and can the adversary develop a strategy to deny even those variables for you, the physical observables. so, for example, the example i gave earlier. yes, you can look at the balloon and if it's in the sun it might be hotter than if it's not. if it's got something in it, might be cooler or hotter, depending on the thermal exchange with the object inside. but is it plausable to put the warhead in a balloon and keep them or not. can you -- can you conceive of a set of physical variables that you could measure with adequate precision, practical, you're a physicist, that will tell you which of these objects contain a warhead? i submit the answer is no. i worked on this in great detail. somehow there's new science. i worked on the trident ii, not

the trident i. we did a very detailed study predicting five years into the future, looking at measurable quantities. so somebody wants to talk detail with me, i'm all ears. but you hear a detail other than hand waving and maybe it will work, maybe it won't, you know, that's not a way to plan the national security of the country. now, there is a technical potential for building a defense. it is a kind of boost phase defense. mike said it's not possible. i don't know how he knows that because i've actually been studying it in great detail. and you could -- i did not say that. >> that's what i understood you to say. >> i said there are three phases and missile response involves a layer of defense. >> i apologize for misquoting you. >> extensive work going on in all three phases. >> there are not. that's one of the problems. that's one of the things that

i've been trying to do. with incidentally bill perry, another hippie. and there are things you could do -- there are things you can do that could allow you to build a defense of some capability. and there's no point -- i would be happy to talk with you privately. i've done a lot of work on this. we're talking to the russians about it. we're trying to talk to the administration but they always seem to be too busy. i don't know what they're doing, but, you know, it's really difficult. >> ted, they may not know what they're doing but i know what i'm doing and i know these people have sat through almost two hours of discussion about very complex, i think important subject. >> i'm through. >> and i think they are entitled at least, the lucky ones who get their hand up quickly, to ask questions. but you have to give your affiliation and you have to tell me to whom you are addressing your question. so, harry sfl.

>>. >> harry price. i want to address all three of you. how do you build -- how do you build a political constituency to reverse direction, assuming we decided, you know, as a result of this discussion to reverse direction, and how do you do that in the context where the inertia of what you're doing may be creating tensions with the parties you've identified as adversaries? >> thank you. i will leave it to whichever of you raise your hand to address that. michael? >> well, by reversing direction, you mean generally, stopping the missile defense program? >> any program. in other words, yeah. especially in national defense. >> well, you have to mobilize support. you've got to have experts who

can make a technical case, that can ultimately lead to political support where it counts, which is on capitol hill. the vietnam war got stopped ultimately because they quit funding it. if they respond, it's going to continue. that's in general how you have to stop it. >> i don't have an answer to your question, but i have a comment that i think could inform it. in 2008 we had a financial collapse that threatened to not only bring down our whole economy but the rest of the world along with it. the reasons for it were really well understood by anybody who actually sat down and looked at the system, although all the people who had responsibility claimed they didn't see it coming. right now the banks, which are too big to fail before, are even bigger. credit default swaps are stig being traded.

wild gambling are still going on. glassed eagle has still not been put back in place. let me tell you, we're going to have another collapse. now, getting to missile defense. if such a dlet threat to the country as the whole economy is not being addressed by the political leadership, why do you think they're going to address missile defense? >> dean, do you want to comment or should i take another question? >> i'm going to agree with what michael said. developing a constituency si. congress ultimately funds this stuff so you've got to get to the hill. >> it's the way it works. it's like making sausage, i understand. >> yeah. >> are there other questions? yes. >> you asked for me to identify myself. i'm jackie cabasso. i'm from oakland, 30-year-old nuclear disarmament advocacy

group. i have two straightforward questions and a comment. the two questions are, none of you mentioned any radar or potential radars that are maybe stationed in norway or scandinavia. i wonder if you have any information about that? second, if anybody wants to comment on what they think is the significance of the fact that anders rasmussen and secretary general of nato has recently announced that it's likely he will cancel the joint planned nato/russia summit on the margins of the nato summit in chicago because of the distance on the questioning and missile defense. the comment is -- and this is not a sarcastic question. why on earth would iran launch a nuclear weapon if it had one at europ europe, knowing that it would be a completely suicidal mission. and second of all, i think it's wrong to call it missile defense

because in george bush's, when he unveiled the new strategic tried a, it clearly linked offenses and defenses as swords and shields. that new strategic tried a was not called by the same name in the obama nuclear preview but all the pieces are still there and operating in the same way. >> thank you very much. you're iting to three. do i have any volunteers? dean? >> yes, let me just pick up on the last point you made. it is true the likelihood of iran ever launching a nuke clap tip missile is low. in my mooint mind the trob is there is tremendous course of leverage that iran can gain by threatening to do that. they can split coalitions, they can dissuade countries from joining coalitions. they may even desuede the u.s.

from entering the rejogion. let's take a t. straits of hormuz. that threat is a very potent threat. and in my mind missile defense gives you a shield that you can rattle to neutralize the sayer rattling of the offensive threat. so it missile defense serves a stra teenlg jal political purpose caught anybody being launched. that in my mind is important. the chance that anybody is going to attack the united states with weapons is pretty far.

>> there's an important assumption in dean's statement that, you know, is in dispute here, which is the defense has any real capability. and adversary will be so stupid as to believe it does. so there's not a -- that's an issue you need to decide about for yourself. i personally believe this is a -- this is going to sound brutal to me. the way to make the united states safest from this kind of attack and its allies is to make it very clear that any country who attacks us in this way will look like a glass parking lot when we are finished with that. we would prefer very much not to ever have to do this. but if they do it, woe're not going to be ambiguous enough in our reaction at all. the last thing i want to do is to give somebody the idea that they're not going to excellent nuclear attack without a

response. i think mussing up the arguments is really not in the interest of stability. on the radar in norway, i can talk about you off line. i was disinvited from norway after i showed that the radar was an intelligence gathering radar. >> there are radars on difference places. there are no missile defense radars currently planned for norway. >> i'll respond differently on the second and third of your questions. on the russian, rasmussen point, as i mentioned, the talks on missile defense cooperation have not been prosecute. he just had to make a very tough statement. i think until we get them back on track. it's not going to be discussed. so there's also because of a potential election in russia and a lot of electoral issues in

russia that affect everything they say. it's true elsewhere. and on the third point i agree completely with dean's point. but if you extrapolate further, what's the point of having it with any countries. that's just a foolish -- >> that's not what he said. >> wehe said why would we do it? so, if they -- if we don't care -- if we think it's fruitless for them to consider using these weapons, politically or militarily, then we should being agnostic or indifferent. i just think, if you're in a position of real responsibility in government, we have to really make decisions and not copy it from the outside and you really have the weight of

responsibility on your shoulder, part of the weight of the nation's security on your shoulders. then you're going to be more cautious than more cavalier about such threats. especially from a regime, such as regime that's in ter ran or pyongyang. >> speaking of a person who caught from the inside, one of the problems -- how many years ago was that, ted? you mentioned that. how many decades were you in the pentagon? >> 20 years ago. more than 20 years ago. do you have a technical point to make or are you going to appeal to authority again? >> gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen. >> well -- >> there's only time -- >> i think -- want to finish here. i think that it's astonish that you were trained as an engineer and you have nothing technical to say. nothing at all. that's an interesting thing. >> that's not my job in this oh. >> right. >> -- in this. >> just to call people carpers.

>> i want to make a statement, please. >> i'm sorry. >> that's okay. >> i don't want to be enter rutted. -- interrupted, is that right? >> yes, please interrupt me. i would love to have the exchange with you. >> i think we're having it. aren't we having it? >> yeah. looks like we are. i think that's good. states get nuclear weapons because they want to protect themselves. that's a big motivation. china -- >> not the sole motivation. >> it's not the sole motivation, that's true. they want to coerce other states. that's true, too. we could go through it in hundreds of level it is we were political scientists. the reality is -- >> or a government official. >> or an irresponsible government official pushing lines at other peoples think for them. i don't hear any deviation -- i don't hear any deviation from any spokesperson from the government. you're not even willing to make a clear statement that the gmv system will work as a defense.

something -- when you were you were part of a report that made that claim. and i can show -- i can show which slides -- i can show with slides i have here that the last two experiments were -- were -- were attempts to rig the experiment. so the administration had to know about those experiments. the states tried to get nuclear weapons because they want to keep us off their backs. if you talk, for example, after the gulf war of '91 there was prominent indian general i remember everyone was talking about him because he said what he learned from the gulf war of '91 is if you want to keep the united states off your back, have a nuclear weapon. north koreans have learned that, too. why shouldn't the iranians? >> they may well have. i have to apologize but there's really only time for one more question question. it better be a good one and it better be brief and it better be addressed to one of the

panelists. do i have any takers? raymond. professor john, professor of fis sicks. >> i'll try and change the nature of this discussion a little bit by making a comment rather than posing a question. and i just wanted to mention as all three of our panelists know that there is a report that's due to come out from the national research council on at least a part of this problem . p i had the privilege of reviewing the report. i don't know when it will be out but it's eminent in the next weeks. i thought as an outside reviewer that it does a very good job of going into considerable detail of what i think anyone from the outside has to admit is rather an arcane sophisticated complicated topic. as complicated technically but also in nontechnical but equally important matters of concepts of operations and deployments and many other factors. that report does not go into the

greater political issues, the economics, so on. but i commend this to you when it comes out. i believe it will be freely available as a pdf to the public. i just thought that at least one of our panelists was a co-author, this report, perhaps they're a little bit shy about mentioning it. a lot of work went into it. a very large expert of group was put to the. i happen to think that it will contribute to the discussion by clarifying a lot of the concepts and issues without necessarily resolving the issues to the satisfaction of anyone, let alone everyone in this room. >> raymond, i -- it's report coming out from the national academy of science or national research council on ballistic missile defense and i believe it's still being looking at one final review. >> raymond, i want to thank you for a very fine comment which breaks my usual ground rules

that all q and a has to start with questions. appreciate the comment. this is a highly complex subject, politically, technically, soesh logically, international politics, national politics. i think we were very fortunate in having three people willing to inform us and discuss matters between them on an issue that i'm fairly certain will be front and center of the american political situations for the next decade. at least i think we got to a good start today in trying to understand what these issues are and will be. the fact that the three panelists didn't agree should surprise no one at all. with that, though, i want to thank the three of you for a very, very fine job. and i want to thank you all. that was -- the way you avoided

all of those flashes of brilliance escapes me. i thank you very much for coming. >> if it wasn't important, it wouldn't be worth fighting about. >> done. coming up live today on book tv.com, david brock, founder and ceo of media matters. he'll examine the career of

roger ailes. mr. brock contends that mr. ailes, former media consultant, brought a conservative political agenda to fox news when he was hired in 1996. the author will speak at politics and pros book store in washington, d.c. and we'll have that live streaming on our website. booktv.org. here on c-span 3 gop presidential candidate rick santorum wraps up campaigning in michigan ahead of the state's primary tomorrow. he'll be at the heritage christian academy at kalamazoo and you can watch live coverage here on c-span 3. this is a seven watt solar panel with a battery pack. you can charge your iphone, cell phone, all of that kind of stuff directly. >> what you're seeing here on this chip in this pen, you're actually seeing an area that has

165 million wells, each of which can sequence a small piece of dna. >> the technology itself is using two using two cameras, one that looks out and one that looks at the eye. so we know exactly what the person is interested in in the scene that they are seeing. a visit to the consumer electronics show, with a look at the newest in innovation. at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. louisiana's govern bobby jindal will be presenting his budget, a budget $900 million in the red. it's mostly cloudy and 38 in barksdale. you are listening to -- this weekend. book tv and american history tv explore the history and culture of louisiana. saturday starting at noon even

on book tv on c-span 2. author gary joiner from one damn blunder great beginning to end and then a look at the over 200 thousand books of the books housed at the archives. and a walking tour with neil johnson and on american history tv on c-span tv, from barksdale air force base, a look at the base's role at 9/11 and visit the founding father's autograph collection and from the pioneer heritage center. medical treatment and medicine during the civil war. louisiana, this weekend on c-span 2 and 3. the new america foundation recently hosted a discussion on the impact of negative political advertising on the 2012

elections. speakers look back in the history of negative ads, the number of ads being put out this year and how those ads effect people's views on politics. a poll showed that 50% of ad this is season are negative. up from just 6% four years ago. >> good afternoon. hello. welcome to our first 2012 event here at the new america foundation. i i'm a vice president and editorial director at new america. delve into 2012 is where we look at policy issuings being discussed or not being discussed, as the case may be on the campaign trail as well as looking at the nature of the discourse and political culture that is coming from the election cycle. before we begin, i want to put out a few house keeping rules,

which is to remind everyone that this event is being web cast and it's going to be on c-span, it's being recorded. so everything will be on the record, obviously. and there will be a couple of question sessions, please, if you have a question or comment to make, wait for a microphone and identify yourself. now, i would like to have you please, turn your attention to the monitor, because i would like to kick off the day with some of the nastieiest politica messaging ever. john, are we ready? >> some political watchers are saying this could be the nas nastiest, most negative election season of all time. >> they have taken it to a whole new level. >> when people are equali i-- s

gone era. >> john adams is a blind, bald, crippled toothless man who wants to start a war in europe. he is trying to mary one of his sons to a daughter of king george. haven't we have enough monarchy in america. >> i've approved this message because john adams has neither the force of a man. >> if thomas jefferson wins, murder, robbery, rape, adultery and inseft will be openly taught and practiced. the air will be rant with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood and a nation black with crimes. are you prepared to see yo dwellings in flame? >> i'm john adam and i approved

this message because jefferson is the son of a half breed indian squaw. >> the nastiest election. >> taken dirty to a whole new level. >> it seems like a return to civility is not possible. >> so, i don't know if you were able to see the corner but that was put together by our good friends at "reason" magazine and "reason" tv. i want get us in the mood for the discussions that will come, and also, to give us perspective. we like to believe we live in the most interesting of times and dire of times and in some ways things are relative. so it's a useful perspective. with so many issues facing the nation, it may seem frivolous to start this with advertising. but i think it's the perfect

starting point. those of us in the beltway, tend to mock 30-second commercials. we read policy papers put out by campaigns and follow every blow in the campaign season, on the trail and on the debate. so it's easy to lose sight of the fact that for most americans, people out in the real world, doing productive actual real work. this is how people learn about candidates. and make their informed decisions bit. it's based on the advertisements that some of us can sort of poo, poo as being superficial, and no doubt that negative advertising is already becoming the disti characteristic of this political cycle. those of us in the media tend to

decry negative advertising. journalists love to bash politicians but it's soon as a negative when the politicians are bashing each other. it's not entirely clear that this is something that is bad to our political culture. it does seem corrosive and seems to erode public faith in our leaders, but, i guess there's a case to be made that comparisons, anded a v advertis tends to bring out more core truths about candidates than do positive spots. so who is to say? i do not think that we are coming here today to presuppose that this is entirely a negative trend. but to put it in a condition --

in a context, we wanted to start out at looking at daisy when how did we get from there to today? what is the cumulative effect of all the negative advertising on our political culture? and if nuclear campaign ads, if these ads are so effective. why don't commercial brands use the same types of tactics to go after their competitors. so i think that will be an interesting discussion later on. so, these are the issues and the questions that we are going to be considering today. i would like to now introduce my partner in moderation, michael duffy, the executive editor of "time," he joined "time" if 1985 as a pentagon correspondent and he covered congress and did first bush presidency and the clinton white house.

he has won many journalism awards and written a couple of books, but most of all, his up coming book "the president's club, inside the world's most exclusive fraternity" will be coming out and i look forward to reading it. michael, thanks for joining us. >> my first job is to actually know something about negative advertising and advertising in general, so i have to exit the stage quickly. it's robertman, he is the author of "daisy petals and mushroom pads" he has the remark able distinction of having worked for three different democratic sr t