Year and how to they do. We try to provide an assessment of the status of the u. S. Military on an annual basis. It does not look into the future. Is he reportedly currently assessed year. We use all publicly available sources. Congressional research sources, testimony brought up by senior military officials to members of congress and various committees, what the services set about themselves. We combined our experience, understanding and knowledge about the world and the military and say this is the status of americas militarily relative to its interest to protect american interests, the nature of the world, and the nature of threats that challenge u. S. Security interests. Host overall the report says the u. S. s military strength in readiness is marginal. Guest that is correct. Host explain with that means. Guest you cant really given a 72 or 73 on a scale of 100. Ofuse a fairly course scale 1 to 5. The marginal is at about a 3. The u. S. Military would be able to handle a major war. It would take the entire military to do that. What we have looked at historically is america and a major conflict about every 15 to 20 years. It always happens by clockwork since the u. S. Civil war. They believe the trend will continue. In terms of readiness, the capability of the equipment the military has, training, etc. , they will largely be able to defend u. S. Security interests. Host we are joined by dakota wood from the Heritage Foundation who is here to talk about their assessment of u. S. Military readiness. Democrats can call 202 7488000. Republicans, 202 7488001. Independents, 202 7488002. We also have a line if you are active or retired military. You can call 202 7488003. This report broke down different aspects of the military. One is the operating environment. You broke that done regionally according to where the troops are stationed. You said in europe is overall favorable. According to this chart in your report, when it comes to the middle east mostly moderate except for political stability which is listed as a very poor. In terms of asia mostly favorable. Moderate for political stability. Favorable, except moderate in the middle east. Why break it down like this in terms of geography and what have you learned about these different places . Guest we provide context. If we called upon the military to go defend the National Security interests, what are those interests . Defending the homeland. Resolving a large conflict on favorable terms. And then prevent the rise of a hegemonic power that would push out western liberal democratic kinds of governance structures. We would know what someone like russia to dominate the european continent and it cut off the United States from access to lines. Arkets along those if you had to go to war to defend your interests against a challenger that rises to that level, able to threaten interests in that way, that really only occurs in europe, the middle east and asia pacific. If you have to go to afghanistan and invent everything, theres poor road infrastructure, know your fields, it is hard. In europe there are airports, lots of friends and allies, politically stable, it is easier to conduct operations. We want to provide a regional context for the use of military power to defend these National Security interests. In broke out as you described. Host you compared the different branches of the military. Overall body said the navy and air force are marginal, you found the army and marines are weak . Guest it is not an indictment of the personnel. Men and women are shouldering a terrific burden and doing the best they can with the resources they have been given. What others resources . Readiness, is a trained, competent carrying out duties . Is a fairly modern or antiquated . Old quitman or new equipment . Old equipment or new equipment . And in terms of capacity, how much military do we have . If you have one conflict, you have the ability to secure u. S. Interests anywhere else in the world. We look at the capacity to handle two major conflicts. You can handle one in the middle east or asiapacific, and still have enough left over to deter potential competitors from making a move and acting opportunistically. Incapacity, readiness and modernization, the marine corps and the army have old equipment and very smaller forces relative to what they had put some in the weak category. Host jimbo from bakersfield, california. Caller thank you so much and thank you for cspan, the last bastion of honorable speech. I wanted to ask you first off wheni dont say if north korea since an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with a Hydrogen Bomb on the tip of it and tested in the bikini atoll area where we have tested many other Hydrogen Bombs, i was just wondering when they do that will that be an act of war . Will we be at war with north korea when they do that . My second question is can you please articulate to me the difference between going to war with north korea and china . I have been having a hard time trying to understand the difference. That he so much thank you so much, cspan. Guest the Ballistic Missile threat, whether it is from north korea, china, russia, anybody with the ability to range the nets sake becomes the most serious