Getting to Zero: Part 1

Okay. Now, I have Gram, Phil, Sergio, Tom, Richard, Matt, Scott, Mike, Dunn, Brad, Dick. That's my list right now. Okay ah I think we're trying to ask about you know where to go from here. I I congratulate the four horsemen for this courageous and I think very farsighted effort on raised consciousness about nuclear danger and then try to mobilize action and even raising fundamental questions. So, I I think that full exercise is great. I wanna make make three concrete points. First, the cliché has it that the ah against the urgent that drives out the important. But I think in this case, is the urgent that is the most important. And if we go back to the Henry's comment earlier today. If North Korea and Iran breakthrough in which there nuclear goal lines, I think this project will be off on a different engine completely and indeed, the non-corporation treatment will be at risk of collapsing. So uhm if is, George, you were saying, if the if the US and the UN Security Council and the P5 and whatever constitutes the international community, when they agreed, can't prevent this happening then the rest of this picture becomes extremely gloomy. So, I would say we almost like at a tipping point with respect to that and if or these issues are urgent enough to be part of the part part of the whole whole pack whole package. Similarly, if Osama Bin Laden gets a nuclear bomb and destroys one of our great cities, this conversation will again change fundamentally and I believe that's a genuine risk. So, point one is urgent here listening to it. With respect to the vision of, George, you said, a number of people likes a they have trouble seeing the top of the mountain and I she likes Sam's formulation of this. I've been candid, I can't see the top of the mountain either, but I'm not usually very foresighted. When people ask me about it, I say, "Who's opinion would I judge? Who's judgment would I trust more? The gang of four or my own? I would trust your judgment? But I can't see beyond whatever the base camp that I like to say in this motion again. So, if one could be the fundamental question is whether we reverse directions not so much every iota about the last stage of the last strand. And in reversing directions, start going up as opposed to down. I think, there, the there's almost unanimous agreed. So, I would say, you've got a huge thing to agree on with respect to going up or down the mountain and reversing course and the notion that you may not be able to see every above the clouds until you get to a to a base camp of which you've you you you you can look from a different vantage point. The third point and last point, my purpose in trying to deal with these or my angle of this same issue has been on the most urgent and I think the most proximate goal of which is to prevent a nuclear terrorist bomb going off in one of our cities. And what wakes me up in the morning or gets my juices flowing in this space is the conviction that on the current course, you see terrorist explode a nuclear bomb in one of our cities. I make it more likely than not within the decade that ends in 2014. Oh, I think this is gonna happen. And secondly, the more important truth that this is a preventable catastrophe that is even when it happens, it'll be for a worth of things that we could have done and then afterwards, we will say, we should have done, but some of which, we didn't do at all, some of which we didn't do expeditiously enough. Now, I tried to su summarize a strategy for prevention under just a snappy little version of adopted three norms. Your loose snoops and we dealt with this in one of the papers, all nuclear weapons, all material everywhere secured, as good as gold, as safe as Fort Knox. No second known known, no new looks knowing if which one of your enrichment of uranium or production of plutonium so that we do not producing more of this stuff. And then thirdly, no new nuclear weapon states, which is not to think North Korea as a nuclear weapon state, but is regarded as a self declared, but unrecognized state that has gotta to be rolled back. The question of of the the initiative ah raises is what what about a fourth note. And then maybe, the another no they have put says, "No nuclear weapons." And my version of that so far is in in the more proximate objective, no role for nuclear weapons in international affairs or a diminished role for nuclear weapons in international affairs, which operationally would include things like, no new nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons test, no fissile material. So, the agenda that has been outlined. So, by my last pinpoint is the suggestion that maybe as you're thinking about what's the next steps in this undertaking, I would say, focus on Sam's base camp as a more proximate objective and and ask about specific actions that could be taken to get from here to there, the obstacles for those actions, and how we can overcome. Yup uhm I agree with Henry's comments on the earlier session, which maybe have been forgotten, but had to do with this sayings of contemporary events to our agenda today and I agree with, at least Gram's first point. I've four points that would ah other than Gram's three. First though is the salience of the Iranian issue, both ways. So, I echo the point that you're not gonna climb up the mountain while there's a gigantic avalanche. You're either gonna run down or else you're gonna