taxes. my goal is to get your taxes down to 15%. we have something we got from hong kong. hong kong has had a to track system. you can keep the current code, all the red tape, all the deductions, or you fill in one page. here is how much i earned comment here is 15%. here is what i want to say to the establishment. they will say, this is not revenue neutral. they're right. this is called a tax cut. this is going to become a huge argument inside the republican party. i worked and held the balance the federal budget for four years.

when people say, he is being irresponsible. we will get a federal budget balanced. my intention is to shrink spending down to the level of revenue, not to raise revenue up to the level of obama's spending. [applause] this is a fight we had in 1984 when we cut and no tax increase platform against the establishment. our principal was simple. we are not the tax collectors for the welfare state. we are interested in a tax code that creates jobs, maximizes freedom, gives you a chance to take care of your family, your charities, your church or synagogue. that is a different model than the establishment model. we will not tax the american

people for barack obama's credit card. [applause] how did it to a balanced budget? you cut spending, you cut taxes to maximize economic growth, you reform government, and you use american energy. a huge increase in revenue and a big decline in costs. take people off the food stamps, medicaid, off of public unemployment, off of welfare. but then to work in taxes. the government gets more revenue without a tax increase. this is the first big step to balance the budget. let's talk about cutting spending. this is what i mean by bold

proposals. we should replace the 130-year- old civil service system with a new model of modern management using systems and we should be prepared to save $500 billion a year in the operation of the federal government and increase the economy by $2 trillion a year by the simple act of having a government cease to be incompetent, inefficient, and a hindrance to the future of the american system. [applause] we should look at cutting spending by looking at every single agency and we should start by abolishing the department of energy, which has been a total failure since it was founded. [applause] resupplied the system of american express, mastercard, to cut out fraud. it is almost a trillion dollars a decade justin at one end zone. we should apply the 10th amendment implementation to return power back home. [applause] we also have things that are on energy.

i believe we have an obligation to open up the american system to produce the maximum amount of oil and gas for three reasons. keeping the 500 or $600 billion here at home strengthens our economy. if we maximize production our goal should be to get back to $2 a gallon gasoline to prove to the american people that the free market works. a practical way that affects your life. this is pure supply and demand. when you realize that north dakota alone has 25 times as much energy as the u.s. geological survey found eight

years ago, 25 times as much, and we are not allowed to look at alaska. we do not look offshore. obama has been an anti-american energy president and every american pays the price every time they go to a gas station. [applause] i have a very simple principle. we want to insure that no future president ever against the bows to a saudi king again -- period. [applause]

we need to move towards a personal social security savings account for young americans will taking social security off budget for senior citizens. no politician likes to our senior citizens by threatening to keep from them checks that they earned and desert. the trust fund is there even if there is no trust in barack obama. we need to have a complete audit of the federal reserve to find out every single decision. we deserve to know who got our money and why. if ben bernanke has not resigned by the day i am sworn in, i will ask the congress to pass a law ending his term. we need a commission on gold and solid currency, much like the one that ronald reagan had in 1981. let me close onto big topics. they're very important. this administration is waging

war on religion, but so are the courts. this is why we need a movement that is bigger than beating obama. we need a movement that understand we will change the congress, the white house, the bureaucracy, and where necessary, the courts. in this country was founded by people who came here in order to avoid religious persecution. a very basis of the country was religious liberty. the record document says we are in doubt by our creator. barack obama will wage war on the catholic church the morning after he is reelected. we should not trust him. we should make sure the country knows who he is. [applause] for those of you do not

understand what a bold solution approach is, go to newt.org. there is a 54-paper that outlined how to rebalance the judiciary and how to reestablish the right of the people to protect themselves against judges you are writing the constitution rather than enforcing the constitution. it is a very serious topic. finally, this administration, which lies about to our enemies are, it refuses to tell the truth about what threatens us, is blind to the dangerous, seeks to weaken it our defense system, has crippled our intelligence system, and is making a series of decisions

around the world that are stunning in their misunderstanding of the nature of reality. we have americans held hostage in egypt. precisely like jimmy carter with hostages in iran. we have the person who helped us find osama bin laden has been arrested by the pakistan government. what more do you need to know? they said, this is terrible, how could you help the americans? we need a profound national debate about our entire policy and it needs to start by telling the truth about radical islamists who seek to kill us. [applause] this is going to be a big choice, a big decision election. i am seeking the republican nomination, it has to be an american campaign. we want to say to every american, if you favor paychecks over food stamps, join

us no matter what your background, no matter where do live, we want to be with you and creating a work oriented jobs the economy. we want to say to every american, if you believe that honesty about our enemies, strength and our defense is vital to our survival, join us. we do not care for you once were. we do not care what he once did. finally, we need to say to every american, if you believe in the declaration of independence, you believe in the constitution, and you believe in the federalist papers, we want you to be with us. we understand others will be with barack obama and radicalism, but everybody to believe that we are endowed by our creator, we want you to come from every background, every

community in the country. i need your help. i hope he will go to newt.org. we are running a people campaign. we do not have the money that some of our competitors do. but we do have a plan. we have a conservative dream team. like hermain cain, rick perry, oliver north, a tremendous team. in the end, we need you. if we can be together, and all the years i have worked with this party, this is the year to reset this country in a decisive bold away. we need to teach the republican establishment a lesson. we are determined to rebuild america, not to manage its decay. with your help, that is what we

will do. god bless you. [applause] >> president obama unveils his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal tomorrow. he will highlight the major points in a speech in an unstable. live coverage tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. pacsa discussion on super ta and the campaign. this is 45 minutes.

>> when the supreme court decided, did you imagine the floodgates would open up the way it has? >> absolutely not. it is a surreal experience. people are talking about citizens united, and they do not understand the underbelly of what we are doing, and it is always nice to have a fresh start. we went to the supreme court because we are a small nonprofit. we work on a host of issues and have a plethora of projects. and one of those is documentary films, and in those documentary

films we saw the success at michael moore had in fahrenheit 911. also participating in the discussion in 2004, so we wanted to be able to do the same thing, and the federal election commission told my organization not only could we not, but if we did do it, it would be considered a willful violation of law, because we know the law, and mccain of fine gold -- mccain feingold made it a criminal penalty. my board of directors would have been under penalty of criminal prosecution for making a documentary film and advertising

it on television. i literally had to stop and say, how is it possible we could do that? don't we have of first amendment, he said, you cannot because mccain-final prohibited. the first time we were in court, the judge laughed at us. >> this is 2007-2008. >> we made a documentary film about hillary clinton. whether you like it or do not like it, we made a film discussing it. it did not matter to us. it was the principal of the fight, so we took it to the supreme court, and we were asking for the ability to make

films and advertise them, and the most telling thing to me, and in open court, one of the supreme court justices ask the deputy general malcolm stewart, is it a logical extension of the government's argument that if the government can then documentary films, can you bend books -- ban books? he said yes. it was a devastating thing in the courtroom. people do not focus on it. people argue it was a split decision. i wonder what those four judges who voted against it are thinking when they believe some principle was in that, but the government has the right to ban books or newspapers or pamphlets.

