Transcripts For CSPAN Washington This Week 20240622

Peace. It is not targeted at a nation. Willapan and u. S. Alliance function in its entirety, if japan is exposed to crisis. Communicating this, the power less asent disputes is rig a result is greater as a result. Exert my utmost to strengthen the japanese peoples understanding of this inflation. I believe that the japanese understanding of history is not in of warm stop how do you want the japanese people to understand the statement and what message do you want to communicate to the people . Abe i drafted this statement with the hope of having as many people as possible approved and support it. Based on this premise, i want basis of a the aces t andre with asian other. Statement, ihis did not want to adhere to statements like japan making a mistake. I want to draw lessons from history. So, i assembled the Advisory Panel and asked the experts to undertake that work. When we turn our eyes to the world, the conflicts and disputes have not ceased. Whether ukraine, South China Sea, or east china sea, we cannot allow attempts to unilaterally change status quo anywhere in the world. Furthermore, the realities of poverty and terrorism are becoming more serious. That sending out this message in this history of learning from the lessons of temporallyill have a significant contribution to the rest of the world. This concludes the conference. Gone beyond our scheduled time. Thank you very much. Chris christie had remarks at the iowa state fair. Then, a discussion of the response on missiles. Add martin talks about the conservative agenda. Dairyland discusses his new book. Jamison looks at the effort to unionize football players. We will take your calls and you can join the conversation. Washington journal is live at 7 00 a. M. On cspan. The idea is to look the on ae beltway and to produce window in the cities. Rich literary scene. What about the history of them. These are not events coverage thesis. They take you to a home. We partner with cable affiliates to discover literary kosher in the city. It is the industry bringing us there. You want to identify with people. We are taking people on the road. It is not just a local history. It plays into the national story. Back. Was i know that place from watching a piece. The cspan mission with the coverage is bleeding in to the road. Is doing the one thing that we want it to do. Ands building relationships it gathers for american tv and look to be. We see our schedule. Among the candidates he spoke yesterday, chris christie. His remarks are about 20 minutes. Mr. Christie all right. Good morning. No speech for me this morning. I want all 20 minutes to be your questions. Lets get to your questions. The lady in the cubs hat. My question is how would you secure the border . Mr. Christie question is how would i secure the border when i become president. Or things we need to do first in urban areas around the border, we need to build a wall or dense because they are heavily populated, and that is the best way to do it. Second, we need to put fbi agents, dea agents in with Border Patrol agents to interdict the drugs and guns coming across our border. Third, we need to use electronic surveillance. We are using drones all over the world. We should use them on the southern border with cameras and other surveillance to make sure we put our human resources, Border Patrol officers, and others in the right places. They are difficult to patrol on foot. Fourth and most importantly is every employer in america has to use everify. The reason these folks are coming across the border is to work, and if they know you cannot be employed in this country if you are not here legally, they will not come because they are only coming for a job. Here is what we need to do to employers because they are part of the problem, too they need to be fined double whatever their profit is from hiring cheaper, illegal labor. If we do those things, that will secure the border, and then we can move forward and grow our economy. Be careful, do not go for just one easy answer. This is a tough problem. We have not solved it for 30 years. Lets use all 4 tools to do it effectively and efficiently. I enforced the law for seven years as u. S. Attorney a newly six as governor. When i get to the white house, i will know how to enforce the law at the southern border. Yes, maam, back there in the purple shirt. [inaudible] gov. Christie she said alzheimers is the most expensive disease in america. This is part of the reason i put forward an entitlement Reform Program to save over 1. 2 trillion. The National Institutes of health, their budget only went up. 1 . Were not spending money on what we need to spend to improve the quality of peoples lives. We need to partner with the private sector and the government to save it. We can find a treatment and a cure for alzheimers, extend peoples lives to make the quality of life that are, but that will only happen if the government invest, but also, we need to protect the pharmaceutical companies in this country as well. They are spending a lot of their private money to try to come up with cures and treatments as well, and then we let people steal their intellectual property. We cannot let that happen. I will protect our pharmaceutical companies and a hard work that they are doing and then increase the budget for the National Institutes of health and the National Science foundation so we can get these great doctors and scientists in the United States to have all service be the next place where we bring an effective treatment and cure. We need that for our loved ones and we need that to make our country a better, more productive place. [indiscernible] gov. Christie first off, new jersey has already sent an our objection to the Clean Power Plan the president has put forward. The president regulates things in a way that makes no sense, kills jobs in america and kills technology and advancement of america. What we need to do this is what we do in new jersey. I think each state should be able to do the thing that works best for them. I drive throughout iowa and see wind power all over the state. It makes sense in a big wideopen state to be able to have wind power be part of what we do, to have a cleaner footprint in terms of our energy and lowercost electricity as well. In new jersey, though, we are the most densely populated state in america. 8. 9 Million People in that little space. If we put wind mills up, it would be a riot. Heres what were going to do go sit up on a bar and say to someone to name the top three states in america in solar energy production. They will get the first two because the first two are california and arizona, but youre going to win on number three because number three is the garden state of new jersey. Solar power works in our state. You dont need as much space for it. We use natural gas, and we are the Third Largest solar producer in america. You know what that means . We have reached our 2020 clean air goals already without this intervention run the obama epa that is killing jobs and killing opportunity in our country. As president , i will take the same approach. If its best for iowans, its good for the rest of the country as well. Let new jersey do what they do and all the other states do what they do as well. In the back, the lady with the blue hat. [inaudible] gov. Christie if im president of the United States, i dont think anybody who knowingly came here illegally should become a citizen. I just dont think they should become a citizen. I think american citizenship i think american citizenship is an enormous gift, and if you came here by breaking the law, i dont believe you should citizenship. Well have to figure out what we do. Americans do not want us adding to the number. But by the same token, we do not want people to be rewarded for knowing illegal conduct. It does not make sense. Youre just encouraging that conduct even more. Thats what i would do as president , and we would work to make sure that the folks that are here are treated fairly. [indiscernible] gov. Christie the question is on National Service, americorps in particular. They were an enormous help during hurricane sandy. Volunteers from all over america helped us to recover. We are certainly grateful for it. I want to expand National Service even more, as part of the way to deal with the student debt crisis we have in this country. Students are graduating with six figures of student debt to go to college, and they have a mortgage. They cannot buy a home or get married or have children. One of the options i want to give to students is to server National Service to our country to help pay off their student loans. They can help make their communities, states, countries a better place. Everybody wins and it helps to lower debt. Thats what i would do as president. Yes, sir, superman. [indiscernible] gov. Christie the question was fuel standards, and ive been clear on this. It goes in coordination with this ladys question we need more options, not less. We need options to make energy more affordable. On renewable fuel standards, we should enforce the laws on the books now. The law is there. Its the Obama Administration that refuses to enforce the law. The law should be enforced here. What i say to other candidates make up your mind. Do not say one thing and Something Different in New Hampshire and different in south carolina. You have a position, tell the people of the country what your position is. When im president , we will enforce the law that is on the books and all the laws that are on the books. [applause] [inaudible] gov. Christie question is what is the plan to curb the influence of big money. We tried every different law and every different way, the problems lawyers write these laws, and then we hire lawyers to figure out how to get around the laws they just wrote. What i would do is let anybody donate any amount of money they want to donate to any candidate, but they have to reveal that. So that you know who is giving me money and who is giving every other candidate money. Theres a lot of money being given with no transparency at all. You do not know who is giving us the money. What youre really getting at is how we are influenced by the money. Its do we change our policies . If you see someone gives me a lot of money and 24 hours later i reveal it two weeks later, i change a position i had before to be in line with the person who gave me money, you can make the conclusion you want to make. We will always end up having money involved in politics. 