Those teams have some great capabilities. It gives you a great starting point. And i think that our first thought in 2010 was lets set up with the initial structure, set it up in terms of offense and defense and teams that could do offensive actions to defend the country. Anyone have anything to add to that . Yes, sir . Dr. Singer . Just two things. The first is the idea of assuming that our response would have to be limited just to cyber means. If someone carries out an act of war against us using cyber means we are not and should not be limited in our response to use other means, and thats why were seeing that kind of deterrence hold. The second though is as general alexander said weve built up great capabilities. There are many things mr. Snowden did but one of the other things he did was reveal we have very potent cyber offense capability capability. I would add to those who believe building up more will deliver deterrence. The question, why has not not delivered deterrence yet . Theres no question we have great capabilities and yet the attacks have continued to come. We need to build up deterrence or denial making ourselves more resilient so we can shrug off those attacks which, therefore, makes the attacks less productive. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Dr. Singer, i must complement you. To found a Technology Firm is an act of genius. I also enjoyed your churchill quotes. One of my favorite is how he thought history would treat his role in world war ii. His response was very well, because i intend to write it. On this issue of deterrence and i think senator rounds really hit the point and i think we should follow up on this is the question of what is an act of wore and when will we respond because if an act of war isnt defined, your opponent has to know you will consider it an act of war and there will be a response. Mr. Singer i think your point is well taken. It doesnt necessarily have to be a cyber response. I do think there needs to be some response. Deterrence by denial ultimately you have to have some offensive capability. You have to be able to punch back or youre simply always on the defense. If youre nodding your head, i assume you agree with that concept. I very much agree. Ill compliment you in return. Ill have an article next week on this question of deterrence and the three approaches are what the committees wrestled with, very clear norms, so both sides, all the sides understand what is and isnt an act of war so that theres no miscalculation. The second is to understand that you can respond but you can respond in other means other areas, and its not just through military, it may be through trade or espionage. Theres a far more complex war where you hit me with a nuke, i threaten to hit you back. And the third is deterrence by denial, something that wasnt possible in the cold war, the idea of civilian. It would be an incredible useful concept and importantly Resilience Works not just against state level attacks but it is also effective against all the other attacks out there whether it is nonstate actors like terrorists or just criminal groups. On that point, general good to see you again and i think a point you made i hadnt really thought about was the idea of a join private sector Cyber Security effort perhaps facilitated by the government but not Government Environment so we dont have the privacy issues. It seems inefficient to have bank of america spend millions and anthem and target and walmart when in reality theyre all chasing the same problem and it may be that a consortium similar there was a Semiconductor Consortium years ago to deal with this in a joint way might save the private sector a lot of money. The government could act as a facilitator. Dr. Clark an important point made today and it was made in one of the hearings, instead of building Weapons Systems that have absolutely everything that will last 40 years and be by definition obsolete, we ought to build modular systems, if you will, that can be modernized on the fly rather than starting all over again. Is that essentially what your testimony was . Definitely. It gives you the ability to take advantage of the refresh cycle that exists for those smaller systems. We talked about moores law and how that results in a doubling of Computer Programming power every 12 to 18 months. And computers are at the heart of every one of our payloads whether its a sensor or a missile or even a smart bomb. Today an unmanned vehicle. We should take advantage of the fact that refresh cycle will be so fast and develop those payloads on a much faster time line. In trying to develop a weapons system that has everything for everybody at one time that will be fixed in time is just the wrong way to go. Which gets back to the requirements problem. If i define my requirements in isolation from what the technology might be able to give me in a near term time frame i end up aspiring to something ill never be able and the requirements proliferate because its the problem of a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Instead of defining the requirements in conjunction with what the technology has delivered. Mr. Singer if your article hasnt gone to press, i would urge a quote from robert frost, good fences make good neighbors. When people know where the rules are, thats when you can avoid conflict. Final question just for the record, mr. Alexander general alexander, very chilling in your early testimony that we wont have time for human Decision Making in responding to some of these kinds of attacks. In other words, the 30 minutes or an hour for the missiles is now in a matter of seconds. The question is how do we war game and prepare a response that can be done instantaneously without the intervention of human discretion . I think thats an issue my time has expired but i think thats an issue that deserves some serious thought and discussion. Thank you, gentlemen very much. This has been very illuminating. Dr. Singer, i would suggest its always darkest before its totally black. Senator ernst . Thank you mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for your support to our nation in so many varying ways. The discussion today has been very beneficial i think for all of us and our constituencies. General alexander, id like to start with you, sir. Weve spent a lot of time talking about the Cyber Threats that exist out there and the devastating effects to our networks should they be attacked or when they are attacked. And really the ability to recruit and retain some talent to deal with the cutting edge threats that exist out there. What id like to know is a little bit more how can we utilize our resevrve and our National Guard forces to bring in some of the best and the brightest . We have a lot of folks that certainly serve in very similar capacities and there is civilian employment. Can we use them to leverage our forces . Actually, senator, thats a great question. We were doing that when i was on. I know that continues. Each of the National Guard units are setting up cyber teams that would also help. As you note some of these have some of the best technical experts in the civilian industry that partner with us. You go out to washington, microsoft employees, all around the world. All around the u. S. There are some great there and it also gives you an opportunity to bring those on to active duty when you need them and then take them off. Finally if we work it right it helps provide security for the state and local government. I think thats wonderful. I know in my Transportation Company we had some computer wizzes working in the civilian industrial. There were Truck Drivers when we were mobilized, but a lot of talent that exists out there. And mr. Scharre, paul, i know we have spent some time talking about future personnel generations in our department of defense. And i would like to visit a little bit with you about again, the National Guard and the reserves and where you see their role in the future. Whether its army, navy, air force, marines. And how they can support future conflicts. Thank you, senator. I think this issue of civilian expertise is a unique capability that the National Guard and reserves brings to the table and this example of computer experts driving trucks right, and i saw many things in iraq. We had people misaligned. Not as aligned as they could be with some of the skills that are resident in the force and a process to actually identify those skills and tracked inside the department so if the nation needs to be able to draw upon that we would know who are these experts would be extremely valuable and a way to increase even further the skills and capabilities that the National Guard and reserve brings to the table. I think thats a great idea. We do identify our civilian skill sets through the guard and the reserves. I dont know that the dod truly pays attention to that and i think we have a lot of, as i said, talent and abilities that could be better utilized with the force. Do you think the dod will continue to rely heavily as we move into future conflicts in outlying years as heavily as they have maybe in the past 14 years . I think theres no question theyll continue to play a valuable role. We have given a lot in the last 14 years. Theyll continue to be a valuable contributor in the few door. Future. Ill move on to mr. Clark. I did lead my colleagues in a letter with concern for russias activities near some of our under water cables. And it is very concerning because these are fiberoptic cables and they carry senseitive information, communications, many of these things vital to our economic stability and i know that it is a very sensitive topic. But i think its vital that we talk about our interests. So are you concerned at all about the security that we have that exists or does not exist out there . And if you could expound on that, please. Im very concerned about it. Those cables carry trillions of dollars in Financial Transactions every year, about 90 of the worlds economy runs undersea cables as a result of that. The russians for a long time have had an undersea Reconnaissance Program and theyve taken we can tell by the areas where theyre operating that they are looking for something down there. Out in the open ocean these cables are fairly hard to find. You have to search a large area. Where they have their landings on the shore over in europe or the middle east, theyre relatively easy to locate and trace back into the water. Those cables could be easily broken. Theyre broken fairly regularly today in terms of trawlers. Responding or replacing those cables lies with industry. Youre talking time frames of weeks to months to repair a cable thats been damaged as a result of hostile or accidental action. We need to improve being able to rapidly respond to these attacks to restore the activity on the cables and need better Monitoring Capabilities where its a target rich environment for an undersea vehicle or a ship that will deploy a remotely operated vehicle to attack them. There are technologies that could provide the ability to monitor these areas well. Being able to find something small like dr. Singer or mr. Scharre talked about will be really hard. We need to detect the vehicles that could be used. Its a huge potential vulnerability that could be exploited in peacetime or war. I agree. I appreciate it. I think thats something we need to turn our direction to, also. Thank you, mr. Chair. To all of you who are testifying, thank you. The department of defense has used technology basically quality over quantity to stay ahead of the other countries. We are falling behind in our ability to rely on our technical superiority. Do you share that view . What are some very fundamental steps we should be taking in order to increase our capacity . Any of you can answer. Okay, ill start. I think one of the main factors is time. Talked about payloads over platforms. I would encourage software over payloads, being able to upgrade very rapidly. There are more fundamental shifts. Thinking of taking a major platform and breaking it apart entirely into a larger number of