How the U.S. Can Prevent Nuclear Chaos

>> NOW, NORTH KOREA VOWED TO NEVER GIVE UP ITS NUCLEAR ARSENAL.

THE ANNOUNCEMENT COMES AT A POLITICALLY UNSTABLE TIME WITH GROWING INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS AROUND NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION.

AMID THESE THREATS, A BIPARTISAN TASK FORCE HAS URGED THE UNITED STATES TO RECONSIDER HOW IT INTERCEPTS THE EXPANSION OF THIS DESTRUCTIVE.

>> THANK YOU CHRISTIANE AND MEGAN O' SULLIVAN AND ARNIE MUNEZ.

YOU AND ERNIE WERE AMONG THE COCHAIRS OF A REPORT THAT JUST CAME OUT.

I THINK IT WAS PUBLISHED RECENTLY ON THE TASK FORCE ON NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY.

WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THAT?

>> THE ORIGINS OF THE TASK FORCE I WOULD SAY GO BACK JUST AS FAR AS 1964.

WE THINK ABOUT THAT TIME, CHINA DETONATED A NUCLEAR WEAPON AND PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON BROUGHT TOGETHER A GROUP OF FOREIGN POLICY EXPERTS TO SAY WHAT IS THE NEXT PHASE OF POTENTIAL NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION LOOK LIKE?

IT WAS CALLED THE GILPATRICK COMMISSION.

THEY CAME OUT WITH A NUMBER OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT WERE IMPLEMENTED AND LED TO 60 YEARS OF MINIMAL PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

NOW WE ARE AT A PERIOD WHERE ERNIE AND OUR OTHER COCHAIR FROM THE CARNEGIE ENDOW.

MENT, WE ARE AT THE MOMENT WHERE PROLIFERATION HAS NOT BEEN RATER.

WE ARE FACED WITH A RAPIDLY CHANGING GEO POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT.

WE CONVENE THIS BIPARTISAN TASK FORCE IN AN EFFORT TO LOOK AT THE QUESTION.

IS THIS A NATIONAL SECURITY PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO ADVANCE NONPROLIFERATION?

AND IF SO, ARE THE TOOLS AND THE ARCHITECTURE, ARE THEY STILL WELL SUITED TO TODAY?

AND THAT WAS THE REASON THAT WE CONVENED THAT TASK FORCE AND THE RESULTS WERE PUBLISHED JUST LAST WEEK.

>> IT WAS CHAIRED 60 YEARS AGO BUT ROSS GILPATRICK.

BUT IT WAS A LYNDON JOHNSON PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION.

IS THERE A PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE GOVERNMENT?

THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT?

>> WELL, WALTER, I THINK CLEARLY, FIRST OF ALL, LET WE SAY THIS TASK FORCE CAME TO THE SAME HIGH LEVEL CONCLUSION THAT IT IS CENTRAL TO OUR SECURITY AND SHOULD REMAIN A PRIORITY.

BUT THIS COMMISSION WAS A NONGOVERNMENTAL COMMISSION AND ONE OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WAS ABOUT THE NEED TO REALLY RETHINK EXTENDED DETERRENTS.

I WOULD SAY GOING BACK TO YOUR QUESTION, TODAY, SOME OF THE DIRECTIONS BEING TAKEN IN THE UNITED STATES BY THE ADMINISTRATION, THEY DO ELEVATE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT RELIABILITY ABOUT U.S.

COMMITMENT.

I WOULD SAY THAT DISTINCTION REALLY DID COME INTO PLAY IN OUR CONSIDERATIONS.

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT EXTENDED DETERRENTS.

THOSE OF YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANS IN THE FOREIGN BUSINESS POLICY.

DON'T GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS OF YOUR OWN.

DON'T WORRY.

WE THE U. S. WILL USE OUR DETERRENT CAPABILITY SO YOU DON'T NEED THEM.

DO YOU THINK THAT IS BELIEVABLE THESE DAYS, MEGAN?

IS THAT STILL A GOOD POLICY?

WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING EXTENDED DETERRENTS?

>> THERE ARE TWO IMPORTANT POINTS.

THE FIRST IS YES, THE TASK FORCE WAS UNEQUIVOCAL IN SAYING THAT DEVELOPING, MAINTAINING A ROBUST EXTENDED DETERRENCE THE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO A SUCCESSFUL CONTINUATION OF NONPROLIFERATION OBJECTIVES.

NOW WE RECOGNIZE IT IS HARDER TODAY TO MAKE THAT A CREDIBLE ARGUMENT TO MANY OF OUR ALLY AND NOT JUST AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.

