He became one of the most reknowned performers in the country in the late 19th century. His stage name was blind tom. He was born blind. And was what we probably now would call autistic. But he was a musical genius. He could hear a piece played on the piano one time, and then play it note for note. He composed some of his own music. That was mainly based on natural sounds like birds or thunderstorms. One of his famous pieces recreation of a civil war battle on the piano. The sad part about blind toms story, the family that owned him as a slave kept control of him all of his life. When the 13th amendment freed the slaves that family went to court and had tom declared mentally incompetent. So for the rest of his life, to the end of the 1900s. 1800s they toured him in europe and around the United States and they keep the proceeds from it. The other slave has a little bit happier story. His name was horace king and was the slave of a man who was in construction and was a Bridge Builder and he taught who are risking those skills. They really were more like partners than master and slave. In 1846 his master gave him his freedom. So horace king become as Bridge Builder across the south in the years before the civil war and after the. He built warehouses. He built mills. He was reknowned for the quality of his work that he did. And thats very unusual for an africanamerican person in the prewar or postwar south. Once the Civil Rights Movement comes along the jim crow system is challenged. One of the most important people in our history was dr. Thomas brewer. He has a doctor was not quite as much under the control of whites as someone who actually worked for a white person. And so he was able to be a little more independent. Constantly was challenging jim crow, asking for parks paved roads, sanitation in black neighborhoods. One of his fights in the 1950 weighs was to try to integrate the public golf course. After brown very education came out the Public Schools became a big focus. He agitated for desegregation for Public Schools and became a lightning rod for white resentment. He began to get death threats. Began to carry a pistol. In 1956 he was killed killed. The grand jury ruled that a white store owner who was renting a store that dr. Brewer owned. Dr. Brewer was his landlord, that the store owner killed dr. Brewer in selfdefense. However, there were at least two Columbus Police officers in the store at the time and there were more outside of the store. The black community believed and Still Believes that dr. Brewer was killed in a police assassination. Theres, you know, and then, the man that killed him a year later is found dead. And the grand jury ruled that suicide under very suspicious circumstances. So, it had a really Chilling Effect on civil rights in columbus. Black professionals moved out of the city because they feared for their lives. There was no, there was kind of a vacuum of leadership in the black community. In the 1960s civil rights organizer came here and he said, i couldnt get anybody to do anything. They were, they were scared. Martin luther king wanted to come and speak in columbus and he couldnt find a curve that would host him because people were afraid. The masons provide a place for him to speak. As a historian i look at the past through the lens of peoples stories. And all of us are historical actors. We all have a part in our history. So, you have to understand where you are and how the community that you live in got to be as it is. We can believe the old myths but i think if we take a harder look at where we came from, we end up loving our city more. Youre watching booktv on cspan2. This weekend were visiting columbus georgia with the help of our local cable partner mediacom. We visit with author john ellisor. He explores a 18 30s land conflict between georgia and alabama. Sometimes referred to as the creek war of 1836. Or so the socalled creek war of 1836. Because these Commanding Officers proclaimed its end in a matter of few weeks. We looked at it as a Simple Police action not very significant in the whole story of creek removal. I had heard the term second creek war before but i dont think that was a widely accepted term. But, since i thought that i had discovered this conflict was a real war, what was more longlasting was much more significant than others had thought, i really you know accentuated this name, the second creek war. Were right here in the center of the old creek nations. At one point they claimed most lands of good part of georgia alabama and part of north florida. With the creation of the Young American republic, we start to push on these native americans and others as we start west, building as a nation. State of georgia is particularly anxious to get the large creek body of natives and the cherokees out of georgia. So they become quite virulent in pushing for indian removal. This will kind of take place gradually over a period of years as we sign treaties with the creeks. Take chunks of land moving them west toward the chattahoochee river here. Finally in the late 18 20s theyre confined into about nine counties of alabama. That was called new alabama the old creek nation. Finally in 1832, there was a treatly called by some as the washington treaty. I like to refer to it as the cassida treaty of 1832. It was agreed by the creeks, all right, we will allow you to survey our lands in alabama the last lands remaining to us. And then, you will, the United States government, issue lands in severalty. Individual families will get their own lands. It was considerable acreage that would go to each family. Like a full half section of land the rest you can open to settlement. Now these indians thought, i believe, their leaders believed this was would be a way to stay in alabama stay on the last, sort of remnant of their ancient home lan and avoid