>> Stephen: WELCOME BACK, EVERYBODY.
FOLKS, MY NEXT GUEST IS THE FORMER SECRETARY OF ENERGY,
C.E.O. OF "THE NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE," AND PRESIDENT OF
"THE ENERGY FUTURES INITIATIVE." PLEASE WELCOME BACK TO "THE LATE
SHOW," SECRETARY ERNEST MONIZ! ♪ ♪ ♪
( APPLAUSE )
>> GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. >> Stephen: THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE. >> THANK YOU.
>> Stephen: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW WHAT I WAS SAYING TO
LOUIS A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH TALK LATELY
ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT PUTIN MIGHT FIRE OFF WHAT HAS CALLED A
TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPON, OR A BATTLEFIELD NUCLEAR WEAPON.
AND JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT NOT ENOUGH ATTENTION IS BEING PAID
TO THE IDEA OF WHAT TACTICAL MEANS VERSUS STRATEGIC.
AND I WAS HOPING YOU COULD DEFINE THAT FOR US.
BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THIS WHOLE SUBJECT IS JUST BEING SOFTENED
UP FOR US IN WAYS THAT IS JUST NOT HEALTHY.
IT'S REDUCING OUR RESISTANCE TO THE IDEA THAT NUCLEAR WEAPONS
WOULD BE USED BY TALKING ABOUT IT IN THESE KIND OF SOFT TERMS
LIKE "TACTICAL" OR BATTLEFIELD." WHAT IS A TACTICAL NUKE?
>> MAYBE IT'S BEST TO GIVE YOU A REFERENCE POINT FIRST.
THE BOMB THAT EXPLODED IN HIROSHIMA.
IT WAS ABOUT 15,000 TONS T.N.T. EQUIVALENT, 15 KILL TONS.
TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS ONE-THIRD THAT SIZE OR LESS.
IT COULD BE A FACTOR OF 10 LESS. IT COULD BE EVEN A BIT MORE.
BUT TO GIVE YOU A STANDARD ON THE OTHER SIDE, IF YOU GO BACK
TO THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING OF SOME YEARS AGO, THE DESTRUCTION
THAT CAUSED, THAT WAS, OF COURSING, NOT A NUCLEAR WEAPON.
THAT WAS A FERTILIZER BOMB, BASICALLY.
SO NO RADIATION. BUT THAT WAS TWO TONS.
SO 10,000 TIMES LESS THAN HIROSHIMA.
SO IT GIVES YOU A SCALE. A SMALL NUCLEAR WEAPON AIN'T ALL
THAT SMALL. I MEAN, IT'S STILL A PRETTY BAD
DAY. >> Stephen: RIGHT, IT SEEMS TO
ME THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THE WORST THING YOU COULD THINK OF
AND THE UNTHINKABLE. LIKE, THAT'S THE SCALE.
YOU KNOW, THE WORST THING YOU CAN IMAGINE, AND UNIMAGINABLY
HORRIBLE. WHY DO TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
EXIST? >> SO THEY WERE INTRODUCED BY
THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET UNION AS YOU SAID, AS SOMETHING
THAT COULD BE VIABLY USED IN A BATTLEFIELD.
SO YOU WOULD LITERALLY USE THEM AGAINST TROOP CONCENTRATIONS OR
SUPPLY LINES AND THE LIKE. THE UNITED STATES HAS GOTTEN RID
OF MOST OF ITS IT TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
THE SOVIET UNION HAS NOT. THEY'VE GOT ABOUT 2,000 OF THEM.
AND PUTIN'S NUCLEAR SABER RATTLING IS CERTAINLY VERY
UNSETTLING, TO PUT IT MILDLY. BUT, YOU KNOW, HE'S ALREADY
CROSSED A LINE, EVEN WITHOUT USING A NUCLEAR WEAPON, AS HE
HAS ESSENTIALLY THREATENED TO DO MANY TIMES.
AND THE REASON IS THTHAT, YOU KNOW, THE UNITED STATES AND THE
SOVIET UNION ALWAYS TOOK A, WHAT I WOULD SAY RESPONSIBLE
POSITION, UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAD THESE HUGE ARSENALS, AND
THAT WE HAD TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT MANAGING THEM.
AND WE HAD THEM JUST TO PREVENT THE OTHER SIDE FROM ATTACK, US.
>> Stephen: RIGHT, DETERRENCE. >> DETERRENCE, RIGHT.
WHEREAS PUTIN NOW HAS USED IT AS A COERCIVE TOOL TO INVADE A
NON-NUCLEAR WEAPON STATE. IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE.
>> Stephen: A NON-NUCLEAR WEAPON STATE.
>> UKRAINE. >> Stephen: SPECIFICALLY GAVE
THEIR NUKES TO RUSSIA WHEN THE... BROKE UP.
>> SOVIET NUCLEAR WEAPONS RETURNED TO RUSSIA, EXACTLY.
AND I WOULD NOTE THAT THE MANY, MANY COUNTRIES THAT DO NOT HAVE
NUCLEAR WEAPONS CERTAINLY PAY ATTENTION TO THIS.
BECAUSE THE FEAR HAS ALSO OF ALWAYS BEEN THAT UNTIL THE
NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES GOT RID OF THEIR NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THEY
COULD BE USED EXACTLY THAT WAY, AS TOOLS OF COERCION.
