Transcripts For CSPAN2 Senator Cotton Calls For Budgetary Changes To Bolster Missile Defense 20170705

Treat, not one but two part discussion on u. S. Missile defense policy. Part one will be the gentleman sitting next to me, right, center to tom khan from arkansas. Part two after his keynote address as well as q a session will be what hope is a lively debate on Missile Defense with Joseph Cirincione and rebeccah heinrichs. Im going to keep my remarks prebrief doesnt want to spend as much time with senator cotton as possible. It goes without saying that washington is faced with severe challenges when it comes to missiles and the proliferation of missiles throughout the world. Obviously north korea is very much in the news to get the departments of it short, medium and longrange Ballistic Missiles and the ability at some point his homeland. Senator cotton has been the forefront of advocating for a robust Missile Defense strategy. His remarks will be around 20 minutes or so. After that will open the floor to questions for about 25 minutes. Please keep in mind during the q a to state your name and affiliation as we are very much on the record as you can see by the different cameras. As time is limited please keep your question as compact and precise as possible. With that, senator cotton, the floor is yours. Thank you all for joining us today to discuss this very important topic. The defense of the homeland is the most basic premise of american grand strategy and it has been before this country was founded. If you read the bill of particulars in the declaration of independence you will see one of the complaints was that the king was not protecting american citizens from attacks on her own land. Theres been a consistent theme since the founding and the revolution war and american strategic discussions, whether its the sacking of washington and the burning of the white house during the war of 1812, the premise of the munro doctrine that we would let powers of the old world have a saline into the new world for which they could threaten the homeland. The cuban missile crisis was resolved in part by the u. S. Making commitment that we would not attack cuba again absent the deployment of offense of weapons capable of striking our homeland, and after the 9 11 attacks the world saw the kind response the American People demand with our citizens are attacked on our own soil. Its also one reason why we have all those Forward Deployed basis in places like europe and the middle east and east asia on the eurasian redlined tickets to assure our allies and help defend them more than anything its forward defense for the United States and our citizens and our territories so that if anyone is going to be fought its going to be fought at an away game on our enemies turn. Not a home game on our trip if thats what Missile Defense is a musthave our military. Its only becoming more so in the future because our rivals are continuing to advance their ballistic and Cruise Missile technology. I divide the threats we face into shortterm and longterm. Shortterm threats north korea, longerterm threat to countries like iran, russia and china as they develop and deploy more advanced systems. As a preview there are four things we need to do to counteract these threats. First and most self is to increase our defense spending the second is to spend some of that additional money on integrated layered ballistic Missile Defense systems. Third is to help our allies develop their own missileDefense Systems, and fourth is to reconsider and reevaluate the Intermediaterange Nuclear forces treaty. First, let me turn to the threats that we face. First, and most immediate, north korea. Asked secretary mattis said recently in testament to Congress North korea is the most urgent and dangerous threat to peace and security that we face. This year alone north korea has been testfiring two or three short and mediumrange Ballistic Missiles per month. They are working on submarine launched Ballistic Missile technology as well. Everyone agrees its only a matter of time before the North Koreans and flight test an intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of hitting not just white or alaska but noticed its main lender as president obama warned president elect trump during the transition that with good was the most urgent crisis he might face. I should hasten to add even if north korea struggles to miniaturize its nuclear technology, their attack in the water lepore import remind the world they a vast stores of chemical and biological weapons which can be delivered by Missile Technology. One must we buy the reliability of north Koreas Nuclear command and control systems. They are developing for instance, road mobile evidentiary submarine launched Ballistic Missiles. One must wonder whether or not those commanders will have will be under the full control of north koreas National Leadership in a crisis. Second, iran. Since the joint conference a plan of action beside iran is tested Ballistic Missiles on at least 14 different occasions. The irgc five Ballistic Missiles into eastern city last week in an attempt to strike isis targets. I would suggest are tied to send a signal to both the United States and israel. Moreover, there are reports that iran is supporting elastic Missile Technology development in yemen to the proxies the houthis. Finally by the time i ran nuclear deal requirement sunset i would suggest that to have Reliable Delivery systems for any Nuclear Weapons program. Third, a country that sometimes escapes notice is pakistan. One cannot discount the possibility that one of pakistans over 100 Nuclear Weapons might fall out of the country come out of that governments controlled potential into dance of extremists. And, of course, a loose Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a test group is exactly the kind of threat Ballistic Missile systems is designed to stop. Next is russia. As i do when here is well aware, the russians to make in the Worlds Largest inventory of Nuclear Warheads. Russia is also tested and deployed a groundlaunchd Cruise Missiles that violates the Intermediaterange Nuclear forces treaty. The vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff testified this year to congress that the russians have quote violated the spirit and intent of the inf treaty and to do not intend to return to compliance. He also said quote the system itself present a risk to most of our facilities in europe. In other words, russia is violating treaty from which they receive greater benefit to the United States and, therefore, need more without paying any consequences. China, the pla navy has for ssb is giving beijing a credible sea bass nuclear deterrent. China also is not a member to the inf treaty. Therefore they have developed a number of dual use missile varies in a 500five and 50 km range that contribute to the at the access areal denial strategy. In east asia. Moreover, both russia and china are blurring the separation between nuclear and conventional weapons use. Some may say ballistic Missile Defenses are provocative to our adversaries because it could stir the balance of deterrence. But i would say the balance is already being disturbed by these technological advances as well as these blurred doctrinal lines. Russia sees it a weapons a limited nuclear use against conventional military targets as a way to escalate, to deescalate in their terms, to end the conventional conflict on favorable terms for russia. China likewise is beginning to rethink its no first use doctrine which can occur a of course at any point of to the decision to use a Nuclear Weapons in a crisis. Chinese military journals discuss the use of Nuclear Weapons as a highlevel component of and at the access areal denial strategy in the western pacific. With regard to china also must note that we have to deal with the fact the size and the quality of its Nuclear Forces remain largely a mystery to us as a little transparency on what Nuclear Weapons they may have produced and whether and how they are concealed. Deterring what we dont know about of course is a very difficult task. If our adversaries are contemplating use of Nuclear Forces as part of normal warfare, and i would suggest we woulbe best advised to develop ballistic Missile Defenses instead of clinging to a deterrence framework that theyve already discarded. So what do we do about all these threats likes first as i said the most fundamental decision we have is increasing our Defense Budget. With that comes the requirement of repealing the budget control act. The budget control act was passed in 2011 in a very different world than we face now. Congress has repeatedly made it clear that they cannot abide by those limits. After spending caps we need to affect briefly in 2013 Congress Passed a twoyear budget followed by anonymous follow by and an under this. Congress did not in 2015. If congress doesnt act to repeal the budget control act i predict well see a continuing resolution in september, another to your budget in the fall, another omnibus this december, another omnibus in december 2018 and we will repeat that cycle once again between 192020 face. It will mean not Wise Investments because her minister will not have the kind of longterm stability and predictability they need. Only 47 senators were in office in 2011 to vote for that bill. The 112th congress was not the Constitutional Convention to the budget control act is not the constitution. The budget control act must be repealed. How should we spend that money . We have a lot of needs, a lot of conventional needs, a lot of needs to modernize our Nuclear Forces. But the threats that we face also required that we accelerate the deployment of integrated and layered ballistic Missile Defense systems. That incorporate forwardbased assets with space sensors and groundbased interceptors in the United States and begin to explore Airborne Systems as well. In the short term we need to be able to stop the limited icbm attack threat from states like north korea and potentially iran. Over the long term though i would suggest we need to be able to stop an attack from near peer adversaries as well. I was pleased to see the Missile Defense agencies successful groundbased interceptor test last month that destroyed an incoming missile from the pacific. Were not on track to have 44 groundbased interceptors deployed by the end of the year. To accelerate our ballistic Missile Defense progress, ayes spotted the advancing american Missile Defense act along with senator sullivan, senator cruz, senator booker, ended a mansion, Bipartisan Group of simpson recognize the threats that we face, some of whom own citizens face it the most gratefully. This legislation will authorize another 20 groundbased interceptors that would excedrin the development and deployment of advanced interceptor technologies as well as the development and deployment of a spacebased sensor layer. It will also exert the Environment Impact statement for our interceptor site