the founding fathers created the first amendment. it is not the fifth. it is the single most important, and within that, a political speech is the most protected, and that is the essence of america, because if you do not have that, you cannot fight for your other rights. all we did was fife the government. we were a little organization that had to spend a lot of our resources to be successful. we did not exhaust the region we did not ask for exactly what happened. when we made our first -- we did not out for exactly what happened. when we made our first arguments, if it is the last day of the supreme court session, it is always the most

controversial, so they came back and told us we are going to have our rehearing in september with much broader questions, because we did not to ask the right ones. that is how we interpret that, so we came back on the much bigger ones, which was part of mcconnell decision from 2003, which we were a party to, and also the austin vs. michigan chamber of commerce case, about corporate contributions, and then trying to write to wrong the supreme court felt was on the books, so they asked us to bring these bigger questions, so in september what we had another argument, and in january we had our decision. it was earth shattering. you go to court.

you want to be able to say you did something right. we would break down the house of cards that became mccain-fine gold. >> the one to read about the cs,act on so-called super pa and here are the impacts of these committees, which of pro- ann romney -- approach just romney campaign raising millions. he is encouraging his followers to contribute to that. the indorse liberty, a ron paul package, and rick cerone -- rick santorum. the critics say this is putting too much money in the hands of

corporations. mitt romney saying corporations are people, and a record amount in 2012. but those numbers are fairly small. barack obama in 2008 spent more combined, and $1.2 million to win the election. john mccain was the only one adversely affected by his own law. those numbers are an enormous. if anybody understands the law, there is always the ability to give an enormous sums to outsiders. because they were controversial,

people remember them. they were disclosed. people knew who they were. they helped defeat john mccain. -- they helped defeat john kerry. it has always been available to donors, individuals. what this has done is allow corporations to be able to donate into these groups. we have not seen an enormous amounts from corporations. the board of directors has stockholders. if you own the candidate and are not beholden to anyone, that is your decision. to me, if people understand, it

has always been available for people. dan abrams, a tremendous constitutional scholar, floyd abrams son, argued the case with us that olson argued for me and floyd. one of the most articulate and phenomenal supreme court lawyers on the first amendment cases. he does articulate the passion for the first amendment. he wrote a piece in the last few days that really reset what people know, and what they do not know. when you are on camera, it is easy to say -- citizens united open the floodgates.

which is not true. i find it funny, but it has brought citizens united into the political lexicon as never before. we appreciate the shout out by the president this week. i am sending him a membership card. obviously, for two years -- and if i could, two years ago, january 21, we had our supreme court victory. eight days later the president of the united states held the state of the union. he attacked, for the first time in american history, attacked the supreme court over the ruling. the justice was mouthing the words not true, over and over. he was correct. what the president was saying was not accurate. foreign contributions, unlimited contributions, all of those things. he did not let the facts get in a way of a good narrative. but it has never been done before. the democratic leadership, jeering the supreme court. unprecedented, demeaning the

court in my opinion. host: ronald reagan also singled out the court on past decisions. guest: never in that way. the president has talked about court cases all the time, but never like that. what i am saying to you is that we have this divisiveness and partisanship that they love to rail against, when it comes to republicans. partisan john boehner cannot get anything through the house or senate, and they become part of the problem. the supreme court is supposed to be non-partisan. they are supposed to not be attacked. i feel that it is really an undercutting. for two years, he says the citizens united is a threat to

democracy. how dramatic can you be? it is one thing to say you disagree. it is another to say it is a threat to our democracy, so when he says that for two years and attacks the supreme court and says, i need to half a level playing field. i cannot unilaterally disarm. it is a shame it has come to that. >> a lot of people want to weigh in. he is the founder and president of citizens united.

he has this point. the president did not flip-flop. he did say you cannot fight them with a stick when republicans have a bazooka. we have someone on the republican line. >> does it not follow they should be obligated to pay for the rights of free speech gunman -- for the right of free speech? can you talk about that little ?it >> i am not the guy to answer that. corporations are taxed at corporate rates for a reason.

if somebody wants to bring an action, that is their business. congress can change it at any time, but citizens united has nothing to do without. >> excellent puts it this way. have you ever heard, if you cannot beat them, join them. he has the right who fight fire with fire. >> my only if point is if you articulate the by disagree, and i disagree on these points, they are wrong on these, that is fine, but to use the inflammatory words, the damaging words that it is a threat to our democracy, you cannot get greater than that. that is the essence of going nuclear in a discussion, and

when your zeal allows you to do that, i just think it brings a hypocrisy front and center. i do not care that he did it. we follow the law. he wants to follow the law and have a super pak, so be it, but too disparate citizens united, the biggest problem i have is what he did to the supreme court, the destruction to the president of the united states. being able to undercut what the american people think about the supreme court triggered that is what i took umbrage with, how he was able to disregard the civility of of discussion.

to say that these people are just bad, it really allows the destruction of that veil but people have, but people honor what our government tries to do, and sure, it happens on both sides of the aisle. goi do not care if he does a super pac. he has to outspend his opponents. he has to be able to have a negative component. he does not want to get out stand. he outspent john mccain 2-1.

that is his only path to reelection. >> sasha says, where is the movie? we can all read michael morris movies. where is this movie? >> that is a good question. you can go to citizensunited.org. we have 20 films in our library. all of the leaders of the conservative movement common to make films.ted sooto we are really honored they do that. we are excited to have our new coming in. >> the title? >> it is called "occupied, and unmasked."

