(00:00:00) Before I start I'd like to know a little bit about all of you by the way, and I have to go back to my space program and background just a little bit. And since I know you're a diverse crowd, I'm going to ask you to just kind of raise your hand and let me just get a little feel for how you feel about some of the issues of our day. And of course, I really can't let go of the Space Program because the shuttle itself was one of the most exciting and rewarding Endeavors that I could have ever been associated with and it was a great privilege for a military officer to be loaned to NASA to run a portion of their program and to be associated with that and some of the fine companies in this area the as a result of that. Of course, the space program has been around now for some time. Let's kind of go back to Apollo and just a little bit. Let me just ask you how many of you think that Apollo was an exciting program worth doing and a demonstrated the technical muscle of the United States. You know, how many feel good about that? Good? Okay. How about the shuttle program? How many of you would say the same things about the shuttle program that that was worthwhile and it demonstrated what we can really do, you know, the president has announced a commitment for The Logical next step in the Civil side of our space program and that's to build a space station and that space station is is going to really be a community of objects in space and it's a permanent presence for man for many civil uses now for repair of satellites. And for scientific Endeavors and Commercial programs a whole series of things now, I won't ask you to make a judgment about whether or not we ought to do that. But how many of you think we can do it and we can do it within the decade or so that the president laid out for NASA is a challenge how many feel that (00:02:04) way? (00:02:06) Okay. What I what I see here are a group of people who do believe in the technology of this country and what we can do. Let me ask one more question. (00:02:20) How many of you (00:02:20) believe that we should continue to sit with the Soviet Union in such a way that we are each holding a gun at each other's (00:02:31) head (00:02:33) and continue that way into the indefinite future. How many raise at hand? one whew? Okay, so I can see that part of our policy unit of discussion will be the policy of mutually assured destruction at some point. I don't and I believe the majority of Americans don't and I suspect that most of us perhaps every one of us could indeed believe that a common objective that we must have somehow if our nation and culture are going to survive if our allies and our Western way of life are going to survive with us and maybe even if the human race is going to survive is an alternative to the kind of balance of Terror that we're now operating in well, that's what this program is about. And and all too often. It's been described in the terms that were first really a used in the press to describe it and the more exotic sides. I call it the Star Wars and that may be fun and it may apply to a movie but this is quite real and it is not indeed something that is only in space. And as I go through this, I'll try to point out the differences between Star Wars and what it really is it is the president's Strategic Defense Initiative with a very different objective than what we've talked (00:04:13) about (00:04:16) on the 23rd of March what the president really said, although it's been twisted and used in many different ways. Is that he was looking for a vision of the future? Which offers hope? And as a result of this he directed a comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long term research and development program. Now, that's all that is approved at this point. To begin to achieve and here was the objective the goal of eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles nuclear missiles are clearly our most destabilizing our most dangerous threat the one that 20 years ago. We we investigated we flirted with the idea that we might as well be able to protect ourselves and gave up one and the case today is that we believe that is worthwhile revisiting that technology, but it is not merely a technology program. (00:05:26) It (00:05:26) is also a program to investigate at the same time that we are looking at the technology seeing what those alternatives are. It is a program to investigate the Strategic the political the advantages that this capability may offer us as we go forward into an uncertain world in the future and clearly one that if the present Trends continue is going to be a more dangerous type of world. So what do you offered was a vision of the future and when he took into consideration at that point was the continual growing Soviet offensive threat as well as the ongoing research and development program of the Soviet Union into defensive systems. And therefore we focused on a very broad based technology and policy (00:06:25) program. Why (00:06:28) so that a future president or a future Congress would have an option and alternative to sitting here defenseless? Which is where we are right now, we could not stop even one nuclear ballistic missile. That was inbound. Only the Soviet Union could do that and they can only do it if it seemed close to Moscow. But since we can't stop anything. the president felt that somewhere in the future we must have some new options so that that future Administration and future Congress could have the ability to design build and if they chose to deploy a defensive system I like to call a strategic defensive initiative a strategy of Hope and I'll try to give you a brief progress report and then open it up for questions. Now. I know that