well i think the filling in moscow is much less a beat in terms of fundamentals the risk is indeed low i would agree with you there is no idea logical or rational reason for why we should come to the brink of mutual destruction but of policymakers political polarization all of that according to some russian thinkers at least increases their risk of misunderstanding or brinkmanship do you disagree with. yes largely i mean i mean i'm not going to argue that the world of the united states is being led by the shrewdest president in the history of the country but the desire of both sides i think for wars are extremely small if i give you one example during the crimean problem obama was constantly being pressured to do more to help the the ukrainians and obama once said ok do you want me to go to war with russia over that anybody want to go to war with russia over that stand up and tell me and no one said anything of course so

there's willingness to play around the edges but not to engage in a major war but i think in the kray mean situation the stakes were drastically different for russia and the united states and obama admitted that later on for russia it was a matter of strategic security a matter of life and that and death for the americans it was a secondary or if not that i michel for a third order do you think that would still be the case if the american security would be directly engaged if there due to security was directly engaged if the if the russians thought that their security was in stake over crimea i think they're wildly mistaken it was a small minor issue and a far area i think they overplayed their hand it was probably not a good idea to take crimea though i'm not a big fan of ukraine either but i don't think i don't think there was any real real danger of an escalation what's impressive about the crimea and the situation in fact is that the never got anywhere near

a war between east and west even though it created a lot of anxiety on both sides while if nuclear weapons were not necessary to deter a third world war have the it please be unhelpful in deterring american aggression because i think this is the free were through each russians are looking at those things if you compare the current circumstances of let's say north korea and libya aren't nukes the reason why one exists and the. either one doesn't know the very specific way sions in which the force has been used it's been they've been fairly minor and much of the time it's been an abject failure including the war and libya as well as the the unnecessary and infinitely stupid wars in my opinion the united states has conducted in the middle east the main wars the namely afghanistan and the and the one in iraq were triggered by the fact that the united states had been attacked by al qaeda terrorists and so did need to get back at them for that reason

i think they were misguided in all that but nonetheless that was the reason but professor miller don't you think that had more marget aafia not given he's w m d plans earlier on the democrats would attack him and his country in such a rigorous and according to the russians at least disinfo manner using the un mandate for essentially a nato operation of regime change yeah i basically agree with the russian position on that but i think it was a very foolish maneuver and it was very doubly foolish because it showed that if you make a deal with the united states like khadafi have done some years later they may come back and stab you in the back but it was not it was it is an opportunity was there if if more market off he had had weapons of mass destruction i think the united states still could have bombed i think it was and so i think it's a very bad idea to have done it but i don't think it would've been stopped if gadhafi had had weapons of mass destruction while the russians clearly disagree

with us here in moscow policy makers clearly believe in the power of deterrence in fact i think the believe that that's the only thing that may bring to americans today the census and this is why president putin when he was revealing this new batch of russian nuclear weaponry last week provided so many technical specifications with an. acts on the speed of delivery do you think that's going to impress anyone in washington no i don't think so i don't think there is any the slightest desire in a million years for a war with russia in the united states or any kind of big war in that area so i don't think the united states has to be deterred there is nothing to deter and i think that the same as in the case in the opposite direction of the united states worried about for so long about the soviet union then sometimes about russia. encroachments in various areas i think those are those fears are vastly exaggerated

and that both sides were very careful to stay a long way in the case of vietnam in korea a long way from from a direct war the kind of weapons that you have certainly strengthens your posts in conversation with your adversaries or partners whatever you call it and i think at this point. the russians believe that this new generation of weapons not only provides them with nuclear parity but i think they actually believe in their nucleus appear already i've heard some experts over the last couple of based claim that even in the event of a secondary retaliate a second retaliatory strikes the russian systems will be able to reach the american shores faster than the american bombs what be able to reach the russian targets if that's true and that's a big if but if that's true do you think that would change anyway in how moscow and washington discuss those things not the potentiality of a nuclear war but how they discussed security matters around the world no i think

in both ways there is no threat to deter there is no threat. there is that there are obviously problems that need to be resolved including considering resentment over the crimean situation which i think the united states should water down and get away from but i don't think anybody has to worry about anybody slinging nuclear weapons in either direction their mission mainly a colossal waste of time and money in science. if intel and i think what the russians might do is start to disarm then maybe denounce to be less impression in the united states to waste money on the stupid weapons as well the point is pieces of very strong in that sense that doesn't mean there aren't problems that doesn't mean no one will ever get shot anyplace and in the world but they do not need these colossal weapons to deter a major war but professor miller i'm sure you know that the american security strategy its nuclear poster is based on the concept of military preeminence and

