/india, pakistan/india and the u.s., and then deciding what policy should pakistan or india have on their borders, i think pakistan and india are sovereign states and they would decide what is good for the policy. and the second thing is we have talked about what would india do in case another attack happens. what would u.s. do, so with all these efforts of diplomatically isolating pakistan and the liberties which are already not there, my question to the panel is what do you think pakistan will do if it is cornered? >> who would like to take that? just to make clear i don't think we're deciding on any indian or pakistani policy but we are debating it, so i don't think there's a problem there. let's go here. >> hi, my name is karen fisher. i'm currently not associated with anybody, but i've just returned from nine years of living in kashmir and 20 years in india, and my question is to -- is that your name? i'm really very happy that you brought the modi context in this debate because i think there's a lack of understanding of the radicalization that is happening in the area as a result of

pakistan's pool possession si is policies --eye does india play on the global stage? kistan's internal terrorism problem. are we not only looking at the symptoms -- i'm not saying it's resolveable but is it realistic to expect the u.s. -- >> it's sort of what we have been doing. >> not working out too well. >> i think we're in this mode where we deal with it when it becomes a problem because they're there bigger issues we're working on. so afghanistan is the number one issue, not the real estateship -- relationship with india. it's a reactionary moat. see that changing unless we good to zero troops in afghanistan in next year. i don't anticipate that. until that -- afghanistan situation changes, i think that the u.s. is constantly going to have to balance how it approaches peace between the two countries. remember having a conversation in -- let see -- tout and we withgiggling a lot of money to pakistan unchecked and being at the state department and a very senior official said kashmiris not a national security interest. don't see a national security threat there, and

you pakistan and india close and if it's a nuclear one, great. how do you manage this situation as indian pakistan in the u.s. if you're not even talking to each other about the possibility, which is not made up. >> it is a real concert and a very valid question. i don't know if we have good to facilitate that intelligence discussion. the trend now seems to avoid those discussions into prerequisites to have any discussion. at the same time, there is no real mystery. people on both sides know what needs to happen in afghanistan. the problem is largely that those views are really difficult to sustain politically because they are not nationalists. so why does the enemy and it is on either side to take up this question of further actors that are not under the control of the packets in the state that could catalyze crisis. but i would imagine that there are people that are national security adviser in indiana who probably would like to do something and maybe there are channels for you could approach this in a way that is so politicized, is a little bit

pakistan denied it and india said they did it and they're still arguing about it. or the first time it has been very explicit in arguing that its policy is going to be to isolate pakistan globally. that pushed pakistan to retaliate. we have the heart of asia conference where the pakistani foreign minister was treated roughly according to pakistan newspapers. what we do know is tensions remain high, fighting is going on, both sides are armed with conventional and nuclear weapons and this is not a happy read. in the u.s. it remains off the radar when it came to the presidential campaign as did a lot of other form policy issues. at the same time we do now they are priorities for the u.s. and have been or will be going forward. president-elect trump did make the headlines for a couple of days by suggesting he would be interested in resolving the dispute including cashmere which, if you go that way would be a major departure from u.s. policy. that would be to work with them independently and try to build relationships. if that changes there is a u.s. move toward working

in a situation where we are lost in all the conversation about india pakistan crises is that india and pakistan do not. [inaudible] you have a third-party pick about it. what's the best thing i can do quest market pakistan didn't and india close to a wall. if it's a nuclear one, great. how do you manage that situation as the u.s.? you not even talking to each other about that possibility. >> that is a real concern and a valid question. i don't know that we have good levers there to try to facilitate that intelligence discussion. the trend now seems to be to avoid those discussions and to set prerequisites rather than having any kind of discussion. at the same time, there's no mystery. people on both sides know what needs to happen on kashmir and afghanistan. the problem is largely that those views are really difficult to sustain politically because they're not nationalists and their international : >> i probably would like to do something a maybe there are channels where you could start to approach this in a way that isn't so politicized. is a little bit more in the margins. could the

