Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

U.S. Response to Libya Crisis; Witnesses: No Cease-Fire in Libya; President Obama Speaks About Crisis in Libya; Googling to Find Japan's Missing; Nuclear Power Debate

Aired March 18, 2011 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: All right.

Wolf Blitzer is standing by in Washington as we await the president's comments.

Wolf, you've just come back from the Middle East. What is it that the president can say now that can make a difference?

WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM": Well, it's not necessarily the words that are going to make a difference. It's going to be the actions that are going to make a difference in Libya.

It's going to be whether or not the international community can now back up what the United Nations Security Council has authorized, whether there will be a robust military response not only involving the U.S., not only involving NATO allies, but also involving several countries from the Arab world. It's not going to be enough for just U.S. planes to engage in a no-fly zone, there's going to have to be air forces from Arab countries who will do so.

Administration officials believe they have a commitment from some of these Arab countries to do it. They're now trying to work out the details, because in the end, they think the only thing Gadhafi and his loyalists will appreciate will be power, military power. They're not going to just back down in the face of words right now.

So, this is literally a case, Ali, where administration officials tell me at the highest levels that actions will speak a whole lot louder than words, because, as you know, the president of the United States, the secretary of state, they've been saying for days now that Gadhafi must go. Well, he hasn't gone. He's only intensified his offensive against the rebels, against the opposition.

So it's going to have to be a lot more than just a U.N. Security Council resolution and more tough talk. That's not going to be enough.

VELSHI: Right. We're going to hear from the president in just a moment.

A little earlier, Wolf, I was talking to Jamie Rubin, who thinks that the U.S. needs to act and stand by what it says it's going to do. The problem that some people have is enforcing -- getting involved in the enforcement of a no-fly zone could end up pulling the U.S. into a great deal of involvement in Libya, quite possibly on the ground, too.

BLITZER: And that's why it can't just be the United States that's doing all the military action. It's got to be European countries that are going to have to be involved, the NATO allies, and it's going to also have to be whether Jordan or the United Arab Emirates or Qatar or Saudi Arabia, maybe even Egypt, although Egypt's got its own problems right now, as we all know. That's a work in progress, to be sure, so it probably won't be Egypt.

But there has to be an Arab presence in this multilateral effort, this coalition effort, if you will. Some might call it a coalition of the willing against Gadhafi. But it's going to have to be an international effort.

Now the U.N. Security Council has got the authorization out of the way, they can go forward with implementing it, because the sense I'm getting -- and I've had conversations with senior administration officials, intelligence officials -- is Gadhafi is not going to back down. He's not going to simply walk away.

VELSHI: Now, so what's the issue here? When you think back to our involvement in Afghanistan and our involvement in Iraq, the U.S.'s involvement, Wolf, what is the issue that needs to best be addressed before the U.S. makes a decision about what role it's going to play?

BLITZER: Well, logistically, it's complicated. Look, the Libyan air defense system is not that great. The Libyan air force, they've got a few old French-made Mirage fighters, they've got some old Russian-made MiGs. They don't have a sophisticated air force. They don't have a sophisticated air defense system.

What they do have is a readiness to kill fellow Libyans. Unlike the Egypt military, or the Tunisian military, this Libyan military of Gadhafi, they're ready to kill fellow Libyans. So they do have that.

I was speaking with one general, and this is the analogy he gave me as far as the Libyan air defense system, the Libyan air force, if you will. And it's sort of appropriate when we're talking about NCAA college basketball and the big dance and the Final Four.

This is sort of the equivalent of a Division 3 college basketball team, or maybe even a high school basketball team, taking on the Miami Heat or the Los Angeles Lakers. It's that kind of discrepancy we're talking about.

But you know what? If you have an air defense system, you have surface-to-air missiles, you have Stingers, you can still get lucky when you shoot down an American plane.

(CROSSTALK)

VELSHI: Yes. We've never done well underestimating what an enemy force can do.

BLITZER: Right. It's not necessarily -- you can get lucky, if you will. And it wouldn't be the first time that the U.S. lost a plane to a situation where the power is considerably less sophisticated.

VELSHI: Tell me this, Wolf -- the president has been meeting with congressional leaders -- what resistance or support is he likely to get from Democrats and Republicans in Congress on whatever the U.S. wants to do?

