for chinese weapons. we have signatures for french weapons. we have signatures for british weapons, not that we think they are likely to use, but we have signatures -- may have some on india pakistan from some advanced sampling techniques. i'm not an expert on just how much you can get out of an underground explosion, but there may be some things that get into the atmosphere, small quantities, and you may be able to have some, and if there are, maybe we have a little bit out of north korea, but we don't with iran. the second thing is, now, it is nuclear weapons. i mean, a single hiroshima single weapon will, if dropped in an air burst, it will have a radius, what they call the five psi circle, five pounds per square inch of roughly radius should be roughly, let's say, a half mile going around, so it's a mile in diameter, and while you wouldn't destroy all of the cities if you have three or four of those going off in tel-aviv, and you might have air bursts and ground bourses, and you do that -- bursts, and

chinese weapons, we have signatures for french weapons. with signatures from british weapons, not that we think they are likely. we have signatures -- we have some on india-pakistan, some advanced sampling techniques. i'm not expert on just how much you can get out of the underground explosion, but there may be some things that the into the atmosphere, small quantities you may be able to have some. and if there are, maybe we even have a little bit out of north korea, but we don't with iran. the second thing is, take thermonuclear weapons. a single hiroshima weapon will, if dropped in an air burst, will have a radius what they call the five psi circle, five pounds per square inch. of roughly radius would be roughly, let's say a half-mile going around, so it's a mile in diameter. and while he wouldn't destroy all the cities if you have three or four of us going off in tel aviv, three or four of those going off, and you might have air burst and also ground bursts, and to do that because you want the ground bursts to kick up, unicom countless

we have signatures for chinese weapons, signatures for french weapons. we have signatures from british weapons. not that we think they're likely. we have signatures, may have some on india, pakistan from some advance sampling techniques and not an expert on just how much you can get out of an underground explosion as opposed to an atmospheric explosion, but there may be some things that get into the atmosphere. small quantities. and if there are, maybe we even have a little bit out of north korea. but we don't with iran. the second thing is, nuclear weapons, we -- a single here's jim wanted well, if trapped in an airburst, have a radius of what they call a five psi circle. 5 pounds per square inch. of roughly -- the radius would be roughly a half mile going around. a mile in diameter. and while you would not destroy all the cities if you have three or four of those going out until of these, three or four of those going off to a you might have airbursts in ground bursts. you do that because you want to grounders to cut countless thousands or hundreds of t

weapons -- all of your weapons. he is going to say, i do not know where it is. he is not going to say, i dispose of it on this day in this way. he would not give details of the transaction. it is nott( credible. >> but the guns get turnover at the same time. >> they do, but the process also shows that the shares account of what that agreement was is not credible. >> but even if he said the words that the inspector says that he said, what is the motive to lie about selling the guns 15 years ago if they end up all being in the same place and end up getting turned over together? are you trying to make an allegation that he was trying to keep one gone from the police so he could have it for himself? >> i think the sheriff was confronted with this order, did not like the idea of having to turn over his firearms. i do not think anyone likes the idea of having to turn over what they have, and he made it -- a stupid decision o. he decided, i do not want to give these to the san francisco police department. i am suspicious o

and nuclear weapons capability. and i'm talking to the president. i just talked to him the other day. we are in close consultation trying to prevent that. it's really not a partisan issue. it's a policy issue. not a partisan issue. >> you have known mitt romney a long time. tell me if you disagree. the reality is that governor romney said this week that his position is very much the same as president obama. they are both committed to preventing iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. not just as an impartial observer, but as the prime minister of israel. do you agree with that, that both the president and his challenger have the same view with regard to preventing iran from going nuclear? >> i have no doubt they are equally committed to preventing that. it's a vital american interest. this isn't the issue. we are united on this across the board. >> why can't iran be contained just as the soviet union was? there are those in your country and in the united states that believe that a containment strategy would actually w