my apologies in advance but the impression i got is that the india -- pakistan is can do all their terrorism, radicalism, so none of you talked about coverage -- none of you talked about -- who was he, what was he doing and you talk that pakistan should change its behavior but my understanding is, is that it's the big brother that needs to change its behavior and in south asia it's india, not pakistan, and the political describing, even the indian politicians are asking for evidence. if there are surgical strikes, where is the left. >> last word of the panels, the questions and anything else you want. >> very brief. i will led you take the question on the nationals if you want. i just think that pakistan's national security policy, as it's been constructed, at least for the past decade doesn't work for the country itself. it's much more dangerous and more violence, attacks against the state internally. i'm not talking about india. the nonstate actors involve in the process are also involved in afghanistan and now. so that's the common link and that's what i'm focusing on right now, during my

india blamed terrorists based in pakistan. india and pakistan both claim kashmir and control different sections of it. muslim separatists in india have been fighting since 1989 for independence or to be merged with pakistan. >>> in afghanistan gunmen have killed the chief of a radio station in the eastern province of logar and no one has claimed responsibility. two masked attackers opened fire on thursday afternoon on the car as he was driving back home from work. they then pulled him out and killed him, the associated press reported. the afghan journalist safety committee or ajsc has called 2016 the bloodiest year for journalists in the history of afghanistan. it says ten reporters were killed in the first six months. ajsc has recorded a total of 54 incidents targeting journalists in the first half of this year including murder, physical assault, detention and intimidation. the figure is up around 40% compared with the same period last year. he had run the local radio station since 2002. the station's news anchor said the kill

india, pakistan's arch enemy, is trying to make sense of the report of this call, but for now, is taking tongue in cheek approach, saying it does hope trump will help pakistan with its biggest outstanding problem, terrorism. >> thank you very much. let's get back to our panel. gloria, what do you make of donald trump's -- what his critics are calling inconsistent treatment of these foreign leaders in these congratulatory phone calls? >> i think it does sound like he's winging it. when you welcome president, when you have these phone calls, every word is usually strategic. it's not like picking up the phone and calling someone and saying, you know, i really look forward to visiting your fabulous hotel in pakistan, orb doing business with you. it's different. and i think trump knew it as a candidate. he was happy to criticize pakistan. and now you can't say the same thing to everybody, unless you say basically nothing to everybody. and what he was trying to do in complimenting pakistan was saying nothing, but then said something. i think it's a kind of winging it that really can become dan

and it will continue for india and pakistan. and at this point, the two major threats to survival begin to converge. one is environmental catastrophe and the other is nuclear war. another threat that is increasing right before our eyes. are nuclearkistan states, nuclear weapon states with nuclear weapons. they are already almost at war. any kind of real war would immediately turn into a nuclear war. that might happen very easily over water struggles, over diminishing water supplies. a nuclear war would not only devastate the region, but might actually be terminal for the species is indeed it leads to global famine as many scientists predict. so the threats of survival converge right there, and we're going to see much more like it. meanwhile, the united states is leading the way of the disaster while the world looks to china for leadership. incredible, astounding picture, and indeeded, only one pieiece a much larger picture. amy: m.i.t. professor emeritus noam chomsky, world-renowned political dissident and linguist, speaking mon

there's lots of places in the world, and india and pakistan is one of them, where we have hostile nations on a hair trigger. interjecting ourselves with tweets from our president-elect is not good policy. and i hope that he's going to be taking more of the advice of the career professionals in the intelligence community and department of state, and approaching these complex issues in a more measured way. the example you just cited where a fake news article prompted this very belligerent response from pakistan is a reminder that there's lots of places in the world where we face the potential of a nuclear ex-change. i think that calls for our leadership to be more measured and thoughtful, not more misguided. >> senator, please stay there. we have new information on questions of donald trump's conflicts of interest, his foundation. we'll be back with the senator just after this. when heartburn hits, fight back fast with tums smoothies. it starts dissolving the instant it touches your tongue. and neutralizes stomach acid at the source. ♪ tum -tum -tum -tum smoothies! only from tums on a perfe

india and pakistan? you can see the chain reaction this sets off.hat is why reversing this three decades long u.s. policy of reducing nuclear weapons is so dangerous. you should not be making new care policy on twitter. it is not a responsible way for any president or any individual to behave. amy: i want to turn tto comets president obobama made when he s the democratic presidential nominee in september 2008. the arms control association asked him about his nuclear policy. among other issueses, obama addressed spececifically the ris involved in the u.s. being able to so swiftly launch a nuclear attack. he responded -- "keeping nuclear weapons ready to launch on a moment's notice is a dangerous relic of the cold war. such policies increase the risk of catastrophic accidents or miscalculation. i believe that we must address this dangerous situation -- something that president bush promised to do when he campaigned for president back in 2000, but did not do once in office." that is what the candidate obama said. the president obama do this and what do