BLITZER: Yes, this is a case where he'll probably wind up getting more support from a lot of Republicans than he will from some of his own fellow Democrats who are nervous about getting involved in a no-fly zone, implementing another military activity in the Middle East, this time in North Africa, given what's already happened over the past 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. So the Republicans probably will be more supportive. If you take a look at what John McCain and Mitch McConnell and the Senate have been saying, and some of the Republican leaders in the House have been saying, they want the U.S. to get tough with Gadhafi.

On the Democratic side, there's a lot less enthusiasm, although John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has been a supporter of engaging in a no-fly zone.

There's a moral issue that's weighing really heavily on President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton right now. It's that the United States doesn't want to look the other way as people are about to be slaughtered.

Former president Bill Clinton, he knew what was happening in Rwanda in the 1990s. He knew that there was genocide unfolding. He didn't do anything about it until it was too late. Eight hundred thousand people were killed in that slaughter between the Hutus and the Tutsis.

I remember going to Rwanda with him in 1998. He said it was a huge mistake, that he let these people down. He could have taken some action. He didn't show leadership when he got those reports in the Oval Office.

And I know that is weighing very heavily on Secretary of State Clinton and I know it's weighing heavily on President Obama right now. If Libyans are about to be slaughtered, and the United States and the international community is sort of standing on the sidelines, just watching it take place, that's not something this president or secretary of state want to see happen.

So, even though the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, and other military officers, top military officers, they were really cool to getting militarily involved in another operation in the Middle East, the president has now decided to overrule that resistance. And I think he was strongly encouraged to do so, by the way, by Secretary Clinton.

VELSHI: OK. Stand by, Wolf.

The president is running a few minutes late. We're going to get to him right on the other side of this break.

Wolf is there. Chris Lawrence is standing by. Stay with us. We'll bring you coverage of the president's speech, live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: OK. You're looking at live pictures of the East Room of the White House, where moments from now -- the president is running a little late, but we're expecting to hear from him after having met with congressional leaders about what to do about Libya. We know he's going to talk about Libya. The United Nations imposed a no-fly zone over Libya yesterday, empowering members states to take whatever action they deem necessary.

In the words of the authorization, " -- to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country." So we're expecting to hear from the president about that, and we're expecting to hear some discussion about the weights on either side of the argument about getting involved.

We've got Wolf Blitzer standing by in Washington. We've got Chris Lawrence at the Pentagon. We've got Nic Robertson in Tripoli.

Nic, I want to ask you -- there were celebrations at the word of the cease-fire, but at the same time, people like you have been getting reports from the opposition in Libya that the government there has not kept up to its pledge of a cease-fire.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And the heaviest casualties being reported from the town of Misrata, which is just 120 miles from here. And government officials could have provided transportation for us and taken us down there to see how this cease-fire that they've announced is taking hold. Instead, the reports have been that the fighting there has been continuing.

We've seen government support -- government -- pro-government demonstrations on state television here. The usual place, Green Square, in the heart of Tripoli. So the government is getting its message out to its supporters here that everything is fine. But it appears on the ground everything is far from fine -- Ali.

VELSHI: All right.

Chris Lawrence, at the Pentagon.

Chris, it is Defense Secretary Gates who represents the voice of caution on this, saying this isn't as simple as sending some planes up there, even though it seems like the U.S. Air Force and other countries' air forces would be no -- the Libyan air force would be no match for them.

Why is he expressing concern?

CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well, Wolf is right. Libya has air defenses. They have ballistic missiles with the capability to travel possibly just short of 200 miles off shore.

But again, we even now have some information that some of those surface-to-air missile sites may be in areas that are now controlled by the rebels. So he may not even have total command and control over all of his surface-to-air missile sites.

So he would be no match for U.S. technology. I think the concern at the Pentagon has been this idea of mission creep, that once you begin a mission, and once you get into it, then there's the chance to have more responsibility added to that and get deeper and deeper into the fight.

VELSHI: Wolf, that's the point you were making, this mission creep is a danger. So, on one side, you have got concern about the U.S. getting pulled into a conflict. And on the other side you've got the concern that you said is being expressed in some quarters that the U.S. can't stand by and watch what's going on in Libya without lending a hand.

BLITZER: Yes. I think that moral pressure on the president was very, very powerful, that under his watch he didn't want to just stand around and let a lot of people get slaughtered, which potentially is the case.

There are strategic issues. There are oil issues, economic issues, political issues. The president of the United States says Gadhafi must go. And then if he doesn't go, doesn't that underline American weakness, the weakness of this president, if you will? So there are other strategic issues at the same time.