dig in and wait for a long time. Or be swept off - Ah but let me just now the the interesting point I wanna make here is not that to repeat that. It's a notice the salience of Iran going the other way. Uhm if our government is gonna make another big move on Iran of some kind, that move is much more appealing if it is paired with a universal agenda of the kindest group as discussed. As the of we need a world without nuclear weapons. And our hopes of ah cleaning that world could be irreversibly lost if we loose this battle and of us today. Now, therefore, I think I could make a plausible argument to the administration that says you're gonna need to call and make a move on it, one of some kind. You need to place that move on your short-term problem in the context of a long term agenda that isn't just appealing to the American people, but broadens your appeal to the world and places the Iranian issue in a much stronger global context. I think that's actually a very powerful way of using the Iran issue. And I think it's very important because we need to connect your agenda to an existing current problem. Most people don't think US-Russian strategic stability is a big problem. They may be wrong, but they don't think so. In the minds of most people, the hot problem at the moment really is Iran, much more than North Korea actually. You have to decide whether your initiative is relevant to the Iranian agenda or not. If you're answer is it's irrelevant to the Iranian agenda and it's free standing, I think it's gonna be on a slow train ah if it gets on a track at all coz there's a lot of attention for space and it's hard to get on track. If you connect it, if you say it is relevant to the Iranian movement, I think we just demonstrated that running both ways as it is potentially then you ought to get then you ought to explicitly work that into your strategy, including your strategy for lobbing either this administration or the next one especially if they're gonna make a move on Iran. That's my second point. I think this government is gonna make a move on Iran. I'm not speaking as an administration official. Ah it's ah it's ah just call it a personal guess, but it's an informed guess. I don't and I don't predict what kinda of a move coz I don't think our government knows yet what kind of a move it plans to make. I know what I know all about that. That doesn't count. That's the useful thing to do. This is more US bilateral financial sanctions on further Iranian entities. That's not a fundamental move. Ah I think the United States is going to conclude some time soon that it's pretty much played up the hand from the May 06 initiative and it's gonna have to decide what the next move is. And the fundamental decision for the administration is gonna be, "Do I make another big move or do I just take it off to the next president and put the fall on the next president's lap. They will again if they decide they're just gonna act, we have some take it off, they probably will not make any move any big move at all. They'll just use redirect and other things to just kinda carry it along. Uhm however, I think there's a pretty good chance that this administration will decide it needs to make some kind of move. And by the way, I think the shape of that kind of move is likely to be some kind of significant element that would intensify confrontation and vying with some kind of element that would intensify opportunity for dialog. The content of those, and I may be wrong about that, but that's my guest, that would be the logical conceptual framework and I don't know what the content of those two things would be. I have my own theory, but it's not important for this group. But my my argument my second argument though is, if you believe that there is likely to be a major move on Iran ah maybe, let's say spring '08 uhm we'd be allowed to put time into consider. Before this administration leaves off as well, they still have time to work on it. Or else it's gonna spring '09, it's gonna be the next press corp. Then that that offers a focal point for this groups work. And it goes here's my my third argument, is I wanna offer specific suggestion as to how this work thing gets paired within Iran. The logical pairing of that actually is a 1-2, is you first lead with a significant move on the broad universal agenda that puts this in a large context and then the number two move, which you would make it some interval of time later, but closely proximal. We then need to follow - a specific move on the Iranian parliament at short term that you thought would be controversial. On the way and on the big move, the my conceptual framework for that would have three parts. It would be a major argument for the general goal where I disagree with Gram. I actually think you need to put the general goal in view. You need to talk about some of the demand. Even if you can't visualize exactly what the trail looks like that some I think you have to talk about some. And yet, to make the argument for the general goal and the kinds of terms several of you avoiding many times. The second element is you need to have an agenda for US-Russian leadership and moving this agenda forward, which itself is an agenda for greatly intensified US-Russian dialogue at the time we talked about yesterday. My own conceptual map for that has six flanks, but yours might have a four. But, there is a really interesting US-Russian agenda that could