Transcripts For CSPAN Heritage Discussion On U.S. Military Strength 20240711

2021 index of u. S. Military strength. This is the seventh edition of the index and the index has come one of the flagship publications. Our goal has been unchanged. It is to provide both the leaders of this country and the American Public a premiere open source and author tatetive of Armed Services and their ability to protect the nation. I think we have not only achieved that goal but continued with this effort. And this years edition is the best ever. In addition to our usual subjects, it includes National Security concerns and one of these is the emergent of the new space force. We have a new chapter on the subject of space this year and look more hearing from the editor of the new index in his presentation later. Today as part of our launch, we welcome a speaker with decades of matters, representative Mac Thornberry. He was the first elected to congress in 1994 and has supported a Strong National defense since. He is currently the Ranking Member of the house Armed Services committee and served as the committees chairman from 20152019. He has sponsored or cosponsored a number of bills to make the department of defense not only ore neglecttive but more innovative and endeavored to ensure that our Armed Services to get the services they need to defend the nation. Congressman thornberry has made it his mission. And he has written extensively about the importance of our military and its status. There is quite simply no other member of congress who is more respected or more thoughtful on defense matters. Therefore comes as no surprise no surprise that this National Defense authorization act is named after him. He is retiring from congress this year and we are grateful to hear his thoughts how the strength of the military in the years to come. It is my pleasure tore welcome congressman Mac Thornberry to the station. Mr. Thornberry congress has given the new tools and they are being used to greater effect, they are still too much resistance to change both in the department and within congress. So with this impressive body of work before us, my mind naturally goes to, ok, what do we do about it . I thought i might offer on my way out of public life, that i might offer a suggested todo list for congress, for the executive and legislative branch and for the National Security community atlarge. I narrowed it down to the top 10. I will be able to give some headlines, but theser to me, the 107 things that we should work on to improve our situation. Item number one is keep people first. The demographics, the skills we need, the importance of families in career decisions, the training and professional education required, the standards for promotion and assignment, all of that is changing. And yet, if we get the people part wrong, then the rest isnt going to matter very much. Number one, i have to say is keep people first. Number two is to provide stable, reliable funding that grows at 3 to 5 above inflation. I think the National Defense Strategy Commission had it exactly right. Thats what it takes to defend the country. If we choose to do less than that, then congress and the president have to shoulder the plame for the consequences. And just because we are in one gain, i have to say no c. R. s, regardless of the amount of the continuing resolution, it does damage every time and i can give you a laundry list of pecific ways that this c. R. If it goes past december. Number 3, provide greater flex built of funding. Writing hundreds of pages of requirements of who can build that precise thing having protests and buying thousands of hem, those days are going by the wayside. Congress, especially the appropriators, have to get more comfortable with a pot of money being available for a particular purpose and then full transparency on how those funds are used. Flexibility is the key to help attract more suppliers to do business with the department of business, to overcome that infamous valley of death, to enable more experimentation and prototyping and get technology into the field faster. Speaking to traditional approaches makes those things much harder. Item number 4 is be relentless in whatever needs to be changed to get the best technology that our country can produce into the hands of the warfighters faster. That means the resources have to be brought to be bear. Private industry as well as government, private capital as well as government funding. Weve made plog and hopefully we will make progress in this years ndaa that we are now negotiating in encouraging businesses to do with d. O. D. And small and Midsized Companies to bring innovation to the table and to help all of that to move at a greater rate of speed. But there is a lot more to be done. Updating our aapproaches to things has to go beyond d. O. D. A story in the wall street journal said china is no longer leading the you when it comes to 5 delnch g it is running away with the game. A few weeks ago, d. O. D. Proposed deas on other ways that we can deploy 5 delnchgep and utilize spectrum and you think the sky is about to fall in. National security is no longer br planes, tanks and ships being willing to pursue other shoes but make a huge differ in our country defending itself. Number five. And that is have a lot of public discussion about new technologies and their applications for defense. N 2011, then Speaker Boehner asked me to do a committee. We were able to come together with a set of recommendations and we had the snowden the leaks, we had wikileaks and