Transcripts For CSPAN2 AR And Panel Discussion On Missile Defense 20170627

Part one will be the gentleman sitting next to me, senator tom cotten from arkansas. Part two after his keynote address as well as q a will be a lively debate on Missile Defense with joe and rebecca from the henriksen institute. We want to spend as much time with senator cotton as possible so ill keep my remarks short. Washington is faced with severe challenges when it comes to missiles throughout the world. Obviously north korea is very much in the news due to the development of the short, medium and longrange missiles and the ability to actually hit the homeland at some point. Senator cotton has been at the forefront of advocating for a robust strategy. His remarks will be around 20 minutes. That will open the floor for questions for about 25 minutes. Keep in mind during the q a, the state your name and affiliation as we are on the record as you can see by the cameras. Also if time is limited, please keep your question compact and precise. With that, senator cotton. Thank you all for joining us. Its a very important topic. The defense of the homeland is the most basic premise of american grand strategy and has been since before this country was founded. In the declaration of independence you will see one of the complaints was that the king was not protecting american citizens from attacks on our own land. This has been a consistent theme in discussions, whether it is the burning of the white house during the war of 1812, the premise of the Monroe Doctrine that we wouldnt let powers from the old world have a statement into the new world in which they could threaten the home land, the cuban missile crisis that we would not attack cuba again absence of weapons striking our homeland and after the 911 attacks, the world saw the response American People demand when our citizens are attacked on our own soil. Its also a reason why we have all the Forward Deployed bases in places like europe and the middle east and east asia. Yes, it is to assure our allies and help defend them but more than anything it is forward defense for the United States and our citizens and territory so any war fought will be fought as an away game on our enemies turf, not a home game on our turf. Thats why Missile Defense is a must have technology for our military. Its not a nice to have one. Its only becoming more so because our rivals are continuing to advance their ballistic and Cruise Missile technology. I divide the threats we face into shortterm and longterm. Shortterm is north korea and longerterm are iran, russia and china as they deploy and imore advanced systems. There are four things we need to do to counteract the threats. First increase our defense spending. Second spend some of the additional money on integrative layered ballistic Missile Defense systems third, help our allies develop their own Missile Defense systems and forth reconsider and reevaluate the intermediate range and Nuclear Forces treaty. First, let me turn to the threat we face. First the most immediate north korea. The secretary jim mattis said recently in testimony to congress, north korea is the most urgent and dangerous threat to peace and security we face. This year alone north korea has been test firing two or three short and mediumrange missiles. Month. They are working on submarine launch Missile Technology as well. Everyone agrees its only a matter of time before the North Koreans can flight test and Intercontinental Missile capable of hitting not just hawaii or alaska but the United States mainland. Thats why obama warned trump that north korea was the most urgent crisis he might face. I hasten to add that even if north korea struggles to miniaturize nuclear technology, their attack in kuala lumpur airport reminded everyone that they have vast storage of chemical weapons that can be delivered by Missile Technology. One must also worry about the command and control systems, they are developing, for instance road mobile and potentially launch missiles. One must wonder whether the commanders will be under the full control of north koreas National Leadership. Second, iran. Since the joint comprehensive plan of action, they have tested missiles on at least 14 different occasions. The irg sexy fired in th last week and attempt to strike isis targets. I suggest they were trying to send the signal to the United States and israel. Moreover there are reports that iran is supporting Ballistic Missile technology in yemen. Finally, by the time Irans Nuclear deal requirements set i believe they will have Delivery Systems for any Nuclear Weapon program. Third, the country that sometimes escapes notice is pakistan. One cannot discount that one of their over 100 Nuclear Weapons might fall out of the country control and into the hands of extremists. Of course a loose Nuclear Weapon in the hands of a terrorist group is exactly the threat Ballistic Missile systems are designed to stop. Next is russia. Is everyone here is well aware, the russians still maintain the Worlds Largest inventory of Nuclear Warheads. Russia is also tested and deployed a ground launch Cruise Missile that violates the intermediate range Nuclear Forces treaty. The vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff testified this year to congress that the russians have violated the spirit and intent of the inf treaty and they do not intend to return to compliance. They also said the system, itself presents a risk to facilities in europe. In other words, russia is violating a treaty from which they receive greater benefit to the United States and need more without paying any consequences. China, the pla navy, they have fielded for fsb ends given beijing a credible nuclear deterrent. China is also not a member to the inf treaty. Therefore, they have developed a number of missile variance in the 55500kilometer range that contribute to their anti access area denial strategy. Moreover, both russia and china in one some may say ballistic Missile Defenses are provocative to our adversaries because it could stir the balance of deterrence. But, i would say the balance is already being disturbed by these technological advances as well as these blurred lines. Russia sees theater weapons and limited nuclear use against military targets as a way to escalate to deescalate in their terms, two and the conflict. Likewise china is beginning to rethink its no force use doctrine which can occur at any point up to the decision to use Nuclear Weapons in a crisis. Chinese military discussed the use of Nuclear Weapons is a higherlevel component of the anti access aerial denial strategy in the western prostatic. With regard to china, also must note that we have to deal with the fact that the size and the quality of its Nuclear Forces remain largely a mystery to us. We have little transparency on what Nuclear Weapons they may have produced and whether and how they are concealed. Deterring what we dont know about is a very difficult task. If our adversaries are contemplating the use of Nuclear Forces as part of normal warfare, we would be advised to develop Missile Defense systems instead of clinging to a framework that they have already started. What should we do about all these threats. First, as i said, the most fundamental decision we have is increasing our Defense Budget. With that comes the requirement of repealing the budget control act. The budget control act was passed in 2011 in a very different world and we face now. Congress has repeatedly made it clear they cannot deny those findings after spending caps when effect briefly Congress Passed a twoyear budget followed by others. They did then 2015. If they dont act to repeal the budget control act i predict we will see a continuing resolution in september, another twoyear budget in the fall and another in 2018 and we will repeat that. That will not save money because spending caps will increase but will also not mean Wise Investments because our military wont have a kind of longterm stability and protect ability they need. Only 47 senators were in office in 2011 to vote for that bill. The budget control act is not the constitution. It must be repealed. How should we spend that money . We have a lot of needs, a lot of needs to modernize our Nuclear Forces. But, the threats that we face also require that we accelerate the deployment of integrated and layered ballistic Missile Defense systems. They incorporate for word based