Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Japan's Nuclear Alert Elevated
Aired March 18, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIOT SPITZER, HOST: Good evening. I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.
IN THE ARENA regular Will Cain joins me this evening.
Tonight, after days of conflicting information, the Japanese government finally admits that the situation at the damaged nuclear reactor in Fukushima is worse than they previously acknowledged. Anderson Cooper's in Japan and will report on the day's developments in just a moment.
But we begin tonight with a high stakes chess game in Libya.
First, the U.N. passes a resolution that authorizes all necessary measures to protect Libyan civilians who are under attack by their own brother leader, Moammar Gadhafi. Then, Gadhafi counters by declaring an immediate cease-fire.
But even after President Obama issues an ultimatum to stop the fighting and Gadhafi claims to halt all military operations, his brutal assault on the resistance continues. Misrata, Libya's third- largest city, is under siege, relentlessly barraged from the air, land, and sea. Misrata is on fire said a doctor with the resistance, "Please help us."
And there are reports that Gadhafi forces continue to advance on the resistant stronghold of Benghazi.
So, it's our move once again. United States Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice claims today that Gadhafi is in violation of the Security Council resolution but still no action by America or our allies.
In the meantime, Gadhafi proves again that while he may be brutal, corrupt, and quite possibly delusional, he's not stupid. Look what Gadhafi accomplished while the West dithered. Just weeks ago, anti-Gadhafi dissidents controlled the entire eastern part of the country from Ras Lanuf in the center to Tobruk in the east, they also controlled Misrata and Zawiya, 30 miles of Tripoli. Today, after relentless attacks on outgunned resistance fighters, Gadhafi forces have marched all the way east to Ajdabiya, right on the brink of Benghazi.
Joining us from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, CNN international correspondent Arwa Damon. Arwa, is fighting going on despite Gadhafi's call for a cease- fire?
ARWA DAMON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Combat is ongoing, and it is just it just about as intense as it has been since it began. According to the spokesman, the military spokesman for the opposition, there is fighting in at least three parts of the country. Zentan to the west, Misrata, the area I've been reporting on for quite some time, and Ajdabiya, just around 100 miles to the west of where we are right now, Benghazi, the opposition stronghold.
We were outside of Ajdabiya, stopped at a checkpoint earlier today, some 30 miles outside of it. And we, while we were there, could feel the reverberations across the desert of the explosions inside that city. We heard numerous accounts from fighters coming out about the intensity of the battle.
We also spoke with an ambulance driver who said that he simply could not reach the wounded. They could not remove the dead bodies from the streets because of the ongoing battles. This despite the U.N. resolution calling for immediate cease-fire. And this actually is taking place before and after Gadhafi's government itself said that it was going to be implementing an immediate cease-fire.
SPITZER: You know, Arwa, that is the question, because Gadhafi is making quite a big deal publicly at least of saying we are pushing the cease-fire, and there has been a cessation of combat. Clearly, once again this is just falsehood after falsehood from the Gadhafi regime since you're telling this directly combat continues.
DAMON: No one in the opposition held part of the country believes anything that the Gadhafi regime has to say. They believe that he is lying when he says he wants to implement a cease-fire -- that cease-fire most certainly not immediate. And that is why there is this growing anxiety because of the amount of time it appears to be taking in terms of implementing that U.N. resolution.
People are worried that Gadhafi still has -- which, in fact, he does have the capability to, as they say, carry out a massacre against his own people.
SPITZER: Clearly there must be relief there in Benghazi that the U.N. resolution finally passed. And what has the reaction been to President Obama's statement today? Very firm statements, strong statements about what the United States would do, yet also the fact that nothing has happened?
DAMON: You know, prior to the U.N. resolution passing, people were really in a state of despair. They felt abandoned, betrayed by the international community. They could not believe that action was taking that long.
Once the resolution passed, we saw exhilaration, celebrations, a renewed sense of confidence and pure joy that this goal they were aiming for of free and democratic Libya was actually realistically going to be within reach. But, then, of course, we've had this delay. It has not come -- the implementation of the resolution has not come immediately.
After President Obama spoke, there has been an increased sense of anxiety because it would seem that debates about how to implement that resolution are only going to begin over the weekend.
We spoke to a number of people about this. One man, of course, praising President Obama, thanking the United States, but saying that people are worried because Gadhafi could in effect strike Benghazi, continue with his strikes in other parts of the country tonight. And so, a lot of mixed emotions here, still a lot of fear, concern and anxiety.
SPITZER: All right, Arwa, thank you for that update. And this is going to be a continuing saga over the next days and weeks. Thank you for that report.
Earlier today, President Obama warned President Gadhafi to immediately stop the assault against the rebels. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: So, what happens now?
James Woolsey has seen these kinds of situations from the inside. He served as director of Central Intelligence under President Bill Clinton. He joins us tonight.
Welcome, Ambassador.
