this is a lot a long running to caesar than the us political system untruths are used to try to undermine opposing parties and the notion of opposing parties is just fundamentally destroying every country people just attack each other for opposing sides that really decides what's really true is that this might be showing a symptom of something that. just has to do it out of the cereal dialogue and progress through competition or progress through conflicts so i think that c.n.n. has their systemic issues just because again they have to have yours which is sort of sad but i find that to be par for the course with that our media operates is hard to find media that is doesn't have an agenda i would not be surprised if c.n.n. wanted to have a certain kind of public experience of this political figure i said in the morning first of all i'm sure most of the things for what you have you to do rather well

whatever time it is with you have friday goes good my name's kevin though and i'm back with more than just under half an hour's time. hello and welcome to the part of the world cannot afford to return to the on the restraint nuclear competition of the cold war that was deeply from the u.n. secretary general earlier this week coming after the american decision to pull out from the i.m.f. treaty and russia's roll out of new nuclear weaponry is there reason to be of war it is not about the neocons that about the people who have their. code's well to

discuss that i'm now joined by john miller a professor of political science at ohio state university and senior fellow at the cato institute in washington professor miller's good to talk to you thank you very much for your time thank you nice to be here a few months ago you published an article in foreign affairs magazine the other pretty provoke a tiff tato nuclear weapons matter well they seem to matter quite a lot of good here is the un secretary general and many other high ranking europeans who seem to be quite concerned about moscow and washington new arms race in the europe are they deluded. well they just overly anxious i think they do make a lot of difference in terms of anxieties and obviously in terms of defense budgets but i don't think they've been necessary or history in any important way since world war two in that article you say that nuclear weapons were not necessary for deterring a third world woold war and it's striking to me that you used the past tons do you

think that the prospects for a third world war has vanished by now i would say pretty much yes obviously things can still happen but the likelihood is unbelievably small it was also very small during and during the cold war and it's even sleazy even lower now it seems to me why do you think it was so small given that even the examples from the from the pop culture of people traveling the mushroom cloud the sting singing about the possible destruction and supposedly russians loving their children too as the only way out though for a nuclear catastrophe yes there was all kinds of anxiety as i said and there's all kinds of fiction about it but essentially all sides in the cold war and all sides in this period do not want to do anything and resemble anything like world war two with or without nuclear weapons they're just simply has no desire for war and if no

one wants to get into a war certainly a big war it's simply not going to happen 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 ideological or rational reason for why we should come to the brink of mutual destruction but situational factors of the state of the american political system the competence 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 the op. 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 russians thought that their security was in stake over crimea i think they're wildly mistaken it was a small minor issue in a far area and 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 was impressive about the crimea and the situation in fact is that they never got anywhere near a war between east and the 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 at least been helpful in deterring american aggression because i think this is the framework through which 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. other one doesn't know the very reverse but situation is 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 market aafia not given he's w m d plans earlier on the democrats would attack he 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 and 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 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 a sense this 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 even 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 won't 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 you know it's 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 adversary oval if 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 has 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 mention 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 and 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 you 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 statement. much

was expected from the noise summit there may have been goodwill on both sides but in the end neither the united states nor north korea could agree on the path forward the two sides failed to reach a common understanding of what their desired end game for denuclearization actually is. welcome back to worlds apart but john miller a professor of political science at ohio state university and senior fellow at the cato institute in washington a precious i'm really just before the break we touched on the issue all for 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 a close a waste of money but let me put it this way you know the united states has really no amazing country in this century is managed to get into to 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 clone to be president and once you do elect the 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 play. senate lease 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 as one of some hope that when he came into office he would begin to normalize relations with russia in particular possibly also with china and that he would 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 but 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 is 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 did 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 called 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 are 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. base they gets the the the perspective not only of trump but also the whole american political establishment and democrats as well as republicans 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. auctions aren't you bound to fill in security card list of how much money you pour into it well it's me come from the insecurity. and sort of a self infatuation you know you know it's even a bit broke 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 it's sort of knee jerk and it just happens over and over again in both parties you argued in the one of your latest books chasing goes that the spending 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 obvious that testicle odds alone a sufficient matter here yes there 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 doesn't seem to been much change in the 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 in 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 drugs 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 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 risk neutrality 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 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 of the government it 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 not cost effective so they're not

falling out their own precepts and they own their own rules i heard you say that for the aft. i counter terrorism expenditure to be cost effective they would have to foil 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 learnt from that well the issue basically is is such a low problem probability is low low hazard a low threat than doing much about it of anything is it is it is not it doesn't make any 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 a 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 of in many of your talks the americans actually starting from i think it was robert miller when he was they had of a f.b.i. introduced a process of checking on every possible lead so if that's a normal operating practice them 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 leaves 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 or 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're 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 which your namesake robert miller 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 believes on this side of the pond in the collegian story neither 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 i think 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 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 of. delivering a major blow to the relationship between our countries first and foremost it undermined any continent television's corporation that was there do you think such counterintelligence corporation would have been valuable given that again you're so 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 condren a certain coordination particularly as i mentioned earlier on syria would be some place where the nice. it's and the russians could very productively work to stabilize that horrific disaster which is the been the 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 others ago 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 in fact i think they undermined quite a number of. some sort of agreement the russians and death but that's a 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 thank you for the thanks for the excellent questions. and i'm courage of yours to keep this conversation going in our social media pages and hope to see you again same place same time here on the part. because survival guide.

to seventy. percent. u.s. resolution. u.n. security council. resolution some members of. his. face is a. hollywood film.