tv AR and Panel Discussion on Missile Defense CSPAN June 27, 2017 4:50am-6:43am EDT
other states, particularly for members of congress. then talking about disappointment with the trump administration over lowered drug prices. and talking about the need for more security personnel in federal maximum-security prisons. watche to wash -- washington journal this morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. 20 discussion. -- join the discussion. >> testifying about the senatelance act at the judiciary committee with live coverage beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. this afternoon, the house foreign affairs committee examines the trip to europe. website atch on our
c-span.org or listen using the c-span radio app. >> now, sender tom cotton talks about u.s. priorities following his remarks, spending and technology. this event was hosted by the center for the national interest. >> time is short. good afternoon. i serve as the director of -- at the center port national interest in washington, d.c. welcome. those joining us on facebook live in c-span3. today we present not a one part but a two-part discussion. part one will be the gentleman sitting next to me senator tom cotton from arkansas, part two will be what i hope is a lively with two others. i will keep my remarks brief.
obviously, goes without saying that washington is faced with severe challenges. obviously, north korea's for a much in the news. the development of its short, medium, and long grange missiles. senator cotton is at the forefront, advocating for the best strategy. his remarks will be around 20 minutes or so. after that, questions for about 25 minutes. please remember to state your name into of the we are very much on the record. time is limited, please keep your question is compact and precise as possible. cotton: thank you very much for joining us today to discuss is very important topic. basicthe very most country.for the
if you read the particulars in the declaration of independence you will see one of the complaint was seeking was not protecting american citizens from attacks on our own land. it has been a consistent theme since the founding. whether it is the sacking of the in 1812,se and burning the doctrine that we would not let powers from the old world in the new world to threaten the homeland. the cuban missile crisis was result in part by we would not have that happen again. after the 9/11 attacks, the world saw the kind of response the american people demand when our citizens are attacked. it is also one reason why we have all those bases in places like europe and the middle east eurasia. it is to ensure our allies but
more than anything it is for the defense of the united states and our citizens and our territory so that if any war is going to be fought it will be fought on ourenemies turf not on turf. this defense is a must-have technology for our military. it is only becoming more so in the future because our rivals continue to advance their ballistic cruise missile technology. we have short-term threats and long-term threats. short-term, north korea. long-term, iran, russia, china. i would say there are four things we need to counteract these threats. first, increase our defense spending. second, spent some of that additional money on integrating missile-defense systems. third is to help our allies devise their own missile-defense system and forth is to
reevaluate the missile treaty. let me turn first and most immediately to north korea. sex -- secretary james mattis said it is the most urgent security threat we face. this year, north korea has been testfiring ballistic missiles. they are working on submarine launch missile technology as well. everyone agrees it is only a matter of time before the north koreans might test an intercontinental missile to alaska or the united states mainland. that is why president obama warned trump in the transition that north korea was the most urgent crisis he might face. even if north korea struggles to technology,nuclear we are reminded they have stores of chemical and biological weapons.
one also must worry about the reliability of north korea's nuclear command facility systems. lunch ballistic missiles, we wonder whether not the commanders will be under full control of north korea's national leadership. second, iran. nuclear blister vessels on at least 13 different occasions. they fired ballistic -- iran has tested ballistic missiles on several different occasions. there are credible reports they are supporting ballistic missile technologies and are partnered with the cooties. -- houthis. the country that
sometimes escapes notice, pakistan. one cannot discount the probability that one of pakistan's over 100 nuclear weapons might fall out of that governments control and potentially into the hands of the extremists. a loose nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist group is the kind of threat we are trying to stop. fifth is russia, as if on here is well aware, russia has the world's largest inventory of nuclear warheads. -- it has also employed a missile that violates the treaty. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff testified this year to congress at the russian sub "violated the spirit and intent of the treaty and they do not intend to return to appliance." he also said "the system itself is at risk in europe."
an other words, russia has finally to terms of the treaty in which they received greater benefits from the united states and they have got paid consequences. has given --navy china also is not a member of the treaty and therefore they have developed a number of missiles in a range that contribute to their anti-access area. russia and china are blurring the line between conventional and nuclear weapons use. some might say it can stir the deterrence. but i say the balance is already disturbed.
