tv Reagan National Defense Forum Deterrence Panel CSPAN December 23, 2016 6:08am-7:20am EST
with regard to treaty of navigation operations and the like. at issue of deterrence and provocation. is not designed to deter anyone from doing anything. treated the best treaty of navigation is designed to do just that, to exercise a nation's freedom of navigation in international water or over international airspace. so, if you don't exercise your freedom of navigation then under
international law you might lose that freedom of navigation for whatever issue it is. the defense has been very clear that the us will fly wherever international law allows an that means we must exercise that freedom to fly, sale or operate wherever international is. it's you simply exercise a right to operate wherever international law allows. >> i agree. sometimes ambiguity is good and sometimes being clear is good, but at a strategic level, i think, clarity is more helpful than lack of clarity. i think a question that needs to be asked and answered right now is what's america's role in the world. dunford was asked at lunch, and if you had a magic wand what we dress for and that's how we answered it.
wise is so important? because they answered the question, what is america's role in the world decides all kinds of things like sizes of your forces and so on and so forth. is a critical question that has been answered for seven decades. it was answered in 1944 in a hotel in new hampshire when we just suffered 100 million dead between 1914 and 1945 in the first and second world wars and in the-- the us said that's not happening again. we are now doing that, so we gathered everyone at that new hampshire hotel, all the diplomats and everyone hung out for a couple three weeks of al wrote paragraphs and chapters to essentially the rules of the world and how it would be run because were not doing this again. we just did it twice and it happened again. america wrote those rules. the other diplomats from the other countries signed up, but
america wrote it in those rules were the rules of the free will -- world, the western world until 1989 and an extended to the rest of the world. some people don't like those rules and they don't like the quote international order and they went to revise it, revisionist of powers and they are out there today. so, the question we have to ask and answer to ourselves as a relates to deterrence or anything else is a do like those rules, are we comfortable with them and we want to keep them. if the answer is yes, that's a really expensive proposition and we will have to have the capabilities and the forces to enforce those rules and you'll have to have the will, posture, presence, capacity, all of it if you like those rules. if you don't like those rules and you're okay with someone else writing the rules that's okay to. that said national decision. it's not asked and answered by the military. is answered by presidents,
senators and congresses that-- and the people of america. from not you figure out what it is you are willing to fight for. we have made this mistake before at the end of world war i, britain was that enforcer of the rules. the united states backed away did not step into the breach and you got what you got in the-- in world war ii. then we got it again post-world war ii when do you patch and comes up and says no, south korea's not important. thank you very much. then, grandfather calls up stalin and said roger, greenlight go and boom, you have the korean war in your hands and truman jensen. started again with the glitzy when she told said on, it's not that important. roger that. greenlight. boom. so, greenlight be in statistic and specific and knowing what you're willing to fight for and what you stand for and what your role in the world is is
fundamental to deterrence. its fundamental to our military and i personally think we need to ask and answer, clarify it. normally that happens every four years. we have been answering it one way for seven decades and we need to answered again now. i think it will be answered and i think we will be in good shape once it's in. >> what about putting ability and unpredictability and, budgeting and also, what about some of the surprises we've seen in recent years, difficulties with major platforms coming online and hacks of avionics of major systems. how does that affect deterrence? >> predict ability of the budget is central to being able to execute what we need to do in an efficient manner and that's just to hire and retain the people we need and it's actually will show future workforces that it's a stable industry to come to work in, not one that will experience
layoffs every few years because of contracting budgets and depending on who's in office at the time. i also think that in and of itself the will to fund the military objectives is a deterrent, so one it makes the business world protectable and more efficient. in terms of the systems for proprietary data, if you will, i think companies have addressed that risk in many different ways, but we seem to be able to -- it doesn't reside on a network any longer, but in a safe some where and for now that's what will have to be, but the crown jewels will not be exposed with artful liberal network and systems as far as i can see, so i think that's how most companies are dealing with it right now. >> clearly, as we talked about predictability from the
strategic level through the budget provides stability in the industrial base. if you don't have that, it undermines the industrial base in the ability to come back and do it needs to be done and undermines the will to invest. there are four things we can do with earnings, investing capital we can invest in ir&d or bmp. we can give dividends or buyback stock and we have seen a lot of the latter two and i would argue it's the lack of stability and predict ability or if the function of that. is not the determining factor. lastly, going back to the point of mike made, we in industry of the last 10 years have come to appreciate even more our obligation in the cyber building well was talk about space, but we are part of that battle. we are part of the defense of the structure and we are working very hard and very collaboratively with the intelligence agencies and
defense of the structure to do everything possible to protect those assets. >> let's now open it up to q&a. we have microphones-- at least one here and if questionnaires could identify themselves and try to question. >> my name is stephen perry. how concerned are you about china's self manufactured in april-- naval base in the islands. what if anything can we do about it and how they perhaps defectively-- effectively deterred the west through their strong signaling? >> thank you for the question. i will answer quickly. i think a lot about the islands. i think they have built seven new basis.