330 Million People in this country, we got to communicate to them effectively to try to get elected, so lets take all the curtains away from it and make me responsible, too. If i get the money, i have to spend the money. You should be able to hold us responsible, and thats the way i would fix it. [indiscernible] gov. Christie we have a system of laws in this country, and those laws need to be followed. Religious organizations should be protected. Other businesses who want to do business should have to do business. My oath of office is to enforce the laws of the state of new jersey, not the ones i like or agree with, but all the laws. Religious organizations absolutely should be protected. Everyone should be able to freely practice the religion the way they see fit, but businesses should not be allowed to discriminate, no. [indiscernible] gov. Christie i could only hear part of what you said. I think it was about Scientific Research and marijuana. I have a clear position on marijuana in general its illegal in the United States of america except in specific instances where its used for medical purposes. The president is allowing certain states to go ahead and use it recreationally. In my opinion thats wrong. If folks want to make marijuana legal, go to congress and change the law, but we should not have ad hoc one state at a time changing laws. I will tell you, it creates lawlessness in this country. Thats how we get sanctuary cities, also. Because certain mayors do not want to enforce immigration laws. We should enforce the laws that are on the books. If you want to change those laws, go to congress and change them. When im president , we will enforce the laws that are on the books and enforce them aggressively. [applause] [indiscernible] gov. Christie thats a really interesting thought. [indiscernible] gov. Christie youre minor league compared to what i deal with. Good day. Yes, sir, in the back. I could not hit the rest of it. Move up a little. [indiscernible] mr. Christie he asked about russia and china slowly getting more influence in the world and what i would do to change it. This president has been the weakest president on or in policy that we have had in my lifetime. He makes jimmy carter look strong. And the fact is here is what i do first thing is we need to make sure we do more military exercises in eastern europe. We need to put Missile Defense back in poland to make sure the russians understand they have taken crimea, they are in ukraine now no further. No further for russia than what they have done already, and mr. Putin needs to understand there will be a president who will not put up with his adventurism around the world. And china, they are building these artificial islands in the South China Sea to try to make sure they restrict shipping lanes. Those are free, open international waters. We need to rebuild our military. This president has weakened our military in a way that has made america less influential in the world, so we need to rebuild our army to 500,000 active duty soldiers. We need to make sure we have the 350 ships in the navy and 2600 aircraft. I would rebuild our military, send a clear signal to russia and china that we dont want a war, but we are not going to allow them to tread on the United States of america. [indiscernible] mr. Christie he asked about the economy, the drop in the stock market this week. The devaluation of the chinese currency. To strengthen our economy, we dont need to worry about china. We need to worry about what is happening in the United States of america. Our taxes are too high. The taxes are rigged for the rich. We need to get rid of all these entitlements not entitlements, rather, loopholes, and these exceptions, and we need to just keep 2 Home Mortgage deduction and the charitable contribution deduction, and lower our rates 28 of the highend and 8 in the lowend. Let people keep their money, lower Corporate Tax rates as well so we can start creating jobs again, and there are 2 trillion offshore. They will not come back because barack obama wants to tax them to death. I give them a onetime chance to come and bring that money back in as long as they will invest in american jobs, get jobs growing until our kids get out of school and can be employed and work hard. I live at home with a dog. I regard him as a member of my own family. He jumps in my lap any time i sit down. He likes to play tag. I share food with him. He always wants to have some of my food. Not unlike many americans, i regard this dog as a member of my family, and yet, other animals if dog had happened to be born a pig, you would want to torture and kill this animal. Mr. Christie this is a question about hog crates [indiscernible] mr. Christie let me be really clear about that. When Something Like that happens and im here in iowa, man, i feel right at home. Feels like im back in jersey for a couple of minutes. Thank you, iowa, for doing that. Second, let me be really clear. I believe that farmers should be able to make the decision about how best to raise their livestock, not government bureaucrats. I veto that bill twice in new jersey. I thank them for the opportunity. The iran deal is the single worst thing the president has done in seven years as president , and that is a high bar. We cannot permit israel to be threatened by Nuclear Weapons. We cannot permit the United States to be threatened by Iranian Nuclear weapons. If i were president of the United States, i would have walked away from that table and told the iranians when they were serious, and come back to talk to me, and when i am president , the iranians will know there is a new sheriff in the oval office. I mean what i say and what i mean, and the ayatollah would know that, too. [applause] [indiscernible] mr. Christie the gentleman from aarp shockingly wants to know about Social Security. Lets remember something a study was just done this had in seven to eight years, Social Security will be broke. We cannot allow that to happen. Social security is there to make sure that our elderly who pay into the system played by the rules, work hard, do not grow old in poverty, do not have to choose a between heat and rent and food. We are all living longer. We are all living longer. Women lived to 83 years old in america on average. Men live to 79. I see this lady smiling. Were catching up. We need to raise the retirement age two years, but we can save it in over 25 years. Thats one month a year. It will help our kids and grandkids have Social Security be there for them. The wealthiest americans do not need to get a Social Security check. The alternative is to raise taxes on everyone. Why would we want to give more money to the government for Social Security with a already lied to us and stole from the trust fund . Fix the benefits and make those security secure. [indiscernible] we need a larger military. [indiscernible] mr. Christie National Debt is out of control. Thats why ive said that 1. 2 trillion can be saved by making those reforms to entitlements. In new jersey as governor, i cut over 800 programs out of the budget and vetoed more spending lineitem vetoed more spending than any governor in new jersey history. I will take the same approach as president. We will control spending on entitlements, control spending in other areas and invest more in research to make us the economic power of the world and military power of the world. The way we should be for the next iteration of come. They are telling me my time is up. Im going to be all around. Ask me questions all day today. I love the iowa state fair. I love all of you. Appreciate it. [applause] all this week, cspan marks the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina with special programs. Tomorrow, we are live from new orleans where the atlantic magazine is hosting the conference with speakers including mayor Mitch Landrieu and fema administrator craig fugate, plus a number of panels looking at the citys recovery. That is live at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. On wednesday, a panel of defense analysts examined chinas expanding military arsenal of missiles, its spacebased capabilities, and possible u. S. Responses. Henry trey,luded former director of the Missile Defense agency. The forum was hosted by the Hudson Institute in washington, d. C. This is an hour and 20 minutes. Good morning. I am rebecca heinrichs. I have the privilege of being an edge on fellow here at hudson. Amid heightened tensions between the United States and china over high aggression in the South China Sea, the prc carried out a 4, a strategic1 many times travels the speed of sound. This isnt the only missile of concern. China has been expanding and improving its missile arsenal