For those you have served i0z the government, you know how delicious that is. Jcrp÷ its necessary. We are welcomingczsoy i said in myv u. Remarks, we want to work with nonNuclear Weapon states as well asl fw Nuclear Weapon states and so were at this point open minded about who will be participating. Ihx n also want to sandnc y however that £n hope en,3f . Invigorate the work the p5 because we also think its very important that the Nuclear Weapon states develop some sophisticated simq9 9 ofigfod these mao2. In the last year, we have had success in establishing a pe7zs working group1cfgh that meets in 6rt vienna at the same time that working group b is thevx o÷ Verification Working Group that deals with a comprehensive test treaty and looks at technical verification issues in that i think its fine for the p5 to begin work n focussing on ctbt verification because that provides a lot of veryn Technical Information that can then in the future be broadened out in other directions so the Verification Initiative is a great new approach, i think, but i dont want you to say orv abandoning our efforts to discuss these matters among thex 3 5 o i thinkshvn thats the first time as delicious. Hi rose. Stability. One isp share about efforts in south asia to share bestxb2f 117g practices, confidence Building Measures with couf . Dwcs outside the ÷nrp5. Andokwv second types as well as numbers obviously matter to stability. Have any thoughts on prospects for constraining or discouraging land based nerves in the longer term. Well, thats one point i wanted tol stabilizinouaactivityrzln over the last generation ,j really has been5n our move to hlw÷demerv sit. [i we see thatxit ey steps. Yes, as a we constantly focus onek he jtr t hahp hc omm qe of4hhj avoiding multiple warheads oitpn2y4 missiles because they createnmp speaking of valuable targets. And that is what you want to avoid if you want to have a stable strategic relatd[o ip. So that is a constant of our discourse on these m internationally and will continue to be so. With regards specifically to khd south asia, i want to sayg again really great track 2, track 1 1 2 activities with both india i commend those of you around the roomjev that in fanthem. I think theyve been very interestingygn sometimes productive from what ive been able to see when people have briefed or told me about them or sent me trip reports and so forth. I think there have beenh c some really, really solid discussions bringing up the issues youk [n talk about the classical issues of strategic 8kility. We do have discussions of these÷e matters on an official level as well. We have atn Strategic Dialogue w[eq india. We also hiv no the socalled snap talks withj pakistan. Iyj ir always forget what snap stands for, security, nonproliferation and strategic stability n0 which take place as welljqv with d aj jip r t hahp hc so we have opportunities to raise these well. I will tell you one of myi n goals in the coming year is to broaden this discussion ry kind of regional ghetto, to be honest. These issues, such asupaz conventional Global Strike they affect the whole Asian International community. I think we needed to be talking about themm c i in a Broader Community of countries who are ÷ xther deployi r to deploy these kinds of capabilities. Its the same with any of the other systems you might name, including Something Like a k< ÷merve system. Soe to broaden these discussions andu regionalan important as a direction for policy. I hope 9 we canj good morning, madame t3q secretary. Mark sheland. Im interested in your statement on÷ a weaponsfree zone conference and would ask youa on practical goal setting howfsbrc yt prepared is israel to engage and be transparent in some measure, how prepared is egypt in terms of its current governmentkv structure tor z engage andf oc2bujsu r the iran thats an interesting you knowh fnp 6q been quite we had a preparatory process goingb4 thr i dont want to again get into t details of diplomatic exchanges, but its been quite positive preparatory process that has, i think, dealt with some of the initial tensions and anxieties over this middle east n ] weapons of mass destruction p free zone conference that emergedh9otfrom the npt review conference inlhm jq qh 2010. We have brought the core;w actorslsh ÷ together, the arabs the israelis and irah] n have1qbjparticipated. I dont see that as acm big kind of negative influencearg on this. The necessity now is on all states