concern the federal government has. We do have Ballistic Missile capabilities, usually they are located along the most likely trajectories from the logic country against the United States. We have tested that several times. The results of in pretty good. The ability of an incoming missile to dispense decoys or maneuver in flight complicates the intercept problem that the u. S. Government is aware of that. The air force and others are working to make sure we have the best solution possible. Then it goes to a type of launch and where the Hydrogen Bomb, a thermonuclear device is detonated. If it was a fight against the u. S. Or territories or estate, hawaii or marching eastward to the continental u. S. , that would be an act of war. If somebody does a nuclear test and its either in their own country or in international space, take it a little bit gray. We have done it in the past. If north korea tests it on their own soil or international waters, it raises the concern but we would not characterize that as an act of war. It is situationdependent. The linkage between north korea and china is historical. We have gone to war on the Korean Peninsula in defense of south korea back in the 1950s, and certainly the chinese were part of that. Changed. Nk times that china is increasingly aware of the Regional Security threat posed by north korea. If we were to do something in league with others in the region i think we would be in consultation with china. I think their interest would more likely a line with us. Host speaking of the u. S. Nuclear power, you discussed that as well. It is strong in areas like warhead certainty, Delivery Platform reliability, and delivery systems. Weak in areas like warhead modernization, complex nuclear test readiness. Described the state of our nuclear arsenal. Guest get is an entire enterprise. Talent goes into designing and maintaining and making sure things are actually going to work as we think they are going to work. There is physical infrastructure, from missile silos they are contained in, launch capabilities, the delivery system. Is that a cruise missile, and it Intercontinental Ballistic Missile . And the warheads themselves. The u. S. Is not any yield producing experiments since about 1992. Most delivery vehicles and designs are based on 1960s and 1970s technology. That people involved in that, the infrastructure that was built the test and support that stuff is all very old. Moratoriumsave had since the 1990s, index the question if things would actually work as we think they are going to work since most of that is based on computer modeling and simulation. Those mathematical models are based on information that was collected when we were actively testing in the 1950s, 19 exceeds and 1970s. There are a lot of assumptions being made. The age of the people involved in those earlier eras are aging out of the force, and not doing any new testing or design or modification to systems. It is hard to attract new talent into the aging infrastructure. It is a questionable enterprise at present. Host we are talking with dakota wood from the Heritage Foundation. Decades in for two the marine corps, and retired in 2005 as a lieutenant colonel. We are talking about the Heritage Foundation report on u. S. Military strength. Democrats, 202 7488000. Republicans, 202 7488001. Independents, 202 7488002. If you are active or retired military, 202 7488003. Now we have alex from lake charles, louisiana on the independent line. Caller good morning. Host you are on with dakota wood. Guest earlier you were quoted by a number of news sources expressing a view that any right of military base realignment and closures was likely to occur in the near future. The you think another round is likely and to what extent is unlikely to be effective in terms of roi . In light of the deity being the largest employer in the world and the economic stimulus provided to the communities that have aces, advocacy groups serving as allies or hurdles in a successful round . Host for other viewers, explain what a brac round is. Guest base realignment and closure. The military says we have excess basis. Either they are shrinking, something that was old, or something built in a rural area decades ago but the town has expanded and it is now surrounded by residencies and commercial areas. And conditions change over time. Maybe you need a new warehouse. The whole idea of this closing unneeded facilities to save money, why would you want to save money on an aging infrastructure that is no longer used, and reapply those elsewhere. That is brac. The previous times i have spoken on this, i am talking about the need to conduct another brac round. 