and its Counter Space capabilities. It has reengineered some of its Ballistic Missiles to carry warheads and developed a carrier killer. Additionally, the commander of the u. S. Naval command confirmed in april that china had deployed three Ballistic Missile submarines capable of striking the u. S. Homeland. Today, we have an exceptionally distinguished panel to talk about some of these challenges and possible u. S. Responses. Introduction brief. Jean chang of the heritage foundation, mark schneider, the National Institute for public policy, and brian clark at the center for strategic assessments. We were here from them after we speaker, and first we do have the privilege of hearing from trey who served as the director of the Missile Defense agency in the office of the secretary of defense. He served in the military for over 35 years, including managing the nations admission portfolio and as a Program Manager for the ballistic Missile Defense system. It is my great privilege to welcome trey ober in. Trey thank you very much. Good morning. Thanks to the Hudson Institute for the invitation to speak today. As you know, the United States has fielded and will continue to improve and expand an integrated holistic Missile Defense system capable of defending the United States, our allies, and forces against todays iranian and north Korean Missile threat, but this threat this capability is not sufficient to meet the dramatically growing threat and the environment we will face willrow, which i believe include longrange missiles with Nuclear Warheads from north korea as well as iran capable of reaching United States and our allies with advanced countermeasures. Widespread proliferation of mediumrange Ballistic Missiles, both solid and liquid, and sophisticated threats from russia and china. We will have to deal with all of these threats in the very complex and highly contested cyber and Electronic Warfare domain. Consiststhat a threat of both intent to harm and the capability to do so. Changens intent can relatively quickly through elections, through coups, revolutions, but it takes years to develop capability. That is what i think we must focus on, and by far, the nation that is the most active in building offensive missile capability is china. Not only are they rapidly developing and fielding these missiles, but it is the purpose for which they are intended that concerns me the most. Since world war ii, and certainly throughout my career, the strength of the United States National Power has been a strong military. The foundation of our military strength includes three very important pillars. The first is that we have enjoyed superior strategic intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. They have informed us in crises, and theyve guided us in combat. The ability to project power globally is a second key ourngth that i believe foundation has relied on. Lastly, an overwhelmingly dominant technological advantage across the spectrum. I believe that china is challenging the United States, specifically targeting our isr, our power projection, and our technological advantages with their missile programs. Lets look at these more. The destruction of a satellite into 2007 by the designated chinese dn antisatellite missile demonstrated their ability against low earthorbiting satellites. One thing to note about this is the angle of assent when they hit that satellite forced much debris into the upper orbits that lasted for years. ,ccording to reports recently they repeated a lowearth test in july of this year without actually hitting the target, and that couldve been due to the debris considerations for which they were globally criticized. Many officials also believe they to developing the capability reach even higher orbits. Even though we rely heavily on spacebased capability, we historically have not chosen to use space in the same way that we view air, land, and see when it comes to protecting our critical lines of communication. As far as u. S. Power projection, one of the key capabilities we possessed since world war ii is that of our Carrier Battle Groups. These have been so valuable in terms of global deterrence, and when necessary, providing the National Command authority, the ability to strike an enemy on their soil. Again, china has developed the mediumrange antiship missiles, which is clearly and specifically targeted at our battle groups. This missile is a formidable threat, which represents very advanced technology. In terms of the dominant technological advantage we have enjoyed, and look into the future, is china satisfied with the developments they have achieved, or are they moving toward tromping u. S. Technological advantages . I believe the latter is the case. Earlier this year, china confirmed that they successfully tested a hypersonic glide vehicle capable of speeds around mach 10 on four occasions, with the latest in june of this year. The characteristics of high speed and maneuverability, this would be a forgettable challenge to any air and Missile Defense system. How should the u. S. React to these threats . I believe that there are three thrusts we should pursue, among others. First, we must look at dramatically a dramatically revised approach as to how we develop Missile Defenses. Second, we must reenergize our science and Technology Programs and our stateoftheart research at the Missile Defense agency, as well as our national labs. Third, we must treat space for what it is. Domain inmain, a which we must be prepared to fight and win. Address each of these in more detail. In terms of developing and fielding Missile Defense capabilities, we must expand our thinking beyond thinking in terms of individual systems, like patriot and aegis, and we must begin thinking more in terms of integrated architecture. This includes the integration of existing capabilities to better centers, communication, and command and control. Command and control is key to the battle space. We need rapid expansion of a common backbone. We can be using the Missile Defense agencys battle command and control Communication System , the armies of battle command system, and the navys cooperative engagement system. Those could form the backbone. We need commonality for our friends and allies to achieve coalition unity, as well. Disintegration this integration would also focus on threats to maintain our intercepted abilities. We therefore should be focused on creating an integrated environment in which we can use any sensor to be able to target to allow and are any interceptor to be targeted. We should concentrate on closer integration of our Missile Defense of capabilities, taking advantage of the tremendous precision that is inherent in many of our Missile Defense sensors. This will require new concepts, new techniques, and new procedures, as well as new fighter for our war community. Integration of current capabilities includes collaboration and partnerships with our allies, and leveraging partner and coalition capabilities can take advantage of sensors for earlier detection , as well as corrugated battle management. This approach can begin to close some of the gaps and reduce costs to decline our budget. I know that we often overlook it, but the paint but the capabilities we enjoy in the field today are the direct result of the investment in r d that occurred between 1983 when president reagan started the Strategic Defense Initiative and 2004 when he began to field the first versions of those defenses. We must revitalize the investment, and to facilitate this, i believe mature programs well into production should be transferred to a lead service for operations and sustainment. This would free up funding. We should dramatically expand our investment in nextgeneration capabilities like advanced kill vehicles, directed energy weapons, and spacebased capabilities. The Missile Defense agency has started down this path with their multiple object kill vehicle and their support to laser programs, such as the fiberbased lasers. Is growing into space. Failure to understand this reality could hurt us. We need new and better capability to take advantage of our deep experience in space to defeat space threats. We must use all national capabilities, including our space assets, and investigate what we can bring to bear from a variety of National Technical means and commercial means. By integrating a spacebased layer with our existing terrestrial systems, we can address this growing threat environment. Before i conclude, i want to address an issue that has become en vogue recently entitled left of lunch capabilities against advanced threats. Thisleheartedly support concept, but this is not new. It has been around for a very long time. It is called interdiction. Its a mission that the services have had for a long time. I would caution that at least the Missile Defense agency remain focused on the right of launch, which is where we have initial capabilities that need to be matured. No matter what you can do left of launch, if anything makes it to launch, you have to have the ability to deal with that. In conclusion, the threats that we face tomorrow will be more , with chinatoday challenging our basic strategic capabilities. For the u. S. To maintain and accelerate its advantage, it is critically important for us to continue to integrate and innovate, including moving more aggressively into the final frontier. I appreciate your time. If you have questions, i would rebecca to answer them , rebecca. Thank you so much. [applause] im going to take a couple questions. Then im going to have a couple of my own. Im going to let you go first. The gentleman