In the back? Yes, good. I'm Scott Sagan from Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation. I want to welcome you to this panel. I've been asked in order to give time to our distinguished panelists not to introduce them in any detail, but to encourage you to get the app in which you can find their more fulsome biographies represented there. The instructions that I've been given and that I have passed on to them is that they are not to give speeches. They will begin by describing a scenario in which they think the use of nuclear weapons is most likely in their region or area of expertise. And they are to stop after four minutes with a nuclear weapons use and not describe what happens next because we're going to be comparing what could happen next throughout the panel discussion.  We'll be going in alphabetical order, starting with Alexei Arbatov. How did you? Well, let me start with thanking Carnegie Endowment and, in particular, Carnegie Moscow Center. I recently left it, but I have spent there 13 years, which was a great time of my life, both professionally and socially. So thank you very much. By way of introduction, I would like to say that the most dangerous crisis might occur between Russia and the United States if their relations continue to deteriorate. In particular, in Russia, there was some hopes that the result of American elections would help to improve relations. Now these hopes are less pronounced. And if things go on like they were before, we may face a real clash in Eastern Europe. The new violence in Ukraine could erupt every day. The Minsk agreements are not implemented properly. And the technology is driving Russia and the United States towards lower and lower threshold of using not only tactical nuclear weapons, that is something that existed in the past, but even strategic nuclear weapons. And this technology is driving strategy and operational planning without any political guidance. At least that's how I see it. So I think that the order of priorities for Russian-American relations is all wrong. The order of priorities start to cooperate on fighting terrorism and then deal with everything else. I think this is not going to work. And the recent times have proved it. The first priority is to resolve the crisis in Ukraine and across post-Soviet space in general, the crisis between Russia and the West. Since Minsk agreements are not working properly, we have to supplement them with additional mechanisms to work. As Winston Churchill once said, however beautiful your strategy, you have to check results from time to time. So this relates to Minsk agreement, not changing them with something else, but helping to implement them. The saving INF Treaty is the number one priority and starting negotiations on the follow-on to start negotiations. And after that, if we move in this direction, make several positive steps, we would be able to coordinate our fight against terrorism much better than before, but not the other way around. And we need to have a nuclear weapon go off at the end of your four minutes. Yeah, the problem is that the planning is now going on for early use of nuclear weapons. If the war takes place, it will take place much closer to Russian borders than during the Cold War times. And Russian fears and stakes are that much more high, much higher. There are no mutually recognized dividing lines, either in Ukraine or Moldova, Georgia or Azerbaijan. And if the crisis erupts, it could draw into this violence Poland, Baltic states, Romania, Turkey. And that would draw NATO after those countries into direct clash with Russia. The conventional systems are developed now, which can be used against nuclear forces and CQB systems of nuclear forces. The technology is blurring the traditional lines between nuclear and conventional systems, between offensive and defensive systems, between regional and global systems. And this technology is getting out of control against the background of political confrontation and disintegration of nuclear arms control and nonproliferation regime. Thank you, Alexei. Yuri? Thank you. Well, I come from Estonia. And as Alexei mentioned, the Baltic Sea region, walking of Poland, the Baltic states, are often seen as a possible area for a military conflict. People say less about possible nuclear confrontation there. But obviously, when you speak about the military conflict, then the shadow of that option is always there. Now, let me say that the tensions, which, especially the media people, often see when flying into Estonia and looking for Russian troops pouring over the border or stuff like that. This is, of course, not the case. And I think we can take a very realistic point of view of what the risks are. Now, NATO, I believe, has done a lot to mitigate those potential risks, because after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is crossing the international-recognized borders, obviously, the military dimensions of deterrent became of crucial value. And let me point out three of them. It's enhanced forward presence, putting boots on the ground. It's recreating the concept of follow-on forces. And obviously, there is also a nuclear dimension, which perhaps few people noticed was actually discussed at the last NATO summit. And when it comes to particularly the Baltic states, and I will cast aside the option of a total nuclear exchange, then analysts have spoken of two possible options. One is a more sort of operational one, if you mean the use of tactical nuclear weapons in a conflict situation. You cannot exclude that Russian relevant concept says that in both local and regional wars, the deployment of tactical nuclear use, the tactical nuclear force, is possible. Very unlikely indeed, considering the real circumstances. The other, which I believe perhaps is a much more likely scenario, is whereby the use of nuclear force is threatened to de-escalate the situation. Russian Federation has this somewhat awkward concept, which could be summed up by saying escalate to de-escalate. And in the Baltic states, the area which can be covered with the so-called A2AD bubble, the nuclear force can be one of the tools of emphasizing that you shouldn't come, you shouldn't try to break the A2AD bubble, and the easiest way for the Allied forces to act is to de-escalate. Again, very unlikely that it would actually bring to any nuclear exchange simply because the stakes there are too high and the benefits are very, very, very low. Thank you. Thank you, Yuri. Vibhan Naran. Thanks to Carnegie for having me. I was asked to speak about South Asia. Everybody thinks they know the likeliest pathway to nuclear first use in South Asia. It is called a conventional wisdom for a reason. It starts with a terrorist attack presumed to be from Pakistan on an Indian metropole that kills score due to domestic political pressures banging for blood. The government of India orders the mobilization of its three main strike corps and commences offensive operations across the international border, not limiting its response to the Jammu and Kashmir sector and the line of control. The deepest thrust is undertaken by what's known as 21 Corps and its supporting elements in the desert sector. 21 Corps threatens to bisect Pakistan's north-south communication lines, putting Pakistani conventional forces on its heels. Unable to slow down 21 Corps, Pakistan flushes out, where we all know are now the Nasser Tactical Nuclear Weapons Batteries or Sabdali missiles, and its strategic plans division authorizes their use, either in demonstration shots against concentrated 21 Corps armor divisions or bridgeheads and logistics behind the main thrust to slow down the Indian offensive. India then promises what most presume is massive counter-value retaliation against Pakistani cities, leaving aside how credible or incredible that might be. This is how nuclear first use would unfold in South Asia, right? Well, maybe not so fast. There is increasing evidence that India will not allow Pakistan to go first and that India's opening salvo may not be conventional strikes trying to pick off Nasser batteries in the theater, but a full comprehensive and preemptive nuclear counter-force strike that attempts to completely disarm Pakistan of its nuclear weapons so that India does not have to engage in iterative tit-for-tat exchanges and expose its own cities to nuclear destruction. This thinking surfaces not from fringe extreme voices, such as, I dare say, Barth Karnad, or retired Indian Army officers frustrated by the lack of resolve they believe their government has shown since 1998, but from no less than a former Strategic Forces Command CNC, Lieutenant General B.S. Nagel, and perhaps more importantly, and authoritatively, from the highly respected and influential former National Security Advisor, Shiv Shankar Menon, in plain sight in his recent 2016 book Choices Inside the Making of Indian Foreign Policy. In short, we may be witnessing what I call a decoupling of Indian nuclear strategy between China and Pakistan. Although India threatens assured retaliation against China, those forces required to do so may allow it to pursue more aggressive strategies, such as escalation dominance or increasingly calls for a splendid first strike against Pakistan. But wait, you say, doesn't Indian official nuclear doctrine posture clearly espouse a no-first-use doctrine and threaten massive counter-value retaliation? As Scott Sagan and others, including myself, have pointed out, the sanctity of India's NFU has already eroded into its official doctrine by threatening nuclear use against chemical and biological weapons use, and the doctrine is silent about targeting, only threatening massive retaliation to inflict unacceptable damage. This could be counter-value and has long been presumed to be, but it does not have to be. Could this all be changing? Indeed, as Shiv Shankar Menon recently stated, India's nuclear doctrine has far greater flexibility than it gets credit for. First, although he ultimately concludes that no first use is ultimately in India's strategic interests, he further undermines its sanctity when he writes the following. There is a potential gray area as to when India would use nuclear weapons first against another nuclear weapon state. Circumstances are conceivable in which India might find it useful to strike