just the payloads that are all interacting together and thats something worth experimenting with and exploring. Are you saying that we should spend mormone money on r d or is it the way were structuring how the money is spent . The way we spend money is critical. The r d is very decentralized and fragmented. A more centralized focus on the key areas and efforts under way with the long range defense acronym. I think are beneficial in that regard. Senator, i would add i think its both the way but we dont spend enough on r d. And weve seen the percentages on the government as was mentioned in the defense industry. The issue is not just in terms of weapons but if you run out fof missile in a fight you may have to exit. Youve deferred to the enemy in that time. One more thing. We have a pretty good inventment in r d. In addition to that industry used to do a lot of research and development with their own money to explore capabilities that might be beneficial in the future. Theyve reduced that with the reduction over the last several years and the amount of procurement. That is in the past has given us things like stealth, like new radar technology. How do we encourage industry to be looking at problems they address with their new technologies. To have the potential of Technology Transfer and whatever research that theyre doing and developing. For mr. Scharre and mr. Clark what impacts do you anticipate relying on fossil fuels will have on planning and effectiveness of our future warfighters . And what is your assessment of the departments progress in terms of reducing reliance on fossil fuel sources . One is Strategic Risk and vulnerability. Another one is cost. But an important one is alternatives can increase the endurance for many various long endurance capabilities, particularly robotics that we could put on the battlefield. Better batteries can allow us to have persistent surveillance to protect the enemy for virulent months or years at a time. Its about not so much fossil fuels as reducing our energy independence. We have to project forces over a Long Distance because our friends and allies are an ocean away from us. So were generally transferring them over a Long Distance and even when they get there theyre having to operate at the very edge of our logistics change. So the energy they need in general would be important. In taking advantage of technologies that dont require fuel at all would be important. The idea of going to new Battery Technologies that last for a very long period of time and then recharged by the sun or returning to a docking station would be a very good way to reduce the tether that we have to maintain. Right now we have to have refueling aircraft and ships out at the edge with the ships that theyre refueling and then refuel a ship, for example every few days while its operating and then aircraft have to operate for a much shorter period of time before they need to be refueled. Moving to Energy Technologies that dont require fuel to be delivered to the platform on a regular basis would be very important. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chair. Sorry, senator hirono and i had to step out. We were celebrating the 240th birthday of the United States marine corps. Welcome the chair and the Ranking Member as members of the navy and the army a dark day. Gentlemen, thanks very much for your testimony. General alexander, i was actually struck by your testimony in one area that well, in a couple areas i thought was very insightful. This idea of cyber, this notion were constantly being attacked and you mention it in some of the dollars and sta tististics is eye popping. Theres been this notion of us being on defense, defense, defense. One thing that i liked about your testimony is you talked about a little bit in terms of offense where we invented the technology and were the leader. There are opportunities for offense. Could you provide examples . The chairmans statement of turning technologies into offensive advantages was illuminating from a historical perspective. What are some opportunities in terms of offense that we have with regard to cyber . There are a number of offensive capabilities. First and foremost you have to see what the adversary is doing, hence the need for the commercial sector to be part of the solution. So whats hitting them can be seen by everyone. If you think about how two computers actually talk, i want to talk to you that takes time. And if you think about a computer trying to get in while thats happening, if the government can see it, the government can stop it or do things with it. You have opportunities to change whats happening in cyberspace with offensive tools that would de defend the country. The issue comes down to so what would you authorize Cyber Command to do in order to defend it . You might say im going to let you do everything to block everything from where its originating from but i dont want you destroying systems yet. Were going to go a step further. But technically speaking, and youve seen this you could destroy a computer in cyberspace by getting on it and doing certain things to it. Its public record. Now all you need is access. You take the capabilities of an nsa and the fbi at times and put those together. So you have tremendous opportunities. When we look back at our capability were the most integrated Network Society in the world and we look back, look at all these opportunities and you look at ours on the defense you say, man, were broke. If we throw rocks, we have all threes glass windows. The first step, fix those. Just a related question. I know theres been a lot of discussion in this testimony on occurrence and it seems to me i would welcome any of your opinions that if youre from an authoritarian regime like russia or iran or china that they in some ways have an advantage because they deny and lie oh, we had nothing to do with that even though they did or they do. You mentioned one example the iranians were attacking our Financial System. Would it make sense to say if you do that again we will crash