a new nuclear arms race is on the horizon don't forget the website it's always there day w dot com for all the latest news 24 hours a day for now the american house thanks for watching. live from charge of the famous naturalist and explorer. jerusalem racial politics on the front line well it's 250th birthday we're embarking on a voyage of discovery. expedition voyage on t.w.a. .

a u.s. warship in the persian gulf accompanied by a bomber plan since washington's abandonment of the nuclear deal with iran in may 2018 the situation in one of the most volatile regions in the world has been escalating and iran consequently resumed enrichment of uranium in the process itself violating the multinational treaty. some fear this could put the country on the threshold to becoming a nuclear arms state. meanwhile the i.n.f. treaty between the us and russia banning land based intermediate range nuclear missiles has effectively collapsed the nuclear powers in adversaries of old are now developing new weapons and new strategies. are we seeing a return to the times of the cold war is the world at risk of a new global arms race 30 years since the last one ended or has it already begun.

you know. a nuclear bunker under the center of nuremberg built decades ago during the cold war there used to be around 2000 bunkers like this across germany their purpose to provide shelter for at least a section of the population in the event of a nuclear holocaust. that sounds in a dozen 2000 people who were supposed to survive a surface detonation down here on chairs and bunk beds. 8 hours a day lying down 16 hours sitting down. a brief reprieve from the inevitable 10 meters below ground.

nothing to do but after 14 days the diesel generators would no longer be able to pump in fresh air or fresh water and then it would be worth surviving another 14 days for them to go so why bother. and that was the situation. so a lot of. our guide around this eerie relic of the cold war is philip holtz he's an ambassador for the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons winner of the 2017 nobel peace prize the bunker symbolizes an era that should be by now history but it seems a new nuclear arms race is on the horizon. and this as the world appeared to be looking safer with a range of treaties on disarmament and arms controls. but nuclear weapons have never disappeared completely. also this is a good illustration that. it still has 1600 warheads ready for deployment in the

us 1715 according to these figures. from the bank of so theoretically we would see a continuing downward trend in the years to come in terms of absolute numbers. but that could be deceptive in quantitative terms the trend is declining but the warheads are an increasingly higher state of deployment so today's situation is not a relaxed one in fact we have a similar situation to the cold war braceros violated the agreement they've been violated here for many years and i don't know why president obama didn't negotiate or pull out. that we're not going to let them violate the nuclear agreement they go out into weapons and we're not allowed to we're the ones that have stayed in the agreement and we've honored it greatly but russia is not fortunately under the agreement so we're going to terminate the agreement we're going to pull out. in august 2019 the u.s. withdrew from the i.n.f.

treaty banning intermediate range nuclear missiles in 2018 president trump had announced his country would be pulling out of the nuclear deal with iran despite opposition from his european allies. trump and his advisors and the military and the white house preferred a return to hardline policy to rearmament and deterrence. every few years the u.s. reexamined its strategy on the deployment of nuclear weapons the nuclear posture review defines potential adversaries and scenarios $2800.00 trump embark on a radical change of direction. does practice to be a bit like it's the bible of american proto turns up tickets from points new weapons the new deployment scenarios and that's exactly what the arms my. fractures want to vote on. the u.s. capitol washington d.c. . we've come here to find the people whose ideas later become policy. among the

many think tanks based in washington are those that provide the theory behind nuclear rearmament and consider a nuclear war to have become feasible again they started working years ago on a new nuclear strategy. one of their most prominent figures is political scientist matthew koenig in addition to being a professor at the renowned georgetown university he's a leading strategist at the atlantic council one of the most influential think tanks in the western hemisphere. i'm proud to say that at the atlantic council where i have an affiliation i've been writing about this issue for several years i think starting in 2014 or 2015 i started writing about the threat of russian deescalation stripes i started writing and doing congressional testimony on the need for the united states to develop

a low yield nuclear options to respond to that matthew koenig is also the author of an influential book called the logic of american nuclear strategy it provides scientific arguments for the concept of nuclear deterrence arguments that enjoy powerful backing at the atlantic council. i got some. john rogers chairman of the board of directors used to work in the state department and in the white house and is today executive vice president at the goldman sachs investment bank. president and c.e.o. of the atlantic council is frederick kemp formerly a high profile journalist with the wall street journal. brant scowcroft served as national security adviser to u.s. presidents gerald ford and george bush sr today he's the council's chairman emeritus and is also a member of the advisory board serving the secretaries of state defense and energy . i would like to think that my work had some role in informing