on the east coast as well as one in the midwest of the United States. And it would require that dod report on the possibility of up to 100 groundbased interceptors distributed across the United States and asked for the specifics about optimal locations and the possibilities of transportable groundbased interceptors. In addition i think the Missile Defense agency should rapidly develop and demonstrate an airborne Unmanned Aerial Vehicle boostphase intercept capability. The concept would be to involve, would involve High Altitude long endurance uavs equipped with laser payloads loitering for days at a time rotations would be managed by a ground crew. Why would we do this . Intercepting and this will in the boost phase before ags midcourse is the holy grail of ballistic Missile Defense. Because the missile is moving slower, therefore easier to track and it is still intact. No decoys or debris are deployed. Also of course is over its enemy, the enemy territory, not over our territory. All these things combined make it increase the problem of an intercept and the impact of an intercept. The concept is of course challenging, mainly due to technology. However the technology is rapidly advancing. I believe with more investment and exploration it is a feasible concepts. Third, we need to encourage our allies to deploy their own ballistic Missile Defense systems. Forward deployed u. S. Missile defense assistance and allied ballistic Missile Defense information sharing supports our goals of protecting the homeland, extended deterrence and assurance of our allies. The United States has deployed 2000 launchers to south korea but the new south korean government has delayed the default of four additional systems in an attempt to appease china in intimidation of south korea. The japanese are currently debating whether to deploy either the thaad system for the aegis sure system. We should encourage them just as we should encourage our allies in the middle east, United Arab Emirates have purchased a thaad system. The United States has approved for sale to qatar and saudi arabia thaad system as well all to from a renter in europe t has been one year since nato deployed aegis sure to romania. Instruction is underway on a polish aegis to shore site and for ages capable aegis destroyers or color based in spain. All of these developments plus more that could be on the way will help develop or help create the kind of layered theater system that our troops and nationals as well as our allies and their citizens need. Fourth and final, i suggest its time to read i wait the Nuclear Forces treaty. It rush is going to test and deploy intermediate range Cruise Missiles, then logic dictates that we must respond. After all, as i said, russia benefits more from the inf treaty then does the United States. Unless we believe that canada or mexico are going to develop intermediate range missiles anytime soon or that we would allow them to be deployed to cuba. None of which i would imagine what happened. Yet i rush is violated with impunity a treaty from which they benefit more than do we. Its obvious that pleading with Vladimir Putin regime to uphold its treaty obligations and stop brought russia back into compliance nor is it likely to do so. Therefore strengthening our deterrence and are specifically our Ballistic Missile deterrent in russia. Pacific commander testified we should take a look at renegotiating the treaty because it has become his words, a unilateral limitation on us. Since the United States and rush are the only two nations who are a party to a treaty russia violating it, the United States is the only country on earth that is not at least exploring if not developing and actively deploying cruise and Ballistic Missiles in the range of 5005500 kilometers. Thats i propose intermediate range forces Treaty Preservation act, all aimed at taking steps that are permissible within the inf treaty but also to pressure iran, russia to come into compliance. The legislation would establish a program of record for a dual capable road mobile ground launch Missile System with inf ranges and facilitate the transfer of inf ranges system to allied countries. In the late 1970s and early 1980s under jimmy carter and Ronald Reagan the United States successfully use such a dual track approach to bring the soviet union to the inf negotiating table. The legislation would further limit fines on new s. T. A. R. T. Extension are open sky treaty activities until russia returns to compliance with the inf treaty. These are just a few of the steps i think we should take to face the growing threat or to counteract the growing threat that we face former adversaries Missile Technology and deployment advances. Theres no doubt more that we could, but at this point im happy to turn to harry for questions, and then to each of you. Thank you send to do. Let me use moderators privilege to ask the first question and then ill open it up to the audience. Listening to remarks i kept thinking about north korea. August very much in the news. There was rumors circulating on friday and over the weekend that because, over the weekend of the 25th where the anniversary of the north korean, the war with north korea in the 1950s, that they could be a nuclear test. So lets say, for example, north korea or to test an icbm. What do you think would be the appropriate response from the chump administration . Do you think we should use our Missile Defense and take it out . Would it be a better idea to observe it what you think would be the best approach . Yes. So i wont speculate on how hypothetical diet i will be some of those questions to our military experts. We should bring every pressure to bear weekend on north korea to deter them from doing just that. I have to say i dont think china has done much in the last six months or for that matter the last 30 years in trying to deter this threat from north korea. They continue to try to have it both ways and is much more that we could in terms of sanctions against north koreas illicit network as well as individuals and businesses in china whose facilitate north koreas military and of Ballistic Missile technology development. At the same time we got to continue to take prudent precautions, which is working with the new Moon Administration and seoul to hopefully deploy the remaining thaad system to encourage japan to take whatever courses they choose they think most appropriate for their own self defense, the defense of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in the theater whether its the thaad system for the aegis system. There are steps left to be taken that we have not yet taken with north korea before we simply cede to the choices between accepting north korea as a Nuclear Armed state that kyle at risk the states of the United States of america, or having to fight another korean war. Fair enough. With that it is question and answer time. Please keep in mind to state your affiliation when you ask your question. You go first, please. If we can get a microphone, right behind you. Take you very much. [inaudible] i wanted to ask the basis for your aim to have when hundred interceptors, and what you make of the risk of so many of [inaudible] all right. I think we need more interceptors. Obviously if north korean develops an intercontinental Ballistic Missile or if theres another missile threat to our homeland, you dont want to have one interceptor for one missile. Whose success rate is growing but the success rate is unlikely to ever be perfect or 100 . And, therefore, we need to increase the number of interceptors we have. In terms of the technology, obviously as i said, i was pleased to see the successful test earlier this month over the pacific. Of course the question to ask on this test is not whether it was a success or a failure, what we learned. Because you learn from success or from failure. If we are succeeding with a first or Second Generation interceptors, thats a good thing but it also leads to more Lessons Learned that might create future generations as well. Richard. Wait for a microphone, richard come if you dont mind. Richard white. Following on that i would think that one way you could make the best use of any additional interceptors is improving the kill vehicle. If you lay out some longterm objectives but it might be useful to think about having the redesign kill vehicle of these as an interim step towards the process. I would agree. Go ahead, please. Congressional quarterly. You spoke earlier about russia and china blurring the lines between conventional and Nuclear Weapons use. Does that have any impact on your thoughts on whether the u. S. Should develop a new rso which critics have worried will also confuse [inaudible] no. Of course we need to develop the new standoff Cruise Missile. Our current missiles are soon be reaching their shelf life it were developing a new be 21 bomber but i think would be unwise to assume that throughout the multidecade life of the aircraft that it always going to be able to update the most complex defenses and reach the interior of our part of our adversaries territories. In addition the b52 with the right kind of modernization can be deployed for many decades to come. Obviously the b52 cannot penetrate the air Defense Systems of our adversaries and a new Cruise Missile is essential for making the b52 a viable part of our Nuclear Triad. Thats what almost every flag officer who is testified in front of the Armed Services committee has said that the longrange Cruise Missile is a vital part of our Nuclear Triad in addition to the be 21, the ohio class replacement. Thanks for coming, senator. I had a broader question for you, and listening to remarks, is what country do you think poses over all the greatest threat to American Security right now . Well, its a good question but the answer to the question always is Something Like asking how many adversaries can advance on the head of a pin, because all of our adversaries pose serious threats. So the most immediate threat you might say north korea. You might say iran. Or some of the Terror Networks that a country like iran support or a nonstate actor like al qaeda or the Islamic State your those are all reasonable answers to your question. At the same time rush is a very reasonable answer to question because russia at this time absent massive strategic surprise from china is only country that has the Nuclear Arsenal capable of destroying our way of life. And russia over the last several years has made it clear that they remain hostile power and that Vladimir Putin doesnt think soviet union or russia lost the cold war. There are simply behind at halftime and are working quickly to make up the difference. So much so that you might ask today whether russia is better poised to get to transport it to spain than they were in the late stage of the cold war. So the student ways of looking at that question. The take away though, i think its hard to pin point a single threat that is of the greatest threat we face is that