here if you could please stand up and say where you are from, that would be helpful. Former u. S. Department of agriculture. The question is, are we [indiscernible] are we educating enough students . Is our education system, University System ready to meet the challenges you are talking about . I know there are shortages in this country. That is the question i have. Trey i believe the answer is no, and i think that needs to be in the entire spectrum of how we deal with national security. That is one of the priorities we need to address, and that is, how do we increase that interest . How do we captured the curiosity of talented students, so we can pull them into these programs . The chinese are not only doing it there. They are doing it here. We are educating quite a few of their students. Rebecca . Peter peter . Cca people argue that china simply defending its interests against the bullying United States, so there is nothing wrong with their acquisition of new military technology. Could you address what you think their strategic objectives are . Trey i try to stay away from that. I am not a policy walk like others here. Frankly, what i am concerned about. Look, china can be very aggressive against us today and be our ally tomorrow. The intent changes, but capability is what you have to watch. Capability is what we must focus on and not rely solely on a nations good intent. You have to have the ability ultimately to protector national security. That is why we need to focus on capabilities. Rebecca yes, sir. You talked about df21. Theyve tested the missile itself, but ive never seen any intelligence indication theyve tested the integrated system. Striking a Carrier Battle Group on the move 1000 miles away is a difficult situation that would require the entire chain, and there is no evidence theyve in the system. 1 have you seen evidence of that . Trey if i did, it would be classified, and i wouldnt be able to comment on it, frankly. What i was familiar with in uniform was enough that caused me concern to make sure we are doing something to be able to counter that. Rebecca i have a question. Missile Defense System as a stance has been deployed, current u. S. Policy has been to defend against rogue nations, so to takened the system care of the threat from north korea, iran. Many people are under this conception that that is u. S. Policy requires we do not go beyond developing the system to handle these rogue and limited threats, but u. S. Law says that we should at least, at a minimum, take care of these threats. Theou talk about Missile Defense agency doesnt have any limitations in terms of how it or how sophisticated the threats are, the threat they are able to defend against, correct . Trey it is a matter of policy, exactly. Mission is to defend the United States, allies, forces, and friends against missiles of all ranges and phases of their flight. That is what they are tasked to do. Following up on that question , the representatives from the Missile Defense agency have said the United States does not have the ability to defend against the Russian Missile threat or presumably the chinese missile threat, so what system specifically is in development you mentioned the multiple object kill vehicle what other systems are in development to try to reach that level . Trey i kind of alluded to that in my talk. Couple things together. The iranian and north korean threats alone, if you look at their evolution and development, they are going to get more and more advanced, and they are going to get more and more cop countermeasures. We will be forced to address being able to counter that threat no matter what we think of russia or china. We will have to do that anyway. Developing advanced kill vehicles to do multiple object kill. To theted approaches entire defense across the architecture, so we can begin to do birth to death tracking of our sensors, and then be able to have a much better handle on, what is the warhead, what is the countermeasure . That is the counter approach we need to take whether we are talking about north koreans, iranians, or the russians, frankly. [indiscernible] trey we havent achieved that yet. We have not been able to achieve all the foundational things we need to achieve to be able to do that. Again, we can do it against the simple threats today, but not against the more advanced threats. Rebecca we have time for one, maybe two questions. The gentleman in the front. Thank you. My name is arnold. Ive been teaching in china. You mentioned something about collaborating with allies. I assume the allies we have are france, germany, and britain. Germany should be out of this, i suppose, but are france and the u. K. , are they investing time or intelligence in this effort, or is the United States basically alone . Trey if you are talking about allies, i would not limited to europe. Im also talking about japan. We have codevelopment programs and are investing a lot of money. South korea is building up capability, as well. It is not just the europeans. The europeans are interested in developing capabilities. The natomonitoring system to be able to integrate with the system of the United States. Rebecca second row. I am a reporter at National Defense magazine. You spoke about the space situation a lot and how we are failing in that arena right now. Do you think there is urgency behind do you see anybody realizing that this is a big problem in the government, or do you still think we are trey i do. I think the United States has recognize that they are going to have to move aggressively, and theyve taken steps in the past to do foundational work. They have recognized that we must protect our space assets. We must protect our spacebased capabilities. I do believe that is a thrust we will see coming in the future, because the threats are pushing us that way. Too. Ca i have one, people will say, what im hearing is that our current system, gmd patriot, we are not going to have utility in the next 10 or 20 years. I know that is not what you are saying. These are systems we are still going to need, that we can improve upon, modernize. If you can talk more about that youre not suggesting that we move on to a different kind of trey in my statement, i mentioned, better integrating those capabilities, integrating more sensors into those capabilities, improving the individual capabilities, but we have to think more in an integrated fashion. Frankly, if you have enough knowledge of where a target is coming in from, you can kill that target with a fairly simple intercept capability if you know where it is. The more precision intelligence we know about where the threats are and what is a warhead, the more capability we would have been able to destroy those that are not saying walk away from ages or patriot. Those, andcontinue we have to expand into a better integration of those capabilities, as well as new ones. Rebecca will you join me in thanking general . [applause] terrific waywas a to kick off the distinguished panel that we have now. Im going to introduce each one of them a little bit more in depth, and we will start with jean. Cheng specializes in chinas military and foreign policy, and in particular, its relationship with asia and the United States. He has worked as a Senior Analyst and is a Senior Research fellow for the Asian Studies center at the heritage foundation. Mark schneider is a Senior Analyst with the National Institute for public policy. He specializes in Missile Defense policy, Nuclear Weapons, strategic forces, and arms control verification and compliance issues. He worked for over two decades in the department of defense. Ryan clark is a senior fellow at the center for strategic assessment. It has had a distinguished military career as a Nuclear Submariner and officer. These short bios dont to the service that these gentlemen deserve, but there is more indepth biography in your paperwork. Without further a do, dean . Good morning. My thanks to the Hudson Institute for the opportunity to be here this morning, and my thanks to the general for a great introduction, which helps to explain what im doing up here. Im going to be talking mostly about the evolution of chinese views on military space. As the general noted, some of the key advantages of the United States has enjoyed over the past several decades has been said. Strategic isr capability and global power production. Both of those have been rooted in American Space capabilities. We have held the strategic high ground. Throughout the last 40 years, certainly in the postcold war pe there has never been a challengerriod, to the u. S. Position in space, whether it was the iraqis, the serbs, the afghans. Nobody had the ability to challenge americas ability to employ space for information collection, information exportation in all of its various forms. The people republics of china constitutes a fundamentally will, in approach and fact, in event of crisis or conflict, pose a strong challenge in this regard. My comments today are going to take a look at some of the more recent chinese writings on the subject of military space. These are common not simply from random at are called random articles or postings on blogs. We know that is not exactly the most reliable source. The internet is a wonderful place. Some of it sometimes is true. It is derived from things like the Chinese Defense white paper, which came out at the end of may this year. The recent Chinese National security law was fully enacted in july of this year. The science of military strategy, one of the plas textbooks, published in 2013. Chinese military teaching materials, which began publishing