almost absolute security if russia as a chief adversarial phyllis all of a sudden were found to have weapons that the americans cannot match or possibly can't even defend against what then that means that the current american security doctrine as it stands right now essentially has been a fiasco yes it is a fiasco the united states has massively spent overspent military hardware and software of for ever and i think so did the soviet union and so currently is russia those weapons don't need there is no threat with which they need to be approached we are basically an incredibly safe area. of history and even during the cold war there was no real chance it seems to me of them getting into direct conflict even though there were then many more areas of disagreement and there are no you mentioned the russian spending and i think we cannot actually is say much about it because much of it is secret but from what i know at least from what has been

published in the russian media the russian spending is almost ten times last them mary can one do you think the pentagon is going to use these new revelations by a by the russians to ask for even more funding or do you think that perhaps the russians may be pushing washington to overspend on arms as part of their military strategy i think the answer is yes to both. the pentagon always wants more money and it can imagine all kinds of problems that imagines the russians dropping from the moon and imagine the chinese taking over the whole pacific if you need a good scary scenario the pentagon has always been extremely good at coming up with them but it doesn't mean the scenarios the plans had any validity and i think that basically continues today russia is not under threat unless it you know launched a major invasion of poland or something like that and i think it can it can stand

to relax it's going to be very hard to keep up with the arms race because the united states is so much richer it can keep spending and spending and spending wasting my tax money it's going to be hopeless for a country like russia to try to keep up you can probably keep as you said says she suggested earlier it can probably keep up in the sense of being able to retaliate against a major strike by the united states. and it's not but it's not clear it needs to do so because i don't think a major strike is remotely likely well professor miller we have to take a short break now but we'll be back in just a few moments. you know world big partisan. and conspiracy it's time to wake up to

dig deeper to hit the stories that made stream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smarter we need to stop slamming the door on the shouting past each other it's time for critical thinking it's time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now for watching closely watching the hawks. warren buffett you know these doing the stock buybacks which is you know used to be illegal so recently that's completely fraudulent and yes no governance or oversight whatsoever and you know he's a more than one of the biggest are the biggest shareholder of wells fargo for example during that period when they were engaged in serial criminality when they were engaged in absolute fraud and he's a party to that so here's a guy who given unlimited credit at zero percent and is exempt from the rule of law

still can't seem to make money for his shareholders which is you know that. you know we're number one movie capital in united states we all slow number one. production here. i mean those who might you shall before. which for most. people you so incredibly wrong well you got to we can jump shot in order to exclude. the job you got to act like a law in a most of the ones. most of the bees so this is somebody will fit is at the

rules for. welcome back to worlds apart but john miller professor of political science at ohio state university and senior fellow at the cato institute in washington a professor. miller just before the break we touched on the issue all the defense and security spending which this is the subject of several of your books the pentagon has now been promised around the trillion dollars for modernizing its arsenal and i think that's probably more than all other nuclear powers including russia combined am i right in thinking that the judging from your previous answers you don't think the americans will get. proper returns on those investments they'll get no return on investment like most of the military budget it's been with the

colossal waste of money but let me put it this way you know the united states is really amazing country in this century is managed to get into too stupid in the necessary wars in the middle east in a series of other ones in other places it's gone through a huge recession. and it spends an incredibly absurd amount of money on its defense . and the military and yet it still is doing pretty well. and so the basically the united states is so strong it can even be destroyed by itself and no it's elected a clown to be president and once you do elect a clown to be president you get what you pay for namely a circus not to be a defender of this quote unquote clown but this person at least called into question some of the american spending including the american military spending on war overseas should you give him credit for that at least give him credit for that if he'd actually do something about it there's want to go to some hope that when he

came into office he would begin to normalize relations with russia in particular possibly also with trying and that he would pull pull out of these absurd over extensions and particularly in the middle east he's done very little of either he's mostly alienated both russia and china made it worse not that they share some blame for that and he has not really gotten out of the wars in the middle east he was going. to get out of a war that the united states was not very far in namely in syria and he basically has reversed himself on that what i do think in the case of syria for example is that the russians have been basically right that they decided fairly early on that assad was going to win and that assad's coming back to power instead of being able to control syria was not necessarily the greatest thing in the world but it was better than this horrible war that has ensued since two thousand and eleven and it