IT IS REALLY OVER THE SPAN OF MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS THAT MANY OF OUR ALLIES ARE QUESTIONING AMERICA'S COMMITMENT AND RELIABILITY.

SOME OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH, IT GOES BACK TO IS AMERICA OVEREXTENDED?

I WOULD SAY PARTICULARLY NOW, THERE ARE MANY ALLIES WHO ARE QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT THE UNITED STATES WILL BE WILLING TO USE THE EXTENDED DETERRENT OR PROVIDE IT.

I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE CREATED THE TASK FORCE.

YOU HAVE CHINA BECOMING A COUNTRY THAT HAS A VERY LARGE NUCLEAR ARSENAL.

RUSSIA AND IRAN.

QUESTIONS OVER EXTENDED DETERRENTS.

>> WE JUST HEARD MEGAN SAY VLADIMIR PUTIN, THE RUSSIAN PRESIDENT, HAS BEEN THROWING AROUND THE IMPLICATION THAT HE COULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

IN A SPEECH THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE TO THE MILITARY THIS WEEK, HE KIND OF ADDRESSED THAT HE SAYS WE CANNOT LET PEOPLE THROW AROUND THAT WORD.

THE N WORD.

BY N WORD HE MEANT NUCLEAR.

DO YOU THINK THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ON THIS PAGE THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO KEEP A DETERRENCE AND NONPROLIFERATION POLICY?

>> YES I DO.

JUST TO ELABORATE SLIGHTLY ON WHAT MEGAN SAID.

PART OF THE EXTENDED DETERRENCE IS THE IDEA THAT OUR ALLIES NEED TO STRENGTHEN THEIR MILITARY POSTURES AND THEN HAVE THOSE POSTURES INTEGRATED WITH OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT.

STRENGTHENING THEIR CONVENTIONAL POSTURES IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ADVOCATING.

I WOULD ALSO SAY WITH REGARD TO RUSSIA SPECIFICALLY, BUT ALSO, I WOULD SAY CHINA.

CLEARLY A LOT OF THE SUCCESS IN NONPROLIFERATION DURING THE COLD WAR CAME GREAT POWER RELATIONSHIPS.

THE U. S. AND THE USSR AND THEN RUSSIA WORKING TOGETHER DESPITE DISAGREEMENTS ON SHARED INTEREST IN NON-PROLIFERATION.

THAT CONTINUES TODAY.

IT IS A LITTLE BIT CREAKY, THE GREAT POWER COORDINATION.

BUT IT IS SOMETHING WE AGAIN RECOMMEND REENGAGING IN THAT DESPITE THE DIFFERENCES WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA.

PRESIDENT TRUMP LONG BEFORE HE WAS PRESIDENT GOING BACK TO THE 1980s WAS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST NUCLEAR WEAPONS, HE HAS SPOKEN MANY TIMES ABOUT TRYING TO DECREASE THEIR ROLE IN OUR SECURITY POSTURE.

IN FACT IT WAS JUST EARLIER THIS YEAR IN MAY WHERE VICE PRESIDENT VANCE EXPLICITLY SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT I THINK TO USE HIS WORDS HATES PROLIFERATION AND I HATE PROLIFERATION.

THERE ARE ELEMENTS THERE TO BUILD ON AND THAT IS WHAT OUR REPORT TRIES TO ADDRESS AND TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS.

FOR EXAMPLE, I'LL END BY JUST SAYING THAT ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IS THE THREE COUNTRIES PERHAPS EXPANDED TO OTHER NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES.

AT LEAST THE FIVE ORIGINAL WEAPON STATES COULD COLLECTIVELY COMMIT TO NOT THREATEN OR USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AGAINST NONNUCLEAR WEAPON STATES.

THAT WOULD BE AN INCENTIVE FOR THEM.

>> PUTIN JUST DID THE OPPOSITE.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS AGAINST A NONNUCLEAR STATE.

UKRAINE.

>> EXACTLY.

THAT IS ONE REASON WHY WE HAVE SAID, I HAVE SAID FOR SURE THAT PRESIDENT PUTIN REALLY CROSSED A LINE THERE AND DID SOMETHING UNPRECEDENTED.

THE IDEA HERE IS IT WOULD BE GREAT TO PUT THAT GENIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE.

IT'S NOT EASY.

BUT THAT KIND OF NEGATIVE SECURITY ASSURANCE WOULD BE WE THINK QUITE EFFECTIVE IF WE COULD GET THERE.

AND I THINK THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN GOING IN THAT DIRECTION.

>> MEGAN, TALKING ABOUT UKRAINE, UKRAINE HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS WHEN IT ENDED UP NOT BEING PART OF THE SOVIET UNION AND WE CONVINCED THEM TO GIVE UP THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS BY SAYING DON'T WORRY.

