begin and I'm not going to engage in what might be kind of a traditional debate format here only because I was the captain of my high school debate team in the in the early 1960s in Salt Lake City, Utah and it's been that long since I actually engaged in those kinds of debates. So I do recall that and in those days and I assume it's still it's true in high school you had the same topic all year long and and you just collected you would go back and forth on the same topic and my senior year I remember was should the United States adopt a government financed health care system and it is ironic that here we are many many years later debating the same topic but that's not what we're talking about tonight. It is sort of unusual though that I'm here tonight taking the taking the affirmative side of the case looking at whether or not global zero would make the world more secure because again referring to my my past but updating it to the 1980s as some of you in this room will remember and there are some people in this room that are as old if not older than I am not many but some will remember that I was frequently sort of dragged out of my office in those days in the State Department to go on television to make the case for building more nuclear weapons making the case for nuclear deterrence and and fighting the then very very energetic and vociferous anti-nuclear movement in the United States you'll remember the famous freeze movement movement among others some of you will and and in fact there was probably one of the most watched made for TV movies of that era the day after which had by the way a big impact on President Ronald Reagan really I think crystallized the kind of anti-nuclear movement not only in the United States but elsewhere and of course particularly in Western Europe so how is it that the guy that made the case for nuclear weapons in that era is here to make the case for global zero and there are two possibilities one is that I've suddenly fundamentally changed the scales fell from my eyes and I've now had this moment on the road to Damascus and seen seeing the way well that's not what I'm going to tell you tonight my main argument tonight is that from the end of the Cold War to the present the world has fundamentally changed in some very important political military and technological ways that particularly for the United States and US interests would make our country and and other countries more secure if global zero could be achieved now I am not going to argue tonight that we're going to achieve it I'm not going to argue tonight that it would be easy I'm not going to argue that that anybody in this room is going to be alive as President Obama has said probably by the time it is achieved that's not the issue we're debating we're not debating the issue of feasibility I think we're debating the issue of desirability and that's what I want to talk about tonight and the first key point I would make is that and I'll do it in shorthand because I want to stay within my 10 minutes is there has been a fundamental shift in international relations and the nature of conflict from the end of the Cold War into the 21st century and there's more than one of these shifts one one is that we are moving from an era I would argue of the dominance of geopolitical power into a period of geoeconomic power now what does that mean it means that the great powers of the 21st century are going to be seen and judged and have influence principally in terms of their economic capacities not so much in terms of their military capabilities and the reasons for that are I think that people have learned lessons from the experience of the 20th century and perhaps some of the close calls of the Cold War period to recognize that for the most part interstate warfare has become no longer really cost effective and what's what's interesting to me is we kind of survey military conflicts around the world today you can't name many really ongoing or potential interstate conflicts what you can point to is a number of interstate conflicts like the ones underway in Syria like the ones still underway in Iraq like the ones underway in in Libya so the likelihood it's not entirely ruled out but the problem of international security especially for great powers is going to be one of dealing with interstate conflicts and not interstate conflicts and power as we define it increasingly into the 21st century is going to be defined in terms of economic wherewithal the brick countries the Chinese we asked there's a military buildup underway in China but what people really are concerned about and what is going to be a game changer for China is the fact that its economy is going to be larger than the United States sometime the next 10 or 15 years and so I would I would argue that today the most important strategic dialogue underway between and relationship underway between the United States and Europe is no longer NATO NATO is kind of become an artifact a relic of the past the most important process underway today is t-tip the opportunity that the United States in Europe the tool still the two largest economic blocks are going to have the opportunity if they can reach a trade and investment partnership are going to be able to set the rules of the road for trade and investment for the rest of this century that is a key strategic development t-tip in my view is the new NATO now part as I said part of this reflects I think a shift from interstate warfare to interstate warfare and the result of all of this is that the political and military advantages conferred by nuclear weapons especially for the great powers and I want to underscore that the United States the former Soviet Union Russia now China written in France and others is dissipating they don't get that much bang from the buck as you used to from having nuclear weapons and that is I think largely because the existential character the threat posed by nuclear weapons in a time of the Cold War when there was a realistic chance of conflict between the two superpowers is gone what is the likelihood of a war today between a major war where nuclear weapons would be employed between the United States and Russia there I can just quote my old adversary and the bureaucracy Richard Pearl who's been quoted recently saying it is zero what is the likelihood of a conflict that would lead to nuclear war between Russia and China at a time when they're growing closer together their members of the of the same kind of security organization they're doing energy deals together the Russians need to sell their energy and that's what makes them a power today not their nuclear weapons but their energy resources and China zero what is the likelihood between a nuclear war between China and the United States with China nuked the United States when we owe them so much money it's zero and I would argue the same the same kind of probability also exists I want to go off tangent here but even take a case of a country that feels itself under great threat Israel and its nuclear weapons I understand completely why Israel acquired nuclear weapons in the 1960s and and deployed them in in and deployed them in the 70s that that was against an Arab threat that they defined in terms of superior Arab conventional forces Egypt Syria Jordan but Israel has has conventional preeminence today in the region the threat the key threat that that Israel faces today is again from groups like his Bala and Hamas now how do nuclear weapons solve that threat they don't they're not a reasonable they're no longer a reasonable military solution to the real threats that Israel has to address so that's the great powers and the role that nuclear weapons used to play but there's another development we now have to think about it's that's vastly different than the problem we faced in the Cold War and that as while great power nuclear threats have become for a variety of reasons and acronyms they have become a much more interesting option for weaker states nuclear weapons which were used to be the weapons of the strong are increasingly becoming the weapons for the weak nuclear technology is no longer cutting edge it has been around for over 50 years and has North Korea and Pakistan have shown anybody who has the necessary money energy and will can get ahold of them the result is that while traditional great powers get decreasing value out of having a nuclear arsenal smaller and weaker states see greater value in them they are levelers after the Gulf War is famous quote by the Indian Defense Minister said that the main lessons of the Gulf War was if you're going to go to war with the United States you better have acquired nuclear weapons and people said in the case of the recent Libya campaign G if Gaddafi hadn't given away his nuclear technology with the United States Britain and France have attacked him that's a good question the end results could be very bad of this trend for both international security and stability and in particular the United States now for international stability now Kenneth waltz who of course has passed argued in a very provocative book that a proliferated world that is a world where a lot of countries had nuclear weapons that world might be a lot more stable now I understand the argument because you'd have all these little deterrence relationships going on but I rejected the problem with that argument is just was in is just one word look at Pakistan here's a country with a vigorous nuclear weapons program one of the most energetic and vigorous in the world a country with a Taliban of radical not just one but several different radical Islamic movements a government that has had a suffered a breakdown in civil military relations arguably one of the most combustible dangerous radical countries in the world I think the Kenneth waltz argument falls apart there I would not like to see 30 40 50 countries possess nuclear weapons maybe the United States in the Soviet Union you knew had the command and control and necessary security and even there as you all know there were some close calls but I can't conceive that a world of 40 or 50 nuclear weapons would somehow be more secure but the implications for the United States right now are enormous unlike the 1950s and 60s when NATO deployed nuclear weapons to compensate for our perceived conventional weakness in Europe and the great Soviet Union and Red Army we possess conventional preeminence today in the same way that Israel possesses it in in in the greater Middle East why would why would it be in our interest at a time when this technology is obtainable to see several new countries become nuclear powers and thus be able to deter us from using those conventional forces to protect our interests so I I I think that that in this new era when we do possess unchallenged conventional capabilities and conventional technology which is precise discreet and can and can be used with much less collateral damage in drones just for one example the idea of nuclear proliferation is very dangerous so my conclusion we do need to strengthen the nbt it is very much in our interest to stop the spread of nuclear weapons we should support initiatives like the Obama administration's nuclear security summits and we should aggressively seek further reductions in nuclear weapons now I'm not a dreamer and it's just because of Russian military weakness and conventional weakness that they don't want to negotiate at this point and I and I guess if I were in their position I probably would take that position as well but there I would argue for them in the long run that's a losing game because what's interesting to me is the is the the the leading Russian military figure in response in this about six months ago some of you will remember this in response to NATO's missile defense program argued that well if this program continues and unabated that we're going to have to think about deploying forward deploying what was it SS 21's or 23's in Kaliningrad what was interesting to me about that threat is it hardly made it into a single American newspaper yeah if if if the if the chief of staff of the Russian Armed Forces had made that threat in the 1980s it would have been on the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post and why did it make it a newspaper because nobody takes it seriously nobody thinks that Russia is going to attack Europe with nuclear weapons and that I think makes my point what we need to do is the lit de legitimize