know if we have access to those. obviously, you know, in the private sector, the public sector certainly affects us to some of its tools, but when it comes to domestic terrorism itself and identifying it and prosecuting it, i ll leave that up to lawyers, but i don t know, right now, if the structures we have in government can keep up with this threat. i feel like social media or the digital threat is something that is so vast now with so many different echo chambers and ways to metastasize people, you know, with immediate injection of crazy electrons into their frontal lobes, i don t know how we do it. and i m glad there s experts on this panel. i ve done this a long time. we just can t go out, you know, and try to get people. it s so vast. and i think there has to be a combination of technology, private-public partnerships and the ability to attack this, to find the threat and define it, to fix that threat, to target that threat, and then to assess it. i think that s going to take a l
hail hallie? if south korea is critical to this, so is japan. they want to send a message that the three allies are close. any exercise, any sort of response to tests, fly b-1 bombers up from guam as a show of force but be escort bid japanese fighters as well as south korean fighters. i should add one more thing on the agreement between south korea and the u.s., at the d.o.d. level, formal level, cfc, combined forces command. if there is an attack and they do have an escalation there, general brooks, the commanding u.s. general in south korea, he would assume control of the republic of korea, south korea, of their more than 600,000 troops. so, there are a lot of formal and legalistic agreements what happens once action does get kinetic or i should say if it gets kinetic.