nuclear weapons and target. the activists are understandably anxious as a result of the nuclear posture review in this classified u.s. military document the security guarantees that protected countries without nuclear weapons against a nuclear offensive are cancelled a strategy of action is being adopted in addition to deterrence so the arsenals must be upgraded to make them easier to use france and britain have responded with surprising enthusiasm to this nuclear renaissance that the united kingdom is going to pretend that it needs nuclear weapons for its survival or its security it was attacking the united kingdom some have got the very strange idea that because there's terrorists in the world we need to have nuclear weapons can they use nuclear weapons against terrorists but it would that not be rather like shooting musk eaters with chemicals i think the british would make a much bigger splash in the history of the world if the decider that they let the program expire we're still fighting the polio a war betw

because the purpose of the weapon is to use it either as a threat or as an actual weapon the nuclear powers or alliances like nato still rely on nuclear deterrence which is threat and so the fight continues i was on a panel with a senior advisor to the british government about nuclear policy and he's pro nuclear. and we were debating about. the world court opinion and whether nuclear deterrence was legal and he was extremely cynical he said that . it was a mistake to go into the court but governments would ignore it and that's true they have. and the other thing he relied on all the time was he said and of course we never actually will have to use them and this to me is the heart of the problem for the people who brought you to terms is that they try to claim a level usenet terrorist doesn't work that we're meant he would argue that appearance does mean use of so it is a use of a nuclear weapon to actually threaten to use them and that's when you into the will cause the first time you've fought to get that threet yeah and this isn't and it was the south pacific lawyers and the activi

that quite categorical on the batting of nuclear weapons and the legality of nuclear weapons the fact that nuclear weapons cannot be used by way of a strike threat. you know to mislead. threat only use of force by means of nuclear weapons and that he's going to lead to article two of the united nations charter and article fifty one. is unlawful. nucular deterrence says we have nuclear weapons but our goal is not to use them if. your goal is to have them at our disposal. this means that we are not in the realm of the real we are in the realm of the virtual need don't know what you're going to argue it is contrary to international law even to have in one's acidulous this rippon because the purpose of the weapon is to use it as a threat or as an actual weapon the nuclear powers or alliances like nato still rely on nuclear deterrence which is threat and so the fight continues i was on a panel with a senior advisor to the british government about nuclear policy and he's pro nuclear. and we were debating about. the world court opinion and whether nuclear deterrence was legal and he was extr

, possession of weapons. that is when the conversation entered in. >> sheriff, i do not understand your answer. i am going to try to ask the question a different way. while you were present, did you raise the prospect of you turning the weapons over to the sheriff's department? >> i did not. >> while that discussion was occurring, while you were present, did your attorney discuss with the inspectors turning the weapons over to the sheriff's department? >> i believe he did, yes. >> was that agreement made? that was hell was going to happen, the weapons were going to be turned over to the shift pharma? >> that was my impression, yes. >> when you left the meeting, it was your impression the weapons would be turned over to the sheriff's department and not the police department? >> yes, as instructed by my attorney. >> based on the conversation with your attorney or based on the conversation with the inspectors? >> well, my attorney was present during the conversation. based on the conversation taking place, i a u

nuclear weapons have fallen. it cannot provide the answer as to what appropriates -- nato still needs to ask appropriate for what. to have failed on that count is a real indictment of 18 months work. have a got time for -- >> a couple. >> don't ask me about the next steps and this is the really difficult question. because one of the aspects, of the way the ddpi has been conducted is that the alliance has painted itself into a corner. i didn't see any constructive next steps within the process. it's especially problematic that the dd prk r has con cricketed the maneuver. this is unlikely to happen. so we have a stalemate situation. it's also problematic to identify next step because although the official is that the ddpr shows nato unity in my opinion, it has basically divided the alliance into two. for and against withdrawal. and bad russia, good russia. i think it is a position that has been consolidated is going to be the first next step nato needs to address. within the parameters of ddpr, i think nato's best

, but also the tactical nuclear weapons, the non-deployed weapons, are there some alternative approaches? in other words, might there be a way just as george w. bush did in the 2001-2002 period to use the existing treaty framework to provide the transparency and the verification necessary to assure both sides but to reduce the two country's deployed strategic arsenals below the s.t.a.r.t. level? is that a path worth considering given the very difficult relationship between the u.s. and russia on various issues, missile defense, syria, other types of things? >> well, i think if there are 100 people in the room, you're probably -- if there are 100 people in the room, you probably have 100 different plans for how this could work. i think there are a couple of prerequisites. the first is i would argue we need to have a decision preferably bilateral decision which quite frankly just means us to go down to new s.t.a.r.t. numbers immediately. these are very modest reductions. i forget what the number of the just-released new s.t.a.r.t. aggregate was. i think we're roughly at 1750. we're going t

