SUGG: Congressman Markey...

MARKEY: Yes?

SUGG: Why have you taken it upon yourself to become a leader for de-alerting?

MARKEY: There is a huge need for our Congress to be educated on this issue. There had to be a beginning of the process. And that's why introduced a Congressional resolution. That's why I now have 85 co-sponsors. Because I've gone member, to member, to member beginning the process of explaining to everyone that our nuclear weapons are still on first-strike, hair-trigger alert and that it's time for us to move back from the brink.

So, my efforts are aimed at beginning the educational process, building a critical mass of members of the House and Senate who oppose present nuclear deployment strategy, and to urge the President to lower this state of readiness, this state of alert that we've been on, and to challenge the Russians to follow our lead.

SUGG: Describe the experience you had pushing the resolution. Are people responsive to it? Are they open to it? Do you feel like people are getting on board at an acceptable rate? Has it been a struggle? Talk about how the resolution has been received. How is the Congress responding to this idea? How are your fellow members responding to taking nuclear weapons off of hair-trigger?

MARKEY: Many member feel that the Senate rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was a national disgrace and as a result it's very easy to get them to sign on to this resolution because at least it's a step in the right direction, and something that can be done.

On the other hand, there are many others who confuse the terminology, the difference between de-targeting and de-activating. And as a result I have to stand there and explain to them the difference between the two concepts and why it's necessary to move to de-alerting as well in order to insure the maximum safety for the planet. But with proper education, I think that we can get a very high percentage of the members of Congress to sign on board. But it will require a lot more effort, not only by members of Congress, but also by large numbers of American citizens.

SUGG: The perception of the CTBT was that it divided itself along political lines. Do you see de-alerting as being vulnerable to (inaudable) or is perhaps something that's more bipartisan in nature? How do you think, with respect to the two parties, de-alerting will be received?

MARKEY: I have a feeling this issue will break down pretty much along the same lines as the test ban treaty did. But, remember, the public overwhelmingly supported this issue. As a result, it's just the perfect kind of an issue to be injected into a presidential year political debate. We want every one of these candidates to have to answer the question because if we do our job, there will be a political price to pay for those who oppose the de-alerting initiative.

SUGG: What are the strongest selling points of de-alerting as you make the rounds with your fellow members and try to sell this resolution?

MARKEY: Well the simple argument that I make, is that these weapons are still on hair-trigger, first-strike alert. And there is no need for that to be the case. Why run the risk? Why have Russian weapons that may not have been properly maintained? Why have Russian engineers that may not be properly paid? Be in a situation where American citizens are going to be jeopardized as a result of the inadequate maintenance or inadequate pay given to these Russian citizens?

So that becomes a very compelling argument. We are actually doing it in an effort to reduce the likelihood that American citizens will be at risk, and at the same time not reduce our ability to retaliate completely against any planned Russian attack against the United States.

SUGG: Some people have some criticism of re-alerting. Could we reconstitute our nuclear weapons quickly enough? Also, issues of verification. And then the general notion that there may be newer technological things on the horizon like ballistic missile defense. Could you address some of the criticisms out there. Sorta', maybe put these one by one and just give us your view as to why de-alerting is viable at this time.

MARKEY: I don't think that people in the United States see the Russians as our major rivals at this point al though they still pose this huge threat to us because both countries have weapons on high-alert. Even if the Russians re-alerted, they would do so at great jeopardy to themselves, because they would never know what the capacity of our trident submarines with 100 more nuclear weapons on board each could do to the society of Russia anytime they decided to launch a weapon against us.

So at the end of the day, unfortunately, too many conservative politicians are going to argue that an anti-ballistic missile system fully deployed is the only way to protect ourselves. And as a result, from my perspective, trigger yet another round of the arms race. When instead we are offering the common sense, simple solution to the problem. Begin to take more nuclear weapons down and de-alert the ones which we have, while still maintaining the security, the deterrent, which our country is going to need until the day when all nuclear weapons are abolished.

SUGG: Let's talk about constituent politics a little just quickly while we've got you here. What if individual citizens need... what buttons do they need to push when they contact their members, and how valuable is that... citizen action on behalf of this issue, with Congress?

MARKEY: Congress is a stimulus response institution. And there's nothing more stimulating than receiving hundreds or thousands of letters or e-mails from your constituents. Obviously that's going to trigger a response on the part of a politician. They're going to pay more attention to an issue that has a lot of grassroots support that has been demonstrated.

And so there's a challenge for the peace community. There's an opportunity for the peace community. Especially because of the presidential primaries coming up next spring. The more active they become it's the more likely they're going to receive a positive response from the members of the House and Senate and from those who are campaigning for the presidency.

So, the challenge is there. The opportunity is very large, and I think we can, by the end of the spring target as our goal the de-alerting of the nuclear weapons in the United States and in Russia. But it will only happen if we take the time, the effort, apply the energy to get this result. But the opportunity, without question, is right in front of us.