I have puzzled over that issue for a long time. The nuclear proliferation threat I think has gradually increased over time. The Achilles heel of the nuclear proliferation treaty—which we're seeing now played out fully in the case of Iran—is that you signed onto NPT and publicly said you wouldn't acquire nuclear weapons, but in return you had access to nuclear technology. Then over time, when political circumstances change and a new regime decides it wants to go down that path, it now has the technology and the fundamental knowledge and scientists to do this. This is the exact case of Iran today. If you go back, the foundation of its nuclear program was a function of NPT and the transfer of peaceful nuclear technology to the shah's regime, courtesy of the United States, West Germany, and others. Once you've got that piece, you now can start to move.
So I think on the nuclear question that it has slowly increased, along with the increasing evidence of the development of long-range ballistic missile delivery systems. But I've always believed that in this world the nuclear equation stands separate from the chemical and biological. I don't see any significant increase, I don't see any significant evidence, I don't see any significant sense, whether it's by states or by non-state actors, that they see any significant political utility in chemical and biological weapons. For the crazy, the criminal, the little evidence we have there is of concern, but I certainly don't put the chemical and biological.... I would say that has stabilized or gone down.