c-span is or unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies, including comcast. >> to think this is just a community center? it is more than that. c-span partners with -- and comcast supports c-span along with these other providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. host: welcome back, i am here with daryl kimball, executive director of the arms control association talking about russia's nuclear capabilities. welcome to the program. guest: thank you. host: remind us about what the arms control association is and what the mission is. guest: is an independent, nongovernmental independent research and advocacy organization. we were established in the midst of the cold war to try and

reduce the risk posed by nuclear weapons, and we provide information and ideas about how to reduce the risks and move closer to a world without nuclear weapons. and, i am looking forward to this very timely and important conversation this morning. host: it is certainly timely because the war is raging between russia and ukraine. russia as a nuclear armed power has the most nuclear warheads in the country. what is your level of concern as far as miscalculation or escalation? guest: my concern is high, because not only has president putin chosen the path of destruction over diplomacy, invading another independent country, a democratic country. but as the war rages on we have to remember that there are going to be risks involved with titan the posture of russian military forces, nato forces that are becoming more capable as

concerns about russia's intentions grow, there are risks of military to military encounters that could lead to shooting between nato and russian forces. there can be miscalculation and miscommunication. because both sides are nuclear armed, there is the small, perhaps, but still very consequential risk that it could escalate. so, these are very critical times in both sides. nato forces, the united states forces and russian forces need to be cognizant of the risks and the leaders and military commanders need to make sure that they are not taking actions that increase the risk of a direct conflict. host: viewers can give us a call

to ask any questions and talk about comments on this topic. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also send us a tweet or a text. so, what is russia's nuclear capability and range? guest: russia has a very large nuclear force, the united states and russia combined have 95% of the world's 13,000 nuclear weapons. right now as we speak, the united states and russia have about 1400 nuclear warheads on long-range systems, land-based and sea-based missiles on submarines and on long-range bombers. russia also has a force of approximately estimated to be about 1000 shorter range nuclear warheads. these are sometimes called

battlefield or tactical nuclear weapons. they are extremely destructive in terms of the size and any one of these weapons are enough to destroy a city as in hiroshima or nagasaki. the united states has about 250 of these shorter ranged weapons, 160 or so of which are stored in five nato bases. and so, that has been the condition for the last several years, but as large as those arsenals are, they are lower than they were during the height of the cold war in the mid-1980's. united states and russia had a combined force of about 70,000 nuclear weapons, not all of those deployed. so true nuclear arms control and reduction agreements that republican and democratic presidents have negotiated,

those stockpiles were verifiably reduced, that is the right direction to go in. this conflict is not only creating a horrible war affecting millions of civilians, innocent people in ukraine, that it is going to create fraught relations between russia, europe, and the united states for years to come and it will derail for some time the efforts to reduce nuclear risk and massive and access nuclear stockpiles. host: here is a visual of what daryl was talking about. you can see the number for russia, and the number for the united states. we have some callers that want to talk to you. let us go to marion in georgia on the democrats line. caller: good morning, and welcome to c-span. thank you for taking my call. i want to know and i have been reading and keeping up with this

, every detail of this for days. and i am very concerned that putin has been using right-wing tucker carlsen, trump and pompeo , their videos of praising putin to help his people in russia think that this is a good idea to invade ukraine. how dangerous is it that fox news is propagating all of this? isn't this a time when all of us should say hey, this is putin doing this, this is not biden, this is putin. i agree with the man in california who is -- who said it is like blaming fdr for hitler's. this is a time to come together, it really is because europe is really our main ally that shares our western values, and whatever happens in ukraine could happen,

it weakens all of us, am i not correct? host: what do you think? guest: my personal view and i think it is important to step back from our domestic political debates in the united states and we need to take a look at this as an affront by a nuclear armed country against a nonnuclear armed country, an affront against a democratically elected government, and in independent people, and that should concern everybody. in my analysis of russia, it does not have territorial aims does -- beyond ukraine right now but putin is showing he is an extreme risk taker, and there is a risk as i said before for miscalculation in the days and weeks ahead. we will have tensions in the years ahead. that could -- that should

concern everyone and that will create a situation that is not good for any of us whether we are republicans, democrats, or independents and it does not use much good for -- to use us as a proxy war for our domestic political debates. need to look at it as americans concerned about fellow people in a democratic nation and as a sober new chapter in global affairs that is going to affect us for many years. host: explain the current arms control agreement between the two countries. what is going on and who is enforcing it? guest: right now, there is only one remaining agreement that regulates the u.s. and russian nuclear arsenals, that is called the new strategic arms reduction treaty which was negotiated in 2009 and 2010. it was extended just a year ago by another five years to last

until 2026, february 2026. it caps the total number of deployed warheads on long-range delivery systems, in other words the land-based missiles, sea-based missiles and long-range bombers and creates a verification system to make sure that each side is abiding by restrictions. it has been working very well without hitch, despite the tensions between the u.s. and russia over the last decade plus. it is going to expire. and unless the two governments get back to the negotiating table, and we will not do that anytime soon. we heard from undersecretary -- deference -- deputy secretary of state at the strategic stability dialogue that had been going on before the war started, that is being suspended for obvious reasons during this conflict. unless they get back to the negotiating table and come up

with a new agreement or agreements to replace that, after 2026 we will not have any limits on the two sides and the risk of an all-out nuclear arms race both in terms of the quality and the types of weapons in the quantities will be much higher risk for that kind of arms race. there are other weapon systems, nuclear weapon systems that were under restriction before, but the agreements that regulated those systems are now gone. there was a treaty negotiated by ronald reagan, the 1987 an immediate nuclear forces treaty that eliminated an entire class of intermediate range ripens -- weapons that threatened europe and russia. that was eliminated in -- two years ago, over a compliance dispute. russia was violating that agreement with some tests of a an intermediate range listing missile. we only have one treaty left and

at some point the two governments need to and will get back to the negotiating table because it is in the interest of both countries despite the many differences over many issues to make sure that we do not have an unregulated, unrestrained nuclear competition that could lead to very unstable situations down the road. the next conflict would be much riskier, without these arms control agreements. host: let us hear from al in virginia on the independent line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call and welcome to c-span. i am aim retired military army, 20 years and i was in the biochemical field during the cold war. i have a couple of questions in the comment. what are the current u.s. policies on nuclear and biological chemicals? how big is the russian arsenal

of cam and bio weapons? this is something i have not heard as discussed as well. as far as the missiles, where are they targeted to hit if putin would be stupid enough to go ahead and fire off missiles? and, a comment. if people want to know what the results of a nuclear war would be, i urge them to watch the film "the day after." it is a very devastating film. thank you for taking my call. you have a nice day. guest: thank you for those questions, let me try to answer at least some of them and maybe we can talk about a little bit later what a nuclear conflagration would look like. if i recall the questions from the caller, russia does not have a chemical weapons arsenal as it did during the cold war, but they do have chemical weapons

capabilities and we do know that they have used certain kinds of deadly chemical agents for assassinations. and this has been the subject of criticism of russia now for several years. so, the threat of chemical weapons i think is extremely low from russia right now because of another treaty, the chemical weapons convention of 1997 which eliminated virtually all of the world's chemical weapons arsenals. russia does have medium-range missiles in leningrad -- kalin ingrad, which is the russian enclave south of poland, which is an area of concern for nato because russia has capabilities there that could threaten the nato members in that area.

but, one of the things that russia is also concerned about is the possibility that the united states will deploy intermediate range missiles against russia. and so one of the interesting things about the diplomatic exchanges between russia and the united states in the weeks leading up to the war is that both sides wanted to discuss an agreement to ban any intermediate range missiles from europe and western russia that might threaten the other. so a replacement of that intermediate range nuclear forces treaty from the cold war. that was something that could have addressed mr. putin's and our concerns. we need to get back to that kind of discussion. host: i want to ask you about the weapons -- nuclear weapons that ukraine used to have during the soviet union. the new york -- "the new york

times" says this, ukraine gave up a giant you nuclear arsenal 30 years ago and today there are regrets. "when the soviet union collapsed ukraine turned over caught -- nuclear weapons in exchange for security did that shirt security guarantees." they are saying if we were a nuclear power, this would not be happening to us. guest: so, background on that agreement and what the war tells us about this experience. so, ukraine became independent in 1991, and at the time there were 1900 soviet era nuclear warheads on a large number of long-range ballistic missiles. what the ukrainians agreed to do was to return the warheads back to russia and to eliminate the

long-range missiles that had carried them, and to become a nonnuclear weapon state member of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. that was really important. it was something that helped end the cold war, reduced tensions at the time and it made russia safer, ukraine safer in the world safer. as the new york times story says the united states, the u.k., and russia extended security guarantees. russia has obviously violated those security guarantees and violated this agreement. and this is another way in which putin's actions have struck a blow to global efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and stop their spread. you know, there are some in ukraine who say that they regret the decision that we should have held onto the weapons. reality was that ukraine was not in a position to maintain the weapons.

they did not have the control over use of weapons at the time. they were still controlled by moscow, even if they were in ukrainian territory. today, i do not think they would be an independent state if they decided to hold onto the weapons because at the time russia would not have -- would not have allowed that. we also remember, two countries are in a conflict and they are nuclear armed. it does not prevent war, it increases the risk of any such war. because once a nuclear weapon is used in a conflict between nuclear armed states there is no guarantee that nuclear weapons are not going to be exchanged back and forth until both sides are completely annihilated. this is an important chapter in history, it is important thing to remember and another reason why putin's actions are a violation of international norms

and law. host: gene from park ridge, illinois. on the republican line. caller: good morning. as a marine, vietnam combat, watching the tank drive over that car, with innocent people from the ukraine was heartbreaking. everything is off of the table right now with what we are dealing with. this guy putin is a madman. all of your treaties are on hold , it is called stand fast, everybody is in place. until we can get this thing under control. sad to say, i believe mr. putin will go after the old soviet states. this is just phase one. i am concerned for our young kids being posted in and around ukraine, and i am afraid to tell

you that it is a mean, dark street right now. guest: sir, i do not disagree. i think you are -- your call is an important reminder as we have this conversation that there are millions of innocent ukrainians who are at risk, who are fearing for their lives, these are families, men, women and children who do not deserve this. and there are soldiers at risk. , soldiers who are getting killed on both sides. this is going to create a chill that is going to last for years, and as i said the agreements that helped win the peace after the end of the first cold war, these are -- they have been disintegrating for several years

through neglect, noncompliance, and negligence. it will be a while before the two countries get back to the table to deal with the threat that could kill us all, which is nuclear weapons. eventually i think this is important that they do that. in the meantime we have to deal with a dangerous situation and avoid the kinds of direct conflicts that could lead to the escalation that could lead to a wider war beyond ukraine. host: john from germantown, maryland on the independence line. caller: hello. well, you were talking about the agreement to disarm the ukraine, and so i guess that is just the paper tiger agreement because russia, the u.s., and the u.k. agreed to it. what exactly where the details of that? what was their guarantee of

independence, and he was it given by? and what exactly was it? was it just a paper tiger? guest: it was written on a piece of paper, but it was a solemn agreement by the leaders of russia, the united kingdom, the united states, and ukraine at the time. there is some information on our website that goes into detail about the past memorandum. -- the budapest memorandum. at the moment this is effectively null and void because president putin in 2014 seized the crimean territory on the crimean peninsula and took a step forward with his massive and violent invasion. the reality is that the international system legally binding agreements and politically binding agreements, they do not work unless they are

complied with and enforced, and some agreements are difficult to enforce and this certainly was one of them. host: in plain view, new york on the republican line. caller: good morning. mr. campbell -- kimball mutually assured destruction prevented a war between the u.s. and the soviet union. ideally, it would be wonderful if the world could disarm, but i do not see it happening. xi said he would attack japan with nuclear weapons. putin said he would use tactical nukes, so what we are saying is that large countries can have nukes, and then pick on their neighbors and the neighbors cannot have nukes because they are small and weak. the u.s. has become an

unreliable ally. ukraine asked for weapons, and obama and biden provided blankets, and ready-to-eat meals. so, i do not see how this is going to work, particularly when i ran is going nuclear. all of these other countries are going to want to go nuclear. you tell me how they are going to disarm? host: what do you think? guest: let us take a step back about some of the things that the caller said. first of all the united states and the soviet union and now russia for many years have had massive numbers of nuclear weapons and we have all been living under the condition of mutual a sword destruction -- assured destruction meaning that if the united states and russia were to get into a war and one side was on the verge of losing or thought they were losing

began to use nuclear weapons to try and tip the balance in their favor, we could see each side using nuclear weapons leading to all-out nuclear war. that is not something that anybody wants. what this situation shows an i said this -- and i said this before, the possession of nuclear weapons by the great powers so to speak does not prevent war. it has provided food and tragically with the cover to act in ukraine. one reason why the united states and nato are not directly engaging in this conflict with our soldiers and forces is because there is the risk that we could get into that kind of escalatory situation with russian forces, and it would risk all of us in the united

states, our allies in europe, and -- to a russian attack. so, right now it does not look very good. and, right now we are going through a dark period where we are likely to see rising tensions, each side trying to harm themselves against -- arm themselves against one another. we have to avoid getting into an arms race. we know that in the past we have been through this kind of situation with the old soviet union. we have pursued and used diplomacy to manage the competition and to reduce the risk and number of nuclear weapons and the risk of nuclear war. we need to get back on that path because that is in all of our interests. even if the realization of a world without nuclear weapons looks like a distant dream, the

pursuit of that vision is very important to our security, russia's security and the security of the world, that is my take on it based upon a look back at the history of nuclear weapons, and what deterrence has and has not achieved. i offer those thoughts for you to consider. host: in "the new york times" it says that putin set -- spends conspiracy theory that ukraine is on the path of nuclear weapons. "usually hey has made those before but as asides but not as the justification for our urgent action in ukraine." guest: putin's speech on monday night and he has repeated this again that one of the threats that ukraine poses to russia is that it might pursue nuclear

weapons is complete fiction. the ukrainians had a nuclear arsenal that they inherited from the soviet union before. they have missile technology, but they are nowhere close to having the capability right now, nor do they have an interest in building nuclear weapons. this is an example of vladimir putin trying to hype a ukrainian threat to russia in order to justify to his own people his rationale for sending in russian soldiers to fight their brotherly ukrainian fellow people. so, it is -- that is a fiction, and we need to understand it as such. host: let us talk to john in

illinois on the democrats line. caller: hello, i was curious about a couple of quick things as far as maintenance and security. how old are some of these weapons? how reliable are they to go off correctly? let us say you could fire one off and it could go up for five seconds and blow up with collateral damage, and then i am also curious about security in that how are they handling it? is it more geared toward cybersecurity, or geared toward old-fashioned sabotage? that is all. guest: some of the answers depend on whether we are talking about russia or you -- or the united states. generally speaking the and russia spend a lot of time and money to maintain the warheads, the explosive package of the bomb. that is on the missiles and the

bombers. they maintain them at a very high level of reliability. the nonnuclear parts are regularly replaced. russia has a different approach to maintaining its warheads in the united states, somewhat. but, there is a low risk that there is going to be an accidental detonation. but, there are other risks. the two sides have an elaborate command-and-control system by which each president has the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. one very disconcerting thing is that vladimir putin and joe biden as the leaders of their country have the sole authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons. no one can really veto them unless military personnel in the chain of command somehow defy orders and are not replaced.

and so, this elaborate command-and-control system is vulnerable, potentially to cyberattack, and the u.s. strategic command spends a lot of time working to harden the u.s. command-and-control system as do the russians, but i am not completely assured. there are always vulnerabilities. it is important going towards the future neither russia nor the united states try to interfere with the other's nuclear command-and-control through cyber attacks or through sending signals that can confuse the enemy, because that could lead to the kind of miscalculation on one side or the other to attack when there is absolutely no justification for doing so. we have risks in the future that relate to cyber more than physical security of these nuclear weapons. host: let us take another call.

ray and delaware -- in delaware on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have two questions. how do we actually know how many nuclear weapons russia has? are we going by what putin is telling us? could he possibly have more weapons than what he says he has, first of all. the second is, once he takes ukraine, and keep in mind the nord stream 2 line into germany, if he shuts off the fuel going to europe and says the only way you are getting it is through nord stream, they will have to take it, they do not have a choice. i would like to know how we keep track of how many nuclear weapons that russia really has. guest: that is a great question. first of all, one of the values of the nuclear arms control

agreements through the decades is -- that the united states and russia has struck is that they each are mandated to provide detailed information about the nature of their arsenals, so that allows each side to check that through on-site inspections. we have american technical experts visiting russian nuclear facilities to ensure that the russian record -- the russian reporting is accurate and they are not taking actions to try and hide anything. and vice versa. in addition, the united states and russia have at this stage very sophisticated national means of intelligence. satellites and more to make sure that we understand very well where each others nuclear weapons and delivery systems are. in real time. we do not have 100% knowledge it

is very good. that is basically how the united states and russia understand the size and composition of each other's forces. we also have a growing number of open source intelligence experts who can independently verify that based upon commercial satellite imagery, and there are some colleagues of mine at the federation of american scientists who have made it their business to carefully track u.s., russian, indian, pakistani, israeli, british, chinese, french, and north korean arsenals. we have a good idea of how many are out there, and the problem is making sure that these things are not used and that we do move in the direction of eliminating them and perlin -- and preventing proliferation. on nord stream, that might be a

question for another expert on another c-span segment. but, there are a lot of and just a reminder that there are a lot of complex issues that the united states and our european allies will have to deal with not just in the coming days but in the weeks, months, and years ahead. host: dayton ohio. lewis is on the independent line. hello. caller: hello, first time caller, did not think i would get through, thank you for taking my call. host: you got through. caller: yes. retired army officer, more than 20 years. it is evidence to me that putin is in the best of terms unstable. that being said, is it possible that with his actions and his threats he believes that he could withstand a nuclear

exchange? second question. what about biological weapons? could you discuss just briefly what systems russia would have? and then, last question. what is the employment -- authorities for the tactical nukes that russia has? is it the 2006, 2008, 2007, and so on. thank you and have a great day. guest: thank you for your service and for two questions. so, on biological weapons, there

is another agreement, the convention that prohibits the possession of biological weapons. we do not unfortunately have a verification system for this treaty. but, we have to remember that biological weapons are not particularly useful as nila terry instruments. we have seen from covid-19 that biological weapons are very indiscriminate and -- in terms of their effects. i do not see that as a particular danger from russia and we will move on to your other questions. so vladimir putin, i am not a psychologist, i have not examined this guy. but, he might be doing things that are terrible, that are mad, that i do not think he is

clinically crazy. he has a very calculating, rational person, and i would say that he understands as does joe biden that a nuclear war cannot be won. they have actually issued a statement that a nuclear war cannot be won and it cannot ever be fought. both men understand what the catastrophic risk would be. each knows that neither country could withstand a nuclear attack. and so that does not mean, however that with the best intentions of avoiding nuclear war that we can avoid nuclear war, especially in the decades ahead. you know, it is my view that as so long as these weapons exist that they pose an existential threat. if we look at the history of the cold war, there were several times, any times where nuclear

weapons use was quite possible, it was contemplated, we have the cuban missile crisis. there have been other incidents where each side came very close to ordering the launch of nuclear weapons due to false alarms. that is my take on those questions. on the command-and-control of russian tactical nuclear weapons, my understanding it is similar to the command and control of the strategic nuclear weapons and long way long-range weapons. but a mere putin or joe biden would have to order the use of those weapons. host: the ukrainian foreign minister actually just tweeted about half an hour ago saying that russian propaganda has gone off of the rails and speculates that ukraine might be preparing to drop a dirty bomb on the russian territory. this is a fake.

ukraine does not have nuclear weapons and does not conduct work to create them. we are a responsible member of the nonproliferation treaty. strong words. let us take stan in odessa, texas. go ahead. caller: yes, a couple of questions. i know this might sound way out in space, but i do believe we need to put more pressure on putin. i think with the protesting going on, the sanction is -- the sanction starting to take hold i think this is the only scary part of this, the nuclear part. i think we should start going in there because there have been some terrible -- terrible tactical mistakes he has done. this seems like something like in vietnam, he has those -- so exposed with his troops driving

to kyiv and other places. i think we need to think about that, we might never get a chance. this is a no win situation, but i don't think we will ever get a chance to catch him when he is weak right now. the russian economy and i understand the ruble has crashed and they will have a lot problems on his hands. host: thank you. any last comments as we wrap up. guest: i would agree with the caller in the sense that we need to isolate russia and punish vladimir putin. the sanctions are -- they need to be implemented, they need to be strong, but it will take time as president biden has said for these to take effect in trying to alter putin's behavior. as for nato assistance, i think

i have been trying to get across that we can and should support the ukrainian people, we can provide defensive military assistance to the zelensky government in kyiv. help with a humanitarian disaster that might be ahead, but we need to avoid a direct military conflict between nato and russian forces. and putin understands that and part of the reason is that it could lead to a nuclear exchange which would threaten everyone, so this is a dangerous situation. we need to navigate through this in the next few days, weeks, and months and find ways to reduce the tensions that will grow and the nuclear dangers are too high

to make all of us safe. host: daryl >> c-span's "washington journal" -- every day, we are taking your calls. coming up sunday morning, we look at russia's use of cyber attacks on ukraine. and talks about the impact russia's invasion of ukraine could have on energy and prices. live on c-span or c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. >> the united nations security council meets sunday. they will take up a measure

compelling the general assembly to meet within 24 hours to debate and vote on if russia violated the united nations charter with its invasion of ukraine. the measure cannot be vetoed by any of the five permanent members including russia. watch live at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or watchful coverage on c-span now, our free video app. >> next week on the c-span networks, as the crisis in ukraine continues, watch our latest coverage of the u.s. response, statements by foreign leaders, and event updates. the house and senate are both in session, and president biden speeds -- speaks before a joint session of congress to deliver his state of the union address. watch next week live on the c-span networks or on the c-span

now app. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events or livestream the floor proceedings from the u.s. congress. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio, plus a variety of podcasts. c-span now is available in the apple store and google play. download it today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, any time, anywhere. >> c-span is your unfiltered

view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including mediacom. >> the world changed in an instant, but mediacom was ready. schools and businesses went virtual and we powered a new reality because in media, we are poised to keep you ahead. >> mediacom supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. c-span -- giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> more from this week's conservative lyrical action conference taking place in orlando, florida -- conservative political action conference taking place in orlando, florida. ♪ >> ladies and please welcome from south