removal to the west. What they could do is take their land allotments around their own towns, preserve their tribal integrity and period of five years or so they could get legal title to these lands that would be protected by the state of alabama. But i think Andrew Jackson lewis cast, the secretary of war at that time and others thought this treaty is simply a marketbased removal treaty. What well do, well open the rest of those creek lands to settlement. They will be in the midst of white settlers and everything else. It will be a simple matter for us to press them off the land. They will not be able to compete. They will sell out and move west eventually. So there was that conflict about what this treaty was supposed to be as part of the outbreak of the war, part of the cause of the war. Right here across the river in these bottom lands of the chattahoochee, very first tile cotton lands that was pushing that last drive to get the southern indians out is the coming of king cotton. Tremendous fraud. Grog shops were opened. People were cheated. Impersonation. Where one indian was taken to one of the sales lands commissioners. Claims to be another indian. Paid off 10s sells somebodys man, there are murders it is a terrible land fraud. Its a great stain on the american republic. These people are starving to death. So a group of warriors here in the lower creek towns as they were called, again right across the river they will rebel in that spring and summer of 1836 and start this event that i call the second creek war. The warriors will start, basically, attacking plantations, travelers, in those county lower creek counties in 1836. Theyre just driving settlers out. At that is what they intend to do. They do a pretty good job of it. A couple thousand people will fly in to columbus. Some will keep going to their old homes in georgia. Theyre just going to clear out the lands around their old tribal towns of the they thought removal was imminent. They thought they would be forced to remove. That is one reason it inspired the rebellion. Although i did read an account from one of their leaders who said, we were simply starving. We needed food. We needed to survive. But there are plan b, the alternative plan, if they couldnt hold the lands with to go to florida. Many of them did. And that part of the war has been almost wholly ignored until, i decided to bring it out in this book. There really werent grate battles attached to the initial conflict that broke out in may of 1836. 10,000 troops came. 5000 were stationed here in columbus. 5000 over in, tuskegee, alabama. The forces were split between these two generals. They were to supposed to, to converge on the rebel creek towns here, close to the chat keep chattahoochee river close to our door and the operation didnt really take very long. They thought it was over with. The indians either surrendered. Some went into hiding. They escaped across georgia to join the seminoles. The seminole war is raging at the same time. This is appears to be more of a momentous strug fell. The military wants to get on with that. General jessup devoted his attention to creek removal. Removal in large part of the upper creeks who were peaceful during this conflict. And so, they had larger issues to attend to. They were not big battles immediately. This war is a war largely because it devolved into a guerrilla conflict that will take parts in the wilds take place in the wilds of georgia florida, alabama for years to come. But it is just people had other things to do. They got on to other concerns. And so, that willed der theyness warfare wilderness warfare will bleed into the second seminole war in florida was passed over and has been for 150 years. It war itself out. There was a war of attrition. Finally i think these the end of the second creek war had a lot to do with it. When the seminoles retreated to the everglades, when the American Government reached an accommodation with them, all right, you stay there. We get the rest of florida. Well all stop fighting. This was about 1842, 1843. Although there is an outbreak called the third seminole war in the 1850s. That is really, the violence doesnt end until then. It is the 1850s. As i said before, theyre still having conflicts with creek refugees fugitives in northwest florida in the 1850s. There are some people still getting killed. Not a largescale but there are these titfortat murders going on. So i wouldnt say this thing really ends until the 1850s. Some of these creek indians will stay in the south, but they have to kind of give up a tribal identity to do it. And mix themselves with larger black or White Communities to sort of, you know, blend in. To southern society. Incidentally, we think of Andrew Jackson, you know, as being a spokesperson for the south. As really being a driving force behind removal. Southern plantation owner and all that. But compared to some of these georgians and other States Rights Party folks in the south in removal era he emerges almost as a liberal in Indian Affairs because he is concerned about the land frauds. He wants some of those things prosecuted. And everything else. These businessmen at the local level, particularly georgians many of them in columbus, because columbus is a real center of acquiring these lands and pushing the indians out. He has real political opponents over this. This was a real formative era in our economy. For example, cotton will be our leading export. It will have economic benefits for northerners southerners everything else. We get to that in part through the indian removal. I think we need to know all of these aspects of our history to fully understand sometimes our own not thoughts in the present day, we simply have to know the dark side along with the bright side of american history, so we can know ourselves so we know where we can go from