this has been discussed in many forms, including the the conventions and I'm sure it'll be in the Republican Convention as well as the Democratic certainly in the press and I believe what's happened is that the controversy itself has all too often focused on the extreme sides of the question and I think the importance is to try to understand what the program is how it could go ahead and what it could really offer as we go ahead. At the outset I acknowledge that the US media has presented both the great hope and the optimism that the program represents as well as the doubt and skepticism and that's expressed by a relatively small but important segment of our (00:08:17) society. (00:08:20) Security has clearly been one of our deepest aspirations. It is the fundamental thing that government provides and the Strategic Defense Initiative initiative is an attempt to be able to eventually protect our people from a ballistic missile attack and that clearly reinforces that fundamental aspiration. So our immediate objective is to conduct research and development and it's very Broad and the intent is to see can we find a way to destroy a ballistic missile or many ballistic missiles in flight? Shortly after their launch up in space while are coasting many hundreds of miles above the Earth and before they hit their target whatever their target might be. The Technologies and the method of and which were looking at it could protect both our people and our strategic forces and that by the way is an area of (00:09:27) controversy. (00:09:29) We are focusing on ballistic missiles of all ranges, including tactical and theater ranges because those are the threats in Europe primarily including submarine-launched ballistic missiles because those are probably the most terrible of all in facing our country today. In fact if you were the president in the White House You would have a little man following you around at all times with the codes for our nuclear strike forces. And if a submarine sitting only a few hundred miles off our coast and they're always our submarine sitting just a few hundred miles off our Coast for any reason launched even only one nuclear ballistic missile. You would have six minutes to decide and this is what your decision options might be one. Do I wait do I let that missile destroyer New York or Washington or attack our ballistic missile field? And do nothing. Do I set up my bombers and send them out to a point where they will orbit and wait for Anna Anna decision to attack or do I try to demonstrate that we are not going to tolerate the destruction of our cities one by one. And is the best thing to fire a missile back and in that process perhaps open up this beginning escalating exchange that could indeed be the end of humanity itself. Because we cannot stop even one at this point in (00:11:12) time. (00:11:16) We believe that the Technologies of today are different than 20 years ago and they are promising enough that with continued effort with a statement of resolved by our people that a future Administration and Congress will have that very real option to design and build and if it chooses deploy those defensive systems. So then the question that should be asked today and in the future as the research progresses is how can a future defensive system contribute to our national security objective. How can it contribute to deterrence of War? We believe that effective defenses will remove first the aura of invincibility of this huge arsenal of nuclear missiles that the Soviet Union has amassed. And by the way, we have an equal Arsenal right now. It's on the order of 10,000 Warhead that are aimed at the United States and our (00:12:23) allies and we have (00:12:26) slightly fewer than that with much less Mega tonnage or destructive power. In fact about one-sixth of the destructive power aimed at the Soviet Union. Doesn't matter it's enough to destroy both countries and maybe wipe out life on Earth. But it goes further than that as defenses could be built up what happens then is that those nuclear missiles take on less military value a Soviet planner who would be relying on a missile to wipe out or several missiles to wipe out our Minuteman field or maybe rmx missiles in the future or maybe our bomber forces so that we could not strike back. And because we couldn't Strike Back Then he could move forward towards a European objective towards a middle eastern objective or whatever objective that he wants. By taking away that military value and that is the sovereignty Doctrine. They have most of those missiles aimed at our military targets and a few aimed at our cities. They have never embraced the idea of mutual dussard assured destruction. In fact, I think the way mr. Gromyko put it in 1962 before the United Nations is to rely on the concept of mutual assured destruction is madness. It means that the world will be forever on the eve of Terror. And clearly that was his statement and their military Doctrine supported that ever since that point in time. I believe they believe that and what we can put together is that they're their philosophy of using a nuclear battle is that first of all, they don't want such a thing either they want the security of Mother Russia just like we want the security of our people. However, what they do believe is that if for any reason an escalation moved up move forward to the point, (00:14:51) That (00:14:52) they needed to use them. They would use them in a preemptive strike. Because they feel that we would be confused that we have built a second strike force that we would absorb at least a portion of that blow and in absorbing that part of our military capability would be reduced and secondly, they would be in then in a