded onto it. it was a clash troops and

invading forces from that regimes who want to strangle the french revolution us as soon as they possibly could. the forces coming into germany i think their russian, you can correct me, wouldt turn back or at least did not come any further as a result of the resistance of the french revolutionary soldiers. the offices of the more traditional the french revolutionary soldiers did not know how to behave or they rushed across the field foras they saying russian songs t it was terrible. they didn't fire in the ranks. there is a new spirit with a new motivating force. the very powerful force in some indeed in parts of the world today. it is an ideology. like a religion or wanting to build a utopia on earth. you will fight,he die, kill

others for the nation this abstract concepts. i don't think history came to anse end. with technology changes we live are in a very different world. >> a large part in suing wars. you're right interestingly about the relationship between spencer and social darwinism on the one hand. it appears racism on the other. how did war play into this? >> how we think about our self and how we think about others is the way in which we behave. what social darwinism was, and retrospective ms. application of ideas about revolution to human society.

the skull the french phrase or the british race which we know is nonsense anyway. the french were like bulldogs like poodles of the other way aroundnd. and they were distinct species. this whole idea of adaptation and survival, survival of the fittest is a very dangerous conceptt only those who were prepared to adapt would survive. it became is in a moral imperative. if you are not prepared to write yourself you did not deserve to survive pretty should be swept away in stronger more vigorous races should take over. some but not all. some becameis racist. they are so defined in this weight that were inferior and deserve to be swept aside by the vigorous races. they did not deserve to survive. they've not got the moral

right to survive everything that did help to field the imperialism of the 19th century. with the tremendous self-confidence theyy were a superior race and they have every right to do it. on the poor country the less significant you came from the more important west heaven empire. the board with the king of belgium it's a way of showing you counted. >> the cultures multicultural the greater individual autonomy. to questions about war easily arise. it would be willing to fight

such a state when there's no cohesive action identity. he said if war broke out, would you go to england? i still spend a lot of my time or at least i did before the endemic. i would send you and your mother there. but no i would stay here. and people you and i have known were sent to america as baby. and he said bye would you come back? this is my country. seemed like a natural reply. i wonder what he has grown and if they don't have be willing to risk their lives.

>> between patriotism and nationalism. nationalism is often on reflecting and sometimeses racist. your printer is not such a great place but it's a decent place. i will fight forward the ingredients of the patriotism needed depend we have moved way beyond being an offshoot of britain and france with the fair admixture of the indigenousus. become an ingredient to becoming canadian.

it may be groups of people develop other reasons for feeling loyal to the group beyond nationalism. >> i will not pressure on this by your answer makes me ask myself if you be willing to fight for countries whose history they've been taught to despise. maybe go on to something else. >> we could talk a long time about that. >> particularly steven pinker has an advance piece that's becoming less violent as a species. i am skeptical about this myself. but as i said i live for small children so violence is more or less constant in my life. might return to drones in artificial intelligence as a way of hiding violence. or will? we actually become

pessimist? >> i don't know. it's very hard to m predict. pinker talks about how society and that felt part of the world there are less willing to tolerate violence in the streets. it's not unusual to see people fighting in the streets and ways of not perhaps as much now except perhaps the northern island for the moment. again the individual feels like. i think one of the things the military do is spend it off a lot of time learning how to turn ordinary people and to those who fight. that's why there's so much training and preparation. i think training with the

values to make a huge difference on the willingness of people to fight. >> host: the marvelous things about this book is your discussion about organized violence begins when weather gatherers were placed by agriculturaln groups. can you expand on that for a moment? : : happen sod far back : once people settle down i think a number of things happen. one is they were able to produce cultural discouragement not everyone had to work on the land had to take part as they did in hunter gatherer a society gathering and preparing and killing the food they would need to became differentiation and to

support an upper-class and military also once people settle down is more difficult to pick up and go away. you couldn't if you are nomadic say the struggle over the horizon and get out, he couldn't pick up and go away as easily so you begin and the earliest settlements they found them in the more organized and well-to-do particular groups became the more they would target incapable of attacking others so i think the more organized we became about coexistence, code development organization and fighting goes back a very long way. >> that's fascinating. i wonder about the future, this

