Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
United Nations Takes Action on Libya; Desperate Efforts in Nuclear Crisis in Japan
Aired March 17, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program. Will Cain and Gloria Borger join me this evening and we'll go to Anderson Cooper in Tokyo in a moment with a story of the most desperate efforts yet to stem the flow of radiation from the crippled Fukushima reactors.
These new aerial photos taken from military aircraft by people who surely risked their lives show just how grave the damage is. Look at that. And just imagine how difficult it will be to save the crippled facility.
But first, breaking news just coming in to us. There could -- emphasis on could -- be an attack on Libya very soon. Indeed within hours the battle for Benghazi, the battle for Libya, may well be about to begin.
This after the United Nations passed a resolution to impose a no- fly zone in Libya. But it's the further language in that resolution that really counts. It approves the use, and I quote here, "of all necessary measures to protect," quoting again, "civilians under attack."
And indeed they have been under full assault in the area around Benghazi, the last rebel stronghold in Libya. Gadhafi forces have taken town after town around the city, and many resistance forces say they are simply holding on until help comes.
Joining me now, Gloria Borger here on the set and Chris Lawrence at the Pentagon.
Chris, you're about to go into a meeting with the Pacific commander who I guess would be in charge of this. What are you hearing ahead this briefing?
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the one thing we're really going to press him on, Eliot, obviously is getting an idea of exactly what right now the U.S. thinks about the radiation leak. Exactly how bad is it, and how will it affect the Americans in that area.
We know that an elite nine-man military team was on its way to Japan. They're experts in chemical and biological warfare. They're going to be advising military commanders what to do in terms of evacuations, decontamination, if they had to operate in a chemical burn situation.
In fact, they're the only ones authorized to go within that 50- mile danger zone that everyone else is being kept out of. We're also going to try to find out more about evacuating military families in that area. We know that there are thousands of American troops based within -- near that -- where the radiation is coming.
And this is not a war zone. You've got husbands, wives, children that live there with them. Going to try get some more information about how many may be interested in being evacuated from Japan.
SPITZER: You know, Chris, you know, we are focusing here on two areas of the world that are in tumult. One of them, obviously, you're just talking about, the evacuation near and around the Fukushima reactors where obviously we're doing everything and our military is doing everything to get Americans to safety. And you told us that that is exactly priority.
On a different battlefront, a different battle, a military battle, what are you hearing at the Pentagon? Or if this is not your beat then we'll go -- you know, we'll find elsewhere. What are you hearing about how soon we're actually going to be in combat with Libya?
LAWRENCE: It could be very soon but it may not be the U.S. landing the first blow so to speak, Eliot.
You know, we're hearing that an attack or instituting this no-fly zone over Libya could occur within a matter of a day or so or two days, but again it may be a European ally that is flying some of those first flights over Libya to take out its air defenses.
Libya has hundreds of surface-to-air missiles, but 25 years ago, the U.S. hit Libyan targets. They bombed parts of Libya in retaliation for Colonel Gadhafi's support of terrorism.
At that time, they must have dropped in the neighborhood of 400 bombs and only lost one plane. In the years since, Libya has not updated its surface-to-air capability much at all. The U.S. has, so ultimately there is a feeling that they will be able to overcome any of Libya's air defenses.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Chris, as you know better than anyone, the secretary of defense was not exactly a fan of no-fly zones and came out very specifically and said he thought that they wouldn't work, that they would take too long to implement.
Now this U.N. resolution seems to be much broader in its authorization, authorizing, it seems to me, attacks almost momentarily in what they're calling maybe safe areas to protect the people in places like Benghazi.
What are you hearing about that?
LAWRENCE: That's right. Some of the contingencies could be taking out some of his armament, some of his -- Colonel Gadhafi's artillery, things like that. One of the terms we heard tossed around today was sort of a no-drive zone.
BORGER: Right.
LAWRENCE: Just a couple of weeks, a lot of the Pentagon officials were saying they don't want to go that far. Now the feeling within -- from U.S. officials is a no-fly zone just not going to cut it. It's going to have to go beyond that.
BORGER: Is there -- is there a sense -- the people I talked to at the White House are very pleased with what the United Nations has done, clearly. They say that, you know, they believe that it only took them five weeks to get all of this done, which they believe is nothing short of miraculous.
Is the -- is the feeling the same at the Pentagon? Or does the Pentagon believe that in fact a no-fly zone may not work, this no- drive zone may not work, and that they may be getting themselves into something they're not willing to get into even with a coalition of the willing?
LAWRENCE: Well, Gloria, I mean history tells us that a no-fly zone can be effective, but there's no guarantees. It worked in northern Iraq because in large parts because the Kurdish forces controlled the ground area there.
It wasn't so effective in southern Iraq. Remember, Saddam Hussein was still able to go into southern Iraq and virtually massacre many of the Shiites living there because there was no control of the ground.
