Transcripts For CSPAN3 Reagan And Gorbachevs Reykjavik Summit 20170401

They will speak about this book. [speaking french] [indiscernible] you have written [indiscernible] you have an amazing book. You are a member of the [indiscernible] you have worked for the New York Times, the daily news. In america and around the world. You have been in 85 countries. Also an author. You have written three books, and the last one is on the table. Thisow i let you discuss reykjavik summit. [indiscernible] [applause] much foryou very hosting this event this evening with the extraordinary man next to me, the author of a great , the reagan and gorbachev summit of 1986. As it happened, i was a reporter. Let me start off with a little personal anecdote. 1981, president reagan was about be sworn in as president for his first term. I had just left the New York Times and come to cbs as a correspondent. I was in washington dc. I was the lowest person on the totem pole. I had just arrived there, but cbs was a pool for that event, which means i have nothing to do the night before. The next day, i followed reagan around all day includes in case something happened. The night before i went to dinner. Richard tietz was a professor, specialist in russian and soviet affairs. He was about to become president reagans person on the National Security council for european and soviet affairs. We had dinner together. No fan of the soviet union. He had many terrible anecdotes to tell about the way he was treated there. So he leaned forward and said, i have to tell you something very important. Some time in the next eight optimisticng to be reagan had not even been sworn in for his first term, sometime in the next eight years, we will bring an end to the soviet union. I thought this was madness because the soviets have common is a have communism, it would last forever. So i took my head away and said, how would you do that . It is simple. We will spend them to death. So i did not think much more of it. I passed it off as the ravings of an antisoviet lunatic. And years later, i began thinking about it. I called them up, and it happened. I said why do you think it happened . He said it was Strategic Defense Initiative. That is what spent them to death. That is what persuaded the soviet union. They could not win. They could not beat the United States at its own game. They could not afford to. Let me start with that. Thing is the centerpiece of europe. Plummets for the first time, kremlin and white house archives. All of us come back to sdi to a degree. It was so adamant that gorbachev would consider this. And for the end of the soviet union, do you share that belief why you think reagan insisted on it so definitively and gorbachev could not accept it . Guillaume yes and no. First maybe we should present the context. The reykjavik summit had been in october 1986. And it is after reagans second term, and gorbachev arrives in power in the spring 1985. Before that, no u. S. President or soviet leader had met since 1979. So both of them were very eager to meet, especially since gorbachev taking power. It is a man we can work with. Sorry. He went to theh, funeral. When gorbachev needs him for the first time, he says, we can work with this guy. There is an attempt in finding trust between the two, and at mid1980s,n the the people have gone crazy. There is 17,000 Nuclear Warheads on the planet, most almost exclusively between the soviets and americans. A little bit french and british. So the two of them talked about reducing Nuclear Weapons, even before they met. Actually reagan said even before he was the president. So that is the context. Indeed in 1983, Ronald Reagan ,nnounces the sdi project labeled as star wars. The pride the idea to summarize for the people here was to arm satellites in space, in orbit, that would destroy thatlasers soviet missiles could come potentially to destroy washington dc or new york. So another time, when it was introduced, the International Community and science, but also american scientists, were all against it saying, this administration is crazy. This is not only technically impossible in the next 10 years,ut if we spend out of money even from a strategic perspective, it was contested. David it never has been really developed. Guillaume and even today. The Republican Party is a party of reaganomics. So gorbachev in the summer 1986 after they met the first time in geneva sends a letter to president reagan, and he is asking for these formal meetings in reykjavik. And actually the preparations of the meeting they have in the book, very rush. They only have a few weeks to organize with the government of basically gorbachev is coming in reykjavik to dry to convince reagan to get rid of sdi. There was this fear in the soviets, especially in the not onlyreau, that would it be morally accepted, that they couldnt win, that the soviets, this arms race anymore. So actually yes. You talked about the defense initiative, and it played a role in the days of negotiations in reykjavik. David but gorbachev gave, as you describe so brilliantly in the book, became a mandate for a truly revolutionary concept in nuclear, the nuclear age really. Tell us about that. Guillaume so gorbachev comes with an agenda. He has the full mandate from the police bureau. You should