here. You cant do it on a ad hoc basis. History is our track record. While in columbus, georgia we met with military historian Dan Crosswell to discuss the career of colonel Richard Hallock who served in the vietnam war. We sit in the special collection archives of the Columbus State University library i. You see the archives of the hallock papers. As a favor to mrs. Hallock, the donor, i volunteered attorney decks the papers. I said, hallock would be a great topic of a book. Hallocks story is interesting. From a personal side it is actually kind of a story laced with a great deal of path those. He is gray ghost and white knight because he is true believer. And, so he is fighting the battles against increasingly corporate advertised bureaucratic army where you get ahead by being a weather vain officer, whatever way the wind is blowing you point in that direction in order to get along. Youve got to go by the mandate. Called careerism. You got all the tickets to punch in order to move up the ladder and that fundamentally means people think about their careers before they think about the good of the service. And that is what were talking about. It is a disease that takes root in the United States army before and during korea. It has grown worse since. He never makes general. There is question, why doesnt he make general . Basically because of, of his career serving as really a window on the American Army from the time he enters in world war ii through the korea wars through the cold war. He has a ringside seat because he is general clays special Intelligence Officer in berlin. During the airlift. And then, he is the primary agent of getting the m16 adopted even though the army tried to sabotage it at every level. But the fight over the m 16 did end his career. Because american boys were dying because these weapons were jamming. They were jamming because the army messed with the rifling of the guns and the load. Which guarantied it was going to jam. Army knew that. They sabotaged the tests hallock ran. In 1960s. This was early on in the computer age. They sign on with stanford and run a fully computerized test. What they did they tested the m14, the armys favorite which they wanted to retain. This this sabotaged version of the m14 becomes the in16, very difficult to get the army to agree with this, another force armed with kalashnikov. And, whats interesting is that the despite the attempt to sabotage the weapon, the m16 scored marginally better than the kalashnikov and much better than the m14. Despite that despite knowing the problems the army still put it in production and sent it to Southeast Asia. Of course, gis and marines were dying because their weapons were fouling. The army, insists that marksmanship wins on the battlefield. Well, most combat takes place at less than 50 yards. Frequently less than 15 yards. You dont need heavy caliber to be accurate at 1500 yards. What you need is rate of fire, smaller caliber, lighter weapons. Especially when youre, you are engaged in operations like in Southeast Asia. So the stoner weapon, went through a series of army modifications that fundamentally changed the dynamics of the weapon. And again rifling was different and the the load was different. And that guaranteed it would underperform. And if it wasnt, wasnt cleaned properly in the field that was very difficult, then it was even more prone to jam. They were the early problems. And the army knew it. And this led to a major congressional investigation, and the, the investigating body essentially charged the army with criminal negligence. Nobody went to jail over this but, that meant that hallocks career in the army was over. In that kind of situation the idea is, you just close ranks and deny defer. No one takes the hit. But it got to the point that he got so disillusioned as a result of the fallout from these tests and, he wasnt, you want ad brigade command in vietnam. He thought it was his due which would come with a star but he had serious reservations about american policy there. Those things combined he decided he would walk and put his papers in. When leaves the army he take as job in the bureau of the budget. And that was a nice, a nice, nonmilitary job. He liked it. But, because his expertise and because he worked for the systems analysis people, the whiz kids, the holdover of the kennedy, mcnamara, into the johnson period, he was asked to serve on a number of special committees, blue ribbon panels including investigating the m16. Then he is cherrypicked by rand. He is employed by rand at the same time he is a consultant. And, at rand he did two things basically. He was primarily responsible for restructuring rand. It would come under a lot of flak owing to deepening problems in Southeast Asia but he also was given the independence to conduct his own kind of studies. After he while he decides well, i can do this by myself. So he creates his own consultancy film in california. What hallock wants to do, he is very interested in third World Military assistance programs. So during the cold war there was, the military assistance groups and in places like Southeast Asia and also in iran. The problem was that the, see the iranian force would be given obsolescent or obsolete stuff out of inventory as new American Equipment came online. The shah has oil revenue. Opec, the price of oil spikes. Gross domestic product in iran increases by 450 . Theyre awash with money. The nixon doctrine state has the United States is now prepared to provide allies, re, third world country allies, the present and future generation of american military, naval and air hardware, providing they can pay for it. There was only one country who can pay for it and thats iran. So things begin to go off the tracks. First weve got a corrupt regime. The corrupt regime begins also to, well that corruption grins to infect