better position to Blackmail whatever their objective might be. Therefore that is fundamentally their Doctrine. So if we can remove the military value of a nuclear missile Then it is less valuable in their Arsenal and offers us a new opportunity in Arms Control. When something is less valuable you're willing to trade it off particularly. If the most important objective of your Society is beginning to be assured by the fact that you have defenses and we have defenses both sides that are beginning to provide some Assurance better assurance that your Society will indeed survive. And while there are many different objectives of Soviet planners and Soviet political means and Soviet military objectives. There are many that are clearly in opposition of ours at least the one area that we share with them is that we do want to keep our populations in our society safe. and in any negotiation You do two things you try to build on the common objective whether it's a contract that you're negotiating between a company and a customer or you try to use whatever leverage you have to move them towards your objective and we have been fortunate already with this program to begin to do that. The Soviets would not talk to us in many respects about reducing their nuclear Arsenal on June 10th. We hit a bullet with a bullet for the first time as part of this program and army research effort of a long-standing went up and at greater than 15,000 miles an hour closing velocity and a non nuclear warhead. We impacted and destroyed we hit it head on and just disintegrated a warhead which was a simulated Russian Warhead. That had been shot out of Vandenberg Air Force Base and intercepted. It's over 6,000 miles away away a few hundred miles out of kwajalein. We destroyed that and we proved at least that the faith in our technology is well founded and the next day Jericho's came back in a very strong way and said, let's begin to negotiate in these areas and the president said fine, but I'd also like to talk about reducing offensive (00:18:05) forces. No, there were some (00:18:09) how than that negotiation is going to go. I don't know. I'm not the negotiation strategist the president is but even at this early stage there are leverages and ideas because the Russians are afraid of our technology might in this country and they should be because this might is the might of Free People creative people and technology is and this is a lesson I learned from NASA and from my earlier experience technology is not a bunch of equations on a (00:18:41) Blackboard or or (00:18:44) computers in a big room technology is (00:18:47) people who (00:18:50) are unafraid to tackle an objective. They organize to go get that objective and they make it happen. If you look inside NASA where we build a space shuttle you see a few computers, but mostly you see people people working together. And that's what technology is in this country. (00:19:07) And if we have an advantage being a creative Free People (00:19:12) boy that's got to be it and we better use it for a peaceful objective For All Mankind now people at object to this think we ought to have the same kind of objective. Let's reduce the forces, but what they're saying is Why don't we just negotiated down? Well, why don't we we've been trying to do it for 20 years. And in those 20 years. All that's happened. Is that the Soviet Arsenal has built up and up and up in a steady way because we haven't had any Leverage. To begin to reduce it down. There's another group which says well, let's freeze it and we freeze it with a terrible (00:19:52) imbalance (00:19:54) and I don't know which of all of these things are right, but I do know that the Strategic Defense of initiative as we begin to demonstrate the technical capability will reduce the value of nuclear ballistic missiles in a planner is mind a Soviet planners mind. (00:20:14) It will give us (00:20:16) leverage as we go ahead. It will provide us opportunities wonderful opportunities, I think for arms control if we maintain a Communications Channel and if the program goes forward in such a way that we are determined to use those opportunities for arms (00:20:36) control. (00:20:38) Now I testified that or to that in the Congress and it was misinterpreted and somebody is handing out some things by New York columnist that that that repeats that misinterpretation and the misinterpretation that the columnist made was that I thought that the only way this could work was if we negotiate Arms Control agreements, in other words, the technology could only work if we negotiate the problem away and that is not what I said, and that is certainly not what I meant. What I really believe is that the technology can work. It can work against even terrible threatening scenarios that are much worse than what we're faced with today. And because it can work it will give us an opportunity to negotiate some of these things away. It's just the opposite of the way that was interpreted not like to get that kind of straightened out. So what is the program it's a program to build what we call a layered defense, but it is not a program to proceed with that. It is a program to investigate how one would use satellites to be able to see ballistic missiles and warheads and track those very very carefully in space. Not just a few but tens of thousands of them and that's what we're (00:22:05) faced with (00:22:08) that's advanced technology but it is within our grasp one of your several of your computer companies. I mean not say one but several of your computer companies based right here in Minneapolis are leading the world in what we call class 6 computers and that is one of the emerging technologies that is so attractive and begins to turn