Transcripts For CSPAN3 Reagan And Gorbachevs Reykjavik Summi

And soviet premier gorbachev. This is an hour. Sitting on my left and speaking about this book. [indiscernible] you have worked for the New York Times the daily news. In america , and around the world. You have been in 85 countries. And you are also an author. You have written three books, and the last one is on the table. And now i let you discuss this reykjavik summit. [indiscernible] [applause] thank you very much for hosting this event this evening with the extraordinary man next to me, the author of a great book, reagan and gorbachev, the summit of 1986. As it happened, i was a reporter. Let me start off with a little personal anecdote. In january 1981, president reagan was about be sworn in as president for his first term. I had just left the New York Times and come to cbs as a correspondent. I was in washington dc. I was the lowest person on the totem pole. I had just arrived there, but cbs was a pool for that event, which means i have nothing to do the night before. The next day, i followed reagan around all day includes in case something happened. The night before i went to dinner. Richard tietz was a professor, specialist in russian and soviet affairs. He was about to become president reagans person on the National Security council for european and soviet affairs. We had dinner together. He was no fan of the soviet union. He had many terrible anecdotes to tell about the way he was treated there. So he leaned forward and said, i have to tell you something very important. Some time in the next eight years, trying to be optimistic reagan had not even been sworn in for his first term, sometime in the next eight years, we will bring an end to the soviet union. I thought this was madness because the soviets have common is a have communism, it would last forever. So i took my head away and said, how would you do that . It is simple. We will spend them to death. So i did not think much more of it. I passed it off as the ravings of an antisoviet lunatic. And years later, i began thinking about it. I called them up, and it happened. I said why do you think it happened . He said it was Strategic Defense Initiative. That is what spent them to death. That is what persuaded the him soviet union. They could not win. They could not beat the United States at its own game. They could not afford to. Let me start with that. So the thing is the centerpiece of europe. It really plummets for the first time, kremlin and white house archives. All of us come back to sdi to a degree. It was so adamant that gorbachev would consider this. And for the end of the soviet union, do you share that belief why you think reagan insisted on it so definitively and gorbachev could not accept it . Guillaume yes and no. First maybe we should present the context. The reykjavik summit had been in october 1986. And it is after reagans second term, and gorbachev arrives in power in the spring 1985. Before that, no u. S. President or soviet leader had met since 1979. So both of them were very eager to meet, especially since gorbachev taking power. It is a man we can work with. Sorry. Better than bush, he went to the funeral. When gorbachev needs him for the first time, he says, we can work with this guy. There is an attempt in finding trust between the two, and at this time, in the mid1980s, the people have gone crazy. There is 17,000 Nuclear Warheads on the planet, most almost exclusively between the soviets and americans. A little bit french and british. So the two of them talked about reducing Nuclear Weapons, even before they met. Actually reagan said even before he was the president. So that is the context. Indeed in 1983, Ronald Reagan announces the sdi project, labeled as star wars. The idea to summarize for the people here was to arm satellites in space, in orbit, that would destroy with lasers soviet missiles that could come potentially to destroy washington dc or new york. So another time, when it was introduced, the International Community and science, but also american scientists, were all against it saying, this administration is crazy. This is not only technically impossible in the next 10 years, but if we spend out of money, even from a strategic perspective, it was contested. David it never has been really developed. Guillaume and even today. The Republican Party is a party of reaganomics. So gorbachev in the summer 1986 after they met the first time in geneva sends a letter to president reagan, and he is asking for these formal meetings in reykjavik. And actually the preparations of the meeting they have in the book, very rush. They only have a few weeks to organize with the government of iceland, and basically gorbachev is coming in reykjavik to dry to convince reagan to get rid of sdi. There was this fear in the soviets, especially in the police bureau, that not only would it be morally accepted, that they couldnt win, that the soviets, this arms race anymore. So actually yes. So actually yes. You talked about the defense initiative, and it played a role in the days of negotiations in reykjavik. David but gorbachev gave, as you describe so brilliantly in the book, became a mandate for a truly revolutionary concept in nuclear, the nuclear age really. Tell us about that. Guillaume so gorbachev comes with an agenda. He has the full mandate from the police bureau. You should look at the documents. That is probably the time in the gorbachev era where you have the full support inside the kremlin of the nomenclature. Maybe he had a narrow window to try to do something with the americans. So he comes with that idea to try to eliminate as much as possible Nuclear Warheads, category by category. You have the full range, mediumrange, and the intercontinental missiles. The americans, when they received that proposition from the soviets, it seems yeah, we talked about this in washington. Next year, maybe it is just to prepare. They had no idea really of what was going on. They come, they prepare, the aids of Ronald Reagan prepare him on several topics including human rights, the afghani issue, and other points of the cold war, nicaragua. And of course the Nuclear Weapons. But when the talks start that saturday morning in reykjavik, it is all about Nuclear Weapons. The two leaders, first of all one morning, kind of a round of observation. They play around, they start to break the ice. And basically they dont really go to the phones immediately. But in the afternoon, they actually reached a deal that is still working today on intermediate range missiles. People who are familiar with the 1980s, you had of course the euro crisis before that, so europe was really the point of confrontation with the german issue between the east and the west. You also have some issues in asia because the soviets have missiles aimed at south korea and japan, which were the asian mobile missiles. It is a