american suppliers. Be they arms suppliers be they Construction Engineering companies, be they Telecommunications Companies computer companies. Everybody is beating a door to iran and that means if you want entree to meet the people that makes those decisions that means the shah and those immediately around the shah that you have to grease of slides. So it was a cesspool of corruption. Nixon administration, ford administration, want this is contained. So they send hallock out there. It is his job really to be a whistleblower. And he is a effective in this to the point where the shah wants hallock to work correctly directly for him. Now that raises a possibility of conflict of interest. Hallock is very keen on insuring that this is not a case of doubledipping. And so the chief counsel marti hoffman, of the Defense Department writes that there is no conflict of interest. Now at the same time, interect has contracts with the department of defense. Those contracts are ongoing. They have contracts in iran. Theyre developing userfriendly cheap weapons that can be produced in iran. So what you have is interex contracts with the Defense Department on going. These contracts with the iranian government ongoing. And hallock as the personal advisor to the shah. All of this looks a little dodgy. The Carter Administration are saddle didded with the iranian revolution. So again just like who lost china, who lost iran . It wasnt ours to lose in either case but certainly american policy especially runaway arms sales and much else was a major contributing factor in the push against modernization in the west. So what you want to do if youre the Carter Administration is to push the blame back on ford, on nixon. Nixon doctrine. And so the department of defense under a former whiz kid secretary brown, begins to leak information to investigative journalists to the gray ghost that hallock is triple dipping, making a fortune. He is is making a fortune but it was all legal. But the point was, it was, it was a political gambit in order to take the heat off of the Carter Administration. And so, bottom line, there are reports in major american papers. All Things Considered just began then on public radio. So theyre accusing of hallock holing up someplace with his fortune in mexico which was true. It was orchestrated a campaign of character assassination. American policy was predicated on the shah emerging as a Regional Power not only in relation to the persian gulf but in the southwest and really south asia as well. So the potential was there that iran would be not a third world country but a Real Coalition partner. Playing a very important strategic role. When the shah is toppled, you have an enormous power vacuum. So with iraq, persian gulf fall in train. Were sort of still relations with iran. Hall look was a true believer, genuine professional. Blessed with a very superior mind but he also has well, he could have done well by going to Dale Carnegie program how to win friends and influence people because he was abysmal at that he made enemies. He didnt hide the fact that he was half again as smart as anybody else. In a corporate environment like the army, he wasnt a good mixer. He wasnt habitually at the officers club. He didnt play that game in order to further his career. As a result he got promoted on merit but at the same time, he produced enough enemies where, where top prize always eluded him. In the end he stayed in the army hoping he could make more change in the army in than out but in the end that failed as well. This weekend booktv is in columbus georgia with the help of our local cable partner mediacom. You up next we visit Columbus Museum, on author and play wright. Were at Columbus Museum in columbus, georgia, this is the troublemakers and trail braziers blazers exbushion. Our goal was to spotlight people from our area who were considered troublesome or not quite normal or going against the grain when they were alive. Now we may see them in a different light. Were looking at artifacts related to the life of carson mckillers. Who is mccullers. She spent her life exploring the city of columbus. Everything from the riverfront and the businesses on broadway to the fancier homes and in some of the suburbs to the housing of white millworkers and also African American neighborhoods including where some of the Domestic Workers she knew would have lived. She had a wonderful eye for the stories and feelings of people who were outsiders or outcasts. Throughout her life she talked about having feelings of alienation or loneliness in different ways although she had many friends. She did a wonderful job capturing those feelings in her writings. The other wonderful part of all of her novels andof her short stories is that most of them take place in a very thinlyveiled version of columbus. If you are familiar with the city it is very easy to pick out the particular streets and businesses that shes talking about. Many of her characters are inspired by people that she knew in her life or heard stories about from other people. So its a wonderful way for us today to really get a sense of how Carson Mccullers felt about her hometown, both the good and the bad. Also just to capture a wonderful early 20th century mid 20th century sense of what columbus was really like as a community. Carson mccullers left columbus when she was 18 years old and though she returned frequently to visit her mother and her family her primary residence was really in new york city and nyack, new york. She once told a friend she had to visit the south periodically to renew her sense of horror, tongue a little bit in cheek there. But really she felt more comfortable in some ways in new york. She loved to entertain. So what we have here on loan from the Carson Mccullers center for writers and musicians is part of Columbus State University, sre