24 Access Infrastructure by the military itself. We dont what to spend money we dont need to spend on those words of things. When you close a base it does affect the local community. Alex,as pointed out by jobs are at stake and seven those areas. The percentage of the local economy is a relatively small percent. You have a situation where one community will want to see a base close. Military structure says it is unneeded. It gets into a debate about if it is a necessary closure or not. Whether it comes the past this year, there is momentum to do that. I dont think it has tipped over and actually being a viable option in this particular upcoming fiscal year. It is needed. The likelihood of it happening, i think we are kind of on the margins of that occurring. It is something the Armed Services committee has been trying to promote. Host tim from george on the democratic line. Retired number of the military . What branch are you a part of . Caller both army and marine corps. Host what is your question for dakota wood . Caller why does the United States believe they can start an weaponsand picks of war and fight against god . Guest thats an interesting question, if you bring in a theological component and in this. A percentage of spending is less as a percentage of the federal budget and a percentage of the gross semester product than we have in many years. Ago defense decades spending was up around 35 . Today it is down to 16 . In terms of the gross semester year average, the u. S. Felt it was necessary to spend on National Security sorts of matters. Today it is down to 3. 3 . I know there is a perception we are spending more on the military and we are doing things that are very productive and other provocative and other regions, but the reverse is true when you look at the history on that. The religious police has to do with your own personal perspectives of whether the way things play in the world are all divinely directed or the role of man has something to play in that as well. Bothly we see the domestically and other parts of the world where evil people do evil things. It is incumbent upon all individuals, regardless of religious persuasion protect loved ones. Freedom, you have to have the ability to do that. Host speaking of funding, how has the recent funding budget cuts to the military affected its strength and readiness . Guest that has been the primary driver. We have seen reductions since the early 1990s. 2011udget control act of was an act passed in 2011. That is only five years. Doing 25 years of a gradual reduction in spending from the end of the cold war until today. We had a spike post 9 11 for operations in afghanistan and iraq. Those increased moneys were spent on consumables like ammunition, health care for those who were injured, destroyed equipment, gasoline that drives tanks and airplanes, those kind of fuel sources. It was money spent and immediately consumed, not spent on readiness of the force or replacing aging equipment. The average aircraft is 27 years. Frontline fighters are approaching 33 years in the average age. The main battle tank was introduced in the mid1980s. Since that time it has been updated a little bit with a new gun and optics, but it is still basically the same platform. This reduction in funding over time, while use of the military has increased, is wearing out the force. We have seen accidents with the navy, lost aircraft. Currently only probably one third of units are acceptable levels of readiness. Only three brigades in the army out of the 31 are fully mission capable. In the air force, they used to have upwards of 75 combat squadrons. They are now down to 32. Of those only about four are ready. The reduced funding had a degrading impact on the ability of the military to be ready for operations. Host we are joined by dakota wood the talk about military readiness. Democrats, 202 7488000. Republicans, 202 7488001. Independents, 202 7488002. If you are active or retired military, you can call 202 7488003. I usually ask at the top and forgot. Explain what the Heritage Foundation is. Guest it is a conservative in terms of governing principles publicpolicy think tank washington based in washington, d. C. We are memberdriven. Over 500,000 members contribute. The average contribution is about 30 per person. We dont do any contracting with the government or have any relationship with it. Corporate donations account for maybe 2 or 3 of the annual revenue. Public policy interests y institute. Host ted is on the line from New Hampshire on the republican line. Caller how are you . Biduestion is if god for any kind of artillery god for bid any kind of artillery or weapon is used, what direction does the prevailing wind load through . From north korea or south korea . Those are major factors for what the fallout drift would travel to, or does it go from west to east . Guest it depends on the context. It is very local, can go from west to east, east to west, for a tornado or hurricane coming through at the macro, global level the weather patterns go from west to east. If something occurred, in russia the middle east, the north Korean Peninsula, the winds typically go from west to east. We would be concerned about fallout. It would go over the Pacific Ocean into the western United States. If youre talking about nuclear capability. Chemical and biological sorts of weapons have a very limited lifespan when you get out into the environment. Patterns, heatr and cold have the amazing ability to degrade chemical and biological pathogens. World war i with chemical munitions, they were very local in terms of their effects. Even though they are very frightening because of the effect they have on the human body. If its a biological pathogen and its transmissible, somebody trying to use that i introduce