nuclear weapons proliferation and continue to support as this administration has the long-term goal of global I apologize for the fact that CSIS moves into this new building and still has inadequate audio visual we should have at least three mics because we have three people are going to speak I want to say a few words about the role and value of nuclear weapons during the Cold War because I think there are still instructive lessons for us in the post-Cold War era and into the 21st century nuclear weapons are horrendous weapons in terms of their destructive power so horrendous that they changed the way human beings reacted when they were in charge of nation states that had nuclear weapons the Cold War ended it's remarkable and it's historic first that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union an ideologically driven war ended without nuclear weapons being used it also ended without a major war between the United States and the Soviet Union we know what a world without nuclear weapons looks like because we had one I had World War one in it and had World War two in it where you had 20 million casualties in World War one 50 to 60 million casualties in World War two nuclear weapons inhibit the risk-taking propensity of the leaders of nation states Pakistan and India have gone to war twice but they haven't resorted to nuclear weapons they were able to back away from the cargo incident you've had horrific terrorist incidences supported by Pakistan take place on Indian territory including an attack upon the national legislature but the possession of nuclear weapons in that particular bipolar situation inhibited both the Indians and the Pakistan's from reacting to it nuclear weapons made the leaders of those nuclear weapons states cautious and afraid of breaking the threshold now I wish that interstate interstate violence was over it is true there has not been an interstate war since the Cold War since World War two between you know the most developed countries in the world but we're also in a situation now where we as some have argued we are in a second nuclear era where the kind of sectarian the kind of local conflicts that we see now are going to start appearing in a nuclear context Israel sought nuclear weapons in the 60s and the 70s for profound reasons while Iran is seeking nuclear weapons today and that's something that concerns the Israelis the concerns the United States greatly one of the reasons why Iran seeks nuclear weapons is for the same reason as Ambassador Burke said US conventional preeminence of course we're preeminent we don't want anyone else to have nuclear weapons we've already indicated by our own behavior that we are deterred by nuclear weapons we invaded Iraq twice to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon why because if is the Indian chief of staff recommended don't fight the United States unless you have a nuclear weapon well Saddam Hussein ended up strung up by the neck in a basement some place in Baghdad Gaddafi met an even more grisly death well that's not going to happen in North Korea because there's one thing that's absolutely true in terms of the historical record you have a nuclear weapon you don't get invaded and occupied and that motivation isn't going to go away it's not going to go away for France that looks at nuclear weapons is integral to their sovereignty and it's not going to go away for in North Korea and it's not going to go away for other regimes who face threats including perceived threats from the United States so that the desire the need that states feel to have nuclear weapons is not going away in fact I believe it's getting worse and I think you know there has been a nuclear taboo they've referred to since Nagasaki and Hiroshima but it's not really a taboo it's a rational calculation that the costs associated with the nuclear conflict far exceed the potential advantages of a war that involved the use of nuclear weapons and this is going to continue Ambassador Burt referred to the fact that the world has fundamentally changed since the end of the Cold War well the Perry Schlesinger Commission which was an attempt to come up with an attempt to unify to come up with a comprehensive consensus in the United States for what it should do with its nuclear weapons concluded that the vision of a world without nuclear weapons could not happen until there was a fundamental transformation of the 21st security environment until the kinds of conflicts that exist today no longer prevail and it's not just an Arab Israeli conflict it's also a Sunni Shiite conflict how many of us think that an Iranian bomb won't be followed by a Sunni bomb of course it will I think at this point I'll stop so at this point we're going to have questions so Ambassador you can ask Clark a few questions and then Clark will be able to ask you a few questions did I misread that that it meant I had five more minutes I thought it was cut it off but that's alright throw it open now I didn't even see her before I probably went over but okay but I'm like that am I supposed to ask questions yes you can ask well Clark I mean you've you've what you've said is you know this process of proliferation is is just gonna continue to happen you say that the you know you not only have the Arab Israeli conflict in the region but you've got a Sunni Shiite conflict and that there are all kinds of reasons that other countries might acquire nuclear weapons but remember we're okay I see those those those processes underway I mean you see them right now in Syria but I guess you know going back to what we're debating here making the world more secure you know are you just saying that that that we should sit back and just watch that happen and that's a that's gonna be just inevitable is that a good thing do we want to see that just happen as the world's most powerful conventional power you know my boss Les Aspen when he was the chairman of the Armed Services Committee used to say at the end of the Cold War if there was a big button that I could press that button and all nuclear weapons would go away tomorrow I'd press that button instantly because then that would leave us with no capabilities out there that can deter us but it's our conventional power itself that is one of the prime motivators there's a reason why Russia is more dependent upon its nuclear weapons now that it was during the Cold War because they are weak conventionally and they are relying more on nuclear weapons and the threshold of nuclear weapon use is probably getting lower with respect to Russia they've already talked about they've already talked about how they would use nuclear weapons for escalation control well for most of us I think the use of a nuclear weapon indicates a lack of control of escalation during this time and so I think that the motivation for states to acquire nuclear weapons is getting stronger in many instances and that when you have an era when the Chinese for example are engaged in substantial military modernization of their nuclear forces when asked why they're doing it they're doing it for precisely the same reasons that we in the United States say we can get rid of our nuclear weapons that is they're concerned about what we do with missile defense they're concerned with what we do about advanced conventional munitions they're particularly concerned with conventional precision strike all of which are capabilities that in global zero reports they say we need to do more with our conventional forces so they can reduce our alliance on nuclear weapons well it's precisely that that makes other states increase the reliance on nuclear weapons to offset our conventional superiority and so it strikes me we're in a situation where the reality of it is that nations seek nuclear weapons for many different reasons sometimes it's a form of national self-expression I think you see that with India I think you see that as well with Iran didn't matter whether you're part of the current regime in Iran or part of the opposition movement the Shah himself also wanted nuclear weapons during that time so that the reasons why nations pursue you know our first of all national self-expression they also do it for defense that's why the North Koreans have them that is why resuring preservation that's why the Pakistanis have them because they are next door to a very powerful country that they are conventionally inferior to nuclear weapons aren't going to go away and if they're not going to go away we have to figure out how we use our nuclear capabilities in a way to stabilize things and to pursue our interests in a way that is safe for Americans okay well there are a lot of issues that you raise there but you you didn't address my question on you know whether it would it's you know we should sit back and relax and watch these countries as they inevitably will acquire nuclear weapons but I don't want to go back to that I don't know I'm not relaxed about it you are you argued in your opening remarks that you know that that in a sense nuclear weapons really sober people up that you know it was a good thing that the United States and this and the Soviet Union had all these nuclear weapons because they were afraid they didn't want to blow up the world so they were very cautious and that that could well be true that's exactly what I used to argue and in the Cold War period I think the nuclear weapons did play an important role in terms of deterring a conflict which was most likely to take place in central Europe but we got to draw a line somewhere I mean when when new when when what happens when totally irresponsible fanatical people get their fingers close to the button and that's a key issue I that's why I raised Pakistan I worry about the security of the Pakistani nuclear stockpile that is a country that is melting down in a variety of different ways and we know we know this isn't just hypothetical we know Al Qaeda has tried to obtain nuclear weapons there have been several efforts that have been documented now do you think that if Al Qaeda acquired nuclear weapons that they would be as responsible as the US command authority or the Soviet Politburo was of course not I mean that that it in itself I would argue is a bit of a silly beside the point question the issue here is do nuclear weapons go away Walter pink is that's not the no let me finish Walter pink is in an op-ed just this morning and this is an analyst who'd look for any occasion whatsoever to reduce the number of nuclear weapons so this morning it was sequester another opportunity to reduce nuclear weapons but then when he said you know the question was asked as he was talking about what to do he said go to zero forget it nuclear weapons aren't going to go away and as long as nuclear weapons exist the United States has to ensure that it has a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal that's the same position the president Obama takes that is as long as nuclear weapons exist the United States has to make a safe secure and effective nuclear arsenal well I don't see a world in which nuclear weapons aren't going to exist and if that is the case then we have to invest in our own capabilities and ensure those capabilities okay I got one time for one more question you you you did talk about Iran seeking nuclear weapons that is not by the way what the US intelligence community has decided at this point but I don't want to get into that argument what I want to talk to you about what's so bad about given your argument what's so bad about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons why should we worry about that if we know Israel has nuclear weapons we know Iran has nuclear weapons won't that create deterrence in the Middle East won't that be stabilizing if Iran acquires nuclear weapons first of all it's not at all clear that Iran can achieve nuclear weapons without a great deal of violence and instability within the Middle East because you know our president has said well that's a red line for us and the Israelis have said that's a red line for us because an Iranian nuclear threat an Iranian nuclear threat poses an existential threat to Israel so the process of that proliferation is hardly a stabilizing effect now as to what would happen in the region itself my feeling is is that an Iran acquires a nuclear weapon that will begin a cascading process of more proliferation of more nuclear weapons in that area I don't see Iran going nuclear without Saudi Arabia