the equation around from 20 years ago. There are sensors that we can put in space that will allow us to be able to see and discriminate these kinds of things. So that one could Target them. Then the other portion of the program is to build a weapons to destroy the missiles as they rise off the pad where you don't know if they are aimed at Moscow or if they're aimed at London or New York or at one of our missile fields or one of our aircrafts fields or wherever you don't know if you destroyed on the pad that's one less missile missile that will land with its 10 or 14 Warheads against some Target in the United State put up nets of ways so that you take a few out when they come up off the pad a few more as they come further into space few more as they began to re-enter and if and hopefully the few left at the very end just as they re-enter. The atmosphere you're making the problem the kind of a problem that you can take and bite off a little bit at a (00:23:40) time. (00:23:42) So that's the architecture but the job for research is to first of all find technically feasible ways of doing that. Secondly to find ways to ensure that the costs are reasonable that the costs are effective that the such a system and it's a system of systems would be affordable because it's no good to proceed on something that has got this balloon out there that such a huge cost that it's fiction fictional. So my responsibility is to examine the research when we find something that is feasible. Also ensure that there are ways that will promise to that it can be done in in a reasonable cost environment and thirdly and this is perhaps the most important criteria of all to continue to examine the opportunities the strategies the politics of what this technology may offer so that we can take advantage in a stabilized way. And at each step at each partial deployment of such a system again, that's way in the future that we would reduce the level of risk. It is now. Let me tell you what it's not it is not a program to (00:25:11) today (00:25:12) as a Manhattan Project build a system. We could build a system today, but it would only be partially effective because the Soviets would know that it is only partially effective. They would just build a few more missiles and try to overcome it and probably be able to but if they see that the system were building is one that will continue to improve over decades and it will always get better. And it is Affordable and that there is the national resolve to do it. Then they will not just have to Simply build a few more offensive missiles. In fact, what they will do in my judgment is that they'll put RuPaul's into their defenses because after all they have done that traditionally ever since the days of the czar's the Soviet Union has been a defensively oriented Society their military has been defensively oriented and it served them well in several stands right at right at Moscow (00:26:17) itself. (00:26:19) They today have the only (00:26:23) operating (00:26:24) ballistic anti-ballistic missile system. It's the ring around Moscow. It's approved by the ABM Treaty. We allowed ours to disappear they didn't and they have nearly 20 years of experience with this and they are upgrading it in a dramatic way today. They are also in a position with this experience and with some of the Radars that they are building in different places around the country so that if they wished they could quickly break out of the ABM Treaty what they have now is not a major threat to our strategy of deterrence. But if they broke out in broadly deployed this over all of their targets in the Soviet Union, then it becomes more of a problem. It might then put them in a position that they would say we can defend enough of our country that we met. engage in some adventurism They also have proceeded under the terms of the treaty just as we are now proposing to do with a very Advanced effort in directed energy weapons in lasers in neutral particle beams, and we know that we know that they have been working on it longer and harder than we (00:27:46) have which is a shame. (00:27:50) We don't know how effective they've been because that's very hard to see they have not tested it against a ballistic missile for example, but we do know that they have test ranges and they've tested them against many Targets on the ground. So they are proceeding. And the question is not should we start a race? It's already started. It's will we unilaterally? Break out of the race and (00:28:19) hope that somehow that they'll stop. So (00:28:24) that's what the system is and is not a research and Technology Program. I am specifically directed to assure ourselves that and I have independent people that come and check our planning to say is this legally within the ABM Treaty both the spirit and the intent and the ABM Treaty while it precludes the deployment and even the testing of an ABM system that might be based in space because no one could ever see or tell if the Soviet Union or we were proceeding with the research and Technology. It does not stop us. In fact, it recognizes that one would do laboratory types of research. That would one would do test demonstrations on the ground. Now the Army shot where we impacted that ballistic missile is different in one other respect. We could make a decision to develop that that would take several years from where the status of maturity that is now. Not too many and we could make a decision to deploy it and still do that. So long as we put it up in the north run in North Dakota (00:29:39) or around (00:29:40) Washington within the terms of the ABM Treaty. So that that that is our one Avenue within the treaty to deploy that kind of a system or to do research and