technological advances as well as these blurred lines. russia sees theater weapons with limited use. a way to escalate. to end the conventional conflict. tona, likewise, is beginning rethink their first use doctrine. it can occur at any time up to the decision to use a nuclear weapon. discussed the use of nuclear weapons. with regard to china, also we must note with up to deal with the fact that the size and the quality of its numerous forces remain largely mystery to us. we have no transparency on what nuclear weapons have introduced and whether or how. is awe do not know about
task. if they are contemplating the use of nuclear force, i would suggest we would do best advised are. e to ballistic >> the most fundamental decision that we have is increasing our defense budget. and with that comes the equirement of repealing the budget control act. in 2011 in a very different world than we face now. ongress has made it clear that they cannot abide by those limits after spending caps went 2013, congress passed a two-year budget an omnibus and then
well. over the long term, i would suggest that we need to be able stop an attack from near peer adversaries as well. i was pleased to see the test destroyed an t incoming missile from the pacific. 44 e now on track to have ground-based intercepters of the year.he end to accelerate our defense rogress, i've cosponsored the advancing missile defense act sullivan, senators cruz, rubio, peters. a bipartisan -- who recognize threats that we face. this legislation will authorize 28 ground based
intercepters. it would accelerate the advanced t of intercepters technologies as ell as deployment of a space-based sensor layer. -- intercepter site on the east coast as well the e in the midwest of united states and it would require a dod report on the ossibility of up to 100 ground based intercepters distributed across the united states and ask specifics about optimal locations and the possibilities transportable ground-base intercepters. missile on i think the defense agency should rapidly an lop and demonstrate nmanned aerial vehicle intercept capability involving high altitude long endurance avs equipped with laser
payloads. ballisticoly grail of missile defense because the missile is moving slower, therefore, easier to track and intact.ll o decoys or debris have deployed. is over of course, enemy territory and not our territory. these things combines increase the probability and impact of an intercept. concept is of course challenging due to technology, however, technology is rapidly advancing. concept i sible
morehese developments plus n the way can help create a layered theater system that we need. fourth and final, i suggest it's to re-evaluate the range missile forces treaty. dictates we must respond. after all, as i said, russia more from the inf treaty than does the united states unless we believe that mexico are going to develop intermediate range missiles any time soon or that allow them to be deployed to cuba. none of which i would imagine would happen. yet, russia is violating with a treaty from which more from than we.
we had the anniversary of the north korean -- the war north korea in the 50s that there could be a nuclear test. for example, north korea were to test, what would be the appropriate response? use our missile defenses and take it out? would it be a better idea to observe it? what do you think would be the best approach? i'll leave some of those to our military experts. the e need to put all pressure we can on north korea o deter them from doing just that. i don't think china has done that much in the last 30 years deter this threat from north korea. they continue to try to have it and there's much more hat we could do in terms of
north korea's elicit experts as china who is facilitating development there. to continue at the same time to take prudent precushions working with the new moon dministration in seoul to encourage japan to take whatever moste they choose would be ppropriate for their own self-defense. there are steps left to be taken with e have not yet taken we simply before told north korea. enough. >> well, with that, it is question and answer time. please keep in mind to state your affiliation when you ask your question. you were first, ma'am. please. we can get a microphone there.