several artifacts from her home in nyack, new york. Like the record player or the ice bucket would be essential for her of course for all the parties that she liked to throw. Carson also unfortunately suffered from physical maladies throughout her life. She had a misdiagnosed case of rheumatic fever as a young teenager. That affected her throughout her life ultimately led to her having several strokes before her early death at the age of 50 in 1967. So this came cain that we have here mounted on the wall was the cain she used to help her get around. That was very important for her. Toward the end of her life she was bedridden unfortunately for much of her time. There is a wonderful photo of her drinking out of this drinking cop here which was given by her very dear friend, mary mercer. It has her name engraved on it. That is something she kept close at her bidside throughout her life. Carson was married to reese mccullers. He was a soldier stationed at fort benning that she met when she lived here. They had a very tumultuous relationship t ultimately ended in tragedy when reeves committed suicide. There was misunderstanding and emotional and perhaps physical infidelitity on both sides at different times throughout the relationship but there was also a real love there and something that connected them was their love of literature and of writing. So these are two books that reeves gave her as christmas presents. In particular this one, you see here, it says, christmas, 1936 for carson. These books and my deepest affection, reeves. So, even though their relationship was not smooth by any means we still have these reminders of what drew them together and what kept them together and why this relationship was so significant in carsons life. One of my favorite pieces related to carson is this collage portrait. This was done by artist scott eagle. It is an imagining of one of carsons dinner parties that she had that really became a little bit famous. So here in front we have carson. Shes working on her autobiography which was ultimately unfinished but you see her there pen in hand. Then the in the background we have a very wild dinner party. So over here we have author, isaac dennison. Which of course is the pen name of karen von blixten subject of out of africa, portrayed by meryl streep. Author Richard Wright who is very significant in africanamerican literature at that time. Of course we have the marvelous actress, maryland monroe de Marilyn Monroe depicted in stunning fashion. This fellow over here with the leg up on the table is play wright tennessee williams. They were part of a literary circle and cultural circle in new york that involved many famous intellectuals of that time living in what was called the february house. So he and carson spoke frequently. He would have been a frequent guest at her dinner parties. The joy and enthusiasm for life that you see in this portait is really indicative of how carson tried to live her life and, even as she we have these amazing stories, the heart is a lonely hunter, the member of the wedding, reflections in a golden eye, even as we have these stories of outcasts and alienation, she still brought out the joy in Human Connection that was so essential to her and reflected in all of her work. For more information on booktvs recent visit to columbus georgia, and many cities visited by our local content vehicles go to cspan. Org localcontent. Youre watching booktv. Benjamin schwartz, India Country director and terrorism advisor at the department of defense discusses what would happen if a nuclear bomb of unknown origin exploded in washington d. C. This is about half an hour. Thank you so much for coming out this evening. Before we get started just a few housekeeping points. If you could take the time now to silence your cell phone. You dont have to turn the cell phone off but if you silence it you can follow cramer beeks on Facebook Twitter instagram. If you havent already take the time to sign up for our email newsletter. You can see what else weve got going on. If you havent when you come up to purchase books i hope you support our wonderful author and cramerbooks by purchasing, can have one Events Calendar for end of january and february, see what else is coming. Thank you again so much for coming. My name is sara. Im the events director at cramer books. On behalf of the entire staff were pleased to welcome you. Im pleased to welcome Benjamin Schwartz for his new book, right of boom. Were chatting how benjamin has been at kramerbooks a lot. Kramer started our Events Program over the summer. It has been really great building a program from scratch getting to highlight interesting books across genres, new authors. This is a great opportunity for us and were so pleased to welcome ben. Mine for right of boom. If you dont know takes a look what would happen if a Nuclear Explosion took place here in the u. S. Benjamin maps out the likely, sort of ramifications, imagining if it happened here in washington, d. C. What the commanderinchief could possibly do. And as someone who has worked at the department of defense and state and energy, he really can take a full view of what might happen in that case. So again, were so glad to welcome him. Please welcome me join Benjamin Schwartz to kramer books. Thank you for coming. I went to grat school. I came here twice once or twice a week. When i came here i didnt imagine speak about a book kramer is selling. So a real pleasant surprise to be here. I will spend 15, 20 minutes, talking about my book. Im happy to briefly open it up to some questions. As a current employee of the department of defense however i am compelled to begin with two disclaimers. First im speaking in my personal nonofficial capacity. And my remarks dont necessarily reflect the positions of the Defense Department or any other