Speaker 1: So there is a bit of a breaking, big news
Speaker 1: story around Trump's visit to Beijing. As President She of
Speaker 1: China has pushed this Taiwan thing more and harder than
Speaker 1: I think anybody was expecting, like over and over again,
Speaker 1: each time they sit down to meet or like, no
Speaker 1: matter whatever topic we bring up, she goes back to
Speaker 1: Taiwan being a really big deal and very important to him,
Speaker 1: and Taiwan belongs to us, and over and over again.
Speaker 1: And I think that's interesting. We're getting more reporting on that.
Speaker 1: Give you this version from the New York Post before
Speaker 1: we get to Mike Lyons, because I want to ask
Speaker 1: him about this and a bunch of other stuff. A
Speaker 1: very different story began to emerge behind closed doors after
Speaker 1: President She continually pressed the issue of Taiwan. The mid
Speaker 1: morning sit down ran law about forty minutes over its
Speaker 1: scheduled time. Trump was notably quieter. At the next stop.
Speaker 1: He ignored shouted questions. The bodied language of both presidents
Speaker 1: was noticeably stiffer than it was earlier, as in there
Speaker 1: had been some you know, confrontation, and they had reached
Speaker 1: a point of things being uncomfortable around this issue, and
Speaker 1: their people are putting out very strong language about it,
Speaker 1: and we're reiterating that Taiwan is a free nation and
Speaker 1: we support them anyway. It's kind of a surprise in
Speaker 1: the whole thing. We'd like to welcome to the show.
Speaker 1: Mike Lions. We love talking to Mike about anything militarily.
Speaker 1: You can follow him that m a j is in
Speaker 1: Major m Aj. Mike lyons on his Twitter feed. He
Speaker 1: just had an op ed indefense dot Com about ai
Speaker 1: in our relationship with China, which we'll talk about a
Speaker 1: little bit. But hey, Mike, what do you think about
Speaker 1: this hardcore push from President She about how we're taking
Speaker 1: Taiwan someday and don't get no way.
Speaker 2: Or there will be a war. That's basically what he said.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I saw that report that comes from, you know,
Speaker 3: kind of an old Greek model about kind of rising
Speaker 3: powers and existing powers, and the bottom line is that
Speaker 3: could ruin everything between the US and China. That seems
Speaker 3: to be their hard line. I think I think President
Speaker 3: she is trying to understand Donald Trump's language of leverage,
Speaker 3: and I think that's what he's trying to use as
Speaker 3: leverage back to everything that the President wanted and wants
Speaker 3: to accomplish in the summit. He brought all the CEOs.
Speaker 3: He's bringing all this with his perceived leverage into the equation,
Speaker 3: and I think President She is just trying to pivot
Speaker 3: that way, and they see themselves as this rising power
Speaker 3: and he recognizes the US as a ruling power. And
Speaker 3: to frame it the way he has means that potentially
Speaker 3: war could be inevitable if if we decide to involve
Speaker 3: ourselves with there. We've just sold them billions of dollars
Speaker 3: and ten or twelve billion dollars worth of military equips.
Speaker 3: But she is pretty serious about making this whole thing
Speaker 3: as a very hands off operation.
Speaker 2: Where's the reality on this?
Speaker 1: Just as a like an outside observer, it seems to
Speaker 1: me that China's way got the upper hand just because
Speaker 1: of the proximity. If they decided to take Taiwan, it
Speaker 1: would be really hard for US to stop them.
Speaker 3: It would it would require US forces firing missiles into
Speaker 3: mainland China, which would then you start this war. That's
Speaker 3: the only way you could you could possibly stop this
Speaker 3: and you know, to keep them from from taking it.
Speaker 3: And I think right now our mentality has been well.
Speaker 3: But besides strategic ambiguity, about it. It's this kind of
Speaker 3: porcupine effect. Just give Taiwan enough equipment that it would
Speaker 3: make the cost of taking it militarily so high, you know,
Speaker 3: similar to what we thought would have happened in Ukraine.
Speaker 3: The cost of it was too high. It didn't stop
Speaker 3: the Rusians there, you know. Again, for China to be
Speaker 3: a global power though in this century, and we're all
Speaker 3: convincing ourselves that China is the rising power and US
Speaker 3: is the falling power, I just don't buy that yet,
Speaker 3: Recorder of the way into the century and China has
Speaker 3: still yet flexed any kind of military muscle or any
Speaker 3: kind of military might in that regard. Now, this would
Speaker 3: be like anything else, would be considered an easier military
Speaker 3: operation to your point because of proximity, but it could
Speaker 3: start a very large conflict in the region that frankly,
Speaker 3: I'm not sure the US would give up potentially a
Speaker 3: West coast city for if they decided to fire a
Speaker 3: nuclear weapon at It's based on what we're doing, man,
Speaker 3: And this is.
