Seventeen years after the Cold War, how can it be in the Unites States' national security interest for the President of Russia to have only a few minutes to decide whether to fire his nuclear weapons or lose them in response to what could be a false warning?

Seventeen years after the Cold War, how can it be in the Unites States' national security interest for the President of Russia to have only a few minutes to decide whether to fire his nuclear weapons or lose them in response to what could be a false warning?

Some people think we will see a nuclear explosion in Europe or the United States within the next 10 years. Will it happen? Sure, it's possible. But I think we can greatly diminish that risk. The only way you can do that is through cooperation, and it has to be global.

We need a dialogue with the Iranians, and it is going to take both carrots and sticks. We employed very tough economic sanctions, and they are having an effect. But we also have to give the Iranians an idea of what the economic and cooperative possibilities would be if they did give up their quest for a nuclear weapon.

I don't know how you make a record on liberal and conservative these days. We've had a conservative Republican Congress, so to speak, and a conservative president, and we've run up one of the most astounding deficits in the history of our nation.

There is a pervasive mistrust that grew out of the Cold War and still continues today - even though there are a lot more mutual interests between Europe, Russia and the United States than ever before. But the way we organize things today, it takes years to negotiate. By the time you get a result, the technology has far outrun the policy. So we have to start a dynamic, sustainable type of policy deliberations that can catch up with technology.

You have to pay the price. You will find that everything in life exacts a price, and you will have to decide whether the price is worth the prize.