So yes, a no-fly zone can be effective in certain circumstances. But I think what we were hearing from the Pentagon is just instituting a no-fly zone doesn't exactly cure any or all of the problems in Libya right now.
SPITZER: All right. Chris, thank you very much for that update.
Nic Robertson has been reporting on Moammar Gadhafi's moves and today he spoke with Gadhafi's son, Saadi. Nic joins us from Libya.
Nic, Gadhafi told a radio program today that he, and I quote here, "will find the rebels in their closets." And he has vowed to retake Benghazi.
Tell us about your conversation with his son.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, his son was quite -- the conversation was quite bizarre. I mean it came literally as a U.N. Security Council was hearing the last thoughts of different nations just minutes before that vote came.
And what I was told was that the Gadhafi regime would change its tactics, that they would no longer prosecute a heavy military offensive. That the army would merely surround Benghazi, the army wouldn't go into the city, their heavy weapons wouldn't be used. The army, in fact, would help civilians who were trying to leave Benghazi, fleeing in fear, he said, that -- of a possible assault. He said what government would do would be to send in police and special forces units to deal with, as he called them, the terrorists.
So that seemed to be an incredibly last-minute piece of brinkmanship and change of tactics. And we just heard from the deputy foreign minister here who quite strangely as well said that he welcomes the U.N. Resolution 1973, because this is a resolution he said that protects the people and stands for the territorial integrity of the country.
Just quite bizarre to hear that in many ways, but what he went on to say was the international community cannot arm the rebels, he said, because that would encourage them, encourage the people of Libya to kill each other -- Eliot.
SPITZER: You know, Nic, the language and the rhetoric coming out of Gadhafi, of course, is always one of brinkmanship. And it is just outlandish and over the top in its implications in the language he uses.
It seems as though the issue has now come to the point where a final battle is inevitable. And it's inevitable right now with the United States, France, England, itching to get in there, protect the rebels.
So isn't it almost necessary that Gadhafi use his forces, do whatever he's going to do before the absolute might of France, England, and the United States come pouring down on him in one form or another and try and push him back into Tripoli?
ROBERTSON: I mean he's been trying to beat -- beat this descending hammer that's coming on him for several weeks now. He accelerated the military campaign because he was concerned that a no- fly zone might be imposed.
I asked the deputy foreign minister in everything that you have said telling us now your response to the U.N. Security Council resolution, does that mean that you will now follow it to the letter and enforce a cease-fire as a resolution calls for, an immediate cease-fire? And he said, well, yes, but it's going to take some time to work it out because there are technicalities to go for.
And he spoke in a very suave way and sophisticated way and talked about his meetings with the U.N. secretary general, special representative here yesterday. So clearly there's a fudge factor being built into the time frame here. The government on one hand saying yes, we'll go for a cease-fire, on the other hand saying well, not quite right now. The technicalities have to be worked out.
So it rather gives the impression the government really wants to get some more military business done on the ground before it's willing to hold the army back from Benghazi. I get the impression they want to take this last city before Benghazi and Ajdabiya and then hold up, hold -- and go for the cease-fire once again in the outskirts of Benghazi -- Eliot.
WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Nic, Will Cain.
As news of the U.N. resolution spreads, I'm curious what you hear of the attitude of the opposition. Are they despondent? Are they relieved? Has this really reached a celebratory mood? What do you hear from the opposition?
ROBERTSON: The opposition, this is a -- this is a celebration. And we've heard of fireworks celebrating up in Benghazi, crowds coming out on the streets. I mean this is what they've been waiting for. This gives them, A, some legitimacy that they've been craving, and B, some military muscle at their backs.
This is has been -- this will stiffen their resolve. They will really be beaten back. They've fallen back more than 200 miles. Military gains that Gadhafi's forces have made. So this is going to encourage them. They'll know that now it's more than air strikes that might be on their side, and other means will be deployed as the resolution says to assist them.
So clearly they're feeling a whole lot more upbeat about the situation right now, Will.
BORGER: Nic, it's Gloria Borger. We're actually looking at pictures of celebration in Benghazi at the word of the U.N. resolution. But I want to ask you about this question about arming the rebels. Because there is some concern in Washington that arming the rebels either directly or for money could be a bad thing because we're not sure who all of them are. We're not sure all of them are good guys. And that it could create a bad situation on the ground for us eventually.
What's your -- what's your take on that?
ROBERTSON: I think, Gloria, there are several things that play into this, and we've seen flowback of this nature before where small armed groups have been armed by the international community to assist in bringing down a tyrannical regime, and then have used those weapons against the sponsors that have helped them.
Will that happen here in Libya? That's been what the Libyan government has been saying. They've been saying that in the east of the country have these al Qaeda elements. I don't think anyone doubts them. The Libyan government has overblown this and made it far bigger than it is in realty.