in 2011, and comments by xi jinping, the chinese later, who in april 2014 called for greater integration of air and Space Capabilities. To begin with, it is important to understand how the chinese whereforeiews forger warfare in general. The chinese categorize this as local wars under informational lies conditions. Information technology plays a role in every aspect of military operations, not just the cool video parts of a bomb going through the second window on the left, but also such monday and things as logistics, personnel records, communications, management of your own forces. Where are they . As well as identifying where Adversary Forces are. The chinese have concluded that future warfare will be categorized by integrated or unified joint operations. The pla is expecting to fight a war that will span at least five domains. The traditional land, sea, and air, but also outer space and cyberspace. It expects that its forces, the ground forces, the Pla Air Force, the Second Artillery, as well as its space and cyber capabilities, will operate as a team. General talked about creating an architecture. The chinese think about fighting future conflicts as battles between rival arrays of systems of systems. It is not just system against system. It is arrays of systems against arrays of systems. The field is of increasing importance and decisiveness because of how much information is collected from space, how dependent particularly the United States is on the state platforms for transmission of information, and also exploitation of space. Regard, the pla has laid out an interesting array of basic principles for space operations. In the chinese hierarchy of military science, it is important to establish war is scientific. It is a leninist approach. If it is scientific, there are no rules. If you would hear to them, it doesnt mean you are guaranteed to win, but it is a way of analyzing. You as a planner should keep certain laws, certain principles in mind, because they will help shape and guide you towards the right answer. Some of the basic principles that the chinese seem to believe to be in play for the importance of preparing for space conflict, that this is not some place you can hope and wish it wont happen. You need to have a unified command. Again, it is not random potshots at things in orbit. You have to create a battle plan from start through the course of the entire conflict. It is not just going to be in the opening phases. Integrated joint activities, integrated offense and defense. It is important to think about defensive operations in space,aking sure your assets survive as much as it is important to go after the other side. Grasping combat opportunities and placing an emphasis an emphasis on stop and surprise. Having tight coordination among all the various command structures. Space by itself actually isnt that important. What matters is the information that flows through space and the ability to exploit space in the service of ultimately the wars ends, the political purposes and goals. We see an evolution in chinese concepts of space operations, the kinds of missions the pla wants its space forces to do. Most importantly over the last 10 years, what we have seen is an increasing emphasis on space turtles. One of the interesting things about the 2007 antisatellite test, as the general noted, was that there was an awful lot of debris generated. It was probably the worst single space debrisgenerating event since 1957. Many of those pieces we think theres anywhere the between one in 10,000 pieces many of those pieces will be in orbit for over a century. The International Space station has had to move at least once, i believe several times, to dodge pieces from the test. The interesting part about this is that textbooks that were published in 2004, Chinese Military textbooks, they discussed the importance of weaponsating Space Capabilities. What this suggests is that, since i dont think the chinese have perfected time travel they are working on a lot of things, but i think that one is low priority the chinese have laid out an argument for why you would want to demonstrate the ability to kill satellites, which they know would generate debris, before they killed a satellite. That is very sobering. A lot of folks made the argument, may be the chinese didnt know what was going to happen. Maybe they didnt do all of their math homework, which would be a first for many chinese. Instead, what seems to have occurred, if we look at the timeline of what the chinese said it wanted to be able to do and when they did it, they demonstrated a capability, and in the process of generating an awful lot of debris, demonstrated to the world, we have this capability, which is a fundamental part of deterrence. Do you have the capability . Do you have the will to use it . Do you communicate both of those elements to potential adversaries . Thats the doctrinal aspect. Let me talk about some of the capabilities. The chinese have talked about deploying up to 120 new satellites by 2020. His includes a significant array of Remote Sensing systems, many of them small satellites, as well as a fully fleshed out position navigation and timing consolation. The chinese around 2000 deployed an initial system composed of gs and chronic satellites. Geosynchronous satellites. Except a signal back to you saying roughly where you are. Not the stealthiest capability. Baidu is passive. A few have a handset, and it will pick up signals that the constellation of midearth satellites will tell you. This is a significant improvement. The chinese are deploying a series of new data relay satellite spirit china is currently mostly reliant on ground stations to monitor satellites and to pick up information. A larger constellation of data relay capabilities will provide betterth significantly coverage. Interestingly, we think china may be developing missile Early Warning satellites. This should be a striking and sobering and useful reminder. Chinas Space Program has never looked like that of either United States or soviet union or russia. Of the u. S. And ussr, one of the early priorities was developing missile Early Warning detection. Is somebody launching a missile at me . China has the technology to do this, but up until the present, we have never seen any indication that the chinese were interested in deploying Early Warning satellites. Now we think they may be working on Something Like that. Finally, interestingly, the chinese have expressed grave , which over the x27b they characterize as a space delivery system. The chinese have been working on something called the shun loan, which appears to be a space plane similar to the x37b. To reaffirm what the general said, the chinese in particular are working on an array of spacebased capabilities. They have developed a doctrine that would govern how they employ Space Capabilities, and to their mind, the ability to establish space dominance is a fundamental part of the ability to fight and win future local wars. Thank you very much. Thank you, dean. Mark i would like to thank the Hudson Institute for giving me this opportunity to speak to you today. We know a great deal about china, but there is also a great deal that we dont know about them. The annual pentagon reports on china and testimony from the director of National Intelligence says that they have a major nationwide concealment program. This is essentially ignored and most of the commentary you see in the United States and the west in general. I think the biggest chinese deception is the idea that there is going to be a peaceful rise of china. I dont expect that at all. Rebecca mark, could you pull your microphone closer to you . The one on the left. Mark thank you. At the end of the cold war, the military threat to china essentially of operated evaporated with the demise of the soviet union. The chinese response was to introduce double digit increases in defense spending, and for the last 20something years, it has happened 18 of the last 20 years. This is rather unprecedented. A lot of this is reflected in the missile and nuclear monetization modernize asian programs underway. It is much broader base to them that. According to the pentagon report, china is aiming at winning short duration, highintensity conflicts against hightech adversaries. The hightech adversaries are obviously the United States and japan. The chinese have a fairly advanced Nuclear Weapons technology. It is not as advanced as the haveor russia, but they continued after the cold war to develop and improve Nuclear Weapons. They did over highyield Nuclear Testing through 1996 and reportedly covert nuclear low after 1996. G in the year 2000, the chinese Central Military commission, which was is the main defense , wasionmaking body briefed on the further development of Chinese Nuclear capabilities from 20012009. This appears to have actually happened. Engineer001, the chief who the Chinese Government says developed the neutron bomb that the 1996 Chinese Nuclear test was come in his word, a great spanning leap in Nuclear Weapons technology and allows for the miniaturization of Nuclear Warheads. If this is true, it adds to theous relevance creation of the Chinese Nuclear force. Number of chinese Nuclear Weapons that exists today is subject to major dispute. Numbers go anywhere from a few. Undred up to a few thousand the biggest area of dispute is how many Theater Nuclear attack weapons the chinese have the erving plans are subject to some dispute. The asian press has been consistently reporting for the , the chineseyears plan a major deployment of merv capability, a number that has appeared