Transcripts For CSPAN3 Former Senator Sam Nunn D-Georgia - T

Initiative. We are here to talk about the events of the cold war as you experienced them. Let us start with you. When we think about the cold war the scariest moment was the cuban missile crisis in october 1962. Where were you october 1962 and talk to us about your experience with the cuban missile crisis . Fmr. Sen. Nunn stan, i was 24 years old and had been a staff lawyer on the Services Committee for three and a half or four months. My boss was john jay courtney. He had been there a long time. Terrifican with a legal ability and judgment. Due to in before he was get on an airplane with the air force and go on a trip with 10 or 12 other members, staff members, of the armed Services Committee. As well as the appropriation committee. This was a group of 45, 50yearold experienced people. Haveme in and said, sam, i got a marriage in my family. My family says i have got to go. I cannot go on this trip. Would you like to take my place . I had never been out of the country. I said, yes, sir, i would be glad to do it. We left and had a three week trip to nato. Right in the middle of the trip with the air force cuban missile crisis broke out. I had just received my topsecret clearance right before i left. Stan your 24 years old . Fmr. Sen. Nunn just turned 24 years old. Right out of law school. We were briefed by the air force with photographs and all the classified information once the cuban missile crisis broke out. We are going to the air force base on the night where it looked like we were going to war. I happened to be, because they rotated people who sat by the top general, i happened to be sitting by the Top Air Force general in europe that night at dinner. Computer with communication equipment. During dinner he told me he had about 20 or 30 seconds once he got the signal to basically turn loose his aircraft to go after the soviet union as we thought we were going to war. He had about 30 seconds to give his orders to his men and he had them sitting by the planes. These were what they called qra aircraft, Quick Reaction aircraft. One mission, one bound toward moscow. They had to bail out on the way back because of fighter planes. The fact they were the first to arrive so to speak they would get there long before the strategic bombers if war broke out. In all likelihood, it would have. Thet that they were base was the prime target. That brought a sense of reality to me about the dangers of nuclear war. It had no effect on the rest of my life. I remember jokingly, but not completely, telling the general, i said, i am delighted you turned your glass over and not having any drinks tonight. [laughs] he had an awesome responsibility. It brought home to me two things. How close we came to war and how much subjective judgment was involved in the crucial decisions to avoid war. And second, how little warning time we had. Back in those days there was more warning and decision time for leaders the other is now. Because the airplanes flew much lower and they had failsafes. You could call them back. But today we have missiles that are much faster. The decision time, for our leaders today people do not think about it. It is much shorter for the russian president as well as the u. S. President. That is a problem that i still work on and im concerned about. Timeg very little decision in a moment of great crisis is extremely dangerous for the world and that is, to me, one of the prime goals we should have today, which is to give both u. S. And russian leaders more time so that we do not move into a war, nuclear war, by blunder. A lot of lessons came out of that trip and it really did affect an awful lot of what i did in the armed Services Committee and still do today in terms of working on reducing nuclear risk. Stan was that trip instrumental in the decision you would eventually make to run for the u. S. Senate . How did this shape the rest of your life . Fmr. Sen. Nunn it had a lot to do with what i did once i got elected. Of course the Nuclear Issues and never what you campaign on because that is not something people really like to think about. Still dont. I do not blame them, but it did have to do with my agenda once elected. In terms of running for the senate, my ambition was to be a member of the house of representatives because that is where i served. I saw the chairman of the committee in the peak of power and so the house is where i was aiming. But the Congressional District did not become available for me in georgia. We were on the wrong end of the least populated area of the district that went eastwest. Basically i had planned to run for the house and it did not run workout. I ran for the senate after senator russell died on a long shot. I got lucky. The senate was beyond my ambition at that stage, but being in the congress was very much something i was interested in. Stan you have said, talking about the risk of nuclear war during the cold war, we were very lucky. There were a number of times i know about, and probably more i do not know about, where only by the grace of god did we avoid going to war. Did you ever experience anything like the cuban missile crisis again maybe the American People do not know about . Fmr. Sen. Nunn looking back on it i have determined a lot of times were accidents couldve happened. But in the cuban missile crisis the difference was it was public. Everybody knew when it was happening. When you look back there were near accidents a number of times during the cold war. We inadvertently dropped a nuclear bomb right in the Atlantic Coast not many miles from savannah, georgia that never was really retrieved. We had all sorts of accidents. I think we had great professional military people so did the russians. They couldve had an accident as well as we could. I do think we were very professional in both the u. S. And the soviet militaries. They were careful and so forth so they get credit for that. We were also lucky. By the grace of god we never had a war by accident. That is still a major concern. With the compressed warning time and cyber tempting both adversaries to the extent we are still an adversary with russia, we have huge amount of Nuclear Arsenals in both inventories deployed, and we have a shorter decision time then we did during the cuban missile crisis. When you introduce cyber and possible interference a commandandcontrol and Warning Systems, i still very much worry about compressed decision time, and if i had my way today and i have told president obama this, i have told President Trump this, and i have told president putin this if i had my way, the leaders would call in their military and say, we have a mutual existential interest to give each other for warning time. Us,ff and find ways to find if we have got four minutes now hypothetically, give us 10 minutes. If we have got 10 minutes, give us 20. Us one hour. Give and then a day and then a week and then you make Nuclear Weapons less relevant. That is the course we have to have to get the weapons down and inventories not simply a matter of reducing numbers. It has to do with survivability, of being able to solve first strike and still retaliate. Areais a highly technical but it is enormously important for the public to realize that, for instance, it is in the u. S. Interest for the russian Warning Systems to work correctly today. It is not in our interest to interfere with those Warning Systems which could set off a nuclear war by accident. The chances stand of nuclear war by