following closely yeah but you but you just said that's how countries behave what's wrong with that I'm saying that's how countries countries acquire nuclear weapons because they serve their interests and as long as nuclear weapons serve vital security interests for states there will be states interested in pursuing them and the case that you mentioned before both Gaddafi and of Saddam Hussein is proved positive from any of those states yes if we had a nuclear weapon we do not have to worry about say if you're North Korea about the United States coming up and invading Pyongyang and hanging drone by the neck until he's dead that's what nuclear weapons do they provide a mechanism to ensure regime survival and it's one of the reasons why nuclear weapons won't go away and if they won't go away we're back in the dilemma as President Obama puts it as long as nuclear weapons exist the United States has to have a safe secure and effective nuclear deterrent to me when you said before I don't want to talk about the feasibility of a world without nuclear weapons I want to talk about the desirability of a world without nuclear weapons well you can't talk about the desirability of a nirvana state that'll that is not feasible now Clark do you have questions for the master oh I think we've gone further and off the line I'm ready for questions now okay well then you might have already right only if you ask him a question not me before we turn it to the audience I just have one question kind of the same question but for both speakers phrase differently so ambassador if let's just say that global zero isn't feasible I was just hoping that you could discuss what measures do you think are important for the United States to take in the short term to mitigate some of the threats that you discussed and Clark I was hoping that you could discuss what measure short of global zero you might support to resolve some of the threats the ambassador discussed well I I never said that it wasn't feasible I just don't see it feasible in the foreseeable future for a lot of reasons I don't want to get into the breakout issue and the verification problems I bet we've looked at this very carefully but what I think we should try to be is on a path to zero at a time when as I think Clark is very eloquently pointed out to us tonight there are a lot of incentives for countries to acquire nuclear weapons and I don't think it's in our long term interests to see a proliferated world and I think we can control it he's talked about countries that could could acquire nuclear weapons we ought to remember there are countries that have not acquired nuclear weapons that have come very close and decided for reasons that they thought were appropriate whether it was Brazil in Latin America South Africa the Ukraine so I mean there are a lot of examples where for various political and economic reasons countries have not gone nuclear on on this on this you know what what I think we what we really want to try to achieve here over time is a process of of delegitimizing nuclear weapons and that means there has to be I think a growing consensus among countries that that you're going to run into serious political and economic problems if you try to cross that line in Iran to me is a very good example I think what has been has happened in the case of Iran is you have a very serious sanctions effort in effect the Iranian people are feeling that I don't think it was a coincidence that somebody like Rouhani was elected I don't see him as maybe Prime Minister Netanyahu does is a wolf in sheep's clothing I think that there is a faction in Iran that wants to find a solution short of acquiring nuclear weapons I think they're going to want a price out of that not just lifting sanctions but recognizing what they consider to be their legitimate rights to uranium enrichment I'm not saying that we're suddenly going to have peace break out there but I what I'm I guess I'm opposed to what I've heard earlier this evening was this sort of idea that you know this process is out of control we've got to recognize that it's going to happen nuclear weapons are going to spread what I find very interesting is if that were true if that were really true we wouldn't be living in a cut in a world where there are only nine nuclear powers today we would be living in a world where there were 39 nuclear powers there are a lot of oppositional forces at work and there are a lot there's a political and economic price to be paid for going nuclear and I think because of our interests we should try to raise that price rather than rather than to lower the question is is what kind of actions what I'd be willing to take in order to reduce I think when estimate what the size of US stockpile should be I think there's two very important elements because the United States nuclear weapons are not just simply for direct deterrence I think the case is pretty solid that if the United States had new new no nuclear weapons it would still be able to inflict catastrophic damage on anyone that threatened security but it's not just the United States that relies upon its nuclear weapons for deterrence we have allies that rely upon our nuclear umbrella that is still true in Northeast Asia where we have two non nuclear allies South Korea and Japan who are having to cope not only with a more assertive China it is modernizing its nuclear forces but also to cope with a new nuclear power North Korea which has demonstrated that by crossing the many red lines that previous administrations including this one it put in front of it never the less went nuclear and is enjoying an independence and autonomy of action that it did not before during that time is that they need the assurance that the United States provides with its nuclear forces to deal with a security situation in their region we have a Russia that's more dependent upon nuclear weapons a Russia of Russia that that engages regularly in nuclear exercises that practices alright that practices nuclear exercises and the making of threats and the Eastern Europeans are quite anxious about many of the things that Russia does there's a reason why NATO three times in the last five years has reaffirmed its support for the forward deployment of US nuclear weapons in NATO Europe so that the reliance upon US nuclear forces extends beyond the United States it also extends to its allies that note we're going to shift to audience questions I'll call on you if you could identify yourself and then if the speakers could just repeat the question into the microphone for those watching over the video yes science and so isn't a first step possibly you know reducing our our current stockpile to a reasonable level even unilaterally can that be first possible to bring in these other states and can you restate the question as I understand it there were two questions one couldn't there just be a normative goal of some kind that would well the thing about normative rules is that they have to be implemented and forced and unfollowed and it strikes me that you can establish a normative rule that says thou shalt not possess nuclear weapons but the question is who's going to enforce that particular norm who is going to for example make the North Koreans give up the nuclear weapon that they've tested are now developing it's okay to have norms that's what the vision of global zero is about is a world without nuclear weapons of which as my colleague says we're trying to delegitimize nuclear weapons so we can have a normal of gold the question is whether it's an operative or effective one and I would argue no in the case of of a norm that to me is counterfactual because nuclear weapons do exist and I don't see any as nor does my my debating partner see any feasibility for a world without nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future if it's not going to happen in the foreseeable future why are we maintaining that goal today and having an effect the actions that we take today the second question is talking with the Chinese absurd to talk with the United States at this time and as you put it if the United States would only reduce its weapons down to a reasonable level well what's reasonable it depends on what you're comparing it to for me when I look at the US posture I think two things right now one I want to maintain rough parity with Russia am I willing to go to lower levels with Russia sure depends on what kind of price we have to pay for it because the Russians have insisted upon you know some concessions with respect to missile defense that I'm not sure why or concessions on advanced conventional weapons which I also don't think are wise but am I willing to go further down with Russia sure but with China my belief is is that the United States has to maintain a pretty substantial superiority over China because of the dependence of our non nuclear allies upon US extended deterrence if the United States and China were to achieve parity I don't think our extended deterrence guarantees in Northeast Asia would be worth anything in which case the drive for both China I mean for Japan and South Korea to resume the pursuit of nuclear weapons which both nations did it earlier in periods of history this question might come but let's let's see if anyone has any questions first don't worry I'll come back to that I'm feeling they'll talk about it yeah well my answer is is that I never assume nations are going to act rationally nations do a lot of irrational things that's why I argue that a world without nuclear weapons would would be more secure because nations do screwy things and they make mistakes and it depends on how you read through the history of the Cold War there were some very close calls I mean it wasn't until after my experience in the Reagan administration and I was some of you in the room know I was very much involved with a very difficult and controversial deployment of of INF missiles in Europe in the early 80s the purging twos and and the ground launch cruise missiles and the Russians work themselves up into a lather about the purging twos they had decided that this was a wonder weapon that was designed precisely to knock out their command and control and that this was going to give us some kind of escalation dominance in in the European theater and they there was a NATO famous NATO exercise some of you may have read of and if you haven't you should called able archer and the Russians believe that the able archer exercise was the prelude to a to a NATO nuclear strike against Russia and this was in a very very heated atmosphere of when we were beginning the deployments rhetoric was escalating and what's fascinating to me as you go back and read that study all you needed was somebody to make a bad decision all you know there is there is a there is a now a cottage industry of people who have studied the Cuban Missile Crisis and I'm old enough to remember watching Kennedy come on television in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis and if you any of you are fans of Mad Men you know the TV series you know that create I mean it we we believe my parents thought that we were going to nuclear war and there were a lot of people in Washington at that time who did and again there were some there were some close calls but these these were too arguably two of the more sophisticated political establishments in the world and that I'll just simply say this because of the because nations make big mistakes and we've seen a lot of those say in the last decade in my view and coming out of this city nuclear weapons are just simply too destructive and if you're a real supporter of global zero it's not the question of you know should we do this now if and when a nuclear weapon is used and given what my partner Clark is saying about the cascade of proliferation in the region to Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Egypt after Iran goes nuclear and so on and so forth there will be one used and I can guarantee you once one of those things are used the the the it's not going to be a question of our government's going to act but public opinion will act remember there there were there were how many people 4,000 people killed in 9-11 but a nuclear weapon used in Delhi used in Islamabad used some in some major city in China used somewhere in North America is going to lead I would believe to not just the national but an international drive to eliminate these weapons I want to return to the question