Have a lot of article two people in this room. Even though the title as i understand this is the imperial presidency. Understand that republicans have always sort of deferred to the administration, to the executive branch for Foreign Policy issues. I agree with some of the speakers that on the other Hand Congress has its appropriate roam. Well, administrations have negotiated the u. N. Security Council Sanctions and its my bleach that the administration does have the ability on your own accord to deal with those sanctions. The executive branching also has their own executive sanctions that they put in place against iran and i believe obviously they have the right to dole deal with those as they choose. On the other hand, there are congressionally mandated sanctions that congress put in place. As a matter of fact, Congress Puts them in place with the administration in essence kicking and screaming all along the way, saying that somehow or another this was going to be damaging with our r
This land is my land, from california, to the New York Island sunday afternoon at 2 00 on American History tv on cspan3. Congress continues on its twoweek recess, several members are traveling. Nancy pelosi is in cambodia with a bipartisan delegation of members. The delegation visited the halo trust facility in cambodia. The delegation will travel to vietnam, korea and japan. John boehner is in the middle east. He met with iraqs prime minister. The speaker will travel to israel later this week. A press release says he and a delegation as the deadline approaches tonight for an Iranian Nuclear agreement, we present a discussion about Nuclear Weapons, National Security and the future of the bomb. Posted by the Panel Discussion for the Southern Methodist University Tower center for Political Studies and includes a former commander of u. S. Strategic command. Good evening. Welcome to smu and the special forum on Nuclear Weapons. Welcome also to the security and Strategy Program here at smu.
But there are lots of arguments. The one interesting surprise that we point out in the historical record is that the United States went to great lengths, greater lengths than we perhaps realized in the past, to keep its friends and allies nonnuclear van itd even its enemies. Countries ranging from west germany to japan to south korea and australia, italy and sweden, the list goes on and on. In fact, issued a willingness to work with its adversary, the soviet union, against its allies to accomplish it. The third important question is an age old one how much is enough . In other words, what are the fourth and strategy requirements for Nuclear Deterrence . And are they different than the requirement for assuring allies . Can a state achieve meaningful nuclear superiority, and if so, what are the benefits of achieving such privacy . This is a comics question, but during the cold war, there were two leading views. Many of the academic and think tank analyst, renowned thinkers like bernard b
The professor. Im fascinated by his review of the u. S. Arsenal and the questions that he posed and the puzzles that he talked about are spot on. The a very interesting conversations and necessary. I might yield a little bit of a bucket of cold water myself because i will speak with a little more certainty but i will say i think he raises fair points about how certain we can be about some of our tried and true assumptions related to nuclear waepaoeapons and deterrents. As you heard, i served for almost 39 years in uniform. Much associated with the Strategic Forces so the opinions you would hear from me are mine and they will have a military flavor to them. As you heard i will take a minute and i will piggyback on what professor gavin said. I think his points bear repeating. Let me do it with a little bit of my own military slant. No question about it Nuclear Weapons have occupied a unique space since august of 1945. I would assert while Nuclear Weapons were conceived to win a war, shor
Listen to expertise. We will see you in a few moments. Thank you very much. Next to be you in person. I think we are going to get going with the next segment. I am delighted to be joined by our colleagues. We have a lot to cover. It is a good think that i know they will have a lot to say. Please remember to keep in mind we would love to have your questions toward the end. I want to dive right in and i want to start with you if i could. I would love for each of you to give your reaction to what was shared with us. If there are areas of interest or confusion or that you think are important to be aware of, anything that really caught your attention. Mike thanks, melanie. I will focus on one issue because it is the issue that has troubled me with the National Security strategy and Foreign Policy in general, which is the potential to overdo the china threat. I dont think they do anything wrong, the choice of term pacing challenge is right on and he explained very clearly why it is a pacing