Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
We're gonna turn now to a Rebecca pirates in Washington she's with The Heritage Foundation.
And she's an expert on Star Wars and -- older fans and all the things that we love to talk about but nobody knows anything about.
Now Rebecca when I was in the Reagan administration.
And drafted the president Reagan's Star Wars speech he at that time and this is thirty years ago he said he wanted to make.
A missile defense system a Star Wars system that would protect America.
From so -- it nuclear weapons and it would render nuclear weapons -- that was thirty years ago.
Where we now.
Well -- we do you have a missile defense system.
In place it is the limit since.
It does protect the United States and our allies against certain kinds of threats.
But it is not the missile defense system that sound you just reference that Ronald -- -- Ronald -- envision.
A missile defense system that would be placed in space which is the best ultimate vantage point for missile defense systems because it allows the United States to knock down missiles.
In their boost phase before they can.
We do however -- -- -- a a good limited missile defense system thanks to George W.
Taking United States out the ABM treaty right after 9/11 and 2000.
I'm with the Russians that we are able to build a limited missile defense system -- is comprised of grounding bass sea based.
-- -- some space based elements that allow the United States to knock down some missiles.
Yeah that's crazy what the problem.
With President Obama -- Alec and missile defenses he is he's not in favor her robust missile defense.
And facts present Obama has proposed to congress a one billion dollar cut.
And missile defense.
Which -- rather than increasing air missile defense capability advancing at making sure that can be all it can be.
It actually slows it down in and and prevents it from being successful and robust as it could be.
Now everybody is assuming you say that because just on Friday I was with the challenge of the -- inches of staff general Dempsey.
And he was talking about looking forward -- kind of military threats.
Is the United States crafting its its policy tourists and he did talk about missile defense and he did talk about the growing threat.
From countries that we never used to have to worry about.
So what you're saying is -- may say that bad then dollar amounts and the numbers indicated that really following through with it is that right.
That's right like anywhere else especially in Washington know.
Policy is proven through funding and if you really want to put your money where your mouth is -- -- this administration should be robustly.
Funding and isn't just a matter of finding either KT is this administration has also.
Showing that it is inclined to share sensitive missile defense technology you with the Russians for the sake of Russia reset which -- a -- initiation is.
Single mindedly pursued.
In my opinion at.
You know act bad that's -- no -- and and so the that but the threats are -- it's even worse -- meant then and now than it was during the Cold War because we don't just have one nuclear power.
To contend with the of the north Koreans now Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weapons and another thing that's different now than it was during the cold war in which -- already was dealing with.
I'm during the Cold War we were operating under mutually assured destruction right which which.
How it's -- to people because I think.
You know we hear that word mad mutually assured destruction.
But nobody's quite sure what it means in this context continue this sort of basically worker's or that bright mutually assured destruction means.
We're going to point nuclear weapons -- you.
You're going to put -- point nuclear weapons at us.
And both of us were counting on one another sanity and self preservation that neither of us we'll launch a nuclear weapon at the other country because it means that they'll be another one coming right back out right.
So that works.
-- in -- during the Cold War but now we have a multi polar world where that's not just two countries to have nuclear weapons.
And we are dealing with countries that were not entirely sure.
I'm operate under the same sort of logic and the idea of self preservation for instance Iran and Ryan might.
Might believe that suicide just like a terrorist attack.
Might be the ultimate and so we're not sure that we can trust the Iranians to to follow -- logic and -- with the north Koreans.
Okay so so the people who write about nuclear weapons theory they say.
We -- -- during the Cold War we kept the peace very successfully by this mutually assured destruction by deterring.
A Russian Soviet attack by containing -- and -- union.
And they say what what he would do the same with the -- what's so bad if Iran gets nuclear weapons will be able to do the same thing with Iran.
That we did with Russia now explain why would you don't think -- that makes a lot of sense.
Iran might have complete.
Different intentions -- the former Soviet Union had or that today's -- house.
Iran has also shown.
I'm a willingness to share missile technology with rogue states with other rogue states -- -- Iran is the world's largest.
A most active state sponsor of terror.