question and then we can go to the audience for questions. for the near future and the prospect of deploying robots and drones in the battlefield, you think we will build or have countries algorithms that will allow to do the right thing despite the risk of destruction what you think will have robots that will act decisively human beings interact? >> i think it depends on how we program them as rebuilding and there is considerable debate at the moment whether the weapon systems which can include the

next generation robot could have those belted or not and i think there's a lot of resistance for any barriers broken because of what would be most effective with the danger as we know is especially as artificial in development and intelligence develop that these may begin program itself they may get out of control and with programming it can go wrong. we seem enough of that you program a robot and say don't do any harm to women and children in the robots will go off and kill everyone else. it's not a good example but i'm worried about the way it's going particularly at the high-tech and. >> this is fascinating and then exercise of maximum strength, 45 minute deadline we can go to the audience. i'm suspicious of modern technology because myself, i

think i've mastered at least this part. here are some questions. how has military service in the u.s. affected nationalism and public opinion? >> one of the side effects of national service's economic people patriotic. german army before we first started training large numbers often from the working class, the military very concerned reporting a gun in the hand and what seems to have happened is even left-wing workers meant trade unit who did military service and became quite different as a result so often military service in the activity dependent on the country. it also seems to happen that

think it's a good thing is if you do military services and have something like the draft you can be gathered with people like you and i think that is good for the country or people from different parts of the country and different classes and different types of people to get on with each other there are numbers we say there are privileges to say they've never had that before and they read poetry and have ideas. this bewilderment, they didn't take it seriously, they did have their own wants and desires and personality and i think it can be a good thing. >> from the dark side, have you found a link between military service and frequency which are nation engages in this? >> i think it depends on

formation so i don't't think its a direct link in a number of countries in military service after the second world war but there's no later they 1945 the germans continued to have at least for a time but i don't think it leads itself to work and i think it simply leads to a greater appreciation to do military service in the country. >> one person asked, is a general consensus at least in the united states veterans should be cared for and supported, is this a new idea? how has this changed throughout history? >> used to be they would discard it. they had no pension, nobody worried about them. tommy atkins, they need us may

have about and then in the end they don't get to sense for us but i think gradually isssss idea began to spread the people and our country and citizens of the country,ng government begano do something so monday the pension hospital was established to look after old and often sick soldiers, perhaps in paris which has established the same sort of thing survivor 19th century in a number of countries omparticularly countries for the was a sense he must do something for those who thought and suffered for you. >> what do you see between four from across. forpl example fights and guys fm other considerations for the research. >> i think it depends on the nature of the society so in the

societies where the top some cases depend on military strength to maintain power, they don't want anyone else fighting. in the middle ages in the knights in armor, they were reluctant to have them on the ground for their own dominant impact position with their armor gave tremendous power and authority but i think as i said, it depends on society, you will get society in which only a few people do in democratic societies, those who fight will often be ordinary people because they are fighting for their own society. those who went to fight in the war were by and large, i don't think writing for upstart conference like the king, they are fighting for their home and her children. >> is an image where he describes them confronting

pushback. seven or 8 feet high from huge. they said seeing a tank. >> it would have y but terrifyig but when they learned how to deal with it, stand firm you could do rather well. >> how would you characterize meddling in u.s. elections, should we calling for, cyber espionage or something else entirely? >> it is such a new area, it's an interesting question. i began to have this definition of war but there's always gray areas and i think war is movinge into this new area of cyber war and d cyberspace. it doesn't involve direct combat but i can often involve much damage and destruction and loss

of life so the ways in which states are state actors use cyber attack to cause disruption, i think it can be seen as an act of war in reno that it' possible at least for hostile forces to do things like sound off power grids and the damage from that or destroying dams making it impossible, that can be enormous so i recorded as an adjunct to work but an increasingly part of for. >> with the exception of genocide, throughout history, typically designated portions of the population, one of the origins of this and how did it evolve with time. >> think we don't know for sure