first. For instance, against a nuclear weapon state that declared it would certainly use its weapons and if India were certain that its adversaries launched was imminent. In practice, this scenario could open the door for India to initiate preemptive nuclear use if, for example, it detected Pakistan moving tactical nuclear weapons batteries into the theater, no matter how imminent their use may actually be. Indian security managers would have no choice but to assume intent to use at that point. This thinking dovetails with the writings of former SFCCNC BS Noggle, who questioned the morality of no first use, particularly in a democratic state like India, asking how an Indian leadership could accept significant casualties if it knew a nuclear use by Pakistan were imminent. Just in November 2016, the sitting defense minister, Manohar Parikar, stated in his quote-unquote personal capacity insofar as that's possible that India should not declare one way or another, whether it would use nuclear weapons first or not. Increasingly, it is very clear that serious national security officials in India have every intention of moving away from a no first use policy. Menon clearly carves out an exception for preemptive Indian first use in the various scenario that is most likely to occur in South Asia. Indian leaders can disavow all of this as personal opinions, but when a sitting defense minister, a former strategic forces commander, and a highly respected national security advisor all question the sanctity of no first use, it all starts to add up. More interestingly, Menon elucidates what the nature of Indian first use might be. First, he refers to counter value targeting in the past tense. He writes quote-unquote instead the logical posture at first was counter value targeting or targeting an opponent's assets rather than counter force targeting, which concentrates on the enemy's military command structures, implying that the current strategy may have shifted. He further writes quote-unquote what would be credible would be the message India conveyed by how it configures its forces. If Pakistan were to use tactical nuclear weapons against India or believe to imminently be prepared to do so, even against Indian forces in Pakistan, it would effectively be opening the door to a massive Indian first strike, having crossed India's declared red lines. There would be little incentive once Pakistan had taken hostility to the nuclear level for India to limit its response, since that would only further escalation by Pakistan. India would hardly risk giving Pakistan the chance to carry out a massive nuclear strike of its own after the Indian force to Pakistan using tactical nuclear weapons. In other words, Pakistani tactical nuclear weapons use would effectively free India to undertake a comprehensive first strike against Pakistan unquote. Make no mistake he's talking about completely disarming Pakistan in an Indian nuclear strike so that it had no ability to retaliate in a third strike against Indian high value targets. In combination these paragraphs suggest that the party that goes first in the most likely pathway to nuclear first use in South Asia might not be Pakistan, but India if and when it believed that Pakistan might be ready across the nuclear threshold. Can India do this now? Almost certainly not. There's little evidence that it can find, fix and destroy Pakistan's nuclear forces in real time on land even if it believes that it only really needs to prioritize targeting the longer range strategic systems and can leave the tactical systems aside in order to achieve a significant damage limitation it is unclear whether India has a good fix of all the locations of Pakistani strategic forces. Vip and I'm taking off my shoe. All of the forces and capabilities that India needs to develop in order to achieve this strategy are being developed so our conventional understanding of South Asia's nuclear dynamics and who in fact might use nuclear weapons first and in what mode may need a hard rethink giving these emerging authoritative voices in India who are not content to see the nuclear initiative to Pakistan and this would mark a major shift in the Indian strategy if adopted and implemented a preemptive nuclear counter force by India with all of its attendant consequences. Thank you for not making me fulfill my threat. Caitlin tell me. Great thanks so much to Carnegie for the opportunity to participate. I was asked to speak about the possibility of U.S. China scenarios which I've looked at in some recent work specifically the possibility of potential Chinese nuclear escalation in the event of a conventional war with the United States and many of us kind of often wonder if China should even be discussed on a panel like this. We often don't worry about this problem too much because of course China has a long standing no first use pledge. It seems like it has highly centralized political control over nuclear weapons and so a lot of the potential dangers of nuclear use that we sometimes worry about with respect to other countries seem like maybe they wouldn't apply in the case of China and so those are all things that are kind of in the good news category. I think what's potentially in the bad news category is that if a conventional war did break out between the United States and China which admittedly is a low probability event although maybe less low probability than it used to be there's a good chance that the way that the United States might prosecute that conventional war could actually heighten the potential likelihood of Chinese nuclear use despite many of the factors that we often consider to be inhibitory of Chinese nuclear use and the main reason for this I think is that U.S. military strategy as China for conventional war sorts of scenarios is premised on rapidly short circuiting Chinese conventional military capabilities by engaging in a pretty extensive and in my view fairly aggressive series of air-enabled operations within the first island chain and even on the Chinese mainland and these would have implications potentially not only for China's conventional capabilities but also for the survivability of its still relatively small relatively fragile nuclear forces and this is especially true I think for potential conflict over Taiwan which is the scenario I've analyzed in the most depth because I think it would involve the highest stakes for China and arguably for the United States as well and also be likely to see the most large scale conventional fighting of the type that might activate some of the dynamics that I think are potentially of concern when you sit down and start to actually look for example at the U.S. target set of Chinese air defenses and missile bases, launch brigades launch sites, communications network networks, conventional ground forces conventional naval forces and transportation networks that a large scale U.S. conventional campaign would potentially encompass along the coast and inside eastern and potentially southeastern China depending on what type of scenario you're talking about this is a conventional campaign that actually has a significant potential to erode some components of China's retaliatory capability both directly and indirectly for example by going after conventional forces that are vital to the protection and support and operation of nuclear forces now China of course in the midst of this sort of campaign would still have some residual nuclear capability if for no other reason than many of China's most important nuclear assets are not located on the coast or located in interior China in areas that are not going to be geographically proximate to the most likely locations of the U.S. campaign but I think the critical question at that juncture is how China is likely to assess the residual survivability of that set of remaining nuclear forces and how China is likely to view the requirements of nuclear deterrence in a world where it's just experienced a really significant conventional deterrence failure which by definition is the world that we would be in if we were talking about a significant war between the United States and China over something like Taiwan and I think it's quite possible that in the midst of that sort of major conventional conflict seeing the United States starting to erode significant components of the nuclear deterrent or components of its conventional forces relevant to its nuclear deterrent China might start to infer that U.S. ambitions are unlimited that it's seeking potentially to gear up for an actual counter force campaign which might be a prelude to things like regime change and it you know sounds kind of crazy to talk about in peace time but actually when we look at the behavior of states in the midst of serious conventional wars especially unanticipated conventional wars that aren't going as well as countries might have expected them to states often radically and more pessimistically reassess the intentions of their adversaries and reassess what they might be willing to do to stop their adversaries and in fact when we look at China's only past instance of fighting a conventional war against a nuclear armed state the Soviet Union in 1969 we see that in fact China radically engaged in this sort of reassessment of Soviet intentions and in fact came very close to the precipice of preparing to use its nuclear weapons and so I think China could potentially in this sort of scenario see forms of limited nuclear escalation as a way to respond to a U.S. campaign that started to have these glimmers of potential counter force implications and I could basically see this taking two forms one is China could use nuclear weapons in a limited fashion for military advantage so for example it could use a nuclear weapon to try to expeditiously halt the components of a U.S. conventional campaign that it found to have the most threatening counter force implications so going after a U.S. air base or U.S. carrier strike group that was for example tearing down the air defenses that were protecting not only China's conventional forces but its nuclear forces or I think China could engage in limited nuclear use for coercive purposes for bargaining or signaling purposes for example a demonstration strike or strike against an isolated military target not for purposes of pure operational