so it is one weapon of many weapons, and i would submit it is not simply a weapon of choice. it's a new weapon and it has new capabilities that weren't available to us before. but use it very carefully, just as i would use a platoon going into a village very careful. if you indiscriminately kill women and children and you could have avoided it, then you're hurting our cause. so use it with care and use it with the best intelligence you can find, and always try to err on the side of not hitting any innocent civilians who may be nearby. tavis: on domestic policy, it's pretty clear to me and i suspect you and everybody else who's paying attention that this campaign is going to be waged over the economy. mr. romney has made it very clear that he is going after the president on his record on the economy. what's your sense of what the president has done or not done, as it were, putting americans back to work? >> well, i think the premise is correct. as i travel around the country and as i travel around the world and i listen to my fellow citizens, the economy is number one, and it

capable of delivering chemical weapons. a number of officers believed to be members of iran's revolutionary guard flew into the largest syrian chemical weapons area for the exercise. the iranian president said any attempt to move the weapons could trigger military intervention. rick, what do we know about the chemical weapons? >>reporter: well, syria is believed to have the world's largest arsenals and now the syrian army is said to be testing ways to deploy the weapons without losing the chemicals themselves. a german weekly reports that the syrian army tested missile systems and tanks tanks and airt at a range near the chemical research center, firing five or six shells capable of carrying poison gas. we are told the shells were empty but the tests were surprised by iranian military officers. this is of obvious concern to israelis because israel borders syria and it has been stopping up on gas makes. a syrian general who defected says that president assad has plans to transfer chemical weapons to lebanon, presumably to he

capable of transporting weapons and military equipment anytime, anywhere. 60 planes in all, his own private air force. >> those russian aircraft were built like flying dump trucks. he could move this stuff and drop it with pinpoint accuracy to any desert, to any jungle, to any other remote place in the world, right into the hands of what i refer to as the potpourri of global scum. >> by the late 1990s, bout was a legend in the shadowy world of illicit arms dealing, so illusive that the only two pictures that surfaced of him back then were taken without bout's knowledge by a belgian photographer. later, bout became the inspiration behind the nicolas cage character in the movie lord of war. >> i was an equal opportunity merchant of death. i supplied every army but the salvation army. >> u.s. treasury documents reveal a bout empire so sophisticated, so complex-- hidden behind a thick curtain of front companies-- that even the u.s. government unwittingly contracted with two of his companies to deliver supplies to u.s. troops in iraq. >> juan zarate, deputy nati

weapon. are they not one and the same? >> i believe 80% of realities related to nuclear talks between p 5 plus one and iran has not been discussed in u.s. media. the realities, the facts. that's why the u.s. public opinion, they're unfortunately deprived from the realities. in 2010, february of 2010, the head of iranian atomic energy organization, which now is the foreign minister, proposed the p-5 plus one to provide fuel rods for tehran reactors, which is a reactor built by americans. and it is used for ice topes for 800,000 patients struggling with cancer. they need fuel rods to continue to run this nuclear facility. iranians proposed that we would not increase the level of enrichment beyond 3.5%. if the u.s. and the p-5 plus 1 provides the fuel rod for tehran. in order to build the fuel rod, you need to increase enrichment to 20%. then to build the fuel rod. without 20%, you cannot build it. it was iran who proposed to the u.s. and europeans that we do not want to have high level enrichme

s main suspect was steven hatfill a member of the government that helped develop a biological weapons facility at fort dietrich maryland but instead of pursuing a criminal investigation based on actual evidence against him then the i began a witch hunt surveilling harassing and stalking him for five years and one interview hatfill said that he contemplated suicide multiple times but that he knew if he did that he would be killed in the court of public opinion and he couldn't let them do that to him well after five years of this harassment hatfill was awarded a hefty five point eight million dollars settlement from the government to say hey sorry dude we ruin your life by telling everyone that you were the anthrax perpetrator sorry about that. the next suspect was bruce ivins a top anthrax researcher at fort dietrich for eighteen years he was working on vaccinations for anthrax and also helped the anthrax investigation interestingly hatfill along with other anthrax experts came out in ivan's defense saying that he wouldn't have been able to weaponize the anthrax undetected the process

