0:10

Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge. I'm Peter

0:12

Robinson. Today, a show

0:14

from our archives. Like

0:17

millions of Americans, I just saw

0:19

the movie Oppenheimer, which has now

0:21

been nominated for 13 Academy Awards,

0:23

including Best Picture, Best Actor, and

0:26

Best Director. One

0:28

of the characters portrayed in Oppenheimer

0:31

is the physicist Edward Teller, whom

0:34

I knew when I first came

0:36

to the Hoover Institution some years ago

0:39

now. You're

0:41

about to see a conversation

0:43

between physicist Edward Teller and

0:46

physicist Sidney Drell, in

0:49

which they discuss the

0:51

Strategic Defense Initiative. Edward

0:54

Teller is in favor, and Sidney

0:56

Drell was opposed. The year is 1996,

1:00

candidate for president, Republican candidate Bob

1:02

Dole wanted to proceed with a

1:04

Strategic Defense Initiative, also known, as

1:06

you may recall, as Star Wars,

1:09

and President Bill Clinton opposed it.

1:12

From our archives, Edward Teller

1:14

and Sidney Drell in 1996. Welcome

1:44

to Uncommon Knowledge. I'm Peter Robinson,

1:46

a fellow at the Hoover Institution.

1:49

Our show today, Star Wars. Here's

1:52

the issue. Bob Dole and the

1:54

Republicans in Congress want to begin deployment of

1:56

a National Missile Defense system, and to

1:58

do so quickly. President. Clinton

2:01

Another democrats say. Let's.

2:03

Wait a few years. The system would

2:05

be designed to defend against a particular

2:07

kind of missile. Ballistic.

2:09

Missiles use your imagination. These are

2:11

missiles that are capable of travelling

2:14

from one continent to another. say

2:16

from Asia to North America. Now

2:18

why would we need a missile

2:20

defense system. Here's. The situation

2:22

today. A missile is fired.

2:25

Our satellites in space tell us immediately,

2:27

but to protect our population, there's nothing

2:29

we could do. We could, of course,

2:31

fire missiles back at the aggressor a

2:33

bigger missile in this case, because it's

2:36

American after all. But as I say,

2:38

there's nothing we can do to protect

2:40

our own population. And firing a missile

2:42

in retaliation would only produce a lot

2:44

of dead people. In both

2:47

places. Now imagine a

2:49

missile defense system. It could be land

2:51

base. Sea. Bass.

2:54

Or. Based in space. but whatever the system,

2:56

the aim would be the same. The.

2:59

Missiles fired. But. It's destroyed

3:01

before it can harm anyone. Would.

3:04

Such a system work. If it did

3:06

work, would it be worth the cost?

3:08

Our guests disagree. Doctor. City

3:10

Dwellers deputy director of Stanford University's

3:12

linear Accelerator, and an adviser on

3:15

nuclear weapons to one president after

3:17

another. Doctor. Edward Teller worked

3:19

on the Manhattan Project during World War Two

3:21

and later developed a Hydrogen bomb. He has

3:23

a fellow at the Hoover Institution. Just.

3:26

As Dr. Dwell on, Doctor Teller disagree

3:28

today. They. Disagreed vehemently when

3:30

Ronald Reagan first proposed a Star

3:33

Wars system back in Nineteen Eighty

3:35

Three. This.

3:38

Is an issue with a history at least thirteen

3:40

years of history. In March,

3:42

Nineteen Eighty Three, President Reagan

3:44

first called for research into.

3:47

A Strategic Defense Initiative or

3:49

Star Wars. Doctor. Teller.

3:52

You. Were in favor of President Reagan's initiative. Indeed,

3:55

you are one of his close advisers in the

3:57

matter. And. Doctor Dwell you opposed

3:59

it. Can. You first

4:01

explain what is or what was envisioned

4:03

as a Strategic Defense initiative. What was

4:05

it supposed to do? What was it

4:07

supposed to protect against? And then I'd

4:09

like to know why you opposed it.

4:12

The. Original proposal President Reagan

4:14

for the Strategic Defense

4:16

Initiative was to build.