SO ONE TABU HAS BEEN BROKEN. BUT THE BIG TABU AGAINST USING A
NUCLEAR WEAPON WE HOPE WILL HOLD.
, OBVIOUSLY, DESPITE THE THREATS.
>> Stephen: TODAY, WE LEARNED THAT RUSSIAN MILITARY LEADERS
DISCUSSED THE USE OF TACTICAL NUKES.
WE HAVE INTELLIGENCE SAYING THAT.
AND THAT THE UPSHOT OF THIS INTEL THAT THEY HAVE IS THE
RUSSIAN GENERALS BELIEVE PUTIN IS SERIOUS ABOUT THIS, EVEN
THOUGH HE HAS SAID, "NO, I WOUL" >> THAT MILITARY LEADERS ARE
DISCUSSING THAT IS NOT NEW. THAT HAS BEEN FOR DECADES.
WHAT IS NEW IS DOING IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESIDENT, WHO
HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO USE THOSE WEAPONSs, HAVING
THREATENED TO USE THEM. >> Stephen: DID YOU THINK WE
WOULD BE HERE? BECAUSE WE BOTH GREW UP WITH THE
LOOMING THREAT OF A STRATEGIC EXCHANGE OF I.C.B.M.s AND THE
IDEA IT IS ALL GOING TO BE OVER TOMORROW NATCHES AN
ONGOING,ICILY, NIGHTMARE OF MY CHILDHOOD.
BUT I LET THAT GO IN THE MID-90s.
DID YOU IMAGINE WE'D BE HERE HAVING A REASONABLE SUBJECT FOR
DISCUSSION IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOU'RE REFERRING BACK TO THE "DUCK AND
COVER" DAYS. >> Stephen: EXACTLY.
>> UNDER THE SCHOOL DESK. >> Stephen: DO WE NEED TO JUST
DISTRIBUTE SCHOOL DESKS AGAIN? >> ABSOLUTELY.
BUT REALLY THICK ONES.
I THINK ONE IS SEEING A REVIVAL OF BUILDING BOMB SHELTERS IN THE
UNITED STATES. SO WE'RE KIND OF GOING BACK TO
THAT TIME. BUT YOUR QUESTION, LOOK, THE
COLD WAR ENDED EARLY 90s. THERE WAS A KIND OF, LIKE, A
COLLECTIVE EXHALE. "WELL, WE GOT PAST THAT."
THE TROUBLE IS THAT THERE ARE SOME NEW THREATS, LIKE CYBER
ATTACKS. SUPPOSE THERE'S A SUCCESSFUL
CYBERATTACK ON THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMMAND SYSTEM, COMMAND
AND CONTROL SYSTEM? WHAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT IS
BLUNDER, THAT NOBODY MEANS TO USE THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN A
MAJOR EXCHANGE, BUT THAT THERE'S A BLUNDER.
SOMEBODY HACKS IN, INITIATES A SERIES OF EVENTS WHERE, YOU
KNOW, PRESIDENTS ONLY HAVE MINUTES TO MAKE A DECISION IN
TERMS OF WHAT TO DO. SO WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THAT,
WHICH IS WHY WE THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP ON WITH LOWERING THE NUMBER
OF WEAPONS, EVENTUALLY GET RID OF THEM, AND SATISFY OUR
NONPROLIFERATION GOALS. >> Stephen: WHO CAN TALK TO
PUTIN? >> SO, WE THINK THAT WHO CAN
TALK TO PUTIN SUCCESSFULLY-- I MEAN, MANY PEOPLE CAN TALK WITH
PUTIN-- BUT SUCCESSFULLY, I THINK YOU HAVE TO START BY
LOOKING AT WHO DOES HE-- WHO DOES RUSSIA NEED ON HIS SIDE?
NEEDS CHINA. NEEDS INDIA.
THEY'RE BUYING THE OIL RIGHT NOW FROM RUSSIA.
MAYBE YOU CAN ARGUE SAUDI ARABIA AND OPEC FOR THE OIL MARKETS,
YOU KNOW, ET CETERA. SO THE LEADERS OF THOSE
COUNTRIES, AND MOST ESPECIALLY CHINA, COULD HAVE REAL SWAY.
AND WE HAVE ARGUED THAT IF PUTIN WERE TO USE A NUCLEAR WEAPON IN
UKRAINE, IT WOULD BE VERY BAD FOR CHINA'S SELF-INTEREST,
BECAUSE THAT COULD LEAD IN UNCONTROLLED WAYS TO THEIR OWN
SECURITY ENVIRONMENT UNRAVELING. YOU KNOW, THEY LIVE IN A
NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA AND TAIWAN, FRANKLY,
ALL HAVE SIGNIFICANT NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES.
AND IF THEY DECIDED, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD TO MOVE TOWARDS NUCLEAR
WEAPONS, THEY CERTAINLY HAVE THE TECHNICAL CAPABILITY TO DO SO.
SO WE THINK CHINA HAS A SELF-INTEREST, AND PRESIDENT XI
SHOULD BE TALKING TO HIS DECLARED FRIEND "DON'T CROSS
THAT LINE." >> Stephen: THANK YOU FOR SUCH
A CHEERFUL CONVERSATION.
>> Stephen: SECRETARY ERNEST MONIZ, EVERYBODY!
WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. THANK YOU.