Thank you very much, Chair.
I went from having seven minutes with each of you to having five minutes with both of you, so I will ask my question fairly quickly and then allow the rest of the time for both of you to comment.
NATO was of course created largely in response to the pressures of the Soviet bloc, or ended up becoming what it was because of the Cold War. That model, with certain exceptions—the concerns around Turkey and Syria, for example—has largely been supplanted by concerns of....
I mean, even the action against Libya was not really against Libya. It was against a specific regime and an individual in Libya. But the idea of states warring against each other seems to have fallen out of...at least what is our current experience. This has an impact on both what NATO is doing and what NATO needs to do, but also around nuclear disarmament, as you've talked about, Professor.
I'd like to hear, first of all, how we're managing that shift, or how we should manage that shift, from being about warring states, which was the old model of peacekeeping, to much more anti-terrorism, promotion of security, guerrilla warfare between different factions within states.
Secondly, you talked a lot about nuclear deterrents...but talking about both, in that regard, having individuals or organizations that aren't states beginning to access nuclear weapons, and how that affects the nuclear atmosphere we're in, linking a little bit to certain conventional munitions—chemical, biological, or, specifically in this case, cluster bombs—that have larger implications than others for our global security.
I'd turn it over to both of you, please.