everybody that the government was reading your emails to grandma. That made it politically impossible to consider any sort of cyberrelated legislation in congress for several years. Our adversaries do not vr ethical concerns but we can parallel ourselves by misinformation or lack of understanding when it comes to artificial intelligent intelligence, all sorts of issues. I believe that it is important to have a little innoculation th hearings, with thinktank seminars, with papers, with a Greater Public discussion about these technologies, about what they mean and what they dont mean to help prevent this sort of parallels cyst from setting in in the future. Number six, understand and shore up the Industrial Base. We are making significant progress because of covid and understanding where the suppliers and components of our various Defense Systems come from. Of some ofnerability those things. But it is complicated and we havent gotten our arms around the problem completely. Our Industrial Base has to include trusted companies and allies and partner nations as well. But we need to understand it and then it may require some targeted government actions to help ensure it will be available to us. Number seven is nurture our alliances and partnerships. As churchill, there is one thing worse fighting without our allies. We cannot do everything ourselves. There is some repair that he needs to occur in those relationships. We should be candid about our differences and about our expectations when it comes to allies and partners but a lot of that candid talk better be hand lt outdoors. Item number eight is dont neglect the nukes. Im glad to see that heritage as set aside our Nuclear Deterrent in another. They may be charitable of where we are than i would be, because on both the weapons and the delivery systems, there is absolutely no margin for error. The index notes that. We have allowed everything to age out at once. And i have to say, im particularly concerned about where the chinese are headed with their size and capability of their nuclear program, like a lot of things related to the chinese, we have probably been too complacent when we look at that issue. But, all of our other defense efforts for the country rests upon a foundation of a safe, reliable, effective Nuclear Deterrent. And this is another one, that if we get this wrong, then probably the rest of these things isnt going to matter much. Item number 9 is make every effort to keep nondefense. There are going to be differences but somehow through those differences over the years, congresses and president s of both parties have been able to come together and enact a Defense Authorization bill for 59 straight years. Good lord willing we will have number 60 before too long. But that fact, in and of itself, is important for allies and adversaries and especially for the men and women who are risking their lives for us. They need to know that the country stands together behind them in support of their mission. Now, to do that, sometimes you have to bite your tongue. Sometimes you have to accept some things you disagree with. Sometimes we have to actually compromise. But we should never forget that the top goal of russia and other adverse areas is to divide us. To sow dissension. I dont worry about our ability to overcome any outside adverse area. The only thing that could keeps me up at night is the decisions we make for ourselves. The only one that can defeat ourselves are americans ourselves. Item number 10. Every one of us must make a concerted effort toll educate and remind each other the reasons that a Strong Defense is important. By any measure, the last 70 years has been a time of unmatched human progress. Life expectancy, living standards, poverty rates, people with a say in their government, the number of People Killed in war, any metric you want to use highlights that the last 70 years has been special. And i believe all of that progress was made possible by two basic decisions that the United States made after world war ii to keep a Strong Defense and stay engaged in the world. And yet today, both of those decisions are under attack in both political parties. Im afraid that too many of us have lost sight of what it takes o keep this unparalleled prosperity and security, too many people dont realize its not just our safety, its our jobs, our quality of life, our whole society that depends pop the security that is provided by the u. S. Military. Ronald reagan said that all great change in america begins around the dinner table. So if i could wave the magic wand and get one of the 10 items that i am suggesting for my todo list, it would be to have a conversation around every dinner table in america about what we have achieved in the last 70 years and what it took to achieve it, the sacrifice that has been made and the dangers of letting it all slip away. F we are negligent, im afraid we will inhabit a world that is more dangerous that we could even see civilization start to slip backwards as has happened before in history. United states of america is the greatest force for good in the because the World Americans decided we had to be. The alternative was too terrible. And now we have to decide whether to continue or to abandon those two crucial decisions that have guided us with both parties for the last 70 years and has done so much, not just for ourselves, but for all of mankind. As i depart congress, i hope and pray that we choose wisely. Thank you. We have to remain strong. That is normal and i thank you very much for that