accident miscalculation are much greater than the chances of deliberate, premeditated attack. Those who have written history found out looking at russian history and interviewing american leaders that during the cuban missile crisis the chances of a blunder were very high. There were certain authorities that have been delegated to the andet commanders at sea grounding queue but did not know at the time. We came very close during that ame to a deliberate war, but war that couldve stilled and started wit that nobody wanted. This is all still relevant. We should find ways to make the world save safer and reduce nuclear risk. 2020 there are still a lot of similar face. Stan talk to me about your 1974 visit to the tactical storage base in germany. You did an inspection and everything you were told was great. You said a sergeant slipped you a note and said, see me afterward. Fmr. Sen. Nunn that is right. Somebody had been shot by a burglar. Nothing to do with assassination. In 1973 right after i got to senate. He relied on me when he came back to take trips and come back and report. He had assigned a top staff person, Mike Sullivan he was very knowledgeable. We were touring a weapon base in nato, and germany. We had hundreds of them, thousands actually, and so did the soviets. These are short range systems that are used on the battlefield. We are touring that base and it was highly sensitive in terms of security. It was postvietnam, winding down of vietnam, so you had a demoralized american military. The army had had all sorts of problems in vietnam, had been a bad experience. Drugs, alcohol, so we were touring the space and of course we got what i call the dog and pony show. The top general will tell you everything is fine. As we were Walking Around a sergeant handed me a crumbled know and said, senator, this is bs. My buddies and me in the barracks will tell you what is really going on. He said like 5 00. It is clear he did not want officers there. There was a lot of strain between enlisted and officers because of vietnam. Person, frank sullivan, and i heard a litany of hors horrors. There were dogs that were not patrolling the prerotor, the fences were not working, alcohol problems among the guards, narcotics problems. The police, the german police, that would have been the first rescuers if there were 10 or 15 people that broke into the base and tried to seize weapons. Not necessarily set them off, but change the political equation. Gangs, terrorism, people were being thknee capped. It was a bad situation. Stateso alarmed about the of those Nuclear Weapons, the security of those weapons, that when i went back to washington jims licensure with the scretary jim a secretary of defense i dumped into his lap and said we had a bad security problem. A lot ofout doing changes to do something about it. Protecting those not because some group is going to use them. That would be a little more complicated. But because it would have tremendously disrupted the entire political relationship if a group of terrorists had secure the weapon base which was possible. It was in a pretty remote area. I learned from that that yes, listen to the generals and the admirals because they see it from a broad point of view and we have tremendous military leadership. Did then and still do. But you also need to listen to the sergeant and enlisted people who are on the frontline. They can tell you what is really going on and they will usually be pretty darn frank. Stan you were serving in the u. S. Senate during watergate and when president nixon resigned in 1974 was there ever concern among congressman or any National Security people in the transition to power . We had never had a president resign with the turmoil going on. Was there ever concern about Nuclear Weapons . Fmr. Sen. Nunn well, there was, but when you talk about chaos and turmoil people think today about how could it be any more chaotic . We do have a lot of problems today. Elected then i got in 1972. In four years, i served three president s and four Vice President s. Turmoil going on and there was a lot of tension when president nixon was under investigation, a lot of pressure, and according to all of the reports i did not know it at the time but he was engaged more heavily in alcohol then would have been normally. My understanding is, and i have talked about it personally with him because he was a friend, but he never responded. I asked them to her three times washe secretary of defense reported to have said to the commanders, he never verified it directly. A wink and a nod told me a little bit. He said if you get a call from the president , check with me or the secretary of state before you carry out any serious orders involving Nuclear Weapons. Yes, we had some serious problems. Both ins the question, russia and the United States and to some extent china, do you what one person as the Sole Authority to be able to launch nuclear war and destroy gods universe . Do you want one person to make that decision . My answer after a long number of years is no. But to move beyond Sole Authority and continue to have the deterrence you need is a very tricky proposition and would require congress to organize itself in a very different way then it is organized today. 70 has got to be able to make a rapid somebody has got to make rapid decisions. That has to be very rapid if you are going to continue deterrence. Stan, this is a live question today. There is a debate with a virus and nobody is paying attention, but there is serious debate on whether we ought to continue as long as we have this arsenal of Nuclear Weapons. Meaning the president can make the decision alone. Most people in the country do not know that, but you also have very compressed decision time. , whetherll of us the u. S. President or russian president , if a general walks in and says, i think we are under attack. We may be hit next 15 minutes. You got to launch weapons now or we lose them. When that happens you would like for the leader to have time to consult, time to think, perhaps if he had a couple of glasses of wine for dinner, to have a black cup of coffee. I think we would like that. That is where the nexus between Sole Authority and decision time comes in. But you have to be very careful about how you set up any authority beyond simply the president because of that compressed timeframe. Stan historically, the United States was the First Nuclear country. We developed the atomic bomb and 9045. The soviets in 1949 and the technology moved beyond the atomic weapons. How any nations today are Nuclear Powered . Fmr. Sen. Nunn in terms of Nuclear Weapon states that have weapons, there are nine countries. There have been several added including india and pakistan and israel. Yet the chinese, u. S. , the russians. One of the bits of good news people do not realize is that after the soviet union broke up three countries give up Nuclear Weapons. Belarus, ukraine, and because extent inherited a part of the soviet arsenal on theirs territory. After a lot of work in the Clinton Administration, and people did not realize that was going on, we in russia working together got three of those countries to give up Nuclear Weapons. It is an interesting story. One of the ways we attracted particularly ukraine because extent to get rid of their kazakhstan get rid of their weapons was because you as if you willwn fuelpower plants fe for power plants. We would work with russia to convert it to fuel and we bought it for our power plants. 