YOU DON'T NEED THEM.

WE'LL DEFEND YOU.

BOY, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ME FEEL VERY CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN TALK OTHER COUNTRIES INTO DOING THAT.

>> I THINK AS YOU KNOW, WALTER, A VERY LONG HISTORY THERE AND CONTESTED IN SOME WAYS BUT I THINK THE BIG POINT YOU ARE MAKING IS A VERY VALID POINT.

THAT MANY COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, NOT ONLY LOOK AT UKRAINE AND GIVING UP NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT WERE ON THEIR SOIL BUT THEY LOOK AT THE LIBYAN EXAMPLE OR THE IRAQ EXAMPLE AND THEY THINK COUNTRY THAT'S GIVE UP NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR DON'T HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE ONES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO AGGRESSION.

AND THEY LOOK AT OTHER COUNTRIES, THE MOST OBVIOUS ONE BEING NORTH KOREA, THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THIS CENTURY TO HAVE ACQUIRED NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACTUALLY, AGAINST PERHAPS ALL ODDS, YOU SEE THE LEADER OF NORTH KOREA COMFORTABLY IN PLACE.

THE LESSON MANY COUNTRIES HAVE IS THE PURSUING A NUCLEAR WEAPON COULD BE IN THEIR NATURAL SECURITY INTEREST.

THE PURPOSE OF THE TASK FORCE IS TO ASK HOW WE CAN RECALIBRATE OUR POLICY AND UPGRADE OUR TOOLS AND ARCHITECTURE TO MAKE SURE THAT COUNTRIES ARE NOT MAKING THOSE KINDS OF CALCULATIONS.

SO THEY HAVE NEW OR MORE CREDIBLE INCENTIVE TO STAY NON- NUCLEAR.

ONE OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TASK FORCE WHICH I THINK IS VERY SIGNIFICANT IS THAT AGAIN, A BIPARTISAN GROUP OF FOREIGN POLICY NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTS AGREED EVEN THE U.S.

ALLIES SHOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO GAIN A NUCLEAR WEAPON.

THAT IS NOT IN THE U. S. INTEREST.

THAT IT IS IN THE U. S. INTEREST TO CONVINCE THEM NOT TO PURSUE ONE.

THE REASON THIS IS SO SIGNIFICANT.

SOME OF YOUR VIEWERS MAY KNOW THERE IS AN ACTIVE CONVERSATION IN WASHINGTON ABOUT WELL MAYBE IT WOULD BE CHEAPER AND MORE EFFICIENT AND EASIER FOR THE UNITED STATES IF SOME OF OUR ALLIES HAD THEIR OWN NUCLEAR WEAPON.

WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT EXTENDED DETERRENT IN THE SAME WAY.

AND THIS GROUP REALLY CONCLUDED THAT IS VERY RISKY APPROACH TO TAKE.

AND WE NEED TO INVEST, AGAIN, IN FINDING A WAY TO ENSURE THAT OUR ALLIES DO NOD NEED TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD TO GUARANTEE THEIR OWN SECURITY.

>> HOW COULD YOU SAY WITH A STRAIGHT FACE TO THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH KOREA THAT NOW WE HAVE ALLOWED NORTH KOREA TO GET A NUCLEAR WEAPON, THAT THEY ARE SAFER AND BETTER OFF?

>> DO WE THINK WE NEED TO MAINTAIN OUR ALLIANCE WITH SOUTH KOREA.

WE CONTINUE TO PROVIDE A NUCLEAR DETERRENT.

WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT IS IN AN INTEGRATED WAY, IMPROVING OUR CONVENTIONAL CAPABILITIES.

AS A REMINDER AND YOU KNOW THIS QUITE WELL, THE THREATS TO SOUTH KOREA ARE NOT ONLY FROM NORTH KOREA'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES.

THEY HAVE ARTILLERY LINED UP ALONG THE BORDER WITH SOUTH KOREA THAT COULD PRETTY MUCH ANNIHILATE SEOUL.

SO IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO TO AN INTEGRATED REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR SECURITY.

THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD ADVOCATE.

>> MEGAN, YOU ARE NOT JUST A DEFENSE EXPERT.

A FOREIGN POLICY EXPERT.

WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS, WE TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR RUSSIA AND CHINA TO WORK TOGETHER WITH US TO DO IT.

THAT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE IN THE LEAST CAPABLE POSITION WE HAVE BEEN IN FOR 20, 30 YEARS TO GET THOSE COUNTRIES TO WORK WITH US.