interested in thisbc÷ to get together and agree on an agenda. Our view iske pq ifn get together and agree on an agenda, theres no reason why we shouldnt be able to convene this conference prior to the review conference in so, i have you know, reason to say there iseagnificantr r t hahp hc progress since 2010. Our view is4 n we are right ongny the cusp of jtc to conveneecnoz this conference. We hope that the i q in everybodys interest to agree on an 06n8genda. Thats where it l,vszh stands at the moment. Qb,cty sph hi. Thank morning. You mentioned that the russians have been x[k2unwilling to discuss0] further reductions until new start is implemented. What are thesm berlinp f0e÷ewi hitting its mark betweenm 2018 . Thank you. U on in this case broader political issues. I did take note that president putin which United States in many,÷dl many ways butvq e wasgp one key paragraph e said that ita indicative of some russiank÷ cjz f1 o flexibility ink course we haveqasszc to make the case in our own political environment that it is a wvuq thing to4 that there is a interest requirement as well or a strategic interest rational . Would sayf reductions would not only be67o in the u. S. Iw thanks. I just wonder could z financial conditions inweyc russia and United States for thewun politics andsz nuclearz3 nq talk on otntjiahp hc negotiation. Yes. I believe that youreswn]iy talking about the cost modernizationg tikt ba÷ ] time . Qbxnmanccya [ inaudible ]. Okay. I understand now. the question is with regard to whether the economic crisis in the Russian Federationu affect their further modernization efforts, as i y understand, and whatdviy the impact of owq jowz . Pnu jar but i was reading with interest this morning the Financial Times has an on whatsqizzpon happening with the russian economy right now. One of theh points that was made is that putin severalv signed outo federations National Budget for fyus 2x6]xx assumption underpinning it that oil would be at c9cbarrel. And today as we know, oil is e well, its going up2lw8 som 7 but i think the trend ishr lx÷hmn pretty much z8gddown,a heading belowc 60k ÷ barrel. Not going to be viable for6u bw supporting the russian economy. So tagain, its not up to me and certainly imozlruu÷ inkp taie department 5 ministry, but ii rf p do think that theres bound to be some mnezimpacts on thej mh goals thatek the Russian Federationu2 on e that matter. Ol hi, rose. ouw my question tis as the clock . N5n ticking down on theisn administration and moscow is showing very little interest in fac pursuing further zc negotiated cuts ihz arsenals will y point will the administrationa reconsider linking its own the size of the u. S. Stockpile with the size ofdnbym russias stockpile and just accept nuclear postureg recommended judgmentwaen the u. S. Can get ÷ by with a smallerd,xn arsenal┌n i believe the question about unilateral reductions and i will say as ive said repeatedlys9 4 includingb4azjw in public testimony that8 unilateral reductions are noax the table. not on the 7n i can say. Ja 4n h 4q< yes, good morning. Tim gent from the defense threat reductionq thank you for all your hard work madame secretary. As a member2xfn and treaty imply8 meanter, we sit back and look at somes 7 of the effect treaty year five, six, and out to 2018. As we see the likelihood of new sanctions being announced as early friday do you believero that the willing0rpw to sacrifice all. Zch the hard work that your office has done yc over thequq years aroundczm]p euu zm5 continue with sanctions or[zcwcl can remain separate and continue on separate paths that the treaty and your efforts in the future may continue . Thank you. Thank you. H ]n let me express my appreciation for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the entire team of inspectors who go out and also on our side the air force the navy people whozw9rp accept ther ;u inspection teams coming from the Russian Federation 18 times a year the russians are cominglb6 here to ourc at submarines yuy looking ate it takes a lot ofifnbujui to prepare for those inspections. Thats on the air force. Navy as well as accompanying theu1 russian teams. When we go 18 times a year to russia to look at the strategicic rocket forcesccn bases their lra bases, you guyspsc÷ are real on the cole,s it÷f implementing the treaty. Thank you. I will say the signs3fs4c far i think the crisisgha was at theecn moment that the n ukraine crisis was bu2hdzwt on the scene, some of you may recnv it was actually march 84aath which is International Womens day, thats a big russian i wasj19n astonished to see when i woke up in the morning, russia was consideringr axy pullingogm the plug on uk1q 9 on uz new star treaty. I got on the phone immediately with my counterparts in moscow. N that report wasn p÷ linked to an ibhnf. 