caller: i have several questions triggered the first is i am not sure i necessarily disagree with citizens united, but i know america is very scared about it, but the most important is aclu back to you guys -- backed you guys. my main question is that this is a supreme court decision on who the president-elect is going to be. if we vote for barack, they are saying there are going to be to

switches next year, and i do not believe corporate america is a u.s. citizen. i am not sure about the last point, but the earlier point? guest: the supreme court you serve until you retire or you die. the supreme court may or may not have one. they could have openings in the next four years, and that is clearly a driving force for republicans and democrats. is the legacy and where it goes, so i think about is an important issue, and depending on who wins the republican nomination, it is one of the more important

issues. >> you and i had a conversation thursday. 10,000 people participating in this conference that was key to ronald reagan's victory. mitt romney announced he was dropping out of the raise four years ago. he used the speech to talk about his own conservative credentials. is the base supporting mitt romney? >> not at all. he is not a conservative. mitt romney is a guy who has been around the conservative movement since 1984 your gut -- since 1984. when he says the words severely conservative in a sentence, it does everything -- it says everything you need to know. he does not know how to speak to

the conservatives movement. good he could say, i am a common-sense conservative, but i have not heard anyone say i am severely conservative, and you say that because you are not one. you say that because a group wants to hear what -- you want to say what the group wants to hear. every year is a tremendous a gathering of conservatives across the country. we had 10,000. only 3400 voted in the straw poll, down from last year, so anywhere mitt romney wins, the vote is down. it should be a telling tale for the establishment of they are pushing forward another losing general election candidates. mitt romney is not the strongest of the weakest of the candidates -- not the strongest

but the weakest of the candidates. rick santorum would be incredibly strong against barack obama, because he does provide a strong difference. mitt romney is a barack obama- like, and romney care, his record on taxes, spending, it is our weakest candidate, and i am frankly dismayed that we are in this position again. >> let me remind our viewers, the question we asked in the first 45 minutes, whether a political flip-flop is a good thing or a bad thing, and we have the ability to vote. how would you answer that? >> whether a flip-flop is a good thing now? >> calling that a good thing?

>> there is a flip-flop on core principle, and there is a change of position on a piece of policy, and sometimes when you learn things, when the dynamic of the policy you are discussing, the details of the dynamic changes, it is not a bad thing to change. ronald reagan had an evolving policies as he grew older and wiser and became president, but on his core principles, smaller limited government, strong national defense, defeating the soviet union, that did not change. it was how to defeat the soviets. those strategies and tactics within that said he changed all

across his ascendancy, so it depends. good a flip-flop has to do with you are pro-lifer or pro-choice. those are the things of really drives the narrative, and that is what drives people when they say the opponents have slipslop. -- flip-flopped. that is what the base is talking about. host: it is also available online. one of our viewers saying there is more santorum support than romney or newt. caller: good morning. didn't you work for dan burton?

you work for dan burton, and you got fired because he withheld evidence on ms. clinton. guest: that is not true. that is a fight. you went to a party. they dressed a watermelon up and shot it. that is a fact. i would like to address that, friend. guest: first, we are not friends because you lied about me twice. people are smart enough they can learn about these things. i did not attend a party at dan burton's house. do not know what the facts get in a way of a good story. -- do not let the facts given the way of a good start. >> when did citizens united

start? >> i was the political director in 1992. i started when the organization was in its infancy. when i took over close to 2000, almost 12 years ago, we were still a small but dedicated group. i came back after a serve in the united states senate in the whitewater committee, and i worked as the chief investigator for congress, and i got to work with speaker gingrich very closely. it was a wonderful experience. >> another critic of yours said in a documentary that has andrew giving her the truth has no credibility. how do you respond to that? guest: people can agree or disagree with anyone.

all you have to do is watch the film, and you can make your own decisions. we look at all ourselves, and we take very seriously the facts. i personally believe that film was verysom's important for the pop culture on the left to rally their base. it actually was incorrect, and what we do this is provide the facts. people may disagree with how we present them, but it is a fact- based film. very single one of somthem, whether it is michele bachmann or rick santorum, the end proved right arch -- the andrew brightbart film will stand on

its own. andrew is his own guy. a guy like me goes because he can bring the attention to the film. we do not want to make films nobody watches. we want to make films people are interested in. let me take a good look at it. of is the importance of having somebody who is a firebrand. he is a courageous guy. >> good morning. >> my money was regularly taken and given to the democrats, which i did not agree with. i would be happy if they shut up. the last time i saw bill press

was the day after gabrielle giffords was shot, and without any proof at all, he blamed the tea party. i hope he will ask him to man up. he is of blabbermouth who never speaks the truth. he speaks his liberal views. steve, i know you are a democrat. i would appreciate if you would just ask them. i think obama is the biggest slipslop r -- slipslopp -- the biggest flipflopper. he said, american people are different. you cannot make them do that. you have to nudge them. what we saw was two giant steps forward, have a step back, and you are going to be paying for abortion at a higher rate.

that is called a nudge. >> i would be delighted to ask that question. >> i think there's a lot of frustration across america. i see it every day, and i saw it firsthand at sea back -- cpac. the tea party movement to be compared to the occupy wall street movement is an insult to the people. you look at those elements. 1.2 million people came together for a tea party rally a couple years ago when it first began. they left it more beautiful than when they found it. they cleaned up after themselves. they came, they were there for a day, and they laugh. -- they left. there was no violence. they were not ransacking anyone's offices, but any small

businesses, any government office. there were no scuffles with police. there was no teargas. these people came together out of an ideal to fight for smaller government, lower taxes, lower regulations, and a plethora of conservative issues, and on the other side you have to occupy movement, which is intended to gather out of zero radicals set of beliefs, whether they are socialist believes, is truly is going back david horowitz. he was an old 1960's radical as who has come to full version. he calls it the rebirth of the communist movement within america, the anarchist movement, and i say that because if you

watch what is going on, you have good people that come to these movements that are coming out of this ideal but the government should do more for people. it underpins the radical, more violent extremists, and they use these nice folks who come together because they want to do good, and that is fine. you see the destroyed city after city, a park after apart. -- park after park. look what they did to the most liberal mayors in the country, of portland, ore., a denver, colorado, were libber males in

-- and liberal mayors have ruled for years. some would argue they have done a great job. that is not the discussion. they order the police to bend over backwards. let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and they are paid back by riots in the streets, destruction of private property, destruction of government property, but no matter what they do, it is not enough, and that is why i say there is this in sydney is radical nature to it. good it is a small cluster driving the occupy movement. people need to understand it, which is why we decided to make a film on the occupied movement. it is a fascinating thing. >> you can send us an e-mail or

weigh in on our twitter page. and we will share of " from the president. this is from the interview he did last week. "one of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on. >> of being a better president, i think about is right. i think no matter who is president, you get better up the job. like barack obama, who has been assailed president in my opinion, and jimmy carter. bill clinton was a successful president. he got impeached, but years later people wish they had him back. >> didn't the whitewater movement lead to that? was the impeachment a mistake? >> on the issues related to monica lewinsky, i wish it had

been different. our wish in hindsight, ken starr is a wonderful mayor, and he went where the case took him. >> you were part of the investigation. >> i feel strongly that we had parallel investigations, and if we have stopped to financial crimes aspect of whitewater, if we had taken the records, if we had done the things, and people do not remember these things and the reason mike huckabee became governor of arkansas, we uncovered something called casa grande, the governor of

arkansas, we uncovered his illegal activity, and he was indicted and convicted byron -- by a jury, only the 10th time that a sitting governor went to prison. your mike huckabee ascended to become governor of arkansas. that is how he became governor. he was the deputy attorney general. the guys who want to blow of what happened to do not recall the they were really influencing the financial structure of those campaigns.