But yes, there are people sympathetic to al Qaeda in the east of the country. We saw this because Libya was the second largest contributing nation to al Qaeda forces in Iraq, in 2006. That many of -- many of those people had come from the east of Libya. So yes, there is a possibility. Yes, al Qaeda does want to strengthen itself in North Africa at the moment.
But also there's going to be another thing that plays into this. Gadhafi is going use any arming of the rebels to try and unite the country to say that this is international intervention, and if there's one thing that can help him rally the force around him and him alone, it is going to be telling people that the international community is trying to bring down the country and they're trying to do it with international intervention on the ground. So that's another way this is going play out, Gloria.
SPITZER: All right, Nic. Thank you so much for that update.
We're going to take a quick break. We'll be back with Anderson Cooper in Tokyo.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Serious questions remain about how the Japanese government is handling the crisis of the Fukushima nuclear reactors. Anderson Cooper is in Tokyo.
Anderson, there's been a ton of confusion about the extent of the danger. Has the Japanese government or the power company over there provided any additional information to clear this up?
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN'S AC 360: Well, we -- it sounded like from the IAEA that there had been one step forward, and the IAEA had reported that power had actually been restored. Power had been connected to reactor number two.
TEPCO, which is the Japanese company which runs these reactors, has now come out and said actually that is not true, that the IAEA report is not true. They are trying to restore electrical power to reactor number two. Ultimately they're going to try to restore power to all of the reactors obviously.
Because, as you know Eliot, that's what started this whole problem -- this whole cascade of problems in the first place, the lack of power to keep the fuel rods cool. But -- so the fact that they have not restored power, that is depressing piece news but they say they're going to continue to try today.
But frankly, they also said yesterday they were going to try to do it yesterday. So they are overwhelmed at this point just trying to react to as many different things as possible. The priority for them, it seems, over the last 12 hours to 24 hours has been cooling down the fuel rods and the reactor -- and the reactor in the -- excuse me, the spent fuel rods in the pool in reactor number three.
They've been trying to do that. First they tried to do it from the air about 24 hours ago using four different helicopters. Only one of those drops was successful. Then they brought in water cannons last night. They tried to do it. The police tried to do it. They try to go within 50 yards. They got pushed back.
Then the Japanese military using five water canon trucks tried to pour water from the ground on to it. They said they did that for about an hour. But Japanese officials admit they're not clear what impact that has had. That is extremely troubling, that seems to be the focus right now at this hour. There's also, they reported, drop in pressure in rector number three. That could mean some sort of a rupture. And you still have the issue in reactor number four.
This contradiction between what the U.S. said is going on and what Japanese officials say is going on, the U.S. yesterday said very clearly there's little to no water in the -- on the spent fuel rod pool for reactor number four. Japanese officials say, well, they don't actually know if there is or isn't water. They don't know how much water there might be, if there is any water at all.
So some contradiction there, but again, the focus right now seems to be restoring power which would be a major step, and fighting -- getting some water on to those spent fuel rods in reactor number three -- Eliot.
SPITZER: You know, Anderson, there is so much going on there it almost makes your head spin. One of the background issues, of course, is that there were only at one point about 50 people going in to try to handle all this. Any sense of what the size is of the force that is actually able to go into the reactor spaces to try to deal with getting water in or even fly over. As you said, these helicopter efforts have not been terribly successful.
How big is the force that is now trying to undertake all these multiple efforts?
COOPER: Well, I mean, the last figure I had heard was 180, which is the figure that the company had put out. That was yesterday. That -- that doesn't seem to include whatever helicopter pilots have attempted. But remember, those helicopter operations stopped after the fourth one, only one of them was able to drop water.
The winds were very high which is good news in general because that means it's pushing whatever's released out into the ocean. But it makes it hard to drop water, but those pilots, the radiation levels even 100 feet above the plant are very high. And so that may be one of the reasons that these pilots also stopped attempting to drop water on this thing.
And the radiation levels on the ground obviously are high and therefore very difficult for workers to get close. So it's not clear. They say they were -- they had 180, but they were rotating them through. That they were measuring their radiation levels and they're trying to keep them within acceptable levels.
They've actually raised, Eliot, the limit of radiation that one can be exposed to working in a plant. They just did that the other day. So now there's a higher dose that these workers are legally allowed to be exposed to. I'm not sure what in terms of their health if that's really such a good idea. But at this point, those workers working on the ground, truly heroic efforts. And obviously they know, you know, the implications of what it means for them long term.
CAIN: Hi, Anderson, Will Cain. I'm curious about the sense of frustration or fear among the Japanese people. Eliot talked about some of the mixed messages between our government and their government. We certainly get a sense of frustration among the American media.
But I'm curious, are the Japanese people frustrated with their own government and the messages they're receiving? Are they scared about what's going on at this plant?
COOPER: You know, I can tell you certainly the people I've talked to, just about everybody is frustrated, angry, though it's not -- you know, there's not demonstrations in the streets or anything by and large. That's not -- that's not Japan. So there is, there's a lot of concern that -- you know, there's just this credibility gap between -- the people, frankly, a lot of people just don't believe what they are hearing from their officials.