20 of the electricity in this country is Still Nuclear power. About 2001 we fuel from those weapons that had been dismantled in uranium and made it into fuel. We bought enough material for 50 of our fuel supply. If you do the arithmetic, 20 of electricity comes from nuclear. 50 of the fuel and 10 of all electricity in america, light bulbs, everything else, came from material that had been weapons pointed at us during the cold war. The was a big move in 1990s not many people paid attention to. Nunnlugar funding help get those countries that inherited weapons, as well as russia, get control of the chemical and biological weapons program. That basically resulted in the dismantling of thousands of nuclear warheads, destruction of bombers, submarines, missiles, missile silos and so forth. Particularly in the countries that decided not to keep Nuclear Weapons, belarus, kazakhstan, and ukraine. Thousandso got rid of of Nuclear Weapons during that period of time as did the United States. With all the continuing problems we have a Nuclear Weapons we have vastly small inventory, we in russia, then we did during the peak of the cold war. We got rid of the destabilizing weapons which are short range weapons that were stationed in europe by the soviets and United States. We still have too many of them, but those are the most destabilizing weapons. You deploy them near the front line which means if there is a war, all of a sudden a commander has got to make a decision. Do you get permission and use them . Permission from the president . Or do you let them get overrun and captured . Tactical battlefield Nuclear Weapons are the most destabilizing because you have got to use them or lose them if there is any addition of war. We are seeing that nightmare unfold in pakistan with pakistan and india. Pakistan having their own tactical Nuclear Weapons. They are kind of repeating one of the most dangerous phases of the cold war that the United States and soviets went through. We have not cured our problem, but we have much less danger than we did when we had thousands of those weapons deployed on the front lines of the battlefield and a decision had to be made quickly to use them or lose them. War,phase of the cold probably a good thing in many ways the American People never fully realized, but we were postured in data for a long time. Us and our european allies, germany particularly, to use Services Committee<\/a> for three and a half or four months. My boss was john jay courtney. He had been there a long time. Terrifican with a legal ability and judgment. Due to in before he was get on an airplane with the air force and go on a trip with 10 or 12 other members, staff members, of the armed Services Committee<\/a>. As well as the appropriation committee. This was a group of 45, 50yearold experienced people. Haveme in and said, sam, i got a marriage in my family. My family says i have got to go. I cannot go on this trip. Would you like to take my place . I had never been out of the country. I said, yes, sir, i would be glad to do it. We left and had a three week trip to nato. Right in the middle of the trip with the air force cuban missile crisis broke out. I had just received my topsecret clearance right before i left. Stan your 24 years old . Fmr. Sen. Nunn just turned 24 years old. Right out of law school. We were briefed by the air force with photographs and all the classified information once the cuban missile crisis broke out. We are going to the air force base on the night where it looked like we were going to war. I happened to be, because they rotated people who sat by the top general, i happened to be sitting by the Top Air Force<\/a> general in europe that night at dinner. Computer with communication equipment. During dinner he told me he had about 20 or 30 seconds once he got the signal to basically turn loose his aircraft to go after the soviet union as we thought we were going to war. He had about 30 seconds to give his orders to his men and he had them sitting by the planes. These were what they called qra aircraft, Quick Reaction<\/a> aircraft. One mission, one bound toward moscow. They had to bail out on the way back because of fighter planes. The fact they were the first to arrive so to speak they would get there long before the strategic bombers if war broke out. In all likelihood, it would have. Thet that they were base was the prime target. That brought a sense of reality to me about the dangers of nuclear war. It had no effect on the rest of my life. I remember jokingly, but not completely, telling the general, i said, i am delighted you turned your glass over and not having any drinks tonight. [laughs] he had an awesome responsibility. It brought home to me two things. How close we came to war and how much subjective judgment was involved in the crucial decisions to avoid war. And second, how little warning time we had. Back in those days there was more warning and decision time for leaders the other is now. Because the airplanes flew much lower and they had failsafes. You could call them back. But today we have missiles that are much faster. The decision time, for our leaders today people do not think about it. It is much shorter for the russian president as well as the u. S. President. That is a problem that i still work on and im concerned about. Timeg very little decision in a moment of great crisis is extremely dangerous for the world and that is, to me, one of the prime goals we should have today, which is to give both u. S. And russian leaders more time so that we do not move into a war, nuclear war, by blunder. A lot of lessons came out of that trip and it really did affect an awful lot of what i did in the armed Services Committee<\/a> and still do today in terms of working on reducing nuclear risk. Stan was that trip instrumental in the decision you would eventually make to run for the u. S. Senate . How did this shape the rest of your life . Fmr. Sen. Nunn it had a lot to do with what i did once i got elected. Of course the Nuclear Issues<\/a> and never what you campaign on because that is not something people really like to think about. Still dont. I do not blame them, but it did have to do with my agenda once elected. In terms of running for the senate, my ambition was to be a member of the house of representatives because that is where i served. I saw the chairman of the committee in the peak of power and so the house is where i was aiming. But the Congressional District<\/a> did not become available for me in georgia. We were on the wrong end of the least populated area of the district that went eastwest. Basically i had planned to run for the house and it did not run workout. I ran for the senate after senator russell died on a long shot. I got lucky. The senate was beyond my ambition at that stage, but being in the congress was very much something i was interested in. Stan you have said, talking about the risk of nuclear war during the cold war, we were very lucky. There were a number of times i know about, and probably more i do not know about, where only by the grace of god did we avoid going to war. Did you ever experience anything like the cuban missile crisis again maybe the American People<\/a> do not know about . Fmr. Sen. Nunn looking back on it i have determined a lot of times were accidents couldve happened. But in the cuban missile crisis the difference was it was public. Everybody knew when it was happening. When you look back there were near accidents a number of times during the cold war. We inadvertently