Describe some of the thinking behind chapter four and draw some brief conclusions from that. Chapter four is about the Political Forces behind the prison boom, the reason why we have the sudden break in previous rates of incarceration, when we see a sudden increase in incarceration. Our Analysis Shows that the crime issue emerged as an Important National question in the 1960s, intertwined with earlier issues that were related, particularly civil rights. I do not mean that there were earlier discussions of crime in american history. It became an issue again in a somewhat new way in the 1960s. Whereas civil rights had been a liberal issue that was oriented to assuring equal rights for blacks, crime became a much more conservative issue. The reason for this is one crime began to increase in the late19 60s, a number of factors conspired toward a reliance on prison as a main response. One of them was, at the time there was not much alternative to prison, at least not in the minds of those involved in criminal justice. There was a period when rehabilitation programs were in disrepute. It was the they were not effective. Our view is somewhat more positive today. It looked like the human response you could make, really, was to lock people up. It looked like the only response you could make, really, was to lock people up. Crime rates increase, and prison rates go up. The problem was that in that period, a political reflex got established where the public is alarmed about crime, particularly at the local level, and the politicians respond with hardline policies on incarceration, and a dynamic its entrenched. It became gets entrenched. It became politically convenient and ordinary for politicians of both parties to express hardline attitude towards crime. After 1980, we see a break in the pattern were crime rates start to fall, go up and down, not consistently rising any longer, but in part because of this reflex that has been established, incarceration rates go on rising, even though crime is not going up consistently. After 1990, crime rates begin to fall, yet the incarceration rate continues to climb. So, it is obvious, just from this, that the social advantage of locking up more people was clearly no longer served by this, and the prison boom overshot. It is a good way to think of it. There was a reason at the outset, but it overshot any possible social rationale. Another reason for this development is that in american politics, compared to european countries, those involved in criminal justice, the prosecutors, and often the judges, are more exposed to popular opinion than is the case in any other countries. They are exposed to public fears and they respond with what seems like an immediate necessity, mainly to lock people up, and didnt not in the same discretion to consider do not have the same discretion to consider other alternatives. There are two conclusions i draw from this history. One i would call the perils of populism. The upsurge in crime along with other disorders in the late 1960s produced a panic among the public and that was the initial impetus for the runup in the prisons, but it produced this overshooting where the prison boom goes on beyond any possible social rationale. So, this is what happens, it seems to me, when readers advocate, when they allow public views to take charge and refuse to apply perspective. Collective leaders should hear and respond to public fears, not avoid them, but also give the public the best judgment of what a real solution requires. In the case of crime, a more measured response involving a wider range of options than just imprisonment would have been better for all concerned. Our leaders should have explained the need for this to the voters. That is still what they need to do today. The political scientist c. O. P. Once wrote co theo key once wrote those that shook the responsibilities are misfits that cannot understand the duties of the job. Some have taken a lead in calling for a reassessment of incarceration. It is great pair doing this, but it is late in the game. It should have been done 10, 20 years ago, compared to what we see now. This leads to my second point, and that is what we do have to return the prisons around . As the report says, downsized incarceration is not enough. We have to have alternatives to prison that are less damning to communities from but that are still effective. There are developments in that direction that are encouraging. So, the report speaks to the need to build of social services and reentry programs for the offenders, many of whom will be living in the community rather than behind bars. We need fewer prisons, but we also need alternatives to prison. It is not enough to liberate people, set them free from incarceration. Active ways to help them lead to great, become regular conditioning measures members. As in past experience, developing programs for these men will be difficult. It is not easy to do. Well take a while. We are working on it now. The elements are favorable, but these programs are not yet ready for prime time. Stay tuned. The task of Prison Reform has only begun. Heather thank you, larry. I just wanted to add one thing i shouldve said at the outset and we will open it up to questions, which is to give you a tiny bit of background and the actual process by which these conclusions were arrived how we arrived at the conclusions. I mentioned the word literature, and i just wanted to clarify when we made these policy recommendations, this was the end product of two years of intense deliberations to arrive at those consensus conclusions. To do that, we had to come through and really take a very serious look at multiple literatures, multiple studies. So, we feel very confident that the conclusions we have come to our based on the absolute top and best literatures, and that this report has been vetted. The reason i say that is because we know many people, particularly here in washington, are seeking guidance as to how they might propose bills or do something legislatively, so we hope that this is a tool, not necessarily weighing in on what those decisions would be that a certain legislator