>>. >> of course we need to develop standoff ng range cruise missile. be reaching to their shelf life. e're developing a new b-21 bomber but i think it would be unwise to assume that throughout the life of that aircraft, it's be able toe vade defenses and ir with the -- the b-52 right modernization can be to oyed for many decades come. obviously it cannot penetrate our ir defense systems of adversaries. it is essential for making the part of our nuclear triad. hat's why almost every flag officer who's testified for the
armed services committee has said that it is a viable part of our nuclear triad in addition to b-21. >> [inaudible] [inaudible]. >> i had a question for you in listening to your remarks. do you think poses verall the greatest threat to american security right now? > it's a good question but the answer to that question always is like asking how any the saries can advance on head of a pin because they all pose serious threats. you ost immediate threat might say is north korea. or some of y iran the terror networks that a country like iran supports or a al quaeda orr like
the islamic state. at the same time, russia is a your easonable answer to at this because russia surprise nt strategic from china has the nuclear arsenal to destroy our way of they have made it clear they remain in power and that think theutin doesn't soviet union lost the cold war, simply behind at halftime and are working hard to make up the difference. may ask o that you today whether they're better poised to get to france or spain than they were in the late stage cold war. so there's different ways of looking at that question. from the ay though fact that i think it's hard to pinpoint a single threat that is gravest threat we face is hat our military needs to be aji gile and flexible and dominant and part of that is missile
equal protection from those threats. we have all those bases in east, east middle eurasia. ewe ray many nato countries are small wealthy. they're not going to contribute our military to efforts. however, there are vital things through contribute their geopolitical position and insights or accesses they may have. that's why we have nato and overseas bases. that ent trump is right they need to spend the amount of money that we all pledged to other a few years ago and they've not been doing. the most important countries are larger, richer ones like germany. t would be nice if the smaller poorer countries spent enough to
meet that commitment as well if you're a country couple million people and a limited economy you're not going fill a mechanized division. and putin knows just like always know, no words mean cked up by action anything. it's a much greater deterrent if the $120 billion every year that it has not been our european se matching their commitments more than anything leader can say. thank you. promote your o
technology on e issile defense based on the leged access to -- and prelude to that is i think your point that there are still turned potentially on pressure on north korea but asked this for well over 20 years. we tried a variety of approaches. we've been trying to use sanctions as a route to bring a north koreans around for very long time. t is grounds for someone like me to be ultimately pessimistic be a viable ng to route and what you're left with topic which is your is missile defense. ing -- technical world are in this huge. mind mplexities are
numbing. so far on the geopolitical point about north korea as i earlier, i think steps can be taken that have not been ah bear bring pressure on north korea. china made a show earlier of off coal imports that did not have much of an impact. stops sending refined etroleum, they would probably be entirery out of gasoline. there are steps we can take that we have not taken and that we should take if china doesn't stop playing both sides in this rivalry. in terms there are steps of mil, obviously i can't go into great detail. and you're right, it's very complex. 'm also not a rocket scientist
and barely got through physics in school. experts who do this or within the pentagon utside experts are confidence that with higher levels of and more focused leadership that we're on the pretty ground breaking break throughs. very cutting edge stuff but technological of innovation especially in this country, i believe that, you know, sooner know, sooner rather than later we could see a genuine and acknowledged effective layered missile defense system that could largely if not entirely neutralize the threat from a korea.y like north
good question. far beyond this question on ballistic missile defense. i would say as a general matter defense budget is not because of our deficits or the -- if anything, it helps make that deficit and that ebt more manageable and long term because it keeps open international lanes of commerce and assets r people protected. when we try to balance the budget on the back of the immediately e did following the demise of the enemies catch ur
up with it as they did to us on /11 or as you're seeing around the world now and we spend more money than we would have often and on things se we would not have had to spend them on. strategic our forces, i have sometimes heard the objection that we should not weapons much money on that we never use. premises ofute both statement. two.
>> welcome to round next we have two casing very show important and different perspectives. they'll present their views more leaving aminutes each good amount of time for q and a. and just like the last one, lease present your name and affiliation. we are on the record and have a cameras. so with that, let me bring in speaker, the president of the newthe author book nuclear nightmares securing
the world before it is too late. romance novel. [laughter] served as ously president for national security policy at the al center for -- i happened to yesterday so congratulations on that. >> thank you. >> the floor is yours. >> thank you very much for and we have ten minutes each; is that correct? >> yes. >> good. queue me up at the end. it's a lot to say in ten minutes. i basically disagree with everything senator cotton said to be that it was nice here. i represent the other side of me focus my remarks on missile defense. the point of this session. been in washington working on national security for about 35 years. it's a pleasure. for known dimitry and jeff almost all that time.
push this. the result has been that every missile defense system we tried to produce has failed. worked.ot and we're left with this system, ground-based ballistic gbd.ile system or his is the system senator cotton talked about. work.system does not it cannot protect the united states from a sophisticated even ballistic missile attack. and here's why: the problems ground based ballistic missile defense were detailed in 80s by the proponents of the -- we have to go to space. you remember those cartoons, those of you who were around cartoons of these satellites shooting star blowinge lasers out and up incoming war heads like
fix that or ould discriminate or deploy hundreds hundreds of effective intercepters. is still vulnerable. as you know the beginning of any to suppress the enemy defenses. that would be true for ballistic missiles as well. their radars, k blind the system by simple means as north korean frog men, he forward deployed air defenses or by ballistic missile attack on the radars themselves or by other means. fine. so that was the problem we have some of this -- and it's a confusing subject because so of us are confused by the benefits of short range defense.c missile that we can do with some success. you can build a short range shoot down scuds.