big, important point in that conversation. So they reached a deal on that, but for the soviets, it seemed like [indiscernible] and quickly gorbachev goes one step beyond. And for the first time in history, he proposes a total, complete elimination of all Nuclear Weapons from the planet within 10 years. And that is the deal, that is what he is playing in reykjavik. The americans have to react. David that is very interesting, because he does it in two stages. The first is in five years, then all of the intercontinental missiles in 10 years. But he agrees it is possible to leave untouched Nuclear Arsenals of france and england. That is what really stunned me at the time when i was in reykjavik and later. Why would the soviets decide they would accept to have no Nuclear Missiles of their own, yet still allow france, not been fully a member of the nato military alliance, but still a western power, and especially britain, the heart of nato to have their own Nuclear Missiles, which would undoubtedly be trained on the soviet union still . Why would gorbachev even consider Something Like that, and when he brought that back to his Political Bureau . Guillaume that is a great point. The bureau took that before reagan, and they had the counter to that including the british and French Nuclear arsenal. They prepared that in advance. He knew he had the support. I think there is two things there. First of all, that 10 years process of getting rid of Nuclear Weapons on both sides, it is a slow, very methodical process. Reagan wanted to be trusted and verified. So the soviets and americans already had a decent method, the salt to treaty. That is with the reduction of Nuclear Weapons, but limitation. You already have the process of refining to make sure the soviets would indeed eliminate the fabrication, and it was reciprocal, with russians coming to america and making sure. This process is going on has been going on for decades. So for gorbachev, it was less important. You are probably thinking that was my interpretation. There would be time to discuss the french Nuclear Weapons, and the second point is he was so eager to try the idea. That narrow window, he was sensing, he was ready to compromise a lot to get reagan to sign that deal, and of course the contrepartie was to have reagan giving up sdi. You give up sdi, we eliminate all Nuclear Weapons within 10 years. David which is interesting, and i am struck by this idea that this is the narrow window, the only window perhaps in any of our lifetimes, when we could see a World Without Nuclear Weapons. Do you really believe that would have been possible . Had reagan say, we will get rid of the sdi program, the soviets say we have a deal do you really believe this was the one chance the world had to actually get rid of Nuclear Weapons . Guillaume i do personally, but it is what the protectionists are saying 30 years later. It is unique opportunity. David you talked to some of them. Guillaume with american and soviet advisers. I talked with a professor who was the National Security adviser of Ronald Reagan. I talked to buchanan for the negotiations at the white house. They were in reykjavik. I had a Letter Exchange with george scholz, secretary of state, and he was taking part in the conversation in reykjavik. Which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] journal cspan. Org journal cspan. Org i met Mikhail Gorbachev in moscow. I also looked at the archive and talked to his nuclear advisor. He was the head of the space agency in ussr, talking about weapons types. He was positive there was never a window before, and there was never a window since. That search for compromise, that 22 days, was actually very dramatic. Until you the conversations i had, i had access to the actual talks. You had takers from both sides. The notes are 90 accurate. It is extremely dramatic. You have a little room in iceland, and most of the time you had reagan and gorbachev and their interpreters, and half the time you have george scholz, secretary of state and the foreign minister of the soviet union. It becomes extremely dramatic on the last afternoon when gorbachev goes even further from what i just told you. He even wrote that reagan, he said reagan, i will allow you to keep doing research and development of the sdi, but in laboratories. Dont deploy it into space within 10 years. And even that, reagan refuses. There is a moment of tension and high drama. The two leaders have tears in their eyes. And someone else intervened that afternoon and he interrupts them and says, wait a minute. Let me make sure i understand what you guys are saying. Are you, mr. Secretarygeneral, saying that we could develop the Strategic Defense Initiative within 10 years in a laboratory, and we could eliminate all of your Nuclear Weapons . Gorbachev said yes, absolutely. He is trying to convince Ronald Reagan fair. He is pushing hard to make him realize this is a historic opportunity. We will never have a soviet leader who comes after gorbachev to strike a deal. David i wonder whether reagan did at that time realize this was a major knife at the throat of the soviet union and gorbachev, and that in fact this was a central core of issues to and communism in the soviet union. Guillaume i agree with that, but it is easy to face afterwards, after the ussr disappeared in 1991. There was agenda in the Reagan Administration as we were saying to try to beat them with expenses. Have to remember that the soviet union at the time was extremely david competent. Guillaume they had the double conventional armaments than the americans. They had almost double the Nuclear Weapons. Even though it does not make a real difference. David you could destroy the world six times over instead of four times over. Guillaume absolutely. I think there was a sense of trying to overspend, and it worked. Gorbachev understood the agenda of reforms, perestroika. So he took his own power within the soviet system, and maybe did not have that much time to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish. But i do think that there is a sincerity. Deep inside Ronald Reagan and deep inside Mikhail Gorbachev about getting rid of Nuclear Weapons. Reagan talked about it at the Republican Convention in 1976 in an improvised speech. You can see it online. Gerald ford just won the primaries very narrowly, and he is nominated at the convention, but the crowd is chanting, reagan, reagan. Reagan comes on stage and improvises a speech. And he says, a few weeks ago, i was at what i was put in a time capsule. If 50 years from now, somebody opens, and he is talking about the World Without Nuclear Weapons. He was incredible than. When gorbachev comes to power, i think he is horrified. So both leaders understand that it is way too far, 70,000 or 80,000 Nuclear Weapons is not sustainable. I do think there is security. David lets talk about that for a minute and take this