dropped a nuclear bomb right in the Atlantic Coast<\/a> not many miles from savannah, georgia that never was really retrieved. We had all sorts of accidents. I think we had great professional military people so did the russians. They couldve had an accident as well as we could. I do think we were very professional in both the u. S. And the soviet militaries. They were careful and so forth so they get credit for that. We were also lucky. By the grace of god we never had a war by accident. That is still a major concern. With the compressed warning time and cyber tempting both adversaries to the extent we are still an adversary with russia, we have huge amount of Nuclear Arsenals<\/a> in both inventories deployed, and we have a shorter decision time then we did during the cuban missile crisis. When you introduce cyber and possible interference a commandandcontrol and Warning Systems<\/a>, i still very much worry about compressed decision time, and if i had my way today and i have told president obama this, i have told President Trump<\/a> this, and i have told president putin this if i had my way, the leaders would call in their military and say, we have a mutual existential interest to give each other for warning time. Us,ff and find ways to find if we have got four minutes now hypothetically, give us 10 minutes. If we have got 10 minutes, give us 20. Us one hour. Give and then a day and then a week and then you make Nuclear Weapons<\/a> less relevant. That is the course we have to have to get the weapons down and inventories not simply a matter of reducing numbers. It has to do with survivability, of being able to solve first strike and still retaliate. Areais a highly technical but it is enormously important for the public to realize that, for instance, it is in the u. S. Interest for the russian Warning Systems<\/a> to work correctly today. It is not in our interest to interfere with those Warning Systems<\/a> which could set off a nuclear war by accident. The chances stand of nuclear war by accident miscalculation are much greater than the chances of deliberate, premeditated attack. Those who have written history found out looking at russian history and interviewing american leaders that during the cuban missile crisis the chances of a blunder were very high. There were certain authorities that have been delegated to the andet commanders at sea grounding queue but did not know at the time. We came very close during that ame to a deliberate war, but war that couldve stilled and started wit that nobody wanted. This is all still relevant. We should find ways to make the world save safer and reduce nuclear risk. 2020 there are still a lot of similar face. Stan talk to me about your 1974 visit to the tactical storage base in germany. You did an inspection and everything you were told was great. You said a sergeant slipped you a note and said, see me afterward. Fmr. Sen. Nunn that is right. Somebody had been shot by a burglar. Nothing to do with assassination. In 1973 right after i got to senate. He relied on me when he came back to take trips and come back and report. He had assigned a top staff person, Mike Sullivan<\/a> he was very knowledgeable. We were touring a weapon base in nato, and germany. We had hundreds of them, thousands actually, and so did the soviets. These are short range systems that are used on the battlefield. We are touring that base and it was highly sensitive in terms of security. It was postvietnam, winding down of vietnam, so you had a demoralized american military. The army had had all sorts of problems in vietnam, had been a bad experience. Drugs, alcohol, so we were touring the space and of course we got what i call the dog and pony show. The top general will tell you everything is fine. As we were Walking Around<\/a> a sergeant handed me a crumbled know and said, senator, this is bs. My buddies and me in the barracks will tell you what is really going on. He said like 5 00. It is clear he did not want officers there. There was a lot of strain between enlisted and officers because of vietnam. Person, frank sullivan, and i heard a litany of hors horrors. There were dogs that were not patrolling the prerotor, the fences were not working, alcohol problems among the guards, narcotics problems. The police, the german police, that would have been the first rescuers if there were 10 or 15 people that broke into the base and tried to seize weapons. Not necessarily set them off, but change the political equation. Gangs, terrorism, people were being thknee capped. It was a bad situation. Stateso alarmed about the of those Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, the security of those weapons, that when i went back to washington jims licensure with the scretary jim a secretary of defense i dumped into his lap and said we had a bad security problem. A lot ofout doing changes to do something about it. Protecting those not because some group is going to use them. That would be a little more complicated. But because it would have tremendously disrupted the entire political relationship if a group of terrorists had secure the weapon base which was possible. It was in a pretty remote area. I learned from that that yes, listen to the generals and the admirals because they see it from a broad point of view and we have tremendous military leadership. Did then and still do. But you also need to listen to the sergeant and enlisted people who are on the frontline. They can tell you what is really going on and they will usually be pretty darn frank. Stan you were serving in the u. S. Senate during watergate and when president nixon resigned in 1974 was there ever concern among congressman or any National Security<\/a> people in the transition to power . We had never had a president resign with the turmoil going on. Was there ever concern about Nuclear Weapons<\/a> . Fmr. Sen. Nunn well, there was, but when you talk about chaos and turmoil people think today about how could it be any more chaotic . We do have a lot of problems today. Elected then i got in 1972. In four years, i served three president s and four Vice President<\/a> s. Turmoil going on and there was a lot of tension when president nixon was under investigation, a lot of pressure, and according to all of the reports i did not know it at the time but he was engaged more heavily in alcohol then would have been normally. My understanding is, and i have talked about it personally with him because he was a friend, but he never responded. I asked them to her three times washe secretary of defense reported to have said to the commanders, he never verified it directly. A wink and a nod told me a little bit. He said if you get a call from the president , check with me or the secretary of state before you carry out any serious orders involving Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Yes, we had some serious problems. Both ins the question, russia and the United States<\/a> and to some extent china, do you what one person as the Sole Authority<\/a> to be able to launch nuclear war and destroy gods universe . Do you want one person to make that decision . My answer after a long number of years is no. But to move beyond Sole Authority<\/a> and continue to have the deterrence you need is a very tricky proposition and would require congress to organize itself in a very different way then it is organized today. 