blow out of this that has to be an integral part of the ministry. Third is a significant agenda for the fuel site. And here, I actually think that that needs to include some notional vision for an expanded role for international institutions, as well as a as well as a concept for further national action. Sam's proposal was of interest here. Gram's proposal actually uhm would flow into that as well, but I think you need to have an agenda related to the fuel cycle as well. And so, with those kinda parts, then you have a general in which the Iranian, whatever it may be, now seems related to a much broader ideal than the kind of narrow concerns that people now think animate American policy and sets a whole global agenda for the future of the world, is really at stake in Iran issue in a way that was not visible to you before we frame to the issue in this way. And then my fourth observation has to do with choreography. If you are looking at away I actually though your outline, George, was very good. As far as how you would do the choreography. The key stick I I would only question how you the India, Pakistan peace plus, actually I'm not sure that that either India or Pakistan would welcome the consultations that you would input on this stage for different reasons. Uhm just at this particular moment in time, especially the Pakistanis. But, could be, there is some real advantage to thinking about what it is the US does solo. What it is you want the US and Russians to walk out to do together, if they're really important to think about that. What it is you want the US and you to walk out and do together. And what it is you want the UN to do. Because I think it's very important actually to reduce the US solo optic as much as possible. For the benefit of your agenda, what you really want, you wanna come out of this a year from now saying, "The international goal is there. People think there is power behind it. And people think it's not just American power behind it." If those three things are true, the people think there's a goal, they think there's power behind it, and they think it's not just American power uhm, you're moving uphill. Thank you. I hope I I think that that's my speech here. Excuse me. Because the main task for North Korean government is to sell this program to the highest bidder. But so far they are succeeding. The shutting down of the Yang Dong facility brought them 25 million dollars plus oil. If they really have several dozens of kilos of plutonium, they'll be able to charge more. As as that they have several bombs, but many specialists think that what they have is not really bombs, but nuclear explosive devices. The certain optimism on the because there is place for optimism because of the joint declaration of North and South Korean leaders that they will be like we are moving to you know to nuclear zero, they're gonna be moving towards a unification. I don't know which one we'll have on earlier, nuclear zero or Korean unification. Secretary Annan said that we really should make sure of that the UN Security Council's decisions are enforced. I don't know how to achieve that regarding Iran because they're already ignoring two latest resolutions and the president of Iran has said, "Let them pass 10 resolutions, we don't give a damn." They are playing and will continue to play in contradictions between US and Europe on the one side and China and Russia on the other side. Although I hope that Russia would move towards the west in this in this regard. Ah the issue is that Iran, by not carrying out the UN resolutions, has put itself outside basically outside the international law. In this respect, even unilateral actions would be justified. For for example, from EU, Germany's trade with Iran is about 20 billion dollars. And the country that have these relations with Iran, can simply decide even without any additional UN resolutions to impose sanctions. That's I wanna say about Iran. Councilor Kampelman emphasized the importance of dialog between the US and Russian leaders and of the scientist working on the improved verification systems. Of course scientists should always work that's, you know, a very popular motto. But for now, they can take a break. Because we already have an unprecedentedly good verification system within the framework of as developed within the framework of START I US-Russian agreement Fifteen times of inspections. There are a hundred and more than a hundred and 50 types of notifications This, you know, doesn't even you know, this doesn't exist. This kind of transparency doesn't exist between the US and any of its allies It would be really helpful if you as leaders should convince France and the UK to accept unilateral fashion. Some of this some of the transparency measures and verification measures that are can contain us as START I, you know. 12 protocols. Actually, this is what they should do on the Article VI of nonproliferation treaty. Actually, all the NPT Review Conferences failed because of nuclear powers, uh ignored their obligations under Article VI Right now, there are you know there are some rather umm there are no particularly active negotiations going on between the US and the Russia. We need to attract other countries to the issues of verification to the issue of verification and transparency. Thank you. Thank you, Sergio? Thank you, I just wanted to make it final, at least the general declaration what I gathered from this