u.s. officials about the possible responses and may have had some role and influencing the final nuclear posture review. washington has dozens of think tanks vying for money and influence many of them operate on a global scale. and their staff juggle positions in government ministries and political circles but their jobs in the think tanks among them is elbridge coldly. coldly with with you. in january 2019 right colby was summoned to appear before the us senate armed services committee he had been in charge of the national defense strategy at the pentagon under then secretary of defense john madis also making him one of the chief architects of the new nuclear strategy strategy entails a fundamental shift in the orientation of our nation's armed forces toward

preparing for war against china or russia precisely in order to deter this ship is urgently needed as our military advantages against both have substantially eroded in recent decades. today colby works for the center for a new american security one of the many conservative think tanks in washington. i think if you look at the nuclear posture review there's some there's some there's some strong rhetoric and but actually it's fundamentals it's very an evolutionary document it's very consistent with the past history of u.s. and nato policy it's basically saying we're going to you know rebuild our nuclear forces which are getting old and then we're going to do a couple of things to make it clear to the russians that they don't have a good strategy to selectively escalate. hardline rhetoric consolidating washington's existing nuclear strategy and sending a signal to moscow what might initially sound unspectacular in effect means

breaking with the disarmament policy of previous decades. our next stop is the center for strategic and international studies the director of the centers missile defense program ian williams shares the view that the new strategy chosen by the u.s. constitutes a fundamental change of course. the number one goal of the 2018 review is is nuclear deterrence it doesn't even have arms control of nuclear reductions on the list of priorities. if it has a full throated endorsement of the value of nuclear weapons in defending us interests in defending the core interests of the united states which is something that is quite a shift from from the tone of the 20 ton policy review. but what exactly are the interests of the us washington's deterrence concept is based on the

nuclear triad a 3 sided military force structure consisting of land launched intercontinental nuclear missiles nuclear armed submarines at sea and strategic aircraft with nuclear bombs and missiles. the objective to deter an adversary from launching an attack and deploying nuclear weapons due to the threat of being destroyed with an overwhelming nuclear counterstrike the american strategists however believe that the threat situation has now changed primarily as a result of moscow's change in stance. because what the russian strategy attempted to do was to force the united states and nato into this suicide or surrender problem that if we get into a war in eastern europe that russia could use one or 2 or 3 small nuclear weapons early in the conflict. and then that would place a dilemma on the west. at the 2018 annual meeting of the valdai forum in sochi

russian president vladimir putin openly threaten to use nuclear weapons in response to an attack on his country i believe you're sitting on that show a little is much the worse of me is the news. you know still rile me. and which egypt but you're right. all right he forced us. i wish i knew the look on most of the i mean there's a casings. and so what the nuclear posture review was to try to provide options between suicide and surrender to say that if russia conducts a limited nuclear strike that the united states and nato can respond with a limited nuclear strike of our own. hans kristensen is an expert on nuclear weapons at the federation of american scientists he too sees a fundamental change in american strategy. and. there's the other element which is that it seemed true and the idea that it's

a priority of the united states to work to reduce the nuclear arsenals and reduce the role of nuclear weapons. that was a primary objective of the one ministration this one seems to you know go in the other direction and say you know not only do we need more of them we also are now officially embracing a great power competition. washington sees itself at the heart of the confrontation for power and influence in the globalized world the renewed competition between the major powers also promises new business opportunities new strategies require the development and manufacture of new weapons. and the arms manufacturers are already in a state of readiness they begin investing before decisions of the political level have even been made and some of the funding for think tanks comes from corporations

involved in the arms trade. they include the likes of airbus and boeing as well as european companies including italy's leonardo and france based saffron. they donate hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to think tanks like the atlantic council and the center for a new american security. if you if you look at these companies donations it's clear what interests the views are represented in these think tanks. the arms manufacturers want to sell their nuclear weapons and present their ideas to politicians. you could also say that he basically i think tanks service advertising agencies for the government and the arms companies think things you need there are going to in. amsterdam spring 200-1000. the city is hosting the annual general meeting of the airbus one of the biggest arms manufacturers in europe. and members of the pax activist group have