of delegitimizing nuclear weapons I believe that's what the question was about weapons or weapons it's part of the human condition we used to use really primitive weapons to kill each other now we use pretty advanced weapons of mass destruction to kill each other question is whether the weapon is illegitimate it's the purpose for which weapons are used to me genocide whether it's done with gas chambers or whether it's done with machetes is important it's the purposes for which weapons are used weapons themselves are legitimate or illegitimate they just are it's part of the human conditions we've always used weapons we just passed the 68th anniversary of Hiroshima August 6 of this year at 68 years since a nuclear weapon has been used historically we've not invented weapons and not use them the destructive power of nuclear weapons is so awesome that it is inhibit inhibited people's willingness to use them do I think it's more likely that a weapon will be used a nuclear weapon be used during the next 20 years than it was during the last years yes for precisely the same reasons that ambassador bird is talking about they're proliferating to more irresponsible parties you know that the trends that have held forth since the end of the World War two are getting more and more remote I think the likelihood of use is greater but the fact of the matter is is that for 68 years we have not had a major conventional war you know World War one 16 people died World War two 50 to 60 million people died in these conflagrations nuclear weapons helped prevent that from happening sure there were some close calls but we didn't have World War one or World War two and I would argue that when you look at the inhibiting effect the nuclear weapons can have they make our leaders more cautious they make them less human if you like which is probably a pretty good thing when it comes to the use of weapons to pursue in the pursuit of national interest well that's a great question I think he kind of wandered into that argument because I don't think he wanted to make it necessarily but I don't think it's so much the I got it written down here okay I don't know I don't think it's so much the new technology because I basically support you know a lot of what I don't know enough about today the truth and so I think it's a little bit weird the prompt global strike thing I think it was sort of concocted as gee if we had had that when we knew where Obama was during the Clinton administration we could have got him before he left you know the village but so I don't I don't want to kind of endorse prompt global strike but but you know I do think that we've had a revolution in conventional warfare that has made conventional weapons more discreet as I said before less collateral damage and and and we have a standoff capability where we don't risk the lives of our people and and that I think that has conferred to us a certain political advantage I don't want to over overdo it but even if we didn't have that stuff you know after the Cold War we suddenly found ourselves as you know the French called us at the time a hyper power and and I think there was a certain incentive for countries to figure out but there haven't been many that have I mean I don't think North Korea and the final analysis has developed its its nuclear weapons capability to the extent that it has it and a few bombs because it wants to deter the United States I think they developed it as a way of blackmailing us and it's it'll it'll end they're an outlier I wouldn't base my strategy on what on what what North Korea does I think it's more how we use those forces when I said interstate warfare I wasn't going to say this in my early remarks and we're one of the last countries to realize that interstate warfare is not very cost effective you know I mean we did succeed in kicking Sodom Hussein out of Kuwait but you know the invasions I don't have to tell this group this the invasions of Iraq you know what we you know how our mission changed in Afghanistan even now Libya and what it's become and why there was a tremendous blowback that even surprised the president over you know using cruise missiles against Syria is you know it just doesn't work that well it hasn't been effective and I think other countries recognize that and that's one reason why I think there there's you know the the threshold for using military force in my view is as risen because people don't get what they used to get out of it and and you know when you talk about when you talk about you know World War one and World War two and all the people that were killed and G nuclear deterrence prevented another war as I said earlier I agree with that in the Cold War context but that's not the situation now that's not you know the Germans do not feel threatened by the Russian Federation there's there yeah they're there the Germany is the largest investor in Russia and you know this this community and they're represented in this room needs to really kind of change that paradigm and recognize that where power is in this world and how it's judged and evaluated maybe the Russian the aging Russian establishment guys like Rogozin in Russia and the military elites still think that they get a big boom out of having you know a military industrial complex but nobody else in the world does they see the demographic trends in Russia they see the fact that the Russians have failed to diversify their economy they they they've had serious technological problems and even developing and deploying a new generation of delivery systems that that's yesterday yeah I can talk to you right now are they still being produced or is there like a nuclear who stands to profit people aren't selling nuclear weapons to each other overtly we hope we hope that's right Russia is engaged on a nuclear modernization program presumably spending lots of rubles on it China is engaged on a modernization program producing nuclear weapons increasing its survival second strike capabilities and spending one on them the United States is committed to but is just starting to commit money to a substantial modernization program of both its complex and of its the nuclear triad its strategic capabilities estimates run 200 to 250 billion dollars over 10 years for both of those now just 250 billion dollars over 10 years sound like a lot of money it does in one hand on the other hand the annual Defense Department budget is about 586 billion dollars so there may be money to be made out of nuclear weapons there's a lot more money to be made out of other kinds of weapons this time in terms of the market so I don't think that that the profit motive has much to do with why nations want nuclear weapons during this time I think that nations pursue nuclear weapons because of national pride it's a form of national self-expression an Indian diplomat once told a close friend of mine when asked the question of why does India want a nuclear weapon they said well great nations have nuclear weapons India is a great nation of course we're gonna have a nuclear weapon the Iranian nationalism is somewhat of the same kind where you've had doesn't matter which elite you belong to there's a pretty strong national consensus that like India Iran too but then Pakistan why do they pursue nuclear weapons well they face a conventionally superpower next to them India so they're spending a lot of their treasure on nuclear weapons because they want to be able to deter India during that time so to me the reason why nations pursue nuclear weapons is not because of the profit motive but because of how they define themselves as nation and how they define what their core vital interests are I mean you know his history remark though I mean make me I think it's set up in my mind a kind of really interesting argument here which is you know I think and people have said this before this isn't original to me but there are really two reasons that countries get nuclear weapons they do it either for symbolic prestige reasons to want to be kind of a great power and I've argued tonight countries that do that have missed the boat because in today's world it's your GDP and not the number of warheads you have that make you a great nation or you do it because you feel you know a threat and as I argue tonight increasingly countries don't feel those threats not entirely because he mentions India Pakistan but increasingly it's it's internal threats that that countries have to address and not external threats but you know your point about t-tip and you know who profits you know one of the great things and sort of where you're coming from I'm sorry I have to give an advertisement for t-tip that has nothing to do with the weapons but where you're coming from you should be a great supporter t-tip because we're not this isn't a trade deal with countries that pay their workers less that have less regulation that have in fire bad environments we're talking about the EU here that pay their workers more that have more strict environmental standards and what this whole t-tip is about is trying to try to you know create commonality in these things and that is one reason why the unions in this country are not opposing this negotiation so get on the bandwagon here sorry so as we reached 740 I want everyone to save their questions because we're all going to be hanging out after this debate just outside and we're going to close with two short five-minute statements starting with Ambassador Burke followed by Mark yeah I don't know how much we really disagreed here because I mean this was I think people who by two people who who understand what the role of nuclear weapons has been and I don't think there's much disagreement there I do think though there are some important changes underway and we have to take them into account Clark made the important argument and it's one that it's it's non-trivial and that's the extended deterrence argument said hey it isn't just that we you know the United States is needs to be able to deter an attack but we have these commitments to other countries what's interesting to me is over time that argument is increasingly wearing thin I think if I'm not mistaken you you Clark you were involved in the Perry Schlesinger Commission the Perry Schlesinger Commission when it made arguments about maintaining extended deterrence with countries particularly in Asia they were refuted by those Asian governments and I and I and I have to say at global zero we spent a lot of time talking to both the Koreans and the Japanese and you know getting the Japanese to endorse nuclear weapons is something they're not going to do but more importantly I don't want to talk about facts because you've come back say well no they didn't really mean that when you're my my argument would be that there are different forms of extended deterrence having telling and a third country that you're going to use nuclear weapons to defend them first of all I don't think was ever very credible and ed if do I look at there was always in back in the old days people always the real question was who would an American president really give up New York to save Paris or to save London and nobody knew the answer to that question but there are other forms of extended deterrence and one is presence when we have people on the line that also counts big time and I will tell you the current Polish Foreign Minister and the polls feel the Russian threat more I think strongly than just about any of the other new members of NATO the Polish Foreign Minister said look you know we we we just want Americans in Poland so if something does happen they're going to get mixed up in this and that was the always the argument we didn't have nuclear weapons in Berlin during the Cold War there are no nuclear weapons in Berlin but we had a brigade there and we and and that reassured the superlinners that if the balloon went up that Americans were going to get killed and and so our presence I would argue military exercises our presence in South Korea our presence in Japan our presence even the military exercises we do with the with the Baltic States and the fact that we're going to have a military presence in Poland confers that kind of extended deterrence so you know I I don't think it has to be with nuclear weapons that just that argument doesn't resonate with me and and you know I I I have I would say that the argument that somehow we need nuclear superiority over China because that offsends their