statement. Now we get to turn to a very special event. On behalf of the Heritage Foundation and our president , this is james, this is my pleasure to inaugurate award, an award we call the guardian of the gate award. The Heritage Foundation will honor distinguished careers with an emphasis on strong support and supporters for our armed forces. But if you think about it, the thing. A twoway the things that are bad must be stopped but you have to let the good as well and they have to come in freely and in some cases be welcomed. A guardian is constant by guarding the gate of our nations interest and important to honor those who carried this heavy responsibility throughout their careers and distinguished themselves and their charge as a guardian of the public trust. And we can think of no better honorey to be the first recipient of guardian of the gate award than representative Mac Thornberry. Representative thornberry, your many years of service to our country and congress and unwavering support for our military makes this a fitting tribute to your accomplishments. America is safer in the world bus of you and because of your efforts and we thank you for your dedication and for your leadership over the course of your very long career. You have appear inspiration to the heritages foundation career. It was inspired by the collaboration with you over the years. But we look forward to your continued impact on National Defense issues even after you leave congress. You have been a true guardian of the gate. So please join me in picking up our award. [applause] indiscernible chatter] we are going to shift onto the part of the program and talk about the index and what a great honor to have congressman thornberry at the end of a stellar career and dr. Holmes mentioned not only with the Heritage Foundation on the important topic of military strength. What i would like to do is talk p about the index. Just very briefly and get into what the index says about the state of military power. And what we tried to keep in mind, you could have discussion 10 t a plane, tank or five, or what have you, but that absent context. Is it easy to work or difficult to work in the world . That tells you whether you need more military power or less. Its that context that we try to provide within the construct of the index itself. As has been mentioned in various ways, we have a military for a certain reason. Not just for parades or looking for employment opportunities, its there to defend the country. If you have history buffs in the im going to butcher a name, th century a. D. , a roman philosopher said if you want peace, prepare for war. And when you think about defending the country, if you go back to our own constitution, defending the country is one of the only few specified tasks of the federal government. It gets involved in a lot of things it wants to do and plays popular for electorate. Nd when you talk about defense budget. And it drives our thinking of how we need to support it. We spend lots of money on our ilitary, 740 billion. Run deficits because of that because of the great divide. And the additional obligations, but thats a lot of money. What we want to do is explain to the American People what at the are getting for their money, tting a competent, readily military, is it being spent well. We believe that in surveying the landscape, there is no other capable effort undertaken by anyone where time is spent by a number of scholars to bring insights on the nature of the world and the military and write this in an accessible way. Ill give you some statistics. They want to make the American Public informed and so that when we do have this these debates and people have some idea what they are talking about. And this is again another purpose for the index. I will be going through a lot of slides here and im not expecting our viewers to look at dashes. Of this is on heritage. Org military. And if you want to dive into one of these graphics, click on the links and download it. But by the numbers, 20 ought thors contributed their times and talent to make this impossible. 20,000 footnotes, and why is that a big deal . If we are saying something and providing a data data point, what is north korea doing, what is United States army doing, Great Britain doing, we link that to a source some you can go into it and read the same thing that we are reading and come to a different conclusion. Footnoting to win credibility to the index and replete with graphics and maps and carts and all sorts of things, tables, 62 of those in addition to the programs. You have heard mention about major acquisition programs. Are they on track . And we address those components as well. Since we have the index, we distribute both hard copies and distribute it online, what a useful mechanism to talk about things that are really important to National Security and status and use of military power, when i taug about a tank. Can i make more of them. Do i have an Industrial Base. Am i experimenting, do i have an crew that is effective. How does it relate to other tanks. In each edition of the index, we provide four to six eas ace and Talent Management and mobility. In this set right here, we haves as that have been written on the american irl Intelligence Community. If you needed to get military power for the United States. Es a tor has provided us an on alliances. What is the nature . We have the we have provided one about the defense Industrial Base and the status to make up mcfarlandall and germ has addressed about navy, army, air force and