down to the present day. Do you still see any path now to zero Nuclear Warheads . The proliferation to pakistan to north korea to perhaps iran, certainly israel, has that close off forever that zero path . David that is a tough question. I think we have an obligation to keep that goal, and i think that leaders have an obligation to talk about it and try to put a framework of multilateral negotiations. Maybe there were 70,000 Nuclear Warheads at the time, but you had [indiscernible] and somehow they were thinking rationally about it. Nowadays we live in a different world, extremely more complicated. Everybody agrees with that. Instead of two main actors with Nuclear Weapons, ok, you had made britain and france on a low level, but now Nine Countries with Nuclear Weapons. Russia, the u. S. Being the big ones, china, israel. I think it is an obligation because not only we see today arise of tensions in many parts of the world, we see the russian president and the new american president talking about gathering a lot of money, new lNuclear Weapons, but you also have the danger of hiking. You have the dangers of terrorism. You have fanaticism. Not only the proliferation problem with more countries and even countries like japan and south korea now because of the korea threat considering starting a Nuclear Program, so you have to do something at one point. David right, absolutely. But you mentioned the question of modernization, and that is something i think is very interesting. The United States is now, the Obama Administration spoke about spending 1 trillion to modernize american Nuclear Weapons. Presumably this would involve updating the control systems, the Computer Systems to make certain they are not vulnerable to hacking from some terrorist or thirdparty. But that had the same time also could be seen potentially as breathing the numbers of Nuclear Weapons. So i guess the question is, with these other powers, World Nuclear powers, always looking on the fringe north korea, iranians, even the saudis or other terrorist groups, they could buy a Nuclear Device from north korea or pakistan or whatever how is that even possible with all of that there to consider a total elimination of Nuclear Weapons by the major powers . It is open to vulnerability. Guillaume the answer would be multilateral talk. It becomes way more complicated. That is not two days in reykjavik in a small room. It is way more obligated. I think the two models of negotiations we could think of maybe could be based on them. It would be the climate deal reached in paris last year after what, 15 years of negotiations, where you finally have every country basically on earth agreeing on something. David now you have New York Times<\/a> the daily news. In america , and around the world. You have been in 85 countries. And you are also an author. You have written three books, and the last one is on the table. And now i let you discuss this reykjavik summit. [indiscernible] [applause] thank you very much for hosting this event this evening with the extraordinary man next to me, the author of a great book, reagan and gorbachev, the summit of 1986. As it happened, i was a reporter. Let me start off with a little personal anecdote. In january 1981, president reagan was about be sworn in as president for his first term. I had just left the New York Times<\/a> and come to cbs as a correspondent. I was in washington dc. I was the lowest person on the totem pole. I had just arrived there, but cbs was a pool for that event, which means i have nothing to do the night before. The next day, i followed reagan around all day includes in case something happened. The night before i went to dinner. Richard tietz was a professor, specialist in russian and soviet affairs. He was about to become president reagans person on the National Security<\/a> council for european and soviet affairs. We had dinner together. He was no fan of the soviet union. He had many terrible anecdotes to tell about the way he was treated there. So he leaned forward and said, i have to tell you something very important. Some time in the next eight years, trying to be optimistic reagan had not even been sworn in for his first term, sometime in the next eight years, we will bring an end to the soviet union. I thought this was madness because the soviets have common is a have communism, it would last forever. So i took my head away and said, how would you do that . It is simple. We will spend them to death. So i did not think much more of it. I passed it off as the ravings of an antisoviet lunatic. And years later, i began thinking about it. I called them up, and it happened. I said why do you think it happened . He said it was Strategic Defense Initiative<\/a>. That is what spent them to death. That is what persuaded the him soviet union. They could not win. They could not beat the United States<\/a> at its own game. They could not afford to. Let me start with that. So the thing is the centerpiece of europe. It really plummets for the first time, kremlin and white house archives. All of us come back to sdi to a degree. It was so adamant that gorbachev would consider this. And for the end of the soviet union, do you share that belief why you think reagan insisted on it so definitively and gorbachev could not accept it . Guillaume yes and no. First maybe we should present the context. The reykjavik summit had been in october 1986. And it is after reagans second term, and gorbachev arrives in power in the spring 1985. Before that, no u. S. President or soviet leader had met since 1979. So both of them were very eager to meet, especially since gorbachev taking power. It is a man we can work with. Sorry. Better than bush, he went to the funeral. When gorbachev needs him for the first time, he says, we can work with this guy. There is an attempt in finding trust between the two, and at this time, in the mid1980s, the people have gone crazy. There is 17,000 Nuclear Warheads<\/a> on the planet, most almost exclusively between the soviets and americans. A little bit french and british. So the two of them talked about reducing Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, even before they met. Actually reagan said even before he was the president. So that is the context. Indeed in 1983, Ronald Reagan<\/a> announces the sdi project, labeled as star wars. The idea to summarize for the people here was to arm satellites in space, in orbit, that would destroy with lasers soviet missiles that could come potentially to destroy washington dc or new york. So another time, when it was introduced, the International Community<\/a> and science, but also american scientists, were all against it saying, this administration is crazy. This is not only technically impossible in the next 10 years, but if we spend out of money, even from a strategic perspective, it was contested. David it never has been really developed. Guillaume