3r unnamed source in the ministry of defense. So i got on the phone immediately. I said, and i was told you auknow, well look into this get backiahp hc so within ;em fivek< back and, againtuhzz not just to me but an official announcement of Russian Federation that theyn s bigye cpe f1 o would beqhw continuing to implement the new start treaty despite the ukraine. So i hope thatw r6v that will bnhold. Its consistent with the history that i spoke about a moment ago patches during the cold war, some very invaded afghanistan. So, thats just an example historically of wha about that, oy again, despiteuun serious7 mnndifferences Serious Problems efmbbilaterally we have continued to see tu mplenation of ghxq control treaties and agreements affecting the Nuclear Forces to wiws in our mutual interest. And i hopehm9tea that will be the good morning madame secretary. Im jayu4k÷ycramer. Im a lawyer w yk worked in Nuclear Export control and proliferation areas. You work to be done ato2st the p5 and the partnership with respect f verification. An b wonder ifd n that workulfn anticipates a qzmultilateral organization toks5n . o eventually implement verification as disarmorment moves as it ultimately must into the fca4z rather than just bilateral and whether the z jz anticipation is8hj thank you. Thats a very interesting question. First of all ghfev ox i will say that from the perspective of u. S. l policy we see this as essentially a national function for the foresee9xyo future, although here is my6 point, we do with internaahb shltionae ln organizations. I mentioned being at the on site exercise in jordan. We put a lot. Of 8 bnmresources ando j n people into the implenation of that. We workn1qgn very . fnf1qp closely with i chv iaee works very closely as well. I seei3vw it for the foreseeable future as responsibility. However wj1a and here is something i wanted to note that ii theres been some really interesting work done historically on what will happen when we get close to zero. This is not aaat7j national the moment but i would welcomea . . W 7 continuing work on what would be required institutionally procedurally technologically historically theres been some good studies done in this area and its worth the academic d< community considering continuing to consider theselfm issues because i think it backs up again, our m emphasis is on zero8 i how can we practically get to hi 8÷ zero . And to do ld]vthat, were going to havecsrlto do some very hard thinking about what it will take again, whether its constitutionally procedurally technologically and certainly in the realm of Regional Security as well. Tgthat different topic we could spend a morning z session talking about thee. Gnuts and bolts of an arms control regime i think there cou÷ hpz some good work done on that topic again. Q2 ÷ good qmymorning. Matthew council. Thank you so much for doing thisln event to reported that russiateifn is considering deploying rail mobicia u sqp missile systems. Hahp hc i wondered if you had anycf]eg comment on that reporting. Thank you. Well talk about back to the futureaiahp hc thats where wj qf in the 80s. And weve really py been urging n russians to again, consider . Whats going to be stabilizing and whats not going to be ]vd stabilizing going forward. I did mention that i see their modernization thus judicious. Numbers for delivery vehicles are below well below theyc central jujua the central i sp of new start when 2018 will be1sa 700 delivery vehicles. The russians are well below those . Use n numbers now. We dont seec 7uz surging up and im pfz delighted we have ;u tu 1nnsyen kinc un of central limityf f ceiling for how far they canaf u c e ua i3r lo think the railqx mobile system is a9 nuwnnrpx good example of one where there are some questions aboutm ty its economicqaf feasibility as well as its strategic stability rational at the moment. So well see. Its notfahn upv 3 me to m c those decisions, butacx we would certainly, i unaythink, urge consideration of the st÷lajt stability impacts of such 9n system especially if delivering to deliver a merved missile. There was a question