that is a very strict found in the way. We are proceeding now, let me not give a wrong impression at some day in the future if this begins to pay off their maybe portions of the system that we would want to proceed with and in that case that future president or future Congress would need to reopen the ABM Treaty and those discussions with the Soviet Union and interestingly enough. The ABM Treaty has an option which (00:30:22) says it is real pinnacle. (00:30:26) Doesn't encourage it, but it says it is re openable. So we are not departing from any of our treaty obligations. That's the way we try to do business in this country. Well, I'll say one more thing and it's not just to try to end on perhaps a little lighter note. I understand that your Governor has declared a war on mosquitoes. This is not a system that one for one can go out there and knock off every mosquito that may be technically impossible in this country. I hope for your sake said it's not with that. I would like to I'm sure that I'm stimulated a lot of pros and con kind of questions and I'd like to open (00:31:11) and ask you for your question. (00:31:14) Thank you (00:31:24) with the Minneapolis Star Tribune. I'm wondering as these missiles were to leave the launching pad if we had a laser or some other device that that physically knocked it out. What would happen to the nuclear device in that would that in effect? radiation (00:31:45) that's a good question and it and it does emphasize. I think a very important part of this people are worried that is this kind of like more nuclear missiles. Are we really adding to the to the nuclear store and nuclear threat total? We are trying to build non-nuclear systems. Now a laser, you know, it sounds impressive and when you look at Luke Skywalker and all of those things boy that is really potent. Is that a weapon of mass destruction a laser just happens to be a very pinpointed way to put energy against a certain Target if it were directed against a liquid filled booster booster you would quickly burn a hole in that booster the fuel would dump out it would explode and I believe that the re-entry vehicle which was designed to come through and credible heating as it comes back into the atmosphere would just dump off and it would probably not yet be armed and therefore nothing would happen when it hits the ground it is possible if it hits the ground hard that it would break up and there may be some very very low level of radiation. Depending on the amount of nuclear material that's in that particular device. I wouldn't expect it would be any more than the Soviets had a nuclear-powered satellite that part of it came apart and dumped one of their their things into Canada and there was a very low level of radiation and certainly that's bad but it is not a strike by thousands of warheads going off. It's just a low level of radiation. The amount of energy that a laser beam might Place against a missile is kind of like a hand grenade. It is not a weapon of mass destruction. In fact, one of the kinds of lasers that were looking at is something called a neutral neutral particle beam and that can only work in space even though it may be very very powerful eventually. And by the way, we are operating one now down at Los Alamos at very low power levels on the ground, but but it it can't even hurt anybody on the ground because it dissipates its energy in the top of the atmosphere. Just create a little more ozone for a period of time. That's (00:34:19) all next. Yeah, I just wanted to raise a few questions about (00:34:27) since there are quite a few people. How about one question how much to two (00:34:30) points of skepticism about the air system you're familiar. I think with the office of Technology assessments assessment of Star Wars recently and and I just want I think people ought to be aware of of that. They make a distinction between defense of the missiles of our missiles and defensive people and they're very skeptical about any of the ideas. This is Congress is office of Technology assessment that released a report in April. They're very skeptical of any of the technologies that are being looked at the the lasers the neutral particle beams and so forth that would try to stop the (00:35:20) missiles in their boost (00:35:21) phase as they're taking Off (00:35:24) in particular for example in the case of the neutral particle beams that you just mentioned. (00:35:29) They they find that it would be easy to counter measure that system for the reason that you just mentioned that they'll neutral (00:35:38) particle beams will only function in space. No to a particle beam would not be used in the Boost phase in the (00:35:43) atmosphere, right? Okay, it's not just and that's one of the system's that's been mentioned the lasers what I'd like to ask you is what of the of the systems that would be active in the Boost phase. Do you consider the most promising at this point? That's the first question and because though ta suggested that none of them look at all promising and the second point of skepticism I have (00:36:07) has to do with this notion that were just (00:36:09) going to do our D. Now. It's not going to cost that much money and we'll go step by step to see whether we would we spend money. We're planning to spend a billion and a half or so next year. Is that right? That's not small change. And and I think it's significant (00:36:26) more than that what it's much more than that. It's more than that next year. It's a 1.5 billion over five years. It's probably on the order of twenty six billion, (00:36:35) right? And that's what we're planning on on now and some people have suggested that this system is going to cost on the order of several hundreds