That said we really want to take a chunk of the i]budget, go over it and see whether we could do ataq things more effectively whether we could do emphasize some priorities better. I dont think you could do the owhole budget. You certainly couldnt do it every other year. ut you could set up a mechanism the budget say every three years or five years to see if the money could be spent better and the priorities were what congress reallyco wanted them to be. Bob . Can i just ask you a quick question . So is what alice describes on the domestic side, is the military really any different . Isnt there a certain amount of the air force, the navy, the marines, everybody has to get their share of the cuts . Broadly, the budget shares havent changed a lot. Thats a fair statement. Within those shares theyve changed a lot. Let me try to respond. First off i think its way too harsh that suggest that ovq all only 1 of Government Spending has any effect. I will offer just a couple examples. One obvious
Could build for the cost of one of our carriers. Its an interesting statistic, but those missiles are kind of useless without satellite constellations, without isr ground isr status, without an extensive networking system connecting these nodes, without operation centers. There is a certain amount of cost that goes into the delivering of that weapon that gets forgotten about when we do that math. First class hannah nobel. This is a question for dr. Hendricks. You spoke about a submerged arsenal, but if the carriers were to be mixed, what do you propose would replace them, and how would their mission be fulfilled in their absence . So were getting ready to try to field the ohio class replacement. Its coming in with with an estimate of about 6. 6 billion a copy with some estimates up around 7. 2. The original or the four ssgns we have are actually the first four of the original ohio class. Due to treaty limitations, we had to repurpose, so we took them out of service as submarines and we
Partnerships to address a broad range of global challenges, building cyber space capability and confronting uncertainty with agility and innovation. This is a particularly difficult job today as we see a resurgent russia, and rising china, challenging us with Nuclear Capabilities, space and cyber space, as well as countries like north korea and iran, seeking greater roles in these domains, proliferation of technology, and information has increased risks, posed by nonstate actors in many of these areas, as well. In short, Strategic Deterrence may be more challenging today than it has ever been. This is why we at the Atlantic Council have been tackling many of these issues head on, including our work in russia, particularly our transatlantic Security Work as we chart a path for a europe, whole and free. Likewise we have been doing extensive programming on Cyber Security and cyber state craft initiative. Ranging from natos Cyber Mission to the recent cyberattack on sony. Our initiative an
And thats an understandable perspective if youre looking ahead sixth months. This is not the time to drop the strategic agenda. We should be thinking about what will happen when we come out of the cycle. Right now with things like low Interest Rates a light jpgs competitive advantage, this is the critical time to act. There are a lot of suggestions in the book, probably hundreds of them but i pulled ten that are still relevant right now that i think we ought to think about. We had to take care of business at home before we take care abroad. But there are five steps domestically that remain important. The first is investing in infrastructure. This is really the time as were building our economy where were investing in a smarter grid, or a safer grid, but also building out the Energy Transportation system for the country. We have great production and its not close to the command centers. We need a system of pipelines to move product to the southeast move oil east to west. And along with
Bases as for jobs in so many congressional districts. And i have heard very conservative members of congress say government doesnt create jobs, it destroys them, and all that sort of thing. It doesnt apply to the military base in my district. If we lost that, we would lose jobs. Is there anyway around this . I dont know how, other than a fundamental change. I remember seeing many years ago, a map of where the subcontracts were, i think it was the b2 bomber. There was a pin the companies are smart enough to be sure that this happens, because they know the reality of it. I think to some extent Representative Democracy is inherently inefficient. That doesnt mean there arent things you carve out and ask government to do because they only do it. You probably do want to minimize them because its not going to be as efficient if you have a truly competitive industry. And yet we ought to at least acknowledge that the base Culture Commission turned out to be a very effective mechanism and we clo