. >> india and pakistan. one of the most important things to know about india and pakistan having nuclear weapons is number of nuclear weapons that they've got on launch status. do you guys talk about that? is that like -- >> well, i don't. he's surrounded by national security team. >> if the united states announces a u-turn on nuclear policy, india and pakistan don't have any nuclear weapons on launch status. they could move them to that status because a new nuclear arms race is about to start. >> we're getting ahead of ourselves, rachel. >> but that's what happens in the past when presidents have made even jokes about nuclear weapons. i think what i'm trying to get at is a lot of people are hiding under the bed right now because it doesn't seem like he knows what he's talking about on this issue. >> that's not fair. >> how can you make policy on twitter? and then say he's -- >> he's not making policy on twitter. >> expanding our nuclear arsenal and announcing it on twitter is a big deal. >> he didn't say tha

i will also add, the three things that pakistan is talking about, one is india's role. the other one is, the other two are the biggest domestic security terrorism threats or regions where pakistan state have been struggling and all of them go back to renaissance. [inaudible] they cannot simply go and lie down in graves and hope for the best. if they are attacked day in and day out by an insurgency, i know they are recent reports that they have moved into the area, but those are questionable. from what we know from our sources, maybe the reality is that taliban leadership is going to the area frequently, but it still holds in the network is more attended within the taliban hierarchy. that also goes back to changing the outlook of the taliban from being a nationalistic one as an islamic movement that has open to alliances with al qaeda or other international terrorists or extremist groups. this indian hold on palestine is a result of what pakistan has been doing. if they stop what it's been doing, i think india will pull back. the other big thing for pakistan is the whole

. >> the example that was used in the book is india and pakistan which are both nuclear armed states. you talk to most security experts in washington and they think there is some kind of nuclear war care and it starts there with opponents that are growing in size and historically not good friends and who have territory between them that is disputed, and the person that i quote in the book is talking about the melting of glaciers and the availability of fresh water, the health and agriculture and the occasion to fight over food and water in that area, that sparks a conventional military exchange that could escalate into a nuclear exchange. there are climatologists that say that if 100 nuclear weapons are exchanged in regional warfare in india and pakistan, it could kill 2 billion people, not because of that nation but because of the set and debris that's thrown into the atmosphere that affects global agriculture. there are a lot of people trying to make noise and remind people that even though two countries might exchange nuclear weapons, it affects the whole planet and we should treat

if pakistan stops what it's been doing, i think india will, it will give incentives to india, if it's doing something, to pull back. the other big thing for pakistan is the whole situation in fatah and belugistan. pakistan invested a lot of money and effort in bringing stability to fatah and there is stability in fatah i'm happy to report. i just wrote something about waziristan and the situation there has improved. people are going back. there's millions of displaced people, but what pakistan says it is unwilling to do is to implement political reforms in fatah, and you can't have this region in pakistan which is central administrator, which is outside of its mainstream legal and political mainstream, and hope that there won't be an insurgency, even hope there won't be grievances. baluchistan is very different but in baluchistan there can be, if pakistan recognizes afghan's stability and in a way pushes the taliban back into afghanistan or give them incentive, a real incentive to engage in negotiations and deny them covert aid and sanctuary, then i think it will be a tremendous boost