i don't think of them as islands anymore, but i think of them as military bases. three have runways of about 10000 feet and we have to now-- i had to now as a military commander think about those bases. i do not think they have deterred us at all. i think those bases are in a conflict scenario they have given us seven additional targets, if you know what, i mean. [laughter] >> as i have said in the past a continuing buildout of chinese capabilities in the south china sea will give them the ability to control the south china sea and over five killing dollars worth of trade that travels through the south china sea including trillion dollars that involves the united states annually and would give them the means of controlling the south china sea against any scenario short of war with the us, which no one wants including us, so we have to continue to work with
china on their and our friends, allies and partners in the region to reassure them so that we continue to build powers and we built a network of like-minded friends at, allies and partners to ensure that we fly, sale and operate wherever and international law allows. >> let's take these four questions together and please keep them brief. >> since we are in california that it would ask you about the iu x and for the officials on the panel have you seen any tangible benefits from this initiative yet and to the members of industry, how do you view this? is a positive things or do you see these commercial coveys having an unfair advantage with this fast-track acquisition tool? >> i was out there a few weeks ago to check on exactly what you just asked, tangible benefits. candidly, it has not been stood
up long and we-- this is not the same-- the musical magic dust on a get magical solutions. they have not been in operation for all that long and i think it's a good idea. i think there are some tweaks to it. i have provided some of that feedback to the department of defense. i think it's a good idea that should be sustained. we need to accentuate and accelerate the application commercial products for the military. there's no question in my mind. the-- let's give them space here and give them running room before we start pulling them out. >> i would only add that anything that sparks innovation and brings the thought to the problems that we are trying to solve, we would welcome. the air space and defense industry does not create a lot of technology. it integrates and applies that technology whether it's automation or whatever it is, so
as the generals that i think it is early days, but stimulating more people to come into the industry can be anything but good. >> hello. sidney friedberg, breaking the fast. both the four stars might have a thought, but particularly for deputy secretary work, you have put a lot of energy into this third offset strategy and i remember you telling me about a year ago that your hope was to set up options for the next administration whoever they were. offer-- options to choose from. at this stage, you know, how comfortable are you that there has been time to set a good options and handed them over to the next administration across what's going to be probably a more turbulent transition and most?
>> thank you and we need to run a two-minute drill, so if we could get the other two questions quickly. >> i'm a student from columbia university. my question is primarily for admiral harris. how realistic and effective do you deep asian equivalent of nato, gtp is that for now, but could the us reasserted itself to leverage the politics? >> there seems to be a growing concern is to consume among american people on an active foreign policy and looking at that resistance among americans russia and iran seem to be exploiting that in their aggression.
would you say this a fair assessments and how should this be resolved? >> secretary work on the transition. >> sidney, look, the third offset you heard the chairman said lunch, this is all about trying to maintain our conventional competitive advantage and whatever you call it, that is what it's all about. what we have now is many many demonstrations leading to the budget. we are talking about a 3 trillion-dollar program, about 600 billion a year times five in a five-year defense plan. 3 trillion-dollar program with about $20 billion late in right now for lots of different demonstrations at the incoming administration can elected to either pursue or not and he goes back to what general lily said, there's an awful lot of things going on right now. we are seating a lot of innovative approaches.
back to jacobs, i will skip over the ttp and asian equivalent of nato and leave that to harry, but i don't think the data shows that the american people are resistant to an activist policy. i think going back to general lily's point because we had to have the debate of america's role in role in the world and i think he american people will take part in the debate and tell us, but i think the data is mixed on whether or not there's any indication that the american people want to become less active. they want to know what we stand for and what we are going to go back to this morning. could we went to deter, how do we want to deter and who'd we would have his allies and who will we protect. all of those questions he to be answered and i know we are running overtime, but let me just say something. sr is deterrence ago, this is what i think the russians and chinese military planners worry
about most, the american soldier , sailor, airman, marine and coast guard. there are-- there is no other military, none, not in the history of our planet that is as innovative as these people and if i was the chinese or russian military planner and i started to crank my little deterministic model and say wow, i think it's time to take on americans, sooner or later the motto will freeze up because some young american is going to say why don't we do it this way and they will whisper something into general billy's ear on general harris' ear and they will say yeah, let's do that because it will ruin their day. [laughter] >> look, i got it tell you-- [applause]. >> i will be quick against her guy went to talk about nato and asia, but i will add what to-- to what the secretary said which
is the other thing is our potential adversaries are worried that we are having this kind of a forum because we are a questioning society. we are requested a nation i can imagine this kind of a venue where you have military, civilian and industry leaders together answering whatever questions come up in the ways that we are trying to do for all of you, so i think that's the other thing that scares them quite a bit. i do not believe we will ever see nato in asia. nato was formed when a single focus threat, the soviet union in those countries that were allied with the soviet union lined up against those that were not and we formed up nato for all the right reasons. in asia, there is not that compelling single focus enemy quote unquote if you will. tried is part and parcel of asia and part of our economic life in america and all that. we will not see, in my opinion,
a nato in asia. we will see lateral frameworks, i call it partnerships with the purpose. we have defending northeast asia and that's a natural trilateral linkage between japan, korea and of the us. there's a countering multilateral-- a violent extremist organizations in southeast and south asia and a natural grouping would be us, malaysia, new zealand, australia , so we should be going after these kinds of naturally forming multilateral organizations to get those events and then we have that exists not as a defense pact, but they are interested in a.d.,
mm plus, regional form, arf into those things, which i think are useful to go after, national crime, counter piracy, kidnapping for ransom and all of those issues that we see in the strait of malacca, so that's how i view multilateral defense structures, if you will and asia. thank you. >> thank you gentlemen. thank you to the reagan foundation and thanks to all of you. [applause].