and even today. The Republican Party<\/a> is a party of reaganomics. So gorbachev in the summer 1986 after they met the first time in geneva sends a letter to president reagan, and he is asking for these formal meetings in reykjavik. And actually the preparations of the meeting they have in the book, very rush. They only have a few weeks to organize with the government of iceland, and basically gorbachev is coming in reykjavik to dry to convince reagan to get rid of sdi. There was this fear in the soviets, especially in the police bureau, that not only would it be morally accepted, that they couldnt win, that the soviets, this arms race anymore. So actually yes. So actually yes. You talked about the defense initiative, and it played a role in the days of negotiations in reykjavik. David but gorbachev gave, as you describe so brilliantly in the book, became a mandate for a truly revolutionary concept in nuclear, the nuclear age really. Tell us about that. Guillaume so gorbachev comes with an agenda. He has the full mandate from the police bureau. You should look at the documents. That is probably the time in the gorbachev era where you have the full support inside the kremlin of the nomenclature. Maybe he had a narrow window to try to do something with the americans. So he comes with that idea to try to eliminate as much as possible Nuclear Warheads<\/a>, category by category. You have the full range, mediumrange, and the intercontinental missiles. The americans, when they received that proposition from the soviets, it seems yeah, we talked about this in washington. Next year, maybe it is just to prepare. They had no idea really of what was going on. They come, they prepare, the aids of Ronald Reagan<\/a> prepare him on several topics including human rights, the afghani issue, and other points of the cold war, nicaragua. And of course the Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. But when the talks start that saturday morning in reykjavik, it is all about Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. The two leaders, first of all one morning, kind of a round of observation. They play around, they start to break the ice. And basically they dont really go to the phones immediately. But in the afternoon, they actually reached a deal that is still working today on intermediate range missiles. People who are familiar with the 1980s, you had of course the euro crisis before that, so europe was really the point of confrontation with the german issue between the east and the west. You also have some issues in asia because the soviets have missiles aimed at south korea and japan, which were the asian mobile missiles. It is a big, important point in that conversation. So they reached a deal on that, but for the soviets, it seemed like [indiscernible] and quickly gorbachev goes one step beyond. And for the first time in history, he proposes a total, complete elimination of all Nuclear Weapons<\/a> from the planet within 10 years. And that is the deal, that is what he is playing in reykjavik. The americans have to react. David that is very interesting, because he does it in two stages. The first is in five years, then all of the intercontinental missiles in 10 years. But he agrees it is possible to leave untouched Nuclear Arsenals<\/a> of france and england. That is what really stunned me at the time when i was in reykjavik and later. Why would the soviets decide they would accept to have no Nuclear Missiles<\/a> of their own, yet still allow france, not been fully a member of the nato military alliance, but still a western power, and especially britain, the heart of nato to have their own Nuclear Missiles<\/a>, which would undoubtedly be trained on the soviet union still . Why would gorbachev even consider Something Like<\/a> that, and when he brought that back to his Political Bureau<\/a> . Guillaume that is a great point. The bureau took that before reagan, and they had the counter to that including the british and French Nuclear<\/a> arsenal. They prepared that in advance. He knew he had the support. I think there is two things there. First of all, that 10 years process of getting rid of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> on both sides, it is a slow, very methodical process. Reagan wanted to be trusted and verified. So the soviets and americans already had a decent method, the salt to treaty. That is with the reduction of Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, but limitation. You already have the process of refining to make sure the soviets would indeed eliminate the fabrication, and it was reciprocal, with russians coming to america and making sure. This process is going on has been going on for decades. So for gorbachev, it was less important. You are probably thinking that was my interpretation. There would be time to discuss the french Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, and the second point is he was so eager to try the idea. That narrow window, he was sensing, he was ready to compromise a lot to get reagan to sign that deal, and of course the contrepartie was to have reagan giving up sdi. You give up sdi, we eliminate all Nuclear Weapons<\/a> within 10 years. David which is interesting, and i am struck by this idea that this is the narrow window, the only window perhaps in any of our lifetimes, when we could see a World Without<\/a> Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Do you really believe that would have been possible . Had reagan say, we will get rid of the sdi program, the soviets say we have a deal do you really believe this was the one chance the world had to actually get rid of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> . Guillaume i do personally, but it is what the protectionists are saying 30 years later. It is unique opportunity. David you talked to some of them. Guillaume with american and soviet advisers. I talked with a professor who was the National Security<\/a> adviser of Ronald Reagan<\/a>. I talked to buchanan for the negotiations at the white house. They were in reykjavik. I had a Letter Exchange<\/a> with george scholz, secretary of state, and he was taking part in the conversation in reykjavik. Which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] journal cspan. Org journal cspan. Org i met Mikhail Gorbachev<\/a> in moscow. I also looked at the archive and talked to his nuclear advisor. He was the head of the space agency in ussr, talking about weapons types. He was positive there was never a window before, and there was never a window since. That search for compromise, that 22 days, was actually very dramatic. Until you the conversations i had, i had access to the actual talks. You had takers from both sides. The notes are 90 accurate. It is extremely dramatic. You have a little room in iceland, and most of the time you had reagan and gorbachev and their interpreters, and half the time you