several times, 576 warheads on the Chinese Submarine ballistic launch missile force. The chinese underground great asl, which they described 3000 miles of underground missile tunnels for multiple , is astounding. It would be insane to build anything like that. It has the effect of denying us information on the actual size of the chinese mobilized icbm capability at any given time. Ofna has an incredible array Ballistic Missiles. You really have to put this in perspective of the u. S. Program, one icbm of 1970 vintage, and one of 1990 vintage. Sent ine intelligence their 2013 report that there variants ofs or chinese theater missiles, four types of icbms, and two types of s lbm slbms. Numbers from this years report include over 1200 shortrange Ballistic Missiles, 200500 mediumrange Cruise Missiles, 75100 mediumrange Ballistic Missiles, 20 intermediate range. Issiles, and 5060 icbms i suspect all of these numbers understate actual chinese capability. Itself says that china is developing and testing several new classes and variants of defensive missiles, including hypersonic glider vehicles, and china continues to modernize its Nuclear Forces by enhancing cyberbased, intercontinental missiles, and adding more delivery systems. Tosses three classes of Ballistic Missiles. There are missiles that are nucleararmed, exclusively nuclear. There are nuclearcapable systems, have Nuclear Warhead options, and then there are conventional missiles. China has reportedly achieved both precision and near precision accuracies. Error is in the 1030meter range for a number of these systems. The new nucleararmed systems that have been produced within the last 10 years include two variants of the legacy css for mervs4 icbm, including a variant. Icbms,udes the df31, and the slbm, which is carried by a submarine, both of which are about to become operational. According to the pentagon report, four of those submarines are now operational. China also has a number of nuclear Strategic Nuclear Missile Systems under development. Chinese this includes the df31b. Em. S is a merv syst icbm hasile bcb been confirmed by the pentagon, and it is reportedly capable of carrying 10 warheads. Bill hurts did an interesting andy on it just yesterday, it is said to be operational this year. The chinese, according to asian have one or 2 it may be the same missile the basic report is they are developing a merv submarinelaunched Ballistic Missile, something called the jl 3, and the chinese are developing a bomber. Its a derivative of an old soviet medium bomber, but it has been seriously updated, and it carries nocapable longrange. Ruise missiles the china china has a number of nuclearcapable theater missiles through the 2011 df21dn reports said the is part of the nuclear force, which is an Interesting Development to say the least. China has said that its new irbm is nuclearcapable. In thece intelligence excuset says that me, air force intelligence in testimony before the China Commission says that the hypersonic boost glide vehicle is nucleararmed. Saymber of press reports that the df25 mediumrange Ballistic Missile is nuclearcapable. Have a seriesso of missiles that theyve stated their 2006 white paper they call them tactical operational missiles of various types. Sovietl operational this lingo for battlefield. You wont find this in the pentagon report, but the Chinese Defense ministry the taiwanese Defense Ministry has stated that three of the known short range chinese Ballistic Missiles are actually capable of nuclear, chemical, or electromagnetic pulse warheads. We may nice we may have a nice surprise on our hands. Honeys doctrine with regard to is, firstapons use use, thats nice, but if you take a look at the wording of the chinese commitment, you cant possibly violate it if you are chinese. You cant use Nuclear Weapons first. It is cleverly worded. In my view, it is complete propaganda. In 2004, the Second Artillery, which is the chinese icbm force, published an officer training book that has become available in the west. It talks about changing the Nuclear Threshold at a time of war, and it says Second Artillery has been directed to maintain the ability to launch a first strike in any military conflict. Newsns major agencies said it obtained classified chinese documents saying they are going to adjust their Nuclear Threat use policy in the event of war. China does not make Nuclear Threats on the scale of the soviet union or the russian federation, excuse me, but chinese generals do periodically threaten first use of Nuclear Weapons. A classic example of this occurred in 2005 when the u. S. Secretary of state in beijing in a major visit a chinese that if welared defended taiwan, they would hit us with several hundred Nuclear Weapons targeted against our cities. In november of 2013, several staterun publications in china ran the same story, which talked about targeting large numbers of American Cities with Nuclear Weapons, illustrating the aim points and the fallout patterns and claiming that each Chinese Submarine could inflict five to 12 million casualties on the United States. In december of 2013, a similar story was run in Chinese Media kbout the ability of the h5 bombers to launch Nuclear Missiles against u. S. Bases in south korea and japan. We have a serious and growing chinese missile and Nuclear Threat, as well as a very serious conventional strike capability, which is being improved consistently. Is, in the context of what is going on for example, in the South China Sea right now, this is a serious missile threat. My personal view is it is the greatest longterm threat to u. S. Security. Thank you. [applause] rebecca thank you, mark. Brian . Brian weve talked a lot about the threat that chinese capabilities might pose to to traditional sanctuaries we might consider to be the United States. The homeland and the threat to our Space Capabilities or the Space Capabilities of ourselves and allies. I want to shift focus and talk about the chinese missile threat as it applies to our deployed forces and our allies in the region, particularly in the western pacific. The reason why this is important and we shouldnt ignore it when we talk about threats to the United States, the chinese objective strategically is to use their forces to reinforce a belief on the part of our allies that we would not be able to come to their aid were the chinese to pursue some aggressive act against them. If the chinese can convince japan, korea, singapore, whomever that the u. S. Wont be able to arrive in time or arrive in sufficient force to defend their interests, they might walk away from some of the Alliance Relationships over time we have with them. It would be the longterm objective of china in the that is what i would like to look at today. A sense of scale, what we are talking about, this chart i built to show on the top, the defensive capacity of our Forward Deployed Missile Defense forces both on the ground, patriot batteries, and the cruisers and destroyers that operate in the western pacific. These are the things based out there they today. I gave them a generous assumption in terms of how effective they would be and then i loaded them out in a way that is consistent with how they are normally loaded out. You have the ability with all of those acids deployed to shoot down about 1700, or 1800 missiles of various combinations. On the bottom, i am showing the number of missiles that the pla set has available to launch all at once. The number of launches available to the pla on any given day in the western pacific. It runs the gamut from surface to surface Cruise Missiles. To get the sense of scale. To get a general sense, this gives you a way of comparing them. If you look today, they have about 1500 missiles that could be launched all at once if they chose to do so. That is a little less than the capacity that we have to defend. We are not in a bad situation today. As oneanges over time might expect as they build up their Missile Forces. Our program of records does not change dramatically in terms of the capacity that we can deploy to the western pacific. Incumbentake it more upon allies to contribute to it but it gives us a sense that the surface to surface missile threat is going to be significant and growing in the western pacific and it will overcome our ability to defend against it relatively soon. What i want to get at today is what are some things we should do about that . One other element that we need to consider is the fact that missiles are only one component of the chinese air threat. The chineseat strategy, their strategy is to use missiles, ballistic and cruise from long range in an attempt to paralyze u. S. Bases and ships from places where we would project power and then follow it up with airstrikes. It is a paralyze and an ally and annihilate strategy. Is theis shows comparison of chinese Missile Forces to chinese overall strike capacity in the western pacific. As you compare a battery of Ballistic Missiles to one fighter bomber, you have about the same payload available on each. If you are looking at the western pacific where fighterbombers can reach an Ballistic Missiles can reach, the capacity that you are facing in missiles which is the red stuff at the bottom, is much less than what the Pla Air Force can deliver in one day. This tan area is how much payload the pla can deliver in one day of strikes against targets in the western pacific out to a 1500 kilometer or 2000 m,ometers or so the pla surface to surface capacity is represented here. It is dwarfed by the Pla Air Force. If you are looking at u. S. Forces and allied resort and allied forces. You