And this is very much in Tokyo. You know up north, you have this whole other issue that people there are dealing with. They're dealing with the aftermath of the tsunami, which hit that area in the northeast, about half a million, 450,000 people in shelters right now, homeless. Supplies in some of these shelters are very low, medicines for the elderly, have a lot of elderly population up there. Food, water.
So they have a whole other set of challenges and frustrations and things to be upset and angry about. But again, I mean, there is calm. By and large people are stoic and, you know, following this very closely. There's -- you know, those who can get out are heading further south.
But there's certainly a growing sense I think of frustration and, you know, hope that it's going to resolve.
SPITZER: All right. Anderson, thank you. Stay safe. We'll be checking back in with you later.
In America, we have 104 nuclear reactors and 23 of them are the same design as the Fukushima nuclear plant. As we look at the multiple crises in Japan, the obvious question is this -- could the same thing happen here in the United States?
Jim Walsh joins us again. He's a nuclear security expert. He's been looking into this question.
Jim, welcome.
JIM WALSH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be with you, Eliot.
SPITZER: First, Jim, I just got to start -- yesterday we had this dramatic tension between what the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was saying, he was saying you have no water in unit four over in Japan, and some 24 hours later we're not hearing anything about this.
What do you make of this? What do you make of the current situation over there? Are they making any progress, or are we still on the brink of a crisis?
WALSH: All right, two -- those two questions. One, what about this dispute between Japan and the United States? There appear to have been some helicopter photographs that suggest that there is some water in the nuclear waste fuel -- pool, the spent rod pool there at reactor number four.
Now that's good but that's not good enough. If you have a little bit water, it does give you some cooling, but because those rods, that nuclear waste is so hot, that's going to boil off and evaporate pretty quickly. So it's better than nothing but there may be a very minor difference at the end of the day between some water and zero water. But the goal obviously is to continue to put water in and to try to keep them cool.
Now as to the broader picture, are things better or worse? Well, you know, I'm a Pollyanna, I'm a hardwired optimist. I would say today was a good day. Why was today a good day? Because things apparently didn't get any worse than they were yesterday. And we've had six or seven days where they got worse every day.
What do I mean by that? Well, it seems as if at reactor units one and two and five and six the situation is stabilizing a little bit. The core focus is on reactor units three and four and in particular the spent fuel ponds where they keep the nuclear waste. And that seems to be where people are focusing.
But, you know, half the -- you know part of the battle here is trying to deal with six problems all at the same time. So if we could get, you know, stabilization, just get through another day with one and two and five and six, at least that would bring us closer to the point where the workers can focus their attention and their energies on a few problems, not six different problems at the same time.
So I think news about electrical power coming possibly, that gives us a glimmer of hope. It's not -- there's still a lot of steps left there, but at least gives us reason to hope that we're making progress and maybe at the outer edges, some of these things are getting stabilized.
But there's no doubt that four and five, the spent fuel ponds, the nuclear waste that is generating radiation, that continues to be a major issue with not an easy resolution in sight.
CAIN: Hey, Jim, Will Cain here.
Listen, I know you know how TV works, but days ahead of this, as you talk to our producers the last couple of days, you were way out in front on talking about these spent fuel ponds. That this could be a potential problem. I'm curious, how did you know this was going to be a problem?
Is this a common design flaw for nuclear reactor containment sites, and does that mean this problem exists at the nuclear sites, the nuclear plants in our country? Is it that common that you knew automatically this is going to be a problem? WALSH: Well, Will, part of why I was worried about this was that, you know, when you look at a picture of a mark 1 plant and see that the nuclear waste is being stored in the upper levels of that building and you're having hydrogen explosions in the upper level of that building, and you know that that nuclear waste isn't in a containment vessel, it's more exposed than the fuel rods. That's what made me worry about it.
And historically, if you go back and you look at the documents where you had nuclear engineers, people working for the company, who were building these plants, they were expressing the same sort of concern. So that's why I was nervous about it.
But everyone was focusing on the reactors. Then we're talking about this other thing. So that's why I mentioned it to Eliot. And unfortunately, it did come to pass.
Now your second question, Will, is, does this apply to the United States? Well, you know, I think viewers should keep in mind that there's a big difference here between the U.S. and Japan. The situations between these two countries.
We don't put six plants all together in one place which is part of what the problem is here. But there are some design vulnerabilities, and there's no doubt about that. So I think there are two things that people worry about in terms of the nuclear waste, the -- that's being stored at those plants that you referred to.
One is, and this came after 9/11, are they vulnerable to terrorist attack? What happens if you get a group of al Qaeda, they grab a plane and they aim the plane, not at the reactor but at the spent fuel pond that's up in those plants, in those 24 plants? And because there's no containment vessel, they're able to plunge the plane in. You have a dramatic loss of cooling, and then some of them begin to catch fire or they melt or in any case generate a lot of radiation.