no friction and you cannot between a war head and the balloons, the jammers deployed.e in 1999 it was concluded any ballistic ble on said that any m nation that could build an icbm capable of hitting the united states could deploy any one or more of six basic countermeasures. that's why when people say nd you hear some generals say his that the ground based missile defense system can provide protection, that's what they mean. attack.ed countermeasures.
i think some people don't know this doesn't work. hey have not really examined the test which is why my solution to this which i'll give ou at the very end might be -- ideology. armse rejected the idea of control. we will not allow the security of this nation to depend on a piece of paper. believe that you can
control these weapons by reaties eliminating them even though ronald reagan did it with eliminated an and entire class. so, therefore, we have to rely military ogy and our might. that's why you hear senator full cold war mode. abandon efforts to limit weapons with russia. full on deployment with new nuclear weapons in europe. proliferate missile defense. missile defense will save us. you think we have trouble with our european allies now? deploying nuclear weapons in europe and see what happens. remember what happened in the 1980s. this would be a disaster. the course that senator cotton advancing is not only -- will not only fail, it will make our more dangerous. to gain and a
whole lot to lose. worked issile defense and that we could do this. awful math of the atomic bomb does not permit any easy solution. you should keep trying. deploy systems that don't yet work? no. not.hould since we began deploying those 2004, it has a 50%.ss rate of only fails half the time. the reason -- and this is really do. to it's hard to hit a bullet with a bullet and it's amazing that we at all even under ideal, pristine conditions. fails 50 percent of the time. kill vehicles don't work very well.
it's a fundamental flaw. we know don't work and there's problems even with the replacement kill see.le but we'll it shows more promise. the best record ince 2010, since 2010, we still -- when you -- as the getting better all the time. no, it's not. a 50 percent failure rate ince 2004 and 60 percent failure rate since 2010. -- he 18 tests we've had followed by failure. but how do you settle? rebecca is about to say completely said is wrong, foolish, dangerous. or i'm right. have an independent commission examine this. his is the way we settled the original star wars weapons,
whether they could actually be built. he american physical society did a study in 1987 that said it we d take 20 years before would know whether such weapons were ever feasible. it was at that point that congress decided to pull back on those programs and go for much limited defensive systems and the debate over whether the systems could work was essentially over. that's what we need now. solve this going to in congress. let's ask the american physical the ty to assess feasibility of ballistic missile defense to defend the united a limited or a large scale ballistic missile attack. get some scientists nvolved who don't benefit from defense contracts. public can rican decide whether they should rush ahead with this fatally flawed wait until we can
perfect something that might actually work before we deploy it. thank you very much. >> joe, phrase of the day, strap down chicken test. one.l remember that i'm going to use that in the piece. i promise. steal it from you. next we have a different hudson ive from the institute. she has testified before on tv.s and is a regular she's on fox news. cnn. many other outlets. widely in ery -- the floor est is yours. you.hank go ahead t going to remarks. my
intended target. that's the purpose of the system. the concept of missile defense was controversial. there was disagreement about systems could work and whether or not they would be the bilizing position to posture.tegic but there's broad consensus that the hit to kill technology in proven and does work. among the agreement consensus community lies on at ow fast do we deploy these systems, where do we invest and prioritize. what does the inventory look like moving forward. resources,some of our et cetera. recent tests point to the success of some of the technical aspects of the the program. e've recently seen successful tests on a couple of systems. . successfully intercepted a target with
countermeasures. is -- this was under very realistic conditions short of it from north korea at to takehomeland we have into safety precautions but espite what some hit to kill deniers say, the military, the agency along e with pacific command and everyone involved in that test time whenve the exact the launch would take place. hey just had a window and successfully hit that. discriminate against what was whathe actual war head and was the mock war head and hit that head and what was the mock warhead and target.fully hit that so we test and point out areas where we need mprovement and we build on those tests and don't quit until
we increase the credibility and eliability of these systems so there's a lot to be excited with he sm3 family of intercepters as well. and back to the bipartisan point. the term missile defense over 20 times in the 65-page obama administration posture review or every three pages of text. so the obama administration tarted significantly cutting missile defense described as the holy grail -- countermeasures. really where you want to get it. defense e missile programs and the gmd program in half. funding to gmd in -- latter half of his time in the white house and initiated of the 14 ent