assets and interceptors in the United States and begin to explore Airborne Systems as well. In the short term, we need to be able to stop the limited icbm attack threat from states like north korea and iran. Over the longterm, i would suggest we need to deal with our adversaries as well. I was pleased to see the Missile Defense agency successful groundbased interceptor test last month that destroyed an incoming missile from the pacific. We are now on track to have 44 groundbased interceptors deployed at the end of the year. To accelerate our ballistic Missile Defense progress, i have co sponsored the defense act along with senator sullivan, cruz, rubio, mansion, peters. A Bipartisan Group of senators who recognize the threats that we face and some of whoms own citizens face it most gravely. This legislation will authorize another interceptor. It would accelerate Interceptor Technology and the development and deployment of a spacebased layer. It also accelerates the Environmental Impact statement on the east coast as well as one in the midwest and the United States. It would require a dod report on the possibility of 100 groundbased interceptors distributed across the United States and asked for the specifics of optimal locations and the possibilities of transportable groundbased interceptors. I think they should rapidly develop and demonstrate an airborne Unmanned Aerial Vehicle intercept capability. The concept would be to involve, it would involve highaltitude uavs with payloads loitering for days at a time. They would be manage background crew. Why would we do this . Intercepting a missile before it achieves midcourse is the holy grail of ballistic Missile Defense. Because the missile is moving slower, therefore its easier to track and it still intact. No d toys or debris. Also, is over enemy territory, not over our territory. All these things combined make it increasing the probability of an intercept and the impact of an intercept. It is challenging due to technology, however the technology is rapidly advancing. I believe with more investment in exploration it is a feasible concept. Third, we need to encourage our allies to deploy their own ballistic Missile Defense systems. This supports our goals of protecting the homeland, extended deterrence and assurance of our allies. The United States has deployed to fad launchers to south korea but the new south korean government has delayed the deployment of four additional systems to appease china and their intimidation. Japanese are currently debating whether to deploy either the fat system or the shore system. We should encourage them just as we should encourage our allies in the middle east. The united emirates has already purchased the system in europe it has been one year since nato deployed to romania. Construction is also underway on a polish or site and for capable destroyers are based in the road of spain. All of these developments plus more that can be on the way will help develop or help create the kind of layered system that our troops and nationals as well as our allies and their citizens need. Fourth and final, i suggest its time to reevaluate the intermediate range Nuclear Forces treaty. If russia is going to test and deploy intermediate range Cruise Missiles and then logic disdictates we must respond. After all, russia benefits more from the inf treaty than does the United States. Unless we believe canada or mexico are going to develop intermediate range missiles anytime soon or that we would allow them to be deployed to cuba. None of which would happen. Yet russia is violating with impunity a treaty from which they benefit more than do we. It is obvious that pleading with Vladimir Putins regime to uphold their part has not brought them into compliance therefore strengthening our deterrence and our Ballistic Missile deterrent in russia will be our own like. The commander recently testified that we should take a look at renegotiating the treaty because it has become a unilateral limitation on us. Since United States and russia are the only two Nations Party to the treaty, the United States is the only country on earth that is not exploring if not developing or deploying crews and Ballistic Missiles in the range of 500 5500 kilometers. Thats why i propose the intermediate range forces Treaty Preservation act all aimed at taking steps permissible within the inf treaty but also to pressure russia to come back into compliance. The legislation would establish a program of record for dual capable road mobile Missile System with inf ranges and facilitate the transfer of inf range systems to allied countries. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, under jimmy carter and Ronald Reagan, the United States successfully used dual track approach to bring the soviet union to the inf negotiating table. The legislation further limits new start extension or open sky treaty activities until russia returns to compliance with the inf treaty. These are just a few of the steps i think we should take to face the growing threat or to counteract the threat we face from our adversaries Missile Technology and deployment advances. There is no doubt more that we could but at this point im happy to turn to harry for questions and then to each of you. Thank you senator. Let me use moderators privilege to ask the first question and then open it to the audience. Listening to your remarks, i kept thinking about north korea. Honestly very much in the news, there were rumors circulating on friday and over the weekend that because over the weekend of the 25th we have the anniversary of the north korean, the war in the 1950s, that there could be a nuclear test. Lets say for example north korea were to test and icbm. What do you think would be the appropriate response from the trump administration. Should we use are Missile Defenses and take it out, would it be a better idea to observe a . What do you think would be the best approach. I wont speculate on hypotheticals and ill leave some of those questions for military experts but we should bring every pressure to bear that we can on north korea to deter them from doing just that. I dont think china has done much in the last six months or the last 30 years for that matter in trying to deter this threat from north korea. They continue to have it both ways and theres much more we can do in terms of sanctions against north koreas illicit network as well as individuals in china whose facilitating north koreas military and their Ballistic Missile technology developments. At same time weve got to continue to take prudent precautions, working with the new administration to hopefully deploy the remaining systems to encourage japan to take whatever course they choose to be most appropriate for their defense. There are steps left to be taken that we have not yet taken with north korea. With that it is question answer time. Please state your affiliation when you ask a question. What is the basis to have 100 interceptors and what you make of the risk of. [inaudible] i think we need more interceptors. Obviously, if north korea develops in Intercontinental Missile, or if theres another missile threat to our homeland, you dont want to have one interceptor for one missile. The success rate is growing but the success rate is unlikely to ever be perfect or one 100 . Therefore we need to increase the interceptors that we have. In terms of technology, obviously i was pleased to see the successful test earlier this month over the pacific. Of course the question to ask is not whether it was a success or failure, but what we learned because you learn from success or failure. If we are succeeding with firstgeneration thats a good thing but it also leads to more Lessons Learned for future generations as well. Wait for the microphone if you dont mind. I would think one way you could make the best use of any of this. [inaudible] you lay out some longterm objectives that might be useful to think about having a redesign and a step toward that process. I would agree. Cohead. We can get her microphone. Thank you. You said earlier about russia and china blurred lines. Does that have any impact on your thoughts on whether you should develop the new lso which critics had worried will also. [inaudible] of course we need to develop the new longrange standoff Cruise Missile. Our current outcomes are soon to be reaching their shelf life. We are developing a new be 21 bomber but i think it