It has shared.
Missile technology and weapons with.
With terrorists in Iraq that kill American soldiers.
And -- we're not sure once Iran has this technology.
Who they might share with and there's also methods of launching nuclear weapons where there wouldn't be a signature -- we wouldn't be able to tell where.
The launch was -- for instance if the Iranians decided to use a proxy.
Group that can launch day nuclear weapon off of the ship many people say that that's unlikely but it's certainly possible.
I'm so they can share this weapons technology.
We don't understand -- the regime might be willing to do this themselves are not but moreover I think that this is incredibly important to understand.
Even if Iran and chooses not to launch a nuclear weapon if they have a nuclear weapons.
Iran will they have gained the ability to -- worst -- to blackmail the United States and that is something that we simply cannot allow.
For -- -- not just missile defense and nuclear proliferation but just look at defense writ large.
The issue is what are those strategic priorities and I say should have what do you think -- the biggest threats.
Facing the United States national security today and in the foreseeable future Rebecca.
Give -- administration has proposed to congress -- 487.
Billion dollar cut the defense budget.
He claims that it's due to.
You know -- resource.
-- limited resource environment is what he calls it.
And and he but he does so in order to find his domestic programs so the defense budget is certainly at risk.
But I think that moving today and in the future we will see that missiles have become.
Other nations air forces in his next cheaper for a nation that doesn't have the same economy is United States.
To threaten the great global powers as the United States with missiles -- and spending a lot of money on air forces and navies.
And so we see the Chinese who has shown a proclivity of sharing technology with the north Koreans and even Chinese entities with Iran.
They're crying of course North Korea.
All of these countries have missiles and and Libya also which we even have missiles missing after.
The invasion in Libya.
So I think missile technologies what the enemies in -- today in the future are going to use.
One more -- -- North Korea North Korea Secretary Gates then Secretary Gates -- back in June announced that North Korea might now have.
They -- mobile ICBM capability.
What that means is that.
It would be much harder for US intelligence.
Capabilities to -- when the north Chris might be what ready to launch.
A and an ICBM.
It also means that they be able to do it much more quickly so the north Koreans are investing heavily in missile technology.
-- as some -- missile systems like pretty.
Pretty similar to China's missile systems which is is of great concern.
So I think in the areas that missile defense.
In the area of nuclear modernization.
This administration promised the senate that he would adequately.
Find nuclear modernization -- he wants to limit the number of nuclear weapons the United States has an arsenal.
He failed that promise he did not adequately -- nuclear modernization and this defense budget.
And CC the United States -- by nuclear arsenal after seeing.
Why the rest of the world works on their nuclear weapons and becomes that much more dangerous and -- that much greater threat to United States.
And then finally Rebecca -- can talk for a few minutes about.
The out of the president's he has a vision that he wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons now.
He's -- the first president to have that vision is certainly not the first world leader is out the first.
Citizen of the world who wants to get rid of nuclear weapons.
But the president has talked -- are reducing the nuclear arsenal unilaterally.
Chip in a very significant way what are the ramifications.
Of -- That president desires to get rid of the world's nuclear weapons but he realizes that the only nuclear weapons that he actually has control of our American nuclear weapons so those -- the missiles that he is trying to rid the world of on -- incredibly dangerous because right now the United States doesn't just use missile doesn't just use nuclear weapons to deter.
Adversaries for attacking United States or American troops.
We also use our nuclear arsenal to deter aggression against our allies.
So the United States has a much larger responsibility in which we use our nuclear arsenal four and up until this point it has worked very well.
An arms race and a nuclear proliferation.
That we haven't seen.
And moderate and modern years because you're going to have countries that depend on American nuclear weapons.
Have sworn I think -- weapons now rush to get them mainly Saudi Arabia.
Japan and these other countries that that are depending on United States out.
In this president's single minded pursuit of appeasing Russia -- the world.
Down into global zero and he could actually.
How have the opposite effect and we will see much more rampant proliferation and we've ever seen before -- Iowa Rebecca pirates from The Heritage Foundation joining us from Washington.
Thank you so much thank you.
Filter by section