and lo and behold, they've got this plutonium. usually, you don't take plutonium into a conference room but they did. and so, they brought out this red metal box and they slid the top off and i sort of looked in and there were two glass jars in there. i was still skeptical. so, i actually asked them,hocan ld the plutonium jar?" plutonium is very, very dense, almost three times as dense as iron. and then second, it is warm, because it is radioactive. it was both. but i still told them, "yeah, it looks like plutonium. it felt like plutonind." but in thei didn't have any instrumentation, i didn't know. >> reporter: the plutoni picture in north korea is as clear as anything in this opaque world. when nuclear reactor is operating, it's obvious to anyone who's watching from the outside. and there is no more watched piece of real estate in the world than this nuclear reactor near yongbyon. physicist and former arms control inspector davialbright has visited north korea twice. now spends a great deal of his time poring over open source sa

but i still told them, "yeah, it looks like plutonium. it felt like plutonium." but in the end, i didn't have any instrumentation, i didn't know. >> reporter: the plutoniumur piin north korea is as clear as anything in this opaque world.en nuclear reactor is operating, it's obvious to anyone who's watching from the outside. and there is no more watched piece of reawoestate in the d than this nuclear reactor near yongbyon. physicist and former arms control inspector david albright has visited north korea twice. he now spends a great deal of his time poring over open source satellite imagery of north korea. >> you don't know what's going on inside,ut you still can know quite a bit about it and their nuclear reactors and then you piece that together with other information, you can get a much better picture of how much plutonium they could make. >> i am pleased that the united states and north korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on north korea's nuclear program. >> reporter: in 1994, the u.s. and north korea signed the so- called agr

bearing chunks on the island surface it warned that the quantity of plutonium was undoubtedly large and that a presented a new and serious concern. many of the u.s. soldiers in particular who worked at and we talked have since come down with illnesses that they say were caused by their work there. jim mandrel is one of those soldiers for years he suffered from a myriad of complaints he says a link to his service on in a way talk he had his gallbladder out shortly after that a. seventy pound tumor cancerous tumor in his abdomen i suffer from roughly for you to forty five years as well from the going to. close that is far more liberal of the watching good news the problem for former cleanup workers like jim and raul is that unlike the other u.s. soldiers involved in the atomic tests the government does not recognize them as atomic veterans this means the four thousand clean up veterans have no special health care coverage many lumbered with crippling medical bills washington argues safety precautions on in a way top are exemplary the workers radiation exposure fell below recommended l

it begins with a plutonium or highly enriched uranium explosion, stage 1, that creates enou energy to hydrogen and its isotopes, causing fuon, stage 2. the u.s. tested more than 100 hydrogen bombs ipacific. the largest was 15 megats or 15,000 kilotons, more than 1,000 hiroshima bombs. after the last north korean test, the regime released a picture of a what looks like a two stage device. >> it looks as if this last test, the yield, the explosive yield of that is large enough that in most likelihood, my view bomb which we call a two-stage bomb. >> reporter: but are these weapons small, light and robust enough to be efficiently delivered on a missile? the experts believe the north koreans have designed their bombs with all of this in mind from the outset. >> the first bomb was mostly, i think, they d to prove to themselves, essentially a proof of principle that they can actually make an efficient bomb. and from that point on, they were determined towards making that bomb deliverable. >> so, they've to spend time, i think, working on getting the yield up and not increasing the size too m

with respect to the plutonium piece, correct, that operations in the los almos facility that does plutoniumwork was paused for a few years. they are now operating again. that said, we have a whole lot of work we need to do to get to a position where we can actually produce pits in quantity. the last time we produced pits in any quantity was 1989, i think. and that's something that the npr addressed as well. it emphasized the need to get to a pit quantity and capability by 2030 as required and programs for the department of defense. did i miss any? >> howhow does it project to adversaries and how we are perceived when los alamos struggled with surveillance of pits and when they finally did, according to the nsa east own review of performance, the test was not even usable. the experiment failed. we weren't able to judge w76 pit, had aged in the last years and all the stuff has been out there, it's been reported. it's been in the washington post, how does that sort of affect the perceptions of advisor -- adversaries? >> feel free to jump in, rob, greg, in terms of the intelligence piece of tha

weapons progra >> they we going to show us a significant partr f their nuclmplex, particularly the plutonium complex. and that, that was just-- it was an eye-opener, it was really surprising.