4:19

A defense. To. Defend

4:21

the United States tire country

4:23

against the possibility of a

4:26

massive missile attack from the

4:28

Soviet Union's touched by thousands

4:30

of. Ballistic Missiles and

4:32

their warheads. Ah,

4:34

I opposed it. Then.

4:37

Strictly as a scientist, the goal

4:39

of defending ourselves are defending are

4:42

vital. interest is a valid goal.

4:44

Every President thinks of it, Every

4:46

human being thinks of it in

4:49

terms of our families. So basic

4:51

instinct. I oppose what was proposed

4:54

originally by President Reagan, a scientist

4:56

because I felt that the technology

4:58

does not exist to do to

5:01

to meet that goal. I savored.

5:03

I savored. then. I still do

5:06

research to try. And develop to

5:08

advance. with that knowledge you can do

5:10

as well as to understand the limits

5:12

of technology Even today against a massive

5:14

attack or that's not what we're talking

5:16

about today, I'm answering that question arises

5:19

Er Doctor tell are you were in

5:21

favor of were Ronald Reagan's proposal. Why?

5:26

I was very happy at the time. That.

5:28

He emphasized the since. I

5:32

was uncomfortable. About the Chris.

5:35

That I can be done. Particularly.

5:39

Whether it can be done. Without.

5:41

The use of explosives, However,

5:45

On the the impact of his

5:47

statement. And

5:50

number of us, particularly my friend. Though.

5:53

It would in the bomber. Looked

5:55

in great detail. Answer that question.

5:58

Has it he said. can be done. And

6:04

I don't have any other means but to put

6:06

it very briefly here. The

6:10

result was that

6:12

the development of

6:14

increasing accuracy gave

6:18

strong hopes for

6:20

a defense which indeed was

6:22

non-nuclear, which

6:24

was based on

6:27

the idea. Here

6:29

is an incoming object. We

6:31

have looked at it from the very beginning

6:34

from space. And

6:36

as soon as possible, we

6:38

wanted to collide with a

6:41

very much smaller object and

6:43

the collision should destroy the

6:45

attacking object. This looked

6:48

to me at the time as

6:51

something difficult but possible. And

6:54

let me put it this way. In

6:57

the last 10 years, or

7:00

at least in the last six or eight, it

7:03

seemed to me more and more hopeful

7:06

if they are working on it hard. I

7:09

would like to respond to some of these

7:11

things where we agree and disagree. The

7:13

words of President Reagan were

7:16

translated by his administration into

7:18

a very expensive program which

7:20

cost something like $40 billion over a

7:23

period of time starting in 1983. It was a program that was directed to

7:31

field a system by a certain

7:33

date. It was not an R&D

7:35

program to see what one can do. It

7:37

was directed to field a system at a certain

7:39

date. That led to a lot

7:41

of waste. And I think it was

7:44

technically not at the standard

7:46

that one expects from scientists entering

7:48

into the public arena. We

7:50

have an obligation to be as conservative and

7:52

as rigorous in our thinking

7:55

and in our predictions, technical predictions,

7:57

as we are in the laboratory.

8:00

were made and that's why many

8:02

of us, including myself, got involved

8:04

in saying that's not realistic. Let's

8:06

do research. I supported the research.

8:08

I did not support the implementation.

8:11

Go ahead. Yes. To

8:13

begin with, in

8:16

an enormous waste of money, 40 billion

8:18

dollars, to be

8:20

expended over a number of years like 10, that

8:22

is considerably

8:25

less than

8:27

2% of our

8:30

defense budget. You don't dispute that.

8:33

That's a correct statement. All right. That's

8:35

absolutely correct statement. To

8:37

my mind, the

8:39

main job of our our sponsor is

8:43

to defend the American people. The

8:46

2% of our military expenditure

8:48

on that is too much. It's

8:53

a point I want to state without

8:56

making the obvious statement what I think

8:59

about it. The function

9:02

of the United States government is

9:04

to protect the United States and

9:07

our interests. That's more than saying the

9:09

Defense Department to defend us. During

9:11

that time with Russia, we were engaged

9:13

in many efforts, diplomatic and strategic, as

9:15

well as military, to try and reduce

9:18

the nuclear threat during the Reagan years.