marines, do they play well together. Are we developing ways to utilize military power that is much more effective in the world of joint experimentation, who really understands it. And the commissioner did a fine job. I mentioned on programs, again, dont try to read the slide. Download it and look at it at your leisure. F15 fighter, what is the status of that current capability, how old is it, and how many do we have, and do we have a new capability coming on the line . Is it being underfunded or problematic. Each one of the services, 104 major programs and we have made it readily available to the public. As we talk about this front matter and thinking about military power and for me the time keaways is time, the how long it takes to do things and acceptable risks. If i had the ability to generate power overnight, perhaps im willing to take soy risk because i know i can catch up but that is not the reality. It takes five years to build an Aircraft Carrier and two years to build ar surface war ship. The army can have a combat team to get it back together again and make sure it is organized and takes upwards of 2. 5 years. This will idea of time infuses the entire document. In utilizing military power, but if you dont have the military to use, that option has been taken off the table. And would bullet tress diplomacy and aligning with the United States, a very good idea economically, you find our self shorthand the. This thinking of military power and events continue to confirm historically realities and looking for their own room, their own access to resources, whether fisheries, gold mines or what have you, it is going to result in africa shon and in countries pushinging against each other. If you want to benefit you as a country, and if you want to deter that behavior and myth risk because you cannot predict the future. A strong Capable Military that meets requirements that history shows that are consistent across time is one way to deal with that world and if you want peace reassure its wars, allies and jobs, prosperity and security at home and have a world that benefits people around the world. If you go to the executive summary in this zoumenthdoufment we would highlight the pieces. The world is an. Is it easy or difficult . Can you reassure an ally and dont have a military presence there, they arent going to put a lot of stop. So we look at the status of our allies and partners and experience in working with various regions. Place. Ld is a very americans are serving their country in foreign lands and eases the a built so when we have to respond we are able to do that than if we are stuck isolated at home and create nol capabilities. In terms of the threaten environment, everybody tracks the news headlines, how rapidly is china expanding its military capabilities. What is russia up to in the middle east in syria and Northern Africa and crimea and its aggression in the north atlantic. We see these big major countries that are very confident and agriss i have in pushing forward and regardless of their Economic Situation back home, for them, it appears to dedicate a significant amounts of National Resources to develop military capabilities. They are incorporating unmanned stems and fifthgeneration stegget aircraft. All these things we talk about in the United States to prepare for the future. Our competitors are doing the same thing. What we find across the board, china, russia, north korea and an are very confident, forwardleaning aggressive actors and the threat standpoint. Does it mean war tomorrow, i dont think so. We have had a competent military that keeps bad actors from doing bad things. And as far as our own military, we dont mean to diminish the skills, competence, willingness to serve in uniform. It is the opposite. When you have a small military, the people become become that much more important. Level, at theual small unit level, leadership level, etc. , and incredible United States military. Talk about a marginal u. S. Military, its comparing that military against what the total requirement is. Where do you want to be in the world, what kind of posture do you want to have, do you want to use new equipment or old equipment, how is your Readiness Level . At that standpoint, looking at the desire from our standpoint to having a military establishment that can be in more than one place at a time, so that if you have a russia problem and you have a china problem, we dont want to be limited to just focusing on the one. If you do find yourself having to get engaged and it takes all that you have do that engagement , then the areas where you cannot be present become a major. Trategic wrists risk. So this to conflict capacity allows us to deter. If you have to respond you can do so effectively, also continuing to deter opportunistic behavior and other parts of the world. Only talk about marginal it has ageo with the capacity, the of the equipment our military forces are using, and the level to which they have been able to trained to not only keep current skills sharp, but to develop new skills as new equipment capabilities come in. Some of the things we have talked about, directed energy or robotics. What we have seen overall is that over the past three years in particular, tremendous gains in readiness. When you think about shifting from a purely counterterrorism focus, going up against enemies with no army, no navy or airpower capabilities, the u. S. Military could do what it wanted to do. The ground and in persontoperson contact. You could slow forces, use your , all those