I think that's the core concern in the last 10 years. More -- in the long term, the question is what are we going to do with all this waste? You know? We keep generating nuclear energy, the waste is building up, and we have no long-term solution and we have no interim solution. So those are the two issues that I think people are most focused on on the U.S. plants.
SPITZER: You know, let's come back to the actual design of the plants here in the United States. And again, we don't want anybody to start getting overly concerned although there are folks who already are I suppose. The issue of having these spent fuel ponds outside the containment vessel, is that part of the design feature here?
I know we've got 23 of these mark 1s here in the United States. So are you telling us that in those pools, as well, the spent rods are not under some sort of protective containment -- vessel that would contain any radiation if something did go wrong?
WALSH: Well, I mean, they have -- there's steel and there's concrete. But they're not designed to at the same level as the reactor core. The focus is always traditionally historically been on the reactor core. And so that's where you see the most effort. And those are designed to withstand, you know, the most severe impacts.
And then the spent fuel pools, yes, they are protected. They're protected by steel, there's an outer casing of concrete. But not nearly to the -- designed to the level to withstand the same sort of challenge that a reactor core might be exposed to.
SPITZER: All right. Jim, well, hang on for a second. We're going to bring in Tom Foreman from our D.C. bureau.
Tom, what's the latest there and -- that you're hearing in terms of the efforts to stabilize the reactors?
TOM FOREMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, to echo some of what Jim said a minute ago, Eliot, really the encouraging part here is what we're hearing is that there really is much more of a real battle plan at this point.
Look, we've watched this helicopter thing going on here, and it hasn't seemed very effective. But look at the overall targeting they're aiming at here. This is reactor number three, this is the one where all of that water activity has been focused. Look at all the holes in it, all of the problems.
One of the reasons you focus on that in part is because you have concerns about what's happening both with the spent roads and with what's happening inside, and you can get to it. So the helicopters come over head, they drop water, you have trucks down below, both a water canon and fire trucks here.
Some of these designed actually for putting water on to aviation accidents. So they had a lot of range. They took that beaten up building we were looking at a while ago, pumped water on to it, and there's at least some sense that maybe they were able to lower the level of radiation some by cooling this a little bit.
But let's move beyond that and ask this question about the battle plan for everything else. We talked about all four reactors. Jim mentioned number five and six tonight, we believe a diesel generator is now working there. So they've got some cooling going on on those reactors.
We know that number one over here has not had the problems of some of the others. Number two has been a concern, that's where they're trying to get that big power line into, and the reason they're trying to store it here is because they believe they've had the least amount of structural damage here, so if they can plug it in in effect, they might be able to get cooling systems working here.
So then you start saying maybe we've got five and six under control. Maybe one is OK. Maybe two can be brought on line. If we can push three down, we're somewhat OK. And then the big problem continues to be number four, which we've been talking about all along, and the question of how much water is in on these spent rods right now.
And we just don't know. We keep getting contradictory reports. This continues to be the big bear in this because if this is emitting uncontrolled radiation that's why the helicopters can't get close, that's why the water trucks can't get closer, that's why the workers are being impeded in their work. Nonetheless, I think all of us would agree if -- and there's a lot of ifs here, if, Eliot, they can get all those other units under some kind of control a piece at a time, not complete control, but some kind of control, then maybe they can take on this much bigger question of what do you do with number four, especially if you can keep the other ones from turning into this long way. So that's where they seem to stand right now. It's a battle plan and they needed a battle plan. Today, that looks a lot better than it did yesterday.
SPITZER: You know, Tom, let me pose it to you this way. Because you're right, there's a battle plan, we know where the problems and the crises are right now. If there is no water in the pool at number four, how much time do we have before something bad happens? And in this intervening period, what are the measurements in terms of radiation showing us in terms of how much is both inside the perimeter of this facility and how much is outside? So are we beginning to see things going up or down in terms of exposure to both civilians outside and the folks who are working there?
FOREMAN: I think, Eliot, the safe way to say it is there's a lot we don't know in there because we've been getting all sorts of different reports about the readings, whether they're in milliseverts or microsieverts, and whether they're going up at this hour or down at that hour. It's the very problem we started off talking with when you're talking to Anderson a while ago. There's been a lot of conflicting reports about this.
Generally, we have watched the radiation reports go up earlier in the week, and generally they don't seem to be as high now. But what that tells you about someone who's trying to work near this facility or next to number three or number two or number one or people out in the neighborhood, that doesn't help you a whole lot. As a practical matter, what we're being told is that people aren't being subjected to instantly fatal doses of this or out-of-control doses.
Generally, what we're hearing is that we're not talking about a clearly "harmful to humans level" at this point. But I have to tell you, having done this a long time, I have limited faith in those reports right now because they're just so sporadic and they seem so all over the map. It seems very hard to tell what's going on. Maybe that's a natural outgrowth of dealing with something like this, which as you know is unbelievably difficult, or maybe it's because people aren't entirely shooting straight.