9:20

During the Reagan years, during the Carter

9:22

years, until the Cold War was

9:24

over. And so I think it's

9:26

important to put the effort, that

9:28

40 billion dollar effort, and that is a lot of

9:30

money, by the way, into the

9:33

context of how it would impact our

9:35

strategic and diplomatic efforts, which did

9:37

succeed thanks to great initiatives by

9:40

President Reagan and Secretary Shost, which

9:42

I'm very appreciative, in

9:44

reducing the nuclear threat considerably by reducing

9:47

by the strategic arms reduction treaties.

9:50

And the problem of managing how

9:52

we go about exploring or

9:54

even deploying defense while doing that

9:56

is a very complex political problem. We

9:58

may have different ideas there were

10:01

not experts let me talk about now

10:03

politics scientific wrangling so far we've been

10:05

talking about what takes place inside this

10:07

country but the bad guys are

10:09

on the outside the

10:13

clinton administration says three years

10:15

of research and then we'll think about whether we need

10:17

to deploy and the republicans say

10:20

no three years

10:22

and we will be to deploy so

10:25

far as i and following the political debate

10:27

a huge uh... element

10:29

in this decision is how one assesses

10:31

the threat now the

10:34

clinton administration uh... secretary of defense

10:36

perry has been taking a lead on assessing the

10:38

threat the clinton administration says

10:40

that present only russia and china have

10:42

nuclear-armed ballistic missiles that can reach the

10:44

united states it

10:46

will be at least a decade in

10:49

the clinton administration's view before other nations

10:51

develop such missiles although it could be

10:53

somewhat less than a decade before north

10:55

korea develops missiles that could

10:57

strike hawaii and alaska extreme tip of

11:00

hawaii and the anchor in the extreme

11:02

tip of alaska the illusions not to

11:04

correct so this is not a right

11:07

now i interrupt for a moment i want

11:09

to remind you that

11:13

fission was discovered

11:17

in december thirty eight five

11:20

and a half years later there

11:23

was an explosion on here to

11:27

make ten years decisions

11:29

in advance is

11:31

nonsense former

11:33

cia director james wolsey a

11:36

clinton appointee says the administration

11:38

itself is wrong about the

11:40

threat and that

11:43

whereas the threat to the contiguous

11:45

forty the continental or the contiguous forty eight

11:47

states may not be serious from the nation's

11:49

other than russia and china for another decade

11:52

or so there is

11:54

a matter of threats to our i'm quoting

11:56

now from the threats to our friends our

11:58

allies are overseas bases in military forces And

12:00

indeed, to some of the 50 states, Wolsey

12:02

adds in congressional testimony, and this is a

12:05

man whom Clinton chose to run the CIA,

12:08

it is quite reasonable to believe that

12:10

within a few years, Saddam Hussein and

12:12

the Chinese rulers will be able to

12:14

threaten something far more troubling than firings

12:17

of relatively inaccurate ballistic missiles. So

12:19

this is the question. How grave is

12:21

the threat? No, no, I think Edward and

12:23

I will agree on this one. What

12:26

Wolsey may be talking about there is when

12:28

he talks about those countries, our

12:30

ballistic missiles in the theater

12:32

area, less than 1,000 kilometers, 1

12:35

to 2,000 kilometers, we

12:38

are testing those systems now. That

12:40

is not the issue of the defend America act.

12:43

The defend America act is intercontinental

12:45

range ones. I

12:47

don't think we have any difference that the importance

12:50

of, first of all, to

12:52

feel the system against non-nuclear warheads

12:55

makes a lot of sense. We saw that in the Gulf

12:57

War. The issue is

13:00

defending the continental United States

13:02

and the inhabited areas

13:04

of Alaska and Hawaii against

13:06

nuclear warheads coming on multi-thousand kilometer range

13:09

missiles. It is a more difficult problem.

13:11

That is the issue of doing the

13:13

research now and not committing to deployment.