u. S. Government agency. And secondly, my remarks are no way meant to be interpreted as a criticism of the policies of the obama administration. As lowly Civil Servant theoretically if i had any criticisms at all they would probably only occur to me after a few drinks in a secluded corner of some dimlylit bar. So i think that would be the right forum for critical political discussion. I will leave those kind of questions for that type of setting. So the book, well first let me start really with the title. As many of you probably know, the most deadly cause of attacks against u. S. Soldiers in iraq and afghanistan were roadside bombs. And when the Defense Community talked about that problem they often say we need to get left of boom. How do you deal with it before the bomb goes off as owe supposed to responses afterwards. Right of boom is about what happens after a bomb goes off. The book is about a question. The question is, what could be done if a Nuclear Attack occurred and it couldnt be effectively traced back to a Foreign Government . A situation which the perpetrators deny involvement and it is just not possible to convincingly prove who is responsible . 10 years ago Graham Allison dean of Harvards Kennedy school of government, senior official in both the Reagan Administration and clinton administration, wrote a book on Nuclear Terrorism. The ultimate preventible catastrophe. And in that book he put forward a doctrine of three nos, three red lines. What he said is that if those red lines were breached, the kind of scenario that i have laid out was a significant possibility, if not inevitability, his words. The first no was no new Nuclear Weapon states. He was thinking principally of north korea. The second no, no new National Capabilities of enriching uranium or producing plutonium. He was thinking princely of iran. The third no, no conditions that would allow for loose Nuclear Weapons. He like many others at time was focused on the dispersed arsenal of the former soviet union. 10 years has passed since publication of that book. North korea undisputably member of the Nuclear Weapons clubs having conducted Nuclear Weaponses sess in 2006, 2009 and 2013. Iran has a large well established Nuclear Program with multiple complexes dispersed throughout the country some of which are buried deeply underground. And while there has been some very positive developments with respect to the arsenal of the former soviet union due in large part to the cooperative destruction Nuclear Program it destroyed a Nuclear Materials and employed former soviet scientists these developments have been followed by troubling trends in pakistan. According to a khan, a veteran of the Pakistani Military and somebody that rose to the heights of their Nuclear Weapons program, pakistan is in midst of quite massive expansion of Nuclear Arsenal and plans to deploy tactic lar Nuclear Weapons. This is understandable pakistani response to indian conventional nuclear superiority. This is Troubling Development when one considers inherent risks with tactical Nuclear Weapons with respect to loss and theft. Weve gone to a world from three nos to three yeses. When thinking about the three yeses, it is worth keeping in mind that the atomic bomb is 1940s technology. There are limits to what can be done to prevent the spread of that technology. The secret, the knowledge behind how to design a weapon, really has been, hasnt been a secret for quite some time. I will quote a report from by the department of energy here. Classification may delay but can not prevent the acquisition after first generation Nuclear Weapon. This is a public report by d. O. E. The ingredients for a bomb, weapons Nuclear Material are dispersed across 25 countries located throughout hundreds of locations of the by some estimates there are 2,000 metric tons of this stuff out there. Suffice it to say it doesnt take much more than a fraction of that to create a weapon. So what this means is, it is increasingly plausible for a government to complain it can not control therefore is not responsible for the kind of scenario i laid out Nuclear Terrorism. And this is a real problem because the most powerful force that prevented the use of Nuclear Weapons since world war ii has been the credible belief that retaliation will take place. That governments their sit renry and people will be held accountable if their territory resource or fellow citizens are used in such an attack. In in 2007, the Israeli Air Force struck a facility in syria that eventually was intended to produce plutonium. Personally wonder, what would have happened if that strike hadnt taken place. Say material was produced there bombs created and acquired by nonstate actors in the maelstrom of the syrian civil war. What i wonder is, would north korea be held accountable for that because the north korean government is helping to build that plant . I wonder if prior to 2007 that individuals in north korea that decided to assist syria in development of that reactor if they believed at that time, that they would be held accountable if their efforts ultimately resulted in the transfer to a nonstate actor. I will also wonder about less direct forms of assistance, say failure of government officials in a friendly at this like france or japan to invest in fends at a site security that contains special Nuclear Material . What are the standards for culpability . What are the mechanisms to hold people accountable . I will be very clear in saying im not suggesting and the book doesnt suggest that Nuclear Terrorism is likely to happen tomorrow or it is inevitable but unfortunately i do think it is an increasingly plausible scenario. It is worthying about as seriously, in other words, thinking what could be done after such an event, seriously about what cold war strategists thought about a hot war between the United