SPITZER: You know, Tom --
FOREMAN: Time schedule, I don't know, Eliot. I truly don't know. When you start talking about something like that coming unhinged, and I think Jim would know better than I do. But it's not something you can put a thumbtack in and nail down. SPITZER: Right. Here's another question just in terms of data. And you're right. One of things people are just kind of surprised is that the data isn't more precise with all the measurement techniques around, you know, the technology has produced for us. The question of how much water is in the pool at that reactor number four --
FOREMAN: Right.
SPITZER: -- the inability to get a hard answer to that. Am I correct that that pool is actually open to the sky? I mean, the roof was blown off, right?
FOREMAN: Not really. It -- I've looked at a lot of satellite images of this, and I'm not convinced that that's the case.
I will say this -- here's one of the reasons. One of the problems you have trouble with the measurements is the same trouble you're having with everything over Japan right now. The earthquake itself apparently, not only took the power away from all of their measuring tools here, but in many cases apparently messed up the calibration on them or made it impossible for them to even be connected right now. So all of the tools they would normally count on to say what's going on inside this chamber or inside this reactor, they've lost. And when you're dealing with something like radioactivity, you need to have those tools. They just don't have them.
Beyond that, I think the other question is, is there water in here and is this roof gone up here or not? I've looked at the pictures, and I cannot -- I simply cannot say with certainty. There's one moment in that helicopter video you were showing just a while ago where they fly by low. There's one tiny glint of light that comes out of this facility that is being cited as evidence that that's light reflecting off of water. You might be able to see it here. It's very hard to see. Even if we stopped and circled it, you'd have a hard time with it. That's being cited as evidence that there's some water there. Other people are saying there's not water there. The simple truth is, Eliot, nobody can prove it either way right now. And by the time anybody gets inside there, I'm not sure that's going to prove it either because we'll just be able to say, well, that's where we are now.
SPITZER: Yes.
FOREMAN: It doesn't tell us where it was.
SPITZER: You know, you just kind of wish we could drop in some sort of robot or, you know, remote-controlled vehicle. We have something on Mars that's moving around. You wonder if we can just put a little vehicle in there, control it, drop it down that would get in there and measure that water. Because boy, if there's no water, we've got a crisis of some unbelievable magnitude. If there is water there, then, you know, we can all breathe a deeper sigh of relief.
FOREMAN: Depending on how much there is, Eliot.
SPITZER: That's exactly right.
FOREMAN: As Jim pointed out earlier, if it's just a little bit of water, if it's like this and part of it is exposed, that's better but it's not good.
SPITZER: Yes. All right. Tom Foreman, Jim Walsh, thanks for being with us.
Next, we try again to get some answers straight from Japan. We tried last night. We weren't going to quit until we got them straight. We're going to try again in a few moments. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Now we have an opportunity to get some answers directly from Japan. Taro Kono was a member of the House of Representatives in Japan and a leading member of the Liberal Democratic Party. That party that used to be in charge of it is no longer. Mr. Kono joins us tonight from Tokyo.
Thank you so much for being with us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
SPITZER: First, Mr. Kono, let me express our condolences as everybody here shares your pain and your agony, and I hope you understand we are doing everything we can to help in every way imaginable with this enormous, enormous crisis.
TARO KONO, JAPANESE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBER: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
SPITZER: Let me preface this by saying that in the WikiLeaks document that's are now the source of all information, you are quoted as having told U.S. diplomats that the nuclear industry and the government in Japan have covered up nuclear crises in prior years. So the question I've got to ask you -- given that there is this huge divergence between the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's evaluation of how severe this is, what we heard about yesterday, saying things were about to blow up on us and what the Japanese government is telling us, are we getting the straight story from the Japanese government?
KONO: Well, the Japanese government and Tokyo Power Company famous for releasing the information kind of late. Something happened in the morning, and you get the information after lunch. But they don't tell you lies. They are just too bureaucratic. And we are asking government to release the information more timely. And the Ministry of Education and Science set up a Web site yesterday. So you can monitor all the numbers coming from the radiation.
SPITZER: But I just have to follow up on that. We have heard such a fundamentally divergent perspective. We were told yesterday by the chairman of our Nuclear Regulatory Commission that there was no water whatsoever in the pond with the spent fuel rods at reactor number four and -- or maybe a tiny, tiny little bit, whereas your government was saying, no, no problem there. Which one is correct, do you believe?
You're a senior member of now the opposition party. You've been deeply involved in the regulation of the nuclear industry. What is your best information? Are we -- do we face a crisis at that reactor number four in the spent fuel pond right at this moment?
KONO: I don't think the reactor four is just about to blow up or anything. We don't really have the accurate inside information. We are trying to find out. That's why we are trying to tackle on the other three reactors so that we can approach to their reactor number four. This situation might hold for a while, but it's not going to blow up anything.
WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Mr. Kono, questions like whether or not radiation is contaminating the environment in Japan, what levels of radiation might be emanating throughout the environment seem kind of important. So why? Why if you find something out in the morning do you wait until the afternoon to tell the public?
KONO: I think that's a red tape, and they have -- we had an earthquake in Nagata, and there was an accident, and the Tokyo Power Company was not releasing information timely. And they've been criticized for that. And we have been, the opposition have been asking government to release information from the government, you know, not let TEPCO handle the information. So the government is taking over releasing the information. Now the Ministry of Education and Science has set up a Web site and I heard the prime minister's office doing much more sophisticated Web sites setting up to release all the information concerning the Fukushima first plant. I think it's coming up soon.
CAIN: Let me see if I totally understand. So the government, which you criticized for speaking slowly to its people, might take over communications from TEPCO. So what problems might there be coming from TEPCO then?
KONO: Right.
CAIN: What level of communication problems that we're having from TEPCO then?
KONO: Well, I think TEPCO might try to clarify with the government before they release the information. And now, the government and TEPCO has sort of a joint headquarter for this issue. And the government will start releasing the information in a timely basis instead of TEPCO.
SPITZER: Look, you have accused the industry and government in the past of covering up -- and I understand this is an awkward question for you to ask. Did any of those cover-ups, did any of those safety problems that have not been addressed in the past contribute to the failure of TEPCO to properly address this problem? Is this part of a culture of cover-up? Is this part of a culture of not being straight and sincere about safety issues?
KONO: If you are referring to the WikiLeaks thing, what I've been criticizing is the government and the power industry trying to lead the nuclear strategy into the wrong way, namely getting the plutonium out of spent fuel by reprocessing without having fast breather (ph) reactor. The Japanese regulator and the ministry has been very meticulous about the safety issue. I think we have one of the hottest regulation on nuclear, and I don't think -- I mean, they are slow in coming out of the information, but they don't tell you lies. They don't really cover up. What I meant in discussion with Ambassador Schieffer is that they are trying to lead a nuclear strategy in the wrong way and they don't really open up the debate for that.
SPITZER: If I understand you properly, you were referring to what we call as the MOX, which is the acronym for the type of enriched uranium which also has plutonium in that that has been in some of these reactors, am I correct about that?
KONO: That's right, that's right.
SPITZER: If I'm right then, that is --
KONO: Japan --
SPITZER: Excuse me. Am I right, that is part of the strategy that actually is creating this crisis in the sense that that is a highly enriched and perhaps more dangerous type of uranium and plutonium? That if it were to, in fact, have a complete meltdown would then release radiation that would be even more severe. So this is part of the set of issues you were talking about in terms of the cover-up?
KONO: Well, we have 40 tons of plutonium in Japan. And we are trying to add eight tons every year. With our having a fast breather reactor, having plutonium doesn't make much sense. That's what I've been criticizing for 15 years. About the safety of the mark fuel, you just have to ask the scientist. I'm not in position to comment on it.
SPITZER: All right. Mr. Kono, again, thank you so much for joining us. And as I said, we wish only the best in resolving this crisis and hope there is no more harm to anybody anywhere in Japan from the earthquake, the tsunami, or this nuclear event. So thank you for being here.
KONO: Thank you.
SPITZER: Coming up next, the no-fly zone is probably just the beginning of an escalation in Libya. A military expert tells us what lies ahead. When we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Back to the breaking news in Libya. As President Gadhafi's forces to continue to advance against rebel positions, the United Nations has approved a resolution to implement a no-fly zone and use and I quote now, "all necessary measures to stop him." Joining me now to help break down what this means, Major General James "Spider" Marks. General, two questions I suppose, how is this going to be implemented and how fast is it going to start?
MAJ. GENERAL (RET.) JAMES A. "SPIDER" MARKS: First question is I'm not sure. Clearly, the 10 members in the Security Council that voted for it, I would imagine will want to pony up some resources to make that happen. But it is a very difficult task bringing together the different types of aircraft, all the air clearance messages, all the type of coordination that needs to take place, not the least of which is who's got the lead. It's clearly not the United Nations. It's going to be tagged with some nation's flag in order to implement this. Then you have to establish what those rules of engagement look like.
And how long it's going to take, I don't know. It's probably going to -- at a minimum, it's going to be several days. But the thing that's very difficult here is that no-fly zone by itself does very little. Gadhafi doesn't need his aircraft, frankly, to achieve the results that he's trying to achieve. What needs to be in place is something that's akin to the operation northern watch and operation southern watch which was implemented in Iraq for the intervening years between Desert Storm in the early '90s and Iraqi Freedom back in 2003. What happened there is it was not only a no-fly zone, it was a no- drive zone. And any movement north or south of the designated lines were punished. And Saddam got the message very clearly. If this is going to be implemented, it has to be much broader in its definition.