JAMES WOOLSEY, FMR. DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE UNDER PRES. CLINTON: Thanks, Eliot. Good to be with you.
SPITZER: My pleasure. Let me ask you this question: we now have the U.N. resolution. We have a demand for an immediate cease-fire. We have the president saying there are going to be immediate consequences.
But Gadhafi's violating it, and nothing has happened. When must the president acted and with what type of military force must he act?
WOOLSEY: Well, I think he should have acted already. We're running out of organizations to get resolutions from.
You know, Eliot, in the Clinton administration -- Bill Clinton's not normally known as our most war-like president. But in 1995 he went to war against Serbia from the air in order to save Bosnians. And in 1999, he did the same thing against Serbia to save Kosovar lives.
There's a big thoroughfare in Pristina, in the capital of Kosovo, Bill Clinton Avenue, and a big statue to him.
And he did not wait on getting a U.N. resolution. He never would have gotten one. The Russians would have vetoed it. All he had was some NATO allies, never got a congressional resolution. Several congressmen sued him telling him he had to stop fighting in Kosovo until Congress passed a resolution. He ignored it, won the court case.
I mean, I got to say that in the standards of behavior of American presidents on something like this, this has been extremely -- I think the word is ineffective.
SPITZER: Look, I share your perspective, Ambassador, that we should have acted by now. But let's fast forward to a different type of problem.
What if, in fact, Gadhafi stops fighting right now? What if he actually says, "Fine, I will agree to a cease-fire," what happens then? Does that take away the basis, the predicate for the U.S. and our allies to go in to enforce the no-fly zone? And do we then basically have a cease-fire in place, a status quo that leaves Gadhafi in place?
WOOLSEY: It might make it a little bit harder to act. But having now already both the Arab League as of about a week ago and the Security Council, it seems to me we should go ahead and establish a no-fly zone and bring him under more and more pressure. There's nothing wrong with our helping force Gadhafi from office if people don't want to pass resolutions making that the thrust of our efforts.
Nonetheless, by showing substantial support, having aircraft fly over Libya and if necessary take out Libyan air defenses as they first go in, then we could perhaps listen to what he has to say. But to believe he's being truthful, anybody who believes that. You have a bridge in New York up in Brooklyn that they ought to put in a bid on.
SPITZER: Well, look, many people bought that bridge. But, look, as we just said very clearly, nobody at this point believes, I don't think, that Gadhafi is observing the cease-fire yet. The question is: if he begins to do so and let's say we do enforce the no-fly zone, do the rebels themselves then undertake an offensive to move forward? Or I see the potential of a standoff where weeks go by and how do you get out of that?
You talked about the possibility of negotiation. What is the possibility of a negotiated resolution here? Where does Gadhafi go? What is the outcome that gets him out of Libya and turns power over?
WOOLSEY: I think there's no chance of a negotiated solution with him. You can't believe a word he says.
I rather imagine -- although one can't be absolutely confident of this, that if we dominated the skies over Libya and the Libyan rebels could see these jet aircraft with British and French and maybe American markings, and saw that he could not even have aircraft or helicopters take off, I would think that would embolden them, would gain them recruits, would gain a movement from some of these tribes that have supported Gadhafi to, out of self-preservation, to migrate away from him.
But if we accept at all what he says, even if he stops fighting for a bit, he will -- he'll just send agents in to assassinate people. He'll do all kinds of things.
SPITZER: So, if I hear you properly, what you're saying and this is contrary to what some of the military folks -- Secretary Gates, I believe had been saying earlier -- you believe the no-fly zone can, in fact, be outcome determinative, if we do this, this will almost necessarily lead to the fall of Moammar Gadhafi?
WOOLSEY: Well, I don't see any reason not to -- at the same time if we have cleared the skies, and it's safe for our aircraft, I don't see any reason not to go ahead and take out tanks that are rumbling toward the rebel lines or artillery pieces that are firing on them. But -- I mean, that is saving civilian lives because the people who have rebelled against Gadhafi, even if they were in his military, they're -- it's a civilian rebellion against this military dictator.
So, anything that saves the lives of those who want freedom in Libya seems to me at least, under some reasonable interpretation, to be under the U.N. resolution and under the Arab League resolution. So, I wouldn't stop there.
But if one does say that I'm not going to do anything except keep the skies clear, I still think probably that would have a substantially negative effect on him and a positive effect on the rebels.
SPITZER: Well, Ambassador, just to make it clear, I absolutely agree with you about your interpretation of the U.N. resolution. The words are very clear that we can take all necessary measures to protect civilians. But the question does make it a bit dicer if the Gadhafi forces have, in fact, said we are staying in place and we are not advancing anymore, then the argument is: why are you protecting civilians by destroying their forces?
But, look, I'm with you in terms of where you want to go.
What happens if Gadhafi is still in power in six months? Politically, is that an untenable outcome for President Obama?