States and the soviet union. Thats what the book aims to do. It sort of attempts to do. What would occur right of boom is unknowable but the range of realistic Response Options is not inconceivable. Those policies would be extensions and adaptation of past policies and approaches. Nuclear terrorism would obviously be unprecedented but the event would combine different types of threats that have existed in the past. And that have been effectively managed in the past. So the methodology of the book is to use history. It is to uncover and highlight lessons from historical case studies that give us a sense about the choice, realistically decisionmakers would be confronted with, right of boom. Also is to integrate topics that tend to be considered in isolation. Let me just briefly give you a sense of some of the topics that the book delves into. The first general topic is history and lessons of nonproliferation and counterproliferation. Nonproliferation really deals with cooperative efforts. They typically deal with things like treaty, regimes conventions, things like the role of the nonproliferation treaty. The work of the iaea. The conventions on suppression of acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the convention of the physical protection of Nuclear Materials. Counter proliferation tends to be more unilateral though not always unilateral actions but tend to be more coercive. The book, for example, cites allied sabotage action during world war ii against hitlers heavy water reactor. Attacks on ships on high seas carrying wmd related materials. Latest attempts at sabotage like the stuxnet virus that has been reported. A second topic the book focuses on is lessons of escalation between Nuclear Weapons powers. The atomic bomb obviously isnt new. There are multiple instances where nukes could have been used but werent during the last 70 years. Book goes into thinking and planning that went into the doctrines of massive realtation, mutually assured destruction, flexible response. It considers how the capabilities of countries in terms of their defense capabilities, the reputations that governments have for using those capabilities and public statements threats and warnings of defense officials come together to create or fail to create believable defense commitments. Another topic that the book considers are lessons of counterterrorism. In the book i deal with terrorism, not so much as a, focusing on the fact that terrorists use violence against civilians or that, their adhere ants believe in some radical ideologies. What i focus on is the fact that what makes terrorism so difficult youre dealing with violent groups that dont have territory that can be pacified. So they dont respond to the same incentives that adversarial governments do. But fortunately violent nonstate actors arent new. There is a long history of efforts by governments to manage those types of threats. That history just to give awe couple of examples, underscores some effective tools that have been used. These include creating barriers to movement from the great wall of china to todays tsa check point. The importance of promoting some type of governmental institutions in areas where terrorists find sanctuary. Development of specialized paramilitary forces. Force of lower intensity scale than conventional military pores forces but greater military capability than the traditional tools of diplomacy Police Action or the intelligence community. Also what this history reveals is the role of punitive and preventative military engagements. Operations that dont aim to destroy the enemy because destroying a threat is sometimes a hubristic assumption. It is not a reality. Degrade the threat, manage the threat until larger changes occur in the strategic environment. Finally the book also deals with the question of morality, just war and legitimacy. The reason it does so is because the issue of legitimacy would directly impact the political feasibility of retaliatory options and Response Options right of boom. The American American history and the American People have a history of using extraordinary violence against their adversaries in wartime as well as exercising exceptional restraint. A lot of u. S. Officials, for quite some time made a lot of public threats and warnings about what would happen if, a government, a Foreign Government or individuals assisted terrorists particularly in the act with eggs significance of acquisition of wmd related material . In 2001, george tenet flew to islamabad and threatened president musharraf. The full force of the American People would be brought against anybody that would assist al qaeda in its efforts. I wonder what musharraf thought that meant, the full force of the American People . I wonder what tenet was believing when he issued that threat . One of the things the book delves into, what is does it mean, issue of credibility american credibility. Now pundits and politicians often use the phrase, unprecedented to describe the uniform lar but the kind of scenario that the book focuses on would truly be something new under the sun. So there are limits to the lessons of history. So what i try to do to transcend the problem somewhat, begin each chap per of the book with a fictional nair i have. There is a scenario with the secretary of state speaking with their foreign counterparts. The secretary of defense con firing with military commanders. Talking heads on tv news shows, intellectuals debating what could be done. The president speaking before the American People and conferring with his advisors. The point of this drama isnt to be dramatic but to really underscore real challenges and complexities that decisionmakers would face right of boom. The other thing that the fictional narrative aims to do is inject a temporal element into the analysis, the role of time. What would