look at the documents. That is probably the time in the gorbachev era where you have the full support inside the kremlin of the nomenclature. Maybe he had a narrow window to try to do something with the americans. So he comes with that idea to try to eliminate as much as possible Nuclear Warheads, category by category. You have the full range, mediumrange, and the intercontinental missiles. The americans, when they received that proposition from the soviets, it seems yeah, we talked about this in washington. Next year, maybe it is just to prepare. They had no idea really of what was going on. , thecome, they prepare aids of Ronald Reagan prepare him on several topics including human rights, the afghani issue, and other points of the cold war, nicaragua. And of course the Nuclear Weapons. But when the talks start that saturday morning in reykjavik, it is all about Nuclear Weapons. , first of alls one morning, kind of a round of observation. They play around, they start to break the ice. Reallyically they dont go to the phones immediately. But in the afternoon, they actually reached a deal that is still working today on intermediate range missiles. People who are familiar with the 1980s, you had of course the euro crisis before that, so europe was really the point of confrontation with the german issue between the east and the west. You also have some issues in asia because the soviets have missiles aimed at south korea and japan, which were the asian mobile missiles. Important point in that conversation. So they reached a deal on that, but for the soviets, it seemed like [indiscernible] goes onely gorbachev step beyond. And for the first time in a total,he proposes complete elimination of all Nuclear Weapons from the planet within 10 years. Is that is the deal, that what he is playing iraqi vic in reykjavik. The americans have to react. David that is very interesting, because he doesnt in two stages does it in two stages. The first is in five years, then all of the intercontinental missiles in 10 years. But he agrees it is possible to leave untouched Nuclear Arsenals of france and england. That is what really stunned me at the time when i was in reykjavik and later. Why would the soviets decide they would accept to have no Nuclear Missiles of their own, yet still allow france, not been fully a member of the nato military alliance, but still a western power, and especially britain, the heart of nato to have their own Nuclear Missiles, which would undoubtedly be trained on the soviet union still . Why would gorbachev even consider Something Like that, and when he brought that back to his Political Bureau . Guillaume that is a great point. The bureau took that before reagan, and they had the counter to that including the british and French Nuclear arsenal. They prepared that in advance. He knew he had the support. I think there is two things there. That 10 years process of getting rid of Nuclear Weapons on both sides, it is a slow, very methodical process. Reagan wanted to be trusted and verified. So the soviets and americans , thedy had a decent method salt to treaty. That is with the reduction of Nuclear Weapons, but limitation. You already have the process of refining to make sure the soviets would indeed eliminate the fabrication, and it was reciprocal, with russians coming to america and making sure. This process is going on has been going on for decades. So for gorbachev, it was less important. You are probably thinking that was my interpretation. There would be time to discuss the french Nuclear Weapons, and the second point is he was so eager to try the idea. That narrow window, he was sensing, he was ready to compromise a lot to get reagan to sign that deal, and of course partie was to have reagan giving up sdi. You give up sdi, we eliminate all Nuclear Weapons within 10 years. David which is interesting, and i am struck by this idea that this is the narrow window, the only window perhaps in any of our lifetimes, when we could see a World Without Nuclear Weapons. Do you really believe that would have been possible . Had reagan say, we will get rid of the sdi program, the soviets say we have a deal do you really believe this was the one chance the world had to actually get rid of Nuclear Weapons . Guillaume i do personally, but it is what the protectionists are saying 30 years later. It is unique opportunity. David you talked to some of them. Guillaume with american and soviet advisers. I talked with a professor who was the National Security adviser of Ronald Reagan. I talked to buchanan for the negotiations at the white house. They were in reykjavik. I had a Letter Exchange with george scholz, secretary of state, and he was taking part in the conversation in reykjavik. I met Mikhail Gorbachev in moscow. Looked at the archive and talked to his nuclear advisor. The space head of agency in ussr, talking about weapons types. He was positive there was never a window before, and there was never a window since. Compromise, that 22 days, was actually very dramatic. Until you the conversations i had, i had access to the actual talks. You had takers from both sides. Accurate. Are 90 it is extremely dramatic. You have a little room in iceland, and most of the time you had reagan and gorbachev and their interpreters, and half the