HENRY SOKOLSKI, NEOPROLIFERATION ADVISOR: No, not particularly. I think the reason why is, in the case of Iraq, you had a country that was going to get nuclear weapons, whereas in the case of North Korea, they're threatening to export them. So there's really a figure of merit difference in the case of North Korea and Iraq.
In the case of Iran, you have pictures, lots of them, of rather large facilities, none of which make any sense unless they're going to make bombs.

MARK DAVIS: I guess, particularly with the case with North Korea, if they actually do have active weapons, but how do you deal - and this is your central topic, I guess - how do you deal with North Korea, which says it does have weapons, and how do you deal with Iran which you claim is not far off possessing them?

HENRY SOKOLSKI: When you have treaties that they've signed and you're pretty clear, certainly in the case of North Korea, that they violated them or withdrawn from them and there are reports of such to the UN, you need to act on that. The reason why is at a minimum you cannot continue to deal with these countries if they've violated a nearly universal treaty as if they're your equal.

You have to make it clear that they're not - they're violators. Then I think you have to take some actions to make sure they don't spread the problem that they've created for themselves and their neighbours to others and we don't set an example that encourages other would-be bomb-makers to follow their example.

MARK DAVIS: Following the experience of Iraq, there is a certain logic for small nations to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. It may be unwelcome, but it's certainly a rational response.

HENRY SOKOLSKI: Well, I think it's not worked so well for Saddam. I think the other countries now are pausing to think about whether it's so smart for them.

MARK DAVIS: North Korea, which claims it has these weapons, is, frankly, probably looking safer than other so-called rogue nations. Don't you believe that many countries would be drawing a lesson from this?

HENRY SOKOLSKI: Well, I'm afraid they will and that's the reason why I think it's very important that when the International Atomic Energy Agency says that North Korea is in violation of reports, such to the UN Security Council, that we need to act on that.

I also think it's important that given the technical violations and sort of the gross misuse and abuse of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that Iran's engaged in, that the UN Security Council needs to take up, as does the International Atomic Energy Agency, the question of whether Iran has violated it. We're right in the midst of trying to re-think and tighten up the rules.

Now the alternative to not tightening up the rules and acting through the UN is pretty clear, and I think we've seen it in the case of Iraq. Now if folks do not want to do that, it's up to them, and that means more than just the United States to take these issues where they can be joined diplomatically.

MARK DAVIS: Iran has reported that it was building two uranium-enrichment plants. They're claiming they're for civilian purposes. What do you claim they're for? What are they capable of producing?

HENRY SOKOLSKI: That doesn't - yes, the problem with that explanation is that if you take a look at all of the uranium that they have mined and that they have reserves discovered for, it doesn't amount to enough to fuel even one of these large reactors that it's building. So, that looks very suspicious. It doesn't add up. It would be like you and I needing a sandwich and buying a slaughterhouse first. It just doesn't make sense.

MARK DAVIS: Well, isn't America - can't America also be accused of breaching the same international treaties? There's talk now of the Pentagon pushing for low-yield uranium devices, the so-called bunker-busters or mini-nukes.

How can America talk to other countries about their nuclear programs when they're breaching the spirit of the international treaties in place?

HENRY SOKOLSKI: Well, I don't think the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty says that countries that have nuclear weapons shouldn't try to reduce the number by figuring out how to make them smaller. That's point one.

And point two - I think I do take your point on board. We're studying these things. There's really a kind of moral dilemma. If you have nuclear weapons do you keep ones that will do more indiscriminate harms than the ones you might develop or not? There's a study under way to see whether or not even these bunker-buster bombs are even practical. It may not be, the jury's out.

But I think on a more general point I'm willing to climb on board - and that is you can't continually say that you're going to rely very heavily on more on nuclear weapons while you encourage others to give them up or make sure they don't acquire them - that certainly is clear.

And the general trend of the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and the other declared powers is to reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons for their security, and I think that has to continue. But it is contingent, after all, on these weapons not spreading to other nations. So it's kind of a balancing act.

MARK DAVIS: Well, it must make your job more difficult, and I imagine incredibly difficult for the Administration to be talking to any nation on earth about nuclear proliferation.

HENRY SOKOLSKI: The number of weapons the United States had back in the '60s pushed beyond 30,000 weapons. Currently, we have deployed somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 6,000 and the numbers are coming down from there to about 2,000. Now, you can dismiss that and say "Oh well, they have nuclear weapons," but I think that's a big difference, and the trend line's pretty clear.

Not only that, but when we fight wars we don't rely on nuclear threats, particularly, and so what the President is saying is we reserve the right to use these things if indeed countries start using weapons of mass destruction themselves.

And I think that beyond that, there's not much clear guidance, and the fact of the matter is the way we will get off our dependence on any kind of threat like that is to make sure that weapons of mass destruction don't spread in the first place.

MARK DAVIS: Henry Sokolski, thanks for joining us.

HENRY SOKOLSKI: Thank you.