there is a plethora of opportunities, so to go to your question, i wish it had been a different set of articles of impeachment, because i do believe bill clinton was a corrupt president, but barack obama was not a good debater against hillary clinton. i thought she was so far superior in 2007 leading into the nominations. he got better as he went along. he was not a good debater, and he did not do that good of the job against john mccain, but four years later when he debates six months from now, we are going to see a different guy, because as president you have to

deal with so much information. we have learned over the years. the problem is america is in a crisis. america is heading to a greater economic crisis, which is i believe of vanilla three or four republican candidate -- why i believe of the three or four republican candidates, newt gingrich is best, even though we have had issues, he is the best person for the job. >> an e-mail from of you were saying, do you receive money from the koch brothers? >> no, but i wish we did. we have never received a donation from them, but i have an address and a phone number. to have theirove support. >> thanks for waiting.

>> this is so disingenuous. this goes to your so-called documentary. i am reading from wikipedia where it says dan burton fired early in the investigation for supervising the editing of recordings and transcript, so as to implicate hillary clinton in some sort of white water or what have you. also, i am delighted by the right. david brock suggest you made every attempt to cover up some of your own sexual issues of the university of maryland and went on to say -- >> it is shocking to me. i have never even heard the last allegation ever in my life. the first thing, when you are

running an aggressive investigation, and i was the leader of that investigation, sometimes leaders take it on the shin, and in washington, that is no news story. i was the leader of the most controversial operation going on in the 1990's, which led to the impeachment of president clinton. i was number one on their hit parade. they wanted me out of their very badly. did we run a perfect investigation? no. did we make mistakes? absolutely. the leaders take the responsibilities. i resign. i was not fired. newt gingrich said i was fired, and he led the efforts to have

me out, absolutely. good people can have disagreements, and when everybody is trying to do the right thing, at the time, was a pretty? it is not pretty to grind sausage, but is not fair for people to come on and make allegations that are not true. >> commission statement of citizens united is what? >> we are dedicated to our founding fathers principles, smaller government, limited government, restoring power back to the people, so that is much more on the state and local level. that is much more peace through strength. one of the issues we have is

upset -- is that we are living with our head in the sand. the book can argue the dismantling of our intelligence up to september 11p or today whether it is the iraq war or failures continuously. our guys are doing an incredible job in fighting these wars across the world, and it is really something we need to focus strongly on, but we are an economic, social, and foreign policy organization. >> if ron paul is the republican nominee, what happens in november, x is ron paul is the nominee, he will do an excellent

job of getting together conservatives. he is pretty good on a lot of issues. his problem is foreign policy. he would have a huge swing of the party energize. host: newt gingrich, what happens to? guest: he is the leader, but the pace has problems with new, which is why he wins some and loses some, but i st. -- the base has problems this him, but he would end rallied the base. rickhat about mit santorum? >> he would rally of foot soldiers, and newt gingrich and

rick santorum can gather that energy to really get the votes out in the key states like ohio, pennsylvania, virginia, north carolina, florida, minnesota, wisconsin. we really need to win those 10 or 12 states. if you look at the turnouts, the republican base is up in those, and they are down at the ones romney wins. host: mitt romney is the nominee? guest: if he is, i am going to support him, but i will not just go with a guy bob dole tells me to. the republican committee should be ashamed of its actions to support a guy who is incredibly weak and the general election. he is the closest thing to

barack obama on a policy standpoint, and when we need clear, concise leadership where we can show the american people the difference, and you hear time and time again, looked at these policy differences. that is the essence of this fight. in a year we can win the white house with whoever the nominee is, we should present the most conservative. >> we will leave it there. i appreciate you coming in. >> now discussion on presidential politics and the opposition of president obama. this is about 40 minutes. >> we want to welcome back bill press. the book is untitled the obama tape machine, the lies and the

personal attacks on the president and who is behind them. you pointed out and no president should be spared criticism, but the personal attack has been more relentless than against any other president in our lifetime. >> in our lifetime. i think any other president since abraham lincoln. we think of him as saying abraham, but he was reviled. you and i go to the white house every day. i love seeing those protesters every day. criticism on in the president is valid and important, when it gets to be vicious personal attacks, that is what i think is wrong, and that is what we have seen against president obama. no president in our lifetime has

been the subject of such personal attacks. >> you go on to say that the trainer has zero interest in bipartisan politics. you also and -- said john boehner has zero interest in bipartisan politics. you say it was largely personal, political, and mean-spirited. good >> i am critical of president obama, and i have seen as a democrat and a liberal, because i think he spends too much time trying to make deals when from the get-go they indicated they were not interested.

.

>> do we have to be able to sustain nuclear operations over a long period of time? does it matter what kind of forces are used and on what kind of targets? lots of complicated questions they have to decide. the way these issues get decided, which are pretty much decided by technical people, can in fact, determine the limits on what future policy can be. therefore, it has a big impact. in many cases, there are judgments involved. to my knowledge, it is the first one of its kind were the president has made clear that he wants to make the final decisions on the key issues associated with these questions.

it has been rare for the president himself to get involved at this stage. usually, these plants have been put together, approved by the secretary of defense and joint chiefs of staff, and given to the president. in this case, the president wants to be involved in what is being proposed. let's talk about the major categories and issues that have to be dealt with. first and foremost, some of you ask questions about this in the first panel. the targets. what targets should our nuclear weapons attempt to destroy. again, the question is, what is necessary for deterrence? when i say, attempt to destroy, i am saying be prepared to destroy. nobody is proposing a u.s. first strike. we cannot allow the possibility of a first-rate because

technically that possibility is for it to be there regardless of what we say. but the review makes clear that a first strike is not what we are trying to do. we try to hold at risk, should we ever be attacked by nuclear weapons. and of targets that we could destroy to make it clear to the other side that they should never have attempted to attack us at first. this depends upon a lot of factors. intelligence estimates. who we think might be an attacker. it is a lot different if it is a new missile from north korea or karan. several missiles coming from russia, which is not an enemy of the united states. if none of these states are, in principle. these are a lot of things to calculate. second, the question is how promptly.

