Speaker 1: We have a majority of our f twenty two and
Speaker 1: thirty fives in Alaska. Do we have a defense system
Speaker 1: up there that will protect them with regards to to
Speaker 1: cruise missiles hypersonic cruise missiles that are actually currently coastal
Speaker 1: defense cruise missiles in Russia, I have significantcerns about my
Speaker 1: ability to defend those assets. We're we're probably I think
Speaker 1: five years behind UH in terms of where the Chinese are.
Speaker 1: They don't mind failing in tests. We have this idea
Speaker 1: that we got to get it exactly right and every
Speaker 1: test has to be a success. They have a series
Speaker 1: of failures, each of one of which they learned something
Speaker 1: that's really interesting right there. So that was some part
Speaker 1: of a hearing right there in which a congress person
Speaker 1: was asking, you know, our best planes where they're sitting
Speaker 1: there in Alaska, can we protect those from No, we can't.
Speaker 1: And then the fact that we're five years behind in
Speaker 1: the hypersonic missile technology because we're scared to test and
Speaker 1: fail as opposed to the way Russia and China would
Speaker 1: look at it, for instance. So specific questions and kind
Speaker 1: of cultural questions for my clients. Military analysts might serve
Speaker 1: with various military organizations for the United States, uh in, Iraq, Europe.
Speaker 1: Throughout his career, he's a respected analyst for a number
Speaker 1: of networks and websites My clients, are you sir, Hey, guys,
Speaker 1: great to be back. So what's your reaction to those clips?
Speaker 1: Are you up on this topic? Yeah? So, so hypersonics
Speaker 1: as a whole. We could argue that where they're really overhyped.
Speaker 1: You know, there are clearly the threat of the future.
Speaker 1: You know, missiles flying at mark five, they're they're indefensible,
Speaker 1: that's kind of the issue, and there's nothing that we
Speaker 1: have that can shoot them down. And you know, they've
Speaker 1: allowed Russia and China to declare some kind of superiority
Speaker 1: over the US, and I think there's you know, culture
Speaker 1: and the Pentagon they go kind of so what I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a billion dollar locket contract to develop hypersonic weapons.
Speaker 1: But but at the end of the day, it doesn't
Speaker 1: you know, it still doesn't stop the nuclear deterrance that
Speaker 1: we have against both of those countries. Um, China develop
Speaker 1: hypersonic missiles for one reason and one reason only, and
Speaker 1: that's the sink US carrier. Right, So hypersonic missiles, it's
Speaker 1: a math equation, right, you take Chinese satellite, you combine
Speaker 1: them with Chinese over the horizon radar, and you layer
Speaker 1: a hypersonic missile into there, and that it's gonna be
Speaker 1: a bad day for the U. S. Navy because there's
Speaker 1: nothing that the Navy can do to shoot that missile
Speaker 1: down and defend that carrier, which is the whole purpose
Speaker 1: of the U. S. Navies defend their carriers. So that's
Speaker 1: why they did it. That's why they want those hypersonic missiles.
Speaker 1: They're more tactical, they don't have any real strategic value,
Speaker 1: and it's to reach for them to go from that.
Speaker 1: That Russia Alaska thing is okay, that's a little bit,
Speaker 1: you know, that's you know, you're attacking our home land
Speaker 1: at this point. I think every equation changes. If Russia
Speaker 1: decides to attack US with hypersonic missiles into into Alaska,
Speaker 1: into those of the revis that's you know, now that
Speaker 1: you said stated out loud, that's obviously a decent point.
Speaker 1: I mean, if we're backing down from putin from long
Speaker 1: range missiles that might reach Russia because we are afraid
Speaker 1: he would use his nukes, well, then hell yeah, obliterating
Speaker 1: our air force would be yeah, game on. So yeah,
Speaker 1: that makes sense. Yeah, so so it changes things now
Speaker 1: the missile's technology in some ways it's fifty years old,
Speaker 1: it's not you know. And what they're trying to do
Speaker 1: is make them faster, make them better to communicate the
Speaker 1: problem we have and the testing is that they go
Speaker 1: so fast that we lose communication with them. And then
Speaker 1: you don't want to missile just you know, kind of
Speaker 1: flying out there knowing not where it's going. Um, which
Speaker 1: is why you have to layer in that again the
Speaker 1: satellite technology, the radar and and hit certain points in
Speaker 1: order to make to make them accurate. But but we
Speaker 1: had anabolistic missile treaties back in the seventies and eighties
Speaker 1: and they were somewhat good. Um. But now that we've
Speaker 1: just they're all gone. Now they've all been, they've all
Speaker 1: been you know, taken away salt once salt to all
Speaker 1: those things. We destroyed, our pershings. Those were considered to
Speaker 1: be the kind of missile technology. But um, i'd like
Speaker 1: to for us the countries to kind of sit down
Speaker 1: and talk about it all because they are they do threaten,
Speaker 1: they threaten more Europe and Asian they do. United States.