have to have both. You have to be able to defend against aircraft and missiles. Our current defensive strategy on how we do air defense does not distinguish between the two. Today, when an airplane or missile comes at a u. S. Base or u. S. Forces, we treat them all relatively equally and we try to shoot them all down using the defensive systems on hand as far away as possible. What we could end up using all of our best longrange Missile Defenses against relatively cheap and numerous missiles that the chinese could develop. Wouldy are smart, they send a bunch of cheap, Cruise Missiles or Ballistic Missiles first. Use of our defensive capacity against those and then follow it up with waves of more expensive and capable weapons that would take advantage of the fact that we have a window in our defenses opened up by their initial attacks. We have to think about a way to defend against both the aircraft and the missiles and do it in a way that is more efficient and better allocate defensive weapons against offensive threats. One thing we can do their is we are thinking about the navy. T to the navy be doing separate our defenses against platforms that would launch missiles from the missiles that they launch. The strategy of separating archers and arrows and if you think about the effectiveness of attacking the archer, it would be much more than attacking the arrow. Withshoot a pla aircraft an sm six missile or a ship with an antiship missile, i am going to get rid of all of the missiles this guy has with him and his capacity to go back and get more. The followon effect in terms of Missile Defense is very significant. If i could take up the platform rather than waiting for the missiles to be launched and taking them out. I have to be deliberate in how i target them and do that separately from my defense against missiles. Otherwise, he would send in the missiles first, we would defend against them, use of our longrange defensive assets, and be nothing and have nothing left. We have to husband our longrange systems to be able to use those against platforms as opposed to using them against the missiles. We have to go towards a longrange system being used against the platforms. This also shows the ranges of the various systems involved. The u. S. , when it comes down to shooting down platforms, and we ships, planes, and missile launchers, we are at a distinct disadvantage. We have less than half of the range of the competing systems that the chinese have developed. Areair Defense Systems about half the range of the antiship Cruise Missiles that the airplane could launch at us. We are faced with a situation today that we essentially have to wait for the weapon because i cannot shoot down the platform. I need longerrange weapons so i can attack the platforms before they can launch. I also need to husband those weapons to make sure i do not missiles. On when it comes to defeating missiles, i need to shift to a concept of doing it at a shorter range than what we do today. Today, a ship or a landbased will tend to try to use the longerrange system possible. As an sm six or an sm to on a ship. Is are the most expensive, largest weapons that i have for defense. I will use those preferentially against the incoming weapons. I have no idea how expensive those are. It could be a cheap, 600,000 Cruise Missile or it could be a multimillion dollar Cruise Missile. We do not know necessarily when we are attacking it. We could end up at a poor Cost Exchange ratio. Atould be using an sm six, 4 million, to defeat a missile that cost less than 2 million. I cannot do that for long before i spend myself out of being able to do Missile Defense. Shifting to a shorter range air defense umbrella, from 100 miles of or more where it is today, down to about 30 miles or so, what allow me to use a lot of different weapons this does for defense than i do today. I would be able to use cheaper and smaller interceptor missiles would be ack three perfect example, shifting to a shorter range theme where i could use more numerous missiles. The pack three can fit four to a launcher. The range is about half. So you can shifting to a shorter range defensive scheme also enables us to bring on some of the systems that general oh bring talked about. Ing was talking about. All of those systems only operate at shorter ranges. A laser is a line of sight west weapon. I need to use it within 10 miles or 20 miles because the missile would be near the horizon. The laser, the high power microwave, and Electronic Warfare will all need to operate at shorter ranges. Today, i would use those systems with a catchers mitt for the missiles that make it past my interceptors here. Into shift our scheme where those systems can contribute instead of an interceptor, i am able to increase might defensive capacity by using a laser instead of a instead of an interceptor. Then, i would have my selfdefense scheme right here at five miles or less which is consistent with what we do today. We have a rolling airframe missile. Usee are the things that we at less than five miles as a point of defense against potential threats. Split between offense being done at longer ranges and defense being done at shorter ranges is essential if we are the defensivease capacity available on our short bases and chips. The magazine capacity is at a premium even if you are unsure. And cost is a big deal. You have to be able to shift to a cheaper, shorter range system. The only way you can use these new technologies like lasers is if you shift to doing defense at shorter ranges. The capacity of a ship, this ship has a vertical launch magazine. Andhows how many missiles how much defensive capacity it has. Defensive air were systems we have today like the sm to , you havehe es sm that much defensive capacity. If you shifted this shorter range defensive scheme, you go but the bulk of your defensive and increase your defensive capacity significantly and take advantage of new technologies. You could increase your number of sm six which can be used as an office of missile, able to reach out and shoot down an airplane before it can launch its Cruise Missile. You can add more offensive weapons down here by having tifunction, multi one part of this is increasing the defensive capacity of our individual units. Ships and short bases. Want to provide more assets for Missile Defense and general. One way to do that is to install short type installations. It is a relatively inexpensive way to provide groundbased Missile Defense for notionally pull a stick missiles. With the sm the sm three interceptor. You can also use that vertical launch system to put in smaller missiles so you could use it to launch certain missiles. By installing three of those in japan, you would relieve a lot of the demands that are on the destroyers and cruisers. You would free those ships up to be able to do air defense and Missile Defense or generally rather than being tied down to a small location where they can do a limited Missile Defense mission for the territory. The other thing we need to do is think about relieving some of the alternative demands that would take our Missile Defense ships away from their Missile Defense mission which gets to the fact that they, right now, if we got into a conflict, our large surface combatants that do Escort Missions for carriers that carriers, but convoys. Do not have anything else that can defend them against air threats. Our Small Surface combatants are not capable of doing air defense. To show you what this chart shows the blue stuff is the number of cruisers and destroyers that the navy plans to have in its shipbuilding plan between now and 2044. That number hovers around 88 which is a requirement. That is pretty good. The tan stuff is the navys Small Surface combatants. Frigates, combat ships, minesweepers, patrol craft. Frigates are in here. The requirement for those is here at the top. That line. You can see today there is a huge gap between the number of them that are available and the number of them that we need. That the Large Service combatants, the cruisers and destroyers will get pulled into do those missions which means they wont get taken away from their opportunity to do air and Missile Defense in support of the joint force. That is one problem we need to address. The other problem is the new frigates being developed by the navy will not have the air defense capacity to protect other ships. Any Escort Missions that have to be done in a time of heightened tension or conflict would have to be done by the ships as well further taking them away from air defense of the joint force. We need to think about how we a quick our Small Surface combatants to go do those as were tight missions and these Security Cooperation missions to take that demand off of our Large Service combatants which are intended to do Missile Defense activities. Overall, the missile threat the pelee poses to our forces deployed in western pacific is significant and it empowers the chinese strategy of finlands station of western pacific allies. If the u. S. Does not have a robust capability to counter that, it reinforces the notion amongst those in east asia that we are not going to be there to defend them when the time comes to do so. There are a couple of ways we can go about that. We can improve the number of Missile Defenses or the capacity of Missile Defense of within each of our unit. We also need more units. There are ways to get at that if we are smart about how we invest. That is it. Rebecca thank you so much. I have a couple of questions, once again for the panel. I am happy to field we probably have time for three or