he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.d to go into any kind of military conflict with iran, with ahmadinejad, and then discover actually all he was saying turned out to be true? >> well, first of all, piers, the evidence is not just intelligence services, but also the international atomic energy agency that's had inspectors in there, though tehran has interrupted and obstructed their inspections from time to time. but we know they have 3.5%, 5% enriched uranium, we know they have thousands more cascades than they had four years ago, creating enriching uranium and we know they have some uranium that's been enriched to 20%. this is all iaea, who have been on site and seen these things. so i think the likelihood of a mistake there is not great. >> right. let me just ask you both the same question. i'll start with p.j. crowley. the key thing is what america does, clearly. if we assume that israel is serious, benjamin netanyahu is absolutely deadly serious that he is ready to launch some kind of preemptive strike against iran,

hussein's suppose it biological weapons program. it's i mean yeah i mean you know so the best case scenario is that they used it use it to ratchet up the fear to really get everyone on board with the iraq invasion and using that threat and they never really did come out and say that the anthrax was not the muslim terror is that they said it just kind of went under the radar robbie but now that we know that members of the bush administration were on separate and also the targeted members that voted they were opposite to the patriot act i mean what do you think the worst case scenario is now that we know these kind of damning facts. the worst case scenario is that i mean the motive. the motives there are questionable i mean why would someone who's a terrorist who wanted to you know muslim terrorists why would they want to send anthrax letters to people who are opposing the patriot act. i mean you have to wonder you know i can only speculate with the worst case scenario is that someone who sent those letters wanted to shut down the sen

nuclear weapons. as we work towards the goal we had the world's leading scientific authority, the fastest computers, and the brightest minds. working to ensure that we would never again have to perform nuclear explosive testing in the united states. the effort that tom describes entails a number of programs and tools that work together to maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear testing. they include the stockpile stewardship program run by the national nuclear security administration, which maintains the continued safety security and reliability of the nation's nuclear in the absence of the nuclear explosive testing. the key goal of the ssp is the understanding if of a nuclear device perform as well as the agent behavior of the weapons material and components to ensure safe and effective nuclear deterrent. second is the life extension program, often called lep. they extend the life of the current weapon in the stockpile by using only the nuclear co

because the us and russia have about 90-odd percent of the nuclear weapons in the world today. if they continue to make severe cuts in their arsenals, which leaves them, by the way, with more than enough weapons to destroy the world over, so they're not cutting back in this new start treaty in any way that will make this country less secure. and that is what all the military experts say. they all support this new start treaty. the military leadership of this country supports the new start treaty, because it will take the us and russia closer to bringing together the other nuclear states when they see that the us and russia really are serious, and don't intend to keep weapons while telling everyone else they can't have them. then you will find all countries, including countries like iran... if they feel that everyone is being treated the same way, and held to the same standards, you will fi that is the root to dealing with the nuclear arsenals that are preventing... that are creating so much danger, because it's the nuclear materials that can slip out of those arsenals into the

the capability to build atomic weapons. that was in the 1990's. since then, i have published articles, continue in my research. when i was a fellow, i was invited to join a turkish delegation. i joined with a number of government officials, with whom i had a chance to discuss and ask questions, which culminated -- [intelligible] they were very generous to cover my expenses. since then i continued to look into the subject. this is a highly important subject from turkey's standpoint. those people think iran is a problem of nuclear capabilities. for turkey, it is not even a problem. turkey will be the most negatively affected if iran developed the bomb. the comparison between turkey and iran [intelligible] for the last few hundred years, turkey and iran have been in peaceful relations. but do not like to use the term rivalry. if and when iran acquires nuclear weapons technology, it is a game changer. the views i often see in the west and in europe is as if turkey does not care about the rent's position with nuclear weapons. this is not the case. in t