india's the check to pakistan. d you have to get india involved. >> so, maybe when you become president of the united states, you have to say, really nice things to these leaders, and, and they'll kind of understand the terrible things you've said about them in the past? >> well, it's -- it's what policy are we going to adopt? one of his main platforms is to stop issuing visas to immigrants from countries that back terrorism. almost all of them are muslims. you know, muslim countries. he talked already about banning muslims before. are we going to now not issue visas to pakistan. does he keep that promise to his voter base? what is the message to pakistan? it's a very dangerous country. it does have nuclear weapons. and the real, immediate issue he'll face is afghanistan. pakistan has sheltered the taliban. not just al qaeda the taliban are making huge gains in afghanistan we still have thousands of troops there. within weeks of him being in office he's going to have to make decisions about do we keep u.s. troops in

what about india? pakistan?as a candidate, trump struggled to speak precisely about nuclear weapons. >> if you sty japan, yes, it's fine. you get nuclear weapons as well, and saudi arabia says we want them too. >> can i be honest? it will happen any way. >> while trump has talked about the need modern ties nuclear force, he has not offered specific plans. >> three legs of the triad. do you have a priority? >> i think to me, nuclear, the power, the devastation is very important to me. >> so why might vladimir putin be writing these nice letters to donald trump saying that he's not too worried about all this? what does putin really want is worth thinking about. what vladimir putin wants is the russian sanctions to be listed. oil prices are down. he needs american dollars back into his economy. that's what most of the economists are telling us. >> thank you. let's bring in republican congressman from florida. a member of the house foreign affairs committee and specifically a member of the committee that deals with

india and pakistan. one of the most important things to know is the number of nuclear weapons that they've got on launch status. do you guys talk about that? is that like -- >> well, i don't. he's surrounded by national security team. >> if the united states announces a u-turn on nuclear policy, india and pakistan don't have any nuclear weapons on launch status. they could move them to that stus because a new nuclear arms race is going to start. >> we're getting ahead of ourselves, rachel. >> but that's what happens in the past when presidents have made even jokes about nuclear weapons. i think what i'm trying to get at is a lot of people are hiding under the bed right now because it doesn't seem like he knows what he's talking about on this issue. >> that's not fair. >> how can you make policy on twitter. >> he's not making policy on twitter. >> expanding our nuclear arsal and annoces i on twitter is a big deal. >> perhaps he is also echoing what president obama himself has tried to do here which is get

world war ii, korea, vietnam, afghanistan, iran, iraq, china had a border skirmish with russia, india, pakistannam, i am missing a bunch, only one derailed the global economy. vietnam had a huge effect, but only one, and it was the 1973 crisis, roiled the economy. geopolitics is always noisy, but with little effect. from normal friction, it is it better or worse? it's probably worse. there are more wars in the middle east, uncertainty around the nuclear risk, iran, russia, north korea. north korea has a bomb and will soon be able to deliver it to california. that is not my assessment. that is the assessment of top people in the government, two years or so. that is a serious issue for the world, but i worry obviously about that, and peace in the middle east, but in reality, bad policy, us doing things that makes it worse, government shutdowns, not fixing the school system. you want populism and want to get worse, don't fix the school system, grow the economy slower. that will be worse for the world than anything else, and the world needs a strong america. our military might, and if you have serv

india, pakistan's archenemy is trying to make sense of the readout but is taking a tongue in cheek approachthe foreign ministry says it hopes trump would help pakistan with its biggest problem, terrorism. >> we turn to other news now. the pain is still raw in south america after the loss of 71 people in a plane crash in colombia. officials confirmed the jet was out of fuel when it went down. bolivia is launching an investigation into the charpter airline. aviation authorities in bolivia suspended the airline's flying permits. most of the passengers were from brazilian football team. goalie is one of six who survived the crash. doctor's had to amputate his right leg but they say he is sedated and doesn't know it yet. 65 of the crash victims will be repatriated to brazil on friday. shasta darlington talked to one of them. >> reporter: was rooting for victory when his hometown team got on a plane to colombia. now he's in medellin to pick up his cousin's body, one of 71 people killed on the charter flight killing the soccer team. >> i have to come here to see and to give some comfort to my fami