of billions of dollars. If we really did it. Seriously. Do you agree with that? I (00:36:46) don't know what the final outcome is because I don't know which of these systems we might finally employ. It's clear that it will be expensive whether or not it will exceed over a period of a couple of decades the kinds of investment that we put into our offensive systems. When you add up the Trident submarine and the missile developments that go with that the B-1 bomber the the other kinds of bombers that we've invested in our missiles are amendments and RNR mx's I personally believe that while it's important now to Our offensive forces because we are so badly behind that and because one cannot employ this for some time that in the future what will happen there will be just a switch and as the Technologies begin to show that they have Merit we will begin to say we won't build a and MX2 or won't build a trident to kind of Submarine instead. We'll do this which is (00:37:51) non-threatening what I think the the MX what you mentioned is a good example of what what many of us fear is that's a system that got started at low cost (00:38:04) developed never was Loco (00:38:06) Craddock constituency. (00:38:08) And so for never was low cost one never was low cost. (00:38:12) So yeah, but but but it has been very hard to stop now that we found that the that that we can't move it around. It can't it can't function is initially Envisioned (00:38:24) we're still going to build it because of (00:38:25) the kind of inertia that's developed behind it. And a lot (00:38:28) no afraid of it is we are not going to build it because of the inertia behind it. We are going to build it because the Soviet Union is facing us with thousands and thousands of missiles that are much threat that one cannot deal with and those missiles are aimed with two or three Warheads at every one of our Minuteman missiles. And we believe that they now have the capability so that when they look out at our missile Fields, they believe that only a few of those missiles could be launched which then creates a very dangerous situation because deterrence is a psychology between two sides and that psychology if they believe that they can eliminate that threat then that's like psychology's considerably loan lowered and that's (00:39:20) dangerous, but that's my point that the MX was originally envisioned as being different from the Minuteman but when the residents of Utah and Nevada put political pressure on the system, it was not deployed in the remote originally (00:39:35) envisioned. Okay. I'm loaded. Let me rather than have a single debate with you. I'll let me answer your initial question about the oh ta and then I'd like to ask if anybody else would okay. I think that's fair. It's clear what you're asking. And by the way, some of the things that you are asking our appropriate concerns the OT a study was a survey report by dr. Ashton Carter of MIT fairly renowned young physicist. He did have access to quite a few of the things but he made some rather dramatic mistakes and he also in my judgment approached it with the answer and then tried to justify that answer we have now and I'll give you one example and it won't mean a lot to you. But I'd like you to be aware of it the he Made a series of calculations of how lasers would be employed and he tried to build it in the worst case and I don't know if he if he did this on purpose or not. But he said we'd have to put up 2400 satellites in order to put a lasers and cover the Soviet Union. We don't consider that those assumptions are reasonable assumptions and as the calculations that we have made and mine may not be perfect either but it's not 2400. It's like a hundred (00:40:51) now, (00:40:53) you may say well I'll believe Ashton Carter Ashton Carter's agree with a set of calculations made by dr. Richard Garwin of the Union of concerned scientists who also initially calculated 2400 and in testimony with me, dr. Garwin said I made a mistake it is significantly less. We are now arguing about how much Liz (00:41:17) they have you comment on the following statement. According to a group of prominent American scientists including hence beta Nobel Laureate in physics and a key architect of the atomic bomb quote. There is no realistic. Hope of developing defensive weapons that could protect the American people from overwhelming destruction in the event of nuclear war in the face of a determined Soviet effort to counter it virtually any method the u.s. Might devise to shoot down incoming Soviet missiles Not only would cost billions, but the could be offset easily by Soviet countermeasures. Isn't that the problem General no matter what kind of defensive system we build the Soviets much more cheaply can build thousands and thousands and of the additional nuclear warheads to overcome that system. (00:42:02) You have your finger and and dr. Beta of course does as well on the key issue associated with the program and one of the most important areas of research is the Dual question of lethality and vulnerability. We will be firing a very large laser what's called a 2 Mega watt laser, very large one within just a week or so down at the White Sands Missile Range that laser exists. Now it has fired in the past too. But we moved it there where we can do some of this lethality testing part of the research is to investigate are there are simple ways that this can be countered and I will say that yes, we have to have an ongoing effort because it is clear just like in airplanes that and just like in tanks and just like in every other thing that the enemy will continue to try to find ways to counter measure that device that is why it is important to have a system that is not