advantage but rather to signal to the United States that China is being crossed and that China considered the war to be taking on potential nuclear implications and in fact despite China's no first use pledge it has left ambiguity about whether it would consider the sorts of conventional attacks that I'm talking about on its nuclear or nuclear relevant forces to vitiate that pledge and so those are some things that I worry about. Let me use some comments to reflect on others that have been made about the desperate demonstration strike or the Neuron scenario about preemption in a war are the kinds of scenarios that you might have in mind Alexei and Yuri but you didn't say with specificity are you worried about first use by Russia in a preemptive manner because they're fear use by NATO or are you worried about a demonstration strike what specifically would you worry about the same question for Yuri? I was meaning that US or NATO precision guidance systems could attack Russian nuclear forces early warning raiders bombers and submarines which are collocated at bases in case of even a limited clash between Russia and NATO and that would provoke Russian response with nuclear weapons second point is that if there is a military confrontation which grows into a direct conflict then there will be no such thing as isolated local theater the present technology would immediately make it global just by the nature of technology and operational planning then most new US weapons in particular tactical B-61-12 bomb it's both strategic and tactical all new Russian systems sea and air based cruise missiles are dual purpose systems Russia is developing hypersonic systems just like the United States which also will be dual purpose system will be deployed probably on strategic launchers so we are facing technology which is really getting out of control and if there is just one match which brings us into direct collision all this technology will start working the paradox of today compared to 25 years ago we have an order of magnitude fewer nuclear weapons and we have a very stable strategic balance by definitions of the past no possibility of disarming nuclear strike nonetheless precisely in this situation selective use of tactical and strategic systems is contemplated by new communities in Russia it is a famous de-escalation strategy which was declared in 2003 and which never cancelled and you do not know how it is today probably still is being elaborated in the United States it's tailored limited nuclear options which are discussed now I do not imagine 30 years ago Gorbachev signed a declaration that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought can you imagine presently such a joint declaration negotiated and made public by American and Russian president would be very difficult they have never neither Russian president nor previous American presidents have never reconfirmed they believe in that neither do the leaders of the 7 nuclear weapons states have never pronounced such a declaration it doesn't mean that Russian and American leaders want nuclear war or hope to win in a nuclear war but they consider nuclear weapons as an effective mechanism to oppose aggression and that is stated in Russian military doctrine and in American nuclear posture however most of the conflicts after 1945 planned massive aggression but rather the crisis getting out of hand who was the aggressor during the Cuban Missile Crisis who was the aggressor during the war in the Middle East in 1957 in 1973 and we could face such a situation in the future because of the new very deep conflict and confrontation between Russia and the West and the leaders will find themselves in a situation when they are immediately losing control of a defense establishment on forces and the military technology which is being used according to operational plans which they never had seriously discussed and understood in advance Yuri, what specific scenarios are you most worried about? Well unfortunately there are specific scenarios which have been sort of realizing elsewhere and the main scenario I of course keep in mind and I would say many people in the Baltic states keep in mind is the Ukrainian scenario the Crimean scenario East Ukraine where you have one country a nuclear power crossing the internationally recognized borders which this country itself has recognized in many documents with conventional military forces and in addition to that bringing this nuclear component to play not so much sort of with any operational or tactical moves but with kind of visibility with declarations you remember Putin said in a newscast in a documentary he said afterwards you know that we had the nuclear weapons ready or during the conflict he said everybody should recognize that Russia is a massive nuclear power now signals like that are clearly meant to indicate that in addition to conventional aspects there is always the possibility of the nuclear aspect but we are not talking about the real military scenario I mean it has existed it has happened it is still happening so it is clear that in the Baltic states people are concerned that while we believe in the unity of NATO and readiness to protect us it is very important that NATO leaders would recognize that this readiness should also entail readiness to disregard what I would call a nuclear bluff kind of if you come we will do this or we will do that this is very likely to emerge should there be a crisis scenario very very likely so we have to psychologically understand that this option is there I am not speaking about the use I am speaking about the bluster that is certainly an issue when it comes to the NATO side obviously since Estonia is a member of NATO we do not see options of NATO behaving aggressively in our neighborhood we believe very much that NATO is a protective organization and I mean I have always or often been critical of the Russian military for various reasons but I know that they can count some people are saying putting a NATO battalion to Estonia would somehow exponentially raise the risk level I believe exactly the contrary I believe that this is a symbol of a serious NATO commitment which in effect avoids the risk of escalation at the same time a battalion speaks to all generals that we are talking about the military force compared to the enormous capabilities on the other side of the border I will not argue about Putin's quotations I am not his advocate but he didn't say what you said it was a different way that's not so important what is important is that of course NATO is a defensive alliance politically but this defensive alliance has moved to Russian borders during the last quarter century not the other way around and besides this nuclear paradox which I described there is a conventional paradox because the West looks at Russia and sees a conventional superiority over its weak neighbors and Russia disregarding and discarding the fears and concerns of those neighbors but Russia looking west considers those modest deployments as the forward echelon of a superior NATO conventional forces deployed across the rest of Europe and across the Atlantic deployed to Russian borders in contrast to strategic balance which we perceive more or less in the same way we look at this conventional balance in absolutely incompatible ways and that is an important issue which is to be resolved not by blaming each other in aggressiveness although I would not approve everything that Russia is doing in this geographical area but to understand this asymmetry and to deal with it diplomatically through all kinds of confidence-building transparency limiting exercises and eventually reducing force deployments as a first step for instance agreeing that NATO would not deploy more forces in the forward area than it has decided to deploy during this initial step and Russia will stop built up over its conventional forces in its territory in western and southern military districts there are two words that have not been spoken in this panel so far that I'm very surprised at Donald Trump maybe starting with I meant him in my initial state I got some hints maybe starting on this side do you have thoughts on how Katelyn and Vipin start with you and how a Trump presidency makes a difference in the scenarios that you're talking about or does it Katelyn? I'll jump in with just a couple of comments I mean the gist of the scenario that I was mentioning is that the United States in conducting a potential conventional campaign against China in defense of an ally Taiwan you can also imagine other scenarios in the region maybe even in East China Sea could in the US design be a conventional campaign aimed at Chinese conventional capabilities but could be misread by China as potentially having implications for the survivability of Chinese nuclear forces particularly because as I mentioned some components of the conventional campaign have the ability to infringe or even directly go after or threaten some components of Chinese nuclear forces and I'd be happy to talk in more detail about that but what I want to get across though is that the problem has to do with whether the United States fully appreciates how its military campaign may look to China and some of the pressures that that conventional campaign may place on Chinese Chinese nuclear capabilities and how Chinese leaders might react to that threat under the pressures of an intense conventional war and so one way to potentially ameliorate that problem or to think about how the United States might avoid it would be for there to be some strategic empathy in the design of US policy to have the ability among US policy makers and particularly campaign planners, military campaign planners to think about how are these actions going to be interpreted by our opponent do they have the ability to look more threatening particularly given kind of war time dynamics than perhaps we intend them to be and therefore to contribute to escalation that might be unintended and so I guess my only comment in response to your question would be that we should consider whether recent developments perhaps may make that more difficult whether we have leaders that are going to be taking into consideration those sorts of factors in designing a campaign and perhaps even more worrisome, I worry a bit that maybe we actually have leaders