and smallpox or influenza virus of some type, then it has to do with the mortality rate. The higher the mortality the more quickly in burns out because the effect makes it difficult to transmit from persontoperson. Usually those types of things are local effects. Radiation at altitude can spread from west to east and large, generalized terms. Host one of your charts is interesting. A look at the u. S. Troop and Russian Troops near nato nations. U. S. Troopsee, stationed primarily throughout europe, around germany, italy, the u. K. And staying. The russians and spain. Russian troops in occupied territories are centered mostly ukraine,larus, syria. Guest timed distance has a lot to do with things. That im having to reject u. S. Military power in defense of an ally we have nato obligations. 27 of them are on the european continent. How long does it take us to project capabilities 3000 or 4000 miles from the u. S. . During the cold war when you had the soviet union and western Nato Alliance structures divided in europe, we had a lot of presence in europe. Since the end of the cold war that has declined. Two thirds of our base infrastructure is gone and turned into very resident things like shopping malls and housing areas. That means you dont of the military capability if you needed to respond to Something Like russian moving into ukraine. A very worrisome construct. Looking at belarus state, if youre looking at it from moscows standpoint. The lower presence we have in some of these countries, and you aok across Mountain Range or field and you see what russia is able to bring to bear and you say, how long does it take me to reinforce the capability . Conditions have declined and our ability to take care of our obligations. Caller good morning. I want to preface this by saying my dad was a marine through and through for over 20 years. In that time, and im a 50yearold man, what i have seen i grew up by the Marine Corps Base in san diego. Lifetimeve seen in my is black men that a guard to the military have been treated the worst. Mexicans have been treated the worst. And now we have a president that says terrible things about minorities. I would like to ask your guests what is he see as the future preparedness of the military when you have people like me telling young minorities not to go into the military. On the other hand you have rich people telling their kids not to going to the military. Host i want to let you address that. Guest my experience has been the exact opposite of that. The unit i was in for over 20 years and my continued association for the last dozen years has been the exact opposite. I think the military has led the way, especially in racial integration. Where we have problems in civilian society because of historical enmity and problems in racial discord and trying to get that harmony going, in the military we had minority officers leading mostly white units, enlisted folks coming up through the ranks to the top levels as well. In the units i was in we would have blacks, whites, hispanics, American Samoa and. I had a maintenance chief from hawaii for many years. I think we have the best track record in terms of racial integration, the lease structures from different religious beliefs, economic stratification. Really poor kids in some parts of the country working alongside rich kids from other parts of the country. I think the military historically has been a great integrator and provided the most opportunity for men and women and people from all different racial, ethnic and economic backgrounds. That has been my experience and those of my colleagues. I can only talk from that first hand knowledge. Host . Is calling in from new mexico on the independent line. Just a few seconds left with dakota wood. When you talk about the military budget, you forget several things. You forget the testing of weapons, you forget the payment of generals and colonels through department. And the war ran into the debt. It was never on the defense budget. At all those things together, what is the total amount spent on the military . Thing i think that 3. 3 includes department of energy which handles nuclear , as well asre baseline and overseas Contingency Operation spending. Forre still in that 3. 3 , 3. 4 gdp, well below the 5 to 6 average using the same accounts you mentioned over the last 45 years. Accounting for all those expenditures over half a century, are almost half of what were spending in the past. Wood of host dakota the Heritage Foundation, you can find more at heritage. Org and on twitter since october, the white house has not released a weekly address. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about it and said the white house is working on revamping the address. This week, Democrat Michael bennet talks about the tax bill. I hope you had a happy thanksgiving. We extend a special thanks to the incredible men and women serving every day to protect us from harm and extend the freedoms we cherish. In many ways, this has been a difficult year, and our politics can seem irredeemably broken. Thanksgiving is a time to step back and remember that we have so much more in common than the pickering that fills our television screens. I know we want to leave our kids