this review makes it clear that the president wants to move away from launch and move away from relying on being able to launch our weapons fell to be destroyed by an incoming attack. in fact, be able to ride out the attack. in some ways, these characteristics fight against each other. you may need more weapons if you get rid of prompt launch. you have a higher risk that by the time the president made the decision to retaliate, some weapons would be destroyed already. the idea here, of course, is to avoid some kind of accidental war. some kind of war that escalates accidentally when that is not what had to occur. therefore, get away from so- called hair trigger decisions. give the president a chance and

the ability to survive long enough to consider what his options are and what is really happening. the third issue that is raised in the posture review but really settled for the foreseeable future is this question of the triad. having three different types of nuclear forces -- bombers, land- based missiles, and see based missiles -- submarine missiles. they're all reduced to a single warhead. this is something we have been pushing for 20 or 30 years. if you have approximately equal weapons on the other side and you have only one warhead on each silo based missile, you cannot gain anything militarily by trying to attack them because just for reliability and reaction purposes you have to target at least two to have a reasonable chance of the strong one on the other side. the force balance will move

against free to try to attack a single warhead missiles. this is a stabilizing move on our part to reduce the number of warheads on those missiles to one. that leaves them pretty much as a hedge against some kind of failure in the other forces and also as a force that has more reliable command and control. if you are looking at trying to reduce any need for a prompt launch and there are no longer attractive targets, they become forces that could play in that respect. there really are two other components -- we talk about it tried, but there are five components. we have the tactical weapons we maintain. george w. bush unilaterally eliminated about 5000 of our tactical weapons. they take on, relatively speaking, an increasing importance as the other numbers

come down. the ones that we have committed to our nato allies. that could be used on aircraft. that type of a capability. this posture review, and this process going on now, will have to consider those weapons as well. and then, of course, there are the stored weapons -- the back up weapons that have been mentioned. it will be important to see whether the military commanders of believe those weapons play any operational role at all. if they do not, then the number that you need can be determined strictly in terms of maintenance, consideration, reliability, and soap-fourth.

-- and so forth. the george w. bush should ministration, their posture gave these weapons something of an operational role. that has not been officially reviewed since that time. so, all of these questions will have to be dealt with in this study. again, i will emphasize that it is not an easy task. we should not be little the work that the operational command has to go through in order to come up with his recommendations. at the same time, it is important that there be a strong civilian oversight in the defense department and more broadly in the government. in many cases, there are judgment factors here that go beyond pure technical military questions that will have to be addressed. >> head of warner mentioned in

the first section that there is a dialogue going on between washington and moscow. certainly is not the intensity that we had in 2009, 2010, when you had negotiated geneva. i guess the question is are the things that could be done in the arms control world or are we really thinking about what happens in 2013. when the elections are behind us. >> i think it is necessary firstly to pan out what each side's goals would be. once you have that long view, you can start to think about what is possible. there is a fundamental asymmetry between the two sides objective in the arms control. the united states is primarily worried about russian nuclear

weapons. russia is worried about u.s. conventional weapons. you heard officials talk about the president's goal as a corporation, but not deployed tactical warheads into the next arms control. on the russian side of things, russia is a first the word about u.s. conventional weapons that have the capability of potentially destroying each nuclear weapon. the most obvious example of that is defense. another example is called the u.s. prompted global strike. in that regard, the russians also sometimes bring up u.s. cruise missiles. based weapons are relevant

because in the russian view, that enables conventional wisdoms. occasionally, the russians bring up anti-submarine warfare. another thing that the russians sometimes say they are concerned about is the balance of conventional forces in europe. during the cold war, nato used nuclear weapons to compensate for its inferiority. the russians basically say, we do the same thing now. you are conventionally superior. so if you want us to get rid of tactical nuclear weapons, if you have to do something about conventional forces in europe. and then finally, the only type of nuclear weapons that the russians really care about, or might really care about are these u.s. and non-deployed weapons. the u.s. have a these missiles that are not loaded with as many warheads as they could carry and

so the u.s. could up low those on to the extra missiles. the u.s. says, let's talk about non-deployed weapons then. and the russians say, yes, we would prefer missile numbers. we do not want to do verification of individual non- deployed warheads. let me say, which issues out of these the russians would actually put on to the table is in negotiations that would begin is anybody's guess. i cannot expect them in practice to demand progress on every issue beyond a ballistic missile defense. i think it is certain to be on the table. one of the remaining issues is not obvious at this point. at any case, there is a cemetery. u.s. wants to deal with nuclear, russia wants to deal with conventional.

negotiations are going to be extremely long and difficult. and, of course, each side is limited on what it is able to deal. on top of that, the politics is deeply inauspicious right now. it is very hard to imagine either state in 2012 being willing to really take a risk on arms control negotiations. a comprehensive treaty i think is a long way off. there's been some talk in the u.s. about what i call new start heavy, if you like. it would be a new star with lower limits. i think it is a great idea. i think russia is interested in that. i did nothing that is going anywhere. gatt the discussions will presumably

continue. those, i think, are very important for scoping out the issues to identify possible opportunities. they're not negotiations. another thing that i think that happen is unilateral steps by each side. avoid making negotiations if and when they command a harder. russia has announced its researching and developing a so- called heavy -- is is a liquid fueled a gigantic miss out. russia is not going to cancel that system. one could imagine the russians

not funding it too heavily. it would take longer to develop. there might be some chance of incorporating it into arms control. the converse of what jan was saying is that these missiles relate lack of fallibility. on the u.s. side, i would like to see the administration making the case more strongly than it already has that prompted global strike is this in each system. the u.s. only needs a relatively small number of the systems. that might pave the way for some kind of agreement on how to deal with this in an arms control context later on. that is all i can imagine for 2012. looking a bit further ford in 2013, perhaps, i think there are a vast number of informal

measures that the two sides could review that would advance the goal. i think the goal has to be a treaty. you will not get the russians to agree to a process that does not have its goal as legally binding limits of some kind. i think it would be very beneficial if the two sides could agree to that goal i'd be a prejudiced -- be inpre judiced. let me give you three examples of what i think could be done relatively quickly and help build the way to a treaty. first, on tactical nuclear weapons, the single easiest thing you could do is to verify the absence of nuclear weapons. a basis where they used to be stored, but no longer are.