have george scholz, secretary of state and the foreign minister of the soviet union. It becomes extremely dramatic on the last afternoon when gorbachev goes even further from what i just told you. He even wrote that reagan, he said reagan, i will allow you to keep doing research and development of the sdi, but in laboratories. Dont deploy it into space within 10 years. And even that, reagan refuses. There is a moment of tension and high drama. The two leaders have tears in their eyes. And someone else intervened that afternoon and he interrupts them and says, wait a minute. Let me make sure i understand what you guys are saying. Are you, mr. Secretarygeneral, saying that we could develop the Strategic Defense Initiative<\/a> within 10 years in a laboratory, and we could eliminate all of your Nuclear Weapons<\/a> . Gorbachev said yes, absolutely. He is trying to convince Ronald Reagan<\/a> fair. He is pushing hard to make him realize this is a historic opportunity. We will never have a soviet leader who comes after gorbachev to strike a deal. David i wonder whether reagan did at that time realize this was a major knife at the throat of the soviet union and gorbachev, and that in fact this was a central core of issues to and communism in the soviet union. Guillaume i agree with that, but it is easy to face afterwards, after the ussr disappeared in 1991. There was agenda in the Reagan Administration<\/a> as we were saying to try to beat them with expenses. Have to remember that the soviet union at the time was extremely david competent. Guillaume they had the double conventional armaments than the americans. They had almost double the Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Even though it does not make a real difference. David you could destroy the world six times over instead of four times over. Guillaume absolutely. I think there was a sense of trying to overspend, and it worked. Gorbachev understood the agenda of reforms, perestroika. So he took his own power within the soviet system, and maybe did not have that much time to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish. But i do think that there is a sincerity. Deep inside Ronald Reagan<\/a> and deep inside Mikhail Gorbachev<\/a> about getting rid of Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Reagan talked about it at the Republican Convention<\/a> in 1976 in an improvised speech. You can see it online. Gerald ford just won the primaries very narrowly, and he is nominated at the convention, but the crowd is chanting, reagan, reagan. Reagan comes on stage and improvises a speech. And he says, a few weeks ago, i was at what i was put in a time capsule. If 50 years from now, somebody opens, and he is talking about the World Without<\/a> Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. He was incredible than. When gorbachev comes to power, i think he is horrified. So both leaders understand that it is way too far, 70,000 or 80,000 Nuclear Weapons<\/a> is not sustainable. I do think there is security. David lets talk about that for a minute and take this down to the present day. Do you still see any path now to zero Nuclear Warheads<\/a> . The proliferation to pakistan to north korea to perhaps iran, certainly israel, has that close off forever that zero path . David that is a tough question. I think we have an obligation to keep that goal, and i think that leaders have an obligation to talk about it and try to put a framework of multilateral negotiations. Maybe there were 70,000 Nuclear Warheads<\/a> at the time, but you had [indiscernible] and somehow they were thinking rationally about it. Nowadays we live in a different world, extremely more complicated. Everybody agrees with that. Instead of two main actors with Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, ok, you had made britain and france on a low level, but now Nine Countries<\/a> with Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Russia, the u. S. Being the big ones, china, israel. I think it is an obligation because not only we see today arise of tensions in many parts of the world, we see the russian president and the new american president talking about gathering a lot of money, new lNuclear Weapons<\/a>, but you also have the danger of hiking. You have the dangers of terrorism. You have fanaticism. Not only the proliferation problem with more countries and even countries like japan and south korea now because of the korea threat considering starting a Nuclear Program<\/a>, so you have to do something at one point. David right, absolutely. But you mentioned the question of modernization, and that is something i think is very interesting. The United States<\/a> is now, the Obama Administration<\/a> spoke about spending 1 trillion to modernize american Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Presumably this would involve updating the control systems, the Computer Systems<\/a> to make certain they are not vulnerable to hacking from some terrorist or thirdparty. But that had the same time also could be seen potentially as breathing the numbers of Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. So i guess the question is, with these other powers, World Nuclear<\/a> powers, always looking on the fringe north korea, iranians, even the saudis or other terrorist groups, they could buy a Nuclear Device<\/a> from north korea or pakistan or whatever how is that even possible with all of that there to consider a total elimination of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> by the major powers . It is open to vulnerability. Guillaume the answer would be multilateral talk. It becomes way more complicated. That is not two days in reykjavik in a small room. It is way more obligated. I think the two models of negotiations we could think of maybe could be based on them. It would be the climate deal reached in paris last year after what, 15 years of negotiations, where you finally have every country basically on earth agreeing on something. David now you have President Trump<\/a> coming to power and pushing that back. What is to prevent that . Guillaume first we need a wheel to put everybody around the table. What would be the caret to attract them at the table . You are mentioning modernization. We could be less weapons in numbers. But nowadays, with the intercontinental missiles, they have three or five of them. Each of them are 100 times more powerful than the ones dropped in hiroshima and nagasaki. So having four different ones destroying not only moscow but other cities, then you have miniaturize asian going on miniaturization going on. They can be used on a theater, syria or whatever. And some people in the new administration are seriously pushing for that. I am convinced these crises with ukraine or Nuclear Weapons<\/a> but you have a new technology that is more dangerous, even though you might have less Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. The