Speaker 1: What about the more general comment that was made about
Speaker 1: our capacity for in a patient. What do you think
Speaker 1: of that? Yeah, I think that that's part of the
Speaker 1: industrial military complex, you know that that we do things
Speaker 1: in silos and historic and culturally. What we end up
Speaker 1: doing is we get bloodied initially if something happens, which
Speaker 1: is why show thing back to the Chinese. The Chinese
Speaker 1: want to bloody us, you know, and think that they
Speaker 1: were not going to respond to it. But that whole
Speaker 1: expression about what happened during Pearl Harbor, the Japanese of
Speaker 1: awoke on a sleeping giant, that that's really what the
Speaker 1: US really is all about. Because what ends up happening is,
Speaker 1: let's say something does happen, we we suffer some great
Speaker 1: defeat like that on the technology or so everyone stops
Speaker 1: what they're doing, they clear their desks. The next thing,
Speaker 1: you know, we've got some technology out in ninety days
Speaker 1: that's going to better than everybody else's. So I think
Speaker 1: that in a lot of ways that the pace of that,
Speaker 1: the you know, the way the equipment gets developed and
Speaker 1: the technology gets developed in the US. Sure they don't
Speaker 1: want to fail, that's all part of it, but they
Speaker 1: all just want to get the next contract, and we
Speaker 1: were talking about billions and dollars of contracts. Then you know,
Speaker 1: luck he doesn't want to get fired, so that they
Speaker 1: bring in somebody else to do that same work. Mill
Speaker 1: Terry analyst Mike Lions on the line, Mike, total change
Speaker 1: the topic. Um, say and ben a flag? Not unless
Speaker 1: you have a shotgun you're prepared to use it? Um?
Speaker 1: Uh Mike, what if the Iran announces we have a
Speaker 1: functioning nuclear weapon. We've got it on top of the missile.
Speaker 1: We are now a nuclear power. What happens next? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's an Israeli issue. Frankly, that's proxy one number two
Speaker 1: that will take place in the world. Um, because the
Speaker 1: Israelities are not going to put up with that. I
Speaker 1: mean you go back to one when they took out
Speaker 1: the Iraqi capability at Osterrick, they took up the steering capability. Uh.
Speaker 1: If Uranians are dumb enough to come online with that
Speaker 1: and and think they're going to parade around with that
Speaker 1: and think they're going to get cover from Russi, our
Speaker 1: China or something, um stuck in to work. So um,
Speaker 1: we would you know, you saw the president say something
Speaker 1: that can't I don't know what he kind of really
Speaker 1: actually said, we're not going to go to war with
Speaker 1: the run over it. But the Israelis well, and um,
Speaker 1: they'll mobilize everything, they'll do all they can. You'll see
Speaker 1: first probably the cyber war first. You you won't necessarily
Speaker 1: see things connectic, let's say, because if they strike, it's
Speaker 1: it's got to be something that they know that they're
Speaker 1: gonna get and they're gonna they're gonna, you know, take
Speaker 1: out that government. Let's say, it's going to be a real,
Speaker 1: real regional conflict. But um, it's an Israeli a problem.
Speaker 1: So I heard it suggested that that would immediately cause
Speaker 1: an arms race in the Middle East, and the Saudis
Speaker 1: would demand nukes, and the UI E etcetera, etcetera. But
Speaker 1: you still seem to think it wouldn't get that far.
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, I think it already has. I think
Speaker 1: I think in some ways, well, I think these realities
Speaker 1: would try to take care of the problem first. And
Speaker 1: but but if it if it's not done right away,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, there's no question. I do think that that
Speaker 1: that's gonna happen. I think the studies are gonna want
Speaker 1: nukes and and you know, you can argue that if
Speaker 1: everyone has nukes, no one will attack you the terms
Speaker 1: that would take place there. But but but the Iranians
Speaker 1: have said that they would use that capability on the offense.
Speaker 1: And I think that's why they're you know, they've already
Speaker 1: kind of said it quite part out loud, so that
Speaker 1: they're people would not you know, there is really goodma
Speaker 1: wouldn't put up with that. But I do think that
Speaker 1: it's going to eventually cause that, which is why you know,
Speaker 1: again we we we you know, we listen to Joe
Speaker 1: Biden talking on the champ on the campaign circuit about
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia and the whole time. We have to be
Speaker 1: aligned with Saudi Arabia for so many different reasons. And
Speaker 1: they are the center gravity within that part of the world.