would be unwise to assume that throughout the multi decade life of that aircraft that its always going to be able to evade the most complex air defenses and reach the interior of our adversaries territories. In addition, modernization can be deployed for many decades to come. Obviously the b52 cannot penetrate the air Defense Systems of our adversaries and a new longrange Cruise Missile is essential for making the b52 a viable part of our Nuclear Triad. Thats why almost every flag officer who has testified has said the longrange Cruise Missile is a vital part of our Nuclear Triad in addition to the b21. Thank you for coming senator i had a broader question for you and listening to your remarks, what country do you think poses the greatest threat to American Security right now . Its a good question, but the answer is always Something Like asking how many adversaries can dance on the head of a pin because all of our adversaries pose serious threats so is that the most immediate threat . You might say north korea, you might say iran, or some of the Terror Networks that a country like iran supports or al qaeda or the islamic state. Those are all reasonable answers to your question. At the same time, russia is a very reasonable answer because russia, at this point is the only country that has the nuclear arsena arsenal capable of destroying our way of life, and russia over the last several years has made it clear they remain a hostile power and Vladimir Putin doesnt think the soviet union lost the cold war, they were saisimply behind a halftime and are working to make up the difference. So much so that you might ask whether russia is better poised to get to france or spain than they were in the late stage of the cold war. There are different ways of looking at that question. The take away, i think its hard to pinpoint a single threat but our military needs to be flexible and agile and dominant in every domain and region and part of that is Missile Defense, not just to protect our deployed troops but to protect our homeland which is the most basic premise. Christina. On north korea, do you think its time to give up china to help and what more pressure can be applied. What you make of the president s tweets on china . How do you think the administration is handling it so far and would leaving the inf spark a new arms race . Thank you. Its better to win an arms race than lose a war. Thats in the hand of Vladimir Putin in the russian leadership. They are violating the treaty and deployed a rogue mobile Cruise Missile that has extremely and destabilizing in europe and potentially in the middle east and east asia. My legislation is designed to bring russia back into compliance with the inf treaty. Again, russia needs the inf treaty more than we need them. One reason they came to the negotiating table is that once we deployed intermediate range missiles to europe in 1983, on a policy that started under the carter administration, they recognized just how great the threat was to them. Again the United States faces a much more limited threat from mediumrange missiles. They also get much more from the open skies treaty than the United States and yet russia continues to violate it. Russia is likely to want to extend the new start treaty. We have many points of pressure that we can bring to bear on russia to get them back into compliance with inf treaty. Even if we do get them back, we still face the reality that china, since its not a party to the treaty has something north of 90 of all of its missiles in the intermediate range as admiral harris pointed out recently. I think at a minimum we have to take steps necessary to bring russia back to compliance. First . North korea, i dont think its time to abandon. [inaudible] [inaudible] right behind christina. I have a question about nato. There has been. [inaudible] theres been questions of usefulness and effectiveness but weve seen them step up exercises and involvement so if Congress Kind of playing on the side of nato and the administration or does the president talk about 2 gdp and how we can see our environment and encouragement to our allies, especially eastern europe. Nato is still vital through our National Security. As i said at the onset, a fundamental premise of american grand strategy since before we were a country is the defense of our homeland and our citizens. Every citizen in all 50 states deserve, under our constitution equal protection. We have all those bases, not just in europe the middle east and in east asia and the entire eurasian area and part two forward defend so our military plays road games instead of home games on u. S. Soil. Many of the countries in nato are relatively small and not wealthy. They are not going to contribute to our military. However, there ar there are vital things they can contribute through insight they may have. Thats one reason why we have nato and all the bases overseas. President trump is very right that are nato allies need to spend the amount of money that we all pledge to each other a few years ago. Too many of them have not been doing that. The most important countries are the larger richer ones like germany. It would be nice if the smaller four countries spent enough to meet the commitment as well, but again, if youre a country of a couple Million People in a relatively limited economy but the larger countries can make a big difference. Deterrence is not about uttering magic words, its not a political matter. Deterrence is the military matter. Vladimir putin knows that no words backed up are not backed up by actions mean anything. So ill be a much greater deterrent if nato spent the hundred 20 billion every year that it has been spending because our european allies are not matching their commitments than anything that any National Leader could say. I think we had marvin. Thank you. I would like to probe your knowledge of the technology on Missile Defense based on Privileged Access to a world that i once worked in but no longer do. The prelude to that is, i think your point that there are still screws to be turned potentially on pressure on north korea, but weve been acat this for well over 20 years. Weve tried a variety of approaches, we been trying to use sanctions as a route to bring them around for very long time. It gives grounds for someone like me to be openly pessimistic that it will be a viable route. What you are left with, i think is your topic which is Missile Defense. I wonder if you can say anything about the technical challenges in this world are huge. The complexities are mindnumbing. How could, how good are we and how good can we get. So first, on the geopolitical point about north korea, as i mentioned earlier, i think there are steps that can be taken that have not yet been taken to bring pressure to bear. China made the show to cut off coal imports which didnt have much impact. If china stop sending those they would see basically within a matter of weeks north korea would be out of gasoline, just to give you one example. There are geopolitical steps we can take that we havent yet taken and we ought to take if china doesnt quit playing both sides in this rivalry. In terms of military technology, i cant go into great detail in your right it is very complex. I am also not a Rocket Scientist and i barely got through physics in school, however the experts who do this work at the Missile Defense agency and more broadly within the pentagon were outside experts and are confident that with high levels of investment and focused leadership in the executive branch and interest and pushing from the congress, we are on the cusp of some major breakthroughs. For Airborne Laser interceptors and other cuttingedge stuff but given the pace of technological innovation, especially in this country, i believe sooner, rather than later we could see a genuine acknowledged effective Missile Defense system that could neutralize the threat from north korea. You mentioned you want to build this thing into something that can defend against russia and china. What kind of investment do you see that that would take in order to achieve that . They would almost invite a situation if they perceived a threat. Also. [inaudible] its a problem because we are also, what can we do to reassure our nato allies that we will defend them in that situation. So your first question, youre right it would be a large investment of resources. That is one reason why fit the budget control act