would propose, or a certain bill, but to say this is ammunition, information, and so, for example, i was also part of the chapter with larry, and when we say this was a decision we made, that it was not necessary, in that chapter you will find evidence for that. Notably, for example, the murder rate was higher during the Great Depression than it was when we actually embarked on this massive war on crime. That gives us a pause, but some information we can use as we imagine new policy solutions. An extension of love failed to overcome procedural votes before the memorial day recess. Mitch mcconnell announced the senate would return from its recess early to deal with the issue. Any shortterm extensions and the current law expires at midnight on sunday. So the senate will be back in session sunday afternoon a week from sunday thank you senator schumer. [laughter] well be back in sunday, may the 31st one more opportunity to act responsibly and not allow this program to expire. This is a highthreat period and we know whats going on overseas we know whats been tried here at home. My colleagues, do we really want this law to expire . Weve got a week to discuss it. Well have one day to do it. So we better be ready next sunday afternoon to prevent the country from being endangered by the total expiration of the program that were all familiar with. Unless there is objection and i understand there is not an objection well pass the highway extension on a voice vote tonight and well be back in session sunday in a week. Mr. Reid will my friend yield for a question . Mr. Mcconnell i yield for a question. Mr. Reid we would be happy to cooperate in passing that the surface transportation bill by voice. But i do say this, and i mentioned this to you off the away from the microphones. For those of us living in the west we cant get back here until sunday afternoon. I think its very difficult for us to get back here on a weekday before 5 00. So i would hope on a sunday we wouldnt be expected the senate to come in session before 5 00 because we cant get here. And i protecting the western part of my caucus, which is pretty big im not going to agree to thinking unless we can come in at least after 5 00. Mr. Mcconnell well, as my friend the majority leader knows, id be happy to work with him on that and he also knows i tried to get a shortterm extension of a variety of different lengths in order not to put us in this position. But were left with this option only. And well work with the democratic leader about the actual time but the law expires at midnight sunday a week. And i doubt if there are very many of us who are comfortable with that. Maybe a handful. But we need to act responsibly here on behalf of the american people. We will have live coverage on cspan two. Possible votes are around 6 00 p. M. Monday night on the communicators, Jeannie Kimmelman on the merger between Charter Communications and time warner cable. We would love to have more competition. Some people have satellite for video, but hardly has any to broadband providers. They cant provide the video streaming that you get from your Cable Company or a virus. The question is, where do you get more competition . It is coming over that same wire. It is the same Company Controlling two parts of the service. A lot of content Companies Want to provide oath and they want to provide new services. The Cable Company wants to provide its own bundled service. There will have to be no unfair benefits to cable through this consolidation. Lots of americans have cut the wire. They dont have a telephone. They are purely wireless. They get the broadband they want. These are quite sophisticated. You have new companies trying to compete with wireless broadband offerings. The idea that there is any sort of market or monopoly power in this industry right now is very difficult to understand. Monday night on the communicators on cspan two. The navys director of submarine warfare spoke at the air force associations breakfast series. He discussed Nuclear Deterrence and the aging submarine fleet. He is awaiting Senate Confirmation to be the next Naval Submarine forces commander. This is one hour. Peter huessy we are honored today to have joe tofalo as our speaker. I also want to make a note of welcoming our friends from the United States military, the entire staff of the navy is here today. We want to thank our guests from an number of embassies and our sponsors. I want to make a note that a number of our seminars have been held and i posted the transcript on her websites as well as the cds who presented remarks this tuesday on china. I want to remind you that next week we have jim miller, admiral rick and ridge on the fourth. We have a space event with congressman brydon stein on june 12. The triad event we are holding on the 17th of september here in washington dc, if you are interested in getting an invitation, please talk to me. As you know, he is the director of undersea warfare at the navy staff and the pentagon. In this capacity, he is the resource sponsor for the submarine force and that includes the ohio replacement program. For this assignment, he commanded the submarine group 10 and he brings submarine and acquisition of experience of rc braced deterrent. Please welcome were admiral joe tafalo. Joseph tofalo thank you for that introduction. Its nice ive got so much stuff appear i dont know what to move. I was talking with joe in the back of the room whose grandfather was a world war ii submariner. Zach is getting ready. He came here to hear the talk this morning it. Weve got the whole gamut here represented. I know that many of you come to these sessions from time to time and i want to commend you for keeping yourselves involved and informed about strategic deterrence. There are many who dont understand all of the moving parts associated with strategic deterrence. Its important for us to put the facts on the table and i thank you for your commitment in being here today and being part of that dialogue. Peter mentioned my biography. Those are the centerpieces of my portfolio. Because of my previous job working in group 10 which has all of the i am