our military needs to be agile and flexible and dominant at every domain and region, and part of that dominance is Missile Defense, not just to protect our deploy troops as i said at the outset, but to protect the homeland which is the most basic premise of american strategy. Christine along. Senator, great to see you. [inaudible] do you think its time to get up on china, trying to get china to help with north korea . What more pressure can be applied . What you make of the present tweet on china . How you think the administration is handling it so far . And on the inf can would leaving dinette spark a new arms race . Its better to win an arms race than lose a war. So thatll in the hands of Vladimir Putin and the russian leadership. Theyre the ones that are violating the inf treaty. Theyre the ones that deployed an intermediate range Cruise Missile that is extremely destabilizing in europe and potentially in the middle east and east asia as well. My legislation is designed to bring russia back into compliance with the inf treaty. Again, russia needs of the idea of treating more than we need them. One reason they came to the negotiating table is that once we deployed intermediate range missiles to europe in 1983 on a policy the start under the Carter Administration and continued under the reagan administration, they recognize just how grave that that was sitting. Again the United States faces a much more limited threat from intermediate range missiles. Russia also gets much more from the open skies treaty and does the United States yet russia continues to violate the open skies treaty. Rush is likely to want to extend the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty. With many points of pressure that we can bring to bear on russia to get them back into compliance with the inf treaty. Even if we do get them back into compliance, of course we still face the reality that china, since its not a party to the treaty, as something north of 90 of all of its missiles and that intermediate range as admiral harris pointed out in the Arms Service Committee resort. I think at a minimum we have to take steps necessary to bring russia back into compliance with inf treaty. First question on north korea, i dont think its time to abandon yet the effort to try to encourage beijing to bring more pressure to bear on pyongyang. Our steps we have not yet taken that we can take different since the threat of secular sanctions against chinese businesses, institutions and individuals who are key facilitators for north korea. There are also drug steps we can take about north korea like relisting them as a state sponsor of terrorism or tracking down again on some other Financial Institutions like we did in the last decade but in a misguided effort to try to reach a negotiated a come with korea, we lifted those things. I commend President Trump and secretary of state tillerson for undertaking these efforts with janet. I dont think it yielded fruit yet but i think theyre worth pursuing further. [inaudible] i had a question about. There has been even in the past six months, montenegro, questions of its usefulness and effectiveness, its been called a cold war relic that weve seen in step up exercises and involvement in response to russia with congress swaying on the side of nato, as the president has talked about the gdp 2 , what are your thoughts on usefulness for nato and how we can see our involvement and encouragement our allies especially in Eastern Europe just go over the next six months . That is vital to our National Security. As i said at the outset, a fundamental premise of american grand strategy since before we were a country is the defense of our homeland and our citizens, and every citizen in all 50 states deserve under our constitution equal protection from those kinds of threats. We tried a variety of approaches. Weve been trying to use sanctions as a route to bring the North Koreans around for a very long time. It gives grounds for someone like me to be ultimately pessimistic because its going to be the root. Which are left with then i think is your topic which is missiledefense. I wonder if you can say anything about the technology, technical challenges in this world are huge. The complexities are mindnumbi mindnumbing. How good are we and how good can we get . So first on the geopolitical point about north korea, as i mentioned earlier i think there are steps that can be taken at a not yet been taken to bring pressure to bear on north korea. China made a show earlier this year of cutting off coal imports which didnt really have much impact. North korea gets products almost exclusively from china. If china stop sending those you would see basically within a matter of weeks north korea would almost entirely out of gasoline. I think there our geopolitical steps we can take that we havent yet taken and that we ought to take if china doesnt quit playing both sides in this rivalry. In terms of military technology, opposite cant go into great detail and write it is a very complex. I also cannot yet, im not a Rocket Scientist and i barely got to physics in school. However, the experts who do this work at the missiledefense agency and more broadly within the pentagon were outside experts were increase in the confident that with higher levels of investment and more focused leadership in the executive branch and interest and pushing from the congress, that we were on the cusp of some pretty major breakthroughs. Not just groundbreaking interceptors as an agent but for instance, in Airborne Laser interceptors. Again its very cutting edge stuff, but given the pace of technological innovation, especially in this country, i believe that sooner rather than later we could see a genuine and acknowledged effective layered missileDefense System that could largely is not entirely neutralize the threat from a country like north korea. So you mentioned you want to build, potentially build this thing into something that can defend against a pure level threat which would mean russia or china. What kind of investment do you see that that would take in order to achieve that . Youre talking about hundreds, if not thousands, of interceptors and no guarantee of success. That almost invites a kind of situation where they might be perceived the threat, launch first strike if were going to do Something Like that. The second point was also was come the europeans feel threatened by Russian Ground based Cruise Missiles and Ballistic Missiles in that case. We would not be threatened but they are. Thats kind of a problem because we are also, we would not have skin in the game but they do. What can we do to reassure our nato allies that we will do something to defend them in desperate situation . Your first question, youre right that it would be a large investment of resources. Thats one reason why safe the budget control act must be repealed among many other reasons. But we wont know until i would say as a general matter our Defense Budget is not because of our deficit or the cause of our 20 trillion in in debt. If anything it helps make that deficit and that that more manageable longterm because it keeps open international lanes of commerce and keeps our people and assets protected. Inevitably when we try to balance a budget on the back of the military as we did immediately following the demise of the soviet union as we did over the last eight years, our enemies catch up with it as they did to us on 9 11 were as you are seeing around the world now. We are spending more money than we would have often on a crash course, often i think we would not have had to spend a month had whistled to maintain higher operations. Further on a strategic forces, i have sometimes heard the objection that we should spend so much money on weapons that we never use. I would dispute both premises of that statement or one come we dont spend that money on our strategic forces. Its only about 4 of the total Defense Budget and we use our Nuclear Forces every single day and we have for 73 years. Because they help deter the existential threat to our homeland. Your point is very right about the need to get our fiscal house in order. The mostly meat and funding nothing we can do is get our economy going once again at a rate that is much higher than one in half, 2 . President trump has prioritized that derogatory action but congress is working on it as well. We are looking at Health Care Legislation this week that might have the impact of making medicaid one of our, the three big drivers of our National Debt more financially stable in the long term, while an equal or greater quality of care to the most vulnerable populations that it didnt censure and safety. Youre right about the challenges we face from our debt. I would you are military so far from being a cause of that it is actually something that helps keep it within manageable levels by protecting peace and prosperity not just in the United States and around the world. That concludes part one. If we can get a hand for senator cotton. Thank you very much, senator. [applause] so if we could have jill and rebeccah come join us, we would jump onto route two. Round. Global Security Foundation author of the new book Nuclear Nightmares securing the world before it is too late. A romance novel. [laughter] he previously served as president for National Security and International Policy at center nor American Progress and director for nonproliferation peace and i happen to watch it today so congratulations on that. Thank you. Joe the floor is yours. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for inviting me and ten minutes each so cue me up and near the end of that ill stop. Its a lot to say and in ten minutes i baskly agree with everything that cotton said except that it was nice to be here. I represent the other side of this and let me fox my remarks primarily on Missile Defense. The point of this session. I have been in washington working on National Security for about 35 years. A pleasure ive known dimitri all of that time and jeff all of that time. A big rt of that fobsed on Missile Defense beginning in 1983 when president reagan launched strategic defense initiative. I was joined staff at thed house arm Service Committee in late 1984. And was assigned oversight responsibilities so ive been tracking these programs ever since. So let me state very clearly and fully, that i am strongly in favor of a Effective National Missile Defense system for the United States. Who wouldnt want an Effective National Missile Defense . If you could reliably protect American People from Ballistic Missiles to most to only threat that we have besides Climate Change who wouldnt want that . I want it. I also want a cure for cancer. I would also look a really good light beer. But some things are yongd our technological capability and effective Missile Defense is one of them. Its not the lack of trying. Weve spent 330 billion on Missile Defense over the last decade 330 billion dollars you saw our best contractors. Our best Scientific Minds focused on this. We have been pushing this. It is not as Newt Gingrich said in his contract at america in the 1994 election when he said only one of his ten points many this contract on america on National Security was about this. Was about Missile Defense its not because we lack the political will. Thats been the critique that we havent been trying hard enough. No, no, no, weve been trying. Republicans and democrats have been trying. Since since 19 80 republicans have held president executive branch for about half that time. For about half that time evenly split even more on the side of republicans actually. And theyve been trying to push this. The result has been that every Major National Missile Defense system we try to produce has failed. It has not worked. And were left with this system. The ground base Ballistic Missile gmd ground base Missile Defense. This is a system senator cotton talked about 45 interceptor os in alaska and california by the end of this year. This system does not work. It cannot protect the United States from a sophisticated, even north korean Ballistic Missile attack heres why. The problem with the Defense System were detailed in 1980s bit proponent of the fdi program, propoangt of the star wars we have to go to space. You remember those cartoons, those of you who were around then. Cartoon of these weapon satellites shooting star wars like lasers and blowing up incoming warhead like popcorn you needed to go to space because ground base Ballistic Missile flawed it would not work o. I have Daniel Graham book promoting frontier i went at the center for straw strategic studies i thought he was nuts but then comments on the ground were absolutely spot on. Number one, a ground base Missile System can be easily overwhelmed it is far cheaper for offense to proliferate warhead than for defense to proliferate defense. That is a simple task and never worried about soviets with a Missile Defense around moscow with 100 interceptors we targeted 200 war he hads never worried about penetrate those. The farther away targetses are higher up, the harder it is to discriminate between the real warhead and decoy and cannot discriminate between a warhead and couldnt in 1939 and still cant do it. Thats why none of the tests of this system have actually been tested against reals tick decoys. Realistic decoy os meaning decoys meant to look exactly like the warhead weve had tests with a big, big fat balloon in tiny warhead that you can do. But some there were o opponent is really determined to spoof you, in until the last test wee had had 18 tests. The last one of this is was the first one we tested against actual icbm target one that was actually icbm range everyone at the lower end. Other than that theyve been slower. Easier to hit targets. And the reason we dont test against effective countermeasures because we cant see. We cant discriminate we cant hit the system. But heres the final flaw of the ground base in the Missile Defense system says graham and others such the Institute Even if you could fix that. Even if you could discriminate even if you could deploy hundreds of effective interceptors your system is vulnerable and its radars can be attacked as you know, the beginning of any air campaign is just to suppress enemy defenses that will be true for missile as well and suppress defenses and attack their radar and blind system by simple means such as north korean fraud men, blowing up some of the Forward Deployed air defenses or by Ballistic Missile attack on radar themselves or by other means. Fine. So thats the problem we have. With some of this thats and its a confusing subject because so much of us are confused by the benefit of short range ballistic Missile Defense. That we can do with some success. You can build a short range system to shoot skud1600 kilometers. A 1,000 you can do that with some reliability. I spent a year of my life with the patriotism in the gulf war of 91 they said it hit 41 out of 44 said george h. W. Bush no it did not. It did not work it was not designed for the job it was given. We estimated hit somewhere between 0 and 4 of those but the patriot could be fixed and on the credit theyve done a very good job of fixing that patriot or knew much more capable System Software and interceptor so i think that patriot does give you a pretty effect defense against short range targets. The system on our Navy Cruisers and destroyers gives you a pretty effective defense against short range and only when you go long rage that you get those problems and this is what that will encount per it tries to intercept range Ballistic Missiles wonings youre in space where is is the same weight and no friction, threaten you cannot distinguish between warhead and balloons, the chat, the jammers that can be deployed National Intelligence estimate, it concluded that any nation capable on ballistic Missile Defense in 1999 and i. E. Said that any nation that could build ibcm capable could deploy any one or more of six basic countermeasures. So thats why when people say and you hear some generals say this that the jet it be ground base miss had l Defense System can provide, protection to the United States from a limited Ballistic Missile attack thats what they mean. A limited attack. No countermeasure. This system will only work if the enemy cooperates. If the enemy gives us a target that we expect and thats why the problem is ouring is from one site fraudulent island within trajectory and what the system looks like. Everything is set up. These are as they say in the trade track town chicken test and you kill a chicken you think i can kill a chicken really o go shoot it when it is 200 yards away. And thats your problem here. This is a system that has been designed for contract success. To keep the money going. So thats why you cannot rely on this system so why do people keep promoting it . I think some people dont know. I think they they dont know this thing doesnt work. They havent spent time and they havent really examined et test which is why my solution to this which ill give you at the very end might be a way to settle this debate. But some are driven by ideology. Ideology this is a beginning of the Missile Defense debate people rejected the idea of arms control. We will not allow the security of this nation to depend on a piece of paper. They do not believe that you can control these weapons by like treaty eliminating them even though Ronald Reagan did it with i enf treaty eliminated entire class even when it happen it is they dont believe it so therefore we have to rely on technology and our own military, thats why you hear senator cotton in full cold war mode and abandoning any effort to limit weapons with russia. Full on deployment of new Nuclear Weapons in europe. Proliferate Missile Defense. Missile defense will save us you think we have trouble with european allies now. Start deploying Nuclear Weapons in europe and see what happens. Remember what happened in the 1980s. This will be a disaster, of course, senator cotton is advancing is not only not only fail but it will make our situation more dangerous. Infinitely more dangerous and nothing to gain by abrogating intermediate forces treaty and a whole lot to loose. I wish Missile Defense worked. I wish we could do this but as Dwight Eisenhower said awful a atomic bomb does it not ermt permit of any such easy solution. Should you where keep trying, yes, you should. Should you deploy systems that dont yet work . No, you should not. Since we began deploying these Ground Base Interceptor this is 2004 it has a success rate of only 40 of only 50 since 2004. So even in the strap down chicken tests, it failed half the time. And reason is this is really hard to do. It is really hard to hit it with a bright light with a bullet and it is amazing that we can do it at all even under preseen ideal condition, and yes it still fails 50 of the time. We know that the kill vehicle someone mentioned this kill vehicle that dloid in a third had of interceptors dont very well. A fundamental flaw yet we have them so a hired of interceptors we know dont work and this problem with even replacement that kill vehicle well see since with the best record since 2010 when you think the beatles say it is Getting Better all the time. No this system is not get better all the time a 50 failure rate since 2004 and a 60 o failure rate since 2010. Weve now had had two successful tests in a row thats good in the 18 tests that weve had, we have had two, three, successful nest a row followed by two, three failures how do you settle this and decide rebecca is right shes about to say that everything since completely wrong. Foolish and dangerous or im right. Lets have an independent commission. This is the way we settled Energy Weapons the space weapon, original star wars weapons whether they could actually be built. The American Physical Society did a study in 1987 that said it would take 20 years before we would know whether such weapons were ever feasible it was at that point then congress decided to pull back on those programs go from much more limbed defensive system and debate over whether the star wars type systems could work was essentially over. Thats what we need now. Were never going to solve this in congress. Lets put together an independent commission or ask American Physical Society to aseis the feasibility of ground base ballistic Missile Defense to defend the United States from a limited or a large scale Ballistic Missile attack lets get to scientists involve who had doapght benefit from defense contract who arent institute benefit and defense contract who dont have an ideological vent to them. And then American Public can decide whether they should rush ahead with this fatally flawed system or wait until we can perfect something that might actually work before we deploy it. Thank you very much. Thanks. Well the day strap down chicken test. I will remember that within. I better use that in a piece i promise and steal it from you. Okay. So next we have a different perspective by rebecca from Hudson Institute shes a fellow there. Rebecca is served advisor on military matters and Foreign Policy to represent. Member of the house articled services committee. And she helps launch the Missile Defense caucus. Shes testified before congress. Shes a regular on tv. Shes on fox news cnn many other outlets. Published very widely in National Interest creative defense and outlets rebecca thank you. Im going to share this with you. You might respond to some of what joe said im going to give my remarks and then hopefully go back and forth a little bit and dig in where theres some of the major points of disagreement. Missile Defense Systems and by that i mean the entire suite of Missile Defense systems. So joe talked a lot about gmd thats ground base midcourse Defense System im going to talk about the whole entire concept of what United States is trying to do. Yes, theres gmd thats the only currently deployed ballistic Missile Defense