conventional advantages we never argued that we needed nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union in in Europe we wanted strategic equivalence once the Russians started in the late 60s to build up their ballistic missile programs and into the 70s we never said that we needed superiority and that was and I went through that whole drill I can tell you as an academic as a journalist and as a government official and some of you remember we we've changed our doctrine every three years we went from flexible options and we were reading what general old Garkov was arguing about how the Russians viewed their nuclear weapons as just another form of long range artillery and this and that but the fact is we wanted general equivalence the Chinese tell us and I've spent a lot of time in the last two years Chinese they don't want equivalence they they have always adopted a strategy of minimum deterrence and I do think there's a way through and that the problem isn't the Chinese it's the Russians the Russians right now are going through and I think it has a lot to do with Putin's own domestic politics where just like Nixon supported the hard hats he's lost the support of the urban majority in Russia and Moscow and St. Petersburg and he's he's appealing to the blue collar Russian types and he's doing it by being a nationalist so he wants to support military forces now that wasn't 30 seconds so you're cheating me what we have to do is I think if we could get the Russians to agree to go down to a thousand nuclear weapons and I believe a thousand nuclear weapons is enough to deter anybody that we could get the other other countries including China to cap their programs and we could get in over time into a truly multilateral negotiation on proportional reductions and that should be our goal you know we forget in the 1950s and 60s the idea of any kind of strategic reductions with the Russians was seen as science fiction as a fantasy but we did it and the what we've achieved in terms of verification and transparency with the Russian on their Russians with their nuclear forces nobody would thought was possible at this time so let's let's kind of ride the wave with Putin I think you know we've got a hiatus in the relationship now for domestic Russian political reasons in my judgment but then let's try to move towards a multilateral reduction regime that could in terms of this long-term effort be arguably consistent with our NPT obligations and the NPT is very important for our interests and put us on the road to arguably the global zero okay first of all I'd like to begin with expressing my appreciation for Ambassador Burt for being here and then followed up immediately with a cheap shot please global those global zero put out a report in in May of 2012 by its nuclear commission that was headed up by General Cartwright and you're a member of that commission and I just want to point out that in that report it explicitly said we need more missile defense more advanced conventional weapons including a conventional ICBM to compensate for the reduction in US nuclear weapons these are precisely the capabilities as we pointed out before that other nations find threatening there are the capabilities that China for example lists and and answering the question why are we modernizing our nuclear capabilities well it's the amount of missile defense the United States is doing it's it's conventional prompt global strike and so on so we are developing conventional capabilities that other nations view is threatening to their interests and increases their alliance upon nuclear weapons when I look we thought you would like that you're very disarming sir to me the issue comes down to feasibility if a world without nuclear weapons it's not feasible for the foreseeable future why are we adhering to that vision now in a way that keeps us from doing sensible things that could advance our security interests president Obama recently gave a speech in Berlin in which he called for a reduction by a third of our operationally deployed warheads a vision that many arms control enthusiasts found disappointing because it wasn't aggressive enough but nevertheless express that it create the vision I would argue of a world without nuclear weapons is creating what I call the senator sessions problem and what senator sessions said was well if George Bush had asked to go down to a thousand that's fine you know because that's reasonable but it's done by a commander in chief who looks at this as a way station down to zero well I can't support it under those kind of conditions and I would argue that the vision of a global zero is getting to be counterproductive as a vision because it's getting in the way politically of doing things that we can do now that might stabilize the number of weapons at lower levels it's one thing when you have a commitment to a ultimate zero point that most people many people would say is not a feasible vision and it's starting to get in the way with the kinds of actions that we could take now when you lose a Walter Pinkus on the vision you're losing an awful lot of your range of opinion on this two more minutes I come back again to the fundamental point is that nuclear weapons aren't going away they're not going to vanish and as long as nuclear weapons exists the United States needs to ensure as President Obama says that we have a safe secure and effective nuclear arsenal and that we treat nuclear issues with the seriousness with which they deserve thank you let's thank both of the debaters for doing


Hei ond, wrth gwrs, rwy'n dda'n gwybod gyda'r ydydd. Dyma'r ydych chi'n ei ddweud, dyma'n mynd i gael. Mae'r ddweud, ddych chi'n ddweud, dyma'n ddweud. Felly mae'n ddweud i gael y teimlo y bydd, ac mae'n ddweud i'r bell yw, felly mae'n ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Felly mae'n ddweud i'r ddweud, ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r live chat. O'r rhaid dynol ac mae'r ddau'r cyfnodd yn ymgyrchol ac mae'r ddau'r cyfnodd yn rhaid fawr, a chydweud yn cael ei gobeithio'r cyd-fawr, mae'r cyfnodd yn rhaid fawr. Siarwynd a'r cyfnodd yn cael ei ddau, siarwynd ymgyrchol a'n cofnodd yn gyfnodd. Dydych chi'n ddigonno'n gweithio'r cyfnodd? Mae'r cyfnodd yn cael ei ddau'r cyfnodd yn cael ei ddweud. i ffaisiwch i chi'n gwahanol i chi'n ymg westiol i'r cyffredinol, sy'n credu i wych yn fwyfodol i gwybod trwmau a myfyddoch chi. Felly mae'n gwahanol i chi am fwyfodol i'r lleol, ond mae'n dweud yma i chi, i gwybod i chi gael eu bodon. Felly mae'n gwysig, sech, a'r drwng, i dweud yma i chi'n dweud i chi'n gwybod i chi'n gwahanol i chi'n gwahanol. Felly mae'n gwahanol i chi'n gwahanol i chi'n gwahanol i chi arweithio'r ffordd. yr ydych chi ddechrau, ac yw'n gallu ei ddweud i ni i ni yn ymlaen o'r energau. Ond ydych chi'n dweud i ni o'r energau, rydych chi'n dod i'r chwarae, yn ymlaen, yn adrwyl, yn admaratio, yn ymlaen o'r ymwysgwyr. Yn ymlaen, felly mae'n hynny'n meddwl o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ysbyt. Yn ymlaen, mae'n meddwl o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ymwysgwyr. gefnwys arwain o'r ysgolwch ar gyfer byddwyr. Felly, yn ôl i'r arsys iawn, byddwn yn gwneud i'r gwahan, yn ddau, yn ysgrifennu ac yn admaratio arall. Fy gyn nhw'n oedd ymddydd, mae'r gwaith yn ddwy'r, mae'r lle'r podent yn ei ddweudd yma. Dyna'r gwaith yn ymdill ac mae'r gwaith. Ac mae'r gwnaeth yn ei ddweudd mewn o'r ddweud, mae'r gwaith yn gwyfyd ac yn ymdillud. Maewn hyffordd ar gyfer y chyllid yn gwneud hwnnw i'r norm bellai. Ychydig ddadu symud yn gwneud hwnnw, y gallwn ni'n gweithio i'r gwrth ag i chi'n ddigwydd o'r amlwg ac yn adroddiad a'u amsbrun o'w cysyllt, jion, a'u amgarlau a ysgol comprehensive yw anhygiad. Mae'r ffordd neu'n angen yw mae'n angen i'r ysgol ceisio eich cwrdd i gwneud. Dyw wedi ceisio, mi'n angen i'r han cynnwysraeth regu Lord Gweithreifol. Just like you did earlier in the relationship, but of course the cycle repeats itself, however they are trying to make you feel, that's how they feel inside. Your happiness is a reminder of how miserable they feel, any positive emotion you feel will trigger them to reflect on their own negative emotions. They will then abuse and manipulate you in an attempt to project their intense negative emotions of hate, anger, envy and jealousy onto you. If you are not aware of emotional projection, you will assume that those are your feelings, but those feelings did not come from within you.  They were feeling angry, so they had to provoke you to feel anger, they were feeling envious or jealous of you. So they will buy something with the sole purpose of making you envious of them, or they will triangulate you in an attempt to make you feel jealous. They make you feel as though you are not good enough or something is wrong with you, because that is exactly how they feel, but they cannot stand to look at themselves, so they project it onto you. They will do or say all kinds of things to make you believe that they think you are not good enough or something is wrong with you. If you look into the minds of these narcs, you will find that they hate themselves, and they are using you to express this hate. Anything negative you feel while being around a narcissist, just understand that this is simply their way of communicating their own self-hatred. When they try to project their negativity or distorted beliefs onto you, do not feed those thoughts. They already know that their negativity or distorted beliefs don't have any value. That's why they are trying to project it onto you. They don't want it either. They have so much negativity, so many distorted beliefs in their minds. It's overwhelming for them. So they try to dump it onto you. In the narcissist mind, you are either perfect or nothing, priceless or worthless. Normal people see things in colour, to them, everything is either black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. Everything is generalised and grouped. Even if it doesn't belong there, they will adjust their perception in their minds, so they can generalise or group whatever it is they are talking about. It makes them feel more comfortable to put everything in a group. It also fulfills their obsessive need for control. Pay attention to what the narcissist is saying to you or displaying to you. At some point you may have done something which made them feel hateful or angry towards you. Or you did something that made them feel envious or jealous towards you. They took this personally. Narcists do not self-reflect or look within themselves. They do not deal with their emotions and they can only hold them for a short time before they project them onto you. Because they do not self-reflect on these emotions, they can hold on to them for years. You may have done something that made the narcissist feel hatred, anger, envy or jealousy towards you many years ago. This could have been something you were not even aware of at the time. And because the narcissist does not self-reflect, you could talk to them many years later and they cannot help but to constantly project these emotions onto you. Now they are saying or doing whatever they can in an attempt to make you feel hate, anger, envy or jealousy towards them. You need to identify that these emotions do not belong to you. At some point something you said or did made the narcissist feel this way towards you. They never resolve this issue within them. And since narcissists do not really self-love, their only option is to project these emotions onto you. So you may be wondering why you cannot have a normal conversation with a narcissist. Why they are always bringing random things up or lying to you in an attempt to make you feel those emotions towards them. This is the reason why. Because they never dealt with the emotions that they once felt in the past. When you said or did something that made them feel hate, anger, envy or jealousy. And since they do not self-reflect or lock within themselves. This is all they know how to do now and it never ends. It created a program in their minds and the only way they can remove this program is by self-reflecting. Of course, narcissists do feel deeply ashamed of their toxic behaviour. But they do not want to self-reflect. It's too painful for them.  They will deny any responsibility or accountability for their actions. They will shift the blame onto you and gaslight you into thinking that there is something wrong with you.  