deterring nuclear weapons the sole use of our nuclear weapons. we have clearly stated this is in ourtory tr and in the interest of all other states that the more than 65-year record of nuclear nonuse be extended forever. recently we worked through the nuclear policy issues that are important and relevant to our nato allies. at the nato summit in chicago a few weeks ago, the allies proved the deterrence and defense posture review. focusing on the elements of the ddtr, the al lie three affirmed their commitment to create conditions for a war without nuclear weapons while remaining a nuclear alliance for as long as nuclear weapons exist. the review found the alliance's nuclear force posture currently meets the criteria for an effective deterrent and defense posture and that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons may be contemplated are extremely, extremely remote. the alliance acknowledged the importance for an independent and unilateral u.s., briptish and french u.n. security forces have in discouraging nuclear proliferation. leaders

tactical nuclear weapons. and future -- and before ask you to join me in thanking a panelists i want to invite the next panel to hop up here because we will resume without a break. if you need a break you are welcome to do so in the course of the next session but please join me in thanking dirk jameson, jon wolfsthal and trine flockhart. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> former ambassador tom pickering says it is difficult to see are questions over iran's nuclear program will be resolved without bilateral talks between the u.s. and iran. he was on a panel hosted by the arms control association. this is a little more than an hour. >> as those in this room know we are at another critical juncture in efforts to negotiate resolution to issues surrounding iran's nuclear program. after a long interval these six powers being gauged with iran on april 14th and assembled on may 23rd, '24 in baghdad to discuss specific proposals. six powers called for iran to end its enrichment of uranium to 20% and shipped its st

weapons are for. as it does, it cannot possibly provide the answer to what constitutes an appropriate mix of conventional nuclear and defense forces. nato needs to ask appropriate for what? sadly, as this is exactly what it is set up to clarify to have failed on that count is a real indictment i think of 18 months of work. now, have i got time for? >> a couple of the next steps. the next steps and this is the really difficult question. because one of the aspects or one of the effects of the way the dbpr has been conducted it has painted itself into a corner and it is not a good corner. i don't see any constructive next steps within the parameters left by the ddpr especially problematic is that it has restricted the maneuver by making the withdraw contingent on resipcal moves so we have a stalemate situation. it's also problematic to identify the next step because although the official line from nato is that it shows nato unity, in my opinion it has basically divided the alliance into two camps four fo

and russia do hold 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. i think with my experience with the russians, and i have had a considerable amount, that we and they really understand how much the utility -- the operational utility of nuclear weapons has been overstated and we need to somehow preserve this arms control process. the good work that's been done in verification and data exchange that i'm sure that secretary gutman will talk about today. so, again, it's our good fortune that we have made it to june 2012 in my mind. the revised calculus of deterrence that i talked about needs to be fleshed out. it's not really, i don't think, going to be a civilian audience that does this, but there is much to highlight in dialogue with the american people and with our elected officials. i hope that it can be nonpartisan. i'm still hopeful that the political process will allow this preservation of long developed arms control approach to continue. and that clearly a new deterrent calculus will allow us and the russians to posture -- to secure and posture

the issue of the number of weapons was not brought up. she transferred that to be -- she issued an order that those weapons be transferred to the police department. she recognized that this was not the correct thing to do. for all of these reasons, we view of this information as relevant to the commission. and one of the objections is to exhibit 7. that is the order issued by the court, to turn over their weapons to the police department. exhibit 4 is, of course, the video, and i think we should probably take that separately, because it is a different type of objection. chairperson hur: i agree with your proposal, with respect to the video. any questions for mr. keefe, with respect to mr. danielle? commissioner liu: this issue with the weapons and turning over the firearms are not being truthful about turning over the firearms -- what the hell does that go to? what is it we have to resolve about that? which count is that relevant to, in terms of your amended charge? >> it is a duty of the office -- i am sorry. it is a duty of a chief law-

to move toward the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. we have come so far since then, that is the cuban missile crisis of 1962, and now we have setting the stage to move towards new accomplishments. i understand you've already taken up the topic of a new stark treaty this morning. so i'm not going to go into details of the treaty, per se, but i did want to reiterate and underscore that the implementation of the treaty is going very well indeed. the russians just arrived in the united states this weekend for another inspection under the treaty. they're out at an air force base. it is their seventh inspection this year, so far this treaty year, which begins in feab. so there is an intensive pace of inspection activity under the treaty, and so far we are able to say quite clearly that the treaty's verification regime works. and i'm very pleased with that, because when one negotiates something, the procedures and so forth, you're never sure if it's all going to fall in place. but it's been going very well, indeed, and will be important to se