time you have george scholz, secretary of state and the foreign minister of the soviet union. It becomes extremely dramatic on the last afternoon when gorbachev goes even further from what i just told you. Reagan, hete that said reagan, i will allow you to keep doing research and development of the sdi, but in laboratories. Dont deploy it into space within 10 years. And even that, reagan refuses. There is a moment of tension and high drama. The two leaders have tears in their eyes. And someone else intervened that he interrupts them and says, wait a minute. Let me make sure i understand what you guys are saying. Are you, mr. Secretarygeneral, theng that we could develop Strategic Defense Initiative in a laboratory, and we could eliminate all of your Nuclear Weapons . Gorbachev said yes, absolutely. He is trying to convince Ronald Reagan fair. He is pushing hard to make him realize this is a historic opportunity. We will never have a soviet leader who comes after gorbachev to strike a deal. Whether reagan did at that time realize this was a major knife at the throat of the soviet union and gorbachev, and that in fact this was a central core of issues to and communism in the soviet union. Guillaume i agree with that, but it is easy to face ussrwards, after the disappeared in 1991. There was agenda in the Reagan Administration as we were saying to try to beat them with expenses. Have to remember that the soviet union at the time was extremely david competence. Guillaume they had the double than thenal armaments americans. They had almost double the Nuclear Weapons. Even though it does not make a real difference. David you could destroy the world six times over instead of four times over. Guillaume absolutely. I think there was a sense of trying to overspend, and it worked. Gorbachev understood the agenda of reforms, perestroika. So he took his own power within the soviet system, and maybe did not have that much time to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish. But i do think that there is a sincerity. Deep inside Ronald Reagan and deep inside Mikhail Gorbachev about getting rid of Nuclear Weapons. Reagan talked about it at the Republican Convention in 1976 in an improvised speech. You can see it online. Gerald ford just won the primaries their own primaries very narrowly, and he is nominated at the convention, but the crowd is chanting, reagan, reagan. Reagan comes on stage and improvises a speech. Ago, isays, a few weeks was at what i was put in a time capsule. If 50 years from now, somebody opens, and he is talking about the World Without Nuclear Weapons. He was incredible than. When gorbachev comes to power, i think he is horrified. So both leaders understand that it is way too far, 70,000 or 80,000 Nuclear Weapons is not sustainable. I do think there is security. David lets talk about that for a minute and take this down to the present day. Do you still see any path now to zero Nuclear Warheads . The proliferation to pakistan to north korea to perhaps iran, certainly israel, has that close thator over forever zero path . David that is a tough question. I think we have an obligation to keep that goal, and i think that leaders have an obligation to talk about it and try to put a of multilateral negotiations. Maybe there were 70,000 Nuclear Warheads at the time, but you had [indiscernible] and somehow they were thinking rationally about it. Nowadays we live in a different world, extremely more complicated. Everybody agrees with that. Instead of two main actors with Nuclear Weapons, ok, you had made britain and france on a low level, but now Nine Countries with Nuclear Weapons. Russia, the u. S. Being the big , israel. Na i think it is an obligation because not only we see today arise of tensions in many parts of the world, we see the russian president and the new american president talking about gathering a lot of money, new Nuclear Weapons, but you also have the danger of hiking. You have the dangers of terrorism. You have fanaticism. Not only the proliferation problem with more countries and even countries like japan and south korea now because of the korea threat concerning considering starting a Nuclear Program, so you have to do something at one point. David right, absolutely. But you mentioned the question of modernization, and that is something i think is very interesting. , thenited states is now Obama Administration spoke about spending 1 trillion to modernize american Nuclear Weapons. Presumably this would involve systems,the control the Computer Systems to make certain they are not vulnerable to hacking from some terrorist or thirdparty. But that had the same time also could be seen potentially as breathing the numbers of Nuclear Weapons. So i guess the question is, with these other powers, World Nuclear powers, always looking on the fringe north korea, iranians, even the saudis were other terrorist groups, they could buy a Nuclear Device from north korea or pakistan or whatever how is that even possible with all of that there to consider a total elimination of Nuclear Weapons by the major powers . It is open to vulnerability. Guillaume the answer would be multilateral talk. It becomes way more complicated. That is not two days in reykjavik in a small room. It is way more obligated. I think the two models