bombers sorts of things at very low risk. Now that we think about this isurn to top petition, that a whole different ballgame. It requires different ways of thinking, different sorts of thening and flying and types of formation we would put into the field. The funding we would have up to this point has been invested in trying to make the current military we have as capable as hasible, but modernization usually been neglected because of it. Again, dont try to read the small print, we talked about allies, and there has been a lot of push on nato memberss. We could also be talking about japan, south korea and other great allies and trying to push them along to invest war in their own defense capability. This chart is taking from taken from nato spending data. It shows there has been in improvement in those meeting the objective of 2 gdp dedicated to defense and how much of that has been on modernization. So improvements. Most of the members are still lagging way behind. Greater investment would mean that they are more secure and more confident and it actually lessens the burden on the United States of trying to help everybody else out in key regions. Because american jobs and prosperity and security are dependent on it back home. An example of us digging into the data and providing some insights into the nature of things, here is a graphic depiction that is map based on the spending. It is interesting to see that those countries who are closest to what they consider real threats are more serious about the investments they make in their own National Security posture. Massnited states suffered emotions and physically separated from some of these regions. It is a been more of a challenge to convince the American Public and lawmakers on capitol hill that the necessary investments in defense are needed. That if we were on the front lines facing the competitor with the continuous border like china , or with russia, the American Public might think differently. Warfare can unfold quickly. We have to push military forces at great range. When our allies are not doing what they should be doing, it makes it more of a challenge for just about everybody. These are representative graphics or depictions on the nation of the world. As we walk through each region being europe, the middle east and the indo pacific, we see what these competitors are up to. China has been busy in their belt and road initiative, developing new trading initiatives. New military presence in africa and the middle east and up into portions of asia. And they are investing heavily in this sort of capability. What we have shown up on the map is just the color of representation of physical activities on the ground. So to think that the United States was state would stay home and the world remains a Peaceful Place with lots of trading partners and we all have to invest in that is nonsense. We have to accept the world as it is and it will maintain a positive environment, or shape something that would be challenging in a positive direction, you have to be engaged. That our competitors are focused , capable and active. If we look at a country like iran, 3000 Ballistic Missiles. Theyve got them for some reason and they have been pointed in certain directions. Andant ignore the ranges capabilities of these weapons systems. And it helps to inform our understanding of the capability, capacity and readiness of the u. S. Military if they were to have to go into a region might this. North korea provides another example. I believe in march alone for this year conducted nine missile tests, developing a submarine launched Ballistic Missile. Ballistic missile capabilities and it out ranges the totality of the United States. Whether theyve got 10 Nuclear Weapons, 100 Nuclear Weapons or growing to 1000, it is clearly a priority for the north korean regime to invest what resources they have into these very capable longrange offense of weapons systems. Its just another indicator that our competitors arent standing still and the United States cannot afford to do that either. We turn to a summary of these threats we talk about two things. One, their actual capabilities. Systems, andmodern then we look at their behavior as well. Quiet, perhaps not as big as an issue. Although behavior can change on a dime. Are they much more aggressive . This is what we used to provide a summary. What we see is that competitors often exploit opportunities with the u. S. s absence or we dont have capability. They dont take a break. And unfortunately for our country and domestic issues at home, we cannot afford to take a break either. Does not mean we are always on a war footing, absolutely not, but what you are telling competitors and how you are reassuring allies is that you have the means and the wherewithal and the will to engage where and when you need to to support our interest in all of our alliance structures. To get into the military services specifically, its all about money. Say, not just for money the funding makes it possible to replace old equipment that gives wornout. Stable funding allows an army brigade to go to the field and train, or it allows an air force pilot to get in to his or her working aircraft, that it has been fueled up and has spare parts and go out and fly the parts of the types of flaming the types of training flights they need to be effective. We see the divergence the between how much is being spent on the military and the affective inflation, and how we have under invested for a number of years. This is not just something over the