70 has got to be able to make a rapid somebody has got to make rapid decisions. That has to be very rapid if you are going to continue deterrence. Stan, this is a live question today. There is a debate with a virus and nobody is paying attention, but there is serious debate on whether we ought to continue as long as we have this arsenal of Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Meaning the president can make the decision alone. Most people in the country do not know that, but you also have very compressed decision time. , whetherll of us the u. S. President or russian president , if a general walks in and says, i think we are under attack. We may be hit next 15 minutes. You got to launch weapons now or we lose them. When that happens you would like for the leader to have time to consult, time to think, perhaps if he had a couple of glasses of wine for dinner, to have a black cup of coffee. I think we would like that. That is where the nexus between Sole Authority<\/a> and decision time comes in. But you have to be very careful about how you set up any authority beyond simply the president because of that compressed timeframe. Stan historically, the United States<\/a> was the First Nuclear<\/a> country. We developed the atomic bomb and 9045. The soviets in 1949 and the technology moved beyond the atomic weapons. How any nations today are Nuclear Powered<\/a> . Fmr. Sen. Nunn in terms of Nuclear Weapon<\/a> states that have weapons, there are nine countries. There have been several added including india and pakistan and israel. Yet the chinese, u. S. , the russians. One of the bits of good news people do not realize is that after the soviet union broke up three countries give up Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Belarus, ukraine, and because extent inherited a part of the soviet arsenal on theirs territory. After a lot of work in the Clinton Administration<\/a>, and people did not realize that was going on, we in russia working together got three of those countries to give up Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. It is an interesting story. One of the ways we attracted particularly ukraine because extent to get rid of their kazakhstan get rid of their weapons was because you as if you willwn fuelpower plants fe for power plants. We would work with russia to convert it to fuel and we bought it for our power plants. 20 of the electricity in this country is Still Nuclear<\/a> power. About 2001 we fuel from those weapons that had been dismantled in uranium and made it into fuel. We bought enough material for 50 of our fuel supply. If you do the arithmetic, 20 of electricity comes from nuclear. 50 of the fuel and 10 of all electricity in america, light bulbs, everything else, came from material that had been weapons pointed at us during the cold war. The was a big move in 1990s not many people paid attention to. Nunnlugar funding help get those countries that inherited weapons, as well as russia, get control of the chemical and biological weapons program. That basically resulted in the dismantling of thousands of nuclear warheads, destruction of bombers, submarines, missiles, missile silos and so forth. Particularly in the countries that decided not to keep Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, belarus, kazakhstan, and ukraine. Thousandso got rid of of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> during that period of time as did the United States<\/a>. With all the continuing problems we have a Nuclear Weapons<\/a> we have vastly small inventory, we in russia, then we did during the peak of the cold war. We got rid of the destabilizing weapons which are short range weapons that were stationed in europe by the soviets and United States<\/a>. We still have too many of them, but those are the most destabilizing weapons. You deploy them near the front line which means if there is a war, all of a sudden a commander has got to make a decision. Do you get permission and use them . Permission from the president . Or do you let them get overrun and captured . Tactical battlefield Nuclear Weapons<\/a> are the most destabilizing because you have got to use them or lose them if there is any addition of war. We are seeing that nightmare unfold in pakistan with pakistan and india. Pakistan having their own tactical Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. They are kind of repeating one of the most dangerous phases of the cold war that the United States<\/a> and soviets went through. We have not cured our problem, but we have much less danger than we did when we had thousands of those weapons deployed on the front lines of the battlefield and a decision had to be made quickly to use them or lose them. War,phase of the cold probably a good thing in many ways the American People<\/a> never fully realized, but we were postured in data for a long time. Us and our european allies, germany particularly, to use Nuclear Weapons<\/a> quickly and ask the president i do not think any president knew how quickly they were going to be asked by the battlefield commanders. We dismantled a lot of military after world war ii. The soviets kept theirs. Tanks andrtillery and so the first offset to that was the deployment of thousands of tactical Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, battlefield Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, on the u. S. Side. All of that is part of the cold war history but still relevant today. There are residual weapons there, particularly the russians still have those weapons in russian part of europe. Withry is repeating itself india and pakistan which may be one of the more dangerous places in the world. Stan you mentioned you served in rapid succession in the 1970s with three president s. You served with sex during the six during the administration. When you are running for senator you did not talk about Nuclear Weapons<\/a> because it was not a Kitchen Table<\/a> issue for voters. For those who did not grow up during the cold war, did it enter president ial politics . I know we talk about who is tough on terrorism and democrats and republicans accuse the other of being soft on communism or who is going to be tougher on russia. But was it part of the campaign that they would not hesitate . You mentioned some president s did not know how quickly they would be called upon. Was it an issue for american president s to say, i would not hesitate . Did any president say, i have a moral problem . Fmr. Sen. Nunn it came to the forefront in terms of the public Lyndon Johnson<\/a> was running against barry goldwater. There is an advertisement because it case was being made that goldwater was ready, fire, aim. Stan law went into the mens one at the kremlin lob into the mens room of the kremlin. [bleep[laughter] fmr. Sen. Nunn that is right. I have talked to a number of leaders and i would not identify any president in this crowd that long and hard before they were given order to release Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. That includes top people in the military command. Everya moral question military commander is charged with the responsibility of carrying out orders from the commanderinchief. They have to be moral and how do you determine that . Do you have 10 new york lawyers come in and say, this is legal and moral . No. It gets down to judgment. But generally speaking the role and i think we have to assume this in russia and the United States<\/a> and Great Britain<\/a> and china and india and pakistan when military gives in order, they are going to carry it out. Doubt thats president would use Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, what