13:15

In your judgment, you are willing to

13:17

rest content that for the

13:20

next decade we have only Russia and China effectively to

13:22

worry about. I am willing to rest content. I

13:27

am confident that

13:30

the best policy for us, given where

13:32

the threat stands now, the

13:34

engineering difficulties for a country like North

13:37

Korea to get the propulsion systems, the

13:39

guidance systems, to do the test firings

13:41

of a new missile, that

13:43

that timescale is such that doing

13:45

the best R&D, research and development

13:48

now, so that

13:50

we can assess again every year as we

13:52

go along, expecting that this program will keep

13:54

us ahead of the threat. I

13:56

think that that is a very prudent policy. Dr.

13:59

Teller. I

14:01

am not only worried about

14:05

ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads,

14:09

I am worried about ballistic missiles

14:11

carrying anything, explosives,

14:15

chemical weapons, biological weapons. In

14:22

the Middle East, these

14:25

weapons have been used in

14:28

a terrifying and effective way

14:31

during the Iran-Iraq War, between the

14:33

Iran-Iraq War. Very brutal. And

14:36

to this, all

14:38

people are exposed

14:41

whether or not nuclear

14:43

explosives are developed

14:46

or not. And the

14:48

question is not as simple to

14:50

make experiments and then decide yes

14:53

or no. The

14:55

very act

14:57

of deployment will

15:00

uncover difficulties, complications.

15:04

We ought to begin

15:06

deployment as

15:08

soon as possible, maybe now, whatever

15:12

we can do now for

15:14

the limited means that are best

15:16

to do now. And

15:19

not say in

15:22

a nice way that the

15:24

American public will be happy to hear. Don't

15:27

worry. Nothing is going to

15:29

happen for ten years. That may

15:31

be excellent election policy. I'm sorry, that's not

15:33

what I said. That's not what I said.

15:37

Excuse me. That is the way

15:40

how I think things can be understood.

15:43

And I'm very, very happy to see the

15:45

case, and that is not what you have

15:48

to say. That's certainly not what I have

15:50

said. The present rate of offending on the

15:52

missiles being fired at us by a nutcase

15:54

like Saddam Hussein sounds scary enough. But

15:57

are there worse threats? what

16:00

about the argument that all of this emphasis on

16:02

uh... strategic defense is

16:05

that is a misplacement a misallocation of

16:07

emphasis and resources new york

16:09

times quote the pentagon official unnamed but the quote

16:11

and is saying the following a

16:14

terrorist with little technical know how and

16:17

twenty pounds of smuggled plutonium could make

16:19

a bomb powerful enough to destroy a

16:21

city that's what we should be

16:23

worried about what you say to

16:25

them in the office should be worried about the common

16:27

court look

16:30

there is this problem and that is that problem

16:33

and they have absolutely nothing to do

16:35

with each other i'm wrong they

16:38

have a little something to do with each other and

16:41

i tell you what misaldefense

16:45

independent of any terrorist

16:48

is an important thing i

16:51

agree that we should do the best i

16:54

don't agree that we shall ever really know

16:56

what is the best and

16:58

in the point of the office have to take

17:00

chances and i think that the

17:02

chances is that what

17:05

does it have to do the

17:08

terrorist or it is if

17:11

you go ahead defense and

17:14

now comes the new point that i have

17:16

not yet mentioned and i'm very

17:19

anxious to mention if

17:21

you go ahead this defense for

17:26

the united states but

17:29

as far as ever possible together

17:33

with our allies for

17:37

the whole world if

17:40

at the same time we

17:43

minimize our excessive secrecy today

17:47

we can bring about a better

17:49

atmosphere in

17:52

which measures against

17:54

terrorists also will

17:56

become easier these

17:58

problems not independent

18:01

of each other. Two.

18:03

The kind of dependence, don't do this before

18:06

you have done that, is the

18:09

answer. If we know how

18:11

we can do something against aliens, do

18:13

it. If we know how

18:15

to get something against missiles,

18:17

do it. The

18:20

two should not be compared and

18:22

balanced with each other. I agree

18:24

with that, but I would like

18:26

to add one more dimension to

18:28

this discussion, and that is, what

18:31

we want to do is reduce the

18:34

danger, not only of nuclear

18:36

weapons, we want to reduce the danger

18:38

of weapons of indiscriminate destruction. Biological

18:41

weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons.