SPITZER: Well, let me -- you know, I don't want to read the whole U.N. resolution to you, but does have pretty broad language there. It talks about using all necessary measures to protect civilians in civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan area, et cetera, et cetera.
MARKS: Right.
SPITZER: So it would seem to me that, look, the U.S. military has known this might be coming for quite some time now. Are they ready at this moment do you think, if the commander in chief, the president picks up the phone to Secretary Gates and says start right now, taking out those anti-aircraft protections around Tripoli, around Benghazi, I want to know that when I send that first sortie in, they're going to be safe. Are they ready to do that? Because time is of the essence because Gadhafi's been encircling Benghazi day by day now. So how long will it take just to get that done?
MARKS: Well, to answer your question, the military is absolutely ready. I must -- I would only acknowledge that there's probably 19 plans already that have been worked through, and there are different variations of those plans. So the short answer is sure, the U.S. military is prepared. Additionally, the president is not going to give the commander or give the chairman or the African command commander or the EUCOM (ph) commander -- I'm not sure who's going to have the lead in this particular effort -- direct guidance like that. If he says establish a no-fly zone, the questions -- assumptions have been made and questions are going to have to be answered in terms of what that truly means and who else is going to participate. Again, a no-fly zone by itself doesn't do much. It's not going to accomplish the task. Gadhafi could still march into Benghazi if his air defense systems are being knocked out. He frankly doesn't need that capability. So it needs to be a broader definition of what that kinetic action is going to look like.
SPITZER: All right. Thanks so much, General Marks. Now joined by Gloria Borger who spoke earlier with Senator Joe Lieberman just hours ago about the no-fly zone.
Gloria, what did he have to say?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, we spoke with him before the final vote in the Security Council. It's clear that he had been briefed on it. And as you know, he's been quite a critic of the administration for not taking a more upfront role in leading on Libya on the no-fly zone. And when I spoke with him a couple of hours ago, he sort of changed his tune and started complimenting the Obama administration for its leadership role. So, take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (I), CONNECTICUT: Well, the first thing I want to say is how grateful I am that the administration seems to have become very proactive in a different way that they've been. A decision has been made in the White House that unless the world community acts with the United States in an active leadership role, then Gadhafi will overwhelm the democratic opposition to him and it will be a humanitarian disaster. So number one, the U.S. is back in the leadership again, and that includes at the U.N.
Benghazi is a city of about a million people. They would be at risk I think of almost genocidal behavior by Gadhafi as he tries to take this stronghold of the rebels. If he acts against them, I think he's got to understand that the world community is prepared to take military action to just from the air probably, perhaps from sea, to stop his forces from going into Benghazi. So I'm -- I'm encouraged now. I'm sorry it took this long for the United Nations and the world community to get as active as they seem to be today, but I don't think it's too late. And --
BORGER: What -- would it be supplying direct arms to the rebels, or would it be supplying money to the rebels?
LIEBERMAN: Well, it could be either. Probably the best thing to do is to supply arms to the rebels. And this is all about the rebels being able to fight Gadhafi on their own. They're not asking for us to fight their fight. But they're in such a terribly unfair fight now, and the world has a choice between a -- a maniacal dictator who's responsible for so many deaths, including deaths in the Pan Am flight way back over Lockerbie a couple of decades ago, and these -- these opponents of his that started out as peaceful democratic revolutionaries in the same way that their brothers and sisters did in Tunisia and Egypt. And it's turned into a bloody war because Gadhafi made it that way. BORGER: So, Senator, how quickly could we get in there? If we declare, say, Benghazi a safe zone and Gadhafi has said he's going to attack the rebels there, how quickly could we protect Benghazi?
LIEBERMAN: Well, it's hard to say, but I think we could do it in a matter of days. And incidentally, by anybody's estimate right now, this is not going to be a unilateral American action. The U.S. has the capacity to lead, whether it's a no-fly zone or anything else. But I think we're going to have some of our NATO allies with us, and most important of all, we're going to have some of our allies in the Arab world, members of the Arab league that a few days ago called on the world to impose a no-fly zone against Gadhafi and take other action to protect the peaceful uprising there.
BORGER: Senator, thank you so much for being with us tonight.
LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Gloria.
BORGER: We know it's been a really busy day for you. Thank you.
LIEBERMAN: Good to be with you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BORGER: Eliot, it's clear that it was very important to Joe Lieberman that the Arab League be a part of this. And his feeling is better late than never. He wished that it had happened sooner, but it didn't. Now, he's clearly on board with the administration.
SPITZER: Indeed, that's right. He's been pushing this for quite some time.
BORGER: He has. He has.
SPITZER: All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Thanks so much for joining us IN THE ARENA tonight. Good night from New York. Piers Morgan has an exclusive interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tonight. But first, let's go back to Anderson Cooper in Tokyo.