These are all attempts to dodge the shame they feel. You may have thought that they were doing all of this because you were not good enough or you did something wrong. But that's just what they want you to believe. They want you to believe it so that it can be more believable for them. But the truth is, all those times they use tactics such as denial, projection, blame-shifting and gaslighting.  None of that had anything to do with you. They were just projecting their emotions onto you. Deep down they feel as though they are not good enough. They feel that something is wrong with them. They are very insecure and have an inferiority complex. As a coping or defence mechanism, they will say or do whatever they can to get you to feel the way that they do. So if they say something negative to you, don't take it personal. It has nothing to do with you and everything to do with them. They project that onto you because they find it too painful to self-reflect. If the narcissist is trying to make you feel hatred, anger, envy or jealousy towards them, it's because you said or did something at some point which made them feel that way. This could have been the other day or even if several months or years have passed. It doesn't matter because they will hold on to the way they felt during that moment. They do not self-reflect or try to resolve the issue. They do not self-loathe so that only other option is to project those emotions onto you. Do not trust what they are telling you. Do not trust what they are displaying to you. Everything they say or do has an agenda. It is designed to make you feel the way that they feel or the way that they once felt. The narcissist lives in this illusion where they believe that they are in control of us. But they don't realise that they are still unconsciously reacting to unresolved feelings from many years ago. And it doesn't matter how many years or decades go by. They will continue to react to those emotions they once experienced as a result of something you said or did. They will try to get you to feel the way that they feel. Not just once but again and again because they do not self-reflect so it never relieves the pain that they feel within. The narcissist never moves on. They can only create the illusion as though they have moved on. But deep down they are holding on to grudges and resentment, unresolved traumas and painful feelings. Which means that no matter how many years or decades go by. You will still have some level of control over their thoughts, feelings, actions and behaviours. Whether you like it or not, once you can identify the moment where they had learned these actions, behaviours, coping and defence mechanisms. It will all make a lot of sense. Some narcissist try to hide their true feelings towards you. If they are aware of narcissism and the psychology behind it. They may understand that by overtly displaying their tactics, especially projection to you. You will then pick up on it and realise the time and place where you had said or done something. And they learn that behaviour from you. The projection is really just a tactic which they use in an attempt to dodge the intense shame they feel every day. In almost everything they do and everything they say. Making you feel as though you are not good enough or as though there is something wrong with you.  This is all an attempt to dodge the intense shame which will continue to grow within them. As they never learned how to deal with it. The very thought, feeling or person that they are so desperately trying to run away from. Is potentially what would help them to reflect on their feelings and then resolve them.  And this is why projection is one of their most used tactics. Narciss are self-absorbed and lack empathy. They only care about how they feel. They don't care about how you feel. And that is why they will project on to you. They don't feel much guilt or remorse for what they do. But the way of shame follows them throughout their lives. Which is why they are constantly hateful, envious and resentful towards you. They look at you and wonder how you can reflect on your own emotions. Rather than projecting them on to them. This makes them feel even more inferior. And gives them another feeling. For showing them everything that they are not. Showing them everything that they should be doing. But don't. Because they are too weak. And lack motivation. Everything that they do feel shameful of. They will then project on to you. When they were children they were told that they are not good enough. Or something is wrong with them. This has not happened to me. I don't know why. I don't know why. Or something is wrong with them. This has developed into their inner dialogue or inner critic. Now there is nothing you can say or do for them. Without them constantly being criticised by this inner dialogue. Which was developed in their childhood. They are preoccupied with their inner dialogue. To listen to anything you say. It overrides any empathy they would otherwise feel for you. This was programmed into their minds from their childhood. And it is designed to block or deny the very things. That they would need to remove the programming. You might be trying to have an open honest conversation with a narcissist. But this is not going to happen. Because their inner dialogue or inner critic. Is blocking this from taking place. All they can hear in their minds is that they are worthless. And insignificant. So they are going to respond to you. As though that's what you think. Or that's what you are saying to them. That's why they are so competitive. And it always seems like they are trying to prove something to you. As an emotionally healthy person. You should be able to identify with how the other person feels. You should be considerate of their feelings. And be able to demonstrate empathy. And some form of understanding. Narcys are locked in this programming. Which makes it almost impossible for them to feel empathy. Or consideration for you. I guess the only thing preventing them from doing this. Is the feeling of shame. Or fear of being judged.  It is the lowest frequency on the emotional vibrational frequency chart. Many people have chose to kill. Rather than to face their shame. So the odds are 1000 to 1. Thank you for watching. I hope this video resonated with you. Please like, comment, share. And click the subscribe button. If you haven't subscribed yet. Talk to you soon.


Everybody forced here rippin 2022 revolution wwe hobby one box number 17 random pack style We're gonna do the random right now See who's got witch pack before we get into it here They're randomized names and numbers same amount of time put them side by side to see who's getting a witch pack It's eight times on each eight times six and two one two three four five six seven and eight Jeremy are down to joe c and the numbers eight times one two three four five six seven and eight Got six down to three get these moved over now All right, and there you go. That's who's got what's got Jeremy are six daniel h5 and seven brandon p1 Mitchell h2 Jeremy are format f8 joe c3 gonna get these results posted Get you a link for those results So just like every other random we do for a break. Those will be posted guys. You can always find them on the results tab there is Lincoln chat Let's see what we got um And then how I have always done revolution boxes and how I've been doing random pack style I'm gonna pull the packs out put them face down So I kind of go in reverse. I guess you could say But it's how I've always done it face down. This is pack one We'll go down and that's gonna be for all of them. That's how I've always done it Breakers can do it differently. She's gonna let you know how I'm doing it. So this is pack number one Do drop charlotte flair james drake got a sunburst sammy zane to 99 And shockwave them is Yeah, right like lane just said in chat chris you earn points on group breaks um And you can only use them on group breaks Pack two fin baller shamus rock lezner fractal non-number bobby lashley And uh jerald briscoe and pat paterson number three Sasha banks king woods odyssey jones astro rookie odyssey jones And a supernova charlotte flair This is number four Well, I'll see something big in one of these packs here God j. Uso to masochampa Fabian eichner Groove also not numbered as montez ford And a batista legends his card there face batista On the pack number five now Pack five mako sadamora Korra jade rookie west lee That is an angular west lee angular to 199 You got vortex damien priest number six Bianca Belair la knight austin theory astro king woods and kofi kingston the new day Nice astro there and then eddie guerrero legends The rest in peace eddie pack seven randy orton apollo cruz kailey ray king woods astro Not numbered and a shockwave is zeali. All right, and finally pack eight becky lynch kashida Ray Ripley Groove mankind and the rock the rock and sock connection Nice And fabian eichner and marcel barthol Imperium That'll do it for number 17. Thanks again everybody More revolution coming up


Hi, my name is Minali Adwar. I'm Dominic Darby. Hi, my name is Erika Liu. I'm a developer of Banana Pie. And I am the developer of the game Colonialis, Jamestown. And I'm the developer of Spirit to Evolve 2. We are the developers of Flash Trash. What inspired me to come into this competition was actually my computer science teacher. A teacher in my school recommended that I go to this competition. Thus, I entered called Games Challenge. The prize goal with Cold Games, the global game making challenge, was definitely to democratize access to learning through technology and to really empower the next generation of innovators to follow their dreams and their interests. But also, we wanted to build off our previous learning prizes and we wanted to create ways for the next generation to learn coding and game design skills while creating the future of their dreams. Outside of making games and playing games, I also liked to draw and paint, so just anything art related. Some of my favorite hobbies are reading, drawing, bike riding, and playing Ultimate Frisbee. Our other hobbies include horse riding, baking, playing the drums and the piano, and dancing. I've been riding for a long time. Even before I really started actually playing video games. Outside of games and game making, I enjoy making beats and I have the equipment to do so in my spare time. I was so impressed that such a great number of students from not just one country, but so many countries were represented in this challenge. We set out to have the competition be international from the very beginning as it was conceived and we were very excited to see that we were successful in that regard. We had entrants from over 70 different countries around the world. I'm from Dunedin, New Zealand. I'm from Karachi, Pakistan. I live in Jamaica and I live in Amor, Canada. I think it is amazing that gaming can be a language that people can speak and can get to know each other over. And it doesn't require being able to do something super well. It just requires some curiosity and some excitement. I started learning Scratch in sixth grade and I've improved a lot since then by looking at tutorials made by other Scratchers and by making my own games and getting feedback from the community. Karachi, my city, the city of flights is Pakistan's premier financial and industrial centre. But unfortunately it has a very poor garbage management system. So my game had to revolve around minimum wage production. In my game I really tried to incorporate a deeper message about what our human nature will result in in the future. Our mission is to encourage and teach people to separate and recycle trash to decrease the pollution of our planet. One of the most impressive things for me when I get to play the games that our entrants make is seeing truly awesome games and then getting to talk to the young person who's created them and finding out that it's actually the first time they've even tried making a video game, maybe even the first time they've tried programming. Gaming is the future. Gaming is the present. And it's a part of our lives. Gaming really can become a soundtrack and a really big beacon and tentacle of this generation right now. And I'm really excited about being on the cusp of the breakthrough and how we entertain ourselves, how we train ourselves for careers of the future because gaming is a unifier of the people and gaming is here to stay.