intercepters to alaska. initiated tration the -- approach to missile defense in europe. those changes to missile defense was in response to the quickly xpanding gmd changes were in response to the quickly progressing north korean missile program. that's what changed the administration's mind and they made that announcement that they now going to actually deploy those 14 gbis and invest defense and look at a third site on the east coast or the midwest of the united states. the epaa was in response to the iranian missile threat to europe. but also the commitment to epaa and to give the administration, obama administration credit, it stuck with those first two phases even though it eliminated that fourth phase of the european phased approach due to stuck complaints, it with those initial phases
because of the threat of iranian and becausemissiles our european allies wanted them nd it was demonstrating assurance to our allies in the ace of russia who continues to oppose european missile defense sites. so what happened here aside from just the change in the threat, i would actually say that the threat wasn't really a change it was enough of an up tick the most persuaded staunch skeptics in the white house to change it but it was threat that drove the military requirement which is it should be. but it should be based on what us and hreat telling then those military requirements and then we work on the plug cal capabilities and in those military requirements which is how we've actually done defense. and all of the threats from missiles continue to grow worldwide. and this is because despite arms
counterproliferation efforts, missiles worldwide are till improving and spreading and we've entered a new and angerous area of missile threats. threats. missiles provide a relatively way -- in the last pentagon days, the just released to congress a new to theent on the threats united states and it said many countries feel ballistic and missiles are cost
effective weapons driving the missile defense worldwide. and then the report goes on to both russia's apabilities, north korea's, china's, and iran's. not means if one does believe an enemy being in possession of the missile that deploy it essarily merely by capability will united states and our options to varieties of the ssion taking away enemy's ability to threaten the a nuclear es with weapon. we have to close those deterrent gaps by leaving the united exposed, we're cree rateing an incentive for our there is now underway a great bipartisan the senate to expand
just n inventory and also programs s in these across the entire spectrum. am in firm agreement that especially on the heels of this great successful test of gmd now is the time to actually increase he number of ground-based intercepters. we already have space, alaska, and california to deploy them. to improve continued the technology, we should continue to test rigorously but not wait until the system of course is perfect enemies are not. great talk a couple of days ago about the way -- the n order to koreans are quickly trying to get their offensive systems to work which is why you missiles those blowing up on the launch pad. they don't get discouraged like us. have a missed test and people
look to cut the program. the north koreans are determined to have the camebility and -- capability. hey're testing and with set backs, they look -- i suggest the united states needs more of our approach to getting defensive systems right. i won't go into the detail that buthe senator did there's also a great effort in the house of representatives. that s a lot of democrats are very interested in not having their states and risk.tuents held at so they are working hard to make ure that we have a robust and credible missile defense system. he last thing i'll point out before questions, very important. last year the congress again oth the senate and the house bipartisan effort amended the 1999 national missile defense to strike limited from it. it was stated that the way that way the law was
written it's sort of left the impression to the pentagon and agency issile defense that the united states was only to build a missile defense system to defend against limited ballistic missile attacks but the united states has always been able to build a missile as it sees fit. limited was sort of the baseline ceiling.the has and i would includes expanding thad and also getting a space based sensor have birth to death tracking of these missiles so we ave a better idea of where they're headed and what's on
them and then eventually having kinetic kill capability on those sensors. in conclusion, i would just say that while it's a shame it's taken so long and it's been such political battle to get us where we are in terms of technical capability because of fight that we have had that we have much to be grateful for and optimistic in terms of the missile defense system deployment and -- the increasing current political consensus e've fought for and continued to grow. >> all right. thank you. begins with fun q&a. we are on the record. ave, you were first and then you, eric. for this is a question both of you. hat do you consider to be a nonscripted test?