come to talk to shareholders. i. think. they are outraged at the gate valve much of the airbus and other companies and nuclear weapons programs such as that of the french state well the most thing is that they. work on all kinds of weapons but you make a lot of profit over there and since then quite a lioness treaty. while they're working towards a new nuclear weapons in europe could murder the entire world if they want. my kid meaningless conducts analysis for pax another lands based organization that scrutinises companies involved in the global nuclear arms business. is a global company but their headquarters is in the netherlands and the netherlands itself of course is not allowed to have or produce nuclear weapons so i think it's

it's a bit strange that they allow a company that's headquartered in that country to have to be involved or. that the activists are unable to confront airbus shareholders at the a.g.m. most of them arrived via the underground car park does your yes i'm an errand vanderveen are committed to challenging the arms related operations of one of the world's biggest aerospace and defense companies they want the shareholders and investors to see the growing sensitivity of the issue and to put the spotlight on the corporations activities. well the most the most important thing for me is to to let people see who makes the profit off its big shareholders with big money to make big profits of these well i think the main one in europe is of course but you also have for example layer nardo an italian company. and actually layer nardo and air bus together with the u.k. company b. e systems they are in a joint venture. into adventure that's

a getter produces missiles for the french nuclear arsenal so france has an estimated arsenal of $300.00 nuclear warheads the airbus group is co owned by the french spanish and german governments and is as such indirectly involved in france's nuclear weapons program. yet some busted by the same to see launched m 511 missile developed in the joint venture of airbus and suffering together with the area group because this is another french project the a s m p a this time involving a number of european countries. airbus defense and space is based in munich be a e systems in britain and leonardo in italy. so we have a tremendous amount of money to play with the iraq military $700000000000.00 plus $716000000000.00 we are going to develop the weapons. the us has new nuclear

strategy promises to generate trillions of dollars for defense companies in the decades to come they stand to profit from both the maintenance and modernization of existing carrier systems and the development of new nuclear weapons and cruise missiles. and while the nuclear arsenals are overhauled and restocked it seems to always be the same companies turning a tidy profit out of the business as i can a bastard feel the pulse shows us. we've selected for examples of nuclear weapons and they're currently in use are currently being upgraded. and as you can see it's always the same names there's a boeing 3 times systems 2 and the b. $6112.00 nuclear bomb is the one that will replace the american bombs in germany and throughout europe so it's an issue that is not only in america but it's also

europe and especially germany. that the $6112.00 is an enhanced weapon with a lower yield that can reportedly be modified according to its target in contrast to strategic nuclear weapons which can destroy entire cities in the enemy's heartland with their immense destructive capability and range $6112.00 is a tactical weapon designed to attack individual enemy buildings. that means it can be deployed earlier on in a conflict. you think we're not building additional. numbers and we are not developing really fundamentally new kinds or new capabilities we are replacing french so the 6112 the bomb. for europe for instance that replaces existing systems. so it's not

a very black and white situation i think the usual is more when they begin to introduce weapons that are officially tactical nuclear weapons that are supposed to be used before strategic weapons that's when you begin to get into trouble about earlier use of nuclear weapons. the german authorities refused to confirm the storage of nuclear weapons in germany on the grounds of secrecy what is known is that in the event of a war german pilots would also have to deliver them to their targets in accordance with the nuclear sharing concept. if you were no more i merely here you can see where the us stores nuclear bombs of its own base it's so much that there are 10 or 20 on google in germany for example . so german soldiers have regular drills for the deployment of weapons of mass destruction weapons designed to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians to. the

collapse of the i.n.f. treaty is a source of major concern in berlin it had a stance of lee banished intermediate range missiles from europe. party political defense experts in germany fear the implications of a call for a new nuclear arms race in europe. this big. a few ago we are also calling for the 1st land based intermediate range weapons to be upheld. and within the coalition government for example we have called for no new intermediate range weapons to be stationed in germany and shots in new york. this is the subject of russia's alleged violation of the i.n.f. treaty the presentation of a missile container said to show the new s.s.c. x. 8 missile an intermediate range missile that it is claimed could reach any city in europe. silage image and some sort of the russians have been cheating on their