must be repealed among many other reasons. But we wont know until we continue the technological development. Again with the pace of technological innovation in this country, with the possibility of advanced spacebased systems, i do believe we can get to a layered system that would make the United States homeland protected against these threats. It will be longer than it would take to get to north korea as we were just talking about but i do think its feasible. I dont want to get into more details about the kind of cost estimates ive seen. Second on inf treaty, of course europeans are threatened by intermediate range missiles for the same reason that europe is. Thats by europeans ship support our efforts to bring russia back into compliance with the inf treaty. Those muscles are being driven around russia right now and they could strike any european capital. European countries rather than suggesting we look the other way were put her head in the sand or try to talk, take no action should be supporting the legislation i have which is designed within the current parameters to put pressure on russia to come back into compliance. We have time for one brief question if possible. Im also a guy that balances the checkbook every month. I know thats a quaint concept with somewhere in the neighborhood of a 20 trilliondollar national deb debt, how are you going to pay for all that its a very good question. Goes far beyond the topic we are addressing here. I would say as a general matter, our Defense Budget is not because of our deficits or the cause of the 20 trillion in debt. If anything, it helps make the deficit more manageable longterm because it keeps open international lanes of commerce and keeps our people and our assets protected. Inevitably, we try to balance the budget on the back of the military as we did immediately following the demise of the soviet union, our enemies catch up as they did on 911 or around the world now and we spend even more money than we would have, often on things we wouldnt spend them on had which is maintained operations. On our strategic forces, i have somethin sometimes heard that we shouldnt spend much money on weapons we dont use. We dont spend that much money on our strategic forces, its only three or 4 of the total Defense Budget. Two, we use our Nuclear Forces every single day and we have for 73 years. They help deter the threat to our homeland. Your point is right about the need to get our fiscal house in order. The most immediate and fundamental thing we can do is get our economy growing at a rate thats much higher than one and half or 2 . President trump has prioritized the through regulatory action but congress is working on it as well. Were looking at healthcare legislation this week that might have the impact of making medicaid, one of the three big drivers of our national debt, more financially stable while delivering an equally level of care to the populations that have needed it. Youre right about the challenges we face from our debt. Our military, so far from being a cause of the debt is actually something that keeps it within manageable levels by protecting peace and prosperity here and around the world. That concludes part one. If we can get a hand, thank you very much. If we can have joan and rebecca come join us we will jump on to round two. Welcome to round two of our discussion on Missile Defense. Next we have two presentations that showcase very important and different perspectives on missiledefense policy. They will present their views for about ten minutes each which should leave a good time for q a. Just like the last q a, present your name and affiliation. We have a lot of cameras from cspan and Facebook Live so its great when people know who they are hearing from. With that let me bring in our first speaker. He is the author of the new book nuclear nightmares, securing the world before its too late. Its a romance novel. You previously served as president for National Security and International Policy at the center for American Progress and director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for National Peace but i happened wash you yesterday so congratulations on that. The floor is your. Thank you very much for inviting me here and we have ten minutes each. Is that correct . Yes. You me up when im getting near the end. Its a lot to say in ten minutes. I basically disagree with everything senator cardin said except that it was nice to be here. I represent the other side of the spread let me focus my remarks primarily on missiledefense, the point of the session. I have been in washington, working on National Security for about 35 years. Ive known dimitri for almost all that time and jeff kemp for about all the time. A big part of that was focused on missiledefense beginning in 1983 when reagan launched the strategic defense initiative. I was joined the staff at the House Armed Service committee in 1984 and was assigned oversight responsibilities. I have been tracking these programs ever since. Let me state very clearly and fully that im strongly in favor of an Effective National Missile Defense system for the United States. Who wouldnt want an Effective National Missile Defense. If you could protect the American People from Ballistic Missiles, the only existential threat that we have the besides climate change, who wouldnt want that. I want it. I also want to cure for cancer. I would also like a really good light beer, but some things are beyond our technological capability and an effective missil missileDefense System is one of them. Its not for lack of trying. We have spent 330 billion on missiledefense over the last decade. 330billion. We have had our best contractor contractors, our best Scientific Minds focused on this. We have been pushing this. It is not, as Newt Gingrich said in the 1994 election when he took only one of his ten points in this contract on america on National Security was about thi this. Its not because we lack the political will weve been tryin trying. Republicans and democrats have been trying. Since 1980 republicans have held the president executive branch for about half that time. It was split even a little more on the side of republicans and they have been trying to push this. The result has been that every Major National Missile Defense system we try to produce has failed. It has not worked. We are left with the system, the groundbased Ballistic Missile system this is the system senator cardin talked about the 44 interceptors that will be in alaska and california by the end of this year. The system does not work. It cannot protect the United States from a sophisticated north korean Ballistic Missile attack. Heres why. The problems with groundbased ballistic Missile Defense were detailed in the 1980s by the proponents of the sdi program. We have to go to space. You remember those cartoons, those of you who are around, the cartoons of these weapons satellite shooting star wars like lasers and blowing up incoming warheads like popcorn, you needed to go to space because groundbased ballistic Missile Defense was inherently flawed. It would not work. I have daniel grahams book promoting high frontier from back in 1982. I went to the strategic of international studies. I thought he was nuts then, but his comments on ballistic Missile Defense on the ground were absolutely spot on. Number one. A Missile System can be easily overwhelmed. It is far cheaper for the offense to proliferate warheads them for the deviance to proliferate defenses. Its a simple task. Thats why we were never worried about the soviets deploying a Missile Defense around moscow. They have 100 interceptors. We just targeted 200 warheads. We were never worried about our ability to penetrate defenses. Number two and most important, the further away the targets are, the harder it is to discriminate between the real warhead in the decoy. A ground missileDefense System cannot discriminate between a warhead and a decoy. Can do it in 1993 and it still cant do it. Thats why none of the tests of the system have actually been tested against realistic decoys. That means decoys meant to look exactly like the warhead. Weve had some test where theres a big fat balloon and a tiny warhead. That you can do, but when the deterrent is really meaning to spook you, weve had 18 test. The last one was the first one worried tested against an actual icbm target other than that they been slower and easier to hit