both sides say there are bases in that category. particularly in europe where these weapons used to be stored but no longer are. let's verify that they are no longer there. for reasons i do not have time to elaborate, i think that is actually a very good first step on the way to a comprehensive accounting scheme for all types of warheads. strategic, non-strategic deployed, and non-deployed. secondly, i would like to head off these cruise missiles issue. i cannot imagine the u.s. ever agreeing to formal arms control limits on missiles. but nonetheless, the russians say they're worried that u.s. conventional cruise missiles pose a threat to the survivability of their silos. i think the useful thing to do would be a joint threat assessment between the two sides to analyze whether the

conventional cruise missiles pose a threat to the silos. one could imagine a very quiet, behind-the-scenes a joint study by the both -- by the two sides. we could get technical experts working behind the scenes. it would perhaps be a good venue for doing a joint study by technically informed non- governmental experts. finally, i would like to see a transparency debate to each side's nuclear weapon production complexes restarted. notes the "re"before the start of there. these were for the purpose of verifying material security. the u.s. sharing their best

practice with russia. accounting for plutonium and keeping it safe and secure. nonetheless, these are exceptionally sensitive areas. as we go to lower numbers, production complexes become relatively more important. your ability to produce weapons and how quickly you can augment your arsenal becomes more important as the number of weapons you have. as you go to lower numbers, you're going to want to have some idea, perhaps some big parity about each side of weapon production complexes. it is a good way of making progress towards a long-term goal. as i say, the fact that these have happened before will be for different purposes. demonstrate that these the kind

of ideas that are actually implemented will -- implement double -- implementable. after the election domestic rhetoric on both sides have called a little bit -- have calmed a little bit, i think there are efforts that can be done to progress the long-term treaty. >> let's open the floor for questions. we the microphones on. just the project, please. -- just project, please. >> i wonder if you would comment on the paris -- the paradoxical

relationship and our non- liberation. our liberation depends on reassurance to our allies extended deterrence which works against moving forward to a defense only posture. >> let me say, first of all, i include extended deterrence which i will explain briefly for members of the audit soon enough be familiar with this terminology. this is the deterrent we provide to our allies. we have this as a treaty obligation with japan, europe, and in other cases israel, places like that. our extended deterrence is the

fact of but not governed by treaty. in effect, we say, do not build your own nuclear weapons. you do not need them because we will use our nuclear weapons to deter any nuclear attack on you. there is a subtlety their wishes to deter any nuclear attack on you. we cannot assert that our nuclear weapons can stop any attack on of any kind on our allies. i think this gets into the whole question of why is zero the most sensible approach. you cannot really unravel all of this of your in a world where nuclear weapons are seen to have political uses that go beyond the purpose of deterring the use of nuclear weapons by others. if, in fact, you could get all

states to agree to that purpose and say that is the only usable purpose for nuclear weapons, the united states has already gotten pretty close already in its posture review. the united states has said it ever enough to give up their weapons, so could we. by the way, the official policy in china is already there. if you say we never use them first, you're saying pretty much the same thing. it is not precise, but it is pretty much the same thing. if he could get into that kind of a situation, you could envision a world in which if everyone was producing more or less simultaneously, like we're trying to do with russia now, an adequate deterrent could be maintained until the last minute when the last weapons were reduced. the return could be reduced as you go along. the other side has nuclear weapons, you need less to deter

the possibility that they might use them. that is the concept for how you get out of this. is is a long, difficult process. as long as we are in the box we are in now and we are not on a path to zero, and that requires all sorts of stuff to get on that path, incentives will not be there, at least in my view. any time one state has the clear weapons, the one thing that really works is deterrence if you want to protect yourself against that state's nuclear weapons. some other state is going to feel threatened. they are going to feel motivated to develop their own nuclear deterrent. we see those most dramatically with iran and and to some extent north korea. they felt threatened by a south korea but are willing to rely on

our umbrella and not build nuclear weapons. will that stay that way forever? it depends on a lot of things. iran, there are a lot of states in the region that would be a target within range of the weapons they have even today. if iran develops a nuclear weapon, can we provide enough of a nuclear umbrella for other states that have nuclear weapons that come also to share that responsibility in providing a nuclear umbrella? it is tough to do that. therefore, the senate for proliferation is there. it is a complicated answer. i apologize for that. when you get to the heart of the nuclear issue we face, there is no simpler answer to it in my view. >> let me make a couple of points about extended deterrence. one of the cliches from the cold war is that deterring your

adversaries is not maturing your allies. allies tend to believe that much more is necessary to deter their adversaries. the united states -- in the goal has to be to narrow that gap. one classic example of that was the obama administration's the handling of the tomahawk attack. this was a sea launch cruise missile. it was a system that had not been deployed since 1991. it was in storage. there was discussion about whether to decommission its. a congressionally appointed

commission in 2008, i think it was, warned of very strongly against dismantling. they said japan will be very worried and we should not do this. with the obama administration did was sat down. a loss of a diplomatic attention. engaged with the japanese government and explained to them why, in the view of the obama administration, dismantling it would not undermine the security of japan. after a lot of hard work and effort, the japanese government bought into that. i have never found a japanese official say that it was a problem it was dismantled. i have never heard a serving officials say, even in private, that they were unhappy about the dismantling. that is how i think you have to

handle these extended deterrence issues. you have to really engage with allies. that dismantling will not undermine their security. >> there is this tension between reductions and how you maintain the, it's on our part of the allies. it is a difference between deterrence and reassurance.

i think if you talk to people in this town and said, do believe those weapons are necessary in europe for purposes of deterring an attack on european allies, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was asked that question. he said these weapons have no military utility and they cannot do anything that we can't do from a u.s. force base. i suspect if the ticket poll around town, most people would say we probably do not need those weapons there. it is also reckitt made -- it is also recognize that nato is just not the united states. it is 28 independent nations. even though they may not have military utility, they still have political utility. while there may not be a sense

that they have to be there for deterrence per say, i think there is a strong view in washington that you have to take account of the assurance of allies. if you drawdown that nuclear presence or perhaps openly eliminate its, what are the mechanisms to ensure allies that their security will be protected? i think some examples, missile defense may be one way. missile defense is probably not a direct subsidy for nuclear weapons. but for example, nuclear -- missile defense -- my sense is that for those governments, a military presence will offer assurance. it may not replace assurance that nuclear-weapons will provide, but there may be a way to reduce some of this friction.

