STEVE SAPIENZA: Okay, you said this morning that the United States has the most to gain from achieving -- from abolishing nuclear weapons.

Admiral NOEL GAYLOR: Yes.

Mr. SAPIENZA: What do you mean by that?

Admiral GAYLOR: I mean that until they abolish nuclear weapons we are at risk and we can't do anything about it. So that abolishing them is the only way in which we can attain security. We have a dominant Navy to protect the seas. We have an Air Force which is unmatched, both Air Force and Navy, and we have battle tested ground forces on in Marines. Nobody can come against us except with nuclear weapons. And that's the reason.

Mr. SAPIENZA: Okay. You also mentioned that we're -- we're vulnerable to nuclear attack. Now, during the Cold War there was the standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, the nuclear deterrent. How have things changed in the post Cold War era?

Admiral GAYLOR: In the Cold War era we had one single adversary who was in control of his forces. He knew where his weapons were and he had the power to use them against us. We now have half a dozen potential adversaries and the peculiar nature of nuclear weapons is such that only a very few can do all the destruction that anybody needs to do to destroy us. So that the possession on our part of thousands of nuclear weapons doesn't give us any security.

Mr. SAPIENZA: What do the -- you talked a little about the explosions of the nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. Why do you think those explosions took place and what are the ramifications?

Admiral GAYLOR: I think that the explosions in India and Pakistan principally matters of prestige. Those two countries want to show that they're in the big time and the dancing joy in the streets just illustrates that. At the same time, they do have a long, historical enmity and they are attempting to threaten each other, mutually.

Mr. SAPIENZA: Okay. Let's see -- President Clinton has declared that for the foreseeable future, nuclear deterrents will remain the cornerstone of U.S. military security. With four other members of the nuclear club, two more that have just tested devices and one country believed to possess nuclear weapons, why is the President's position dangerous?

Admiral GAYLOR: I think it's dangerous because it's a complete misconception. I think we have no sensible military use of nuclear weapons. But even more, because there's nothing that we can do with nuclear weapons which protects us against the use by somebody else.

Mr. SAPIENZA: One thing that you got into that was interesting. You mentioned that -- that there were a number of bad ideas when it comes to improving the accuracy of nuclear weapons. You talked about the reliability, their potential maritime uses that were being looked at, tactical nukes. A lot of these things are getting a lot of traction and play in certain circles here. What is your feeling towards this -- these attitudes.

Admiral GAYLOR: Well, taking them one at a time, I think so-called improvement is a looser. It doesn't matter if you have a radius of kill of -- in miles whether you're a couple of hundred yards -- a thousand yards or so of missing the target. And the improvement to yet a hundred megatons out of something doesn't mean that you could do any more than destroy a city with a little old dinky uranium bomb. Um, what was the other one?

Mr. SAPIENZA: You hear out of the Pentagon talk about tactical nukes. You hear about bunker busters with nuclear devices, you know, what do you think of these ideas?

Admiral GAYLOR: I think first, that they have no military reality. I can't imagine a campaign in which they could be used. That's not just a facile statement. I actually looked into it very carefully at one time, and came to that conclusion, made the recommendation that we had no tactical use for them. Now, when we plan to use them against a possible Soviet invasion of Europe, somebody neglected to note that we would kill innocents, French and German in there many, many thousands and that wouldn't do much for the NATO alliance.

Mr. SAPIENZA: You talk about intelligence being very, very important.

Admiral GAYLOR: Uh huh.

Mr. SAPIENZA: How will or how could intelligence play a role in working towards abolishing nuclear weapons, towards disarming? How could it play a role?

Admiral GAYLOR: I think that intelligence basically is the evolution of fact and by many means, certainly not espionage alone, but electronic and photographic and the reporting of reporters to the press and of our ambassadors all rolled up together and even more important, perhaps, the analysis of people who know the targets as we're looking at. So, in the end as we know facts, we're able to operate on them.

Mr. SAPIENZA: If you had to give two or three immediate concrete steps of how the U.S. could lead the rest of the world toward the abolition of nuclear weapons, what would they be?

Admiral GAYLOR: We should propose and establish a facility to which we, taking the lead and other acknowledged possessors as well as unacknowledged ones turn in nuclear weapons, disassemble them, destroy them, take disposition of the nuclear material for power or hiding that can't be retrieved -- by the way, I think that's possible.

Mr. SAPIENZA: Yes.

Admiral GAYLOR: And in that way, end the threat. And particularly, I think that the very possession of weapons is bad news.

Mr. SAPIENZA: Okay. I wrote down one question later on here that I wanted to ask you. I took a lot of notes today. I'm taking notes from everybody. Okay. Will the abolishment of nuclear weapons uncork conventional war or cause -- in fact, cause instability. I mean, there may be this hangover, this fear that we shouldn't let go of nuclear weapons because this may uncork instability and threaten convention warfare, unquote.