simply one attack mode. But as a combination of attack modes now if I were doctor hands beta and In World War 1 and looking up at the airplane at this little frail thing of like a kite with baling wire and and with canvas painted red. So anybody can see it I would say boy that hasn't gotten much future in Warfare. Look at this this machine gun that can knock that thing down and absolutely destroy it and it is true. And even today one airplane. All by itself is in fact highly vulnerable. However, a mutually supporting formation with Advanced weapons with maneuvering capability make them a very formidable weapon of War now where I disagree with dr. Beta is that yes, we must have to investigate that but he has come to the conclusion already that it's like perhaps the laws of Perpetual Motion that offense. Can always overcome a defense? I don't consider that that's a natural law of Nature. And I think that there are in fact ways to deal with that and unfortunately that will be some of the areas that we have to protect most closely but nonetheless you will begin to see some of the results of that investigation and like this young man indicated some of the efforts that we are envisioning won't work out. There's it's clear. Some of them won't and it'll be my responsibility along as others who will be part of the program to say look that particular system isn't going to work therefore. Let's try something else (00:45:04) General. There's one other problem that Edward Teller has addressed namely the problem of any kind of system that's placed in space is extraordinarily expensive to place in space, but it's very easy and very cheap to shoot down other words if we put space mines up or if the Soviets Space mines up those space mines in turn would destroy any kind of space-based anti-ballistic missile sub system and those space mines are much cheaper than any space based system. We could put up. (00:45:31) Well, let's see, you know, what is a space mine? That's first kind of thing that you have to deal with the space. Mine is something that kind of comes up gets put in an orbit nearby to another another satellite. It has to be able to figure out where that satellite is. So it has to have a sensor system and be able to have maneuvering power if our satellite can maneuver just a little bit then it has to be able to maneuver pretty soon. They become quite expensive and one more time. What's happening in this whole argument and this is what I think is the is the fair point and the point that I would hope that I could convince people is that there are not these simple (00:46:11) answers. There are (00:46:14) surely that is something that has to be considered that kind of a countermeasure just like other kinds of countermeasures and that's why I say there will be a continuing investment to demonstrate that those kinds of systems can be countered. There are ideas about how some of them can be countered. Some of those will work. Some won't work. But the point is are we going to decide now without even beginning to invest in this possibility this hope based on dr. Hans (00:46:49) beta And his (00:46:52) opinion while it's very impressive opinion and important opinion his individual opinion. Let me quote. It's why we want to quote a few people here. Let me quote. Dr. Vannevar Bush those of you some of you served in World War Two, you know, the doctor vannevar Bush was the scientific architect of our entire war effort in 1945. Yeah, there were people at were proposing the ballistic missile as a concept and he testified in Congress and said There's a been a great deal said about a 3,000 mile high angle rocket in my opinion. Such a thing is impossible for many years. The people have been writing these things annoy me. They've been talking about a 3,000 mile rocket shot from one continent to another carrying an atomic bomb and so directed has to be a precise weapon which could land exactly on a certain Target such as a city. I say technically I don't think anyone in the world knows how so to do such a thing and I feel confident that it will not be done for a very long period of time to come and we filled it a system to do precisely that 10 years (00:47:56) later. General I'm Paul Ross from a local group called Grassroots action for a strong secure America and one of the things that intrigues men bothers me to some extent is of all the technical analysis of the technical naysayers of defensive strategies and Technologies. They seem to focus on the theme that the only opportune time to attack a missile is in boost phase or in re-entry phase. Isn't it? True that a missile such as a Merv design with a complicated aiming mechanism in the bus is also very vulnerable after boost phase 4 post was guidance and an x-ray laser such as the Excalibur device would be quite effective against it if indeed Excalibur works. Okay, did he use (00:48:52) some technical terms that might bother people (00:48:57) there are some (00:48:59) some technical Concepts which can be applied at different phases. And of course that's again why this program is an expensive research and Technology investigation of many of these Concepts. As I said, some will work. Some will not there is a big advantage in the Boost phase and that's one important difference between now and twenty years ago 20 years ago. The only technology we thought that could be applied to intercepting a ballistic missile was a terminal technology one at the very end. So we put this system up in North Dakota and it waited till the very end and it shot up this in very very fast rocket and it put turned loose in atomic bomb as its destruction mechanism and here we are setting off nuclear. arms over our own country and that didn't make very