be done in immediate aftermath of an attack in the days and weeks following would be different than what would go on in the months and years later. To give you one example immediately after an attack the government would be focused really demonstrating its capability to protect its citizenry. Demonstrating it was still able to project power. These would likely result in very visible things from, you know airstrikes to building a diplomatic coalition. Getting governments to issue statements in support of the United States. You know aggressive Law Enforcement actions things that are very visible but in fact these actions would be unlikely to result in the kind of changes that would be necessary to prevent a followon attack. That would be necessary to alter of the International Security structure in a way that was required in sort after postNuclear Terrorism scenario. There would be a tension what would need to be done to satisfy immediate political necessities and requirements with what really you wanted to do to secure and maintain longterm Strategic Priorities . So these are a few of the questions in in the narrative of the book tries to delve into. I guess i will conclude with just saying a bit where the book came from. The book really came from one judgment and two questions. The judgment is, my personal view that were getting very close to a Tipping Point if we havent already crossed it where were living in a world of plausibly deniable clandestine nuclear warfare. And my question was first well what would happen, realistically if such a tragedy were to occur . And secondly, what information what historical lessons would i want decisionmakers to have at hand in such an event . So the book at least initially was about satisfying my own curiosity, trying to delve into history and think comprehensively about this kind of a scenario. The book really deals with more questions than it deals with answers. My hope is that, readers will find it interesting exploration of some, some troubling but unfortunately all too real questions. And so, i think i will conclude with that. I guess briefly open it up to some questions. [applause] if you have a question, just raise your hand and shout. Does your book, either deal with or postulate about whether a tactical attack would be included [inaudible] can you repeat. Sure the question is about applicability of certain chemical wmd attack. The book doesnt get into chemical weapons but a lot of the questions that are raised are applicable to chemical attack. I mean, chemical weapons are a different, a different problem. There ace range of things that make them make Nuclear Weapons distinct. But, there is some similarity in terms of questions that policymakers would face. Other questions . So then, you know the other day there was an issue at the white house with a drone and everybody was saying, is the white house and secret service prepared to deal with drones . Even though weve known about radio controlled aircraft for decades, that people have been able to do it. Not as if it should be a new thing. As you said with atomic weaponry, not a new thing. 7years in the making, but how prepared is our country to deal with right of boom . How much of your book did you is from your own imagination and thought process versus what youre able to pull from existing documents and analysis to show if something actually happened tomorrow here or somewhere else in the United States that the governments can be prepared to continue and deal with all the scenarios that would arise from there . Thats a good question and i dont have a good answer to that how prepared is the government. I think, one of the things that the book focuses on is the issue credibility. There has always been some gap between the public commitments of government officials. You know history buffs here might recall the Monroe Doctrine which basically committed to the United States to expelling european powers from the western hemisphere at a time where the u. S. Navy was a fraction of the british navy. There has always been a gap between what we say we can do and what we have the capability of doing. I think that, there is a concern when the gap grows so wide that adversaries start to probe at our red lines because it could result in unintended escalation. And one of the things that the book deals with, is having flexible Response Options. So, for example the book talks about, you know, the idea that, oh well, well respond to a Nuclear Attack with Nuclear Weapons. I think that is not a credible response. I dont think were really prepared to do that. And so, this is my personal judgment obviously. I look for always good to have a broader range of capabilities. And i hope, you know, the book could at least spur thinking about how to expand the capabilities that we have today. Im not sure how to ask this question but these are strategic assets, these weapons. So at a strategic level theyre life and death. So if you have an incident where terrorist using them theyre such a response is immediate in strategic sense that it would be mad or whatever but in this there really isnt a response of the it is on the fly. I mean, yeah, one of the challenges inherent challenge of scenario laid out unlike the cold war where threat of Nuclear Weapons was coming from a States Air Force or their navy or even artillery theoretically you he knew where that was coming from. You could see where the weapon came from. In this situation you dont. So you cant respond in the same way. It is not as, it is not a linear response you have to be more creative. And that is why i try to integrate some of the lessons from dealing with nonstate actors conventionally. That use violence, not at a wmd level. That history dealing with nonconventional, nonstate actors would be applicable to how you deal with a Nuclear Terrorist attack