targets. The reason we dont test against effective countermeasures is because we cant see. We cant discriminate. We can hit the system but, heres the final flaw, even if you could fix that and discriminate and deploy hundreds of effective interceptors, your system is still vulnerable. Its radars can be attacked. As you know the beginning of any air campaign is to suppress the enemys defenses. That would be true for th Ballistic Missile as well. You would suppress their defenses and attack their radars and blindness system by simple means such as north korean fog men blowing up the air Defense Systems or by Ballistic Missile attack on the radar or other means. So thats the problem we have. Its a confusing subject because so many of us are confused by the benefits of shortrange Missile Defense. That we can do with some success. You can build a shortrange system to shoot down scads, three things that go 600 kilometers or thousand kilometers. I spent a year of my life investigating the performance of the missile in the gulf war of 91. They said it hits 41 out of 44. No. It did not. Believe me. The patriot system did not work. It was not designed for the job it was given. We estimated hits between zero and four but, it could be fixed and to their credit theyve done a good job of fixing it with a more capable system. I think the patriot does give you a pretty effective defense against shortrange targets. It gives you a pretty effective defense against shortrange. Its only when you go long range that you really get those problems. This is what fab will encounter if they try to intercept missiles. Once you are in space where everything is the same weight and theres no friction, then you cannot distinguish between the warhead and the balloons, the chaffs and the jammers. The National Intelligence estimate concluded that any nation capable said any nation that could build and icbm capable of hitting the United States could apply one or more of six basic countermeasures. Thats why, when people say and you hear some generals say this, that the groundbased Missile Defense system can provide protection to the United States from a limited Ballistic Missile attack, thats what they mean. A limited attack. The system will only work if the enemy cooperates, if they give us a target we expect. The problem is our testing has been so unrealistic. We know the true dec trajectory and the velocity of what the system looks like. These are strapped down chicken test. You kill a strap down chicken and you think i can cal kill chickens. Go shoot it when its 200 yards away. Thats your problem. This is a system designed for contract success. It keeps the money going. Thats why you cannot rely on it. Why do people keep promoting it. I think some people dont know. They dont know this thing doesnt work. They havent spent the time or really examined the test which is why my solution to this which will give you at the end might be a way to settle this debate. Some are driven by ideology. This is the beginning of the missiledefense debate. People rejected the idea of arms control. We will not allow the security of this nation to be depend on a piece of paper. They do not believe you can control the weapons even though Ronald Reagan did it. Even when it happens they dont believe it. Therefore we have to rely on technology and our military might. Thats why you hear senator cotton in full cold war mode aggregate the treaties, abandon efforts to limit weapons with russia. Full on deployment of Nuclear Weapons in europe. Proliferate missiledefense. That will save us. You think we have trouble with our allies now in europe, start applying Nuclear Weapons in europe and see what happens. Remember what happened in the 1980s. This will be a disaster. The course that senator cotton is advancing will not only fail but it will make our situation infinitely more dangerous. We have nothing to gain and a whole lot lose. I wish missiledefense work. I wish we could do this but as Dwight Eisenhower said the arithmetic of the atomic bomb does not permit of any such easy solution. Should you keep trying yes you should. Should you deploy systems that dont yet work no you should not. Since we began deploying these groundbased interceptors in 2004, it has had a success rate of only 40, 50 since 2004. Even in the strapped down chicken test, it fails half the time. The reason is this is really hard to do. Its hard to hit a bullet with a bullet. Its amazing that we can do that all even under pristine ideal conditions and yet it still fails 50 of the time. We know the kill vehicle that are deployed in about one third of these interceptors dont work very well. Theres a fundamental flaw and yet we have them. The third of these interceptors we know dont work. Theres problems with replacement kill vehicle, but we will see. It shows more promise. Even if you take the best record since 2010, we still, when you think when the beatles say its Getting Better all the time, no its not Getting Better all the time. It has a 50 failure rate since 2004 and a 60 for failure rate since 2010. In 18 test weve had weve had two or three successful tests in a row followed by two or three failures. How do you settle this . Rebeccas right. Shes about to say everything i said is completely wrong and foolish and dangerous or im right. Lets have an independent commission examined. This is the way we settled the Energy Weapons in the original star wars weapon, whether they could actually be built. The American Society did a study in 1987 that said it would take 20 years before we would know whether such weapons were feasible. It was at that point that congress decided to pull back on those programs and go for much more limited Defense System and the debate over whether the star wars type systems could work was essentially over. Thats what we need now. Were never going to solve this in congress. Lets put together an independent commission or ask the American Society to assess the feasibility of groundbased Ballistic Missiles to defend the United States from a limited or largescale attack. Lets get some scientists involved who dont benefit in defense contracts, who dont have an ideological bent to them. In the American Public can decide whether they should russia had with this fatally flawed system or wait until we can perfect something that might actually work before we deploy. Thank you very much. Strapped down chicken test. I will remember that one. So next we have a different perspective and that will be taken on by rebecca heinrichs. She is a fellow there. She served as an advisor and military matters, member of the house on Armed Services committee and she helped launch the missiledefense caucus but she has testified before congress, shes a regular on tv. She is published very widely. The floor is yours. Now that im digging in and responding to some of what joe said, i will give my remarks and hopefully we can go back and forth a little bit and again where there are some of the major points of disagreement. MissileDefense System, by that i mean the entire suite of missileDefense Systems. I will talk about the entire concept of what the United States is trying to do. Theres the only currently deployed missileDefense System that can protect the homeland from an intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Without that we have nothing there. We also have the Weapon System with the family of interceptors, fad and patriot along with their associate sensors and they are all currently deployed and integrated as part of the u. S. Military operation. The systems complement offense of weapons both strategic and conventional to deter the launch of enemy missiles and to defeat the missiles midflight before the missal reaches its intended target. That is the purpose of this system. At one time, the concept of missiledefense was controversial. There is disagreement whether the system would work and whether they would be a stabilizing contribution but im happy to report there is broad bipartisan consensus within the community that the hit to Kill Technology is proven and does work. Now the disabilit disagreement is how do we progress in prioritizing what is the inventory look like to balance our resources, et cetera. Recent test point to the success of some the technical aspects. Weve seen those amicable systems. The only system deployed was u. S. Homeland in the gmd system was successfully intercepting a target with countermeasures. This