but part of it may have been embedded in the values in society but women and children were reviewed as the future of society meant for killing them, both your own being killed and killing others was a dreadful thing to do but i think there was both certain functions should be protected. in many cultures they've been exempt from being o attacked. also there's always utilitarian, you can kill people who might be useful to yourself in the middle ages we tend not to kill those in farmingng because they would produce the food needed even if it belongs to someone else on someone else's land. >> on the question is, how has socialia media determined how

conflicts are solved and fought and how fighters are recruited? in your opinion, does it get too much credit or not enough? >> where just coming to terms and social media int reno people work themselves and they now have the means tome do it. not a new phenomenon. the assassins who killed them basically recruited themselves reading the works of anna chris and they mumble with themselves and assassin product was much more difficult no space and the information was not as instantaneous and widespread as they are today. would you face a problem with people who grew recruited themselves in conspiracy theories which encourages them to regards those who are enemies who are not enemies. the other way social media is affecting more is increasingly for a lot of countries, under tremendous spotlight and

publicity and part of that is to make sure your story gets out the other side doesn't get out. one of the things with the struggle for the united states was coverage of the war many come to the conclusion it's not a war they are going to win. >> i think your leadership has expanded far beyond this new book. could there have been another outcome it's been written differentlyng. it's an amazing book about negotiations. i think when i change my mind now, i looked at what they were dealing with and i saw how much

they have in paris? 's dealing with germany that had been defeated on the battlefield the conclusion whatever the high command set and germans believed in the 20 germany was defeated in the first world war, if you read on this, what could the allies have done to make it better? they could have done much more generous to germany but that was very difficult indeed. if you are living in france and you know the countries devastated contains something like a third of your plans, privileges, mines and railroads are destroyed as the germans are leaving in 1918 and say let's generous.

they didn't think they could. he said i will have to face this. they might have been gentle with germany but i don't know, you look at the second world war and germany was treated much, much thworse devastated from huge amounts of reformation in germany but we don't hear that how t unfairly germany was tread so i think part of what went wrong to give a short answer after 1990 is failure and politics in a number of countries and it think it might have been all right if it wasn't the great depression. >> moving on to a different question in the coming decades, what issues do you w seek and wt parts of the world will be

watching? >> you may disagree with me, i thinkal weekly state conflict, india and china they fought and recently along the front tier in the himalayas and the rest i'm not saying it was going to happen but these are the possibilities that are beginning to contemplate. we are also going to conflict. the strong infrastructure which often would be stabilized, i think we're going to and that

worries me a large part of america strong drive themselves toward war you give state power, you take power away from the individual i'm feeling if you want to prevent war, we can say with prejudice next relaxed question, you think increasing defense budget increase the likelihood of war? remark not necessarily. confirmed what you are spending it on. i think often with the defense budget and commentary on the rest defense budget recently in the new york times today how the project take on inertia and the

military keeps bending and they don'tay really sit down and saye need office let's not covered. [laughter] i think it was dangerous. there's always a danger, i think when you have an arms race, may be tempting to do something silly. this has been a wonderful evening. it's wonderful to see you hope we are all reunited summer sometime soon i apologize but i think you. i wish we were in new york. thank you for monthly questions. new york thanks coming up with a

wonderful questions on the tv, on c-span2, a look at this year's best-selling books starting 8:00 p.m. eastern, carol on her book chronicling secret service from the kennedy assassination to the interaction of the capitol january 6. then interview with alex marlowe, author of breaking the news which argues that the mainstream media reports fake news. later, michael lewis on his book, the premonition which tells the story of the early base of the coronavirus pandemic the scientists who worked to convince the u.s. government to take the virus seriously. >> c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. his a collection of c-span products. the purchase will support nonprofit operations you still

have time to order the congressional representative directory with contact information for members of congress in providing administration. >> u.s. senate is not in session today to allow expenditures to attend the funeral of former senator mike in wyoming. the senate is back in session 11:00 a.m. eastern on saturday. senators will continue work on the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill. a fund roads, bridges, public transit, railways, water projects, airports, broadband, internet and electric vehicle charging stations. when the sun is back in session 11:00 a.m. eastern saturday, you can see live coverage on c-span2. >> it not often that book tv features nba players but the nba player on your screen is also the