last six to 10, this is a 30 years story. At the end of the third war with the collapse of the soviet union we have it decade of the 1990s where we did not spend a lot on anything in terms of modernization. Almost 10 years without buying new aircraft. And then continuing to fly those airplanes to keep skills up because you are prematurely wearing out the aircraft without something coming in. 2001 happens for the terrorist attacks and now we have 15 to 20 years of constant operations dealing with terrorism organizations in very distant parts of the worlds. You will continue to use up those resources that we did have an equipment that was procured in the 1980s and 1990s, the not replenishing those accounts with equipment. So as we walked through the various services, the army is a great example. They have dedicated themselves to increasing readiness of the force that they have, knowing that manpower is very, very expensive, they have tried to better improve their skill sets and readiness of the brigades they do have, and they have done a phenomenal job. In some ways we can think they are too ready. Spend a dollar on having another soldier or another unit more ready when perhaps you have a specific number of brigades to deal with the world as it is today and not spend that dollar on replacing a very old piece of armored equipment. So readiness wise, the army is doing great, we think that they have improved their readiness, perhaps a bit much at the expense of modernization programs, and certainly in capacity. Its difficult to increase the capacity of the military service. We know that based on the historical realization of army forces, it takes 21 brigades to fight a major war. If you wanted to have twice that so that you could do that and still deter, you would double that for 42, adding training in units that are not available, and thats how we get our number of 50. Right now the army has 31, far short of what we believe the army really needs to have. How would they be able to grow . There is a recruiting challenge and funding challenge and its something that Army Leadership is very aware of. In terms of modernization, one talks about draft how competitors are making Major Investments in improving longrange fires capabilities. Whether in our till it he round whether its in artillery round, the United States military has not kept pace. What this means on the battlefield is, your component cant engage you at a greater distance and you cannot get crowd you cannot get close enough to bring your firepower to bear. Technology brings new capability into the marketplace. People use those things to improve their military posture. Our competitors have been serious but we just have not made the same progress over the last 10 or 15 years. About thele, this is army that is illustrative of the services at large in a has to do with the cost of inflation. Levels whenfunding it goes to a service, and yet inflation is on the rise, the purchasing power of that dollar that you have received does not get you as much as it used to have. We went back to the study to 1970, the vietnam era, and found that the price of a tank as increased at three times the rate of inflation. Aircraft has increased five times the rates of inflation. Averagequipped the soldier with the modern optics, communication, a new Weapon System and today it takes 16 times the rate of inflation to equip that soldier as it did back in 1970. Thanks to the congressmans point, the American Public is not apprised to how these things are occurring within the world of National Security. We find ourselves today with a military that is just too small for what we expect it to do and it continues to use old equipment. This is an example from the navy. Ship shows howf much life span is associated to each one of these platforms. What we have today is the navy with fewer than 300 ships and over half of the ships are greater than 20 years old. I dont know how many of you take vacations in a car that is 20 years old, most people would not want to do that, but sailors have equipment that was bought 20 or 30 years ago. On this line its a 10 year mark. You think about what might happen over the next 10 years. If it takes two to three years to build a new Surface Combatant platform, if we have to introduce new colombian class submarines, and again, this element of time and Stable Funding does not paint a pretty picture. And then when we think about the world, i mentioned this earlier, it takes about three weeks to get naval power from the United States to a key region that might be used. In the indian ocean, persian gulf or the South China Sea. So ships can move at 35 knots or so, so how many hours do you need across an ocean that might be 3000 miles wide . So again, this element of time that if you dont have forces already deployed, it takes a while to get them there. Of the 300 ships we have in the navy only 100 are available on a daily basis. Of those 100, perhaps 60 are deployed into the western pacific. So 60 United States ships going against the chinese navy of 350 ships quickly growing to 400 in the next few years and also because its their home terrain, they have all the landbased capability that can affect maritime operations. So when you start juggling these numbers and you see what we have an aging capability, we find ourselves in a five to six to one five and six to one disadvantage when you compare hours with the competitors we will be going up against. 