system to protect from intercontinental Ballistic Missile and we have nothing there. We have the Weapon System with family of s mp3 interceptors that and patriot along with their associated sensors radar. And theyre all currently deployed and integrated as part of the u. S. Military operations. These systems complement offensive weapons strategic to deter launch of enemy missiles and if that fails to it feet those missiles midflight before the missile reaches its intended target that is the purpose of the systems. At one time, the concept of Missile Defense was controversial. There was disagreement be whether system could works an stabilizing system but im happy to report actually theres broad bipartisan consensus broad consensus within community to hit to Kill Technology similar, in fact, is proven and does work. Now, the disagreement among the Consensus Community lies on at how fast we deploy these system where is do we invest. How do we prioritize and what does the inventory look like moving forward balancing some of our resources, et cetera. Recent tests point to the success of some of the technical act of the Prime Minister and seen a test on couple of systems only at homeland as i said gmb system intercept for first time a icbm class target with countermeasures. This is so this was a under very realistic conditions. Short of launching it from north korea at our own homeland, you know, we have to take into consideration safety precautions and clearing the seas et cetera. But despite a what some hit to kill deniers say, the military, the Missile Defense agency along with pacific comangd everybody else involved in that test did not have the exact time but they have a window and able to successfully hit that discriminate against what was not the actual warhead and what was the mock warhead and successfully hit that target. And the s mp3 2a the system with the japanese had a successful intercept in february of this year. So yes most react one missed but again these are tests. And so we test and we point out areas where we need improvement and we build on those tests and we dont quit with until we actually have increased credibility in and reliability of the systems and so theres ao be excited about about with the female of interceptors as well. And back to the bipartisan point, in fact, and term Missile Defense appeared over 20 times in the 65 phage Obama Administration 2010 and Nuclear Posture review orb once every three pages of text. So the Obama Administration while starting its first term significantly cutting Missile Defense including as senator cotton talked about that boost element which i think described as holy grail because you can intercept enemy missile before it can release encounter measures. So its really where you want to get it. He cut the Missile Defense program and he cut the gmd program in half. He did restore funding to gmd in the in he has latter half of his time in the white house and initiated deployment of the 14 additional Ground Base Interceptors to alaska those are the same ones that he cut this first year in office. The administration initiated phase of that approach to Missile Defense in europe. The formally form or changes to Missile Defense was in response quickly expanding the changes were in response to the quickly progressing north Korean Missile program. Thats what just thats what james the administration minds and i made that announcement to actually now deploy those 14gbi and actually look at a third Missile Defense site in the east coast or midwest of the United States. And then the eppa in response to Iranian Missile threat to europe. But also the commitment to eppa and to give administration the Obama Administration credit, it statistic with those first two phases even though it eliminated that last four of the european phased out approach due to russian complaint that stuck with that initial phases because because of the threat. Of iran blissing missiles buzz our european allies wanted them and demonstrating a great commitment in assurance from russia, russia, of course, continues to oppose those european Missile Defense sites. So what happened here aside from just the change in the threat im i would actually say hat threat wasnt really a change but it was enough of it enough of an up it that i can even persuaded the most Missile Defense skep it tick in white house to change it but it was the threat that drove the military requirements which is the way it should be it should not be ideology. That i agree with my friend, joe. But it should be based on what does the threat tell us . And then those military requirements and then we work on technical capable and then we work look in the military requirement which is how weve actually done miss had l defense. All of the threat continue to grow worldwide and the effort missiles worldwide are still improving and spreading. And we have entered a new and dangerous era are of missile threat marked by missile improvement and range survivability and mobility and various times and antisatellite weapons so not merely reserved for cutting edge military technologies. Hiss pals provide a relatively inexpensive way for countries whose militaries far less sophisticated to deny access to contested areas to hold at risk us asset and homeland itself. Doangts take my word for it. In the last couple of days pentagon released to congress a new assessment on the threat to the United States and it said, quote, many countries deal policic and Cost Effective weapon and power and, quote, that is driving the need for Missile Defense worldwide this explosion of Missile Technology and then the report goes on to assess the both russia capabilities north korea, chinas, and irans. What this means that even if one does not believe that an enemy is in possession of a nuclear icbm frings that of north korea that it will necessarily employ by possessing to inhibit restrict our military and options in response is to a variety of kinds of aggression. Therefore, taking away enemies ability to credibly threaten with a missile enhances ability of the United States to conduct its Foreign Policy as policymakers see fit. We have to close those deterrent gaps by leaving the United States pex posed were creating incentive for our enemies to actually sell capabilities to hold aspects at risk. As the senator eloquently stated theres now underby a great bipartisan effort this is not a republican effort. This is a bipartisan effort in the senate to expand inventory also in investment in these programs. Thats across entire spectrum to the ground base midcourse Defense System im in firm agreement that especially on parking lot heals of this great successful intercept gmd now is the time to increase a number of imrowngd base interceptors we have space in alaska and in california to actually deploy those interceptors. And so as weve continued to improve the technology we should continue to test them vigorously. But that we shouldnt wait until the system, of course, is perfect because our enemies are not. General heightened just give a great talk a couple of days ago comparing the way that the United States says acquisition versus north korean. North koreans trying to get their offense oive ises to work so thats why you see missiles blowing up on launch pad theyre not diskowrminged with a misintercept test we think oh, no people looking to cut the program pl North Koreans are determined to actually have the capability so what theyre doing is testing theyre having setbacks and some of their tests but learning where mistakes are and then applying that new knowledge in order to actually improve the capability. I would suggest that the United States is take more of that approach to get defensive systems right so i qoangt go into too much of of detail but theres also great bipartisan effort had in the house of representatives. Theres a lot of democrats that are very interested in not having their state and their constituents held at risk of a nuclearized cbm so theyre working hard to make sure that we have a robust and credible Missile Defense system in the last thing aisle point out before we get into questions very port last year, the congress again both senate and house bipartisan effort and then to the 1999 national Defense System that strike limited from it. So now it is not the goal of the United States it was never the goal but it was stated that the way that the build, law was written it sort of left the impression to the pent begun and to the Missile Defense agency that United States was only to build a Missile Defense system to defend against missile attacks be actually the United States has always been ail to build a Missile Defense is as it sees fit. So limited was the sort of baseline but not el kroog and so congress now has i think prudently amended that law and has strucken word limited so that now United States is just agreed to build a Missile Defense system it based on the threat and can sort of go forward in materials of increasing the technology, and then the number of systems that we have in the inventory and that i would suggest includes expanding g mb expanding tad and then also getting a layer to tracking of missiles that we have a better idea of you know where these missiles are headed and whats on them and then even which a capable which would provide United States with the intercepting missiles in the light. So while theres a shame it has taken so long and been such a political battle to get us where we are in materials of technical camibility because of the political site that we have had that we have much to be grateful for and much to be optimistic about in terms of the testifies system deployment and also the increasing current political consensus we fought for and continue to grow. That all right thank you rebecca. So now fun begins with q and a please state your name and affiliation because were on the record. Dave youre first and then go to you, eric. [inaudible conversations] a question for both becca and joseph would you consider to be like a nonscript test. Because this test this last one youre right it doesnt have a window that is no coming but we have preposition and to radar where theyre supposed to be radar position where it needs to be, and in the right spot and to tight end. I was actually last week you know, it was last week, and they can tie it altogether thats all true. Problem is without those advance radar and whatnot you actually cant shoot this thing. So you have to have these things preposition around the world, and you have no one coming before you actually shoot without the space element of this already in place, i mean, how do you one, consider to be a employee, you know to defend country without my advance notice . [inaudible conversations] let me start. Look, if you are serious about this. If you are a warrior, if you are a politician who wants to protect the American People, you dont put deploy a defense. You dont deploy something thats made to look like a defense so it makes people feel better