Admiral GAYLOR: Well, you can start by looking at the inverse. The possession of nuclear weapons by anybody certainly hasn't deferred conventional war. I could name them off half a dozen of them right now. So, I think to argue that these somehow promote stability is mistaken.

Mr. SAPIENZA: Um, let's see -- in 1996, the Canberra Commission stated that the proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used defies credibility. Yet many individuals in and out of uniform believe the U.S. must retain these weapons as a deterrent. Why can't sufficient safeguards be devised to insure control?

Admiral GAYLOR: I think it would be very difficult, but first off your statement that military people support the possession in perpetuity is just wrong. There are many very senior people, some with current responsibility who believe that we should get rid of nuclear weapons. And incidentally, they have been prime ministers and field marshals and anybody you can think of who can come up with that same position.

Mr. SAPIENZA: Okay. Should some future power arise that opposes an equally severe threat to American --

Admiral GAYLOR: I'm not hearing you now, what did you say?

Mr. SAPIENZA: Well, during the Cold War --

Admiral GAYLOR: I'm not arguing it, I just meant that I wasn't hearing it.

Mr. SAPIENZA: Okay. Well, during the Cold War, the "better dead than red" slogan implied that there might be reason to risk nuclear war. Should some future power arise that posed an equally severe threat to American values and American democracy, would American leaders be justified in reverting to a similar stance, relying on nuclear weapons?

Admiral GAYLOR: Let me be sure I understand the question, so I'll paraphrase it. Is there any situation in which nuclear war would be worth it? My answer is hell no.

Mr. SAPIENZA: Okay. Do you have anything that you would like to add that you feel is not often heard in the media, heard on television, that you think the American people need to hear when trying to -- to understand this issue of working towards abolishing nuclear weapons?

Admiral GAYLOR: Well, there are a lot of them. One very unfortunate thing, I think, is confusing nuclear weapons with delivery systems like intercontinental ballistic missiles and all of that sort of stuff. All of which is in my judgement nonsense because they can be delivered by bakery trucks and rats across a rail, Middle East camels.

Mr. SAPIENZA: Well, I think that pretty much covers it. I think that was --

Admiral GAYLOR: Do you want anything more?

Mr. SAPIENZA: Well, let me see. Let me just look through my notes real quick.

Admiral GAYLOR: You want me to say that I think we ought to have in the way of conventional forces?

Mr. SAPIENZA: Well, I mean, okay, if -- if we were to eliminate or get rid of our nuclear arsenal, what would you want to see as our -- or how would you want to see our forces set up?

Admiral GAYLOR: Well, I think we ought to have conventional forces whether we do or do not get rid of nuclear weapons. And I think that they should comprise a Navy that'll control the oceans, an Air Force, both Air Force and Navy that'll control the air the missiles and the ground forces, Army and Marines and battle tested and capable. If we do that, nothing can come against us except nuclear weapons.

Mr. SAPIENZA: And how is the United States uniquely positioned -- how is the United States uniquely positioned in the post Cold War era? How are we a positive situation in a way by virtue of our location and how does that provide us some security these days?

Admiral GAYLOR: I think you're suggesting that our physical location gives us security.

Mr. SAPIENZA: Or does it?

Admiral GAYLOR: I think only in a limited way. We have oceans that we can control on both sides. Mr. SAPIENZA: -- what your rank was at the time, what you were doing when -- when you had this -- when you questioned the utility, the military utility of nuclear weapons.

Mr. SAPIENZA: We all -- we're all set? Okay.

Admiral GAYLOR: I saw Hiroshima. Utter desolation. Not a thing moving. A little old dinky bomb did that. I participated in a second, I think it was, group of nuclear tests in the South Pacific, the Sandstone Series and I first saw what these things looked like, little thing from nineteen miles away is like the end of the earth. And I realized that the ideas about protection of ships -- Navy -- run away from the base surge, wash down of decontamination -- all of that stuff was just nonsense. And I think -- I think -- by the way, something funny happened. Hard to believe you could be funny about nuclear testing, but we discovered that the sailors were kind of disappointed with us after all the work they'd done, washed down and whatnot, nothing much was happening until finally some character put a geiger counter on the top of the cabinet [inaudible] and by golly, a passing sea gull had made a deposit there and it was radioactive. And everybody was happy.

Mr. SAPIENZA: Sort of proof that all that work wasn't in vain.

Admiral GAYLOR: [laughter]

Mr. SAPIENZA: Okay. Well, thank you very much, Admiral.

Admiral GAYLOR: You're welcome.