But the point that Chris Lawrence is making is excellent, that mission creep. What happens if the Libyans get lucky, they shoot down a plane, an American pilot or two, or they have to eject and they're taken hostage, they're taken captive? What happens then?

It's a powerful argument. And the other thing is, do you start arming the rebels? Who are these rebels?

I can assure you, the U.S. intelligence community has an understanding, but not necessarily a great understanding of who all these rebels necessarily are and what they would do themselves down the road. So it's a complicated issue. It's one that the U.S. is not anxious to get involved in.

But at this point, especially now that the Security Council has authorized it, the U.S. is about to get militarily involved one way or another in Libya. And that's a huge development.

VELSHI: All right. Chris, Wolf, Nic, all of you stand by. We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back and we'll have the president's comments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right. That's the East Room at the White House. We're waiting for President Obama, who has been meeting with congressional leaders on the issue of Libya. The United Nations declared a no-fly zone over Libya. And the United States -- the Libyan government immediately responded by issuing a cease-fire, although we have been getting reports from the region that they have not actually stopped fighting on the ground in some places, particularly in Misrata.

We're going to be following that story. We've got our reporters. We've got Wolf Blitzer in Washington; Chris Lawrence at the Pentagon; Nic Robertson in Tripoli; and, of course, our whole team covering this.

Meanwhile, "The New York Times" is reporting the Libyan government is holding four of its journalists but plans to release them. Editors say they last heard from Anthony Shadid, Stephen Farrell, Tyler Hicks and Lynsey Addario on Tuesday.

One of Gadhafi's sons gave an interview to ABC's Christiane Amanpour yesterday. He told her, "You know, they entered the country illegally, and when the army -- when they liberated the city of Ajdabiya from the terrorists, they found her there and they arrested her because you know foreigners in this place. But then they were happy because they found out she's American, not European. And thanks to that, she will be freed tomorrow."

The "she" Gadhafi's son is referring to is Lynsey Addario. Yesterday, I spoke exclusively with her husband, Paul de Bendern, about the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who spent much of her professional life on the front lines.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL DE BENDERN, LYNSEY ADDARIO'S HUSBAND: And she's kept me awake, definitely, quite a few nights, sleepless, worried. But she does a job that she loves doing.

She is very experienced. You know, she's covered a lot of war zones. She knows what she's doing.

She is very careful. She doesn't take unnecessary risks. And so she has been through this.

And, you know, it is obviously -- it's tough. It's tough to now -- to sit here and not know what has happened.

I think the thing is that she's a very courageous woman, and I'm a very, very proud husband. I think I may be a bit one-sided given that I am her husband, but she is an incredible woman. And she has a sensitivity of the story and she believes that it is very important to report on conflict, on human suffering, on women issues around the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELSHI: All right. Let's get back to the situation in Libya with respect to the no-fly zone.

Wolf Blitzer joins me in Washington. Chris Lawrence is at the Pentagon. Nic Robertson is in Tripoli for us right now.

And is that the president walking up to the podium right now?

No, it's somebody else who might be putting some notes there for the president.

Nic, let's get to you.

Again, let's just be clear on this. The U.N. imposed this no-fly zone, which is an authorization for member countries to do something. Nobody has done anything yet, but in response to that, the Libyan government said it is going to impose a cease-fire on itself.

What does that mean on the ground? What is that translated to in Libya?

ROBERTSON: Well, it appears not to be translating into a cease- fire as everyone around the world would understand the words of a cease-fire. The foreign minister here said that this was an end of military hostilities. But by all accounts, military hostilities are still continuing here.

It gives the impression that the government is trying to take advantage of what it sees as a window of opportunity. Last night, the deputy foreign minister said he didn't feel that air strikes were close. If the army here shares that same view, and they don't feel like there's going to be punitive action on the army for continuing their military operations, they're continuing to exploit it.

So perhaps the apparent sort of throwing hands in the air and saying everything is OK and we're going to abide by the Security Council resolution, which is what the foreign minister did, belies the ground troop. The army still thinks it's got time on its side and can push ahead with military advances while the international community figures out which ground radar sites maybe that it needs to target, who is going to target them, what the recovery procedures are going to be.

You definitely get the impression here that the army, at the very least, thinks that they can exploit events on the ground and perhaps create facts on the ground, so they end up just surrounding Benghazi, where the rebels are in the east. The government always has sort of stated that's where they're going next.