weapons we're talking hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons so i just don't think that if you lost the nonproliferation agreement that would be that big a deal but i don't think people agree with me and so i think if the iranians pulled out of that agreement there wouldn't be people saying oh no problem they're not breaking their agreement because there's no agreement i think the pressure on them would even become greater so if i could finish a program with you an intent on what's the next step. well iran was hoping genuinely that there would be some kind of compromise you don't he's obviously prepared to have compromise to give a concession and there but you don't need something in return it would be wrong to expect that that all the conservations be made by you. ok gentlemen let me jump in here are run out of time in iran just being discussion here many thanks today to my guess is around jerusalem and in stanford and thanks to our viewers for watching us here to see you next time and remember across type rules. if you. want to. there hasn't been anything good on t.v. . it is to g

but at least it's not building nuclear weapons.ause -- >> [inaudible] >> the question is very simple. we have today no use for -- [inaudible] very small thing. so if there is a solution, we have to have to imaging civilian use for iranian program which today has none. and my question to you both is, do you see the possibility of having to use commensurate to the site of program, and if not, can you reduce a program to a size of uses which you could have? because the present civilian uses are so little compared to the size of the program, you know? but there is an absolute presumption that it is not for civilian or even military-authorized uses. thank you. >> so how to make commensurate, i guess, ambassador pickering, do you want to field that? >> i think francois raises a very interesting and important be question. there are disagreements about the fundamental and broader accepted determination about absolute equality here is the military goes beyond the civilian is suspect. my own feeling is that in the course of a negotiation at

the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons the people that run the chemical weapons convention the un they demonstrated to them all the chemical weapons they had and where they were and frankly the chemical weapons at the libyans had were in very poor quality they only had what were called nerve agents which are the crudest types they're very dangerous but they're crude in terms of their sophistication of building and so they had all been declared and they were in about a half a dozen leaky canisters at one central location so what happened was they got politicized a little bit people are saying well what if chemical weapons were used when the experts knew actually that that was not a possibility the difference is that with syria they have a much much larger stockpile syria is not a part of the chemical weapons convention meaning that there is no u.n. inspectors or is no way of knowing what they have and they have much much larger quantities ok so what is the lesser evil here as sad staying in pella all these were falling into the hands of innocents. well and that's really that

weapons strategy, deeper reductions in u.s./russian arsenals at future events. i want to -- before i ask you to join me in thanking our panelists, i want to invite the next panel to get ready to hop up here because we're going to resume without a break. so if you do need a break, you're welcome to do so during the course of the next session. but please join me in thanking general dirk jameson, trine flockhart, and john wolfsthal. [ applause ] >>> also from an event hosted by the arms control association, former ambassador thomas pickering said today it was extremely hard to see how talks over iran's nuclear program will move forward. the ambassador suggested a final agreement would not be possible without bilateral talks between the u.s. and iran. he also spoke about the ongoing sanctions against iran and past negotiation attempts with the country. this is a little over an hour. >> as those in this room know, we're now at another critical juncture in efforts to negotiate a regulation to issues surrounding iran's nuclear program

it is a weapon among many weapons. it is a weapon of choice. it has new capabilities that were not available to us before, but using them carefully, just as i would use a platoon going into a village carefully, if you kill women and children when you could have avoided it, there are costs, so use it, and use it with care, and use it with the best intelligence we can find, and always air with the hope of not hitting innocent civilians. tavis: mitt romney has made it clear he is going after the president on the economy. what is your sense of what the president has done or has not done with putting americans back to work? >> i think the presence -- premise is correct. the economy is number one, and it should be, because that is what the rest of the world is doing, focusing on their economies, stabilizing their economies in europe, the euro zone, or growing their economies in places like china and india and latin america to bring more people up out of poverty, as though the economy is number one. i think the president has done some good things. whe

union steward with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons now the weapons which had been we consider to be for our security when our danger to our security the danger of the united states a curious danger to russia's security and so we banded together to find a way of producing those the year i was secretary of defense for example we and russia together dismantled almost ten thousand nuclear weapons because we saw those nuclear weapons as a danger to the world that effort has stalled though and we need to get it back in high gear again it's a different era with the nuclear weapons are not needed for our security they are in fact a danger to our security well you said you said you believed. you were into digital russians believe that too but today there's another believe something americans. who can literally compunctions they believe really believe that this a.b.m. these. can can save america can be can be they could prove they're real protection from from you know do you think they're right in believing that the ship is believed. to say yeah i'm going to stay here. i neither. share the

