the only ways in which the nuclear stablish ment's of our two countries are still talking to each other and working together. but in its current form it expires in early two thousand and twenty one both countries are charging the other with violations of various other arms agreements. and do when the very poor relations with it are countries it would be very difficult to get the two thirds approval needed under the u.s. constitution for a new treaty in the senate until some of those issues were resolved especially the charges of past violations and so it's quite possible the treaty will just expire and not be replaced so we need to be. thinking about how can we. are there non-trivial approaches where we can regulate this situation without creating the kind of danger that are completely unregulated competition so from

your response i gather that you pretty much feel like the treaty is done at this point so we need to find other ways to regulate or. i think the treaty in and of itself includes an option for a five year extension. reportedly president putin raised that idea with president trump and president trump wasn't too interested but i think that was very shortly after president trump had come to office he was thinking oh it's an obama treaty it must be better. i think the time gets closer and. you know people like the secretary of defense and the secretary of state begin explaining to the president the dangers involved in having no treaty and place to me it makes a lot of sense to think about extending it for another five years i mean whatever is going on right now and in terms of start

a new start treaty sort of brings this cognitive dissonance because back in february russia and united states are still meeting they were acquirements right to reduce strategic weapons and then you have almost at the same time americans modifying the nuclear posture review calling for expanding their nuclear arsenal followed by putting in speech with their new nuclear rockets i mean how does that go together sue first of all the american nuclear posture review i think while it does introduce. changes mostly it endorses what was already laid out in the obama administration which is mostly just replacing aging weapons systems so we have. intercontinental ballistic missiles on land that were bought decades ago and would just be placed same numbers you know just new or shady or versions we have submarines that are getting so old that eventually the metal of

the submarines won't be able to handle the changes and pressure of going up and going down so we need new submarines and so we'll just replace them with pretty similar submarines you know the bombers are very old we have with the bombers were using today in the u.s. nuclear arsenal there are pilots whose fathers flew exactly the same. almost all of those bombers are at least as old as i am. so these are these are aging aircraft they were built in the in the sixty's so they need to be replaced what n.p.r. does is it also suggests well maybe we should have some lou yield nuclear weapons that it wouldn't be such a dramatic step to use. and the argument is that we need that for better

deterrence in a conflict with russia or with north korea or what have you. i think that that may increase nuclear danger by making it easier to make the decision to use nuclear weapons that's what i was getting the word tactical could actually allow politicians in washington to think that it's maybe ok or not that bad to use nukes well to be fair both united states and russia have had terrible nuclear weapons for decades and russia has a much much larger stock nuclear weapons than the united states does right now united states is talking about spending one point two trillion dollars over the thirty years to try to develop new tactical low yield will know the one point two trillion is for the whole thing and it's mostly for the newer shiny or versions of the same old same old what was remarkable in the russian side is putin's speech with a level of presidential nuclear saber rattling that we really haven't seen maybe

ever at the nuclear age but certainly not since khrushchev. videos of weapons after weapon after weapon now none of those with perhaps one exception i would argue pose any new fundamental threats to the strategic balance there fundamentally the united states and russia are have been for decades to scorpions in a bottle each capable of destroying the other but only at the price of being destroyed itself and putin said well these weapons will overcome u.s. missile defenses u.s. missile defenses were totally ineffective against russian forces already so they'll be more effective against russian forces so it really doesn't change the fundamental picture of the strategic balance. sorry. you were saying the. united states have been like this. can do great harm but it would mean that

they're destroying themselves as well and that's what james mattis is saying that having nukes actually means that america would have to choose between surrender and suicide. to. in principle the idea of the low yield dukes is to respond in kind to russian early use of nuclear weapons. the united states perceives at least that russia has been developing and practicing a doctrine of using a few nuclear weapons relatively early in our conflict to scare off nato forces to say to nato in essence you know we're taking this very seriously better stop or things are going to get very bad. and. you know the states wanted to have some ability to respond in a similar way that wouldn't one hopes escalate to higher levels but i my own belief