Perhaps that's their objective. They're going to try to get that done before the international community is ready to actually really follow through with this resolution -- Ali.

VELSHI: All right, Nic.

Wolf, the president is coming out right now. Let's all listen in. We'll talk on the other side.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good afternoon, everybody.

I want to take this opportunity to update the American people about the situation in Libya.

Over the last several weeks, the world has watched events unfold in Libya with hope and alarm. Last month, protesters took to the streets across the country to demand their universal rights and a government that is accountable to them and responsive to their aspirations. But they were met with an iron fist.

Within days, whole parts of the country declared their independence from a brutal regime, and members of the government serving in Libya and abroad chose to align themselves with the forces of change. Moammar Gadhafi clearly lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.

Instead of respecting the rights of his own people, Gadhafi chose the path of brutal suppression. Innocent civilians were beaten, imprisoned and, in some cases, killed. Peaceful protests were forcefully put down. Hospitals were attacked and patients disappeared. A campaign of intimidation and repression began.

In the face of this injustice, the United States and the international community moved swiftly. Sanctions were put in place by the United States and our allies and partners. The U.N. Security Council imposed further sanctions, an arms embargo and the specter of international accountability for Gadhafi and those around him. Humanitarian assistance was positioned on Libya's borders, and those displaced by the violence received our help.

Ample warning was given that Gadhafi needed to stop his campaign of repression or be held accountable. The Arab League and the European Union joined us in calling for an end to violence.

Once again, Gadhafi chose to ignore the will of his people and the international community. Instead, he launched a military campaign against his own people. And there should be no doubt about his intentions because he, himself, has made them clear.

For decades, he's demonstrated a willingness to use brute force through his sponsorship of terrorism against the American people, as well as others, and through the killings that he has carried out within his own borders. And just yesterday, speaking of the city of Benghazi, a city of roughly 700,000 people, he threatened, and I quote, "We will have no mercy and no pity."

No mercy on his own citizens. Now, here is why this matters to us.

Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Gadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.

The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.

And that's why the United States has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response at the United Nations. Our focus has been clear -- protecting innocent civilians within Libya and holding the Gadhafi regime accountable. Yesterday, in response to a call for action by the Libyan people and the Arab League, the U.N. Security Council passed a strong resolution that demands an end to the violence against citizens. It authorizes the use of force with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing, to include the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya. It also strengthens our sanctions and the enforcement of an arms embargo against the Gadhafi regime.

Now, once more, Moammar Gadhafi has a choice. The resolution that passed lays out very clear conditions that must be met.

The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Gadhafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all area. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Gadhafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences and the resolution will be enforced through military action.

In this effort, the United States is prepared to act as part of an international coalition. American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone. It means shaping the conditions for the international community to act together.

That's why I've directed Secretary Gates and our military to coordinate their planning. And tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will travel to Paris for a meeting with our European allies and our partners about the enforcement of Resolution 1973. We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone.

I have no doubt that the men and women of our military are capable of carrying out this mission. Once more, they have the thanks of a grateful nation and the admiration of the world.

I also want to be clear about what we will not be doing. The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya, and we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal, specifically the protection of civilians in Libya. In the coming weeks, we will continue to help the Libyan people with humanitarian and economic assistance so that they can fulfill their aspirations peacefully.

Now, the United States did not seek this outcome. Our decisions have been driven by Gadhafi's refusal to respect the rights of his people and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians.

It is not an action that we will pursue alone. Indeed, our British and French allies and members of the Arab League have already committed to take a leadership role in the enforcement of this resolution, just as they were instrumental in pursuing it.

We are coordinating closely with them. And this is precisely how the international community should work, as more nations bear both the responsibility and the cost of enforcing international law.

This is just one more chapter in the change that is unfolding across the Middle East and North Africa. From the beginning of these protests, we made it clear that we are opposed to violence. We made clear our support for a set of universal values, and our support for the political and economic change that the people of the region deserve.

But I want to be clear the change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power. Ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab world. It is their right and their responsibility to determine their own destiny.

Let me close by saying that there's no decision I face as your commander in chief that I consider as carefully as the decision to ask our men and women to use military force, particularly at a time when our military is fighting in Afghanistan and winding down our activities in Iraq. That decision is only made more difficult.