seems to me to be really good for the united states and russia to work with and try to keep them under control and to stabilize the situation in the middle east that's not a big military issue that's not a big money issue for the most part but i think it's a very important one on which they could cooperate and in that case i think it's mostly been the united states which who is who's not been forthcoming well professor miller i would not disagree with you on that but i would put a slightly different emphasis i think the russians were putting their bets not so much on assad personally bought on the syrian state they simply don't believe that one has to destroy the entire state structure in order to get three to one person that you don't like reach seem to be them eric in strategy in syria and i think previously in iraq but let me bring you back to the standing issue is money really the main thing here and how do the american smasher the effectiveness of such spending on security on the nuclear industry which i assume most of that would

be classified the point is political it's not classified and the point is to deter threats that there are out there and to deal with threats that are out there not just completing a book cold embracing threadless not us are going in favor of complacency and then the peace met in many respects and obio done a year or two and a basically argues that we should have military spending commensurate with the threats that exist there basically or virtually. no threats that require much in the way of military hardware for the united states and therefore the united states does not need to have this ridiculously large budget and. are not in control of american politics i'm afraid but always try to with this book what are the chances of this book being. received well in the current amount american political environment what are your chances of discussing this book of on any of the american networks be it or and to trump very low.

it goes basically against the the the perspective not only of trump but also the whole american political establishment and democrats as well as republicans and so it's it's it's an outlier but you know for as you know for years i've been saying that al qaeda does not present very much of a threat to the united states they've been listened to they've been talked with and nothing changes now the americans have rather unique security expectations when you compare them to other countries even western countries i mean you guys insist on absolute security not only domestically but also on their ability to influence security pretty much around the world when you have such a it's an expansive security doctrine aren't you bound to fill in security guard less of how much money you pour into it will it mean come from the insecurity. and sort of itself infatuation you know you know it's even

a broch obama who called the united states the one indispensable nation thereby implying that all other nations are dispensable so you get that kind of ridiculous bear is an american i'm embarrassed so i've argued very much against that and maybe i'll make some inroads someplace or other. it's it's patriotic and sort of knee jerk and it just happens over and over again in both parties you're argued in the one of your latest books chasing ghosts that the. spending too much on counterterrorism especially when one takes into account the odds of being killed by a terrorism by a terrorist one in four or five million per year if i'm not mistaken obviously testicle odds alone a sufficient matter here yes there are very clear. terrorism presents a hazard the hazard result has resulted since nine eleven in about six people being killed in the united states by islamist terrorist per year that's an incredibly

small number i once talked to a guy who is very high up in the national institutes of health here in the united states and i asked him how much would you spend to deal with a disease that killed six people a year and he would lead me like i was crazy i mean you don't spend any money on something like that so what has happened is there's this with an incredible exaggeration of the islamist terrorist threat and i've also worked on public opinion on this issue and there don't seem to been much change in the whole twenty years since nearly twenty years now since nine eleven so the concern remains there we we tried to give talks to you know to to t.s.a. and to you know the officials and so forth they listen to us frequently meet me and my co-author but they never do anything to even though they could be they could save tons of money but professor miller sure terrorists kill far fewer people than trogs disease or even lightning but isn't the whole point of terrorism to spread fear which could be very destabilizing for any society and she dismissing these.

larger fact that terrorism has no that's that's what i'm arguing against we should not be afraid of it and we should not overreact the overreaction to terrorism has caused those wars in in the middle east which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths in the middle east and so all you can do is say it isn't worth that effort and. we've given those ins and dozens of talks or an outline people listen to us carefully and then they had nothing changes while in many of those talks you you mentioned the issue all for risk neutrality and i wonder if risking a child to is even a possibility in the united states especially post nine eleven can any american leader be risk neutral when neutrality as a category doesn't seem to exist in the united states anymore at least when it comes to a public life and public discussion yes i think there's that as

a important problem and the issue for any public servant is to get the risk right the most important thing that governments do is protect their citizens in the united states constitution practive the first words are the government you will preserve domestic tranquility so consequently saving lives is very important they do not have an infinite amount of money even in the united states so they sometimes act as if they did and what they should be doing is spending the money that's bessie's american lives and they are not doing it they're wasting it on all kinds of security measures that are not effective or not could not cost effective so they're not throwing out their own precepts and they own their own rules i heard you say that for the f.b.i. counterterrorism expenditure to be cost effective they would have to forgo a major terror attack like the boston marathon bombing every two months and particular attack is