fortunate to have this perspective on the seabased deterrence. It is something that helps me do what i am doing it. Today, we are at a critical point in determining the future of our National Strategic current. Examples include our countries actively engaged in negotiations with Irans Nuclear program which will go a long way to defining the nature of the Second Nuclear age as it unfolds. Treaties and agreements are being made and implemented and in some cases violated. Russia and china are aggressively modernizing and expanding their Nuclear Capabilities. Iran is seeking to knock on that same door. North korea is an arguably provocative. It is easy to get caught up in the swirl of events, the drumbeat of newspaper and the draw of the 24hour news cycle. This churn makes it difficult if not impossible to maintain focus on the longterm nature of Nuclear Deterrence and it doing what is required. Robust Nuclear Deterrence is the result of longterm sustained efforts of a large group of professionals who carefully tend to technical issues, policy matters, physical resource allocation, adversary changes and alliance dynamics. Someone has to be working the nearterm, the midterm, and the longterm in these areas. Many of you are involved in some aspect of this. It is vital in challenging work. That is what is required. He knew a thing about infighting and doing what is required. He emphasized that good ideas such as a Solid Foundation is not protected by the system. He wrote once implemented, good ideas can easily be overturned or subverted through apathy or a lack of followup. A continuous effort is required. Often important problems are recognized but no one is willing to sustain the effort needed to solve them. Today, we as a country are confronting a number of issues that are testing our willingness to sustain the continuous effort needed to keep a robust deterrent in place. I am concerned about how things are going on a number of fronts that make up this battle and i want to talk tyou about my part of those that aligns, which is sustaining an undersea leg to our deterrent. For todays americans, the horror of 9 11 remains an indelible memory. Our losses on 9 11 as catastrophic as they were, were less than 1 of our total losses in world war ii. 11 years ago the world war ii memorial was dedicated on them all right here in washington. If you have been there, you have seen the wall of stars across the back and those stars are a reminder of the ultimate sacrifice of the 400,000 americans who died in that conflict. Take those huge losses in world war ii and multiply them why 100. That number represents a low estimate of global losses during world war ii. We dont know how many people died in that war. Some estimate up to 70 million a. Most round up the number to the nearest five or 10 million people. Millions of human lives were lost in the round off error. When our best experts try to calculate the human for tallies in the last largescale major power war. If i were to say that world war ii must also be our last major power war, i am confident that all of you would agree. There is no question about the and that we seek. We want to prevent a major power war in the future. The issue is not the end point we seek, it is how we will achieve it. We must remember that we have been down this road before. In the 1920s, we looked back on world war i and said it never again. We got the desired endpoint right. We got the means to that end point wrong. We passed some unenforceable treaties. We outlawed war. We did not build a structure to deter future war. Were we 20 years later . Right back in the middle of the new major power war, this time world war ii. After world war ii and strongly motivated by the cold war, we were smarter in many ways. This time, we remained engaged and built a mutual Defense Treaty Organization and we armed ourselves with an Effective Nuclear deterrent. We adhered and were not apathetic. We followed up. We applied the continued effort needed in keeping that deterrent effective. Challenging words for sure but it is what is required. The cold war ended. There was a feeling that as long as the world remained benign it, we hope we could get away with less than a full effort at Nuclear Deterrence. We deferred to modernization. We poured down some of our infrastructure. We shrink our numbers. We reduced margins and redundancy and to abuse a favorite expression, we took risk. Now its clear that the benign world we hope for is not going to be the world that we face. The world that we are going to face is not that i polar bipolar world. It is a more complex world with players that are equally if not more aggressive. Let me give you some examples. Russia has an Ongoing Nuclear weapons Production Program a new silobased icbm, plans for at least one or per two nuclear bombers. They have increased their operations near u. S. And nato states. Moscow has overtly adopted strategy that endorses the limited use of nuclear strikes. China is posed poised to have an Operational Deployment this year. This puts the cut metal United States at risk. Continental United States at risk. They will be capable of holding targets at risk for the first time. China is not part of the new start or any treaty that includes regimes inspection regimes. I know youve seen the articles in the press. They are working to create a strike group capability. North korea depends on Nuclear Forces to extort the international community. They are the only country to conduct a nuclear test since the turnofthecentury. As you have heard it, they just publicly executed their minister of defense with an antiaircraft gun. Iran has withstood sanctions to continue its nuclear program. The pursuits are concerning it to their allies in the region and in countries like saudi arabia who are talking about their own at Nuclear Capabilities needed to match charon iran. Were facing a world that is not a nine. There are benign. There are some players out there investing in or pursuing their own Nuclear Capabilities. With all of this is background, i want to address for for concerns. We will continue to require a triad. The navy has long made clear