47 he air force side, capacity to just under half the capacity or size of the air force we use during desert storm in 1991. In 2017, it was the first time in the history of the United States air force that they have spent more on research and development than in buying new airplanes. So when we consider for a moment that the average air force fighter is 30 years old, with the air force has decided to do is focus 20 years down the road in their are and efforts and holding them at russ to deal with current problems with an air force half the size of what they used to have. So we think that is problematic, we think there is a reality in the services in terms of embracing the great power of competition implies but they have not really made the changes necessary to come up to speed on that. They are currently unable to meet their refueling requirements giving their age fleet of kc aircraft. And the kc 46 has significant problems. So the air force is Still Deciding to retire existing reform refuel before the replacement is going into the field and we have to question some of the decisionmaking processes behind that. One more example on flight hours, if you are not driving, you wont be a good driver. If you are not shooting you wont be a good marksman. If you are not flying and aircraft and you dont gain and regain and sustain those skills of being competent in a combat environment. To put or to put ordinance on target and fight against an opposing aircraft. What we have seen is a decline in the number of flight hours were flight hours per air force pilot. We want to wake folks up to the reality of that. During the cold War Air Force naval pilots would fly upwards of 200 plus hours per year. If they were at 150 or so they were considered not deployable, but that number is where we are at today and it is on the decline. The individual people are fantastic. The rate in which we are funding the military to give them better equipment, the ability to train at the level that they need to train at and to have capacity so we are not prematurely wearing up the force is where the problem is why we have assessed we have a marginal military problem. The marine corps is a fascinating story and is doing its own great reorientation. It feels that given the size of the service, where does the United States really need capability . It has to be within the weapons engagement zone. The ability of Chinese Forces to dominate abroad. It might hear military terminology is talk about the first island chain. If you look at the map around the South China Sea area is pounded on the mainland and islands. , it is of modern weapons extraordinarily difficult to in that kind of world. The marines have decided they will figure out how to do that. Recognizing that funding is not going to increase from their perspective, they are going to have to make these payments of intoting old equipment that kind of warfare. In order to develop new capabilities and get new equipment. You are training current things for the type of things you think will be essential in this distributed warfare environment. When i was in the marines some years ago, the Infantry Battalion numbers were 27. The budget control act of 2011 kicked in and dropped to 24 and then down to 21. They rebuilt that to 24, but the commandant has indicated they will reduce to 21. When we look at averages in corpse, where the marine has needed to invest 15 or 16 battalions to fight big battles, if you only have 21, it does not give you the ability to go big and have sustained operations in the face of opposition over time. Another indicator. As the congressman mentioned we spent time looking at Nuclear Capabilities. This chart shows you when a strategic system was introduced into the forest into the force, when it was projected, you can bring it up on your it standsand where today. Virtually the entirety of the u. S. Nuclear weapons and Delivery Platform capabilities are outdated, yet we continue to extend them because we continue to have this debate within the United States about nuclear power, nuclear weaponry, Nuclear Deterrence theories and whether or not this remains violent. The indicator in the defense china, russiaif and north korea are investing heavily in Nuclear Capabilities and iran appears to be an aspirational power, there must be a value to that. If we want them to extend the you turnssurance and umbrellas over allies and provide Nuclear Deterrence over those who might wish to oppose their own will, we simply have to modernize our Nuclear Capabilities. As we move to Ballistic Missile defense, a great graphic that shows where we have capabilities , and more importantly, where we do not. If you wanted to try to get a weapon before it gets into a very hard to engage zone or when its screaming into the target, you will likely get it when it is still on the platform or in that boost portion of its rise or sent into orbit. But right now we have no capability. There is a practical reason for that, how do you get in close enough so that the weapon you would want to use against the target is able to do that, but there is also a political problem. You would be executing a strike in someone sovereign territory, which seems to be different than taking out a missile in mid flight. The problem becomes more pronounced, the further along the missile gets towards a target, perhaps in the United States, and we feel we would have a real shortfall in this boost phase Ballistic Missile defense option, which needs to be looked at. As we look at space capabilities, what an extraordinary shift from moments of military world to commercial launch vehicles. We are lifting