intermediate range nuclear forces treaty they've already deployed for the taliban's of these weapons so these weapons are threatening us bases in europe threatening our allies in europe right now as we sit here speaking in their target i'm now speaking to darfur those are indeed indications that russia may also have breached the provisions of the i.l.f. treaty. for ta goes for. this problem is about here the problem is that this is not a one sided dispute. then words are for russia as in turn saying that in stationing missile defense facilities in europe and the american it's are also introducing systems that are violating the treaty. both washington and moscow have refused to mutual weapons inspections trading mutual accusations of noncompliance u.s. intelligence has seemingly convinced its nato partners at least that russia

violated its treaty commitments. we meet alexander golts in moscow he's a journalist and a long term observer of the russian military apparatus and the kremlin's defense policy he is among those who believe russia breached the treaty and that washington can substantiate its claims wiring is that america will. march for more details to prove that russia. what. a reason. to keep the secret they did not believe this information will. pro russian fighters in eastern ukraine the nightmare scenario for nato is something similar happening in the baltics for example some experts fear that russia could use the ethnic russian population as a pretext to send in troops presenting nato with a fait accompli after the russian invasion of ukraine we had to update our assessments because what russia did in ukraine it could easily do something similar

in a stone in latvia or lithuania but this time it would be with a nato ally so the united states would be compelled to come to that nation's defense in fact the nuclear posture review talks about enhanced in the role of nuclear weapons begins not on nuclear strategic attacks those missions would be 1st use they would be 1st uses of nuclear weapons against a non nuclear attack it can incorporate anything that can involve significant conventional attacks biological attacks possibly even cyber attacks they're not very specific about identifying. nato has conducted a series of military exercises rehearsing for war in the baltic region article 5 of the alliances treaty specifies that an attack on any member is to be considered an attack on all members who will then take action to assist their ally the hardliners in washington are convinced that the west also has to be prepared militarily for a nuclear conflict if the russians think that they can attack and they can go to

a low level of nuclear use and when while that's a very powerful incentive for them we have to be willing to push back but when you push back there is a risk of nuclear conflict. but what is moscow's strategy and goal. maneuvers like that seen here outside the russian exclave of kaliningrad raised the question of whether moscow is rehearsing for a hot war. in the case of a conflict in the baltics would it potentially resort to deploy nuclear weapons in order to ensure a swift and successful resolution. in the cold war the russians had a no 1st use doctrine under president putin russia change this policy and for the 1st time said that they would be willing to use nuclear weapons 1st on the battlefield i get in some debates with some russians about whether this escalate to deescalate strategy actually exists we don't know we cannot possibly know what we

know is that the russians absolutely happen ability to selectively escalate with low yield of tactical nuclear weapons and of course then have the shadow of the very very large nuclear war hovering over everything we do the face off between trump and putin is one between 2 men who believe in boosting military strength as a means of politics it's a problem of leadership i think mr porter as well as mr rob are very inspired. to oppose their. force is overwhelming nuclear might have these i can do everything i want it's not the case. in his famous interview her belt. said that. he thought to put

a lot. russian strategic rocket forces. both sides accuse the other of pursuing an aggressive policy that would in the endgame not preclude the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. a new spiral of arms proliferation has been set in motion. 'd in the us an entire network of ministries laboratories research facilities and private sector companies are already doing the groundwork to implement the requirements of the new us nuclear strategy the individual facilities have different assignments in areas ranging from research and development to production and testing the responsibility lies with the energy and defense departments the job of running them is in the hands of the corporations. must be a neighbor national invertor national security site for example is in fact run by furnace like honeywell that and they in the crops up

a number of times are the mammoth after when you get the visual companies we see here obviously have an interest in these $1000000.00 and $1000000000.00 government contracts that are in a permanent arms race and that's why they also provide funding for lobby groups in the don't know what b.s. means. some of these companies are so big that they are like small countries in terms of their financial power there are so many jobs interest involved there's there's so much political money flowing into the political decision process that yet quite often you have problems with the democratic process. now rather than. warrants livermore national laboratory along with los alamos national laboratory and sandia national laboratories is a more tight disciplinary national security rob retore we have a rich history in delivery and engineering solutions to many nationalistic you.