who are moving maybe in the other direction where they would be happy to have the US conventional campaign pose these potential types of threats and maybe not fully appreciate how our adversaries potentially would interpret them and react. I think to the extent that a Trump presidency affects South Asia it's really on the posture side when President Trump tweets about expanding and strengthening US nuclear arsenal I think that opens the floodgates for India and Pakistan to do so and both India and Pakistan are in the midst of an arms race, both are increasing their arsenal sizes both are increasing the diversity of their platforms and so if the US gives license to regional powers to also expand and modernize their arsenals or even resumes nuclear testing for example, both India and Pakistan are trying to miniaturize warheads India is trying to develop MIRV so is Pakistan Pakistan with the tactical nuclear weapons if the US were to resume testing nuclear weapons these regional states would follow suit and that would really accelerate their ability to develop more accurate smaller mobile missile sorry warheads for their mobile missile systems and that would really accelerate I think some of the worst dynamics in the South Asia arms race let me push a little further on this question because I've written in the past about the commitment trap problem that someone makes a threat for deterrent purposes not anticipating using implementing the threat and then the threat fails and public pressures encourage a leader to follow through on his or her threats we have today a president who not just worries about domestic political pressure but presidential pride to follow through on threats could be an important element here which I worry about Alexi do you worry about Putin feeling he has to follow through on threats if what you recall the bluff was seen as a bluff and therefore does commitment trap dynamics encourage use well such a tremendous decision as a decision to use nuclear weapons is not to be taken under public pressure if it is ever taken it will be a decision taken to avoid crushing defeat and in Russian doctrine it says that Russia may use nuclear weapons first if attacked by conventional forces which threaten the very state hood of the Russian Federation of course the state hood is a very unclear notion but it means that it's only in a very serious situation and not just to live up to one's bluff it's to avoid something that would be a disaster for the state that's how I see it with respect to President Trump I think one issue is becoming more or less clear he will not be interested in arms control as much as the preceding administration he does not have people around him who are knowledgeable in arms control as for instance as Carter was as your secretary of defense so if Russia will not take in its hands this issue and does not start much more active policy regarding INF treaty controversies follow on to start and other things then nuclear arms control regime is in a very big trouble and I do not think that there will be anything left of it in several years the other scenario that was never discussed here is to my mind as likely and perhaps more likely than the ones that were which is a nuclear use on the Korean peninsula some of the dynamics of what Thomas Schelling used to call the mutual alarm the reciprocal fear of surprise attack I think are strong there and have been I think heightened by recent statements from Secretary Tillerson openly talking about all options being on the table including what has been called anticipatory self defense do you worry about North Korea as much as you worry about the scenarios that you were asked to speak about today and if not why not so I actually worry about North Korea probably more than any of the scenarios that we were asked to speak about because I think to put it very simply North Korea does not have a lot of other good strategic ways of talking about take place there right I think and several others I think almost all of the dynamics that we all talked about and some additional ones because North Korean conventional capability is so weak they're you know the smart move for them in some ways I can see themselves you know saying to themselves is to have the ability to at least threaten or actually use nuclear weapons early on for any of the purposes that we've talked about to stalemate US conventional forces actively as you kind of alluded to paralyze or find and destroy North Korean nuclear forces very early in a conflict so I worry about that I also worry about the things the United States that the things the United States might do to potentially deal with potential North Korean nuclear use create cross pressures and problems in trying to prevent nuclear use in some of these other scenarios that we've talked about so for example you know I think if you believe that the United States on the first day of a war with North Korea needs to have the ability to find the KNOA it's the potential road mobile North Korean ICBMs the capabilities that the United States is developing and would be developing presumably to conduct those sorts of operations like having you know synthetic aperture radar mounted on satellites to hunt mobile targets things along those lines and if you think the United States needs to be able to you know shoot down potential North Korean missiles by deploying missile defenses in the region again not an unreasonable proposition that's all well and good but China I think in the region looks at US development of those exact same capabilities capabilities for counter force capabilities for damage limitation and I think that plays into potential Chinese fears in the event that we were in a conventional conflict with China that the United States has these capabilities that it could also be using against China and so you know not only do I worry about North Korea you know along the scenario that you mentioned but I worry that many of the things we would probably rightly be doing to to solve that problem or to try to deal with it on the first day of a war with North Korea if we got into a war with China really could potentially raise some of those Chinese suspicions that could lead to escalation for other reasons in that scenario so it's thorny. Other kind of dipping. Yeah I mean states with small arsenals where they worry about the survivability of those arsenals and are under direct pressure scare me and then you know states with leaders where the information processing is as pathological as is in North Korea terrify me if you're in North Korea and you think that the Americans and the rock are coming your smartest move is to go early and go massively because you don't know what's going to survive and you know there is we've talked about benefits of the survivability and I think Pakistan and India are getting to numbers where the idea of splendid first strike is hard to really envision despite what the Indian thinking may be evolving toward but against North Korea it's plausible and so you're getting into territory of first strike instability and then you add the pathologies of leadership on top of it and I don't think you know we haven't lived in our generation through anything potentially that terrifying. Yuri or Alex say anything on this or should we move questions from the audience? I could comment on that please. I cannot conceive of a situation where North Korea would start a massive conventional war or use its nuclear weapons because Korea needs its nuclear weapons to consolidate the regime and to tell North Korean people that they are advanced and so on they are nuclear power and so on but I can easily conceive of North Korea continuing continuing testing nuclear weapons and developing intercontinental ballistic missiles and if here in the United States this is considered intolerable and the United States use conventional forces to destroy to disarm North Korea then it might use nuclear weapons if any are left after such an attack. I would just note that a few years ago I was doing research in the Saddam Hussein archives here at the National Defense University and saw so many examples of Saddam's yes men telling him that his military capability was much greater than it was because he had asked them to get that capability and when they couldn't get it of course they couldn't tell him that. I worry for example when you see the pictures of Kim Jong-un with his generals and missiles on the drawing boards launching towards the United States that may just be pure propaganda but it could also be propaganda for their their lone leader and in these scenarios I think we need to worry very deeply about how much understanding he has of his own military limitations but as little as he has of the understanding he cannot imagine that North Korea would survive after American retaliation and they do not have any ballistic missile defense at all and would never have it. Fair enough. Let's open this up to the audience. There are microphones scattered on each area I will call on individuals if you could state your name and your affiliation and then ask a question addressed to one or more of the members of the group. Please. My name is Laura Rockwood I'm with the VC DNP I apologize I missed the very last part of what Alexei said but I didn't hear anybody posit the hypothetical of the United States taking the first action in the use of a nuclear weapon. Is that so inconceivable that we can't posit that as a hypothetical given what we're dealing with in today's environment? Who would like to answer that? Could it absolutely never happen? We can't roll anything out but I would say that nuclear weapons are most useful as a last resort. I think none of the scenarios we're talking about here are ones where states would relish the prospect of using nuclear weapons I think states would see the use of nuclear weapons in all of the contingencies we have discussed as the least bad option and I think the reality for the United States is given its incredible conventional military capabilities it strikes me as really unlikely that the United States would reach that precipice before an adversary did it seems like the United States has so many potential alternatives all the scenarios we were talking about or situations where states might believe that they didn't have a good conventional