because this last test, you're it has a window -- they prepositioning and radars in spots where they were supposed to be. the sea-based radar position where it needed to be. ll these things need to be deployed in the right spots and tied in. northrup's ly at facility last week and they can tie it all together. all true. the problem is without those radarsd forward deployed and what not, you actually can't shoot this thing so you have to prepositioned around the world and you have to know something is coming before you actually shoot. the antes based element of this already in how do you -- what -- place, what do you consider to e a real system that can actually defend the country without advanced notice. >> let me start. me start. look, if you're serious about
this, if you're a warrior and a protectan that wants to the american people, you don't to oy something that's made look like a defense so that it makes people feel better because dangerous. you will then enter into combat situations. you will escalate a conflict enemy thinking that you can actually defend against them when you can't. lives at american risk. this puts troop lives at risk. it, do it the t knows how to ry do. put something up intended to the weapon system being tested. then you have a team up who maybe you give them a window. you have to have certain limit takeses here. it's going to come this week and then let's go try it and they don't do that and that is dangerous to america. bet is not the way we should buying our weapons.
do you want to deploy something on an emergency basis if you had one of those gbis that was intercepted because you thought actually had ans weapon that could hit us? they do not right now but working on it. they will have one that can hit los angeles in the next four or five years. threat is orean -- or even simpler, just take the bootstrap or end you have an explosive rope that blows up.
it is hundreds of pieces. the defense has to target every and theye of them cannot. so do things like that. if it willu will see protect you now or just in the -- have verified they think the gmd does provide them with the system. there is that. 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, it's 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 they've demonstrated the capability to defend the homeland from a small number. it's not even limited. you don't, we academics can open source data and pick and choose what we want to say but you're 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 don't 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 it's failed 15% of the time. it has a 50% failure rate. why do you put the defense of the united states in those hands. : >> you are making a great
argument for increasing our architecture. those of us who are evidence-based analysts, you are looking at what the system is currently able to do. we have made progress. we're not satisfied with where does that. we would like to expand inventory and capability. we need more radar. that has not been contested. we need the lrd are and we need to have -- >> hello. cato.rom i have been working on a project recently looking at missile development and china. that has been going for some he classified documents about declassify discussions within the u.s. government about past missile defense systems in the
50's. one thing that stuck out in that analysis is that in the past, observers were pretty frank about the impact of missile defense capability. the idea that if we were to build better missile defenses then there would be incentive for the soviets are the chinese to expand arsenals. i do not hear that in modern debate much. for the panel to think about, why do we sort of sovietor downplay what gmd is intended to be against iran nuclear threat. the better you add, the better you get for countries to develop counter measures. is that conversation happening or is it being ignored? >> if i may take that one. the reason you do not hear that
is because it is no longer applicable. that conversation applied in the cold war whenever he had one particular enemy you were trying to deter. you are worried about upsetting the balance. because of the proliferation of list missiles, that no longer applies. moreover, you the chinese and russians have been free to develop capabilities even though we do not have a defensive system in place. so this fear that the adversaries are going to be attentive eye to defense is not the case. they have built a because of the absence of a defensive system. this is what i would call deterrence gaps in our system. where you have gaps, you had the enemy stepping in. we do not have a robust security on our space assets and the more week relied on those the more we create a space for the enemy to
pounce on those vulnerabilities. we do not need to incentivize our adversaries to do what is in their interest. states acted there interest. china likes to hold the united states at risk so does. the united states must enclose where theyent gap have allowed the united states to remain honorable because of treaty and because of the lack of policymakers and moving in that direction. that is why it is so important for congress to actually amend and make it clear that should the united states deem it possible to close those technological gaps, then we are free to do that. >> i do not think i have heard that, i guess i haven't been paying attention. just that you all know and you watching at home, the united states is about 5000 thermonuclear warheads in its
stockpile. russia has approximately the same. about 4000, it has come down a little bit. that is enough to destroy human civilization 20 or 30 times over. that is a pretty good deterrent. i do not see any gaps on either side. we could easily cut down to a few hundred each and would still have a pretty robust deterrent. this return to gap is an interesting slogan but i do not think it has any relationship at all to the reality of nuclear weapons. but on the question of missile defense, this center used to be called the nixon center. richard nixon believed in the ballistic missile defense. he believed in the democrat johnson when he started deploying. he and his secretary of state henry kissinger understood that if you wanted to stop the arms one, you had to put a cap
defenses. because as long as you proliferated defenses, the other side's obvious and cheapest and most effective answer was to proliferate offensive weapons. that is how you handle defense. this has been the truth since castles and catapults. this is the way it works. so in 1992 when they wanted to limit the offensive weapons of each side, the strategic arms limitation talks, they agreed to the anti-ballistic missile treaty which capped the defenses each side could deploy. and that logic helped rein in the cold war and in fact when neither side had been deploying defensive, and saxons ronald reagan's day, he not only limited but cut weapons, they also started coming down steadily. like i said, we had about 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world. there used to be 66,000.
so in a world without missile defense of, the number has been coming down. that will change if you start deploying defenses. how do you know? .ook at south asia the pakistanis and the indians are talking about missile systems. our negotiating with various u.s. contractors to help with missile defenses. what about the other side? with do build more weapons to overwhelm the defense. so there is a rogue nuclear arms race underway in southeast asia and now it is being accelerated by the introduction of the anti-nuclear defenses. it is pouring gasoline on the fire. so we have not been in a missile defense race. we've just been putting around with these limited defenses, the utter defenses. it will flare up in europe. phase of european
adaptive approach. it was supposed to be am dead in arabian icbm with a nuclear warhead. there is no iranian deal. it has been truncated to ensure there has not -- there will not be an iranian nuclear weapon for 20 years and yet the defense systems and at the arabians are still going in and are going to expand. the russians are saying, see? it has been about us all along. invectives some senators who wanted to be about russia. they want to put nuclear defense and russia. you do that and you will pour gasoline on the fire and see the proliferation of nuclear weapons and your once again. >> a couple factual errors. it could not nearly handle -- ] -- that was in three to be which was unfortunately canceled.
important.is iranian ballistic missiles in fact regardless putting aside the wisdom of the rent deal because we're not what we're here to debate that. even those sanctions still forbid the testing of missiles, the jcpoa does not prohibit the testing of iranian ballistic missiles. europe is still at risk currently of short and medium-range ballistic missiles. are committing to our allies, that is what we are doing. i find it so interesting when skeptics continue to say that this is sort of a partisan or ideological question whenever you have actually seen me israelis, the -- the israelis, the japanese, the saudi's, all of these countries that are looking at the capabilities. looking atformation
what they're able to do insane, we want these systems. this is not a matter of ideology. it is a matter of military requirement regardless of what people say in terms of strategic stability, what we have seen is missiles have exploded worldwide . we are in the middle of a new missile air in terms of quantity and quality and technical ability of missiles. we have a couple of options. we can choose to remain vulnerable as our adversaries and enemies continue to increase the ability of these systems and hold our assets at risk or we can close the gaps. our military has chosen to close those gaps. i am curious about what this portends or the future. it has never been an intended to be the end-all and be-all. to make all of these missiles are unable to target the united
states. part of a posture. >> i have been waiting a long time for this to take place. that when rosen gave his speech, march 20, 1983, on fdi as it was known, he did not consult the state department and like donald trump one out and did it on his own. this was a fix of his ford decades. the impulse was not to rev up the arms race, it was as he put it in his speech, to render nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. now, thinking about our debate here, did he set the bar too high. in fact, what is wrong with having an imperfect missile
defense system to strengthen >> and perfect missile defense systems -- it does not end the arms race. this has been true almost anyplace you have seen defenses be deployed. this is our response. look at what we do. when the soviets started to deploy it is defense in the 1960's and because we did not have the killed technology, these were nuclear-tipped, our response was to proliferate our warheads. in fact, this is what led to putting multiple warheads on one missiles that you could overwhelm the defense. that is the danger. if you can have a perfect defense, i would be in favor of it. and the promise of sdi, star wars, was that it was going to be that perfect. misledronald reagan was
by someone who told him he had in his lab at livermore the proof of concept of the x-ray laser, the excalibur experiment which could with one weapon eliminate the entire first wave of soviet warheads. you could hit thousands of targets and one blast. this of course was a fantasy, never true. i looked at the x-ray laser in-depth and there was no proof of concept. weapons withr beht like that turned out to a fantasy, scientifically, military, economically impractical. but that is why people but you might be able to do this. it was not because they thought we could get better ground-based interceptors or we could do hit to kill better. that was never the plant. this was always a small, tertiary layer of defense in a comprehensive space-based system.