because that is dangerous youll enter into combat situation and youll escalate a conflict with enemy. Thinking that you can actually defend against them when you cant. This puts american lives at risk and troops lives at risk. So you want to test something, do it the way the military knows how to do. Red are team it and blue team it. Lets get a red team up who actually designs the target side that puts something up that is intended to stress Weapon System being tested and then you have a blue team who knows knock the target who maybe you give them a window of course you have to have certain limitations here to come this week. It is going to come this day, and then lets go try it. And they dont do that. And that is dangerous to america. That is not the way we should be buying our weapons. Do you want to deploy something and emergency basis if you have one of these gbi to this interceptor because you thought they have a weapon that could hit us they do not right now. But theyre working on it. You let the North Koreans do what theyre doing . They will have an icbm with a Nuclear Warhead to hit seattle or los angeles in the next four or five years. Thats my estimate. North korean threat is coming so need an emergency defense something last stab in yeah. But treat it that way. Understand that this is emergency deployment this is not an effective defense. And then stress it against what you think North Koreans actually would do pieces of wire, little low voltage jammers there to put out balloons that look exactly like the warhead. Or even simpler you take the boost vehicle and you have explosive rope that blows it up into little pieces so warhead coming at you in space and filled 100 pieces. You know what the defense has to do is target every single one of those. It cant. So do stuff like that. And then you might have a judgment on whether your system is actually going to protect American People or just protect you in the next election. Yeah. I would just say that past several north commanders four star commanders have all verified that they believe the gmd system does provide to protect United States homeland against Korean Missiles. Oak, now theres that. This has gone, commanded not a partisan issue but this is gone beyond just one Republican Administration democratic administration, and Ban Administration this last test and fact by the director of Operational Test and evaluation at the department of defense, you know continues to look at this system specifically. And in the past, and it has been test this is system theyre only looking at system able to do, and theyre stressing this system. Theyre pushing envelope and trying to stress system to see what it can do and said it has a limited camibility to defend United States from homeland from the small number of range are or intercontinental missiles with simple counting measures launch in north korea or iran. That has has been what theyre comfortable says system can do. After this most recent intercept test it has upgraded assessment and said that they have demonstrated cape to believe defense yids homeland from range and no longer limbed. This instruct that word so you dont have to. We can read o ohm source da it and pig and choose what we want to say about this system but talking about people at the hardware and data looking at the threat and north come commanders, the pacific commanders, those that u. S. Forces korea, in addition to both members of congress and sides of the aisle getting briefing on this and say this in terms of moving radar where it needs to go we are watching what north korea is doing. So yahweh dont want to be totally caught by surprise but as they begin to move we can get sensors and radar where it needs to be in order to get this system ready to go to intercept icbm. Ask even if you believe what rebecca justed said and even if you believe commanders who she quoted you have to understand that this in the 18 test is failed 50 of the time. This has a 50 failure rate. You wouldnt get in an airplane that failed 50 of the time. Why do you put the defense of the United States in the hands of such a system . Tenses but say youre in catchings where section of north korea i dont know like say iran has a missile we dont know about, and now we have system in a cave somewhere and it shoots for whatever reason you cant react because youre out of position. Youre making a great argument for increasing architecture. I would agree. [laughter] this having are those of us who actually are just who are evident space analysts are merely looking at what the system is currently able to do. We have made progress. Were very happy with where its at. Were not satisfied where its at and like to expand inventory and in the capability. You know ill be first to say we need more door and mba has said that had has had not been contest ited we need rdr et cetera and space sensors. Excuse me. So ive been working on project recently working at strategic building with china and part of that has been going through some declassified class documents about historical, you know, discussions declassified discussions with u. S. Government about half of the systems couchings fbi such as system in the 60s. And one thing that stuck out in that analysis is that in the past observers were pretty frantic about impact of Missile Defense on strategic stability. The idea that if we were to build better Missile Defenses then there are for the soviet and for chinese to expand their arsenal or invest in technologies that could defeat it. I dont really hear that in modern debates much. Why im curious to hear what panel think about why do question sort of ignore or down play against north korea and iran and limited missile threat, however, more money you put into it more interaccept force you add better interceptors you get higher incentive for russia and china to develop countermeasures to them. Is that conversation happening in policy making circles or is it being ig they ared . If i may take that one the reason you dont hear that debate no longer is because it is no longer applicable that applied with one particular enemy in which you were trying to deter youre worried about strategic balance because of prolific missile that doesnt it apply. More over you have chippings and russias that are free with capabilities so this fear that it shall the adversaries are going to be incentivized to build offenses have not proven but offensive systems because of the absence of a defensive system. Theyre where this is what i would call deterrence gap in our system. Where there have been gaps you have enemy step this is there. We do not have a robust capability against our state assets and more we lie on space assets more we create incentive for enemy to target those vulnerabilities. So what i have argued is as you have seen we doapght need to incentivized a very says to do within our own interests. States act in their interest. China would like to hold the United States at risk so it will. It is up to the United States then to respond by closing that gap that we have remained vulnerable because of the, you know, abm treaty, and then just lack of policymakers interest in actually moving in that direction. Thats why i think its so important that congress had prudence and insight to actually amend that national act to make it clear that should the United States deem it responsible and technological comply possible to close gaps that we are free to do that. Deterrent gap must i dont think ive heard that i havent been paying attention just so you all know, and those of you watching at home. United states has about 5,000 Nuclear Warheads in its active stock mile. Russia has approximately the same about 4,000 now. Weve come down a little bit. Thats enough to destroy human civilization maybe 20 to 30 times over. Thats a pretty good deterrent i dont see any gap in either side. We could easily cut down to a few hundred each in would have robust deterrent so this gap is interesting slogan i dont think it has any relationship at all to the reality of Nuclear Weapon. But on the question of a Missile Defense, this center used to be called nixon center. And Richard Nixon believed in deploying a Missile Defense he had supported democrats president johnson when he started deploying a limited Missile Defense in the United States. But he and secretary of state henry understood that if you wanted to stop the arms race both u. S. And russia were racing to deploy thowtion of Nuclear Weapon miss the 70s you have to put a cap on defense. Because as long as you proliferated defenses, the other sides obvious and cheapest most effective answer was to proliferate offense oive weapon. Thats the way you handle a defense. This has been true since castles and catapults this is the way observance and defense work. So in 1972 when they wanted to limit strict arm and limitation they agreed to abm treaty antiBallistic Missile treaty that capped defenses each side to deploy and that logic held. That logic helped reign in the cold war and, in fact, when neither side the russia and United States has been deploying defense its, in fact, since Ronald Reagan day when he not only limited but starting cutting weapons nationals have been coming down steadily. Steadily like i say we are there about 15,000 Nuclear Weapons in the world used to be 66,000. So in the World Without miss little offenses and numbers have been coming down steadily. That will change if you start deploying defenses how do we know . Look at south asia theres a debate going on about miss had l defense both pakistani and india talking about Missile Defense system and negotiating with various u. S. Contractors to help with Missile Defenses and what is the answer of the other side . We have to build more weapons so theres a real are nuclear articles race underway in south asia now it is being accelerated by the introduction of missile testifies and pouring gasoline on the fire. And so this diseact has been more not happening because we have not been in a Missile Defense race and just been playing around with limited defenses, and you want a place where it will flare up is in europe. This socalled european phase adaptive approach it was supposed to be aimed it at an iranian icbm with a Nuclear Warhead and no iranian icbm and iranian deal has truncated program and at least 15 to 20 years. And yet the Missile Defense systems that we said were aimed at iranians are going and about to expand the russians say see, its about us. Its been about us all along, in fact, you have some senators who who want it to be about russia. They want to put Missile Defenses in europe. You do that, and you just done whats going on in south asia you will pour gasoline on the fire you will see proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in europe once again. Just a couple of factual error not to handle Iranian Missile it is phase want daive approach that is deployment of short range domestic system and end within fourth phase which was unfortunately canceled but it was