more things with our commercial partners in the United States domain than we have ever seen before. It is the good news story with excellent trendlines. It is still a sliver. I think the congressman mentioned it is shifting u. S. Air force personnel associated intoair force operations the space force, but that is half of what exists in the department of defense. Another 20,000 personnel in the army and the navy that we would need to account for in some way if we were to have a comprehensive, cohesive space capability. That does not address the different agencies and the Intelligence Community that ought to be looked at as well. What it is a good news story overall. In conclusion, i would like to ask, or address, and we have talked with audiences, people are usually looking for easy answers to very difficult problems. Thatis a 30 year story post 2001, our military was consuming every dollar it received in current operations. Blown up equipment, dealing with the medical problems that come with men and women in harms way. Not a lot was spent modernizing u. S. Military capabilities. What we need to do moving forward is, just acknowledge to the public that easy answers are not here, that stopping the business of continued resolution disrupts funding, disrupts programs and wastes money over time is something we need to get away from. There is also the reality that the world does not sit around waiting for the United States to do something. There are other agendas at play. Its a dynamic appearance. There are always new opportunities and new challenges we have to account for. So to think that we have bought one airplane in one year and that we have fixed the military problem does not make sense. Each new year brings new opportunities and new challenges. Our defense spending patterns need to account for that. The military is an essential tool. Not that we want to be dominant in every measure or use our military as a bludgeon, but the military is seen and capable and ready to respond to challenges and that it is a backstop and it enhances the power of diplomacy and it assures trading partners and makes sure the United States has their back. That the people can move freely and not be challenged by countries like china, might want to dominate and impose their own weird ideologies and those sorts of things. And effectively military power cannot be constituted. It cannot be generated on very short notice. Finalhave one Aircraft Assembly facility for the f35 in fort worth, texas, that ceiling facility of its kind in the entire country, and the world. If there is only one shipyard that builds Aircraft Carriers, that gives you an idea how quickly we would be able to respond to replace something that might be damaged. And the answer to that is not very quickly at all. Military affairs take time, they take consistent sustained funding and the attention of congress and any administration that might be in august. And office. How much military we need depends on our allies and the capabilities and behavior of our competitors. Much more capable today than what they have been in the past. Much more aggressive and confident than trying to impose themselves than they have in the past. We believe the military we have is populated with great people and has really been focused on readiness and improving back, which we have seen in large measures over the last two or three years. It remains to small and the world as it is and the tax tasks that is before it it is saddled with old equipment that have to be recapitalized and replaced and that will take new funding. Everything to the colombian class submarine. New ships are coming in. New would be in addition to things, like unmanned systems, hyper velocity munitions, everything we talk about a future war would be like, they are not here yet. It appears conventional capabilities today remain as important as they ever have been. We have formessage this years 2021 index. The world is a good is a pretty good place to operate in. Our competitors are much more aggressive than they have been. The u. S. Military is doing the best they can with the resources they have. But its probably two thirds the size that it should be and they aim to replace aging equipment and that means being able to train so the people we have are able to do what we expect them to do at lower risks and greater effectiveness. I think you had mentioned no questions on that. We appreciate your time and attention today. Abouthing i just talked is in there in a highly readable form. It is a wonderful website. Like 3. 3 something Million Viewers or page views over the last few years. We ask you to really check that reef things, if anybody is interested, will also be posted to the website when the final video of this particular presentation is posted in permanent form. Thank you for tuning in. Thank you to congressman thornberry for his career effort and war effort in supporting the country. God bless and good day. User mobile devices and go to cspan. Org for the latest video live and ondemand demand to follow the transition of power. President trump, president elect biden, news conferences and even coverage at cspan. Org. Host David Hawkins is talking about the impact of the november 30 elections. Have you looked again at whats happening this week in congress . There are leadership elections, explain how they go about, the two parties electing their leaders, and will we see changes . Things are happening differently this year. Guest the first of the meeting of the Democratic Caucus is happening today