thisare all continuing cargo cult taking some kind of technology is going to come out of the top side and protect us from ballistic missiles. it is not going to happen. ballistic missile defense will never protect you from listing missiles. the only way to eliminate listed missiles is to eliminate ballistic missiles. >> in the world world, countries act in their own interest. arms control, based on the evidence, with all the proliferation's and counter proliferation efforts with had, something more successful than others, it has not slowed or stopped the proliferation of ballistic missiles will bite. this is reality, not ideology. because of that you have to have, again come i've never been a proponent of -- you know --
until we get a perfect system or do goal is a perfect system, not think we'll ever have a perfect system because there are to many problems worldwide. what i have been an advocate of is doing with the military has been doing, i would like to see them have more clinical backing and backing from policy makers which i think will happen under the trump administration to expand what we have. to build on the progress we have. on the space-based system i would say there has been studies. a study determined you could have an initial capability, 24 satellites in space every 20-your life cycle, it would cost about $26 billion and that would give you the ability to intercept missiles. it would also provide defense of openi can say was in the source, unclassified report which is the only when i read, that would provide some sense of what is being targeted against
our assets at sea, as well. if you think about this area, talking about china specifically, we have the areas where there is no need to antagonize them. there is no defense against what china can throw at us in terms of strategic listed missiles and they are continuing to do that. continuing to develop their anti-satellite capabilities. continuing to develop capabilities to target our allies in the is a big and the united states. and said the united states, get car make allow that to happen or work toward closing the gap. north koreans have not been and send demised to target the united states. they want the ability to hold aerican cities hostage of nuclear attack. that is what driving their capabilities and program. it is not because we're grading some sort of destabilizing situation. i find a sort of interesting how they say the system does not work and it is destabilizing.
how does it not work and to stabilize anything? rides it is like confronting a policeman with a plastic then. >> it is like confronting a policeman with a caustic gun. it will not work, but it will still cause the policeman to act defensively. there are fewer ballistic missiles in the world now than there were in the 1980's. fewer countries with ballistic missiles now. eczema worried about our listed missiles, i am more about the north korean, the iranian global ballistic missiles. --is expanding, based on the >> no, i'm afraid not. the people from the 1980's, a lot of them have been dealt with. we used to worry about iraqi ballistic missiles, now we don't. threat, don'tot a get me wrong, they are just not a global threat. of not justist now
a rant, a list of 30 countries. look at the list, almost all of them are friends or allies. there are a few problems programs. i do not want the iranians testing ballistic missiles. they don't have a good air force, said this is what they are using to threaten saudi arabia and people they think are there enemies. i do not want the north koreans to have a ballistic missile that can threat night united states. let's negotiate with the north koreans to put a cap on that program. lived on felony past with other nations -- we have done so in the past with other nations. this is the only way forward. this is why there is so much emphasis on missile defense. proponents do not want to have negotiations. they do not want to have a deal that was somehow legitimizing the other countries. they don't believe in and and they would rather have regime change in north korea. regime change in iran. you have to examine the whole
complex of rationales and discussions before you buy the missilet there is a defense system out there or soon could be that could actually protect us. there is not. us.hank you for reminding i am old enough to remember why richard nixon decided to -- about ballistic missile defenses. [inaudible] -- it does not mean that he was -- g, but
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. you're going to make strategic moves you should try to have a dialogue with the adversary. we didn't 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 power-play 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. they've 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 don't 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 don't 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. they've 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 don't know how many.
that is the calculation. the underlining calculation isn't 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 hasn't always done missile defense cost-effectively. 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 we've 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 don't 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 doesn't care about
the national defense. it's 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 won't go up as mut needs to. it's not going to happen.
office --gressional the cbo predicted the legislation would reduce the federal deficit ovary 10-your time. but that it would also increase the number of uninsured i 2026 by 22 million. follow live senate coverage this week on cspan2, online that c-span.org, and with the free c-span radio app. newsnate democrats held a conference after the congressional budget office did its an of the health care replacement legislation. we will hear from senate majority leader check schumer -- minority leader chuck schumer. >> w