meeting, first of all, to thank you all for having me here. In a way, it's having the United Nations with you. Although in an informal way and I'm very thankful for that. I think that at some point in your continuation of the work. You'll you'll feel the necessity to broaden and base of support. I think there is more or less of a sentiments in the group. We have in this today's listen to a lot of discussion in the relationship between the United States of Russia, but obviously as we progressed, as you progressed, you have to bring other actors into the plot. The argument has been here for has been made here for the need for our countries to be respected or at least to feel respected and these applies to the world community as a whole. The rest of the world also wants to feel respected. When you reach the point when you think that there's a need to quick start the process maybe we could consider having Russia and the United States issue some sort of a declaration by which they will reaffirm once again perhaps, their intention to work seriously towards the elimination of nuclear weapons to get to the zero visions that you have, but that declaration on my view, should be very clear that the intention that intention to get rid of the weapons is based on the recognition of their responsibility towards the rest of the world. And more than that, on the commitments they have accepted in international agreements. This is something that has been lacking for sometime, at least in the source of my view is a source of the lack of trust of by the rest of the world in the intentions of the nuclear weapons state. Eventually, of course given bring other countries into that that has been suggested in several ways, several manners and of course you are open with that is not yet the point in which you reach a decision on this. Whatever the decision I think it should be there and it think it's also something that if the group agrees to that through the United Nations in the United Nations context. It means security council, general assembly, it could be perhaps a special session on disarmament to believe if we could have been three had been three already and the last one has been 20 years ago, so it's high time that we have a special session on disarming particularly if we can master the degree of (clears throat) will to bring - to bring this world. Let me finally reiterate the interest of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in your effort and then in the issue that we have been discussing - and certainly my own office and the United Nations will be at your service if you feel the need for our help. Thank you very much Thank you. I'd like to begin by going back few hours to Jack's very excellent presentation and I I think that it underlines the - it underlines the the value of of the vision in the zero project. One of the principal problems with reducing the number of nuclear weapons, with enforcing nonproliferation and of course openly getting to zero is the political value that nuclear weapons have had since the beginning of the nuclear age. That in order for this project to succeed in my view, nuclear weapons have to be be delegitimized and and however that's done that that must happen I believe Britain made it very clear publicly why it built nuclear weapons in 1958. Harold McMillan said that put us right where we ought to be a great power. General De Gaule said something very similar (coughing) that if France to remain a great power has to have nuclear weapons that clearly is the Indian thinking. And I believe personally that a substantial element of Iran's interest in nuclear weapons is the same motivation and it's very difficult to persuade countries otherwise if they see nuclear weapons as essentially giving them a seat at the table or giving them respect they're going to want them. If I remember correctly, Ambassador Duarte tell me if I'm wrong but if I remember correctly President Lula in his first presidential campaign said in effect what Brazil needs is respect and the only way to get respect and this world is to have nuclear weapons so that has to change or nothing is going to change He never repeated that. Hmm? He never repeated that. He never repeated it but he said it once so at least he started once and I'm glad to hear that he didn't repeat it though. With respect to the Iran issue I thought Jack also made it a good point if some kind of muscular military action was taken against Iran it could be even though they are Shia and Pakistan is Sunni that could arouse sufficient sympathy in the Islamic world that Pakistan might decide to give weapons to Iran. In 1994 when I was in Pakistan staying with the American Ambassador he told me that a twice, in recent years, Iran had tried to in effect buy a nuclear weapon from Pakistan and both times have been turned down. Next time, maybe they'll accept and I am not sure Phil I mean I think Iran is tremendously important and a very, very dangerous situations which could not only undermine the NPT but the International Security but I don't see any good short term solutions that, that would really work. But beyond that, to my mind anyway, Pakistan represents a significantly greater danger than Iran when you can just imagine how easy it would be for a radical regime to take over there and acquire those 40-60 nuclear weapons in Pakistan that really worked or as John suggested sometime ago, maybe, people within the military there could make sure the militants got a few of those weapons over there. But we can't work with that problem in this room. What? We can't work the Pakistani problem that you prescribed in this room? I'm not saying we can work it. Yeah, that's why I didn't mention. Yeah, I, I don't think, I'm not sure we can work the Iranian problem neither. But those, those are the two, certainly the two big ones. Just briefly on what Raoul said about worldwide INF, Max says he seemed to remember right after the INF treaty was signed, you explored the possibility of, of looking into that but didn't get much positive response from the rest of the US government. It seems like, a good idea to me at that time but I don't know, perhaps. I agree with Sam that reversing directions, reversing our direction is the most important thing but long term it seems, I believe long term with the march of technology and the probable continued decline in world order, that there really is a significant chance that someday as Graham has suggested, a city will be, city or cities will be destroyed by some kind of nuclear devise taken, placed there by terrorists. And the result will be beyond our imagination, catastrophic. It won't just be that city destroyed; the world economy will be severely damaged. It may take years to recover. We need to move this project forward as fast as that is possible to do to at least make a contribution to reducing, reducing that risk. And in the shorter term, as I said earlier, I think we have to work to avoid the situation becoming worst, to avoid the deal with Iran but somehow deal with Pakistan and deal with other countries that may have an interest in going nuclear and we need to have a strong 2010 review conference and to my mind, the absolute best way for that to happen would be US ratification of the CTBT. I don't think anything, any of the others steps is even close as far as the immediate impact that would give, an entry into force may take longer but could get US ratification in China with that quite afterwards I'm confident. George I very much agree with your choreography. I think that's, that's the right way to go Thank you, Richard. I certainly agree with Sam Nunn's point. Either one is going up or down the mountain but it sounded that time it's almost as if people thought we were going down the mountain now. And I would only observe that the smallest number of nuclear weapons in the world is the number today. It's smaller that it was a year ago. It'll be smaller a year from now. And so we're in that sense, we're on the right path. There's a long way to go. And there's a long way to go in my view before you even have to face the question of do you go the last beat to zero? So I would put the emphasis on taking substantial steps to reduce the inventory still further if one cannot see a role for nuclear weapons in our policy then the numbers we have now are absurd. And then if there shouldn't be a lot of opposition to reducing them further. With respect to both Iran and North Korea, it seems to me in both cases there are countries other than the United States that could have a very substantial and I would think conclusive, just positive impact on them. China in the case of North Korea, Germany perhaps in the case of Iran. 20 billion dollars a year is a lot. And the Iranian economy is in trouble. And we ought to be able to marshal the support of our allies. In both cases, because Henry has put the question of in both cases of, I think we have a capacity to motivate the Chinese and the Germans. Now, people aren't gonna like what I say about how to do it. But in the real world, if we can persuade the Chinese leadership, if we could persuade some of our European allies that we take these next acts of proliferation so seriously, that if there is not a peaceful means of dealing with them, we have seriously to consider military means. I think that would be a powerful motivation for China. They don't want a war in the Peninsula and I think it would be, not only a powerful motivation but it would be helpful to the German chancellor as she deals with a difficult coalition partner. If she were able to say, look, we don't join in these sanctions, I can't promise you that, that George Bush on the way out the doors isn't gonna do something drastic. It's leverage that to the best of my knowledge, we are not now using. And given the importance of Iran especially but North Korea developed seems to me we ought to be doing those things while pushing hard for the reductions that are just common sense I, really want to say something about, I can break them up into, one is I wanna make a brief comment on the launch on warning discussions which were asked and then I want to make a comment on the general international proliferation. If you want me to separate them, I, You can do first and then the second. Okay. On the launch on warning, first of all I want to thank everybody. I've learned a lot here. Really a lot, I've not started enough about. But on launch of warning the more I've thought about it, I was security adviser for eight years. And this thought never occurred to me that we would launch on warning. And I have asked other security advisers and secretary of, I was very pre-occupied by the nuclear issue, and sent notes, who would form the group that I asked to come in. The first thing I did when I came in was to look at the war plan and have former Secretaries of Defense come in. I was sort of obsessed not being involved in starting a nuclear war. Nobody ever said to me, you've got only twelve minutes when something shows up and then later I scream, we never exercised it, I don't know how we would have found the president and the CIA director and this Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and 12 minutes and I can't believe that the Chief would, our thought was that we would ride out the attack and retaliate with a submarine, airplanes, and surviving missiles. Where I thought was a huge danger however, it's another thing. I thought the war plans involved casualties with people had no right to inflict on humanity that they destroyed the relationship between political objectives and military capacity and we tried very hard to get the more discriminating ah approach and that prove technically very difficult. And so my worry was not that we would be tricked into a war by a false alarm. My worry was that if were any reasons we gave for good reasons after a week's consideration we gave the order to start the war. Would we ever know how to stop it? Ah and before it had run its course, that was my real do you disagree with that? No, no, no, I saying you're absolutely right.. That was my real problem and it's a problem we ought to address in this group, however the war starts even as the serious deliberations. How can we prevent the automaticity of of actions? That life has in the directions that you have pointed out but which is put that forward for consideration and study that there is a problem. Ah it's not so much that we get triggered by the wrong signal. That could also happen, maybe, that could happen. I can't quite visualize how how it could happen, but I'll grant it that could happen. But the real problem in my mind was when you start any nuclear strategic action, how do you get control of that. But I thought Henry, you reporting to in the sense a deeper problem. A deeper problem? You were saying to yourself that a human being had a right to inflict the kind of damage on anybody that a nuclear weapon inflicts. Your your coming toward saying this is a weapon that exist, but is not in anybody's conscience usable. It's not employable in many ways. Ah and it's certainly that gets with the, the second thoughtI ah the German philosopher Kant, once said one day there will be universal peace It will come about either by human insight or by catastrophes over magnitude. That leaves no other choice. Now, uh-huh, [coughing] if weat. and I think we are approaching that point. Now, if it comes to my insight the one would be I have some disagreement with group here is your all seem to believe that there is some rational under pining in the world [coughing] that everybody [laughing] will believe and then everybody will agree to the same conclusion and then if you can only get the right discussions started. Not an assumption I would make. People will, will merge, will move towards that conclusion [coughing] that's the arms control matrix also 20 years ago. Now, as a semi historian and as a practicing ah. Statesman-diplomat ah I don't believe this is right. Ah I believe that the world today is ah in a ah in a unique situation. It's never happen before that every part [coughing] of the world could affect every other part of the world simultaneously and in real time. Ah it's never happened before that every part of the world was in turmoil in some way or another at the same time. So everybody is sort of searching for matrixes and the - and that quest is not the same in different parts of the world. Ah the international system that I wrote about was the people have studied was a states system. It was based on sovereignty [coughing] ah that means control of the ah of the state ah over the lives over at least part of the life of the people and the right of the state to ask its citizen for sacrifices on behalf of the future. Ah this is what made Europe so dynamic that it obviously has made us a great country. It's coming to Russia, China, it's it it's been a common situ. Now, the state system, it's breaking down. Ah. In Europe it it's [phone vibrating, ringing] [inaudible 45:48] and I entity, but it has created the dilemma in Europe. Ah that is the new political unit in Europe that's not yet have the loyalty of the population. And the old political entity has no longer the ability to exact sacrifices or the long term view of the future ah and as a result, European government find it very difficult to do anything long range or they ran any risks because the public won't support it. And the and that it's totally un that's it unique situation in ah in Europe and the it affect what we talking about with ah Iran. I read an article the other day with somebody who wrote a past he compared Charlemagne to Europe, the present Europe that goes in anybody, but he wound up to say when you have a civilization that has no armies, no faith, and no babies [coughing] what can I do? [laughing] ah [coughing] and the that is if they had a problem on Iran, that the government tried to push it into the future. Now, the Middle East, the opposite is the case, the state was never firmly established. Ah there is no states structure in the, in the Middle East and, therefore, fundamentalist organizations step in to create a new legitimacy or a third and new legitimacy ah becoming dominant and the government are becoming defensive and therefore, in the Middle East and then the Islamic World have some issue about world order. What is the legitimate basis of political organizations? There would at. at In Africa, which isn't fully relevant to this problem, the states are the borders of Colonial empire and therefore, the government's real problem is how to achieve any legitimacy and they do it by extreme violence inside their own countries, but with no great capacity for international activities. The only place where the state is still alive is Russia, U.S., and Asia. Ah and they are ah the, the relationships of the nations to each other is more similar to traditionally Europeans states. Ah toward each other, but also these nations are all in sort of competition with each other. So for example when I heard this morning I don't know whether ah it's connected, Russia and the United States proposed and INF participation at the U.N. On the one hand you could say that's a good sign of collaboration, on the other I promise you. In China that will be interpreted as a means a black mailing China and then Russia, they may be the [inaudible] (49:42) who will say that if China refuses it. Russia will have an excuse, to get out of the INF treaty, which they like to do anyway because of China. Ah so our motive and the Russian motive may not be at all did same. And you have Japan re-entry, but I don't have to make description of the international situation, simply to point out the international system. It's been such a complex state right now, that there isn't anyone seem you can put forward that will unite, uh, the whole international system. As we make these proposals, we ought to keep that framework in mind. At the same time, there is a necessity given the dangers to melt this various elements together into some larger framework and uh, and this is the task of our statesmen, American statesmanship at the moment, but it can't work unless we bring other countries into the effort. So, I would just put that, before us here to keep in mind, now to get to the issue of zero. On the one hand, I have stated that I think these weapons aren't unemployable, so I would be happy if we go to zero. On the other hand, we should be careful not to feed the contemporary escapism where you come out with some great Basically, I agree with George's approach on how to handle it. My own preferences to say yes we should go. Zero would be highly desirable objective. But let's do the maximum things we can do now and let's put it forward as a series of proposals that people need to work on but as we do that let's keep on mind what all this various trends are but undaunted we nudge to one final push. Whenever you come out with tough choice, you can see you can't do things with Iran because in Pakistan, will get angry with, and if Pakistan gets angry here, we can't nearly do anything about it either because; they have a lot of grievances. I think we got to do something about Iran. I think we will face a problem with Pakistan. I agree with people who are saying that and we got to deal with that. Not we, but when Pakistan is involved, India has an interest, Russia has an interest. So, we have to build this community of precept. (Clear throats), and now, who is absolutely that should do it. We shouldn't, even, that's not the issue right now. The issue right now is whether we can build the consensus in a very desperate environment or whether we can avoid American tendency of setting up a checklist and checking other countries by how well they go along without checklist. Our task is to get a common checklist on the widest possible basis before we ah -- that's my - Thank You Henry that's a very, ah -- stimulating statement. I will just add something to it if I could. Agreeing with your characterization of the deserving attention in the world, it's also the case that there is more expansion going, economic expansion going on in the world than ever before and it is widespread and in some places it's very rapid. And to the extent you are worried about things like poverty, poverty by virtue of economic expansion is being reduced at a more rapid rate in the last five or ten years than ever before in human history so there is a huge, gigantic possible development going on that inherently gives people a stake in seeing that it doesn't get upset and then continues and so you have to say yourself what can upset it and we could see a lot of things, rising protectionism, the energy situation is on a very precarious balance, it can upset things a lot with the huge attacks say on Saudi Arabia or something like that. I think the biggest threat is Islamic terrorism or whatever you want to call it, using a nuclear weapon. That can freeze up the system and cause people, just sort close down and what has made all of these works so well. So I'm just adding an element of agreeing entirely with what you say but adding an element that there is something good happening and that people have a stake in it, an interest in it and instinctively probably feel that way even though there are very different circumstances and nevertheless there are being affected mostly positively by this global pattern of trade and investment and one of the appeals of the kind of thing we are talking about is among the ways in which you protect the ability of those who were for the first time in their areas seen a little bit of an improvement in their standard of living, how they how they can preserve that.