is deterrence . Deterrence has to be if you are hit with Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, then you will retaliate. The problem today that i think we could cut some of the risk certainly not all of it if we made a position known in america, we will not use Nuclear Weapons<\/a> first. We would only use them in response. To do that you have to be able to survive a nuclear attack. Our submarines give us that ability because, at this stage, they are not detectable. Survivability is very important. If you are not going to use Nuclear Weapons<\/a> first, you have to be able to solve that attack absorbed that attack and then return attack. The same applies to russia. Decidesussian president they cannot survive a nuclear attack, if he gets a warning, then he is not going to wait until he is hit. He would launch on warning. False,ng could be particularly in the cyber world where you have interference in commandandcontrol. Even by third countries. Moved into a new era. I do not think that has been realized. I think the president of russia and the United States<\/a>, we both have existential interest and Warning Systems<\/a> working properly. I think we have an existential president n getting a more decision time. Nti, Flash Forward<\/a> to today, we have developed a little game, a wargame, called hairtrigger. It walks through the decisionmaking a president would have to make and it puts whoever is playing the game in charge of making decisions that could lead to nuclear war or could help prevent the cold war. That is kind of a game that, unfortunately, is still relevant. I think the world has to worry we could say everybody is somber and countries have the right to make sure, but if india and pakistan had a war with each other, and had 100 weapons hypothetically and the both have substantially more than that, it koolaid. Se global 100 Million People<\/a> would die couple of years. There is a world stake in all of this. Einstein supposedly said, when in the Nuclear Weapon<\/a> first tested, we changed everything. This changes everything except mans thinking. There is also a quote attributed to him whether this is accurate or not i do not know but i know not which weapons will be used in world war iii, but i do know world war for will world war iv will be fought with sticks and stones. This should not be taken lightly by decisionmakers. The u. S. Also has to become knowledgeable. Britain, china, great pakistan, india, because at some point deterrence will work until it is not. Give you a comparison, theyve been saying we were gonna have a pandemic the last 15 years. Nti is involved in the biological side which is another whole set of problems, but people did not pay attention. , we didealth facilities not take care of those things. We did not have an epidemic until we had one. Anyone who thinks deterrence is going to prevent a nuclear war postulatingi think, a best case which is highly unlikely. I think we have to begin to rope off the existential interest we have with countries like russia and china and we have to have disagreements and a lot of other areas, but still come back and say, we have got to deal with each other. We have mutual interest of survivability, not just in the nuclear area, but the pandemic area, and increasingly in the climate area. We have got to be able to deal with this. We are i describe it is in a race between cooperation and catastrophe. We are not, in my view, coming to grips with that. When i say we i mean not just the United States<\/a>, but russia and china. One country cannot solve this. We have to Work Together<\/a> we have to work at when our systems are not the same, even when we do not agree on human rights, even when we have different geographic interests, even when we have trade disputes. We still have to work these existential problems together. Message that the has not gotten through in any country. Weve got to figure out a way to do that. We being the leadership in this country, but at the same time it does not do much good for one country to come to the conclusion we have got to do something. It takes more than one otherwise deterrence gets weaker and you have not gained anything. These are enormously difficult problems, but when you consider the stakes, and the stakes are the universe, it is worthy of our full focus. Stan one of the things we have not talked about his china. You made a trip to china in 1975. I have read your journal you kept. I think it is published in the atlantic newspapers at the time. Your impression then and now of the country, some people would say, has replaced russia as americas greatest international enemy. Fmr. Sen. Nunn i think you have to divided between economic and political and the governance political and military. From a Nuclear Point<\/a> of view russia is still the greatest threat by far. China has a couple hundred warheads. They are not transparent. Nothing like the russians. Is a fullymically matured competitor. Stan a juggernaut. Fmr. Sen. Nunn they are a very strong country. Country a very strong in terms of their education ambitions andr trade position in the world. They are also a strong regional power. If you put the United States<\/a> navy in the middle of the ocean against the chinese navy, no contest. But that is not where he war would occur. It would occur close to the shore. Build upolicy is to enough of a military arsenal to prevent the United States<\/a> from intervening in a regional conflict, for instance taiwan. We do have tension with china, but we also, if you look at our children and grandchildren and the chinese trajectory where they are headed, yes, competitor, but we have got to find ways to work with them like we have to work with russia. Until we allt agree on a value system. We are not going to agree on human rights. For instance, if we make progress on climate, and global warming, and the carbon problem, weve got to deal china. We are going to have to be more sophisticated in Foreign Policy<\/a> bothboth where Political Parties<\/a> and the general public understand we have got to work with these countries on interests. Survivable it challenges. Viral in that. The only time i had heard a species ending in a wargame was a biological wargame. Species ending, that is chilling. We have got to find ways to work with china. First time i went to china in 1975 we did not meet with the chairman. We met with a leader we had never heard of. Premierrmit or who has had as much influence on development in the world than any human being. Tremendous amount of change in china since 1975. Bicycles were everywhere, no clothesmen in colorless , people on the streets everywhere walking. Andy you go to china everybody who goes there says, what happened to the china of the 1970s . Stan to be clear, is china still communist . Fmr. Sen. Nunn they are communism with a market approach. They have one political party. They do not have pluralism or anything like our value system, our human rights system. They do not have the freedoms we do in this country, but they do believe in Market Forces<\/a> and incentives. That was the change he made. Our first conversation with him in 1975 i was on a trip of 10 senators, and he was asked the that you haveead one billion people and we read other articles saying you have a billion and a half. How many are there in china . Andpit his tobacco out said, senator, always believe the lower number. Why . He said, because we have andages that store grain they are able to retain grain for their village based on population. The rest they sent to the state, to the government. What did they do in the census when the taker comes around determining how may people are there in determining how much grain they retain in the village . They have all the children run in front of the census taker so they get counted three and four times. They maximize the population. 