beginning with north korea and nuclear missile programs, the global economy, climate change, india, pakistanafghanistan, you name it. china now is a major global power. so to upend the policy which, as you put it, has essentially finessed the question of taiwan's status vis-a-vis china's status, this has worked. there isn't a reason, i would argue. it doesn't serve the interest of the united states, china or taiwan to introduce new features which risk a crisis. >> i want to play a little of what dr. kissinger said about the chinese reaction so far. >> >> very impressed by the calm reaction of the chinese leadership which suggests that a determination to see whether a calm dialogue can be developed. there is no question that the policy of opening to china has been based on the premise of a one china policy. >> now there is no question that donald trump is listening to mike flynn, john bolton -- who has written publically about changing the policy -- a lot of other people around him are arguing. where is he hearing counter advi advice? he's not yet been hearing anything from the state departme

india? pakistan?rter: trump struggled to speak precisely about nuclear weapons as the candidate. >> it is going hapuna. it is going happen anyway. >> reporter: and while trump as talked about the need to modernize. he has not offered specific plans. >> do you have a priority? i want to go to senator rubio after that and -- >> i think nuclear, the power, the devastation is very important to me. >> it may be worth thinking about. what does vladimir putin really want from donald trump? most experts will tell you, russia wants sanctions lifted. oil prices are down. russia needs revenue. it needs u.s. dollars. and if putin has to be nice to do it, that is a price he'll be willing to play. >>> and remember this? >> the biggest problem we have today is nuclear -- nuclear proliferation, and having some maniac, having some madman, go out and get a nuclear weapon. >> you want to have a nuclear arms race on the korean peninsula? >> many ways, the world is changes. >> i would like to end it. just get rid of it. a

so smart, pakistan. "india? you're totally my bestie. don't tell pakistan. they're so stupid." ( laughter ) >> do you know tareq? he's so his cooking is amazing. seems like every day there is another story about trump's tweets. it's how he's going to comfort us in hard times, his toilet side chats. the good news is, you don't have to read his tweets. ( applause ) ( piano riff ) by the way, i am not above taking pity applause. ( laughter ) ehe's dwoingtd dwain the swamp, mr. twamp. ( laughter ) you can unfollow trump, delee twitter, go out into the world and live your life. the bad news is, starting january 20, donald trump can messages to the entire nation. >> jon: whoa! >> stephen: yes! the text is coming from inside the white house! get out of there! yes, president trump will be able to send text messages to every phone in the nation. the only person i would trust less with this technology is anthony weiner. ( laughter ) here's the deal -- ( applause ) here's ow the whole thing works. it's the same system that sends out warnings if there's an impending dis

>> tomorrow a discussion on the tensions between india and pakistan. watch live, beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. outgoing florida representative john mica also spoke with c-span about his career serving in congress for 12 terms. representative mica lost his reelection bid in november. this is about 30 minutes. mica,sentative john republican of florida. you are coming to the end of the term. what is the adjustment been like for you to realize that you will not be coming back to congress? rep. mica: i have enjoyed every minute. very few individuals have had the incredible opportunity. florida,th district of but serving congress promise a quarter of a century. in addition to that i got to serve five years of the chief of staff in the u.s. senate. four years in the florida legislator and four years in local government. i have had an incredible career. in addition, i have also been in business for 20 years. great career, both in the private sector and in public service. i have enjoyed every minute of it. here, a lot spent in this room. the tran

visit ncicap.org] >> tomorrow a discussion on the tensions between india and pakistan. watch live, beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. outgoing florida representative john mica also spoke with c-span about his career serving in congress for 12 terms. representative mica lost his reelection bid in november. this is

military commander would trade for russia's or india's or pakistan. we have cut nuclear weapons steadily since ronald reagan and of those 15,000 worldwide, the u.s. and russia have about 95% of them. when they start talking about building up, the rest of the world is watching. what's china thinking with about 250. are they going to modernize? here's the thing where donald trump can turn this. he can take a page out of ronald reagan's playbook and make a deal with putin. it's clearly on his agenda to have improved relations. the component has to be a big part of that. he could make the deal of his life by early in his administration by cutting both country's arsenals. saving hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't need to spend on new weapons and using the money for other purposes. that will put him in the history books. >> in the meantime, we have the spector of social media, absent any news conferences. it has been 148 days, the most we hear, we had 74 seconds of him. the most we hear from him is on social media. he took to it again later today