is that the moment you cross the nuclear threshold you have. going to large scale nuclear war and potentially destroy the civilization even this whole thing of five this is always say comes to terence i mean you believe more nukes a habit more usable nuclear weapons you have more danger of an actual nuclear war there and so what you're saying i believe that the people advocating it genuinely believe that it will be helpful for deterrence i have my doubts i think that it will make nuclear weapons somewhat easier for a president to decide to use and therefore potentially increase the risk that that choice will get made at some point in the future. but i think the thing i worry about most really is not that the thing i worry about most is

inadvertent escalation in a crisis you know there's some crisis somewhere in the world that involves us and russia. and. you know one side does something the other side does something it thinks is roughly equal back the other side seize it. more there are cyber attacks going back and forth each way confusing everything and things just escalate and get out of control we saw in the cuban missile crisis how many mistakes small things things that the leaders didn't intend it all happened in the moment of crisis and that's really what i worry about so i think getting back to military to military dialogues which haven't really been happening. building up the confidence building measures that can help tip. advance in a crisis would be very important as well as maintaining the structure of arms

control and clear security cooperation has been halted since twenty fourteen. and something i've been working on trying to fix but so far the successfully i don't think it's even possible to talk about reviving them at this point with everything that's going on so yes i think it's possible because it's really a very technical subject and the technical people in both countries have a lot of respect for each other and and knew that the people on the other side have interesting ideas that they would benefit from sharing. i think that on the russian side frankly i think this is a correct view they think that nuclear cooperation ought to be not just about security but should be as ross out of officials put it comprehensive that it ought to include cooperation on a new future nuclear energy ideas on nuclear safety on nuclear science and on

nuclear security. i think we will never go back to the way nuclear security cooperation was before and we don't have to because the way it was before was for a time when russia was sort of still recovering from the soviet collapse and needed a lot of help in the result you know u.s. money going to build a better security systems that sites and so on that's not really needed anymore what's needed now is it is an exchange of best practices and ideas among technical experts on both sides and i remain hopeful that we will be able to get that going again at least in modest ways i think it benefits both sides security and the world security i think it's a danger to the world and to each of our countries that the world's biggest nuclear establishment is with the most nuclear experts are just not talking to each other

yeah i mean those are the two biggest guarantors i mean who would guarantee that sort of security if both sides are pretty much you know announcing arms race well the reality is nobody can guarantee. another country's nuclear security in the sense of security for nuclear material or a nuclear weapon being stolen or something each country has to provide that itself it's not like there was ever cooperation where there were you know u.s. guards guarding russian sites or russian guards guarding us sites or the like that but we can do that. job better if we talk to each other that's what i'm saying president take a break right now when we're back we'll continue talking to professor matthew bunn we'll talk more about the nuclear threats that russia and america are facing today stay with us.

her. about her sudden passing i've only just learned you worry yourself and taken your last wrong turn. you're out to cut up to you as we all knew it would i tell you i'm sorry but only i could so i write these last words in hopes to put to rest these things that i never got off my chest. i remember when we first met my life turned on each fret. but then my feeling started to change you talked about war like it

was again still some are fond of you those that didn't like to question our ark and i secretly promised to never be like it said one does not leave a funeral the same as one enters the mind gets consumed with death this one quite different i speak to you now because there are no other takers. to claim that mainstream media has met its maker. join me every thursday only all excited i'm sure and i was reading to get a feel of the world of politics sports business i'm show business i'll see you then .

we're back with professor matthew bunn professor you mentioned earlier touring our talk that the cuban missile crisis was a perfect example of how dangerous things they get will like little mistakes probably and to that alongside mistakes there's also like the. the fact that there is no respect maybe or curiosity to understand each other's perception of the world

which are quite different i have to say i mean when medicare i was talking to putin just recently and she was like you know you're pretty much starting the new arms race is like no it's george w. bush who started in two thousand and two when he withdrew from the ballistic missile treaty and actually built a missile defense system so that's the way he says the world right that americans have something to respond in return and then you know right now you have russians that are saying that i know that americans the two hundred nuclear bombs that are stored in here up ever since the world war two. i know that they. used to be a lot more yeah i know that the americans are trying to upgrade so you know russians lab are always saying hey you know we see these as a clear violation of nonproliferation principles do you think this worries do you think this concerns are justified. it is certainly correct from the russian point