was under very realistic conditions, short of launching it from north korea at her own homeland, we have to take under consideration and percussion but despite what some hit to kill deniers say, the missiledefense agency along with Pacific Command and everyone involved did not have the exact time the launch would take place. They just had a window and they were able to successfully hit that and discriminate what was not the actual warhead and successfully hit that target. The sm three to a, the system of the japanese had a successful interface this year. These are tests and so we test and we point out areas where we need improvement and we build on those tests we dont quit until we have increase the credibility and reliability of the systems. There is a lot to be excited about with the sm three family of interceptors as well. Back to the bipartisan point, the term missiledefense appeared over 20 times in the 65 page Obama Nuclear posture review or about once every three pages of text. The Obama Administration, while starting his first term significantly cutting missiledefense including senator cardin who talked about the boost boost phase, thats really where you want to get it. He cut this program and he did restore funding to gmd in the latter half of his time in the white house, and initiated the deployment of the 14 additional groundbased interceptors. Those are the same ones he cut his first year in office. The administration also initiated the phase approach to Missile Defense in europe. Those changes to Missile Defense was in response to the quickly expanding, the changes were in response to the quickly progressing north Korean Missile program, thats what changed the administrations mind when they made that announcement that they will do. 14 dbis and reinvest in missiledefense and actually look at a third missiledefense site on the east coast and then the epa was in response to the iranian threat to europe. Also, the commitment to give the administration credit, it stuck with those first two phases even though it eliminated the last phase due to russian complaints, it stuck with those initial phases because of the threat of iranian Ballistic Missiles and because our european allies one of the it was demonstrating a great commitment. Russia continues to oppose those european missiledefense sites. So what happened here, aside from the change in the threat, i would say the threat wasnt a change but it was enough of an uptick that persuaded the most staunch missiledefense skeptics in the white house to change it, but it was the threat that drove the military requirements which is the way it should be. It should not be ideology. That i agree with my friend joe, but it should be based on what is the threat telling us and then those drive military requirements and we work on the technical capabilities and we work to plugin the requirements which is how weve actually done missiledefense. And, all of the threats continue to grow worldwide and this is because, despite arms control and counter proliferation efforts worldwide we are still improving and spreading. We have entered into a new and dangerous era. Missiles are not merely reserved for the nations with cuttingedge military technologies. Missiles provide an inexpensive way for countries that are far less sophisticated to deny access to contested area. [inaudible] dont take my word for it. In the last couple days the pentagon just released the congress a new assessment on the threats to the United States and is said many countries feel ballistic and Cruise Missiles are costeffective and symbols of national power. That is driving the need for missiledefense worldwide. The report goes on to assess russias capabilities, not koreas, china and iran. What this means is even if one does not believe an enemy is in possession of a nuclear icbm, that it would necessarily employ it by possessing the capability and restrictor military and options in response to a variety of aggression, therefore taking away the enemys ability to threaten and it dramatically enhances the ability of the United States to conduct its Foreign Policy as policymakers see fit. We have to close those deterrent gaps. By using the United States expose where creating an incentive for enemies to develop capabilities to hold those assets at risk. As the senator stated there is a bipartisan effort in the senate to expand in inventory and investments in these programs. That is across the entire spectrum. I am in from agreement that especially on the heels of the successful intercept test now is the time to actually increase the number of groundbased interceptors. We are ready have space in alaska and california to deploy it. There was a great talk comparing how the United States does acquisition versus the North Koreans. Thats why you see all these missiles blowing up on the launchpad. They dont get this discouraged like we do. The North Koreans are determined to have the capability so they are testing and having setbacks in similar test but theyre learning where the mistakes are and applying the knowledge in order to improve the capability. I would suggest the United States needs to take more that approach to getting our defensive systems right. I wont go into too much detail because the senator did that in terms of whats in his bill but theres also a great bipartisan effort in the house of representatives and theres a lot of democrats were very interested in not having their states and their constituents held at risk of a nuclear icbm. They are working hard to make sure we have a robust incredible missileDefense System, and the last thing ill point out before we get to questions, very important, lashed to the congress, both the senate and house, a bipartisan effort amended the act to strike limited from it. Now its not the goal of the United States but it was never the goal but it was stated that the way the bill, the way the law was written it left the impression to the pentagon in missiledefense agency that the United States was only to build a missileDefense System to defend against limited attacks but the United States has always been able to build a missileDefense System as it sees fit. I was the baseline, not the ceiling. We can go forward in terms of increasing the number of systems we have deployed and i would suggest that includes expanding the Weapon System and also having tracking of these missiles so we have a better idea of where theyre headed and whats on them. Eventually, having a killed capability which would provide the United States with the optimal vantage point. In conclusion i would say well its a shame its taken so long it has been such a political battle to get us where we are in terms of Technical Capability and because of the political fight that we have had that we have much to be grateful for and much to be optimistic about in terms of the missileDefense System deployment and also the increasing, the current political consist consensus weve fought for and continue to grow. Thank you. Now the fun begins. Once again, please state your name and affiliation because we are on the record. Youll be first and then we will go to you. So this is a question, what you consider to be like a nondescript test. This test, this last one, they had a window that no one saw coming and their spots were there supposed to be this radar warning. It needs to be deployed in the right spots. Basically, they can tie it all together. Thats all true. The problem is without the radars and whatnot, you cant shoot the things he had to have been prepositioned around the world and you had to know when its coming before you actually shoot. Without the spacebased elements already in place book, if youre serious about this, if you are a politician that wants to protect the American People, you dont the poor something thats made to look like a defense to make people feel better because that is dangerous. You will enter into combat situations. This puts americans lives at risks. Read tina and puccini. Lets get a red team up who actually designs and intended to stress the Weapon System being tested. Then you have the blue target whose knows nothing about the red target. They dont do that and that is dangerous to america. If you wanted to point something on an emergency basis, you let the North Koreans do what theyre doing and they will have an icbm with a thermoNuclear Warhead that could hit seattle for los angeles in the next for five years. The