Speaker 1: If we if we expect to have Lintlin's in that
Speaker 1: part of the world, and and so you know, there's
Speaker 1: no reason for them to have nuclear paality of more
Speaker 1: oil and they know to do with and they're pumping
Speaker 1: into the rest of the world. So if we're going
Speaker 1: to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons here, um Uranians
Speaker 1: have already made their bed. They said they weren't going
Speaker 1: to do it. And they ended up doing it. And
Speaker 1: I think you're gonna see Theseraelis take care of it.
Speaker 1: So we can't have you on the line today and
Speaker 1: not bring up Russia and Ukraine. What's the lightest there?
Speaker 1: You know, this is turning more into gonna be a
Speaker 1: four year war. I'm really these reports that are coming
Speaker 1: out of of Russia, and you know, they're just talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, the entire Russian focused on taking these small
Speaker 1: little towns and intonesque and lamps and these small areas there,
Speaker 1: and it's just I'm just saying, in mind boggling to
Speaker 1: me that they've just still not put together a big,
Speaker 1: broad sweeping campaign to at least take that whole southern region,
Speaker 1: you know, to take our deaths and to take a
Speaker 1: mobile life troops there. They're obviously having problems getting troops
Speaker 1: to the front, so that they're going further deeper into Russia,
Speaker 1: right into those federations that are way way to the east,
Speaker 1: you know, where we wouldn't. They don't look Russian, they
Speaker 1: don't talk Russian, they're not rest really Russian. They're looking
Speaker 1: for those volunteers to come to come west. Um, so
Speaker 1: they're running out of men and um, you know, the
Speaker 1: war of attrition is on you stalls and let's you
Speaker 1: fire a couple of people is head of the spying
Speaker 1: and the like. Um, they just still don't have enough offense,
Speaker 1: two people in material to go on the offense and
Speaker 1: to get that land back. If Russia, what's kind of smart,
Speaker 1: they would stop right now and declare victory in and
Speaker 1: start building a wall, and they would start holding that
Speaker 1: ground and they could keep it from the next twenty
Speaker 1: and thirty years until the next generation goes. But but
Speaker 1: the way you look at the war planning goes there
Speaker 1: there like one one city at a time, going five
Speaker 1: miles at a time, and it just again mind boggling
Speaker 1: for a country like Russia that has tremendous capability to
Speaker 1: be doing that. And on the Ukrainian side, there was
Speaker 1: some pretty interesting analysis I think it was in the
Speaker 1: New York Times. I was talking about how the more advanced,
Speaker 1: accurate artillery systems are now reaching the front lines and
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians are making some hay with it. But the
Speaker 1: problem is it's a mismatch. It's a mishmash, rather a
Speaker 1: mismatched systems from various countries, and so Ukraine is trying
Speaker 1: to train up a few people on this system, a
Speaker 1: few peo along that system. That's no way to run
Speaker 1: a war, right, Artillery is not fire and forget artillery
Speaker 1: has fired directions centers. There's three components to it. There's
Speaker 1: the guns itself, there's somebody forward observing looking at the target,
Speaker 1: and then there's somebody computing the data for the guns.
Speaker 1: And you kind of bring those all together. Now that
Speaker 1: the Ukraine military was using drone technology, using a lot
Speaker 1: of satellite technology, using UM pinpoints on maps, let's say
Speaker 1: not at all was real time UM. But that again
Speaker 1: the fire direction component to it and getting to the guns,
Speaker 1: it's it's not at that simple. It is going to
Speaker 1: be effective when it gets time on target and then
Speaker 1: it survives because every artillery round has a return address,
Speaker 1: and so the Russians will look to fire artillery back
Speaker 1: on whether that artillery came from. So they have to move, shoot, communicate,
Speaker 1: we call it, and have to get out of there.
Speaker 1: I have to get out of there to make sure
Speaker 1: that they survived. Mike Lions, military analysts. Mike, you so
Speaker 1: want to have a show on CNN like a Sunday show.
Speaker 1: You got a good agent I do some of the
Speaker 1: afternoon go up against some of those UHSE shows. I'll
Speaker 1: go up that fix. I go up against the five
Speaker 1: for example, we should we'll do three verses to three
Speaker 1: B two right. Five format is great. Five people talking
Speaker 1: as a great format. So I can be there Monday. Yes,
Speaker 1: Mike Lions always great. Thanks Mike, great guy. Speaking of
Speaker 1: International Affair is going to be seriously, I would watch
Speaker 1: you show every week. Yeah, I would never miss it.
Speaker 1: Art