My time overseas, it was in some ways one of the most challenging times for me, and in many ways it was one of the most rewarding. It was a challenge. I studied in Germany, and I actually had to learn German in an intense course when I went over there. It was a great experience. I remember the shock of coming to a different culture and looking for other people like me that spoke English that I could do with that. What I remember was really taking risks and getting to know other people was very valuable. I also learned from some of my mistakes. One of the biggest mistakes that I made when I was over there, and I see a lot of our international students do the same thing that I did, is when you get into a conversation in your host country's language, they get talking very fast, and they'll ask you, did you understand? I remember as a student not wanting to feel like I was dumb, so I'd say, yeah, yeah, I was in Germany, or in English, I'd say yes, yes, yes, I got it. One of those times was when I was getting my student ID, and what they had asked what I know now was, did you check all the information thoroughly? I didn't understand what they said, so I said, yeah. I got my ID and I was a Chinese student. And then I had to go back and I had to apologize, and it actually took several weeks to get that out. And what I learned, what I should have said, is to try to repeat what I understood, because I got part of what they said. And it's one of the things that I tell students for coming from other countries is here at Purdue, in Indiana, in the Midwest part of the United States, people are generally friendly, and it's okay if somebody says, did you understand what we said, as say, I think so, can I just repeat back what I think you said? And that will save you as a student the trauma like I had of having to go back and have your student ID reclassified to your proper. The other mistake that I remember making is I love finding other students that spoke my native language, English. And so what I did is I used that for a crutch, and what happened then is my German didn't get as good as it could have. And I think it's natural for us as human beings to want to be like other people like us. And it was easier for me to speak English, and I see students whatever native language you have, that's the easiest language we have. My suggestion for students is when you get with your friends, make an agreement that on certain days you will speak your native language, because that's part of who we are, and there's a connection and a feeling of ease when I can talk to other people in my native language. But let's also agree on certain days that we are only going to speak English, because what that's going to do is that's going to get our English better, and when we come into class, it's going to help us do better in class because we've sharpened our English. And that is, if I think back, the thing I would have changed the most when I was an international student, that would have been it.


And he is the son of the noble scholar Abu Dawood al-Sigistani. The author of the Sunan. That's his son. And this statement that he is getting from him is getting it from the Kitab al-Masahif that he authored. He has a book called Al-Masahif. Where he talks about many matters related to the Quran. And I think insha'Allah it's in the near future. It's a book that we're going to cover insha'Allah. And it's a book that the Orientalists used to prove that the Quran is not preserved. They used that kind of works. They play with narrations and they bring statements here and there. And one of the earliest people who actually worked on that book was an Orientalist who edited that book from its manuscript version and turned it out into a hard copy was an Orientalist. So the ulama that came after, they refuted him in how he tried to tamper with the book. Now. If now we don't narrate that of the pious pieces may Allah have mercy on them. Well those who would complete the recitation on the entire Quran every two months. So some of them what they would do is that's the first group now. And then they would finish it in every two months. Every two months one time they would finish the Quran. Over and done with. So that's every two months. So the first month they would read 15 Juz and the second month they would read the remaining 15 Juz. Now. Some would finish it every month. So they would read every single day the Quran is 30 Juz. So they read a Juz a day. That's one group of the self. Some of them what every ten nights. Some of them what ابن حجر بالزينس كتاب لتائد الأفقار رحمه الله تعالى أخر جبن أبي داود بسند الليين عن الحسن البصري أنه كان يقرأ القرآن في كل عشر ليان مرة. The person who would read every ten days was who? Every ten days was حسن البصري رحمه الله. From the image itself we used to. Some would finish every every eight nights. حفظ الحجر بالزينس لتائد الأفقار that ابن أبي داود mentions from أبي بن كعب الرضي الله عنه that he said يقرأ القرآن في كل ثمانه أبي said Read the Quran in every eight days. So he was known for every eight days to finish the Quran. The noble companion. نعم. Some would complete it every seven nights. The ones who would finish it every seven nights is أسانيت صحيحة authentic chains which brought from أثمان would do that. وعبد الله بن مسعود. يداري رضي الله عنه وعبد الرحمن وزيدن وعلقامة ابن قيسن ومصروع ابن الأجدع that he used to finish every seven days. And there is a narration that has come from the Prophet ﷺ regarding finishing the Quran every seven. And another group where they would finish it every from those who would do that is الأسود ابن يزيد. He used to finish every every six every six nights قاسم المسلام brings in his Kitab فضائل القرآن through the chain of ابراهيم النخعي رحمه الله تعالى Some would finish every five nights such as عالقامة. He would also finish every five nights. And he used to dislike as ابن أبي داود mentions he used to dislike عالقامة for the Quran to be read in less than five nights. كان عالقامة يكره أن يختمه. He used to dislike that the Quran would be finished في أقل من خمسين less than five. Others every four nights. Another group would finish the Quran every four nights from those who would do is أبو درداء. أبو درداء would finish the Quran every four nights أبو درداء was done with the Quran and its recitation. Others every three nights. Another group were the ones who would finish the recitation of the Quran every three nights. ولي ذلك لزحليت حافظ بن حاجر بيزن نتائج الأفكار. أبو عميد قاسم السلام فضائل القرآن that سعدي من المنذر الأنصاري he said to the prophet of Allah أقرأ القرآن في ثلاثين Shall I read the Quran in three? The prophet said to him نعم إن استطاعته. Yes if you are able to. So he came to the message عليه الصلاة والسلام سعدي من المنذر الأنصاري. He came to the message عليه الصلاة والسلام وليسر يا رسول الله Shall I read the Quran and shall I finish it in three? The messenger said to him Yes if you are able to. نعم. Others every two nights. Now there were others who used to finish the Quran in what? Two nights and from them is سعيد من الجبير. سعيد من الجبير. Also he used to finish the Quran in two nights. Also سعدي من إبراهيم ابن عبد الرحمن ابن عوف عبد الرحمن ابن عوف is grandson. He used to finish in two. عطاء ابن سائب He used to also finish in two nights. نعم. Others every night. And there were some who used to always finish they would finish within 24 hours they would finish one khatmah. So they would have in a month they would finish the Quran 30 times every day one time. And from those who used to do that عبد اللهم زبير عبد اللهم زبير would finish the Quran every night he would finish it once. عمر ابن حسين He used to finish the Quran day and night 24 hours he would finish he would finish what do you call it? He would finish one time. But what you have to realize is عبد اللهم زبير was not day and night he would only do that all in one night in his قيام الليل in his قيام he would finish all.  Some of them would finish it twice. Some of them would finish it twice. And from those who would finish it twice يعقوب ابن يوسف المزياد He used to finish the Quran في اليوم مراتين Twice He'd finish it رحمه الله رحمه الله جميعا He'd finish the Quran twice. نعم And even three times a day. Some would finish three times a day. نعم It is even narrated that some would complete the Quran eight times a day. نعم Four times during the day and four times during the night. There were some who did that. Four times four times a day and four at night time. Eight times نقل عن بعضهم.  نعم Among those who would complete the recitation of the Quran three times a night وسليم يبنوا أتر the grand judge of Egypt during the reign of Ma'aria ربي الله عنه أبو أبطار يبنوا يبنوا نشافعي and narrated that he, Sulaym would recite the whole Quran three times a night. نعم This is all in the Qiyam. أبو أبطار يبنوا نشافعي and narrated in his book The Judges of Egypt. This is not Ramadan by the way. أبو أبطار يبنوا narrated in his book The Judges of Egypt that Sulaym would recite the entire Quran up to four times a night. This is the Qadi he's a judge. أبو أبو أبو رحمان السليم إلي من الله... أبو رحمان السليم أبو أبو رحمان السليم I heard sheikh Ab advertising أبو أبو featured in his poem يقول بن손 will be يقول الذي يضع من أن أبو عثمان المغربي رضي الله و يعني كان من الكاتب رضي الله و يعني يختِموا بالنهاية أربعة قاتمة و نفعل مسبقاً بـ ٤ and then ٤ at night time. This is the 80's. This is the most we have ever heard regarding the frequency of any manifestation of the Quran. There's no one who beat it. That's the largest number. أنها تصميم لنا عندما يجعل ذلك تصميم للمكروفون يتكلم أن سيد الجليل أحمد الدوراكي يأتي منه أنه من منصور ابنو زادان من العباد والتابعين رضي الله تعالى عنه يجب أن يتكلم ويجعل القرآن بين ضهر and عصر ثم يجب أن يتكلم بين مغرب and عشاء ثم يجب أن يتكلم بين مغرب and عشاء الرمضان دوماً إذا كانت رمضان سوف تفعل إذا كانت رمضان سوف تفعل بين مغرب and عشاء عندما يتكلم إلى أول قرآن سوف يتكلم بين مغرب and عشاء وإن يبدأ أخر مع حقك مع حقك أن مجاهد يتكلم بين مغرب and عشاء كل مغرب عندما رمضان يتكلم مجاهد يجب أن يتكلم بين المغرب والعشاء ولكن الموقع بين هؤلاء كان يتكلم نعم منصور نرقص أولي and أزدي سوف يتكلم كل مغرب and عشاء كل مغرب إبراهيب نو سعر فقال إبراهيب نو سعر فقال إبراهيب نو سعر أبراهيب ستكلم أضع من القرآن نعم those who are known to recite the entire Qur'an in a single Rak'a but innumerable some of them would only pray the whole Qur'an in one Hak'a one Qiyam الله أكبر the whole Qur'an from them was who ومنهم وإثماني وعفان تميم أداري السعيد They would read Qur'an all of them in one Qiyam one stand they would start from Surat Al-Baqara سورة الناس كل ذلك في one stand ثم يسكر رقعة يبدأ من the beginning again كل ذلك was in a Qiyam would you call it standing سعيد ابنو جوبيل who would recite the entire Qur'an in every laka'a that's what he would do سعيد ابنو سعيد ابنو سعيد ابنو جوبيل every single laka'a in his Qiyam would finish the Qur'an so some of what you tend to realize from them is that their prayer was long the number was very little it wasn't necessarily a 