This is John Bachelor, conversation with colleague Peter Hughesy, the president of geostrategic analysis, a fellow at the National Institute for Deterrant Studies.

This is about the nuclear arsenal. The US is committed to maintaining a nuclear arsenal. The U.S. is committed to maintaining a nuclear arsenal

somewhere between 1500 and 2,000 warheads. However, our adversaries are not

committed to any number whatsoever and they're proliferating.

For example, it is no longer just US versus Moscow as it was in the first Cold War.

It's Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, and Tehran. Four of the axis of

resistance, perhaps more in future. Is the U.S. arsenal adequate to provide deterrence for the U.S. and for our

allies, the commitment to the European allies, the commitment to the Asian allies,

such as Japan and Australia and the Philippines is the

arsenal adequate or at the same time is it correct to maintain all of the nuclear

weapons in the control of the United States. How about giving our

nuclear weapons to Japan or Poland? Peter Husey entertains all these thoughts and

gives a positive and the negative as best he can.

Peter Husey, National Institute for Deterrant Studies, the First Cold War is done.

Maintaining the status quo of the First Cold War is no adequate to the status quo of the first cold war is no adequate to the

scale of the challenge of four predator states. Number one do we need more we

need more capability and if that means more warheads, and it's more warheads. I believe in the theater, the short-range regional missiles, we need desperately in both Europe and in the Asia, because we got rid of them in 1991

except for a couple hundred gravity bombs in Europe.

So yes, we need more capability, definitely,

and I think that means more warheads.

There are those who say, no, no that means more warheads.

There are those who say, no, no, no more warheads, don't need them.

...