alternative and so I think for that reason US nuclear use is often considered much much much lower probability I would note that Alexei go ahead. After you. I would just note that in an article published in the American Political Science Review a few years back when Valentino Darrell Press and I demonstrated that 20% of the American public wants to use nuclear weapons against terrorists even when told in the scenario that they don't need to use nuclear weapons that we have conventional capabilities that are sufficient and that that's 20% that prefers to 60% would approve of that use if the president chose to do so some of these dynamics are very worrisome in this and in other scenarios. Alexei. The United States from the very beginning the United States had a strategy of first use of nuclear weapons and first use of strategic weapons only in the 70's that started to change with negotiations and strategic parity and so on but of course when we are talking about use of nuclear weapons we are talking about very drastic situation and that reminds me one of my arguments with one of Russian at that time Soviet generals when Brezhnev declared in 1982 no first use no nuclear first use on the part of the Soviet Union and that one of the closed sessions one general was describing how effective nuclear weapons might be used in a theater war and I ask him how about the declaration by comrade Brezhnev Soviet Union will never use nuclear weapons first and he was confused and thought for some time and then said but we will never be first to use it in peacetime next question Howard Moreland retired journalist and activist first of all this is an excellent plenary almost all my questions have been answered by the panel my question is basically the same as the other question about the US nuclear first use and I would like to focus on the football the nuclear launch codes which are supposed to be within arms range of the president at all times now in our missile silos it takes two officers to turn the key at the same time but that football is just for the president and my understanding is the plan would be preemptive massive preemptive strike against Russia that's what our weapons are designed for and that's the only use that would require the president to be able to grab the codes and launch them immediately and these codes are now in the hands of a man who has no impulse control over his twitter account and I would seriously wonder if he's even in the early stages of early stage dementia I think we ought to look at what can you put this into a question please shouldn't we look at what these launch codes are what permission have we given to Donald Trump by these launch codes who wants to answer that I would just note that there is a bill that's been introduced trying to add extra a two-man rule to the command and control system that currently does not have such a rule at the highest level yes my name is James Rani I'm a retired law professor and I'd like to second the comments of the earlier this is a brilliant panel I have something from a draft of a book I've written that I thought would be relevant to the comments by Mr. Rani it's by a Cold War warrior Paul Nitsi obviously explaining the danger of what I call in my book a pre-preemptive preventive strike and Nitsi says that anticipating a preemptive strike by the other a country might well feel it should strike even sooner than planned to head off the other countries preemptive blow I could foresee the possibility of a situation arising in which there would be such an interaction of fear that it would be almost impossible to conceive how statesmen could prevent the situation from deteriorating into war so I'd invite Mr. Narang's comments is that right is the question well since Professor Sagan who taught me everything I know about nuclear weapons was about to hit me with a shoe I couldn't I mean obviously there are we don't talk about the risks of the Indian strategy obviously if the Pakistanis think the Indians are going to go first they have every incentive to go first and go massively if Pakistan even believes that India is heading in this direction is entering the phase in the Cold War when the US and the Soviet Union had first strike instability and it's very very dangerous and so I don't know one of the reasons why I want to surface this debate and we started doing it in the South Asian nuclear community because this debate needs to be had about whether this is a good idea you understand the logic from the Indian side the sterile logic is why should we allow Pakistan to be able to retaliate against our retaliation we should just disarm them completely but that kind of thinking very quickly leads to the kind of instabilities that you talked about thank you sir very quickly I mean this has been covered already but I think one of the challenges we are facing today is and Alexi mentioned it in his intervention is that the rules of the game are not clear and when I speak rules of the game I also mean the system of escalation I mean during the Cold War the aspect which avoided massive strikes and counter strikes or any use of nuclear weapons was the clear ladder of escalation which was possible from leading us with the smallest sort of use of low level tactical nuclear weapon to the highest and most damaging exchange nowadays this connection this ladder has been well you might say it has been broken so it is not clear anymore what will lead to what and I believe that could be one of the potential risks when we speak about the leaders coming to the idea of a limited strike or escalate to the escalate or some of these more limited options I think that is something which which is there the new rules are not clear but it is also because the nature of the countries we are talking about has changed the nature of technology has changed that is clearly something which we have to consider I could agree more and I would like to emphasize something which I believe very important the present situation is very different from the past strategic nuclear weapons may be used not to avoid destruction on the ground like before before launch under attack launch on warning was considered as a possible operation because strategic forces could be vulnerable to counter force attack not anymore for instance look at Russian strategic forces the new heavy missile which is called Sarmat will be put in silos in the same silos in which old missiles were those silos have become vulnerable 40 years ago and will remain vulnerable they may be used in a selective use of nuclear weapons because there is a whole theory which is called airspace warfare in Russian literature in discussions there is a strong believe in Russian strategic community and at the very top political level that American conventional superiority in long range precision guided systems could threaten Russian strategic forces conventional forces industrial forces and then Russia after defending its forces as much as it can with airspace defense it's a new armed service which is designed for that but after defending as much as it can would be obliged to use selectively strategic nuclear weapons to de-escalate to stop this warfare so but as we mentioned before the crisis may develop in a very different mode and very quickly jump to the top stage of escalation and I think that is why the nuclear first use and nuclear use in general is presently the great danger in strategic relationship between Russia and the United States and the absence of any negotiations we have not been having negotiations for six years after ratification of the new start treaty there is no contact no understanding between the military of their strategic thinking we exchange information on reduction of strategic forces but we have lost completely mutual understanding of the role of nuclear weapons of the way war may start of the way deterrence works of the role in deterrence of conventional offensive and defensive systems and that is a very very it's a reason for a very serious concern over on the side yes good morning my name is Carlo Trezza from Istituto Affari Internazional in Rome my question goes in particular to Alexei Arbatov because he mentioned the fact that the most immediate risks should be addressed to avoid the perspective of nuclear war and so I would like to ask him to address the issue which has been developed in Europe in particular by the European leadership network of the hazardous incidents military incidents which would could take place or and sometimes already take place between Russian and NATO air sea forces and also on the ground whether these incidents cannot open the possibility of a nuclear conflict at the end thank you well I couldn't support more enthusiastically this work of European leadership network and I think that the danger of incidents is a serious problem maybe in a normal situation of military exercises which are now taking place in very close proximity to each other by Russia and NATO military accident would not necessarily lead to to confrontation and to a conflict but if this happens against the background of political crisis say in Ukraine and is perceived as a test of force by one of the other side it could immediately lead to massive escalation and that's why I said that before that that the escalate our military confrontation in Europe is the number one task in parallel with Ukrainian problem which has to be resolved we cannot leave it it will not dissolve on its own we have to apply major efforts to move forward with resolving the Ukrainian issue Yuri you had to comment on this yeah I agree that the work done on the hazardous military incidents theme is important but here I would like to make kind of a caveat or a note that we cannot allow these incidents to artificially be created to a negotiating trump card if I can use that word


What a golden tragedy, but what a reminder as we begin our discussions over these few days about the force of nature, about the vulnerability of people and communities to the forces of nature. And many of these we've little control over. But as delegates we'll be very aware, it's precisely how we can strengthen and work with communities to build their resilience in the light of the forces of nature and in response to the impacts of climate change, which makes this conference so important.