a bit problematic because it actually could have been foiled if the american intelligence agencies followed the leads provided by their russian colleagues speech they ignored presumably because the russians and ought to be trust that have any lessons been learned from that well on the issue basically is is such a low problem probability is low low hazard a low threat that doing much about it of anything is it is it is not it doesn't make a. the sense it's like trying to cure an illness that killed six people here it just doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money trying to save billions and billions and billions of dollars to save a few that few lives when the same on the money would save thousands or even hundreds of thousands of lives when it's spent and the difference in time here because i know you talked about other than many of your talks the americans actually starting from i think it was robert miller when he was they had of the f.b.i. introduced a process of checking on every possible lead so if that's

a normal operating practice done why wouldn't you look more closely into the leads that are provided by your international colleagues supposedly those people would know something about the art so those leads would weigh more than any you know casual leads that somebody can bring to you in the case of the boston boat i think you're right that it would they should have paid more attention to what the russians are saying if they had pulled the plug were it would have saved three lives now that's very nice to save the lives and so forth but it's a major catastrophe so yes the f.b.i. is always the main promote the f.b.i. is there following up some they followed up somewhere between ten and twenty million leads about terrorism since nine eleven the number of those that have led to anything is very low and one reason for sometimes discounting some information is because they are so busy chasing down other information that they haven't got time for so it's fundamentally an absurdity well i think of this point much of the

counter intelligence cooperation between the russia and the united states has been suspended in the light of the so-called russian collusion allegations reach your namesake robert miller it is now investigating given how skeptical you are of the threat of terrorism do you see any value at all in international coordination knowing that yes. i mean in coordination or collusion no no coordination of course nobody. please on this side of the pond in the collegian story and these are neither do i by the way i think well i mean if it doesn't robert mueller borrowing dictation he hasn't provided any he hasn't filed any indictments on that specific charge you know they've tried in the sense of they spread propaganda and so forth and it was basically trivial and didn't make any difference they did i don't think they colluded with the campaign but we'll have to see if there's information about that. mostly i think it's an absurd story the idea that trump won because of the

russians meddled in the election i think is a ridiculous trump one because he's a much better campaigner than hillary clinton then he got to manage to get the right votes in the right places and so forth and there are all kinds of other problems including clinton's own inability as a campaigner but that story i'm sure you would agree that story. delivered a major blow to the relationship between our countries and first and foremost it undermined any counting televisions corporation that was there do you think such counterintelligence call peroration would have been valuable given that again the u.s. a skeptical about the threat of terrorism yes i don't i don't think it made much difference with terrorism because terrorism is so rare that it doesn't make much difference but it certainly counter in a certain coordination particularly as i mentioned earlier on syria would be some place where the united states and the russians could very productively work to stabilize that horrific disaster which is the been the syrian civil war they both really want the war to end and working together would be that would be the case let

me give an example of that there's a guy named sullivan who is in the obama administration and he said we talked many many many many times about syria but never did anybody in the white house talk about the possibility of swaying support to assad and there was even brought up as a possibility now it seems to me that would probably have been a good idea but it was much worse in many respects as they didn't even consider it as a possibility in fact i think beyond in mind quite a number of. reaching some sort of agreement between the americans the russians and the totally different subject professor miller we have to leave it there i really appreciate your sharing your perspective but that's today ok thanks very very great to be here and thanks for the excellent questions thank you. to keep this conversation going in our social media pages and hope to see same place same time here on worlds apart.

from. no.

not all. just still don't know what's waiting for them. to. review tell you not to. just say. you know pick it out of here. i'm nobody. my son doing drugs my nephews was still in drugs my sister just with doing drugs it was like an epidemic of drug abuse america's public enemy number one in the united states is drug abusers started going after the users in the prison population. we

started treating sick people people who are addicted to these drugs like criminals while i was on the hill i recently became convinced that the war on drugs. there are countless numbers of people who are in prison for. a long sentence in this for minor minor offenders in the drug trade it's a lot watching your children grow up and miss you in waves and say bye daddy as you're walking out of a business it's just it doesn't get easier. the

stories we're closely following this hour the second from kim so what ends up probably with no deal reached neither side could find common ground over sanctions on the denuclearize ation of the country and. so on. facebook is accused of century in conservative voices as a whistleblower reveals how the social network suppresses content limits schoolchildren. in the course of doing my duties i noticed other things that were going on in the towns i would see it appear on several different conservative pages and. french sporting retailer decathlon is forced to drop plum.