aimed at iran. Yes. Entire sexually assault. But this point is important. It begin exists and putting aside wisdom of the iran debate putting that aside is not handle did not restrain iranian Ballistic Missiles even though sanctions forbid testing of the missiles it does not product testing of the iranian Ballistic Missiles but continued to increase europe is still at risk. Currently, of short and medium range Ballistic Missiles and adaptive approach of was to deploy defenses in the first two phases thats what were doing thats what weve committed to allies and by the way this is not, i mean i find it to interesting when hit to kill skeptics continue to say this is a ideological question whenever you have actually seen the israelis, the japanese, the saudis you know, you have all of these countries that are looking at the capabilities the same nchtion that were able to look at what theyre able to do saying we want these ises we want these systems. Soothe korean if i didnt say that. A matter of military requirement regardless of what people say in materials of strategic stability what we have seen is missiles have exploded worldwide. That we are in the middle of a new missile era in terms of quantity and quality and technical ability of missiles we have a couple of options we can actually just choose to remain vulnerable as our adversaries and enemies proliferate and increase ability of these systems. And hold our assets at risk or close those gaps. Our military and or allies are chosen to close those gap so im optimistic about what this is for the future has never been made to be the end all be all to, you know, to totally utterly make all of these missiles, you know, unable to target the United States but it is part of an overall u. S. Strategic posture to complement offensive convention are and nuclear capabilities. Jacob i have now next. Wait withing a long time to [inaudible conversations] [laughter] to i recall that when reagan gave his speesm march 20th, 1983 on fdi as it was known he did not consult a state department and like donald trump just went out and did it on his own. This was for decades, the impulse not to ramp up rates but to render Nuclear Weapons and obsolete. Now, thinking about our debate here did reagan set the bar too high, in fact, whats wrong with having an imperfect Missile Defense system to strengthen . Imperfect Missile Defense stimulate offense so makes doesnt end, and a that had been true almost every place youve seen it be deployed this is or response look at what we do when they start deploying missile testifieses in the 960s. And because we didnt have hit to Kl Technology these were nuclear test responsibility our response was to proliferate our warheads, in fact, this was what led to the multiple warheads on one missile to overwhelm the defense. So thats the danger. If you could have a perfect defense, as ib i said in the beginning i qowb many favor of it, and the promise of sdi star wars was that it was going to be that perfect. Told him he would back the proof of concept of a what system later known as the xray laser the experiment that could with one weapon eliminate the entire first wave of ssa as they streak over and hit thousands of targetses in one blast that, of course, was a fantasy and never true i looked at the xray level indepght in the house Service Committee it and like other o particle beam weapons and speed of Light Weapons turned the to be a fantasy militarily impractical economically impractical but thats why people thought you might be able to do this. It wasnt because they thought we could get better Ground Base Interceptors or hit to kill better. This was never the plan but always a small tertiary lay per and couldnt build space in all of the proponents of Missile Defense are continuing this cargo cult that they have. Thinking that some kind of technology is going to come out of the sky and protect us from Ballistic Missiles it is not going to happen. Ground base Ballistic Missiles will not protect you from Ballistic Missiles but never be pest and only way toe limit Ballistic Missiles is to eliminate Ballistic Missiles with treely that eliminate things before they can be built. Yeah, i would just say in the real world, countries act in their own interests. Arms control just based on the evidence with all the of the articles control and counterproliferations that weve had counterproliferation efforts that we have had more successful than others it has not slowed or stopped the proliferation of Ballistic Missiles worldwide this is reality and not ideology and because of that, you you have to have again, i have never been a propoangt proponent until we get peafort sandstorm goal is perfect system were not going to have a perfect system because too many worldwide. But ive been detective of what military has been doing i would like to see more political backing, and more backing from policy makers which i actually think is going to happen under materials administration. To expand what we have, to build on progress that we have had. On this space system i would say there has been studying done institute for analysis did a study on this. And they determined 24 satellites in space over a 20year life psych that will cost about 26 billion, and that would give you the ability to intercept Ballistic Missiles in flight, and that would also provide some defense of what what i can say in the that was in the opening source you know the unclassified report only within that ive read that would provide some sense of what is being targeted against our assets at sea as well. So if you think about those areas you talked about china. Specifically we have areas in which theres no need to antagonize them but already doing it and no defense over what china can throw at us in in materials of strategic Ballistic Missiles and continue to develop their antisatellite capability and anticarrier capability and helicopters to develop abilities to target our allies in the pacific, and the United States and so United States can again it can allow that to happen or work towards closing this gap. North korean have not been incentivized to target United States. North koreans want to have ability to hold American Cities hostage of a Nuclear Attack that is what is thriving their capabilities and their programs. It is not because were creating some sort of destabilizing situation. I find it so interesting how again, hit to kill critics will say that system doesnt work and also destabilizing how does a system destabilize anything . To joe and then go to confronting a policeman with a plastic gun so theyll respond. Just one question on this, one point on this, theres not been an explosion of Ballistic Missiles in the world this is not true. There are not more Ballistic Missiles in world now and fewer Ballistic Missiles than there were in 1980s now it. Im not worried about our Ballistic Missiles but iranian Ballistic Missiles if youre talking about adversary globally it has exploded and expanding baseed on afraid not. Part of the reason we have tokerred a very says so people we worry about a lot of them have been dealt with example used to worry about iraqi Ballistic Missile program we dont. Ballistic missiles are a threat dont get my wrong but not a global threat so when justification for the european Missile Defense is is no longer iran but a list of 30 countries with Ballistic Missiles you look at the list will all of them are our frengsdz or allies and few problem programs we have to deal with. I dont think the iranians to be e testing this is their air force. They dont have a very good air force so this is what they use to threaten saudi arabia and people they think of their adversaries but lets negotiate with iran to reduce and constrain Ballistic Missile capability i dont think them to have a Ballistic Missile to threatening the United States and tboasht with the north korean to put a cap on their program. We have done so in the past. This is Nuclear Program and so much emphasis because proponents do not want to have negotiations with these other countries. They do not Fire Department to have a deal that was somehow legitimize other krpght one they dont believe in it. Two rather have regime change on north korea regime change on iran. So you have to examine the whole complex rational and discussion of this before you buy the myth that theres a Missile Defense system out there or soon could be that could actually protect us. Theres not. To reminding me about for my name [inaudible conversations] why nixon decided thafsz no joke because of [inaudible conversations] not because crusaded you know war to wars one by one vote nixon came to conclusion [inaudible conversations] no choice but wasnt wrong. But consideration now in a different trex what had theyre discussing now diplomacy it is a better major [inaudible conversations] up to forcible and like responses. Were now preoccupied with russian interference. And theres no doubt in my mind that the russians have after the United States of the yiewrns decided to interfere into russians. So for the position given widely to groups, probably privately and not around the game. Now i am not in the [inaudible conversations] and im not doing what had russians have done because russians were doing secretly. And we wanted to promote democracy and russians wanted to undermine democracy. Having said that, from the stability to think about likely consequences. And now surprise, surprise, about surprise when i was at the place of the casablanca. [inaudible conversations] where there was as you remember who was chop, chop i dont want us to be in this situation again. If we decide to proceed with a major problem of a Missile Defense, i think we need to do what you can suggest. We need a commission. We need to involve i would want to hear. What are we going to do . With russia lose it together which would be very much against americans strategic interest. I was interested in making the point. This russia violated the agreement, and it is normally not a violation. By what worries me much more was a stawment how if it was a advantage to this agreement because we would not allow this to have russian. Way that we would be able to do it in europe was ability and im not sure how it would feel about it. But it would [inaudible conversations] because if russia are comes to conclusion that allowing ukraine to go, to become full independent, and country conclusion that would mean on the territory it would change. So let me make one final point when president obama was elected, there was a Public Opinion for russia conduct wasnt respected position and it was most popular in national. Mow for one except number one is as weve been moved where well be improving defense but from the mental process. And maybe were coming to conclude that it is. [inaudible conversations] but straw strategic conversation. Comment qukly first one, you want to solve this debate or at least inform your decision ises moving forward you have to be independent commissions