danger seems even more current today more than ever, and i attended a couple of congresses recently with people in paris and in los angeles, and everybody on the level said this is the new arms race. We dont know where it is going. So we better try to find a way to talk. David yes, it seems to me that when you have some country like iran that will advance only from the beginning of a Nuclear Program<\/a> by a treaty that is largely shall we say economic, but at the same time looking over its shoulder as neighboring israel, which does have a viable nuclear arsenal, there does have to be some sort of tradeoff to deter a Theatre Nuclear<\/a> war. Guillaume we could try to think differently. My conviction at the end of this process of researching and writing that book is that the idea is no longer valuable. But this idea, the mutual destruction that during the cold war, a Nuclear Weapon<\/a> is a weapon of peace, because Everybody Knows<\/a> how destructive it is, nobody wants to use it, we have been told that in school in western europe and in america for decades. But this is like playing with fire. This is actually crazy. For my generation, even though i did grow up david and my generation. Guillaume it is crazy, but what does deterrence mean . What do you deter against . Who do you deter . Nobody will really use a Nuclear Weapon<\/a> on syria or ukraine or whatever. David we dont know for sure North Koreans<\/a> wont use them to solve the south korean problem. Guillaume yes, i agree with that. I am saying if we try to think out of that deterrence box, is it worth it to maintain such an arsenal at that price . David spend 1 trillion in 30 years to modernize. Guillaume it is 1 billion every year for the United States<\/a> to maintain the nuclear arsenal. France that only has 300 were heads it is around 6 billion euros each year. And nobody knows about that. You should ask in two months there is a president ial election in france. If you ask how much they spend on Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, how many submarines launching them, we should have people know that. Why dont we have a debate . Why dont we force our leaders to look at that . How relevant is deterrence in a world like today . David you said before, we are open to question spirit you had a question for me. Guillaume i have many questions. When you were in reykjavik, you covered it. David and in geneva, and before that when carter and bush were in vienna. Guillaume in 1976. So you guys were left out of the conversation, and you did not know what was really going on. David we were left all out of these conversations. Guillaume tell me about that. David in geneva we were left out very largely, and certainly it was a ceremonial event in vienna. So we really did not need to find out. The real story came out only much later, of course, when everybody got back to their respective cabins and began to leave, just as they do today, with their own decisions. But it seems like gorbachev had a viable position, and this came after it was pointed out that really, it was a misguided press conference, the first one held. Guillaume he was crying. He was exhausted. He was in a haze trying to make sense of what happened. David so no one really quite understood what had happened, it seemed so emotional. It was only later especially with the concept of zero nook world came out that people begin to say, oh my god. What did we miss, or what opportunity did we miss . Were what horrible thing to be just basically dodge, depending on which side of the political spectrum you were on . It was a very fickle time to be a journalist at that time, even more difficult than today, though we were considered the enemy. Guillaume what was most difficult for you . David we spent two days with nothing to put on the air basically. Then suddenly all this material we had to digest and understand what had gone on and establish a timeline for understanding what the dynamic was in that room. I think this book to a great degree is the first time i have seen it very well described, because you had access to the notes from both parties. You were able to understand just what we journalists would call the ticktock of that time was. That was a great book. Guillaume thank you. What was the sense in the washington community, journalistic, Political Community<\/a> when the sdi was announced first . Was it like wow, this is a great idea, or was it insane . David most people thought it could never happen, that it was technologically crazy. I had some degree in physics. I understood how lasers worked, so the limitations of lasers and the concept of putting a laser up there as you describe in the book, you have a laser, it is powerful enough to knock a satellite or missile out of its trajectory. Nowadays, you could miniaturize it substantially, but it was Like Computers<\/a> in those days, the size of this room. It was just inconceivable thing like that could function. Guillaume then you would have to refuel the chemicals that activate the laser beam. David exactly. Guillaume because it does not work alone. David there were no space labs or space shuttles. We should open it up to the floor. Thank you, and thank you, guillaume, for your book. You mentioned in the book the soviets had a product of developing their own sdi. I was wondering if you could talk more about it. And second question, you were able to speak with Mikhail Gorbachev<\/a> and not Ronald Reagan<\/a>. Did you talk about the position . Guillaume to Ronald Reagan<\/a>, what would i asked him . If you could ask him a question about the time. Guillaume i think the question we all have is, why . Why did you not take that idea . Why did you refuse . He seemed so ready, seemed so hesitant under the pressure of control and gorbachev was really, as you can see in the book, he is pushing every hour. It is why . There are probably explanations we can try to understand. First there was the influence of the military around him, diplomats. They wanted a deal, but the pentagon or the National Security<\/a> council was holding him back on that, really wanting to deploy it as fast as possible. There is probably something way more personal, way more psychological, maybe spiritual, and that is what he says to gorbachev. I cannot break my promise. I think it can be true. There is also the third factor that, two weeks later, you had midterm elections in the United States<\/a>, so it was definitely also the americans said, the people interviewed said, we were not really thinking about that, but the fact that they lost the midterms two weeks later, they already had lost the house before, but they lost the senate. Maybe it did play a role. But i just think that maybe reagan, on a personal level, found his own limitations and could not do the last bit of trust to the soviets. There was a trust issue. They still liked each other