75, that was violating in 1975, that was law if we are at it together, we are honest, but full of propaganda. King was saying have got to ping was then we have to think an incentive system. He changed china because he created the incentive system within the communist system. That is hard to do but he did it. They still have an autocratic government. I would not call up your connie ms. Him communism. I think it is an incentive system. Do we agree with that . No, but are there countries in the world that are looking to china as a model . Yes. They are a fullfledged competitor. We have got to take them seriously and deal with them firmly on issues we do not agree, but carveout areas where we do agree and have mutual interest. The future of our children and grandchildren in the future of the chinese young people depend on wise leadership that can identify the mutual interest and reduce the tensions and dangers of those interests where we are fundamentally apart. Stan gorbachev comes to power in 1985 and begins to make reforms in the soviet union. By soviet union crumbles 1991. Eastern europe is free of soviet control. As the empirefear began to crumble that the Nuclear Weapons<\/a> were going to fall into the wrong hands . I want you to tell the story about asking gorbachev during that coup that happened if he retained control of soviet Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Fmr. Sen. Nunn he did not answer the question. One of my russian friends got called back and gorbachev was taken captive. Gorbachevf days later was released. I was in budapest. My friend who later became the deputy minister of defense in russia he is still there today and still a friend he called me and said, youve got to come to russia, sam. Youve got to come to russia. Things are really changing. That was after gorbachev had been released. Visa that hediate arranged. Russia. The train to it was still the soviet union and spent the next five days being introduced to the new leaders. The coup resulted in a ship to power. It was still the soviet union, but it was also the president of russia. Talking russia this, and russia that. Things were changing dramatically. The leaders of the gorbachevublics with presiding where they were debating the breakup of the soviet union. I concluded that this empire was coming apart and it was the only time in history that an empire had come apart without any kind of war. There was no military victory but the Economic System<\/a> had collapsed. They were coming apart but the thing that was dangerous was they were possessing 30,000 Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Tons of chemical weapons, weaponization of germs, biological program, we believe they weaponized smallpox. Happening and i concluded that we had to help them get control of their biological and chemical weapons. I did not mean just russia but has extent, belarus because kazakhstan, belarus and ukraine. They knew how to make these weapons that they did not know how to feed their families. This was a world crisis. Senator lugar joined forces with me. Terrific friend and republican leader. Very influential and respected. We introduced what was called thenunnlugar bill. How could you help people who are our enemy all these years . Three months later we met with a lot of senators and had gone people that understood how dangerous the situation was. We had small group meetings. Amendment to as an an appropriation bill, not the bill i controlled in the armed Services Committee<\/a>. We passed this legislation with 500 million i think it became 400 million. To help them gain control of their own chemical, biological, Nuclear Weapon<\/a> safely and help scientists know how to make a weapon and would be valuable to another number of countries in the world that wanted to make their own weapons but did not know how to feed their families. We were able to pass that legislation in december 1991 in the house and senate. The Bush Administration<\/a> was cool to it but the president did not threat to veto it. We worked with them and talk to the secretary state, secretary of defense, and gradually they came around. We had the executive branch and congress basically in a position to try to greatly reduce the riskwhich was a terrible at that stage about what would kes. En with nu there was incentive for people who had access to the weapons and material. We were just as much about the material. Ath todays knowledge of terrorist group gets materials, they would be able to make a crude weapon. Not necessarily want to put on the missiles. Preventing catastrophic terrorism came a huge factor that stage where this nuclear material, and some 40 countries around the world only nine had Nuclear Weapons<\/a> but 40 or 45 weapons usable material. Scientistr with the or terrorist group, could be making into a weapon and take out a city or an airport and change the world. Passed in 1991. It started being implemented vigorously in the Clinton Administration<\/a> where bill perry became secretary of defense. He made this is number one priority. He had a team of terrific people around him and we basically, with a lot of work with former , overs, were able to 10 years, destroyed thousands or 9000 0 nuclear warheads. Russia retained a good portion of the Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Ukraine, belarus, and because kazakhstan gave up a lot of them. That went on for a decade. Program i think their money was well spent. Stan just for fun, the people that you met through your career in the senate, your time traveling abroad, all of the officials that you met in terms of the cold war, what is the one personality who most impressed you for good or ill in all the time you were in Public Service<\/a> . Fmr. Sen. Nunn let me turn the question a little different. Who did i meet that had the most influence on affecting world events during this time . Say gorbachev has to be on that list. My view, any predecessor the system is going to collapse, but humanity was blessed by the fact gorbachev was in leadership. Any of his predecessors and we wouldve had a bloodbath. It would not have been a peaceful collapse of an empire. Gorbachev, in my view, he did not save the system, but he saved humanity from probably the worst atrocities in history. Could have been. I did not agree ping change to the world when he changed china. He created the incentive system and awakened the sleeping giant. Third, i would put the series of president s we had from truman through h w bush when the cold war ended. Some gutsy decisions. Bush at the end made a lot of good decisions in terms of germany and german unification. He got rid of a huge number of excess dangerous, risky Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Of course the state of georgia, jimmy carter, he put pressure on all other system and graphing systems not with military power per se but with emphasis on values and human rights and integrity. That is the ultimate way you put pressure on regimes. I think carter does not get the credit he deserves. Reagan made tremendous contributions through not only his strong stand and firm stand against communism, but as recognition