looking at the state of technology of the current Missile Defense system. Evaluating test for realism and dependability an give us some baseline so we can make informed decision of whether we want to go forward with this Missile Defense system or whether, in fact, another defense Missile System that might be better or whatever. Number two if youre going to make Strategic Moves with adversary must have to have a Strategic Dialogue this is what we did all during the cold war and didnt always agree with russians then and not going to agree with them now but we talked to them. There has to be a dialogue that was going on true of north korea too by the way which is what president moon jinu will say with a dialogue with north korea. I dont know why maybe rebecca can help us i dont know why president senator cotton getting ahead of himself there. Why senator cotton believes that russia needs the inf treaty more than we do. I believe russia are is in violation of this treaty they are deploying and tested before that. A new ground base Cruise Missile that exceeds i the treaty this is a violation and under agreements we have, we have mechanisms for correcting that violation and pressing to get that corrected. Doesnt mean this treaty is now null or void but we do not want the russians to have freerange to deploy Nuclear Weapons again in europe. We do not want that. It is against or strategic interest and we can hit russian target just fine from the systems we have. We dont need it. They do. That would be a power play for them to intimidate europe and heres this one last thing on defensive system that launch system that we put in romania about to put in poland this is these are interceptors new version of the interceptors they use the same launch system that we use on egypt cruisers and destroyers, one of the problems with had this is that we also launched tomahawk missiles from that launch system and one of the things that soviets keep complaining about is yes putting defensive systems in there now but how will they know we stop putting offensive systems in and i think thats listen answer to that but say what you change your mind and you have launch systems put in place and quickly put nuclearal hawk Cruise Missiles in thereby with and threaten us with almost no warning time. Flight time, Something Like 8, 10 minutes before they hilt their target so this is a real problem for us that we have to have a dialogue and i agree with you dimitri. We have that, dmd continues to assess and evaluate, they have not been easy to please. They have been very substandard they had said that the course does provide the United States with the capabilities to fight against icbms. Without gmd there would be nothing so even if it isnt as perfect as wed like it to be i would say that we look at the capabilities that it has and build on that and it makes no sense to move in the other direction. The other point that i would make is again, i dont know how you can say that this is again driven by partisanship or some weird conspiracy to help the defense contractors when you have again, Combatant Commanders across the administration and democratic administrations that are not intuitively in favor of it but then have been persuaded by both the threat analysis and that the briefings on the capabilities to move forward and expand these capabilities. In addition to the evidence provided by our allies, what happens with israel and the iron dome Weapon System and i understand why you want our japanese allies to say we would like to have the capability to not intercept every single weapon that can come our way but to absorb some of what can happen to the United States in the ability to control the escalation a little better and hopefully prevent that from happening in the first place. These are calculations countries are making look at the evidence themselves and they are coming to the same conclusion that it makes to add these capabilities and their overall strategic mix. The last point i would make is the fact that russia continues to develop its Missile Systems, this is not something that was going on, they still are, they have nuclear tipped missiles, and they are still doing it and you almost never hear from the Arms Community concern that the russians are going up to the strategic balance, its always beating up on ourselves with their own capability. In a room like this at this point i think this should be said that countries are going to ask in their own interests. Theyre not going to do anything for you so north korea has determined in his interest to have nuclear capability. We have tried across administrations diplomacy and to pressure the North Koreans to give up their program, it has not worked. Im in favor of using diplomacy and every other ability the United States has to persuade the North Koreans to give up their Nuclear Program. That has not worked. It makes no sense to intentionally remain vulnerable when we have the capability however limited it may be to keep the United States homeland vulnerable to north korea when they have not been able to be convinced of the program. Each regime is going to act in its own interests and each have Different Things that they value and Different Things they like to hold that risk so the United States has to take that into account and deal with the armscontrol way cannot be the end all be all at the end of it. This is a tactical double question, we have icbm isolation relatively, theres incentive but not compared to some of the interceptors. Interceptors are expensive and you need more than one to intercept. You will need more than one, youre going to need two, three, four, five, god knows how many. We dont know. Hopefully we will have to use them at all because it has a deterrent effect. But the escalation goes up as we seen a couple days ago, it missed. Missiles dont hit, so anyway at some point, how do we get the cost ratio applied first, to a reasonable level. At some point if we defend, we went off with public missiles this is going to be a very expensive proposition. How do we get to a place where were not bankrupting ourselves . I think its a great question and a couple points on that, one, i think that the question we should be asking is how much we are willing to spend to protect the United States population against these missiles . If we are fixated on how much is the defense interceptor cost versus the offense of interceptor, were going to wind ourselves crazy but if we look at what damage can this interceptor due to the us economy and american lives, thats the calculation we look at. What are we willing to spend to make sure we close that gap but now im going to, thats the first question. I would say the underlying calculation youre looking at is not the right one. The right one is where talking about defending the us homeland. How expensive it would be a missile hit the United States, what are we willing to spend close that capability gap . But there are things that we can do, i am also a fiscal conservative and i believe the United States has not always done Missile Defense costeffectively and that is because we start in this program, we have predictable funding streams. One of the things we can do to get the cost down as have predictable funding streams, to invest in resources that are predictable so our contractors can predict and assess what we need to do to keep these lines open rather than constantly firing people and hiring people to get the production line going again. The other thing we can do is by more interceptors. If you buy a couple here and there, each interceptor will cost a lot more money. If you decide we got empty space at fort greeley, weve already done the studies, we have skills laid out, we know where we can put the silos. But there empty and not filled. So theyre already ready to go, if we want to book more bullets in the chamber, we can. If we buy at once, each interceptors cost will go down for item. Thats a smart way to do defense acquisition, its a dumb way to continue the program. I think they should. We can go back and forth and spend all day but the overall question is we should continue to talk to our allies about investing in their own protection. This administration is doing great work in that regard. We are seeing an increase in what our allies are willing to contribute. The holes want Missile Defense and the committees are giving it to them so we will work towards that and as they can contribute, they should. Another final word. The polls dont want Missile Defense, they dont care about Missile Defense. They want american troops. They want a tripwire, they want a commitment that the United States is going to check and this iswhat the europeans want, especially the Eastern Europeans. They want to make sure they will get the same effect as germany and france gets. There are us bodies on the line and the missiledefense planwas offered to under george w. Bush. And then by president obama. You can take those out a battalion there and may be just as care. Us contractors care about Missile Defense, and heres the other secrets, the military doesnt care about a national system. This has always been true, its nice to have and if you can do it there willing to spend money on it. Let this one example, when president clinton came in, after all the reagans star wars, after all the say about this, he asked joint chiefs of staff what we should do with the missileDefense Budget and they recommended that we to 3. 1 billion and two thirds of this effect on the other. That is what the military wants. They want to protect their views against the short and medium range so why my older house is the military bigger say in the area defense but despite the best efforts of senator cotton is not going to go as much as it needs to you by all 11 currently on order. It is not going to. Choices have to be made. Historically when joint teachers, they do not choose missiledefense, they do not choose nuclear, they choose planes and ships and tanks and weapons they need so this man ballistic Missile Defense organizations which only exists to be an inhouse lobbying shop for defense contracts on the program, this default into the purposes, maybe decide how many interceptors we need. Let the army decide how many bad engagements we need. Then you will have forces we make sure you have about are not being propelled into spending ourselves into bankruptcy by handful of ideological contractors. And they said we were going to leave it there, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. [inaudible conversation]. With the us senate in recess for its july 4 break, the tv in prime time is on cspan2 night this week, i was in communication. We will hear from the New York Times book review editor about her record of every book shes read the past eight years. On writing for clarity, also hold up on his of what he calls art and science of relating and communicating. A Columbia University professor on his talking back. Tv in prime time tonight on cspan2 p. M. Eastern