WOOLSEY: It's very difficult and not just politically. It's very difficult substantively for the United States and the world. He has said now -- President Obama said several times it's unacceptable for him to say. But if you say something is unacceptable and you're president of the United States and then you accept it, the next time around, people don't take you nearly as seriously.
And we have an added program which is that we've dealt with Mubarak, for example -- that's a difficult situation because he was a tough and, in some cases, brutal dictator. But he also helped preserve peace in the Middle East for over 30 years and was someone that we worked with on important matters. That's a tough situation to figure out how to straddle and deal with both sides of it.
But the Libyans, the government under Gadhafi or the Iranian government under Ahmadinejad that is killing thousands and thousands and thousands of their own people, it seems as if we've been far less tough with them than we were with Mubarak.
And I don't understand why -- I don't think we want to send that signal, but I don't know why the administration's behaving in such a way that that seems to be the signal that's coming out.
SPITZER: All right. Ambassador, thank you for this conversation. Look, those inconsistencies are not only on the present often difficult to square, and we'll provide a lot of fertile conversation in the weeks and months ahead.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Tonight, for more analysis about what's next in Libya, let's bring in someone with great foreign policy insight, James Traub, contributing writer for "The New York Times" magazine, and show regular, Will Cain, joins us as well.
All right. James, let me start with you. You just heard Ambassador Woolsey being aggressive, saying get in there, use the airplanes. Go after the tanks even if they're not really moving. You agree or disagree?
JAMES TRAUB, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE: You can't -- I mean, the terms of the resolution are fairly clear. First, it's actually even a little stronger than you said. That is the resolution requires not only that Gadhafi stop engaging in war, but also that he withdraw from the areas that he's currently in.
And so, if he stands still, if he doesn't withdraw, that in effect counts as an act of war under the terms of the resolution. And so, not only can the planes enforce a no-fly zone in that case, and that Woolsey is absolutely right that in any case the no-fly zone is there, but it can use as you said all necessary measures.
Now, what if Gadhafi actually does agree with the terms of the resolution and withdraws? Yes, in that case, you can still enforce a no-fly zone, but you cannot engage in the kind of surgical strike bombing that otherwise would be permitted by the resolution. That's where I fear you could have exactly the kind of stalemate you describe.
And I think that this is a little like the kind of 1991 Persian Gulf War in the sense that it had a limited objective. It's a humanitarian objective. It's to un-rule something that happened.
It is not to get rid of Gadhafi. In that sense, it's like 1991, not like 2003. WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Jim, you're getting close to the central question which I have. If we learned anything from Afghanistan is have a clear identifiable objective. What is the goal in Libya?
TRAUB: The goal in Libya, of the resolution, let's talk about two different goals. I think you're right. The goal of the resolution is a humanitarian one, right? It is to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. It is to prevent atrocities which we believe which we know --
(CROSSTALK)
CAIN: -- not clear to me -- the clarity of the U.N. resolution as you suggested isn't clear. So, prevent atrocities, protect citizens -- does that mean support and eastern Libyan state if it requires that around Benghazi, that we will legitimatize it -- in fact, create an existence and be there for long into the future?
TRAUB: Well, let's distinguish between what the politics of this can be and what the U.N. resolution says. The U.N. resolution is very clear, but I think you're right in saying that the humanitarian language of the U.N. resolution is very different from the way most of us are thinking about the purpose of this whole thing. I think for most people, the purpose this thing is tip the military balance so that the good guys start winning and the bad guys start losing, and Gadhafi goes. That's not what the U.N. resolution says.
SPITZER: The U.N. resolution necessarily is stated in terms of humanitarian purposes, and rightly so. The geopolitical objective we have is to get rid of Gadhafi and to assist this nascent democracy/revolution that is sweeping North Africa and to prove, as the president likes to say, we're on the right side of history. And not only that, if we fail to do this Libya, then we will effectively destroy what remains of that pro-democracy revolution in every place from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia to Egypt.
And you're an expert in this entire region. Don't you agree if we don't do something here, then the autocratic rulers in the rest of the region will have open license to get more and more repressive?
TRAUB: Do I think that Egypt is going to go backwards because we don't do something here? No. But do I think that the places that are right now in a very fine balance like Bahrain and Yemen, which in some ways you might say are less horrific versions of what's happening in Libya now because there, too, you have a state which has decided rather than retreat before a mass popular uprising to crack down? Yes, I think probably that would tip the balance in the wrong direction in those places, too.
But even if you do Libya and it works out, you're still going to have huge problems in Bahrain and Yemen.
(CROSSTALK)
CAIN: Can't the argument be made the other way? Are we now setting the precedents that we will go to Bahrain, we will go to Yemen, we'll go to Syria, we'll go to Iran, we'll go wherever the humanitarian crisis requires?
TRAUB: No. I think, you know, Will, one of the objections to any act like this is always but if you do it here, why not there? And so, that boils down to if you won't do it everywhere and every time, then why you are doing it in this place and this time? And the answer is there are important differences that explain why you're doing it in Libya and why it wouldn't make any sense elsewhere.
SPITZER: Consistency is simply not a rule in foreign policy.
I want to switch gears just a little bit.
TRAUB: Yes.
SPITZER: You have studied the internal politics --
TRAUB: Yes.
SPITZER: -- within the White House.
TRAUB: Yes.
SPITZER: This has been a slow and tortured process getting here as Ambassador Woolsey said. What do you make of that? Who has emerged as the --
(CROSSTALK)
TRAUB: First, there I think Woolsey was absolutely wrong. I mean, the idea that Obama should have acted a week ago before he had approval from the Arab League, for example, that's a mistake. Should he have acted without a Security Council resolution?
Woolsey rightly said we did that in Kosovo. He didn't say Clinton tried very hard to get a U.N. Security Council resolution, Russia blocked it. And then NATO, which is the neighborhood organization of Kosovo, approved it. So --
SPITZER: Let me interrupt for one second. You saw the map that we put up earlier that showed over the past couple of weeks the territory controlled by Gadhafi, he retook.
TRAUB: Right.
SPITZER: The territory he retook has expanded dramatically. So, the cost of doing this militarily, human lives has gone up because of that delay.
TRAUB: It was a cost Obama had to pay. It would have been better if he had done it a week ago. But to have done it without the legitimacy that comes from the approval of the Arab League would have been terrible mistake.
CAIN: Let me ask you these guys. I mean, I go back to this one more time. You dismiss the consistency because all that we're left with without consistency is the arrogance of your righteousness that we go into certain countries. Outside of that, we don't have a congressional approval of this, right? There's been no asking Congress as the Constitution requires to approve this military action.
So, let me ask you --
SPITZER: Wait, wait -- before you dismiss that, I think the last time the Congress approved a war resolution was several decades ago.
CAIN: So, that doesn't matter anymore, Eliot?
SPITZER: Right or wrong, presidents have not sought -- President Clinton didn't seek it, and President Bush didn't.
CAIN: And I am stunned that the ambassador dismisses that concept easily about the Kosovo interaction. And now, let me ask you this one question --
TRAUB: Yes?
CAIN: If this were put to a vote of the American people, would they vote to go Libya right now?
TRAUB: Well, let's put this way. According to a "Washington Post"/ABC poll, six of 10 people approved of the idea.
SPITZER: All right, guys --
CAIN: I'm going to see there's a congressional vote.
SPITZER: All right, guys, we've got to break -- we've got to break here.
James Traub, thanks for being with us. Will, you'll join me again later in the show.
Coming up: a last-ditch effort to use water cannons and helicopters to douse the nuclear reactors had little effect. So, what will officials try next? We'll have a report from Anderson Cooper in Tokyo.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: In a race against time, Japan continues to try to contain the damage at several nuclear reactors. They remain highly unstable. And a permanent solution to cool the reactors has, so far, eluded officials.
And in an admission that the crisis more severe than originally stated, Japan has raised the nuclear warning level from four to five. The scale goes up to seven.
Joining us now from Tokyo is Anderson Cooper. Anderson, what's been the reaction to this admission by Japan's government? It seems once again like a little bit too little information to late in the game.
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": Yes, I think there's a lot of frustration with them. You know, clearly, U.S. officials came out two days ago and said this is worse than Japanese officials have been indicating publicly. Now, you have Japanese officials finally acknowledging, OK, this is a level five, which puts it on par with the Three Mile Island disaster, which was the second worst disaster in world history in terms of nuclear power.
But there are a lot of people saying, look, this is already worse than Three Mile Island. Plus, that was just one reactor, you have multiple reactors here.
There's really three battles going on right now, Eliot. There's the battle to try to restore power to reactors number one and two. That's not going so well.
They had hoped on Thursday to restore it, they didn't. They hoped on Friday to restore it, they didn't. Now, they're saying today they hope to be able to restore it.
But even if they do, they acknowledge they don't know if the cooling pumps are going to work, if they can restart, because they may have been damaged in the quake or corroded by the salt water that they've been pouring in, the seawater. So, even if they connect it up, which they haven't been able to because the radiation is so high. So, that's one battle.
The other battle is to try to cool these spent fuel rods in the pool in reactor number three and reactor number four. Now, reactor number three, that's the one they've been focused on. They've been bringing fire trucks -- the Japanese military has been bringing fire trucks trying -- they have seven fire trucks kind of in rotating shifts so that no worker is exposed for too long to these high levels of radiation.
But it's not clear what kind of impact the water they've been pouring on the pool in reactor number three has been having. And reactor number four is still kind of a big open question.
Japanese officials last night said that there is water in the spent fuel rod pool in reactor number four. A U.S. official two days ago said, no, there's very little water to no water.
So, that is kind of an open question. Clearly, there's disagreement between Japanese and U.S. officials on that. But the battle, you know, the overall battle to try to cool down the spent fuel rods -- that seems the main concern. And that doesn't seem to be going particularly well, Eliot.
SPITZER: You know, Anderson, it sounds as though this is deja vu all over again. Every day with this crisis is just sort of stagnating, you know, if not getting worse. Certainly, the Japanese finally admitting it's getting worse. It seems hard to conceive that the best we can do with all the technology in the world is seven fire trucks spraying water up into this building, at reactor number three, to get water into the spent fuel pool.
Can't they use helicopter with the -- you know, the hoses up there and direct them from up top? It just seems crazy. It seems like using a water gun against a forest fire.
COOPER: Yes, it seems incredibly low-tech. And a lot of people have been asking those questions. You know, they tried the helicopters yesterday. They tried four helicopter missions. The winds were blowing offshore. That made it hard to drop water.
And obviously because of high levels of radiation, they ultimately pulled back. They didn't want to risk the pilots too much. They were able to drop one payload of some seven, 7.5 tons of water. But that's a fraction of actually what is needed.
Yes, Eliot, you would think that there'd be other ways to do this. It raises the question whether Japanese officials have reached out to the United States, to Europe, to the International Atomic Energy Agency, to really explore other options for getting water and refilling those pools. Some criticism now is that the Japanese officials have been very slow, not only to share information, but to reach out for help.
The U.S. has now sent a radar detection plane to actually kind of take separate readings. The IAEA says they are going to send in a team in the next couple of days. It might surprise people to learn they don't have teams on the ground here. The head of the IAEA came in for a meeting, and he's the one who decided to send in a team. But he said that's going to take several days.
So, a lot of frustration, a lot of questions about, you know, Japanese officials and whether or not they're really kind of being as transparent as they should be.
COOPER: All right. Anderson, thank you for all your amazing reporting this week. Stay safe over there.
Joining us now is Tom Foreman, who is closely following the race to stabilize the reactors.
Tom, as we heard there, are several officials confronting officials. What do you make of all this?
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I'll tell you this, Eliot, here's an interesting thing. Look at this photograph. This was taken right after the earthquake hit, when it was mainly wet and there were some cracks in buildings down by the area.
The big difference right now is not that the situation is better or worse in realty, but that there's more information to allow the assessment that came out today. Look at today. Look at the level of damage on all of these. This is the latest photograph that we have of all of this coming in here. And it gives you a real sense of how much damage has been done. As officials have seen more of the damage to not only the structures themselves and to reactors but to the piping that goes to them, to the electrical supplies, to the superstructure, the more they have said this now rises beyond this level down here, it's up here to the Three Mile Island level from 1979 -- which means wider consequences. It's still two steps short of Chernobyl -- and believe me, these are big, big steps, (INAUDIBLE).
What does this actually mean? Here's what it means -- it means that they expect that radiation release has or has likely occurred in some sizable amount. They expect some deaths may happen as a result of this. And that severe damage has occurred to one or more nuclear cores or may yet occur.
So, that's what the status change means. Fundamentally, it means they have a lot more information. Like this -- look at this. These were the radiation levels that occurred in here. And you see the big spikes back here.
Now, the good news is you don't see so much as we get closer to today, Eliot. There have been drop-offs in these spikes.
But here's the tricky part about them -- and I think it's very important to bear in mind. Sometimes those spikes occur, because this is not at all uniform, you have radiation coming from here as they believe they are. You may have a very high level here. You may have a very low level here. You might have another high level here.
And that can go on for miles in all directions simply because of the way the radiation is carried and how it actually gets to where you're monitoring it.
So, one of the problems with all of these measurements is that they can be up and down and back and forth, and until you have a big average from a lot of samples, you don't really know for sure what is happening.
SPITZER: Yes.
FOREMAN: The bottom line is: the battle goes on, as Anderson was saying, in all of these buildings.
SPITZER: You know, Tom, as you point out, the inconsistency in so many of these readings is clearly troubling. And there is more information which is good, of course.
Of course, the one piece of information we desperately want to have that we don't have, is there water in reactor four's spent fuel pond? That is critical to understanding whether these rods are just getting hotter and hotter and something catastrophic may happen. And it's kind of hard to imagine we can't get a reading on whether there's water in there.
FOREMAN: Yes, it is. And yet that comes out as the basic problem here, Eliot. We don't have any way to get through the shield of radiation from some of these units here.
Look at where we stand right now because there has been progress if only in the sense that we're not moving back. Remember for days there it was just every day was more bad news. Now we've had a couple of days of sort of not terrible news. One and two, they're feeling relatively good about getting some stabilization there. Number three, as we mentioned before, that's where all the fire trucks are dumping this water in.
You can argue back and forth about how much effect they're having in refilling this pool here. They say they are having effect. Then we move beyond that. There is the issue of five and six, which we haven't talked about a whole lot. They got a generator in here and they say they've got water flowing to those again. So we really do come back, as you said, as Anderson said, again, number four, number four, number four. This is the big issue because right now as they wrestle with all the other ones, Eliot, they're almost acting as if number four is a "we'll get around to it when we get around to it." The truth is if there's no water in this pool, that's a big, big gamble.
SPITZER: All right.
FOREMAN: If there is some water in this pool, it's less of a gamble. Either way, that's what they're betting on.
SPITZER: All right. Let's just hope for the best and hope there's some answer to this real quick.
Tom Foreman, always great to have you with us.
FOREMAN: Good to be here, Eliot.
SPITZER: Coming up, our next guest is a scientific visionary. When it comes to Japan's nuclear disaster, he's seen the future, and it isn't good.
Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: How grim is the prognosis of the nuclear crisis in Japan? Well, our next guest actually thinks it could get worse. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist at the City University of New York, the author of the new book "Physics of the Future: How Science Will Change Daily Life by 2100." It is fascinating. I've skimmed parts of it. It's an amazing read, I got to tell you.
Professor, thank you so much for being here. You have been listening, following this crisis at the nuclear facilities. You actually have an answer. What is it?
MICHIO KAKU, THEORETICAL PHYSICS PROFESSOR, CUNY: We have thrown everything except the kitchen sink at this reactor and have failed. The time has come to throw in the kitchen sink. And that is what I call the Chernobyl option. What Gorbachev did was he called out the red air force. Armed them with helicopters containing sand, boric acid, dolomite and concrete and sandbagged the Chernobyl reactor in 10 days. A raging nuclear fire, dumping 25 percent of its core right over the people of the Soviet Union and he sandbagged it.
SPITZER: Buried it?
KAKU: Bury it.
SPITZER: As you're just saying, you create a huge mound over this thing of sand, concrete, boron. Why boron? That absorbs the radiation?
KAKU: That absorbs the neutrons. Right. You saw that helicopter, right? It's so pathetic. It's like a squirt gun. That little helicopter can't do anything. What I'm saying is call out the Japanese air force.
SPITZER: You know, anything that can throw dirt and this sort of concrete -- basically just creating a tomb around it?
KAKU: That's right. It's called entombment. It is the last and final ace in the hole that we have.
SPITZER: How long would it take?
KAKU: It would take a few days to assemble it. And we have to have the option of doing it. Some people say it's too extreme. Well, I'm saying it's an option. We have to exercise the option now.
SPITZER: Why would it be too extreme? I know you want to argue their side. Why would it be possibly be too extreme?
KAKU: Because they don't want to acknowledge how bad the situation is. The leadership there is disconnected from reality. They're not physicists. They're not engineers. They think it's just going to go away. They live in a fantasy, parallel universe.
SPITZER: OK. Let' me push it. Maybe it sounds so simple when obvious -- I'm astonished nobody's thought of it. This is why you're the brilliant physicist. Where is this? Is it worth it? In other words, where in the spectrum of Three Mile Island to Chernobyl is this crisis right now?
KAKU: Well, the Japanese government says it's a number five, like Three Mile Island. That's -- that's obviously wrong because just one reactor out of control is Three Mile Island. We have four nuclear power plants raging out of control. It's obviously greater than Three Mile Island.
SPITZER: I just got --
KAKU: It's a six.
SPITZER: I've just got to ask you, have you called anybody over in the government there or called the NRC here and said bury the miserable thing, end this?
KAKU: Well, I was on national television. And it got picked up by NHK.
SPITZER: You are now.
KAKU: And NHK then is the national broadcasting outlet of Japan. And their prime minister finally got around to say, oh, gee, maybe we should think about this option. So it's seeping its way now into the highest levels of the Japanese government.
SPITZER: This nuclear facility is never working as a nuclear facility again, right?
KAKU: It's a piece of junk.
SPITZER: So it's done, it's going to be --
KAKU: It's done. It's gone. There's no way you can salvage that thing.
SPITZER: So other than creating an eyesore, why not do this?
KAKU: That's right. Now remember, some people say it's kind of extreme. But look, let's put the troops on standby. Let's get them ready. Maybe we won't use them, that's great. Then we give them medals and they don't have to go in and fight the raging reactor.
SPITZER: OK.
KAKU: But if it spirals out of control, we could lose a good chunk of northern Japan.
SPITZER: Look, I don't want to call you a futurist because to some people it sounds as though you deal with ideas that are silly. You are one of the most serious scientists out there. You've written this amazing book about what the future will look like. Let's stick to nuclear power for a minute and energy. Will nuclear power be part of our portfolio for the next 50 years?
KAKU: Well, in a democracy, we have to evaluate what is called the Faustian bargain. Faust was this mythical figure who sold his soul to the devil for unlimited power. The Japanese have thrown the dice. They went for the Faustian bargain because they have no oil, they have no coal, they have no natural resources that can generate energy. So they say, yes, we got to get the Faustian bargain. In the United States, we have a choice. We really have a choice as to whether or not we want to sell our soul to the devil for unlimited power.
SPITZER: OK, selling our soul to the devil doesn't sound like something you're in favor. I think you take that out of the bargain. We've got one minute left. Give us the most remarkable idea in this book that you think is going drive our lives, come 2100.
KAKU: I'm been with over 300 scientists. And they tell me that by the year 2100, 100 years from now, our grandchildren will be almost like gods -- gods of mythology. They'll think and move things around mentally. They'll have perfect bodies. They'll have timeless bodies. They'll ride in chariots like Apollo. And they'll have animal creations like Pegasus. Things that are godlike we will have.
SPITZER: They're not just describing their grandkids because they think their grandkids are perfect. They think science will let us do all this?
KAKU: That's right. And also think of virtual reality. We're going to have the contact -- we're going to have the Internet in a contact lens. With the Internet in our contact lens, we'll simply blink and access the entire database of the planet Earth.
SPITZER: All right. Unbelievable stuff. Professor Kaku, a fascinating conversation. Thank you so much.
Coming up, the unknown heroes of the nuclear crisis. Those acting as the last line of defense preventing a nuclear disaster. Sanjay Gupta joins us with their story after this. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: With much of the focus directed at the fallout of the nuclear crisis in Japan, we sometimes lose sight of the handful of workers risking their lives trying to stabilize those reactors. Nearly 200 of them are the last line of defense, preventing a potentially full-blown meltdown.
Joining us from Tokyo now to talk about their sacrifice is chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
Sanjay, what do we know about their situation?
SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we know very little from the workers themselves, Eliot. There's been a few little reports. One of the workers, a woman, wrote a blog about her experience inside. It was subsequently taken down. One of the wives of one of the workers literally told people she cried when she found out that her husband who had been pulled out for a period of time had to go back in. It's a little bit of the reality, the personal reality for people who are working inside the plants over there.
Look, Eliot, it's unbelievable work really. I mean, first of all, they know this type of work. They know the radiation levels. They know the potential impacts on human health, so they're walking into this with a lot of that knowledge. Despite that, there's very little they can do to protect themselves against some of the most dangerous forms of radiation, these gamma rays, because they really penetrate just about everything.
There's no power inside there, so they're probably working by flashlight, wearing these suits and masks, and trying to, you know, put out explosions and deal with fires, change valves and overall, try to protect the rest of that community and the rest of Japan really from harmful levels of radiation. So it's incredible work. We don't know a critical part of the puzzle, Eliot, which is exactly how high the radiation levels have been inside the plant. But we know trucks that have come to try and deposit water in these ponds have had to move out because of radiation levels. We know helicopters flying overhead could not stay very long because of that same problem, so presumably the radiation levels inside that plant very high. That's what these workers are dealing with. That's the risk that they're exposing themselves to.
SPITZER: You know, one of the questions I think at a very human level we're all wondering is -- did these folks volunteer for this? Were they chosen? Were they obligated to do it? Are they choosing men or women or both who have already had kids so the risk -- you know, the obvious medical risks in terms of having kids are eliminated? How do they go through this process? Do we have any idea?
GUPTA: They really have released hardly any information on that. They're certainly not telling us who these workers are. We do know that -- the only thing we know for sure is that at one point they pulled all the workers out for a short period of time. A temporary evacuation they called it because the radiation levels were high. But in terms of the specific people, in terms of their previous health histories or previous family histories and lives, how that played into, whether or not they're in there, we just don't know. But those are the right questions, Eliot, because there probably is some more systematic way to determine who's most at risk based on previous health problems and even, you know, the issue as you mentioned of whether or not they've had children. But we're just not being -- we're not being told the information.
SPITZER: All right. Chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thank you for that extraordinary reporting. And I'll tell you, it is just kind of -- we can't lose sight of the sacrifice those 200 workers are making.
Amid the ongoing worry about radiation as Sanjay was just talking about, it's important not to lose sight of the other human impact of last week's quake and tsunami on Japan. Will, you talked to a CNN.com reporter who's been out there on the scene.
WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, Eliot, you might know him as the original bassist for the rock band the Black Crowes.
SPITZER: I'm not sure I know --
CAIN: You don't know who the Black Crowes are. But these days, Johnny Colt is an independent journalist filing iReports from far- flung troubled places like Haiti and Kyrgyzstan and the BP oil spill. Colt grew up in Japan so when the quake hit, he immediately headed back there to take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNNY COLT, INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST, ROCK MUSICIAN: Seven days after the devastating earthquake and tsunami destroyed much of Sendai, I'm kneeling on a street that has been turned into a river.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAIN: He spoke to me earlier today from Tendo (ph), outside of Sendai via Skype.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CAIN: Hey, Johnny, you gave a pre-interview to some of our producers earlier today which are viewers can see on the show blog on CNN.com. But you said some amazing things. You said we're used to living in a world that makes sense, that cars are parallel to the ground and trees point up. Your world right now is very different from that. Tell us -- tell us about it.
JOHNNY COLT, INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST, ROCK MUSICIAN: The scope of the disaster is epic. It's really hard to get your head around.
You know, when it first happened, I observed it on television like everyone else. But standing on the ground, the fact that boats are facing straight up instead of being parallel to the ground, you know, there's a car on top of a house, and next door there's a house on top of a car. There's debris everywhere. You know, the life that we know and our surroundings the way we get used to them is -- those rules don't apply inside the disaster zone.
I've spent the last year in one conflict or disaster zone after another. And it's been -- I've never seen anything even close to the scope of this thing.
CAIN: Johnny, I know you grew up for part of your early life in Japan. You know that culture well. A culture that is kind of famed for its stoicism. Is that what you're seeing among the people? Are you starting to see some pretty raw emotion?
COLT: I have seen a very stoic group of people here who've gotten right to the business of recovery and putting their lives back together. I have seen on Japanese television some very, very emotional outcries. But when I'm in the operational environment and working and making relationships with people on the ground, they're open. They let me in to their lives. They'll even joke around with me.
CAIN: You know, there's so many conscious going on here for the Japanese people. There's the tsunami. There's the earthquake. And then in the background of all this, and actually the foreground of a lot of the news is this whole issue with the nuclear plant. How much is that playing a role in the Japanese people's mind? Fear of radiation?
COLT: It's predominant. It's everywhere. The Japanese have a long history with radiation, as you know. What I find interesting is that the Japanese that I speak to accept nuclear power as something that they need to be able to generate their own power in this country, and they accept in a large part what's happening. You know, they just move forward with it. They realize this kind of not -- they're not behaving like they want their cake and eating it too. You know, it's we have nuclear power and nuclear power can become a problem. And they seem to be dealing with it forward but absolutely everyone's open about their fear.
CAIN: Where are you headed next?
COLT: I am now traveling with two Japanese university students who have dedicated themselves to helping me tell stories and are working around the clock. We've got very little sleep. But we're currently heading to the city hall in Sendai where the U.S. embassy are sending buses.
CAIN: Well, you have recorded some great stories. You've got some great images there on CNN's iReport. Appreciate what you're doing. And thanks for taking some time to talk to me.
COLT: Thanks for having me. I'll talk to you soon.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CAIN: You can see the interview with Johnny and his iReports on our blog on CNN.com/inthearena -- Eliot.
SPITZER: Fascinating great interview, Will. Thank you so much.
Coming up, now that the U.N. has authorized a no-fly zone in Libya and American pilots may be in harm's way, it's worth asking do no-fly zones really work? We'll look for answers when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: What are no-fly zones and do they work? Let's start with the basics.
Almost every nation has airspace it declares off limits. In our country, airspace is restricted over the White House and the capitol, among a whole lot of other places. But in military terms, there are two types of no-fly zones. One is the kind that existed between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. You violate our airspace, we shoot you down. The second is what the U.N. has authorized against Libya. The U.N. authorizes and member countries enforce a no-fly zone that prevents a rogue nation from using its own airspace to harm its own people. Sounds good, but does it work?
In 1993, a no-fly zone was established over Bosnia. The Serbs were finished as an airpower, but it didn't prevent a massacre one year later, when over 8,000 Bosnian men and women, men and boys, excuse me, were murdered by Serbian forces on the ground. In 1991, the U.S. and its allies declared a no-fly zone over Iraq. It grounded the Iraqi air force, but it didn't prevent human rights abuses. And Saddam Hussein remained in power for over 10 more years. A no-fly zone in Libya could cost $100 million, maybe even $300 million per week with no guarantee that American pilots won't be shot down or that Moammar Gadhafi won't keep his planes on the ground and his eyes on the prize and remain in power.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Remember just last week all the screaming and shouting in Wisconsin about the bill that would take away collective bargaining rights from union members? You may remember Republicans pushed it through by surprising everybody with a vote and angering a lot of people. And the Democratic senators who were out of state at the time in order to prevent the Republicans from getting a quorum, they cried foul saying Republicans violated the open meetings law.
Well, as so many things do, it all ended up in court. Today, a judge in Madison, Wisconsin, agreed with the Democrats. The GOP effort to call and have a vote all within two hours violated a statute requiring 24 hours' notice. So the judge said stop, back to square one. What happens next remains to be seen. But for now at least, to the bill that Governor Scott Walker so desperately wanted and so many folks, including me, thought was a bad idea is on hold. By the way, those Democrats that fled the state came back home last Saturday.
Thank so much for joining us IN THE ARENA tonight. Good night from New York.
"PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.