that it strongly supports sustaining the triad. This position has been endorsed in every important nuclear document produced by this administration. Icbms have a responsiveness that is much faster than bombers. They deal incentivize the attack by raising a number of success. Bombers provide flexibility and they can signal our intent. They can approach a target from many different directions, complicating defense against them. Nuclear capable bombers are dual use and efficiency that no part of the triad can coin. Ssb ends are the most survivable. They assure a largescale Nuclear Response that is more difficult to defend against. Each of the triads brings strengths that provide a strong deterrent against a variety of adversaries and threats. There is a synergy here where the integrated whole is greater than some individual legs. Concern number two, covering our obligations as our current ohio class. What drives our obligations . Rss bn is driven by three things, geography, survivability, and target coverage. I did not say the word number of warhead. There is a tendency by some to derive the number of platforms needed from the number of warheads in the arsenal. Think about this comparison. Imagine you are responsible for guarding a forced perimeter. If you determined based on weapons range and fields of fire and lines of sight, you need 10 sentries to guard the fort. You have 100 bullets so you give each of the sentries 10 bullets. Something happens and now you only have 90 bullets. When it makes sense to drop to nine sentries with 10 bullets and leave one part of the perimeter unprotected . You would keep sentries so you could cover the whole perimeter and give each nine bullets. Its the same idea with warheads. The point is the number of warheads or bullets is not the main driver. The main drivers are geography survivability, and target coverage. We have to cover to oceans at once and all the targets that go with each of these oceans. We have to anticipate changes that moniker between now and the 20 80s. Who knows what threats there will be or friends to assure. We have a demanding strategic obligation today. 55 years of patrols have taught us to expect change. In addition to the rising threats, there are also other reasons to expect a challenge to grow. Lets talk about readiness. Today, they carry 55 of our accountable Nuclear Warheads. That percentage will rise to 70 of our warheads by 2018 when the new start treaty is fully implemented. Our average is 24 years old. In 15 years, just before we start to deploy the ohio replacement submarine, they will average 37 years old. That is older than we have ever taken a signal single nuclear submarine. We will have to depend on that average four two maintain the same patrol cycles they did when they were brandnew to the force. Today, we are meeting all Mission Requirements as you would expect. There are challenges. Only because of the significant efforts by our incredible sailors, marines, airmen, coast guard men, and civilians who are dedicated to this mission are we able to continue to do so. We are overcoming the impact of previous years of cutbacks and shortfalls. All of that. Some of those things have had cascading effects on maintenance and training. This has met delayed deployment and delayed pulled the pointmans extend those that were already on station. A perfect example of this from the past year is the uss pennsylvania, extended for 140 days due to maintenance issues on another submarine. The good news is that our fantastic sailors were able to keep it at sea for that record amount of time with no loss in strategic coverage. The whole thing is transparent to everybody. Our force does not cross that red line. Its that margin to the red line that has continued to be chipped away at over the years. Pressures like this have imposed a cost to the resiliency of our people and the sustainability of our equipment. To help address those pressures, the navy is investing in it 2. 2 billion in the budget request to restore and maintain acceptable margins by adding more shipyard workers, shifting some to private shipyards and restoring Critical Infrastructure and increasing the funding for Operational Support and research and development to our trident weapon system. These efforts are vital to put an acceptable risk margins back into this critical mission. As i said earlier, 70 of the Nuclear Warheads will be on ssb endsns. We have got to get this right. We have got to do what is required. Concern number three ensuring we are survivable and effective and timely. Looking into the future we are not only ensuring that the ohio class stays on track, we have to ensure that the replacements meet the obligations. It is a solemn duty that falls at this generation. The first patrol of our first uss George Washington occurred in 1960. The first patrol of the next generation occurred in 1981, 21 years later. The first patrol of the ohio replacement will take place in 2031, 50 years after the first patrol. We have skipped an entire generation, but in doing so, we have consumed all of the margin. In order to cover our requirements, we need 10 operational ssbns. To ensure that we have them, we have 14 in our structure today. Right now, we are going for the refueling overhauls and modernizations to put us right up to the limit of 10 available platforms. We have sharpened our pencils and figured out how we can meet our obligations through the 20 80s using a fewer ships. We are working to extend the Nuclear Power core up to 42 years so no refueling is required during the midlife overhaul. Combined, these steps will allow us to get the same 10 operational ssbns from a force of only 12 replacement ssbns not the 14 we have today. Spending the money up front to get the design right enables us to do this. We expect to save more than 40 billion in lifecycle costs by not having to build, man, and operate those two additional submarines. We must also ensure the ohio replacement ssbns show up for duty on time. If we reduce funding and respond to budget pressures, that will mean less efficient construction
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.