the gorbachev was a different kind of leader and most people, in both parties, did not realize it when reagan realized it. Reagan and gorbachev made one of the most profound statements in terms of nuclear risk and lessons when they said together that nuclear war cannot be won and therefore, must not be fought. Right now i think President Trump<\/a> and president putin would say the same. Does he get rid of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> . No. Does it make a psychological difference in the minds of people . Yes. That would be my reason. I put all the president s together because they all had a different perspective, but we stuck to the nato alliance, we stuck to the leadership, we had sustainable policy for all of have years, we did not preemptive wars wit which some are urged. We gave the system time to work out. World,anged the gorbachev helped save the world from catastrophe, and that is the way i link it right now. I would add two more people in the middle east. Sadat whod president had a vision about peace in the middle east and his influence was enormous. The israeli leader. The way he was able to reach out. The leadership in that part of the world is important and have not had nearly enough enlightened leadership in the middle east. Stan the cold war as we mentioned has been over a most 30 years. As we stand here now, 75 years after it began, what lessons did we learn from it . Are we safer now then we were at the height of the cold war . What is the great legacy and lesson from the cold war that senator nunn takes . Fmr. Sen. Nunn there are many but let me think of a few. One is that we still do have Nuclear Weapons<\/a> that are dangerous. I think there is less chance now of a deliberate nuclear war. It would be Something Like<\/a> a premeditated attack. Chance,there was more more risk, of a blunder and i say that because the decision time has been compressed for the leaders. They do not have time to make up their mind whether to launch if they get warning from a general they may be under attack, which may be false the cyber world has made things more dangerous third parties. Worry about a nuclear war by blunder. Learned,ion of lessons we made a lot of mistakes. We being the world after world war i. About in war ii came part, large part, because of the mistakes made after world war i. Remarkable leadership after world war ii moving into the cold war period. We decided we were going to bring japan and germany back into the world in civilized, peaceful nations, Marshall Plan<\/a> saved those countries as well as Eastern Europe<\/a>. Remarkable acts of generosity. One of the most unusual moments in history. Leadership in creating nato, leadership and containing the soviet union and not going to nuclear war. Buying time. Time means a lot in changing people and changing policies and reducing teachings. From truman all the way through , democratic and republican president s. Helping defend europe, deterring the soviet union, containing not we areo war unless pushed to the brink. We went through vietnam and korea. Wisely, not tod, use Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. All sorts of lessons from the cold war. A basic lesson is one in economics. The soviet union did not get defeated militarily. When people talk about winning in the military sense, it was in the economic sense. They had internal contradictions economically and could not work in the long term. Because it did not have incentives. It did not have a counter blend that china did. They have made it work pretty well. Learned inssons economics and military human behavior. Today,idual is that after the collapse of the soviet union and the cold war, if some the asked me, were closer to the world war i model or closer to the world war ii . I would say somewhere in between. Even though some truth to the fact we won the economic and political system, the military we won in the sense that we did not have a hot war. That is what deterrence is all about. We did not win in the sense that the russians thought they were defeated. The russians were sort of the leaders and felt they themselves were the ones that broke away from the soviet union. They broke up the empire. They felt russia itself had led the way in getting rid of a system that did not work. There was a psychological window that was important to the future of russia. Things that were mistakes and i thought so at the time. I do not that we should have extended nato immediately after the collapse of the soviet union. I felt we should help extend the economic side, reaching out to Eastern Europe<\/a> through the european union, but not as a soviet military was collapsing. We made some mistakes from the cold war. We are between the lessons of world war i and lessons of world war ii which are unique in the history of the world in terms of a . Postcold war was somewhere in between. We got a lot of work to do so that our children and grandchildren can the within a world that does not have the perils of nuclear, biological, Climate Change<\/a> hanging over us. I close with the thought that we really are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe. It is going to take wise leadership in america as well as russia is in that category. I thinkg china and another lesson we learned is ist acting through alliances the most powerful way to make our presence known and have a tremendous influence on values. Finally i would say we influence countries abroad by our example as much as we do putting our country in front of our Political Parties<\/a>. That was the analysis, as well as standing for human rights and human dignity, its enormously important for the future. That is where our strength is. We may defend ourselves by a military but in terms of projecting influence in the world, we do it through our government and our example. We should never forget that. Senator, thank you for coming to the Georgia Historical Society<\/a> and participating today. Thank you. Thank you for the role that this Organization Plays<\/a> in our state. It is a tremendous organization that has a tremendous effect on our children and grandchildren and helping people understand history and learning from the lessons of history. Went to build on the basic opportunities and promise. This is American History<\/a> tv on cspan3. Each weekend we feature 48 hours of programs exploring our nations past. Vanderbilt University Professor<\/a> Thomas Schwartz<\/a> talks about his book Henry Kissinger<\/a> and American Power<\/a> a political biography. After his talk, he takes questions from a panel of scholars. The Wilson Center<\/a> and the National History<\/a> Center Hosted<\/a> this online event and provided the video. Prof. Schwartz thank you so much. I want to think the commentators and everyone for assembling this. I am deeply honored, especially to be giving the William Roger<\/a> lewis lecture. We were on the state department committees suffering from bows and arrows and fortunes there, back about a decade ago. I got to know him well and i feel really honored to give a lecture in his name","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801806.us.archive.org\/2\/items\/CSPAN3_20201115_190000_Former_Senator_Sam_Nunn_D-Georgia_-_the_Cold_War_at_75\/CSPAN3_20201115_190000_Former_Senator_Sam_Nunn_D-Georgia_-_the_Cold_War_at_75.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20201115_190000_Former_Senator_Sam_Nunn_D-Georgia_-_the_Cold_War_at_75_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}