Cats, like people, are prone to skin irritations. While they can often be treated with ointments and creams, an abscess can form if an irritation worsens or if bacteria invades the skin. An abscess can also occur when a cat becomes infected from a variety of injuries and can be found on virtually any part of an animal's body. It is important to note that while surface wounds are fairly common in pets, they can become problematic if they are infected and are left untreated. The simple description of an abscess is a pocket of pus located somewhere in the body. Abscesses are typically described by where they are located in the body. For instance, a tooth root abscess occurs at the tip of a tooth root, and a subcutaneous abscess occurs under the skin. Typically, an abscess appears suddenly as a painful swelling, if it is not located inside a body cavity or deep within tissue, that may be either firm to the touch or compressible like a water balloon. The abscess may be large or small, will often cause redness if it is under the skin, and may cause local tissue destruction. Some abscesses will rupture, discharging a foul-smelling secretion. Should the abscess be located inside the body, the fever would be expected, and there may be the additional complication of a widespread internal infection or bacteria in the blood stream if the abscess has ruptured internally. What to expect at the veterinarian? When you arrive at the veterinarian with your cat, the vet will typically perform a thorough evaluation of the abscess and your cat's overall health. If the abscess is open and draining, then your veterinarian vet may be able to treat your cat without sedation. But, if the abscess hasn't opened yet, then your veterinarian may have to administer sedation to your pet and lance the abscess. Samples of the pus will be collected and sent to the lab so your veterinarian will be more informed as to which antibiotics will work best against the infection. In some cases, a drain may need to be inserted by the vet to keep the abscess open and draining. It will be important to keep the drain as clean as possible. The vet usually will remove the drain after three days. Once your cat returns home, keep her confined while she heals. Ideally, you will want to keep her somewhere with easy-to-clean floors and walls, like a bathroom, laundry room, or mud room. Make sure the room is warm and dry and provide your cat with everything she needs to recover comfortably, like a litter box, soft blankets, food, and fresh water. Keep the wound clean by wiping it with a clean cloth soaked in warm water. Keep wiping the site until you remove all the visible pus. Be sure to tell your veterinarian about any medications or supplements your cat is currently taking so your veterinarian may make the best treatment decision for your pet's unique case and help reduce the risk of a potential drug interaction. Hello. This video is sponsored by Beemix Pets. Are you looking for high-quality cat collars at an affordable cost? Check out, BeemixPets.com. Use coupon code KittenLife, to get 20% off. Symptoms and Types. Cats are most likely to experience abscesses, as they tend to fight with other cats when they roam outdoors, and a fight wound can be susceptible to bacterial infection if not treated. However, animals can also develop infections from relatively minor abrasions. Pastorella multiseda is the most common bacteria to cause as skin infections. Another cause of skin irritation in pets is the staphylococcus intermedius, which can usually be treated with topical ointments. However, if either of these bacteria make their way deep into the skin, infection becomes a serious problem. A painful abscess will form in response to the bacterial invasion if the wound is left untreated. Causes of Cat Abscesses. The most common types of abscesses in cats are in the mouth and under the skin but abscesses can pop up almost anywhere in or on a cat. Abscesses are usually described by where they appear in the body and are caused by various bacteria including E. coli, certain Streptococcus species, Pseudomonas, Mycoplasma, Pastorella multiseda, Corny Bacterium, Actinomyces, Neucardia, Bartonella, Bacteroides, Clostridium, and Fuzobacterium. Dental abscesses, characterized by being inside the mouth, dental abscesses are found around disease teeth. When bacteria builds upon the surface of a tooth, the gums become inflamed which leads to gingivitis. If this bacteria doesn't get removed from tooth brushing or professional dental cleaning, it continues to stick to the tooth, gathers saliva and food debris, and forms plaque and calculus. This can cause abscesses under the gum line. If that bacteria also gets into the root canal of a broken or diseased tooth, such as one with a resorptive lesion, it can cause a tooth root abscess. Dental abscesses are common in cats but may be difficult for the average cat owner to notice. Bite wound abscesses, in order for a cat to develop a bite wound abscess, it needs to be bitten by another animal. This is why bite wound abscesses are most common in cats that spend time outdoors. When a cat gets bit, bacteria enters the wound and an abscess begins to form. These are seen under the skin of cats as lumps and usually aren't noticed by the cat owner until they rupture and begin to ooze pus. These abscesses may feel hot to the touch as well as cause skin inflammation. Dental abscesses, unable to be seen from the outside of a cat's body, internal abscesses occur on the internal organs from inflammation, disease, and foreign objects. These are far less common than bite wounds and dental abscesses in cats but still occur. Diagnosis Your veterinarian will take a swab test of the infected area to determine the strain of bacteria present. In addition, a standard blood test will usually be performed to see if the infection has migrated to the bloodstream. Once a proper diagnosis is made, the veterinarian will prescribe an appropriate treatment plan. Treatment Initially, most strain issues can be treated with topical solutions and ointments, but when the issue becomes more serious, such as when the bacteria has gone deep into the tissue or has infected the blood, alternative treatment options will be considered. Your cat will need to be taken to the veterinarian so that the wound can be properly cleaned, drained, and flushed. This will prevent deeper infection and complications. Your veterinarian will also prescribe antibiotics to control the bacteria. If the abscess is serious or deep in the skin, clindamycin may be recommended as a more aggressive mode of treatment. Living and Management If your cat has cuts or wounds, first evaluate whether they are deep or superficial. If they are superficial, there are several pet formulated over the counter antibacterial ointments that can be used to help reduce the likelihood of an infection. There are also some dips and shampoos that can treat your cat's entire skin surface. If you take your cat to the veterinarian and a course of antibiotics as prescribed, make sure that you complete the entire course of the prescription to prevent the bacteria from returning. Recovery of Abscess in Cats. Recovery and prognosis will depend on whether or not the abscess has caused a more serious condition. For most cases of abscess, the prognosis is generally good with immediate treatment. Always follow your vet's post-treatment instructions carefully. Your cat should begin to improve within a few days of treatment, with complete healing typically observed within two weeks. Do not allow your cat to irritate the drain or the surgery site. An Elizabethan collar may help with this. If your vet has prescribed antibiotics, it is imperative that you administer the medication for the entire recommended duration of treatment even if the condition starts to improve. Preventative measures are often advised to avoid future recurrence of abscesses. For dental abscess, big dental hygiene is imperative. This involves brushing your cat's teeth daily, giving them dental treats, and eliminating harmful dental habits such as chewing on hard toys or foods. For skin abscess, it is a good idea to limit your cat's outdoor activity, particularly if they often engage in fights with other cats. Your vet will schedule a follow-up appointment within 2-5 days of treatment in order to remove the drain. If you enjoyed this video, kindly press the like button. Also don't forget to subscribe with notifications on, so that you don't miss out on videos like this. Thank you for watching.