>> the united states has never taken off the table, so to speak, the possibility of using nuclear forces. north korea maintains a huge force. it would be very difficult with conventional forces for the south koreans to repel that invasion as it is now. the south koreans have come to rely on the nuclear umbrella of the united states to give them some confidence that that war would not happen. that used to include a lot of nuclear weapons in south korea, all of which were eliminated when president bush 41

eliminated the tactical weapons. that took some real diplomatic doing to make sure that not upset our alliance with south korea. subsequent to that there has been reductions in nuclear ground force in south korea. further exasperating this problem. if you read the nuclear posture review very carefully, the united states provides pledges and so forth. did not apply to north korea because the words are very carefully written so that we cannot take that off the table at this point. that clearly is one of the reasons why the united states could not say we did not feel

diplomatically that they're able to take this possibility. >> how would you view these initiatives in light of the military going on? i would like to hear -- on missile defense. thank you. >> i do not expect russia to pursue a lot of these agreements without a suitable, balanced quid pro quo.

i understand the head u.s. has there security concerns. both security concerns are partly genuine and partly manufactured. i hope the two sides can have -- can successfully trade off across the two domains. it wants concessions on nuclear weapons. russia is concerned about conventional weapons. it wants a trade on that area. i do not necessarily think these difficult trade-offs will be possible. i think i am clear that unless each side respects and addresses the other side's concerns, nothing much is going to happen in the future. if it was not clear for mike

todd, i am not optimistic about the next two or three years. i'm not completely pessimistic, but it is going to be tough going. >> i would just add to this that i spent a lot of hours, like everybody, perhaps, that you talked to today, that senior russian officials are negotiating control. i think this is something we have to learn how to do together, again, in this new world. we have done it successfully in the past. that being said, i think right now the burden is on russia to move this forward. russia has got itself in a real bind with its doctrine and its states. on the one hand, brush shut excepts acknowledges the west

and u.s. are not a threat. on the other hand, the rhetoric is very strong on nato and nato expansion in russia. they are strong about the american initial -- missile defense. there is no basis and fat and no military capability to do these things that russia sets forth as the threat that prohibits rusher from agreeing to former arms control production. i see a whole lot of what is going on now as being the result of internal russian politics. yes, the russia forces are being restructured and can certainly handle any real threat that russia might face today. but by keeping this very large nuclear force and putting forth these reasons why this very large nuclear force has to be until the united states makes

changes, a very small amount of effort we're putting into missile defense in europe and so forth, i think it is not going to change until this internal problem inside of russia, political problem, gets changed. the substance it really is not there. >> let me follow up on that question and ask you to make a couple of points to see if you think i am being overly optimistic. i think there are a couple of incentives russia might have after 2012 to look at nuclear reductions. one is that if you read, some russian analysts are concerned that the u.s. military plans to be right at the 700 deployed allowed by the treaty and the 1500 deploy strategic warheads. some analysts are saying that russia cannot.

the russian arms could add to come down to about 1000 or 1100. the second question is this question about non-deployed warheads. is is not just the united states has more in the strategic sense, but if you look at most or all of the missiles on the launch on the american side they're going to have fewer warheads. for example, the minuteman warhead would carry a single warhead, but in fact, it can carry three. you could put these warheads back on if the treaty broke down. if the russians do not have that capability because of empty spaces. how much of an incentive does that give the russians and how does that play up against the concerns of missile defense? >> in private, this is dealing with this non-deployed issue.

everybody has said that you are worried about the u.s. up load potential. deal with that problem by dealing with u.s. and non- deployed warheads. i think that would be in the russian interests. what russians say, when you say that, is that kind of verification system would be too interested of for us to bear. we would love to deal with this by limits on micelles. we want to limit the number of missiles and in that way limit your upload potential. i think this is unfortunate. these limits on non-deployed russian -- warheads would be in russians' interest. i have not seen a huge amount of interest in that idea on the russian side, although i think

it is an extremely good idea. one that i hope the russians would take seriously. again, on the fact that the russia forces, because of dismantling age of weapons are dipping down in numbers, again, i think, from my perspective, both sides ought to be able to agree to a new start heavy. again, from my own conversations with russians, i have seen very little interest in that. what they say is they are building this new heavy -- which will be able to hold 10, 12, however many warheads it will be. that will enable them to build up their forces very quickly and very quickly. that is the russian response.

i think both of those are ideas. i am just not seen very much interest in that. >> could i say that this issue of a tactical nuclear weapon is really key. what goes around comes around. i recall, i think it was president nixon's last summit meeting. i was there with kissinger and nixon. we were surprised when a big chart was handed over with thousands of tactical weapons in europe all aimed at russia. i was given the job to write a paper explaining them -- explain to them why this was not a threat to russia. that was a hard thing to do,

actually. [laughter] now, it is on the other side. not that the russian tactical weapons are in the united states, but our allies, to whom we have a formal treaty of extended deterrence commitment, we are meant to treat them as if those things were threats to us. so, this is another reason why looking at the total number of warheads which would deal simultaneously with this question of non-deploy strategic weapons and tactical weapons. which, really, when they go off to as much damage as the deployed ones. if there were a period of confrontation, there would have to be a. that was quite extended. these weapons could be put into service fairly rapidly on both sides. it is a real risk.

furthermore, certainly the russia tactical weapons are more susceptible to diversion and that and a falling in the hands of terrorists then add the ones on operational systems. that is a major concern for us as well. all of those things are concerns. we have a very much a common interest here in dealing with this problem. it is the common interest. hopefully the political situation will default to a point where the interest can come to the forward. >> retired state department. does anybody think there is a realistic threat that the russians would withdraw from new start over something like missile defense? and can anybody comment generally on what is driving their paranoia? maybe it is just i do not understand a lot about what goes

on in there and their political situation. it just seems like the major obstacle to making any further progress is on the russian side. is it reelection? is there anything the gives you optimism so we can cut through this apparent paranoia on the part of the russians? >> i think it is helpful to recognize, in answering that question, that russia is not monolithic. there are different constituencies in russia. in formed technically community says is, we know what being deployed right now poses no threat to our deterrence. what we are concerned about, and i am quoting from memory.