of view that the united states ripped up the any ballistic missile treaty i regretted that i opposed the actually my first book was on why they blistered missile treaty was a still a good thing for us. obviously that book to deal with the day was not the seller. was not a best seller so. now honestly u.s. missile defenses have the first approximation no capability against russian nuclear forces we have about fifty that doesn't really matter you know they're right it's all about the perceptions of the way so many say yes and it's about the perception of what it what direction it may be going in the future because this is a. long long in the future. so as i say we do need to regulate these things and we do need to understand each other's perspectives as you were saying one of the crucial moments in the cuban missile crisis came when there were two communications from the soviets.

almost at the same time one of them very threatening and angry and one of the much more. compromising and fortunately for the world one of kennedy's staffers was a former ambassador. who knew khrushchev very well and sort of said to kennedy why don't we just ignore the one we don't like and respond to the one we do like and i think that if we offered this and that to khrushchev that would be enough to convince him to back down and that turned out to be what caused the crisis to be resolved so if there hadn't been a person at that moment that the president was willing to listen to you need a president with good judgment and a close advisor with real empathy for the other side and the situation they were in i'm not sure we have either of those things and either washington or moscow right

now. that concerns me what about the two hundred nuclear bombs that want to be upgraded in europe g.t.c. while i shake could be concerned about that well of course russia and the soviet union before have always been concerned it isn't a violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty my father actually was one of the key negotiators of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and he reports fought over this subject at considerable length and ultimately agreed on a compromise that allowed the u.s. nuclear weapons to remain in europe. the reality is that the upgrade that's being done is i mean they're just they're delivered bombs they're going to be delivered bombs that will last longer basically there's a few modest improvements but it really makes absolutely no difference to the threat to russia overall so how can this issue be resolved once again a different world views different perceptions there were sent back and forth

nuclear developments between u.s. and russia really mean that global known for inflation i mean seeing how the biggest guarantor. that those two countries are about to expand nuclear are shareware i still don't understand where the authority to stop the spread of nukes will come from well let me clarify i know you there are russia nor the united states at the moment is proposing to actually expand its nuclear arsenal there are still limited by new start terms of the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons russia we believe has been expanding its tactical nuclear arsenal a bit but not very substantially. so both sides i think will have a arsenal of more alas the same size as the arsenals they have know. both sides are still dismantling some of the older. weapons that they hadn't gotten around to dismantling yet in the past. still has

a couple of thousand in the queue waiting to be dismantled. so it's not really a question of building up the numbers it's a question of changing types and capabilities. and i think we need to be spending more time sitting down together talking to each other actually engaging in real discussions of strategic stability in the different ways that russia sees it and that the united states sees it specific things that you know we can agree to. to address the concerns on each side but i think in order for that to happen we could give you an american perspective russia really needs to stop meddling in the u.s. electoral process because that has succeeded and you know you do the democrats and the republicans in the united states sensually everyone except the president other states. the russian shiri that i haven't seen for many

years and you know the russian first back to you on that and not even government perspective but anyway i would tell you you know you need to show me that proves i don't believe in secretary since i don't really in my own secret services cia and then you know why should i believe american war and our russian word because when cia was telling me the w m d's existed in iraq turned out to be bogus so why not show you show me the proof that we actually model the russian perspective there's a lot of proof so facebook has details of lowered you know hundreds of russian controlled accounts that were fostering increased polarization sort of hitting on issues that would try to divide americans and try to push people toward the republicans. twitter has revealed a lot of the same and then there's a lot of classified evidence there's really no dispute among any.

