King Warns: ‘We’re Going To Live In A World In Which There Are Three Largescale Nuclear Powers’

Forbes Breaking News

Earlier this month, Sen. Angus King (I-ME) questioned military officials on the   continued danger of nuclear power during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.  Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:  https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript   Stay Connected Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes More From Forbes:  http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you began your testimony talking about the Nunn-McCurdy

00:12process and Sentinel. A very expensive program designed years ago. Make the case for the

00:20ground-based leg of the triad.

00:24I should mention that I am recused on Sentinel itself, but I can definitely answer your question

00:28about the ground-based leg. For as long as I have been in this business, about 50 years,

00:35the country has relied upon the triad for nuclear strategic deterrence. It presents

00:40an adversary with a very difficult problem if it is contemplating an attack against the

00:44United States. The ICB leg in particular, which is our largest and most responsive leg

00:50of the triad, presents a dilemma because if it is attacked, it basically can be very responsive

00:58and respond immediately with a large-scale counterattack. The submarine part of the

01:02fleet provides a more secure reserve, if you will, that is smaller in size but more

01:08survivable. And then, of course, the bomber leg provides additional flexibility and the

01:13ability to present an adversary with another way in which they can be attacked. That triumvirate,

01:19that triad has been enormously effective at preventing a nuclear war for more than half

01:24a century, almost approaching a century now. At one point, I think you could have had a

01:30debate when the only nuclear powers were Russia and the United States, and our arsenals were

01:36declining, that we could have gone to some other arrangement. But the thing that has

01:40happened in the last few years that really reinforces the need for the ICBM leg is China's

01:45breakout and their expansion of their nuclear force, which is still in progress.

01:51China is making huge investments in a land-based...

01:53China is making a large investment, and they're going to an inventory within the next few

01:57years that is comparable to that of the United States and Russia. So for the first time in

02:01our history, we're going to live in a world in which there are three large-scale nuclear

02:05powers. That's a very dangerous world, and I think reducing our capability, reducing

02:10our options in the face of that would be a serious mistake.

02:13And, of course, the fundamental of our entire defense policy is deterrence.

02:17Exactly.

02:18In order to maintain deterrence, the ground leg is an important factor. Thank you.

02:27When we buy a major weapon system, B-21, F-35, do we acquire the IP? And what I'm leading

02:33to here is the ability of our military to 3D print parts so that we're not subject to

02:41a long supply chain delays and also potentially additional costs. Do we have the... I believe

02:49that every hangar should have a 3D printer, and every Navy ship should have a 3D printer

02:55so that we're not tied to that long tail of parts. What's the status of our acquisition

03:02of the IP so that that can be effectuated?

03:06Our history is mixed on IP acquisition. The F-35 is a good example of a program where

03:12we didn't do that. It was acquired initially under a philosophy of total system procurement,

03:19which essentially left in the hands of the prime contractor a lot of control of the program.

03:24Makes it very hard to upgrade. It makes it very hard to make changes and do them in a

03:28cost-effective way and to take advantage of competition.

03:32Our more modern programs generally are built where we acquire the intellectual property

03:37we need to control both upgrades and maintenance so that we have a lot more flexibility in

03:42how we manage. The B-21 is being done that way. The NGAD program is being done that way.

03:51It's one of the lessons we've learned very painfully over our history in acquisition.

03:56I'm not sure that we always get it right today, but I'm not doing acquisition anymore. I'm

04:00in a different role now. My guidance when I was doing that was that when we still have

04:05the benefits of competition, we need to get the intellectual property rights we're going

04:09to need for the life of the program. We can get reasonable prices for those rights at

04:14that time and then be in a position to manage the program effectively going forward. That's

04:18the way we should be doing this. I can't say that we do it in every case.

04:22Thank you. General Salzman, we may need to talk about this in a classified setting, but

04:28you use the term denying the benefits of attacks in space. Secretary Kendall used counter space.

04:34Clearly, we're playing catch up in this situation. Is there anything you can say in the open

04:41setting to provide some reassurance that we're not totally vulnerable in space right now?

04:46Yes, Senator. Thank you for that. The FY25 budget, I think, continues to advance us on

04:51a pretty solid timeline for adding resilient architectures to the critical missions like

04:59missile warning, satellite communications, data transport. I'm pretty comfortable with

05:04where we're headed in terms of denying the benefits of an attack on our systems to some

05:09degree. The problem, again, as the Secretary mentioned, was the fact that the PRC, in particular,

05:15has built a very robust space enabled targeting system. It continued to do so at a very rapid

05:21rate. Scaling up to develop not just the type of counter space capabilities that we need,

05:26but the quantity of those capabilities to hold those targets at risk is where we're

05:30falling behind on the timeline. We're not just moving as quickly as I think we should.

05:35Thank you. General Alvin, I'm going to submit this question for the record, but I would

05:38like some thoughts from you about the transition assistance program and how it's being implemented

05:43in the Air Force. I worry about the transition process from active duty to veteran status.

05:49It's a very dangerous moment, so you don't need to respond now, but I look forward to

05:54your response on that question. Thank you, Mr. General.

05:57Thank you, Senator King. Senator Tuberville, please.

05:59Good morning, gentlemen. General Saltzman, FYI, President's FYI 25 budget contains a

06:05new program for space access, mobility, and logistics.

Category

Transcript

Recommended