Okay guys, I'll wait for 5 minutes before I start the class because only 5 people have joined Please type the topics that you want me to cover in this class Okay guys, I'll wait for 5 minutes before I start the class Okay, which topic should I cover today? Any particular topic or any particular doubt that you guys have? Okay, motors and generators Okay, motors Okay, only 3 people here 2 more minutes I'll start from 3.30 Let me wait, people perhaps may join later Okay, so I'll start doing motors now I'll just download the NCERT content and I'll upload it Okay, guys, let's start So if people are not joining, I cannot do anything Okay, so electric motor and electric generator is a concept which is best on magnetic effects of current So current carrying conductor has so many applications in electrical world And electric motor and generator are an application of that Now let me go to motor first Before that, I need to teach you few things Okay, so before that I need to teach you electromagnetic induction And what is electromagnetic induction? So there are two things So suppose I have a current carrying conductor here And there is no current flowing through it The current is not live Sorry, the conductor is not live and there is no current flowing through it Now there was a scientist known as Faraday Faraday did a lot of experimentation During his experimentation, he found one particular phenomenon What was that phenomenon? So a non-current carrying conductor was kept in the vicinity of Suppose a magnetic pole over here Now what happened? Whenever the distance between the magnetic pole and the current and the conductor is changing Or suppose frequently or I am changing the distance between the magnetic pole and this conductor What was observed that if it is changing continuously If the distance between the magnetic pole and the conductor is changing continuously A current is observed in this conductor It means that if I am changing the distance between this magnetic pole and this wire What am I doing? I am actually changing the magnitude of the magnetic field If I bring this pole nearer to this wire The magnitude of the magnetic field will increase If I take it away from the wire The magnitude of the magnetic field will change Or it will reduce So what happens? Changing magnetic field Presence of changing magnetic field in the vicinity of this wire Creates or it leads to flow of a current in this particular wire So what I am trying to say is that Due to change in the either magnitude of the or the direction of the magnetic field If a conductor is kept near to that where the magnetic field is changing You will observe a current in that conductor But how does that current gets I mean how does that current get evolved The current gets evolved by a process known as electromagnetic induction So you try to understand magnetic field is Antiproportional to 1 by r square and proportional to I So or I or in this case in permanent magnet The polar strength So whatever mm you can say So it is proportional to m and it is antiproportional to 1 by r square So what happens if I have a fixed magnet The m does not vary What I do is that if I change this distance magnetic field over here will change And due to change in magnetic field what will happen Across the two sides of this wire EMF would be generated What is EMF? EMF will form is electromotive force And this is nothing but voltage So a voltage difference between created between the two sides of the wire And due to this voltage difference as resistance is already existing in this wire V is equal to IR So a voltage difference is getting created And I would be equal to V divided by R And this particular phenomenon of creation of or Evolvement of electric current inside a conductor Due to changing magnetic field is known as electromagnetic induction So creation of EMF due to changing magnetic field is known as electromagnetic induction Then there was another scientist His name was Lynch and what he did He told that actually he was trying to prove Newton's third law and inertia Basically both So what he told that in which direction the current should develop So the thing is that you have already studied that whenever a current carrying conductor is there It creates a magnetic field around it So whenever in this scenario also as soon as the current starts flowing Or the current generates over here in this case This particular current will start producing its own magnetic field And already I have a magnet here which has its own magnetic field It means that after creation of current in the conductor There are two kinds of magnetic field interacting with each other One magnetic field created due to magnetic pole which was present while I was doing the experimentation And the second magnetic field would be the field created due to creation of current in the conductor Now in which direction the current will flow So always remember that the current would be generated in a conductor in such a way That it opposes the change in the magnetic field due to which this is getting created I am again saying it Any particular object will always resist change in it What is the change? Change is development of EMF across its two sides And due to development of EMF a current flows But the nature of the current would be such that it will start opposing the magnetic field Due to which this current is getting created It means that the magnetic field of the pole and the magnetic field created by the current carrying conductor Would always be in opposite direction So direction of the current would be in such that the magnetic field created by it Is in opposite direction of the magnetic field created due to pole That's what we have to understand And this is what Lenge's law is So after I teach you Lenge's law and all these things So there is one thing which is With which you can find out the direction of the magnetic field here And that is our direction of the current here that is Fleming's left hand rule Sorry right hand rule So there are your index finger would be direction of magnetic field Your middle finger would be direction of current And your thumb would be direction of motion Which is nothing but direction of force also So that is what the concept is Now what is the concept of generator So I have an alternating current generator Or it is also called dynamo So alternating current generator is also called dynamo So what is the concept So if you have your book just go through the construction and all What happens is that I will explain you in very layman term So I have current carrying conductor And in what type I have current carrying conductor Because I have to I mean if it is a generator AC generator means what? Input is AC or output is AC As the name suggests AC generator means AC current generator That means that output current after creation of electricity would be AC current Would be an AC current So AC generators always produces AC current Is it okay? And then there comes how do you construct it So here I have magnetic pole And how do I create magnetic pole? So on two sides of the conductor The current carrying coil would be rounded on a core Is it okay? And that core would be fixed between It will not be fixed The core would be free to rotate between To fix magnetic pole So try to understand Here is my magnetic pole This is magnetic pole Suppose this is north pole and south pole And here with a shaft I have cylindrical core And on this core current carrying conductors has been Coiled like this So this is a current carrying conductor And now what happens? This particular core Where the current carrying conductors are rounded up Is combined with a rotator So what happens? Why it is combined with a rotator? So try to understand my objective would be I know that by Faraday's law If there would be a changing magnetic field In this current carrying conductor Current would be generated And I can utilize that current as output So what I do? These poles are fixed So I cannot rotate pole What can I rotate? I can rotate this particular core Which contains iron Just give me a moment guys So what will happen is I cannot rotate this permanent magnet They are very heavy and rotating It is very difficult What I can rotate is this core On which this coil has been wrapped up So how do you rotate this coil? The coil is joined with a rotator Is it okay? This rotator is rotated With the help of so many things One being steam So rotator you have fans On the fans the steam comes And strikes the fan Due to the energy that the steam carries with itself When it strikes with the fan of this rotator The fan starts moving As soon as the fan starts moving This is coupled with this core The core starts moving As soon as the core starts moving What happens is The direction of the magnetic field At each point will keep on changing As soon as the direction of the magnetic field And the magnitude of the magnetic field changes What happens over here is That there is a change in flux Now I forgot to define flux What is flux? Flux is number of magnetic field lines Cutting any particular area Any particular unit area Number of magnetic field lines Cutting per unit area Or number of magnetic field lines Passing through per unit area Is also known as flux So what happens is As soon as they start This will start rotating The flux will change Due to change in flux What will happen? Suppose this is one end of the conductor Or wire And this is the second end of the wire So what will happen? The current will be generated here The current would be an AC current generated And this current would be taken outside somewhere here And this will be passed on So AC current is nothing but AC generator is nothing but An example of electromagnetic induction How do we apply electromagnetic induction here? So we know that changing or varying magnetic field Will be able to create EMF Around the two sides of the coil So here what I am doing Instead of changing the magnitude I am rotating it So that primarily the direction At each point of the conductor changes At the direction of the magnetic field Created by the poles Is changing on each point of the conductor Due to change in flux EMF would be generated Due to that EMF The current would be generated in the circuit And that current would be received outside And would be utilized for different purposes So that is how it is So did you understand electric generator guys? Just forced yes or no? Did you understand electric generator? Tell me otherwise I will repeat once again Param did you understand? Okay now let me move to motors What is a motor? So generator is conversion of mechanical energy Into electric energy Motor is exactly different Motor is conversion of electrical energy Into mechanical energy So it means that Okay here where is split and split rings Can we just Okay fine In motors right here the split rings and all Here in motors you are asking In generators because I don't have figure Which book you are referring I cannot understand So I have the NCRT book Where in electrical motors Or in motors split rings and all are used Okay I will explain once you let me know I will explain Okay so what happens is Once again let me draw a figure Okay so what I am doing is I will upload a few pictures here Okay so look at this image What is happening here I will upload one more image So see what is happening There are two images which I have uploaded On the screen One which looks like a motor And one which is an experimentation So rings and brushes are like this Which are nothing