IN FACT, SOMEHOW, WE HAVE DRIVEN RUSSIA AND CHINA INTO A CLOSER PARTNERSHIP AT LEAST.

THERE IS SO MUCH WE WOULD NEED TO DO WITH BOTH COUNTRIES FROM AI TO CLIMATE TO NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION TO BIO TO GENE EDITING.

IS THERE A WAY WE CAN GET BACK TO HAVING A MORE PRAGMATIC RELATIONSHIP, ESPECIALLY WITH CHINA?

>> THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS SORT OF TWOFOLD.

ONE, IN THE REPORT WE TALK ABOUT HOW HAVING A SUCCESS SUCCESSFULLY REJUVENATED NON PROLVIVER RATION.

WE SAY WE ARE HOPEFUL AND WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THOSE TALKS HAPPEN AS SOON AS IS POSSIBLE.

BUT MOST IMPORTANT, WE ACKNOWLEDGE AND MAKE THE CASE VERY CREDIBLY THAT WE STILL HAVE COMMON INTERESTS WITH BOTH MOSCOW AND BEIJING IN PREVENTING MORE STATES FROM BECOMING NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES.

YOU SAY CAN WE IMAGINE A WORLD IN WHICH WE ARE HAVING PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM, WE ARE SAYING WE SHOULD NOT WAIT UNTIL THE RELATIONSHIP IS NOT THAT THAWED TO PURSUE THESE TALKS.

WE SHOULD TRY TO FIND WAYS TO PURSUE THIS.

IT IS ACTUALLY INTERESTING ON THE DAY WE RELEASED THE REPORT.

VLADIMIR PUTIN SAID HE WOULD BE WILLING TO ADHERE TO THE LIMITS ON DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR ARSENALS A YEAR BEYOND THE EXPIRATION OF THE NEW STAR TREATY.

AS OF FEBRUARY, 2026, THE WORLD WILL BE WITHOUT ANY LIMITATIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES.

>> DO YOU THINK THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WILL WANT TO EXTEND THE STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION TREATY?

>> I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

BUT IT WOULD MAKE TO ME A LOT OF SENSE TO TAKE VLADIMIR PUTIN UP ON THAT.

I THINK THERE MIGHT BE OTHER MOTIVATIONS THAT VLADIMIR PUTIN HAS IN EXTENDING THAT OFFER.

PERHAPS HE IS TRYING TO MUDDY THE WATER OR LOOKING FOR LIMITATIONS ON THE GOLDEN DOME PROJECT.

BUT YOU KNOW, WITHOUT COMMENTING ON WHAT OTHER ELEMENTS MIGHT COME INTO THAT CONVERSATION, I WOULD IMAGINE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WOULD FIND IT IN ITS INTEREST TO HAVE MORE TIME TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP A FOLLOWON TO THE NEW START.

THIS GOES BACK TO ERNIE'S POINT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MADE IT CLEAR HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN SEEING ANY MORE NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AROUND THE WORLD.

SO THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE AS A POSITIVE STEP.

THOUGH NOT MISTAKE IT FOR ANY KIND OF WARMING OF A RELATIONSHIP WITH MOSCOW.

>> CAN I ADD I THINK IT IS EASY TO BE CYNICAL ABOUT THE OFFER.

FRANKLY, NEITHER ARE WE IN A POSITION TO EXPAND OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL RIGHT NOW GIVEN SOME OF THE CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF SO- CALLED MODERNIZING THE ARSENAL.

NEVERTHELESS, COMPLETELY AGREE WITH MEGAN THAT HAVING THOSE GUARDRAILS AT LEAST EXTENDED IS A VERY GOOD SIGNAL.

AND ONE THAT HAS TO BE CAPITALIZED ON BY HAVING OTHER DISCUSSIONS START.

DESPITE THE UKRAINE SITUATION, WE CAN'T HAVE OTHER DISCUSSIONS.

BY THE WAY, NEW START PUTTINGS THESE QUANTITATIVE LIMITS.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER ELEMENTS AS WELL IN TERMS OF INSPECTIONS.

VERY TRICKY IN THIS CURRENT ENVIRONMENT.

IN TERMS OF DATA EXCHANGE WHICH COULD STILL BE POSSIBLE.

CERTAINLY ALERTS IN TERMS OF MISSILE TESTS.

SO I THINK THE ISSUE IS I VERY MUCH HOPE THE PRESIDENT WILL ACCEPT THE OFFER BUT ACCEPT IT WITH THE STATEMENT AND LET'S KEEP TALKING AND GET SOME OTHER THINGS IN PLACE.

>> MEGAN AND ERNIE, THANK YOU BOTH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU WALTER.

>> THANK YOU WALTER.