threat is coming. If you need something last app, yes, but treated that way. Understand that this is an emergency deployment. This is not an effective defens defense. Then stress it against what you think the North Koreans actually would do. Balloons that look exactly like the warhead or you take the boost vehicle and you have the warhead coming at you in space and its filled with 100 pieces. You know the defense has to do, it has to target every single one and it cant. Do stuff like that and then you might have a judgment on whether your system will actually protect the American People or just protect you in the next election. I would just say the past several nor come commanders, fourstar commanders have all verified they believe the system does provide them the capability to protect the United States against the threat from intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. So this is not a partisan issue. This last test, in fact, by the director of Operational Test and evaluation of Permanent Defense continues to look at the system specifically. In the past, its been tough. This is the system, they are only looking at what is the system able to do and they are stressing it and pushing the envelope. They are trying to see what it can do. In the past it has had a limited capability to defend the United States homeland from a small range of intercontinental ballistic with simple countermeasures launched from north korea or iran. That is what they are comfortable saying the system can do. After this test it has upgraded the assessment and said theyve demonstrated the capability to defend the homeland from a small number. Its not even limited. You dont, we academics can open source data and pick and choose what we want to say but youre talking about people who are looking at the hardware and the data and looking at the threats, the commanders, the u. S. Forces in korea, in addition to both members of congress on both sides of the aisle giving the highly classified briefings, and in terms of moving the radar where it needs to go, we are watching what north korea is doing so yes, we dont want to be caught by surprise, but as we begin to move we can get radar where it needs to be in order to get the systems ready to go to intercept an icbm. Even if you believe what rebecca just said or the commanders who she quoted, you have to understand in the 18 tests its failed 15 of the time. It has a 50 failure rate. Why do you put the defense of the United States in those hands. we need more radar and that hasnt been contested. The ive been working on a project going through these declassified documents about historical professions and discussions. One thing that stuck out in that analysis in the past is the Missile Defense on the stability. If we were to build a better Missile Defenses and technologies that could defeat it i dont hear that in modern debates much. I am curious to hear what the panelists think when its intended however the more money you put into it the better interceptor as you get a. Is the conversation happening it is no longer applicable whenever you have one particular enemy you are worried because of the proliferation of the Ballistic Missiles that dynamic no longer applies. Moreover they have been free to develop the offensive Capabilities Even though we dont have a defense of system in place. So the fear is that they are going to be incentivized and build in response to the defenses havent proven to be the case theyve built them because of the absence of the defensive system. This is what i would call the deterrence gap. We do not have a capability against the states assets to actually target those vulnerabilities, so ive argued as youve seen we dont need to incentivized our adversaries. Its up to the United States to respond by closing that gap that weve allowed to remain vulnerable because of the treaty and a lack of policy makers moving in that direction. Thats why its so important to have the insight to amend the act to make it clear should they deem it responsible and is a technologically possible to close those gaps. We have come down a little bit. Enough to destroy 20 or 30 times over. We could easily cut down to a few hundred each and still have a robust deterrent. So the gap is an interesting slogan but i dont think it has any relationship at all to be Nuclear Weapons. They understood if he wanted to stop the arms race you have to put a cap on defenses because as long a as you provide great defenses, the other side most effective answer was to proliferate. Thats the way to handle it and it is the truth. In 1972 when they wanted to limit each side of the strategic limitations they agreed to the treaty, the antiBallistic Missile treaty for each side to deploy and about logic helped rein in the cold war and neither had been since Ronald Reagans day when he started cutting Nuclear Weapons its also coming down steadily to. There used to be 66,000. In the World Without Missile Defense as the numbers have been coming down steadily. That will change. How do we know, look at south asia they are the debate going on in the defense both pakistanis and the indianthepakk about the Missile Defense systems negotiating to help with Missile Defenses and what is the answer of the other side we have to build more so theres a Real Nuclear Arms Race now that it is being accelerated by the introduction pouring gasoline on the fire Service Debate is because we havent been in the race but playing with the defenses in this adaptive approach was supposed to be aimed at the Nuclear Warhead to make sure there wouldnt be a Nuclear Weapon and yes the Missile Defense systems were aimed and are still going in and about to expand. The russians say its about us. Its been about us all day long and we have some who want it to be about russia and want to put Missile Defenses in europe. You do that and youve done whats going on and you pour gasoline on the fire and will see the proliferation once again. Just a couple factual errors. It started by the Obama Administration to handle the Ballistic Missile. It is the deployment of the shortrange ballistic systems and to end with unfortunately what was canceled. This point is important. It still exists and regardless of putting aside the deal because that is an isnt what we here to debate, it didnt handle or restrain and even though the sanctions still forbid the testing it doesnt prohibit the testing of the Ballistic Missiles. They continued to increase and europe iineurope is still at rik currently of short and medium missiles. The approach was to deploy the short differences in the first two phases that is what is committed to the allies and by the way, i find it so interesting. You have all these countries looking at the capabilities of. Its a matter regardless of the strategic stability. What we have seen is the missiles exploded worldwide ande and we are in the middle of a new era in terms of quantity and quality and technical lookup of you we have a couple of options. We can choose to remain vulnerable as our adversaries continue to proliferate. In the u. S. Strategic posture for the nuclear capabilities. Waiting a long time on a spirited debate. He didnt consult the state department. The impulse was not to ramp up the arms race a. Weve seen that Missile Defenses be deployed. When they start deploying the Missile Defenses in the 1960s and because these were interceptors, 100 around moscow power response was to proliferate warheads. This is what led to the multiple warheads on one. Ronald reagan was misled who told him it was the proof of concept of the system known as the xray laser. This was a fantasy that was never true to. That is why people thought he might be able to do this. It wasnt because they felt they could get better groundbased interceptors or we could do that hit to kill better. It was a small layer of defense in a comprehensive system. Although the proponents of the Missile Defense are continuing this cold that they have thinking some type of technology is going to come out of the sky and protect us from Ballistic Missiles. It is not going to happen. Groundbased holistic missiles will not protect you and it will never be perfect. The only way to eliminate this to a eliminate the Ballistic Missiles. You have to have treaties that eliminates things before they can be built. I would just say in the real world countries act in their own interest. Arms control just based on the evidence all