good sense to me and and and there were a lot of technical things that didn't seem to apply and so if we only pursued that kind of a terminal system, I think that this wouldn't be too practical but if we can attack it at each point on the way and the most efficient but by the way, one of the most difficult ways and it clearly is is to get out there before the rocket has spun off 10 or perhaps (00:50:24) 14 nuclear warhead, (00:50:27) and before the rocket has put out a cloud of perhaps 60 or 80 decoys that then make your problem harder or put out other kinds of devices which make it harder (00:50:39) so (00:50:41) The technology which we don't know is going to be cost effective. But we think could be could be possible could be technically feasible to reach out to that phase is very (00:50:53) important. (00:50:56) And and that's why I think many of the people on the opposite the skeptical side rightfully raise questions about how do you reach out in that (00:51:05) area? Yeah, (00:51:10) I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that there it is a legitimate area of (00:51:15) skepticism. That's all. General would you give us a short synopsis of really where you think the pentagon's headed and maybe all the different Armed Forces with submarines as being our best method of coverage or mxr stealth bomber (00:51:37) in other words. What's your general (00:51:38) opinion of where we ought to be spending our dollars? I think the majority of folks here are secure mind and all that stuff and they want to share want to (00:51:49) secure country. But we see (00:51:51) all these dollars being spent and while I'm conservative physically I am concerned for that too. And we hear about billions and billions of being spent on redundant projects are one count another because the Armed Forces themselves haven't got together and decided on a particular program. Just kind of wondering if you could give us a quick synopsis of where we're headed for the best shot to survive. (00:52:18) Okay, you want me to make a choice right? You said you were you were conservative physically, you also men fiscally, right? And that's and that and those are fair comments and and they are right, you know, there is a the country can't spend unlimited funds in the military side of our total security equation. There is a proper balance and that of course is the president and the Congress has responsibility to try to determine what that balance is and frankly that's above my pay grade and I'm not trying to dodge the question, but it but it clearly is that's not my responsibility. Let me try to put some of this in (00:53:07) perspective. For a long (00:53:13) time because the Soviet threat is it's a it's a huge array that's against us Soviet Union has been investing somewhere between 12 and 15 / n it's hard for us to count 12 and 15 percent of their gross national product into defenses for years and years and years just for a long period of time and even though we have a much larger (00:53:41) economy and (00:53:42) hopefully clearly a more creative and dynamic economy. We have been putting in substantially less than that for a period of time. It was up to 6% and it went down to 3% for a very long period of time and I'm not going to try to criticize those those decisions. They're making those were good valid decisions that our electorate or our elected officials and our in our administration's all agreed on but I'm just That the facts are that they cut them down in a substantial way as a result of that and the Soviet emphasis on their nuclear Arsenal. They have built up in a very steady way. They don't do like we do they don't start and stop and start and stop. They just keep going in a very steady kind of an inexorable way so that they have an impressive and dangerous kind of threat the research program. Now only represents that I'm embarked on over the next five years only represents about 10% And I know this is is probably bad because it really says how big the defense department budget is it represents about 10% of our total R&D in that budget and it's in technologies that are exciting that can be applied in many ways. Some of them by the way are going to yield a lot of Civilian benefits benefits for our industry as well. Of even though 26 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money and I don't know that that's the end at some point. I think you're concerned that you raised. It probably will go more but hopefully there will be some decisions and I I owe you and I owe myself as a taxpayer. An early decision where it's possible to make it and say this is not going to pay off. It's not going to work right to keep that a reasonable investment level. So even though this is a large amount of money. It seems to me that the Hope associated with it is significant enough that it is a worthwhile Endeavor. Now, we will only know that as we begin to go through and each year. I expect we're going to have to present to the Congress just like every other program in the defense department. We're going to have to present to the Congress are rationale for the level of investment and they're going to their representatives are going to represent your broad concerns and what what the balance should be and we're going to have to justify it and sometimes we're not going to like the answer but that's okay. That's the way our system works and I think that we all ought to be proud and have faith in that system right now. We're justifying a fairly. Large amount of money for all of these military systems, but there's a reason and that's because we let it go for a period of time. Now that's not a specific answer. But I think it has the principles involved in what we have to (00:56:46) do.