of negotiations we could think of maybe could be based on them. It would be the climate deal reached in paris last year after what, 15 years of negotiations, where you finally have every country basically on earth agreeing on something. David now you have President Trump coming to power and pushing that back. What is to prevent that . Wheelume first we need a to put everybody around the table. The caret to attract them at the table . You are mentioning modernization. We could be less weapons in numbers. But nowadays, with the , theyontinental missiles have three or five of them. Each of them are 100 times more powerful than the ones dropped in hiroshima and by the sake. Nagasaki. Different ones destroying not only moscow but other cities, then you have miniaturize asian going on miniaturization going on. They can be used on a theater, syria or whatever. And some people in the new administration are seriously pushing for that. Withconvinced these crises ukraine were Nuclear Weapons but you have a new technology that is more dangerous, even though you might have less Nuclear Weapons. The danger seems even more current today more than ever, and i attended a couple of congresses recently with people in paris and in los angeles, and everybody on the level said this is the new arms race. We dont know where it is going. So we better try to find a way to talk. That yes, it seems to me when you have some country like iran that will advance only from the beginning of a Nuclear Program by a treaty that is economic,all we say but at the same time looking over its shoulder as neighboring israel, which does have a viable nuclear arsenal, there does have to be some sort of tradeoff to deter, peter nuclear war. Deter a Theatre Nuclear war. Guillaume we could try to think differently. My conviction at the end of this process of researching and writing that book is that the idea is no longer valuable. But this idea, the mutual destruction that during the cold war, a Nuclear Weapon is a weapon of peace, because Everybody Knows how destructive it is, nobody wants to use it, we have been told that in school in western europe and in america for decades. But this is like playing with fire. This is actually crazy. For my generation, even though i did grow up david and my generation. Guillaume it is crazy, but what does deterrence mean . What do you deter against . Who do you deter . A nuclearl really use weapon on syria or ukraine or whatever. Sure we dont know for North Koreans wont use them to solve the south korean problem. Guillaume yes, i agree with that. I am saying if we try to think out of that deterrence box, is it worth it to maintain such an arsenal at that price . David spend 1 trillion in 30 years to modernize. Guillaume it is 1 billion every year for the United States to maintain the nuclear arsenal. 300 wereat only has heads it is around 6 billion euros each year. And nobody knows about that. In two months there is a president ial election in france. If you ask how much they spend on Nuclear Weapons, how many , wearines launching them should have people know that. Why dont we have a debate . Why dont we force our leaders to look at that . Relevant is deterrence in a world like today . David you said before, we are open to question spirit you had a question for me. Guillaume i have many questions. Reykjavik, youn covered it. David and in geneva, and before that when carter and bush were in vienna. Guillaume in 1976. So you guys were left out of the conversation, and you did not know what was really going on. David we were left all out of these conversations. Guillaume tell me about that. David in geneva we were left out very largely, and certainly it was a ceremonial event in vienna. So we really did not need to find out. The real story came out only much later, of course, when everybody got back to their respective cabins and began to ,eave, just as they do today with their own decisions. But it seems like gorbachev had a viable position, and this came after it was pointed out that really, it was a misguided press conference, the first one held. Guillaume he was crying. He was exhausted. He was in a haze trying to make sense of what happened. David so no one really quite understood what had happened, it seemed so emotional. It was only later especially with the concept of zero nook world came out that people begin to say, oh my god. ,hat to be miss did we miss or what opportunity did we miss . Were what horrible thing to be just basically dodge, depending on which side of the political spectrum you were on . It was a very fickle time to be a journalist at that time, even more difficult than today, though we were considered the enemy. David what was guillaume what was most difficult for you . David we spent two days with nothing to put on the air basically. Then suddenly all this material we had to digest and understand what had gone on and establish a timeline for understanding what the dynamic was in that room. I think this book to a great degree is the first time i have seen it very well described, because you had access to the notes from both parties. You were able to understand just what we journalists would call the ticktock of that time was. That was a great book. Guillaume thank you. What was the sense in the washington