there was a paper written in russia from a senior experienced including a general of the rocket forces. what they said, is if the republican party returns to power, then in 2020 our deterrent could be seriously undermined. that is almost exactly quoting. that, i think, is what the concern is. at the u.s. has never said this is the end point for missile defense. we have multiple systems. there are some very serious analysts who do worry about the potential threat of the survivability of their forces. what they further say is the threat is compounded by these

conventional weapons. they clearly think missile defense cannot annihilate a russian first track on the way over. but if, with conventional weapons, then those that would left -- would be left to be taken out. let me say, personally, i think this is a fantastical. i think is is very unlikely to work against highly sophisticated missiles with advanced countermeasures like the russians have. nor do i think conventional weapons are likely to be affected against mobile missiles. that is why think russia's concerns are genuine. i would also say that these russian fears mirror almost

precisely u.s. fears from the late 1970's and early 1980's when the u.s. was very worried about the so-called window of vulnerability in which the russians would be able to preemptively destroy u.s. weapons. the two sides have switched places in this regard. i think other constituencies in russia are not that worried about missile defense. they find that a very useful political bargaining chip to put on the table. i think russia has a much greater belief in the u.s. technical skills and technical ability and the u.s. has. i do not have a single cleanup, but the lower -- but a series of overlapping issues. >> i agree, but i would reiterate that this stems from

what happened to the russian conventional forces. i was ted warner worse on the stage. he is an expert on this. i may misstate this. i think the russians have come to believe that you can substitute nuclear forces for conventional forces and you can deter a conventional attack against yourself with some kind of superiority of nuclear forces. that is one of the reasons i think they have maintained this large inventory of tactical nuclear weapons. even though it is not quite clear with the conventional threat is that they are worried about. i think they are very much worried about the weakness of their conventional forces. they're taking some steps to try to resolve that. i think they're making some progress there.

perhaps that will reduce their paranoia. i personally do not believe that nuclear forces can significantly deter conventional warfare when both sides have nuclear forces. i think they offset each other. i do not think this is a real impact. it is hard to see through is an error in which these nuclear forces would help them in that respect. i think they believe it. they believe, therefore, unless they can get the u.s. to agree to things they see as favorable in the nuclear area, they are better off to stay where they are. >> i have two very brief comments. i think it is unlikely that the russians will withdraw from that new start treaty. at the end of 2010, when we signed the treaty, they look at the respect of american's plan for missile defense.

we're still like to be in a position where it is not a threat. the second point is the paranoia in moscow is fuelled by an incredible overestimation of american technical capabilities. the strategic defense initiative announced by president reagan -- people thinking in five or six years. people in moscow said this is rocket science. it is hard to do. i think there is this tendency of the russian officials who follow this to look at american plans and say the americans

really can do that. right now, they say that phase4s a problem, 3 are not but then you have phase 4. i think that makes the paranoia more difficult to deal with. >> i am from georgetown law. kind of speaking to what you were just talking about, with russia's lowered conventional weapons capability, may be compensating with existing nuclear weapons or putting confidence and pride in their larger numbers of tactical nuclear weapons compared to the united states, how hard is it going to be, let's say from russian domestic local concerns -- domestic political concerns

to have some authority over the united states, how hard is that make for them to commit to reductions in the future? on the plus side, how difficult is politically for any president to seemingly weaken the united states? i wondered if you could speculate or speak to have those sort of political difficulties could impede any further progress on reducing tactical nuclear weapons. >> i think you raise some very good points. i think it would be difficult for an american president to take steps that would lead to a major difference. we are down now to the kinds of levels where cost is not a huge consideration. i do not mean to be little because of these forces.

it is not trivial, especially when we're looking for a time to save money. one should not limit tens of millions of dollars here. beware not talking not hundreds of billions of dollars at the margin with these forces. i think there is very little incentive for an american president to let things get a long way away. even though i, like many others, have argued extensively against parity being relevant in the political age. i think it is a political reality. we have to live with that. on the other hand, i do think that this nuclear posture review makes it clear that the united states is very prepared to change. not only its nuclear posture, but our approach to nuclear weapons altogether. i think there is a lot denounces

could do what the president has promised maintaining a strong deterrent in the way week to plot our nuclear forces. and what we're willing to cooperate. the openness in which we approach this process. if we could reach an agreement with russia on political defense, which is mutually beneficial, step by step these things can begin to work through this difficulty that you correctly identified. i also believe there is plenty the united states could do to try to deal with some of the larger questions that face all of us. proliferation, nuclear terrorism, uncontrolled fiscal materials which could be used to make bombs and so forth. they cannot deal with this

particular issue of numbers between the u.s. and russia. i personally would hope very much that we could except the reality where we are on that. the reality of what the political situation is and do not let difficulties there keep us from making progress in these other areas, which are not so directly tied to a complicated political questions that you raise. >> briefly, let me emphasize one thing. it would be hard for a u.s. president to do something to make the u.s. weaker. arms control is not about weakening itself. it is about building mutual security. that sometimes is a hard argument to make domestically. there's a better argument that with ballistic missile defense. the best argument for ballistic missile defense is cooperation

-- cooperation is that the russians have radars that have better access or would provide united states with better access to iranian ballistic missile launches. those are the kind of arguments that think have to be made in this context. you'll notice the administration's strategy was to say that this treaty, by itself, makes the u.s. more secure. the russians could say the same thing. i completely agree with you. the domestic politics make this extremely difficult. to some extent, you have to be true to every step you take. yet to make that argument. >> you had a knowledge that

russian strategic forces may fall significantly under the new start ceilings. i am wondering what to think about the idea of the u.s. as a unilateral confidence-building measure, allowing our own operational force levels to go down not below the actual russian levels, but within this new star framework to significantly below the 50/50. >> i had never thought about it in that way before. i think that is really interesting. the difficulty would be -- a first, i think there would be a domestics politics issue. the other difficulty would be if the russians are still committed to building, which would enable them to build a very rapidly, i

think it to be hard for the u.s. to go down knowing the russians were developing a system that would allow it to go up rapidly again. it could potentially match with that. it is one of those ideas i think i need to think through more fully. i never thought about it in that way before. those are my initial reactions. i think it is an interesting idea doing it that way. >> i think that if some reductions made sense for unilateral purposes that having the russian forces below the limit would open some space to consider that. i think that is the only situation the united states is likely to or even should take some steps. we need to remember back to the

bugaboo of the tactical weapons , nobody really knows because they never give as an accounting of those weapons. at least take four to one, maybe a six to one tactical advantage. we're not talking about strategic reserves. needing to go read get them. bees are ready to go weapons. -- these are ready-to-go weapons. they are aimed at our allies in europe. i think there is a broader balance here that we had to accept as well when we accepted this a new start treaty by leaving all that stuff out. they had to accept leaving out all of our non deployed and all of that. i think it is a little hard to upset that balance there.

a relatively small reduction below the total number and the russian strategic deployed forces is not the whole picture. >> unfortunately, our time is over. let me ask you all to thank me in joining our panelists. [applause] >> state department officials unveiled their 2013 budget today. we will have full coverage of the briefing live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> >> this week, josh marshall, publisher and edit >> this week, josh marshall,