18:44

The terrorists who want to just

18:46

commit terror, if he can do a

18:48

little more, they're going to brewery in his

18:50

backyard, can threaten us with biological weapons in

18:52

this world. It's a terrible challenge. The

18:55

fact that that's a terrible challenge doesn't mean

18:57

we should ignore the ballistic missile challenge or

18:59

the cruise missile challenge. Quite frankly, if I

19:01

were wanting to make a threat to the

19:04

United States, I would think very hard about

19:06

the simple cruise missiles carrying warheads hundreds of

19:08

miles, not the many thousands. Something in low

19:10

and fast? Yes. What we are

19:12

working on, what we are emphasizing, is

19:16

the defense of our military forces.

19:20

What we are not emphasizing is

19:22

the defense of the

19:25

population. And it

19:27

is not only the population of

19:30

our European allies who

19:32

are within that range of dangerous

19:34

missiles. Very important question.

19:37

It is also our own

19:39

population, which is

19:41

not within 500 kilometers of

19:45

any adversary force, but

19:47

within 500 kilometers of

19:50

ships that can

19:52

get us close and closer. These

19:54

questions have to be looked into

19:57

now and with emphasis. I

20:00

am afraid that the discussion

20:03

has obscured the

20:05

danger to the American people that

20:08

exists now not

20:11

in ten years. Suppose

20:14

Republicans got their way and the space defense

20:16

were deployed. Wouldn't there be quite

20:18

a nasty little scene on the floor of the United Nations?

20:22

Secretary of Defense William Perry says that the

20:24

Defend America Act would cripple the 1972

20:29

anti-ballistic missile treaty, the ABM treaty,

20:31

with Russia and have other difficult

20:34

diplomatic ramifications. Do you care about

20:36

that? I think the

20:39

diplomatic arrangement that

20:41

have been made with the government, the

20:43

Soviet Union, that no longer exists has

20:47

very little to do with the real issue.

20:50

The real issue is now how

20:52

to get together everybody

20:55

in a joint way to

20:59

do what is necessary or whatever can

21:01

be done to reduce

21:03

every danger and specifically to

21:06

reduce the danger of missile.

21:10

And I put a great emphasis

21:13

on missiles because it

21:15

has been estimated, and I have no

21:17

reason to doubt it, that

21:19

the missiles are available now to

21:21

20 or 25 governments. And

21:25

I don't want to put an emphasis

21:27

on nuclear explosives, but on

21:29

whatever the missiles can carry. Now

21:33

that's a stunning statement. 20

21:35

to 25 countries have

21:37

the ability to purchase or find

21:40

a plane to use a ballistic missile and they

21:42

could put anything on the top of it from

21:44

a nuclear warhead to my grandmother to chemical weapons.