needs and this dedication to the safety and security of our country continues today with center at the labs nasa. is that we're weapons program and that's technology and. the country's national laboratories and production sites from california to south carolina conduct state of the art research and in a range of scientific fields but nuclear weapons technology is one of the key areas of focus. here. at the kansas city national security campus our work is more than a job it's a mission a mission to deter our adversaries and to sure our allies they call it the nuclear enterprise and it involves a lot of different moving parts with different interests different constituencies

they friend. business interests political interests military interests that all compete and try to influence where decisions are made and decisions of them of course are made in the white house and in congress and and so they're appealing you know from these various groups to the white house and to congress to give them more money to fund systems and sustain factories introduce delivery systems and what have you this event a riverside process is nuclear material in support of our national defense tritium at the savannah river sides and during mission it is the nation's only facility for extracting recycling purifying and reloading this hydrogen isotope a key component of modern nuclear weapons. try to as a radioactive hydrogen isotope used in nuclear weapons to boost the chain reaction

process. it's an endless pence. substance for the u.s. nuclear arsenal as it allows the weapons to be constructed on such a small scale that they can be delivered to their target by a missile. thus a ban a reverse order. go back to make the world safer. to try to and for us nuclear bomb production is made at the watts bar reactor a power plant the belongs to the tennessee valley authority. as the u.s. no longer has uranium enrichment facilities of its own the material for the fuel rods in which the try to him is produced has to be acquired abroad.

our next stop is the german town of corn now close to the dutch border. during cooperates the only uranium enrichment facility in germany and is the 2nd biggest producer of enriched uranium in the world. the us is the world's biggest producer of nuclear power and your ankles number one customer but obo called says a spokesman for its citizens environmental action group for years they have been challenging your rank us global operations in commercial uranium enrichment. urine co-operates a total of 4 facilities one is a groaner in germany across the border in the netherlands there's also. in britain there's a site in cape interest and the 4th in richmond facility runs by your and co in the us it will go a bit like it's a lot between. your ankle is a multinational enterprise it's one 3rd owned by german nuclear power plant operators are. the other 2 thirds are owned by the netherlands and britain in

1007. the 3 countries signed the treaty of on the low combining their research and centrifuge technology for commercial use but exclusively for civilian purposes. critics and politicians from the german parliament screen and left parties have made repeated demands for information from the government on the business dealings of your income. hubertus stable as one of the left party representatives on the parliament's environmental committee he fears that especially in the u.s. the boundaries between civilian and military use of nuclear technology and material have become blurred. in the grounds of come on line assassins need strict seeing as this in my opinion there is no clear line. of course technology makes it possible to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power plants as this but with a few more revolutions per minute it's equally possible to produce essentially highly

enriched uranium for use in nuclear bombs. so what's all. hard for me it does for me that means that this enrichment technology has a kind of generous face. and be out this is where it becomes obvious that the demarcation between civil and military use is dissolved on the walls there is a sizeable grey area and as far as i can see this gray areas growing continuously domestically and internationally and with a huge threat potential. the treaty of almelo explicitly and categorically excludes the supply of uranium for military purposes a try national government commission monitors compliance with the treaty but isn't reached uranium from cornell in germany also used for trading in production in the us your uncle gave us a categorical denial. material

produced by your uncle has never been and will never be used to feed reactors that also produce try to. the company's future plans certainly do have critics sounding the alert your ankle intends to increase the uranium enrichment level at its u.s. plant from 5 to almost 20 percent the company insists the material would be used exclusively for civilian purposes but 20 percent is the threshold beyond which the material is classified as weapons grade uranium. in the tods these are noisy busy reports or some chance came as a shock to was. like before. you know it in the german government too we try to ensure that we see confirmation for these assumptions and then also try to exert influence. in full sun nameless often doesn't which are long blocking law and this sort of set the alarm bells ringing out the german government can