20 something you see theirs was long and the Qiyam and the effort and that boy was prayed so what's needed is that a person's Salat is lengthy then to focus on the amount of حركات that you pray and brothers this is why they have what بهادر تفع الأقوم they will lift it because of this they will lift it because of this الله raised them ranks الله سبحانه وتعالى raised them status positions because they khalawat their inner internal affairs and their relationship with the book of Allah was unprecedented how many of us can actually say that we sat down and we even opened the مصحف and looked at it how many of us can even say within a day we read one page with all honesty how many of us has even read half a page when you look at theirs their recitation of the Qur'an and their reading of the Qur'an because we're talking about a period of 10 to 15, 20 some of them 40 years of consistency of doing this consistency that's how they were like عثمان عصار رضي الله تعالى عنه عبد الله بن مسعود زيد بن ثابت أبي بن كعبن all of them ون يل أن تابعين how they were with the Qur'an they were أهل القرآن the people of the Qur'an those who would recite those who would recite the Qur'an every week are also many among them were عثمان بن أثان عبد الله بن مسعود زيد بن ثابت أبي بن كعبن and others among supplies predecessors such as عبد الله بن مسعود عبد الله بن مسعود وده عبد الله بن مسعود say ما من آية في كتاب الله forget the memorization and the memorization of the Qur'an عبد الله بن مسعود سوى با الله there is not an ayah in the Qur'an there is not a verse in the Qur'an إلا وانا أعلم وين نزلت I know where it came down forget the حفظة the warning of it I know where it came down أين وين وين وين مكة وين مكة I can tell you وماتها نزلت I can tell you what time it came down it was in the morning it was in the evening it was in the afternoon I can tell you where it was I can tell you who it came down on who is the reason why it came down on then he goes on to say ولو كنت أعلم أحد if I was to know anyone on the face of this earth today that knew more the book of Allah than me and I could reach them through my riding beast والله I would go to them but I have no knowledge of anyone who is like that anyone who has that knowledge of the Qur'an like that in which I can go to take it from so the حفظ of the Qur'an wasn't just مجرد الفاد they just didn't just memorize the wordings they actually knew they actually knew the meaning of the Qur'an they knew the meaning of that they knew the meaning of the Qur'an now the most appropriate of all these different methods would depend on the individual those who were able to discover the Tasif and inferred to me and inferred meanings only through deep contemplation should think themselves reciting only an amount that would allow them to contemplate such meanings so the author now goes into a topic called I read the Qur'an I want to read the Qur'an come with me brothers and sisters which was better that I finished the recitation of the Qur'an and I get the reward of that I get the reward of the letters that I read or should I contemplate and ponder over the Qur'an and read slow and not read much but I ponder which was better this is what the author now goes into the Masella of what the pondering of the Qur'an and thinking over it when it all what about reading more and reciting a lot and also these Salafu Hadil Ummah how should one be like regarding their Qur'an are they all going to be are we all going to be like an Ottoman who read everything in one Qiyam Abdulaym al-Saud and Sayyid al-Jubeir and Mujahid and the likes of them how should we be like so he gives you a beneficial advice and Imam النووي رحمه الله تعالى نعم likewise those who visit themselves with teaching as well as other religious tasks or affairs that bring benefit to the Muslim community should also limit themselves to whatever would allow them to carry out their responsibilities in the manner required the author here mentions that this differs from one person to another anybody who feels that they want to pondering on the Qur'an and they want to think over the Qur'an and the fact that they're going to read fast will get in the way of that he said that this generally speaking it's better that they read slow then لأن عثمار رضي الله عنه عبد الله من المسود رضي الله تعالى عنه all of them when they were reading the Qur'an and they were finishing it very frequently they weren't losing the pondering they still weren't losing the pondering but if you feel like I am the author says this because it differs from person to person that you as an individual feel like this is going to get in the way then إن شاء الله تعالى قملك التو奰 هناك zeigen فقط when you read there won't be anything walk walk walk walk walk take the water water water أكثر من القرآن لا يجب أن تكون في طريقك المساعدة التي تفعلها لأمه فالأمه الذي لا يفعل شيء لأمه يمكن أنه يستطيع أن يفعل القرآن أكثر ولكن الأمه الذي يستطيع يتعلم ، يتعلم ، يتعلم ، يتعلم يفعله الكثير سنقول to him يمكن أن يأخذ بعضهم لأن ما نريد أن نتعلم هو يتعلم too much of the Qur'an so much so that it gets in the way of your national علم that is spreading the knowledge or it gets in the way of you leading the Muslims correctly and giving them justice and stuff like that if however one has more time on his hands and is able to understand more what are the needs of the Qur'an without limiting himself to his rule and portion then he should increase the amount he recites as long as he does not exceed the limits to that which we are making for or to the extent that you will wind up the author here now goes into anyone who isn't busy with spreading knowledge and he's not standing up من مهمات الدين ومصارحة المسلمين العامة he's not standing up for that which benefits the ummah he's just as you say he's so lowing his life he's doing everything by himself that individual the sheikh rahimahullahi says he should what you call it for you to increase increase what you can as much as you can if you're not busy with teaching the people you're not busy running and governing the Muslims you've got free time go sit down and read the Qur'an as much as much so that your recitation should not take you toward that you become bored and also don't read as much as you do what's known as هذراما هذراما means سرعة الكلام الخفي that you read in the Qur'an you don't even know what you're saying now you're mumbling you're mumbling that you don't know what you're saying you know what's coming out of your mouth this in this situation the author says not as much as that نعم among the pious predecessors were those who disliked that the entire Qur'an should be recited in a single day and night when the author says وقد كريها جماعة وقد كريها here does not mean disliked see this translation what he says to you they would carry her here for the self it doesn't mean disliked it means حرام some of them story حرام to read the Qur'an in one day and one night they story حرام some of the early generation they used to say حرام نعم those who held this opinion used as evidence the Hadith of Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn Aas may Allah be with him who said that the mission of Allah peace and blessings of Allah be upon him said to ever recite the Qur'an in less than three days were not comprehended it was recited by Abdullah Ibn Aas and others narrated this Hadith and it was classified as حسنة صحيح but it was recited by Abdullah Ibn Aas the Prophet ﷺ's Hadith is what they used when the Prophet ﷺ said to Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn Aas لا يفقه من قرأ القرآن في أقل من ثلاثين he has not understood he has not لا يفقه he won't understand من قرأ القرآن the one who reads the Qur'an في أقل من ثلاثين in less than three so this is the Hadith that they held on to to say that it's not commissible نعم as with regards to the starting time and finishing time for he who seeks to recite the Qur'an in a week if not only they will narrate with his chain of narration that Uthman Ibn Affan recited where he started his recitation on Friday nights and completed it on Thursday nights the author رحمه الله here he brings the one who would the time to start and the time to finish the one who wants to finish in a week how he would do it so if you now want to read a whole week when do you start and when do you finish and when did he do he started on a Saturday a Friday night Friday night is when it's Thursday night in English we call it Thursday night Friday night is the night is when tomorrow Friday is coming in like it was what it's Thursday night tomorrow is Friday that's when he started remember in the Muslim world the night comes first and the day comes after we believe what the day comes first صح and the night is what is after they don't believe that it's the opposite the point be though that Uthman Ibn Affan night and Friday the day Friday is coming in he would start and he would finish on Wednesday night when Thursday is coming in he would go far like that and he would finish he would have finished رحمه الله تعالى so the way he used to break it down as Ibn Hadyal mentioned عثمان عفان كان يفتح القرآن ليلة الجمعة بالبقرة he would start بقرة إلى صورة المائدة on Saturday night he would then read النعام إلى هود and then Sunday night he would then read يوسف إلى مريم and then the Monday night he would read طاها إلى طاسي ميم صورة قصص and then he would read after the next day he would read صورة عن كبوت إلى صورة الصاد and then the next day after that he would read صورة زمر إلى صورة الرحمن and then from صورة الرحمن he would finish till the night of خميص he would finish the Quran all of it here the author brings the statement of أبو حامد الغزالي رحمه الله in his book إحياء علوم الدين his book إحياء علوم الدين أبو حامد الغزالي رحمه الله سهل الأفضل أن يختم ختمة بالليل what is recommended is that the person completes one at night once at daytime نعم on the occasions where he completes one day he should start to complete it on Monday during the two ركعاتي the Fajr prayer or after that so when you're finishing your day recitation try to make on Monday in the ركعاتي الفجر the Tourek on Fajr or what's after it while while the time he completes the Quran by night should preferably be on a Friday during the two when it's nighttime that you're praying try to make your recitation at nighttime to make it ركعاتي الفجر ركعاتي المغرب the Sunnah of Maghrib or after it the reason he wants from it is this why if all that he may welcome the beginning of the day and it's end so the way you should try to do it is if you read it for the Sunnah of Fajr you've started your day with a fresh Quran you've started your day bright that's daytime and at nighttime if you do it for the when you pray Maghrib and then you pray a Tourek on Sunnah and you what you read in the Tourek of Maghrib the whole Quran again you've now faced your night with another complete recitation of that Quran so you now got a Quran for the day and you have a Quran for the night نعم so with your night and day now is you got two fresh Quran نعم