community, journalistic, Political Community when the sdi was announced first . Was it like wow, this is a great idea, or was it insane . David most people thought it could never happen, that it was technologically crazy. In physics. Egree i understood how lasers worked, so the limitations of lasers and the concept of putting a laser up there as you describe in the book, you have a laser, it is powerful enough to knock a satellite or missile out of his trajectory. Its trajectory. Nowadays, you could miniaturize it substantially, but it was Like Computers in those days, the size of this room. It was just inconceivable thing like that could function. Guillaume then you would have to refuel the chemicals that activate the laser beam. David exactly. Guillaume because it does not work alone. David there werelabs are space shuttles. Were no labs or space shuttles. Guillaume we should open it up to the floor. [indiscernible] deal,you, and thank you, forour book guillaume your book. You mentioned in the book the soviets had a product of developing their own sdi. I was wondering if you could talk more about it. And second question, you were able to speak about my current able to speak with Mikhail Gorbachev and not Ronald Reagan. Did you talk about the position . Guillaume to Ronald Reagan, what would i asked him . If you could ask him a question about the time. Guillaume i think the question we all have is, why . Why did you not take that idea . Why did you refuse . He seemed so ready, seemed so hesitant under the pressure of control and gorbachev was really, as you can see in the book, he is pushing every hour. It is why . There are probably explanations we can try to understand. First there was the influence of the military around him, diplomats. They wanted a deal, but the pentagon or the National Security council was holding him back on that, really wanting to deploy it as fast as possible. There is probably something way more personal, way more ,sychological, maybe spiritual and that is what he says to gorbachev. Promise. Break my true. K it can be there is also the third factor that, two weeks later, you had midterm elections in the United States, so it was definitely also the americans said, the people interviewed said, we were not really thinking about that, but the fact that they lost the midterms two weeks later, they already had lost the house before, but they lost the senate. Aybe it did play a role but i just think that maybe ,eagan, on a personal level found his own limitations and could not do the last bit of trust to the soviets. There was a trust issue. They still liked each other and worked together, but at the end, it was from a lack of trust. David i have a possible explanation, and that is that withchev came to iceland his wife, but reagan left nancy home. Nancy, it is difficult you cannot underplay nancys, you cannot overplay her impact on ronald. If she had been there, she would have turned and said, you have a chance to make a historical moment, ridding the world of Nuclear Weapons. He would have changed his mind. , and ine i agree 100 the moment, it is about 5 00 p. M. The last interview intermune the last afternoon. Everybody is exhausted. Reagan is about to decline gorbachevs offer. There is a break. They take a break, and reagans advisers say, ok, we can stay one more day. That night, our team and their team, get some rest, resume in the morning. Actually reagan mrs. Nancy. It isnt misses nancyl. It is in the stories. He goes back to washington because he wanted to be there. It is so romantic. David the romance of nuke. Guillaume so that is what is kind of i had a hard time finding out about that. Yes, i had to sources, former soviet advisers two sources, former soviet advisers who have the equivalence of having the space to strike Nuclear Missiles. In the late 1970s, early 1980s , but this project was refused and denied quite quickly. It was never taken very seriously. The red army was pushing for like theyit seems actually decided not to follow that route. The financial reason might have been also a reason, but the reason it was even was that the technology was not possible. It was crazy. David and they were right. Guillaume and they were right. I forgot the last point i wanted to make, but that is it. Unreasonable. David next question, in the back. It seems like there is so much talk about the fbi tonight, and it does not seem possible maybe, but the fbi was supposed to be a part of that discussion too, like reagans sort of cowboy image, difficulty with fantasy and reality, that you could have this impenetrable force field with technologies from that time. I remember the discussion was something along the lines of, wow, he was that smart to create this chip, and gorbachev was going for it, and he doesnt use it. This is really something that will never come today. The technology is not there. It is being described as fantasy. So given all that, it does seem like it would have been Something Else. At the time, it was not described as a fantasy. The Reagan Administration you know made everything to make the public believe it was possible and that within a few years or 10 years, could deploy lasers up there in space to protect american lives. There was the intention to use it as a bargaining chip, but i think there was also this goal from the military Industrial Complex to have it done. Ofit represented all kinds dollars. Guillaume yes, hundreds of millions of dollars. And as you just mentioned, it would not be exactly possible. There is ways to put weapons in space for a day, but not that way. But on paper, the Reagan Administration had it planned it was absolutely fantastic. Maybe there was momentum there, and the fact gorbachev wanted it gave almost carbon credibility to it. David there was also this whole question of whether reagan didnt really much care for him as long as he could persuade the russians and soviets this was something they needed to match and spend it incredible amounts of resources in matching it, which was again one of the issues that may have weakened the soviet government towards the end. That strategy was still in play. This is Something Else i did not quite catch, the moment of emotional tension, the one point where gorbachev it does that sort of tell you he did truly want this . It was sincere. If it was going to be that emotional, he trusted his emotions too. You would think this guy means it. Or that we cant trust everything behind him . Guillaume it is both. Emotions on both sides, not just gorbachev, but gorbachev is pushing, pushing, pushing, pushing. The level is raised by the foreign minister, and for reagan as well. That last afternoon, it is the four of them. The ministers who raised the bar and said, this is what it means for our children and grandchildren. It becomes extremely emotional. Has ahink that gorbachev huge part of sincerity in that. There was a political agenda definitely and as we have said before, but i think he is sincerely appalled by the level of Nuclear Weapons they have previous case. And i think both of them, there was the sincere sense that we need to do something about it. I would add something. The way it got so long they did not become close friends, but there was respect even though in their back they were gorbachev was complaining about reagan was always really slow, and that reagan was always ringing comebacks in conversations. But he also liked reagan and in geneva the prior year, they want to the park near the geneva lake , and gorbachev said, hey, i saw one of your movies, and you were great in it. That helped break the ice. So they respected each other, but i think there is something deeper. These two people are come from the country. They dont come from cities. They come from very lower middle class, from rural parts of illinois for reagan and the sus for this cauca gorbachev. Then gorbachev climbed all of the layers of the party, reagan was a selfmade man. From ay are kind of made similar would, like we say wood, like we say in french. I dont know it is the same conversation. They played the same part. You mentioned there is a possibility like the paris climate deal that something similar could happen to a nuclear deal today. What would that look like if anything, and how would the conflict of interest be solved havew the big powers Nuclear Power for a different reason than the smaller powers, so that is why the Geneva Summit was effective . What is your take on that . Guillaume i am not a specialist of international negotiation, but it seems like a good way to work. But as you might know, it is not a lot in the press, but right now there is something going on at the united nations. You have about 120 or 130 lastries that voted november to start negotiations of a treaty banning Nuclear Weapons. There is a new round of negotiations happening right here in new york starting next month. It in three weeks from now, you will have a bunch of diplomats from these countries. You will have all the nonprofit, root foro worked that. Aey will stop start treaty, with a hope of getting countries signing a treaty in the fall of 2017. So that would be highly symbolic of course, and for example, france, who has a Nuclear Weapon, voted against it. Fromwere excluded negotiations. It is interesting that Even North Korea doesnt oppose it, they abstained your north korea is obtained is ok with the negotiations. There are things going on. I dont know how it will end, what is the best frame, but it is true the climate deal is interesting because you had almost every country in the world. It was not 15 or 20 years process, but it worked with this deal, but it is important. Maybe it can happen for Nuclear Weapons. Talks lasts at those year. Wonderful global movement. But there may have President Trump comes along and basically reject the entire concept. Hes vote his vote to investor it the United States and effectively advocate United Freedom party. What are the chances if we could no, brits and germans the brits and french and chinese and the pakistanis and the indians and so on, and the israelis even, to say, ok, we are getting rid of all of our weapons, and you can watch us do who is to say President Trump or his successor said, ok, that is crap, we are not going to do it anymore. We dont need that treaty. Guillaume it is true, but the countries are legally binding by what is signed by previous president s. Then president s and red decides to do that President Trump decides to do that. Format inils davos switzerland, for the first time, the chinese president , xi jinping, talked about it. It