duringq n the5 newstart covered by the new start treaty. They would, in well, ifs r urj intercontinental][ sve to be brough7ffmunder theg al treatyl[n essentially. Ooy gu madame9n e dzsecretary good morning. A john cc dunn. I would like to cobble a coupler r t hahp hc questions here based onfemgt some,xij r t hahp hc thee you8÷z mentioned that 90 of the worlds nuclear armorments are in the hands of the United States andx j russia. That unilateral disarmorment snotifm i2p . Jz the table from the United States perspective. Recent statement fromx . Uputin that hes. Ucs values future disarmorment but theres also a beenb;4mx statements from russiann3kbq officials that theyre not any further bilateral disarmorment steps with the United States beyond the new start treaty and anypchs future disarmorment needs to be in a bilateral yk] thank you for raising that. Thats one they laid out in the earlier k d que that a4y given 90 are in u. S. russia hands, 4 first ofa you confirmed one of the questions is that a multilateral prerequisite does in fact exist based on your discussions with your colleagues in moscow. Have you had any discussions with other nucj states that kind of indicate what theirdk z threshold is below which the United States and russia to . Participation in anyn zyl2 ih [÷i multilateral efforts . Wella historically there have been, q asvl again, i wouldnt say official positions out there fwlu have ycfhrc been a lot of expert nf nf comments russia getj on warheads then maybe it gets more interesting. But im not saying these are official positions of paris or london by any means. I would just noteq ub` hrr t hahp hc number of dzuqo1,000 in u. S. And russian arsenals has been out u there as something thats countries Haven Communities and expert communities have one thing about this if1s xn k ateral q 5÷point,c n i hq,v always ,i m stressed that i donttiqhn even see how you would structure such a negotiation because there is such a disbalance tha l hk ccuy unitedu f over 90 still of theh;,e Nuclear Weapons in the cqbnworld. Negotiation between, what Nuclear Weapons provide. Ive been going to i went to the un conference on climate with an÷ mediators beyw5n borders and one of the things weve been doing is getting language into the conflicts mechanisms for dealing e2sjat conflicts first. I think that that what3bts are yourrcn thoughts about if we could deal we have many ways of dealing with thez we usually deal with the symptom ofaim conflicts thatbbaaced 4 j need these. Would you comment. Cs thank you diane. I know a lot about your work. Weve had a chance to talk about it before in this setting and 9i others. One thing i will say is that we recogni ons]cn the regional securx awaj asr7b intensively as possible. Been out on the road, you know, nonstop and in recent weeks veryzuen much focussedr6gtn on middle east and thebo4w÷ hopes for rejuvenating the middle east peace3e so we have,x the Regional Security piece of it veryeic veryl much in mind and constantly work it as a matter of6ipg national policy. But my comment is 45adc neetq mf to dostt recognizeypn what some of the difficulties but you have to do both at 02phonce9 i think. Ill give myself the opportunity to take theneyog last q5tau 9 and that is rose, you talked about the faq russians being serious in terms of imply mentation in terms8 r of new start. C3 obviously because they calculate that thats in their interest. But you also mentioned that the russians havent been prepqegfqzq to go beyond that and i think you used the term some of the some senseet quite decided where they eir own modeb jz programs so not since the ukraineyw crisiso,jo emerged, i think there is; additional political layer of complexity here in that i think theres a different41bso attitude 8 nightly a different attitude in moscow in this area of furthere and get rid ofam y fizz aisle material. Im really proud of the fact that weve1tw gotten rid of the equivalent of three metric tons of vixn the russians w have been great partners in that effort. O rj another area where6 we had a Great Partnership russians despite, again the ups andk downs in the relationship. So, r ts a very mixed picturet side. And since thev crisis has emereem its taoo on some political aspects to itga bn as well. 049op r t hahp h ground. Were grateful that you took the time out ofp lb,slease join with me in thanking n÷qav wya her. Iz ÷ [ applause ]. 7y kvpxxnlw ssuzccxyy,÷a6 k6ngya÷o÷8 i. Ei]ya2u0 tell you