and worked together, but at the end, it was from a lack of trust. David i have a possible explanation, and that is that gorbachev came to iceland with his wife, but reagan left nancy home. Nancy, it is difficult you cannot underplay nancys, you cannot overplay her impact on ronald. If she had been there, she would have turned and said, you have a chance to make a historical moment, ridding the world of Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. He would have changed his mind. Guillaume i agree 100 , and in the moment, it is about 5 00 p. M. The last afternoon. Everybody is exhausted. Reagan is about to decline gorbachevs offer. There is a break. They take a break, and reagans advisers say, ok, we can stay one more day. We can negotiate that night, our team and their team, get some rest, resume in the morning. Actually reagan misses nancy. It is in the stories. He goes back to washington because he wanted to be there. It is so romantic. David the romance of nuke. Guillaume so that is what is kind of i had a hard time finding out about that. Yes, i had two sources, former soviet advisers, who have the equivalence of having the space to strike Nuclear Missiles<\/a>. In the late 1970s, early 1980s, but this project was refused and denied quite quickly. It was never taken very seriously. The red army was pushing for that, but it seems like they actually decided not to follow that route. The financial reason might have been also a reason, but the reason it was even was that the technology was not possible. It was crazy. David and they were right. Guillaume and they were right. I forgot the last point i wanted to make, but that is it. Unreasonable. David next question, in the back. It seems like there is so much talk about the fbi tonight, and it does not seem possible that well, maybe, but the fbi was supposed to be a part of that discussion too, like reagans sort of cowboy image, difficulty with fantasy and reality, that you could have this impenetrable force field with technologies from that time. I remember the discussion was something along the lines of, wow, he was that smart to create this chip, and gorbachev was going for it, and he doesnt use it. This is really something that will never come today. The technology is not there. It is being described as fantasy. So given all that, it does seem like it would have been Something Else<\/a>. Guillaume at the time, it was not described as a fantasy. The Reagan Administration<\/a> you know made everything to make the public believe it was possible and that within a few years or 10 years, could deploy lasers up there in space to protect american lives. There was the intention to use it as a bargaining chip, but i think there was also this goal from the military Industrial Complex<\/a> to have it done. It represented all kinds of dollars. Guillaume yes, hundreds of millions of dollars. And as you just mentioned, it would not be exactly possible. There is ways to put weapons in space for a day, but not that way. But on paper, the Reagan Administration<\/a> had it planned it was absolutely fantastic. Maybe there was momentum there, and the fact gorbachev wanted it gave almost credibility to it. David there was also this whole question of whether reagan didnt really much care for him as long as he could persuade the russians and soviets this was something they needed to match and spend it incredible amounts of resources in matching it, which was again one of the issues that may have weakened the soviet government towards the end. That strategy was still in play. This is Something Else<\/a> i did not quite catch, the moment of emotional tension, the one point where gorbachev does that sort of tell you he did truly want this . It was sincere. If it was going to be that emotional, he trusted his emotions too. You would think this guy means it. Or that we cant trust everything behind him . Guillaume it is both. Emotions on both sides, not just gorbachev, but gorbachev is pushing, pushing, pushing, pushing. The level is raised by the foreign minister, and for reagan as well. That last afternoon, it is the four of them. It is really the ministers who raised the bar and said, this is what it means for our children and grandchildren. It becomes extremely emotional. I do think that gorbachev has a huge part of sincerity in that. There was a political agenda definitely and as we have said before, but i think he is sincerely appalled by the level of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> they have achieved in the previous case. And i think both of them, there was the sincere sense that we need to do something about it. I would add something. The way it got so long they did not become close friends, but there was respect even though in their back they were gorbachev was complaining about reagan was always really slow, and that reagan was always ringing comebacks in conversations. But he also liked reagan and in geneva the prior year, they want to the park near the geneva lake, and gorbachev said, hey, i saw one of your movies, and you were great in it. That helped break the ice. So they respected each other, but i think there is something deeper. These two people are come from the country. They dont come from cities. They come from very lower middle class, from rural parts of illinois for reagan and the caucasus for gorbachev. Then gorbachev climbed all of the layers of the party, reagan was a selfmade man. But they are kind of made from a similar wood, like we say in french. I dont know it is the same conversation. They played the same part. You mentioned there is a possibility like the paris climate deal that something similar could happen to a nuclear deal today. What would that look like if anything, and how would the conflict of interest be solved of how the big powers have Nuclear Power<\/a> for a different reason than the smaller powers, so that is why the Geneva Summit<\/a> was effective . What is your take on that . Guillaume i am not a specialist of international negotiation, but it seems like a good way to work. But as you might know, it is not a lot in the press, but right now there is something going on at the united nations. You have about 120 or 130 countries that voted last november to start negotiations of a treaty banning Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. There is a new round of negotiations happening right here in new york starting next month. It in three weeks from now, you will have a bunch of diplomats from these countries. You will have all the nonprofit, you know, who root for that. They will start a treaty, with a hope of getting countries signing a treaty in the fall of 2017. So that would be highly symbolic of course, and for example, france, who has a Nuclear Weapon<\/a>, voted against it. They were excluded from negotiations. It is interesting that Even North Korea<\/a> doesnt oppose it, they abstained. North korea