how much does the plutonium standstill affect any of these projects? as well as the way the strength of our deterrent is perceived by adversaries. whyhat if you start that -- don't you start with that? said, there is more flowing through the enterprise now than there has been since 1990. that is something we have been working very hard on. can we continue? absolutely. there were folks five years ago that said we cannot do what we were doing today. we have four major weapon programs underway right now. the new initiatives, the you wield weapon -- low yield weapon is not a technical challenge. it is relatively lower cost. we do not believe that presents any challenge that we cannot address. missile,aunch cruise will flesh that out. that is a little farther to the right. we have some time. with respect to the plutonium , you are correct that operations were caused for three years. they are now operating again. we have a whole lot of work we need to do to get to a position where we can actually cruise pits again and -- produce pits again in quantity. the l

the truth is, in 1994, the kim regime committed to freeze its plutonium programme, only to continue making we discussed today, it promised to dismantle its nuclear programme. but north korea only accelerated. 0ver over the years, north korea has, as the president has said, repeatedly supported acts of international terrorism, including assassinations on foreign soil. as the regime even secretly helped syria will do a nuclear reactor in the mid—2000s. in the indo pacific, north korea has continued to develop and test ballistic and nuclear weapons. last year, within less than 30 days, the regime launched two missiles over japanese territory. and conducted yet another nuclear test in the same period of time. this week, as the world knows, north korea is sending a delegation to participate in the winter olympics. they will march under the same banner as south korea. but we should not forget that north korea south korea have marched under the same banner before. the world witnessed it at the 0lympics the world witnessed it at the olympics in 2000 and in 2004. in the winter olympics in 2006. onl

clearly, we were able to slow down the development of their plutonium-based program. reasons the talks did not succeed is that we needed much better access to what they were doing with so-called you radium in richmond which is the other way to a bomb. to suggest that shutting down the reactor and blowing up the cooling tower, having international sectors on the ground, having continuous diplomatic talks, especially with the chinese but also with the south koreans, who at the time were committed to a diplomatic process. nothing is aat did misreading of the historical facts. it did not solve the problem, but we have to get some processes in play. i am of the view we cannot accept a north korean nuclear program. we cannot accept that. to be get there, we need much more engaged than we have been, and engaged across the andd not only on sanctions military contingencies, but in the negotiating process. shery: you might not recall this, but i was one of the reporters stocking you when we saw the nuclear reactors being blown apart. thank you for the interview today, former am

reactor given to india which was called cyrus is the one for which india utilized for producing float plutonium for nine hundred seventy four tests so the canadians were really upset over that and there was therefore a moratorium on any links in the nuclear field between india and canada that was removed by about twenty ten years after india had a civil nuclear and civil nuclear deal with us those other hesitation got put behind in particular when you have a nuclear suppliers group and got their viva. canada is not even selling your a name to us so doctors are that way but i think the other important thing india has to keep in mind is if the not american free trade area starts collapsing as president trump has been threatening to do then it's great opportunities open up and canada has also just joined the transpacific partnership minus the americans the eleven man group which. you know is across the pacific links asia with america so india has to look for opportunities broaden it so i don't moment the two way trade is only about eight billion dollars and as a canadian member of parliament putti

if you were selling, you know, plutonium, people would: i want some that far. >> but you had to get them. we have some of the pictures, can we put them up snow. >> who knows. >> i don't know, they told me they were ready. there you go. so yes, you have nala, simba, and i know people would go to different mcdonald's just to get ahold of the toys. because if they were out of the one you wanted, oh, they are eight ones that spin and go up. >> i had these all over the house. oh, spinning around my face. >> well, parent, get ready, it is coming back. >> yes, thanks, disney. for trying to get us, which i like mcdonald's. >> tracey. >> they're a sponsor. >> all right. >> i'm looking forward to there is merrill reese will be on our show. >> oh, that's right. >> i've not seen him since the super bowl. >> since minnesota before the super bowl. >> that's right. we hung out with him in minnisota and then, well, he is a he is on the show, will help us reveal the word of the day because still giving away this trip to ireland. >> and jen, as well. >> hey, jen? >> we are here arguably the worse voice on