STEVE SAPIENZA: During the Cold War we had a considerable movement in the United States where people were concerned about reducing nuclear danger. How has that changed in the post Cold War era?

SENATOR ALAN CRANSTON: Well, there was great concern about the nuclear weapon threat to all during the Cold War. That concern was heightened by the Cuban Missile Crisis and by the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War ended, people tended to think the problem was over, so they stopped to a considerable degree worrying about it.

The actual fact is that in many ways, it's more dangerous now than it was then. Nuclear weapons are sort of on the lose in the world. There was some order during the Cold War and the United States and Russia sort of restrained others from turning to or developing nuclear weapons. But that restraint is now gone. We have no new world order. We have world chaos and it is now more likely that there could be an unauthorized accidental use of nuclear weapons out of Russia because of the economic and political uncertainties there and it is known that terrorists, leader of rogue states like Iraq and even criminal drug syndicates are now seeking nuclear weapons. And if they get them, they're not likely to be restrained in what they do with them.

MR. SAPIENZA: Given what you just told us, what then should be done to put ourselves in a situation where we are not threatened by loose nukes or even countries that may acquire nuclear weapons.

Sen. CRANSTON: Many experts around the world with vast experience in military and security matters have come to the conclusion -- among them generals, admirals, former heads of state, present heads of state and so on. They've come to the conclusion that as long as nuclear weapons are around some day by design or by accident or deliberately, they will be used, and that the only way to be free from this danger is to totally abolish them from the face of the earth. That will only happen if enough people demand it of their governments, if enough people become aware of the danger.

And with Pakistan and India now in effect joining the nuclear club, there's been some reawakening of concern and some realization that the danger is increasing, that proliferation will occur, that more and more individuals and entities will get their hands on nuclear weapons and that the result could be total catastrophe.

MR. SAPIENZA: What nations should take the lead in the movement to abolish nuclear weapons. And within the governments of these countries, who should take the lead.

Sen. CRANSTON: Most of all the United States should take the lead because the United States is the nation that created the nuclear bomb, it's the only nation ever to use nuclear bombs and is now the only superpower. If we don't lead, it's unlikely that others will be able to lead. And it's up to the people of our country to persuade the President that they want this matter attended to. Russia could help. China, the United Kingdom, France could help. And nations without nuclear powers could help by saying you can't expect that forever we will be content with five or eight or nine nations having nuclear weapons and we not having any. If they're so important to you, maybe they're important to us. And if you won't keep your promise which we did make under the non-proliferation treaty to abandon our nuclear weapons in return for 185 nations agreeing not to possess them, then we're going to decide maybe we should develop our own nuclear weapons, and the non-proliferation treaty would collapse, proliferation would ensue and there could be nuclear weapons all over the world with greatly increased likelihood that they will be used.

MR. SAPIENZA: You mentioned the president should take the lead. What role do you see for globally -- what role do you see globally for grass roots organizations?

Sen. CRANSTON: Grass roots organizations can play a great part in strengthening the demand upon those who are presently occupants of power in government and decision-making, responsibility lies in their hands, to respond to this threat. There are all sorts of other problems that come up every day that governments and their leaders need to contend with. But there are some that are on-going always and they're going to fester and get worse until they are dealt with. And one of those is in the nuclear weapon and in the mass destruction weapon generally area.

MR. SAPIENZA: Okay. Talking about the ethical implications of using nuclear weapons -- Tom Cochran downstairs mentioned, you know, we threaten holocaust to prevent a holocaust. What about the ethical implications of using these weapons?

Sen. CRANSTON: Well, I think it's uncivilized for civilization to depend upon terror for its security. That undermines the nature of the civilization. It cannot be considered moral or ethical. The trouble with deterrents and nuclear weapons is that while it works and weapons are not used out of fear, well, that may not be civilized, but at least it has a sound, practical effect. But the trouble is it will not work forever. Not only is it ethically highly debatable and dubious, but sooner or later, deterrents will fail for one reason or another. And when it fails, you have total catastrophe. We shouldn't wait for that day or permit that day ever to come.

MR. SAPIENZA: As someone who sort of came of age during the Reagan years where we did see a massive build up in the military and the nuclear arsenal, but we also saw, you know, reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, I have to say, what has happened since the Cold War? How come we haven't seen anymore reductions? What is your view there and how can we move forward?

Sen. CRANSTON: Well, I think the reason we haven't seen the reductions fast enough that we hoped to accomplish is the relaxation upon the part of many people about nuclear weapons when the Cold War ended and the feeling the danger was really over which it is not. The public was very concerned during certain phases of the Cold War, particularly during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's not that concern now. What we need to do is have leaders how are capable of raising the interests and the concerns of the people and transmitting that or translating that into demand upon governments for leadership to deal with the number one problem in the long run or the short run facing the human race.

MR. SAPIENZA: One more question. As far as the movement of abolishing nuclear weapons, how would you compare that to other movements that we've seen throughout history and its importance?

Sen. CRANSTON: Well the nuclear weapon movement is gathering momentum. There are more and more serious studies going on of what to do about nuclear weapons and security and the world general [inaudible], how to resolve conflicts without their going bloody. Grass roots organizations are rapidly developing all over the world under the umbrella of something called the Nuclear 2000 activity. That is growing daily with more and more organizations that are devoted to various peace and human rights and democracy problems focusing part of their concern and a growing part of it on nuclear weapons. There's about to be formed the first grass roots organization in the U.S. of any consequence or size solely devoted to nuclear weapon abolition. And you do have more and more leaders speaking out and helping persuade people with less experience in these matters that this is a problem that must be dealt with. So, I feel we have the signs of the gaining momentum.

MR. SAPIENZA: What would you say to a viewer sitting at home who would say that zero nuclear weapons is a pipe dream?

Sen. CRANSTON: Well, when we have the American Revolution and the confederation of thirteen independent states, the former colonies, wasn't working very well, and the possibility of war between the states and tariff barriers between the states and all sorts of difficulties between them was rising, some far-seeing people who became known as the founding fathers began to advocate that we form a more perfect union and work together in a closer way to resolve these problems. No, at that time there were the skeptics that said impossible, pipe dream, idealistic, crazy, but Jefferson and Madison and Washington and Hamilton persisted. And finally a Constitutional Convention was convened. And it seemed likely to break up because of this opposition and fail. And then we would have become a vulcanized continent.

George Washington stood up one day and made a speech that many feel was the turning point in that convention, lead to the creation of the United States. And what he said rings down to the present moment with remarkable overtones and undertones. All that he said was, "It's too probably that no plan that we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. But if to please the people, we offer that which we ourselves disapprove, how can we ask that we defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God." And so, I say to people who are skeptical, "Think about our own history and decide that this must be done and help get it done."

MR. SAPIENZA: Okay. Great. Thank you, Senator.

Sen. CRANSTON: Thank you.