we live under the threat of increasingly sophisticated weapons. going in two thousand one hundred eighty eight states parties to the proliferation treaty. signed on to a statement providing for an unequivocal undertaking to the total elimination of nuclear weapons it has been set back by principally the united states but not alone russia france china the u.k. all have their share responsibility. disarmament agreements are not being honored. what is happening now it is that their role is in time countries are able to ride roughshod over international law because there isn't sufficient body of protest from within that country ordering them to these basic principles. thanks ponies and the rest into the midst of the nuclear tests. and what we accompany them to ground zero with guns pointed ready to fire who are we going to fire at i wonder the issue clearly crabs. yep we're going to be there was a russian or american invasion why don't know with the end of the cord war and the going away of the soviet union many people thought that nuclear weapons dis

any time we remove weapons from a cell, that means one less weapon out there on the yard. one less weapon that could be used against staff. >> when these two sides are fighting to survive -- >> i don't care because he wears green. he bleeds just like i bleed. >> the results can be explosive. >>> in the four months we spent inside corcoran, our producers saw violence erupt many times. though never between inmates and officers. as we neared the end of our stay, no one foresaw that the greatest threat to corcoran staff might come from an event in a california prison more than 100 miles away. >> three guards and two inmates were taken to area hospitals this afternoon after a stabbing in the maximum security area. two inmates used homemade weapons to stab two sergeants and a correctional officer around 1:00 this afternoon. >> it's significant enough that we lock down statewide the whole system. we made the determination that it had to do with a gang activity and southern hispanic gangs. in this particular case, the attacks seemed unprovoked. so that gave us cause to wonder abou

, while remaining a nuclear reliance for as long as nuclear weapon exist. the review found the alliance currently meets the criteria for an effective deterrent and also defense posture, and that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons may be contemplated are extremely, extremely remote. the alliance acknowledged the importance these independent and unilateral british and french negative security issues have in discouraging nuclear proliferation. looking to the future, allies reiterated that nato is prepared to consider further reducing its requirements for non strategic nuclear weapons in the context of resipry kol steps by the russian federation. leaders agreed they should issue two related committees. first, the developed concepts for ensuring the broadest possible burden sharing, including in the event nato decides to further reduce its reliance on non strategic nuclear weapons based in europe, and second, to further consider what nato would expect to see in the way of actions to allow for significant reductions in forward based nonstrategi

are dying from these weapons but until we actually see it people don't wake up to nuclear weapons orbuild the new fears. that represents all the firepower of the second world war and this second sound is the equivalent firepower of the world's nuclear arsenal today. the. russians would be soon which brightened if you knew more about song from phones to crash in the sun. means for instance on t.v. dot com. it's easy to you. in egypt's thousands half lot of the capitals to hear your square calling for a ban from next week's election runoff match a fake hosni mubarak's former prime minister for pastors are alarmed by should fix close ties to the fall regime and the military and they believe his candidacy could be a threat to the revolution along with anti shafiq rally dozens of activists have marched on calling for the end of violence against women the number of assaults on females have risen dramatically since the start of the revolution with protesters blaming the military for the attacks human rights activists and he says the achievements of the revolution are falling short of expect

you'll see the outline of a weapon or the silhouette of a weapon. >> a lot of flushing going on in 107>> ten four. >> the sound of flushing toilets leads officers to a stash of inmate-made wine or pruno. >> they make pruno. they grab apples and they let it ferment for a couple of days and smash them up, put them in the bag and put heat over it. a bunch of covers. they use a lot of blankets. it was under a lot of blankets in the corner, and they let it stay until it becomes sort of like wine. >> usually typically what will happen is if it's found in a cell in a common area, where inmates have access to it, which is obviously anywhere in the cell, they will both be charged with the box of inmate-manufactured alcohol. >> no weapons are found, but the search does turn up an important clue. >> we just found some kites up here. >> we found more. >> what do you have in there? >> we haven't opened it up yet. wrapped with cellophane and tied with a string. >> you don't have to open it yet. >> anytime officers find kites, there's a potential wealth of information. after completing their search,

include automatic rifles rocket propelled grenades ammunition and some anti-tank weapons while being paid for by turkey saudi arabia and qatar according to the report we still have a hand in it this despite the fact that there are reports coming out every day as usual in these situations about how we don't know who exactly all of the rebels are and what internationally nobody wants to be nobody wants to see innocent people being killed there are still a lot of questions to be answered as to whether intervention and what kind of intervention will be right or wrong what the consequences of that may be and personally i don't care who's doing it i never believe that spreading more weapons around the world isn't going to ensure peace and the thing is we have history to teach us these lessons the u.s. in particular has seen time and time to get how arming one group choosing a side can backfire the weapons we sold or transactions that we helped facilitate or then used against us to take perhaps one of the most. obvious and depressing examples we see the effects of every day in our war in af