exercise a veto with the scope of the treaties joint committee which essentially monitors the activities of your ranko moved and germany did have that option because it considered your rank whose decision a dangerous one that appears to serve military purposes and could as such be prohibited. but that did not happen on dormant 1000 buses need posse ought to frankfurt germany financial center here 2 nuclear critics are alarmed at the investment behavior that banks don't bank on the bomb is the title of a study conducted by the pacs and icann organizations that examined who the investors are behind the nuclear weapons corporations. the list includes states at bank the central institution of so. 100 co-operative banks in germany visitors to deeds at annual general meeting plead ignorance for

apathy by other interested in getting this who wants to invest in arms companies could be in helping to exasperate the problems we already have in the world. before you would think would you really hard to see if that from a president i think as a shareholder no. i can't comment on that's were you aware of it. in my opinion that's not the case. we weren't allowed to film at the a.g.m. itself as it is not the bank tells us a public event we asked it said about its financial stake in u.s. nuclear weapons maker northrop grumman but were told it had no such stake and no business relations at all with the company. i can beg to differ. with except bank but there's a bank is involved of a union investment in a subsidiary that manages an equity fund called uni global. and fall for that phone

for example invests in northrop grumman which is also an arm supplier. northrop grumman it's another of these clowns lumber it's. one of the manufacturers and services nuclear weapons. heads up on the from stand. so the bank has an indirect investment by its subsidiary and the researchers from i can have the proof . if you look at uni global this half yearly report you can see in page 8 that there is a bank invests not only in northrop grumman but also in the other big nuclear arms manufacturers and service or. honeywell international incorporated. today philip schultz and his fellow campaigners are protesting outside torture back in berlin. they want to raise awareness among customers in the hope that companies

will eventually stop banking on the bomb they are convinced that only public pressure can prompt the big investors to reconsider. his manifesto on high tech yet handing out flyers on the streets of berlin i find that most people shrug you off or act as if they don't have much to do with it although everyone has a bank account and hardly anyone is with alternative banks. and whether it's deutsche a bank or some partner institution german banks are all ultimately involved in this deadly $1000000000.00 business. to me out of. abu dhabi is host i dax the biggest arms fire in the middle east itself one of the most dangerous regions in the world. well the silver that you believe my. eye.

upon past a showcase of military hardware hosted by a country with a population of less than half of berlin. the middle east is currently the leading region in the world by the volume of arms purchased. their us nations here are anime's of iran and have a permanent eye on its ongoing conflict with the u.s. . since washington withdrew from the iran nuclear deal some fear there is a growing danger of iran itself becoming a nuclear power in the not too distant future it could take just one spark to detonate the most dangerous political power on the planet iran currently has no nuclear weapons but its missile technology could pose a serious threat to american warships and military bases in the region. if iran can start strike. in these targets with accuracy you can see a kind of almost like a pearl harbor type situation where iran sees an opportunity that it can disable

and throw into disarray u.s. forces in the area u.s. would then have to face a choice of whether to launch a massive effort to kind of reinserted itself into the area and it it's difficult to say how the united states would deal with that situation. errant missile defense and integrated command and control system are the stars of this year's arms fair. in view of the growing threat of war with iran the focus for many customers here is on responding to surprise attacks by the conventional or nuclear. the world is an increasingly dangerous place with escalation and war looming over a range of hotspots around the globe. and in

a world without nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties where the major powers are entering a new phase of confrontation the use of nuclear weapons is no longer inconceivable . i what we're saying is we are we don't know how to nuclear war would go and god forbid it would be the most dangerous thing anyone has ever done but we are going to have the ability to escalate and we will we are prepared to do it because we recognize that a nuclear world that's what you need to do the thing. you thoughts about is no less specter of nuclear proliferation and the possible deployment of these devastating left hands seem to have disappeared after the end of the current war. but now a new global nuclear arms race appears to be already well underway. see

venice and be glad that you still can. if you other cities seem so close to the term. menace a survivor industrialisation for traffic and problems or tourists but it may not survive climate change. under threat. to some. limits on w. one which horses.

any time any. woman in the book travel now i'm a retired. this

is d.w. news live from berlin and the death toll rises in iran's crackdown on protesters and mysie international says more than 100 people have now been killed during protests over hikes in fuel prices also on the show. us president donald trump pits out at the impeachment hearings in congress calling them a disgrace and an embarrassment that is to senior officials who listened in on a phone call with his ukrainian counterpart call that conversation inappropriate and improper.