serious person in the u.s. national security establishment that that happened and is continuing to happen it's ongoing in the united states right now and then you know i'm just playing devil's advocate here but another argument that an average russian on t.v. no americans had meddle in so many elections along with the world you know why why when we come after you and why is it so annoying and that is a fact and i think it would be a good idea for the united states and russia to agree at a top level neither of us are going to do this to each other just want to talk about north korea shortly because it's really hot topic i mean with everything that's going on right now this crisis raised the question of japan and south korea actually getting their own nukes i mean at this point it's obvious that the north has it probably not never going to give it up so with this current configuration does this mean that their region it's going to get more nukes sue the reality is north korea's had nuclear weapons for over a decade now and so for south korea japan taiwan had made i think the correct

decision not to build nuclear weapons of their own i think north korea's program creates additional dangers and more dangers as a perceived as further but again the things i worry about most are not that you know kim jong un or for that matter donald trump are going to wake up one day and said put today would be a great day to use nuclear weapons but rather that there would be some crisis that would escalate in a series of back and forth exchanges to the point where nuclear weapons would end up getting used to you might imagine that in an initial crisis for example that the north koreans might use some of their conventionally armed blistered missiles to attack u.s. air bases or something like that and that might provoke the united states and the south koreans to think well they're using their missiles we'd better start destroying those missiles and then the north koreans would be faced with. but

sometimes known as a use them or lose them situation and might use nuclear weapons to try to scare us off. their variety of really dangerous scenario i think there are two there is a real need to take the possibility of negotiation seriously to not attempt to get you know everything you can possibly imagine out of the negotiations but to take a realistic step by step approach starting with freezing testing freezing for their production of more nuclear weapons and so on. and to focus also. confidence building measures military to military exchanges and so on to try to reduce the dangers of this sort of inadvertent getting out of control out of crisis so according to gallup most of the americans think that north korea's nuclear program is the biggest threat to america right now just the fact of

having that gene to play with that well we have a lot of threats to america right now i think many of them are internal to ourselves and that we're tearing ourselves apart politically so we know states have to figure out how to function as a democracy again. which we're not doing a very good job of right now but i do think it's a serious danger from north korea it has reminded americans that the nuclear danger didn't go away when the soviet union went away i think russians remember that that was true throughout the intervening period but i think a lot of americans sort of forgot about nuclear danger. though that north korea has nuclear weapons and increasingly missiles that can reach the united states americans are sort of waking up and saying. wait that nuclear danger could apply to beat me i've had people calling me from san francisco or los angeles and said it

should i get my family and my kids out of town. and there haven't been you know americans genuinely afraid about nuclear weapons like that for a while they were in the eighty's but not for a while. well thanks a lot for this wonderful interview and for this inside or show the best thank you. to saner more stable relationship between our countries.

how does it feel to be a sheriff the greatest job in the world it's as close to being a king as any job there is one business model helps to run a prison now we do stuart don't like i said nobody obeys the case and i don't know what goes into them or we don't have to serve them anymore is cost effective that's what they want to do that long they don't give a damn if you believe the charge or not they're actually pretty enough to put it back in very good the louisiana incarceration rate is twice as high as the us sam bridge what she could is behind such success. a batch or sudden passing i've only just learned you worry yourself and taken your last wrong turn. up to you as we all knew it would i tell you i'm sorry

finally i could so i write these last words in hopes to put to rest these things that i never got off my chest. i remember when we first met my life turned on each breath. but then my feeling started to change you talked about more like it was a cave still some more fun to feel those that didn't like to question our arc and i secretly promised to never be like it said one does not leave a funeral the same as one enters the mind gets consumed with death this one difference i speak to now because there are no other takers. to blame that mainstream media has met its maker. when lawmakers manufacture consent to step into public wealth. when the ruling classes protect themselves. with the financial

merry go round to the one percent. nothing we can all middle of the room sick. mean real news is. coming. but. i've come to the. ground zero i have. done nothing. to the.

breaking news this hour on our t.v. a must see of fire rips through a shopping center in the russian city of camera sixty four people are so far confirmed dead including many children. you just close to that but you do not pop the. one you couldn't quite see for yourself chilling messages of despair appear on social media from the children heard from in that deadly place. in the food we will use to students who leave you new soup you do look. good does it feel.