i do not know if you all remember the bush public in at chilton -- the busch pub in chilton. we went in, and it is the kind of bar where you walk in and everything stops. this was in 1993. we went in and ask for a perrier water. [laughter] anyway, it is a wonderful pleasure to be with you. i am going to start off by talking about the government. when i was prime minister, i was known as an optimist. i still am. i am optimistic about britain, its future, and the opportunities the world holds for us, provided we made the right decisions and have the right attitude of mind. the financial crisis does not diminish this optimism. the way we are coming through the crisis reinforces it. we are not out of the woods yet, but we are on the path out. this did not happen by chance. it happened by choice. if you think back 18 months, think back to the collapse of september to above and eight -- september 2008, in the world was printed on -- was poised on the brink of catastrophe. we were doomed to repeat the collapse of the 1930's. a depression threatened political and economic power. brit

hell is our operational plan for nuclear war fighting being changed such that general chilton can meet his requirements with fewer warheads on hand deployed? >> there will be -- once we have this distributed and everyone gets a chance to read it, once we have start signed and we have all the annexes and all the pieces so that we have an understanding of what the guidance is in some level of detail, then we will going to review from a policy perspective on guidance that would be appropriate under these new regimes, so to speak. that will then manifest itself in direction of attributes that stratcom would be as to ensure our part of the deterrence strategy and consistent with deterrence strategy when you start talking about proportionality and about targets and things like that. that will then lead us into in an evolution associated with what we're going to do with these weapons and these delivery platforms and how they will be used. i expect that will take us somewhere in the neighborhood of one or two years. and as i said before, seven years to come into compliance with the numbers sid

general kevin chilton the hon.'agostino undersecretary of energy for the national security administration, and no stranger here and we welcome her back the honerable ellen tauscher. it is a thrill to have you back. we appreciate it for you appearing here today. the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2008 requires the secretary of defense to perform a review of our nuclear posture in coordination with the state department and energy department. the administration reduce seeks to establish it our partisan approach to nuclear policy. -- establish a bipartisan approach. with the goals of preventing nuclear terrorism and weapons proliferation. it contains the balance of former secretaries of defense bills who recommended one year ago when they presented the findings of the bipartisan commission on the strategic posture of the u.s. this is the opportunity the commission concluded. to reach consensus on u.s. nuclear strategy. it is also a moment of urgency. the urgency arises international from a danger we

you know, it will be "on chesil beach" and it will be in the chilton hills and it will be in norfolk. so it will be key points. >> rose: geography will be a khark der. >> absolutely. >> rose: the book is called "solar." ian mcewan, i read the list of books he's written. he is among our best. it is also a chance even though it is not to be a polemic, it is also an opportunity to understand the dynamic between characters who are invested in the idea of some of our most pressing issues. thank you. great pleasure, as always. thank you for joining us. see you next time.

believe that is our intention so i have no question about that i am reassured about that in general chiltonnguage of the treaty there is no platform for missile defense weapons to be connected but my question and concern is what is going on in the minds of the russians? let me read to a quote from an official kremlin statement regarding new s.t.a.r.t.. "and operate a revival only thing i states of america refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively sell in their mind there does seem to be a connection and that is my concern. i and a stand our position and there should not be because it is defensive and secondly so critical to our defense it should not be negotiable but if two parties to achieve the seem to have differing views on the essential matter like this doesn't that potentially set up a possible failure of understanding and therefore implementation? address that plays. >> i appreciate your comments but let me say for the record there is nothing in the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty that constrains any planned missile defense systems will stop prov