a whole lot of weapons moving around. the pentagon seems to feel at this point that it is for security purposes security consolidation as we've been saying, but, you know, at what point does that change. at what point do they see the potenti potential. that's the critical juncture. they don't think it's there yet, but the president said something very interesting. the rebelling i'm other other players. as the fighting intensifies in syria, one of the big emerging concerns is what if the rebels begin to take some of these weapons? what if they gain access to them? capture a military facility where some of these weapons are. the rebels may be as big a concern right now as the regime. >> all right. barbara star out of the pentagon. thanks. going to have much more on this after the break. ill stubbed up. [ male announcer ] truth is, nyquil doesn't unstuff your nose. what? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus liquid gels speeds relief to your worst cold symptoms plus has a decongestant for your stuffy nose. thanks. that's the

we can't let them get a weapon." it's a crucial distinction, and maybe the distinction we heard in the early part of your show, between war and peace, and it's certainly one that during the campaign the candidates are going to have to be a little more explicit about. >> schieffer: john dickerson, mitt romney, of course, spoke out very quickly, even before the-- we knew that an american ambassador had been killed and the trouble in bek. he spoke out just as kind of the demonstration were beginning in cairo, and he basically accused of administration of apologizing. where is all that now? well, i think in the short term, there's a rift for romney. in the long term with libya and egypt and all of these protestes, there's a long-term problem for the property. what mitt romney could have done when he had that press conference was come out and say we have a tradition in this country where in the middle of campaigns we don't attack the chief executive. we are all one and i'm going to let the president handle this. he didn't

they are getting more weapons and more sophisticated weapons. but often with, and both sides seem to be equally determined. the will to fight is, has not diminished on either side. we hear of the defections but it's not the kind of defections that should weaken the assad regime if you were to tell me a general has defected and is taken his men with him, he's taken 5,000 brigade with him, he's taken a battalion. then you're beginning to see something. >> rose: the beginning of the end. >> exactly, individuals and others. >> rose: writing this book, interventions, a life in war and peace, what was the most difficult thing to revisit? >> there were a couple of difficult issues. the peacekeeping operations of its 90s. rwanda and bosnia. >> rose: you view that as a mistake. >> and iraq. not as a mistake as such, but it was our failure. our failure in the sense that we couldn't help or do as much as we could to protect the people. and often they say it's the u.n.'s fault or they didn't give-- but as i explain in the book, the u.n. has no standing army

site, the largest nuclear weapons testing site in the world. more than 450 explosions. he actually did that before kazakhstan became independent. a decision saying, enough is enough. i hereby decreed that this place is closed. it has been closed ever since. >> one of the things you are saying -- and the history is fascinating, because just backing up a little bit -- kazakhstan was kind of like a state within the soviet union. so people can kind of grabs ahold of that. but he made a very -- the current president made a very, very bold statement to the world by saying this place is closed. >> he made a bold statement by saying the testing grounds is closed, made a net of one say no more nuclear weapons -- we have them, we don't want them. but then he did other things as well. for example, kazakhstan has always had a lot of oil, but it has been in the ground and not developed. really did not help the people much at all during the soviet union. so, shortly after kazakhstan became independent, but there was an international calls saying, all right,

imagine iranian aggression with nuclear weapons.ne their long-range missiles fit with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bombs. who amowng would feel -- who amowng would feel safe in the middle east. who would be safe in europe. who would be safe in america. who would be safe anywhere? there are those who believe a nuclear armed iran can be deterred like the soviet union. that's a very dangerous assumption. militant jihadists are not secular muslims. militant jihadists behave very differently from secular marxists. there were no soviet suicide bombers. yet iran produces hordes of them. deterrence worked with the soviets. because every time the soviets faced a choice between their ideology and their survival, they chose their survival. but deterrence may not work with the iranians once they get nuclear weapons. there is a great scholar in the middle east, professor bernard lewis who put it best. he said that for the. >> -- he says mutually assured, it's an inducement. they believe a holy man will reappear in th