is ok with the negotiations. There are things going on. I dont know how it will end, what is the best frame, but it is true the climate deal is interesting because you had almost every country in the world. It was not 15 or 20 years process, but it worked with this deal, but it is important. Maybe it can happen for Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. David i was at those talks last year. And it was a wonderful global movement. But there may have President Trump<\/a> comes along and basically reject the entire concept. His vote to investor it the United States<\/a> and effectively advocate United States<\/a> freedom party. What are the chances if we could get the brits and germans no, the brits, and french, and chinese, and the pakistanis, and the indians and so on, and the israelis even, to say, ok, we are getting rid of all of our weapons, and you can watch us do it who is to say President Trump<\/a> or his successor said, ok, that is crap, we are not going to do it anymore. We dont need that treaty. Guillaume it is true, but the countries are legally binding by what is signed by previous president s. Then President Trump<\/a> decides to do that. At the davos format in switzerland, for the first time, the chinese president , xi jinping, talked about it. It was not americans or russians. You have other players. Trump is not the only one unit. So so much includes bargaining and the evening and taking. Who knows what the americans can try to get. And we only think we will get Nuclear Weapons<\/a> rid in five or 10 years like reagan and gorbachev tried to do, but lets start the process. Lets start the process and see where it leads. It might take 20 years. Maybe we take more than that. So they have to do it. David many of these all of these countries have signed on the Nuclear Proliferation<\/a> impact, meaning they agree not to build a nuclear arsenal. So the next step to that saying, they already said, we will not have Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, what we need to do is get countries that have Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and say, we will get rid of them. It is a hard thing to do. You can have another treaty saying there is no Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, but we already have a treaty saying most of the world decided not to have Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. It is a little odd. Guillaume it is, but you can do things gradually. You can have goals like the climate agreement. Within five years, we will reduce 10 , whatever. It will have to be a stepbystep approach. You have the nonproliferation treaty. The results of a Treaty Banning Nuclear<\/a> testing. Today, nobody is allowed supposedly to test. We see that in north korea. Actually from a few sources, you have now some people in congress, the republican majority, pushing the white house to resume testing because of the modernization process we were talking about earlier. If we have new Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, we have to test them, not only on computers, but for real. It is a small part of republicans pushing the white house to do so. So yes, it is scary, and imagine if in the first year or two years of President Trump<\/a>, the United States<\/a> resumed Nuclear Testing<\/a> in the South Pacific<\/a> or whatever, imagine the signal it would give to the world and to the other Nuclear Power<\/a>s. David we have time for i think one more question. You think reagan was misreading what gorbachev was trying to achieve, you know trying to give up, give up, give up . My second question is, when they went back to their respective countries, why didnt they say, maybe we should try this again . Or did the powers that be pull them back pretty quickly . Guillaume i think gorbachev clarified it several times in several hours, lets get back. That is what you are saying. It was very clear. Reagan wanted to do that. What was the second question . Yes. Well the optimistic approach of reykjavik saying, they made the deal, it is mid range missiles. That is good. Then it leads to the stop treaty three years later. And right now we are at stop number four. President obama said yes, replacing putin. Even though right now the russians are not respecting and they did resume. It did lead and that is actually how today gorbachev were his minister, they say reykjavik was great. You would really bring us together, it would really bring us together to achieve that later on. But that idea of all Nuclear Weapons<\/a> being eliminated wasnt done. There is two ways to see it. It is the optimistic view which is it is a huge historic miss unfortunately. David i think we should thank guillaume for an extra ordinary book and talk. We want to know what the world would look like should look like today, might have looked like today, this is it. You will be delighted to see them signed afterwards, and we invite you all to partake. Guillaume thank you, david. It was an honor to do this talk with you, and thank you for having it put together. Nathalie thank you so much to you for this conversation. David thank you. Nathalie have a glass of wine. [captions Copyright National<\/a> cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] to join the conversation, like us on facebook. 8 00,t week, monday at former Senior Adviser<\/a> to barack obama on her time in the white house and future plans. I do want to continue to be a force for good. I have signed on to be an advisor to the Obama Foundation<\/a> and i am very interested in what it can do. Zeke emanuel 8 00, on his latest book. We are going to get rid of 1000 hospitals great we are delivering it at home and other facilities, big part of the transformation. Wednesday at 8 00, personal profiles of President Trump<\/a>s cabinet including rick perry in nikki haley. We will show our strength and we will not be afraid to stand up. We will follow through with it and make sure that is known. Thursday, we will continue with personal profiles of President Trump<\/a>s cabinet including tom price, ben carson, and scott pruitt. This is something that should be celebrated. Friday, Maria Shriver<\/a> testifies on aging. To curesearch alzheimers disease. Studying women and getting more women into Clinical Trials<\/a> could lead to the cure for all of us. Next week at 8 00 on cspan. We are at the rotunda at the university of virginia. We take you to the special Collections Library<\/a> to learn more about the Thomas Jefferson<\/a> pape","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia800606.us.archive.org\/12\/items\/CSPAN3_20170415_142000_Reagan_and_Gorbachevs_Reykjavik_Summit\/CSPAN3_20170415_142000_Reagan_and_Gorbachevs_Reykjavik_Summit.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20170415_142000_Reagan_and_Gorbachevs_Reykjavik_Summit_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240627T12:35:10+00:00"}