was not americans or russians. You have other players. Trump is not the only one unit. So much includes bargaining and the evening and taking. Americans can the try to get. And we only think we will get Nuclear Weapons rid in five or 10 years like reagan and gorbachev tried to do, but lets start the process. Lets start the process and see where it leads. It might take 20 years. Maybe we take more than that. So they have to do it. David many of these all of these countries have signed on the Nuclear Proliferation impact, meaning they agree not to build a nuclear arsenal. So the next step to that saying, they already said, we will not have Nuclear Weapons, what we need to do is get countries that have Nuclear Weapons and say, we will get rid of them. It is a hard thing to do. You can have another treaty saying there is no Nuclear Weapons, but we already have a treaty they most of the world decided not to have saying most of the world decided not to have Nuclear Weapons. It is a little odd. Guillaume it is, but you can do things gradually. You can have goals like the climate agreement. Within five years, we will reduce 10 , whatever. It will have to be a stepbystep approach. You have the nonproliferation treaty. The results of a Treaty Banning Nuclear testing. Today, nobody is allowed supposedly to test. We see that in north korea. Actually from a few sources, you have now some people in congress, the republican majority, pushing the white house to resume testing because of the modernization process we were talking about earlier. If we have new Nuclear Weapons, we have to test them, not only on computers, but for real. It is a small part of republicans pushing the white house to do so. Imagineit is scary, and if in the first year or two years of President Trump, the United States resumed Nuclear Testing in the South Pacific or whatever, imagine the signal it would give to the world and to the other Nuclear Powers. David we have time for i think one more question. Reagan wask misreading what gorbachev was trying to achieve, you know trying to give up, give up, give up . My second question is, when they went back to their respective countries, why didnt they say, maybe we should try this again . Bedid the powers that pull them back pretty quickly . Guillaume i think gorbachev clarified it several times in several hours, lets get back. That is what you are saying. It was very clear. Reagan wanted to do that. What was the second question . Yes. Ofl the optimistic approach reykjavik saying, they made the deal, it is mid range missiles. That is good. Treaty leads to the stop three years later. And right now we are at stop number four. Yes,dent obama said replacing putin. Even though right now the russians are not respecting and they did resume. It did lead and that is actually how today gorbachev were his minister, they say reykjavik was great. You would really bring us together, it would really bring us together to achieve that later on. But that idea of all Nuclear Weapons being eliminated wasnt done. There is two ways to see it. It is the optimistic view which is it is a huge historic miss unfortunately. Thank i think we should for an extraaume ordinary book and talk. We want to know what the world would look like should look like today, might have looked like today, this is it. You will be delighted to see them signed afterwards, and we invite you all to partake. Guillaume thank you, david. It was an honor to do this talk with you, and thank you for having it put together. Nathalie thank you so much to conversation. David thank you. Nathalie have a glass of wine. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] announcer 2 this weekend on American History tv, on cspan3, today at 6 45, the author of captain paradise, and history of hawaii, talks about the life of the last queen of the kingdom of hawaii. She had working on a new constitution that will resort would restore her not her royal powers. She went back down to the polis to the palace and announced it, and that is the beginning of the overthrow. Historian2 and william luxembourg on the effectiveness and legacies of 20th century president s. Weak the american presidency was in the late 19th century, and how powerful an office it was when theodore insevelt surrenders power order to shoot lyons in africa. Lions in africa. Announcer 2 and the 1961 encyclopaedia britannica films, the ordeal of woodrow wilson. Readen though they had to his 14 points, these delegates were determined not to let idealism stand in their way. They were conflicted in their purposes and desires. Announcer 2 for the complete schedule, go to cspan. Org. Live sunday at noon eastern, bestselling author Andy Jacobson is our author on book tvs in depth. It is moving humans in the military environment to being comfortable with this idea of merging man and machine. Announcer 1 she is known for her writings on war, weapons and secure government secrets and will in her most recent, phenomenal. With youronversation calls, it males and facebook questions live on book tvs in depth. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the report on the irancontra affair. Next, Malcolm Byrne talks about reagans irancontra, scandal and the unchecked abuse of president ial power. He uses documents and interviews in h