But the United States of America will not stand idly by in the face of actions that undermine global peace and security. So, I've taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary and that we will not be acting alone. Our goal is focused, our cause is just, and our coalition is strong.

Thank you very much.

VELSHI: And President Obama saying that the U.S. will not stand idly by and watch international security and peace be undermined. He also said American leadership in Libya is essential, but that does not mean acting alone.

He also said that this -- the no-fly zone will be enforced with military action. He said the U.S. is not going to deploy ground troops. He also said that they are not -- the U.S. is not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal which is the protection of Libyan civilians.

Wolf Blitzer joins me now.

Wolf, what did you think?

BLITZER: Well, it was really clear when the president said here's what the United States won't do, that very much of concern is this whole notion -- and Chris Lawrence discussed it earlier -- of what's called in the Pentagon military creep -- mission creep, I should.

Mission creep is something they don't want to see. They don't want to see another ground war. They don't want to see U.S. troops engage Libyan troops on the ground. They want to do it, you know, from the air, if you will. And the president went, you know, way out of his way to make it clear this is not a U.S. operation, this is a coalition operation. The U.S. will have a significant role. The NATO allies will have a significant role.

But the Arab world, the Arab League will have a significant role. He didn't spell out which Arab countries are ready to get involved.

One issue that the president didn't discuss, especially at a time of economic hardship here in United States and around the world: who's going to pay for all of this? And that's going to be a subject for negotiation.

Right now, there's no clear -- these countries are not committed to sending the bill to the Libyans, for example. Libya is a major oil exporting country and some time down the road, they might be able to reimburse the coalition that's being put together that's going to pay for all this operation. Maybe some of the oil-rich Arab countries, the Saudis, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain -- Bahrain has got its own problems right now as you know -- but maybe some of these countries will pay for this mission.

It's not going to be cheap, Ali. It's going to be significantly expensive for the Pentagon. But that's why the president decided to go forward, because, you know, if they let Gadhafi win, that's going to be a huge setback for the president and for the international community, the powers that have been brought together.

And so, they're not going to let Gadhafi win. They're in too deep and it's about to get a whole lot deeper.

VELSHI: All right. Wolf, thanks very much for this.

We'll continue our coverage of this. We'll parse what the president had to say. We'll get reaction from others about the president's discussion on Libya.

Wolf Blitzer, you'll see him again later on, 5:00 Eastern on "THE SITUATION ROOM."

We're taking a quick break. We'll cover -- we'll return with the coverage of all the other news we're on top of. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: A full week after Japan's quake and tsunami, the search and rescue effort is still going strong. Dozens of relief organizations are spreading out across hundreds of miles of devastated towns and villages in Japan. One of those groups called Shelter Box is led by a 2008 CNN hero who has stepped up again to make sure disaster victims are getting what they need to survive.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As thousands flee northern Japan, there are tens of thousands left behind. They need food, they need water, they need shelter. That's why CNN hero Tom Henderson and his Shelter Box team are going in.

We spoke to Tom via Skype.

TOM HENDERSON, SHELTER BOX: We're the first people on the ground within 24 hours. What they're finding is exactly what you've seen. It's just horrific.

O'BRIEN: Since 2001, Tom's organization, Shelter Box, has delivered more than 100,000 boxes of lifesaving aid to victims of disaster all over the world.

HENDERSON: Every disaster is unusual, this particularly so because of the nuclear problem that's unfolding. Clean water is becoming a problem as will food very shortly.

O'BRIEN: Each shelter box contains items critical to survival after a disaster.

HENDERSON: We've got 400 to 600 on the ground already there. We've committed up to 5,000 boxes if they're required.

O'BRIEN: Just as it was last year in Haiti, Tom Henderson's Shelter Box is again on the front lines, ready to assist in recovery efforts and provide much-needed aid to a country in crisis.

HENDERSON: What keeps us going is very simple, is that need, the desperate need to help people as quickly as we can.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VELSHI: To learn more about Shelter Box or donate to its relief effort, visit CNNHeroes.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: All right. Forty-one minutes after the hour.

Let me give a look at the latest headlines and some stories you may have missed.

In a statement seen just moments ago here on CNN, President Obama issued an ultimatum to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi: stop fighting now or face military action.

Last night, the United Nations imposed a no-fly zone on Libya and authorized member countries to take all necessary measure to protect civilians. The Libyan government responded by announcing an immediate end to military operations against its opponents. But Western observers are skeptical.

Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan is calling the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant very grave. Japan today raised the crisis level to five on a seven-point scale, putting it on par with the 1979 Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania, but still below the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union.

A small amount of radiation has now reached the U.S. West Coast. Officials say it is far too little to affect anyone's health.

Let's take a quick look at how the stock market is doing. The Dow has pared some of its gains, up 94 points. This has been quite a rough week on markets with all the news out of the Middle East and, of course, Japan -- triple digit losses for three days earlier this week. Some recovery yesterday and now, it does look like we're going to end positively today, although hour and a quarter to go. We'll keep on top of it for you.

Google created a Person Finder to help find missing loved ones in hard hit areas. So far, a few hundred thousand records have been post with respect to Japan. We'll show you what this amazing program can do next.

Stay with me.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: In today's big breakdown, we're looking at Google's Person Finder. This is really neat, it's basically Google's version of an online message board, but specifically for missing people. Right now it's being used in the crisis in Japan. Anyone can logon to post information about somebody you're looking for or information you have about someone who might be -- who someone else might be looking for.

CNNMoney's David Goldman is following the story, he joins us live from New York.

David, what's interesting about this is is that this is an example of Google, corporate America, if you will, getting in there and really using its own resources to help out in disasters. It wasn't invented for Japan, but it actually comes out of the fabric of the way Google looks at its business.

Tell us about how it came about.

DAVID GOLDMAN, CNNMONEY.COM: That's exactly right. Google is one of the largest tech companies in the world, we know this. But what Google does is something interesting, they allow their employees what's called 20 percent time, where it's one day a week that they give to all their employees to work on a project that's important to them, not necessarily their day job.

And during the Haiti earthquake a year ago, one Google engineer and a number of his friends got together and they said, look, we really need to do something about this. What are we going to do? So they lobbied Google's top brass to use their 20 percent time to work on a project that eventually became Person Finder, and that's a tool a lot of people are using in Japan to locate loved ones.

VELSHI: How does it work? You've got it next to you.

GOLDMAN: That's right. So when you go to Person Finder, you can either say I'm looking for someone or I have information about someone. And you just -- you can get this right on Google's home page. They actually have, if you go there on your computer, you can see, it says "Resources for Japan." This is one of those resources.

And you can click on "I'm looking for someone," "I have information about someone," and enter information so that you can gather information.

You can see right there someone said that they're fine, giving information to their friends and family that they're OK. In a crisis, it's a good way to get information about the people who they don't know about.

One really interesting thing as well is that they are allowing you to take pictures of lists at shelters, because it's impossible to get all the information up. Even though they have almost 350,000 records at the shelters, there are so many people that are there right now. You can take a picture of the list and upload it to Picasso which is Google's photo forum, and they create web albums for them. And actually the engineers who are working for Google are working around the clock, uploading the lists that are on photos up to their Person Finder.

VELSHI: All right, David, thanks for telling us about this, we appreciate it.

David Goldman, he does great stuff by the way on CNNMoney, check it out there.

Speaking of CNNMoney, another great story about to come from them. How close do you live or work to a nuclear plant? Poppy Harlow is going to show you how to find out right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: How far away do you live or work from a nuclear power plant? Not sure? Well, Poppy Harlow and the fine folks from Money have a terrific tool to help you find out.

Take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

POPPY HARLOW, CNNMONEY.COM: Well, you know, in the wake of the crisis in Japan, I want to show you something that can be very helpful to you that we have on CNNMoney, this interactive map of the United States where every single red dot represents one of the 64 nuclear plants in this country.

As you can see, the bulk of them are to the east of the Mississippi River. But honestly, what you care about is how close is one of these plants to where you work or to where you live.

You enter your zip code. So what we're going to do is we're going to enter the zip code of our office here at CNN, that's 10019. Once you have your zip code in, all you do is hit get results and that shows you -- look, the closest nuclear plant to where I'm standing right now is just 34 miles away, it's called Indian Point. Now the deep red circle around it, that represent it is ten-mile radius where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the air could be unsafe to breathe in the event of a catastrophe.

Now the lighter red circle you see around here, that represents a 50-mile radius. So it really covers all of New York City, and that is where food, water, supplies could be unsafe to consume in the wake of a catastrophe.

So let's move outside of New York. Let's take a look, say, at Washington D.C. We plugged in the zip code of the White House, and again, you have a nuclear plant within that 50-mile radius, it is 45 miles away from the White House.