four questions if we keep them brief and if you could once again stand up and say your name and whom you are affiliated with. That would be helpful. Over here. Hike, i am major katy sullivan. Where china is going with their technology. Your proposal to increase our defense capacity eye focusing on short range defense. Have you done any analysis to in terminalgeting phase how will we improve the capacity . I am working on that study right now. If you look at the homeland Defense Mission where you are technology, rv they are trying to create more targets we have to shoot down depleting our capacity further and faster. The general talked about the end and tracking of the missiles. If we are able to track the incoming missile, and to end end to end, we can differentiate between the merv and what is a decoy and what is the missile body. You could use a shorter range Defense System to defeat the mervs while avoiding the things that are not mervs. Youakes it incumbent upon to have a system that can attack , or you have to have this end to end radar coverage. George washington university. This is for mr. Chang. What you think of japans militarization efforts . L they draw an aggressive an aggressive response from china in an arms race of sorts . I think that is something of a false dichotomy. I think to begin with the chinese have since 1945 if not before, viewed japan with skepticism. That is a polite way of saying they are very deeply suspicious, feel threatened by anything the japanese do, and really do not particularly like the people of japan. When you have massive rioting because a japanese soccer team in manchuria has the impolitic to of winning, and you have evacuate the soccer team back to japan so that they do not get beaten up, that is a form of by the localsm chinese towards japan. In that context, anything the japanese do is going to rile china. The fact that the japanese are reassessing their positions regarding article nine of the constitution, restrictions lifting restrictions on previous interpretations about collective defense, is only going to feed what the chinese themselves have which is witches mild skepticism of japan. I do not think the chinese however view it as northeast asia, or southeast asia. Japan, or the South China Sea. The South China Sea, from the chinese perspective, is chinese territory. Period. Good atese are very throwing all sorts of reasons out there about why you should agree that this is chinese territory. Japan is not chinese territory. Is a, for good historic purposes, viewed with skepticism. The fact that the u. S. Is allied with japan only heightens that set of concerns. Dave franklin from the civil center. Ryan question is for brt clark. I noticed it focused unable assets. Were you able to look at what airpower has to offer as far as longrange standoff on killing archers . Bryan i did look at that. I did not i was trying to simplify. If you look at how we use our aircraft today. We talked a lot about doing defensive counter air capabilities against incoming air threats. Aday, we would end up using surprising amount to defeat Cruise Missiles coming in that have been launched from even further away. For the naval part, we need to ink at our dca cap being put a location that they can defeat aircraft before they are launched. I know that is something the air force is looking at. Isneed to think about what the best use of our aircraft which is probably to defeat other aircraft rather than pursuing technologies like air launch to kill. That may not be the best use of an airplane with the human in it. I agree. We need to look it using defense counter air to go after platforms that are trying to launch against us. Upgrades to the b52s, longrange aircraft and not the shorter range. Looking at using longrange aircraft to counter air mission. That is something i have not looked at very much. That would be consistent with some of the work we have done at cs ba on the future of airpower. As air to air missiles increase the range, we may be going towards a regime in which you are doing air to air were well beyond visual range routinely because the combat id problem will be addressed through new sensor technologies. Theat, it would be characteristics that would be the most valued would be payload and sensor capacity. You are right. You can look at a platform like the b52 if equipped with sensors that would enable it to see out to the range of the missiles it could carry, it could be a very effective counter air asset. Rebecca i have a question for mark. A lot of the conversation here has been about what would happen if we were in the middle of a conflict with china. Hopefully, we would hope to deter that to begin with. You talked about their policy of no first strike which has traditionally been chinas policy regarding Nuclear Weapons. That may be changing. You talked about what capabilities they may have but we are not sure about because of the tunnel system. How should the United States think about deterrence as it relates to china . It the we going about wrong way . Mark deterrence of china is critical. The largest deterrent threat to the United States that within the foreseeable future become that. It has to be deterred. I do not think our policies on china are working very well. It is not politically correct to say that there is a real chinese threat out there that we have to do something about. If you take a look at the overall reductions in u. S. Military capability since the end of the cold war, a lot of the things that we have , mary longrange air defense capabilities for the carriers, the f14 was eliminated without replacement, reducing in effect canceling patriotloyment of the pac three replacement system. The cancellation of the ctx cruiser. All of these things, and i could give you other examples, have a tremendous effect in reducing overall u. S. Deterrent capabilities particularly when you take into account the sorts of threats the chinese have developed. No one on this panel has stealthd chinese aircraft. That is a brandnew threat. It is a very difficult type of threat to deal with. They probably do not have the same level of stealth that u. S. Theraft have but cancellation of some of our most advanced air Defense Concepts from the 1990s i think has a significant effect in increasing the chinese ability to threaten the United States. It is not only the Ballistic Missile capability. Mr. Clark is accurate. It is a combination of air and missile capability. The missile capability will do significant amount of defense suppression and in that we are very likely to run out of interceptor missiles of four the chinese run out of offensive missile capability. I think the idea of increasing the number of short range defensive interceptors on our naval vessels is a good idea but i do not think it is an absolute panacea especially when you take into account that a lot of is capablelity against threats. Option ofthe detonating the First Nuclear were had beyond the defensive range of some of the short range terminal Defense Systems. Need a much more robust capability in terms of air and Missile Defense. Now procuring. Re how you go about doing that that is a complex decisionmaking process. Look at a lotke a of technical aspects before you make decisions there. Forces to acing our 6040 split, pacific versus atlantic. That will not solve the china problem. I recognize right now that the chinese economy is probably in a lot weaker position than we give them credit for a few years ago. Even so, it does not seem to impacted very much Chinese Military improvements and expansion. Until it does, we have a very serious threat out there that we are not adequately dealing with. Add that we are touching on cooperating with our allies and expanding Missile Defense with south korea and japan. We are already doing a lot of great work with both of those countries, particularly japan. China has pushed back. At the United States has tried to play radar, deployed the battery that the United States wants and needs in south korea, the South Koreans want other Missile Defense capabilities. They are looking at some of the systems that the israelis have used and deployed successfully. There are other assets that our allies want. China has been quick to push back on that saying that it is destabilizing the region. Always looking for opportunities for the United States to do Something Different that does not cost money and one of those things would be to very strongly and robustly defend our allies right to own these capabilities and not given to chinese opposition to some of these deployments. Like what we have done in the past with russia and missile deployments in eastern europe. If i could take one more question from the audience. If there is one. While you are thinking about it, i would add something to what the general said. All of us have talked about but we could do differently in terms of increasing systems quantitatively, and qualitatively, that would cost more resources, more money. In this resource constrained environment. That would require some changes like dealing with the budget control it needs to get back to research and element to increase it capabilities qualitatively which means the service is are going to have to take on the role of owning these systems which get back to my first point, we are going to have to give them more resources to do that. I think that is a point we need to underscore and remember. If there are no further question, i think you will agree with me that this has been a highly informative discussion. If you will please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause]