Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Expert Discusses Nuclear Arms Pact

Aired May 24, 2002 - 07:49   ET

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

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, President Bush and Russia's President Vladimir Putin put a postscript on the Cold War. At a ceremony in Moscow a little bit earlier today, the two leaders signed a landmark nuclear arms agreement, which calls for reducing nuclear forces by roughly two-thirds over 10 years.

But Harvard nuclear expert Matthew Bunn says it fails to address the biggest risk from Russia's nuclear stockpile, and he joins us this morning from Boston.

Good morning. Welcome back.

MATTHEW BUNN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Good morning -- pleasure to be here.

ZAHN: So let's talk about what critics of the treaty, including yourself, are saying about this. They are saying it doesn't force the two countries to destroy these weapons. They just have to put them into storage. So what is the potential of a dangerous scenario that we are talking about here?

BUNN: Well, there are really two major risks to the United States of America from Russia's Cold War nuclear arsenals. One is that they remain on a short time-to-launch hair trigger. And the Russian warning system is collapsing, and that creates a very dangerous potential for mistakes to lead to an actual launch of nuclear forces, if there were some kind of false alarm.

Secondly, as long as these nuclear warheads and the hundreds of tons of nuclear material in Russia are inadequately secured, there is a risk that weapons or materials to make them will fall into the hands of terrorists.

And I think unfortunately that this agreement, while it is an important step forward, is a missed opportunity to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism, because it doesn't do anything to secure the warheads that are going to be reduced. It doesn't do anything to dismantle those warheads, to destroy the nuclear material in them, and it also doesn't address at all the short-range tactical nuclear warheads that are potentially more portable for a terrorist and some of which aren't equipped with modern electronic locks to keep a terrorist from setting them off if he did manage to get hold of them.

ZAHN: So how is this a step forward if it doesn't address any of those concerns you just outlined?

BUNN: Well, because it does point the arrow in the right direction toward lower numbers of nuclear weapons on day-to-day alert of the strategic nuclear weapons. And I think it creates an opportunity to move forward with follow-on agreements that would, in fact, move toward securing and dismantling those warheads, toward destroying more nuclear material.

The two presidents talked in their joint statement about increasing the amounts of nuclear material that would be destroyed. In our recent report from Harvard, we outlined ways in which Russia's excess bomb material could be destroyed literally twice as fast as it currently is being done. And we also outlined some specific approaches to cleaning out the potential bomb material from some of the most insecure facilities, where it could be stolen.

I think there are still opportunities to take action on those kinds of measures following...

ZAHN: Can we come back to -- yes, sorry, Professor. Can we come back to the point you were making at the very top? You were talking about the early warning system basically collapsing in Russia right now. If that is true, then is the United States any safer today with this treaty?

BUNN: I think we are somewhat safer, but not as much as we should be. As I say, the two biggest threats to the United States from the Russian nuclear stockpile are not addressed in this agreement.

And candidate Bush, while on the campaign trail, talked about taking nuclear weapons off alert, lengthening the nuclear fuse, so that presidents could make decisions in days rather than in minutes about whether they needed to launch nuclear forces. That's something that still needs to be done; isn't done yet in this agreement.

ZAHN: Matthew Bunn of Harvard University, great to have you back here on AMERICAN MORNING. Thanks for your insights.

BUNN: Great to be here -- thank you.

ZAHN: Have a good holiday weekend.

BUNN: You too.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.