of the proliferations but we have some of them are more successful than others. It hasnt slowed or stopped the missiles worldwide. This is just reality it is an ideology. And because of that, again ive never been a proponent until we get a perfect system or the goal i dont think we are ever going to have a perfect system because there are so many worldwide. What ive been an advocate for is what they are doing and i would like to see more political backing from policymakers which i think is going to happen under the administration to expand what we have to build on the progress that we have had. The institute. They determined that you could have a capability that would be 24 satellites over a 20 year life cycle costing about 26 billion. What i could say in the unclassified report. We had areas in which there is no need to antagonize them. They are already doing it in terms of strategic Ballistic Missiles and they are continuing to do that. They are continuing to capabilities to target the allies in the pacific and the United States and again it can allow that to happen or work to closing the gaps. They havent been incentivized to target the United States. They want to have them to hold hostage against an attack. That is what is driving program creating a destabilizing situation. I find it so interesting how critics both say the system doesnt work and also it is destabilizing. How isnt it isnt going to destabilize anything. One point on this there hasnt been an explosion of Ballistic Missiles in the world. There are not more in the world now there were fewer in the world now than there were in the 1980s and fewer countries with Ballistic Missile programs. When the justification for the european Missile Defense systems arrive with a list of countries. They dont have a very good air force so this is what they used to threaten saudi arabia and people they think of their adversaries but lets negotiate to reduce a constraint on the capability. I dont want them to have the Ballistic Missile that could threaten the United States. Lets negotiate to put a cap on the program. We have done so in the past on the Nuclear Program and this is why theres so much emphasis on the Missile Defense. They do not want negotiations. They would rather have a regime change so you have to examine the whole complex rationale and discussion before you buy the Missile Defense system out the there. [inaudible] [inaudible] in the considerations. What we are talking about is a major strategic move but we should look at where we are going to be. We are now preoccupied and there is no doubt in my mind there was russian interference in the history of the [inaudible] the were not doing what the russians had just done. To think about the actions of a [inaudible] i think we need to do what you have suggested. [inaudible] i was interested in this point speech of its normally interpretation that isnt quite a violation but what worried me more were the statements. I am not sure how they feel about that because if they come to a conclusion to become fully independent. Let me make a final point, and there was a poll come the good [inaudible] today putin is still a close second and then we can move and improve the defenses and maybe we come to the conclusion that at least we have a serious conversation. Its evaluating the test area was on and dependability and to give a baseline so we can make a decision if we want to go forward on this system or if there was another system that might be better. Youre going to make Strategic Moves you should try to have a dialogue with the adversary. We didnt always agree and we are not going to agree now that we talked to them. There has to be some kind of dialogue going on. Getting a little ahead of himself. Russia is in violation of the treaty. We do not want to deploy them again as it is again stored interest. We can get by with the systems we have. That would be a powerplay to intimidate europe and one last thing on the system that we are about to put in poland. These are interceptors and they use the same system as on the destroyers. One of the problems is we also want shah missiles. I think there is an answer but what if you change your mind and you could threaten us with almost no warning time, it would be eight or ten minute. We need to have a dialogue. I would agree with you we need to devote more time, energy and capital thinking about the deterrent and our actions and the effects they have because we have moved away on a lot of capital thinking about deterrence. We need to have a sort of object analysis of the capabilities of the system. They continue to assess and evaluate. Theyve been very tough and once again said they would provide the capability to defend against. They were being nothing so we look at the capabilities it has and move on. The other point i would make again i dont know how you could say again combat commanders and administrations that are not in favor of it could have been persuaded by this threat analysis. In addition to the evidence provided by the allied. Not to intercept every weapon that can come our way but to absorb some of what can happen and prevent that from happening in the first place. These are calculations looking at the evidence themselves and they are all coming to the same conclusion. They dont do shoot to kill like the United States and you never hear from the Arms Control Committee concerned they are going to up the balance. Countries are going to their own interest. Do in their own interest. They are not going to do anything for you. Theyve determined their interests to having a nuclear capability. We have tried across the administration to use diplomacy. Every other ability to coerce them would not work it makes no incense to remain vulnerable when we have the capability however limited it may be to remain to keep the homeland vulnerable when they have not been able to be convinced. Each regime has Different Things they value and like to hold a risk so they have to take that into account. They are extensive but not compared to some of the other stuff. You need to, three, four, five. We dont know how many. [inaudible] so anyway, how do they get a cost. This will be an expensive proposition. A couple of points on that. The question we should be acting is how much we should spend to protect against the missiles. If we are fixated on the cost we will wind up with gravy. That is the calculation. The underlining calculation isnt the right one. We are talking about defending the homeland. What are we willing to spend to close that gap but there are things we can do and i believe the United States hasnt always done Missile Defense costeffectively. One of the things we can do is have funding streams so the contractors can predict and assess what we need to do to keep the lines open rather than hiring and firing people to get it going again then we can buy more interceptors at once. Each will cost more money. If you decide we have empty space and weve already done the Environmental Impact study and we already know where to put the silos. If you buy more at once, each interceptor cost will go down per item and that is a smart way to do defense acquisition of. We can go back and forth but we should continue to talk to our allies about investing in their own protection. We are doing great work in that regard seeing with our allies are willing to contribute to. We will continue working to words that. They dont care about the Missile Defense. They want american troops, they want a commitment. They want to make sure they get the same defense germany and france gets and there are u. S. Bodies on the line. The plan was offered to them under george w. Bush and then adapted by obama and they took it. You could put a battalion there and they would be just as happy. U. S. Contractors care if. The military doesnt care about the national defense. Its nice to have and let me give you a brief example when president clinton came in they asked the joint chief of staff what to do with the budget and they recommended we cut it to 3. 12 billion thirds should be spent on theater missile defen defense. It gives a bigger say in the budget and despite the efforts theeffortthey wont go up as mut needs to. Its not going to happen. They choose planes and ships. The ballistic Missile Defense organization an this, that go bk to the services and let the navy decide how many interceptors we need then you have the forces you need to. [applause]