Then, finally, let's head out to California. Let's take a look at Los Angeles, for example. Now, Los Angeles is 73 miles away from the closest nuclear reactor. But again, you have a lot of towns that are within that 50-mile radius.

So you can plug in your address, wherever you live, wherever you work in this map to see exactly how close you may be to a nuclear reactor and you might not even know it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VELSHI: OK. So now you know how to find out how close you are to a nuclear plant. Does it matter? Aren't they supposed to be safe? What if they aren't?

Well, that brings us to our question of the day: Should nuclear energy be a source of electricity?

Our Stream Team is going to tackle that topic after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: In light of what's happened at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, there's been a lot of talk about the safety and value of nuclear plants here in the United States. There are 104 of them.

Joining me now are Anna Aurilio and Patrick Moore.

Anna, you are thee director of the D.C. Office for Environment America. Tell me about these criticisms. Do you think they're valid? Are -- is nuclear electricity -- nuclear-generated electricity a path we should be pursuing in the United States?

ANNA AURILIO, DIRECTOR OF D.C. OFFICE, ENVIRONMENT AMERICA: Look, the events unfolding in Japan are a heartbreaking reminder of the dangers of nuclear power. And no, they're not worth the risk.

VELSHI: All right, let's go to Patrick for a second.

Patrick, you're the chair or chief scientist at Greenspirit Strategies. You're the co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace. I would guess that would mean that you don't like nuclear power either, but you actually think that we should be pursuing this path?

DR. PATRICK MOORE, GREENSPIRIT STRATEGIES (via telephone): Absolutely. I spent five years as co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition in the United States working to build support for nuclear energy because it is one of the safest technologies we've ever invented.

If you look at the situation in Japan objectively, it is a crisis, they almost have it under control now and no one has been killed from radiation, just like in Three Mile Island where no one was even injured.

VELSHI: Right, I don't think we actually know that nobody -- we don't know what's happened. I mean, Three Mile Island was 1979, we're a week away from this thing.

Anna, what's your biggest concern about this, price or safety?

AURILIO: Our biggest concern is safety and safety of people. We're talking about highly strontium and cesium and plutonium, these are highly radioactive poisons that cause acute problems in people when they're exposed at high levels and even in very small amounts can cause leukemia, lung cancer, tumors.

VELSHI: What do you say to Patrick's assertion, though, that we haven't had this kind of -- we had 103, 104 plants in the U.S., they've operating for 30 or 40 years and most Americans can point to one incident?

AURILIO: Well, you know, where I'm sitting right now, we're 45 miles away from the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant. We're not secure that these plants are being adequately monitored and inspected. In fact, just yesterday, a scientific group released a report of 14 near misses at nuclear power plants in the U.S. just over the last year.

Finally we see the events in Japan and we know mother nature can be stronger than anything we can design, and the gravest threats are those that we can't foresee.

So why take the risk? Why have these ticking time bombs in our neighborhoods?

VELSHI: Patrick, what's your response to that?

MOORE: Well, the fact is, that reactor withstood the earthquake and shutdown in an orderly fashion. And it would have been an otherwise smooth emergency shutdown if it wasn't for the 30-foot wall of water that overwhelmed the backup generators which were the second --

VELSHI: But that's kind of Anna's point, right? That's mother nature.

MOORE: Yes, that is mother nature. But again, 20,000 people appears to maybe 30,000 people have been killed by the tsunami and the tsunami was what caused the problem at the reactor. You know, Indian Point reactor and Calvert Cliffs reactors aren't going to get a tsunami, and that's what went wrong here.

And the lesson to be learned here is if your reactor is near a place that might get a tsunami, that you have to build the backup generators so they won't be flooded by it, which is the wildcard that occurred here.

Just the same, they evacuated everybody, no one is being exposed, except for the workers in the plant, to higher than normal levels of radiation. Even the levels they are receiving are not life- threatening, they are within the limits that the authorities allow. And they're doing a heroic job to prevent something worse from happening.

But so far, as with Three Mile Island, this is a five out of seven where Chernobyl was a seven, releasing large amounts of --

VELSHI: Got to go Patrick, thanks very much. Appreciate both of coming here, Anna Aurilio and Dr. Patrick Moore. Obviously, this is not all we have got to say about this discussion.

Thanks to all of you.

CNN NEWSROOM continues now with Brooke Baldwin.