21:46

So the threat is in fact very great. We

21:48

have to be clear on numbers. The

21:52

20 to 25 countries that Edward is talking

21:54

about apply to the

21:56

first generation of existing missiles whose ranges

21:58

are generally less than five to six

22:01

hundred kilometers not the 10

22:03

to 20 short hours these are the

22:05

theater ones these we are working against

22:07

they have that that is the threat

22:09

that exists the next threat that exists

22:11

is going to be the one that

22:13

North Korea seems to be working on

22:15

the type pay dong to or something

22:17

like that which may go 3500

22:20

kilometers still won't reach us but

22:22

and that's what I mean there's a there's a

22:24

time scale and a threat that we have to

22:26

match our program to we talked

22:29

about international agreements I

22:32

would like to share an international agreement

22:34

to this effect anybody

22:38

can fire me the more the

22:40

better happy about it but

22:43

the condition is if

22:46

anyone American

22:48

or Russian or

22:52

any other nation Switzerland wants

22:55

to fire a missile it

22:58

has to be announced let us say

23:01

one week ahead together

23:04

with purpose and army and

23:07

we have an international

23:10

understanding and we

23:12

try to plan on ways to execute

23:15

that whoever does not have

23:19

fires a missile without announcing

23:22

it or announces it

23:24

wrongly that we

23:26

should be not any further question that

23:29

is a missile a group can

23:31

be shut down let me start

23:34

by saying we have an area of

23:36

great agreement I thought that one of the

23:38

great moments in in

23:40

history of discussion of these threats occurred

23:42

at the Reykjavik summit when President Reagan

23:45

proposed getting rid of all

23:48

long-range ballistic missiles and

23:50

George Schultz followed it up with a detailed

23:52

discussion of that in a speech at the

23:54

University of Chicago and that to

23:57

my mind is the best way to handle

23:59

the The ballistic missile

24:01

pressure. It's a verifiable scheme

24:03

because big missiles cannot be

24:06

hidden like little ones can.

24:09

Secondly, if you want to... Dr.

24:11

Drell says this, Dr. Teller says that, they agree

24:13

here, they disagree there. I want to clear this

24:15

up. Where exactly

24:17

does each man stand? I'm

24:21

going to ask you a series of questions and I'm

24:23

going to ask you to answer them in the ways

24:25

that eminent physicists don't like to do. That is to

24:27

say, with a yes or a no. But I want

24:29

to understand your position. Your question has to be a

24:31

clear question. We don't answer that way because we're careful.

24:33

All right, I'll do my best. Is

24:36

the United States doing enough now

24:39

to protect the United States

24:41

and its allies from the

24:43

threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles from

24:45

Russia and China? Dr.

24:47

Drell, are we doing enough now? You

24:50

want one more answer? Yes, please. Dr.

24:52

Teller? No. Are we doing

24:54

enough now to protect against the threat of

24:57

intercontinental ballistic missiles from Korea, the

24:59

future threat? Yes or no? Yes.

25:04

No. No. Are we

25:06

doing enough now to protect ourselves and

25:08

our allies against the threat of theater

25:10

nuclear missiles? That is to say, these

25:12

short hop missiles of a

25:14

range of five to... Nuclear or non-nuclear? Nuclear

25:17

or non-nuclear? Theater missiles? Yes. Probably

25:19

yes. Probably yes. Probably

25:22

yes. What about... Dr.

25:25

Teller provided me with a new nightmare that hadn't

25:27

crossed... hadn't entered into my consciousness, the notion of

25:29

a ship pulling up from one of 20 to

25:31

25 countries and lobbing

25:34

a missile at the United States. Are

25:36

we doing enough now to protect against that

25:38

threat? I

25:40

would... Here, I think I'll say probably

25:43

yes because when you're in that region, you're

25:45

talking not only about ballistic missiles but all

25:47

sorts of ways

25:49

of delivering only hundreds of miles. And

25:52

to be true to my own standards, let me

25:54

say, I haven't looked at the whole spectrum of

25:56

programs there. So... But would be

25:58

an impression probably, yes. I don't know of any

26:00

reason to say no, but I don't have the information to

26:02

say an absolute yes. Do you feel we're

26:05

doing enough or not enough now?

26:07

Being cautious like

26:09

you are. I say more. Okay.

26:12

Two more questions. Are we doing enough

26:15

now to protect the United States and

26:17

our allies against the threat of cruise

26:19

missiles? No. And

26:22

finally, are we doing enough now to

26:24

protect the United States and our allies

26:27

against the threat of a terrorist with

26:29

a plutonium suitcase? Or

26:31

a biological weapon. Or a biological weapon.

26:33

No. Absolutely no. No.

26:38

And I don't know about this enough. That's

26:41

also a fair statement. That's an exceedingly

26:43

difficult problem. Dr. Edward Teller,

26:45

Dr. Sidney Drell, thank you very much. Thank

26:47

you. The

26:50

Republican effort to begin deployment of a

26:52

national missile defense system quickly is

26:54

embodied in a piece of legislation called

26:56

the Defend America Act. The

26:58

act has been reported favorably out of committee

27:01

in both the Senate and the House, but

27:03

has not yet come to a vote in either chamber. I'm

27:06

Peter Robinson. Thanks for joining us. Thank

27:19

you. Thank

27:49

you. www.mooji.org