but Which will provide support to the coil And which will control or Which will receive or either send The current to this coil If current is coming out It will help in receiving the current And it will maintain the contact properly And also if the current is going inside Again it will maintain the contact easy Or in a very smooth manner And let the current pass in the conductor So that is the use of it Now how does motor works What is the principle of motor working So there would always be a source battery Or a source of power I already told that I already told that a motor is A device which converts Electric energy into mechanical energy It means that motor input Would be electric energy So from where does electric energy comes Electric energy Passive electric energy would come from any battery Like here I am using passive electric energy In the form of battery Or in case of active electric energy I can join the two sides of the coil With some AC or DC current Which is available So like in home If I want to conduct Connect motor Like we have motors in For our water purposes and also They are AC motors Which are working over there So what I do is that I take input from any of the circuit Present in my house And I connect the two ends of the coil Which is present inside the motor To that AC input And due to that AC input The motor starts rotating How does it rotate I will explain you now Now what happens So if it is connected To any particular energy source In this case battery So what happens When circuit gets completed A current will start flowing Flowing through this conductor So you can see Suppose I name it A, B, C, D So A, B, C, D So current is flowing from A to B B to C, C to D Unlikewise So what happens is What happens is Because there is a current carrying conductor And this is See what has been kept over here This is nothing but your magnet So what is happening I am giving it a particular Try to understand guys I am giving it electrical energy So current would be I over here And an external magnetic field is present Due to this particular magnetic pole So what happens See we all know that whenever A current carrying conductor Is placed inside an external force A force would be A conductor Here some amount of force would be applied On different arms of this conductor And because A force is getting applied So see here Direction of the force has been made Direction of the force is this side On this particular coil Direction of the force is on this side So what will happen Due to force being applied on these coils These coils will feel some amount of momentum Some amount of torque Due to that torque This will start rotating As soon as it will start rotating A shaft would be So look at here This starts rotating So when it starts Stator means So look at here There are two parts Stator and commuter So what happens What is commuter Stator is this part Which is creating your magnetic field And here I have given input And as soon as current starts flowing Due to force applied On the current carrying conductor This will start moving And this moving part is known as commuter So this is what the principle of electric motor is Any doubt guys Tell me Any doubt Ask questions Okay Fine Any other doubt that you have Param you have any other doubt People ask me motor and generator I have already explained it If there is any other doubt Guys let me know In any particular topic Should not be related only to Magnetism or electricity or optics Any topic that you have doubt Ask me I will revise it I will not waste your time I know you have other exam So whatever doubt you have I will clarify it And wrap up the session Yes Param asked me a great question Why it is easier to transmit AC current So try to understand Param Whether it is AC current or DC current It depends on the amount of current Which is getting transmitted So suppose So what happens in this case is That first thing is magnitude of the current So suppose what happens Like I was working in a power plant And that power plant used to generate 165 megawatt of electricity So Voltage would be Whatever is voltage I mean Vi cos theta Is total 165 megawatt So suppose current produced is Some 50 Mbps for that matter For your understanding I am saying 50 Mbps or maybe 100 Mbps Or 2000 Mbps or likewise Now try to understand If it is DC current and if it is AC current How does it differentiate from each other So suppose I have two power stations Near to each other One is producing 2000 Mbps DC current And one is producing 2000 Mbps AC current Now I know that the power losses Due to transmission of electricity Is I square R Which means that If I am using same material For transmission for both DC current And both DC and AC current Then I am removing The R value also The power loss I square R Would be directly proportional To the current flowing over here So if both the currents are 2000 Mbps Then the power loss in both the circuits Or both the transmission lines would be same But what happens Generally in AC current We don't let the current to be too high How do we reduce The amount of current to be transmitted We use a transformer Now what is transformer? Transformer is a device Which has an input and output And a core inside It works in such a way that The power transmission remains same On both the sides It means that whatever power it receives From input side The same power it delivers from output Sides hence power loss Is almost zero Now you can say that How it is possible So try to understand that Suppose This is the primary side Of the transformer And this is the secondary side Of the transformer So this is like this And Primary side is taking voltage V1 And suppose current here Is I1 So Secondary side here Is voltage V2 And current is I2 Suppose number of tons in the coil Is N1 here and number of tons In the coil is N2 here So I1 by N1 Is equal to I2 by N2 So I2 Is N2 by N1 I1 So it only depends on How many coils How many tons in the coil one side has So suppose if secondary side Has more number of coils If N2 greater than N1 Then I2 would also be Greater than I1 So what happens I have more current here Now in opposite case If N1 is greater than N2 Then I1 will be greater than I2 So what I do is that The transformer is a device and the relationship Is power is same So V1 I1 is equal to V2 I2 So what happens when I have More number of tons here And less number of tons here So the current generated in this particular circuit Would be lesser Than the current in primary circuit Hence stepping down Of the current is easier for AC current DC current cannot be stepped down DC current cannot be stepped up Suppose you are producing 2000 mps You will have to transmit 2000 mps Hence your power losses would be too much If you are producing 2000 mps AC current In that particular scenario Stepping down this current And bringing down your power losses Would be much easier with the help of transformer That is why in power Transmission AC current is used Any other doubt Ask guys what are you guys Doing you have no doubt in physics I can start asking different question And then you will say this is the doubt That is the doubt Param did you understand Yes, energy is conserved So what happens Param is When Suppose V1 is 200 and I1 is 10 So power on this side is 2000 So if I make current 5 here this will automatically Become 400 So what happens is Energy is conserved on both the sides So if 2000 It is here it will be 2000 on the other side If current is reducing here Voltage will increase If voltage is less here Voltage would be more and if current is more here Current would be less here So that is how Yes the voltage will increase on the other side So this This will be the condition V1 I1 is equal to V2 I2 So if there is a reduction In current the voltage will increase So we always transmit the power At more voltage and less current Why less current because I want I2R losses to be less And hence we reduce the current Any other doubt guys Please ask me there is no point Doing something new in this class Ask the other doubts Because I can take any topic start teaching you And you will feel bored If you don't have doubt over there Post your doubts Otherwise Do and study If you don't have any doubt What do I need to do next Okay Let me give you a question So write down a question I am just orating it Write down the question The question is Find the magnetic Field Find the magnetic field At a distance of 10 cm From a Long straight conductor Carrying a current of 10 ampere A long Straight current carrying conductor is there Which is carrying a 10 ampere current in it You have to find out Magnitude and the direction of Magnetic field 10 cm east of the magnetic field Of the magnetic current Of the current carrying conductor What's the answer Question is there is a long Straight current carrying conductor It carries a current Of 10 ampere You have to find out magnetic Field at a distance of 10 cm And direction also The point At which you have to find out the magnetic field Is 10 cm East of the current carrying conductor Did you find the answer No it's not 2 x 10 to the power minus 7 No it's not 2 x 10 to the power minus 7 But perhaps you have not Converted centimeter into meter Param just converts centimeter into meter Param just converts centimeter into meter Did you get the answer Param It will be 2 x 10 to the power minus 5 No minus 5 Param just do it See The formula is You got it For others the formula is B is equal to mu naught by 2 pi I by D So I would be How much I would be 2 x 10 to the power minus 7 Sorry mu naught by 2 is 2 x 10 to the power minus 7 I is 10 amperes And D is 10 x 10 to the power Minus 2 So this 10 10 gone This 10 to the power minus 2 will go above And it will become 10 to the power plus 2 So this will be nothing but 2 x 10 to the power minus 5 Which is nothing but 20 x 10 to the power minus 6 So which is nothing but 20 mu t That is the answer Second question Second question is I am I am orating the question Find the ratio of magnetic field At a distance 5 centimeter From a long Straight current carrying conductor So there is a long Straight current carrying conductor And you have to find the ratio of magnetic fields At 5 centimeter From it and 50 centimeter From it So suppose 5 centimeter from it The magnetic field is B1 50 centimeter The magnetic field is B2 You have to find B1 is 2 B2 What's the answer This is the easy question Tell me the answers The question is There is a long straight current carrying conductor And there are two points One is 5 centimeter and second One is 50 centimeter apart from it The magnetic field At 5 centimeter point is B1 At 50 centimeter point is B2 You have to find out B1 is to B2 One answer which I am getting Is 10 is to 1 There is a second answer Anyone who is getting the answer 10 is to 1 is the right answer So you look at here Only B is antiproportional to D So B is antiproportional to D It means that B1 Or BD is equal to constant So B1 B1 is equal to B2 D2 So B1 by B2 Is equal to D2 by D1 D2 is equal to 50 D1 is 5 inch so this is 10 So 10 is to 1 is the racing As simple as that Okay So any other doubt that you have guys I have solved two questions If you have any other doubt Ask me otherwise I will wrap up the session now Any particular doubt in optics Let me ask section wise Any particular doubt in optics Electricity Just post it in the chat box Okay Anyone else do you have any doubt I will wait for one minute Otherwise I will wrap up the session Okay Nobody is speaking So I will wrap up the session