Speaker 1: The headlines everywhere that I'm looking that Taiwan emerges as
Speaker 1: key topic and all that sort of thing where we
Speaker 1: were kind of hoping to make it a backburner topic,
Speaker 1: but not the way things have turned out. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm glad I got to ask you all about that.
Speaker 1: So you've got this piece at defense dot Com about
Speaker 1: AI and how the next summit between China and the
Speaker 1: United States should be a cooperational very AI. I can
Speaker 1: talk about AI all day long. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you've heard where of this, but I read all the books,
Speaker 1: I listen to all the podcasts. I'm fascinated by the topic.
Speaker 1: What's your take on it from a military standpoint?
Speaker 3: Well, I think, you know, I put my Cold War
Speaker 3: you know hat on again and look back and say,
Speaker 3: you know, AI is a potential nuclear weapon that can
Speaker 3: destroy the Earth if we let it involved with targeting
Speaker 3: and if we let it make decisions. Think of you know,
Speaker 3: the terminator. And it's not a joke anymore. I mean,
Speaker 3: we're we're operating a war right now at scale with
Speaker 3: AI in terms of our targeting and the closing the
Speaker 3: kill chain, the time in between we recognize the target
Speaker 3: and then can engage that target. And we've got to
Speaker 3: get with China to create someone like another Salt treaty,
Speaker 3: a strategic arms limitation treat You treat it like it's
Speaker 3: a nuclear weapon. Get them in US to agree to
Speaker 3: certain red lines about where AI is used in specifically
Speaker 3: the offense. You know, it's one thing to use AI
Speaker 3: techniques in the defense, as Israel does with it's Iron Dome.
Speaker 3: Iron Dome is fundamentally AI driven. A rockets coming at Israel.
Speaker 3: The computer decides whether or not to engage that that
Speaker 3: rocket or not. It's not a human pulling the trigger. Well,
Speaker 3: if you had that on the offense, that just creates
Speaker 3: a whole different set of variables that you might not
Speaker 3: be able to ever stop. So you can get what's
Speaker 3: instead of having mutually assured destruction, which is a strategic
Speaker 3: to terms for nuclear weapons, you could have, you know,
Speaker 3: mutually automated destruction, where once it starts, both sides would
Speaker 3: be completely destroyed just based on automation alone. So we've
Speaker 3: got to sit down with them very quickly and get
Speaker 3: both sides to agree on certain red lines. When it
Speaker 3: comes to the military use of artificial intelligence.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, of course, you know the wild card is
Speaker 1: if it goes to artificial general intelligence or super general intelligence,
Speaker 1: that you know, there might not be any controlling AI
Speaker 1: at all by anyone. So that's Yeah, that's out there
Speaker 1: as a possibility. I'm glad you're taking it this seriously.
Speaker 1: I feel like it's that big a deal too, and
Speaker 1: it just doesn't getting enough talk.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think. I think a lot of it just
Speaker 3: has to do with the decisions are being made in
Speaker 3: corporate America by the AI companies and what they're going
Speaker 3: to do and what they're not going to do. When
Speaker 3: it comes to our government, I think that the US
Speaker 3: Congress has got to get involved. If there's a uniform code,
Speaker 3: similar to way the President conducts covert operations, we need
Speaker 3: to put a US code in place that says this
Speaker 3: is how we're going to use artificial intelligence, and this
Speaker 3: is how the military will use it, and codify it
Speaker 3: in law, and then show that to the Chinese's similar
Speaker 3: to what we did the Russians, get them to agree
Speaker 3: on doing it in their side and with their military,
Speaker 3: and again, at least we don't have it in the offense.
Speaker 3: It's one thing for the defense. I think in the defense,
Speaker 3: artificial intelligence is a game changer in some ways and
Speaker 3: it protects you, but doing it in the offense is
Speaker 3: really where the red line has to be drawn.
Speaker 2: If you're interested in this topic.
Speaker 1: Mike's got a piece at defense dot com, So we
Speaker 1: got to talk about Iran. Obviously wor at war with
Speaker 1: that country, and we seem to be stuck. They think
Speaker 1: they can wait us out, we think we can wait
Speaker 1: them out. And then there is that a new story
Speaker 1: that came out. It was anonymous quotes from our intelligence,
Speaker 1: but it seemed pretty well sourced that Iran has way more.
Speaker 1: There are rockets and missiles and rocket launchers that left.
Speaker 1: Then we were led to believe, first of all, do
Speaker 1: you believe that?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I don't, right, they have I mean again, it's
Speaker 3: all it's not even just the rockets themselves. It's it's
Speaker 3: all of the systems together, and they just can't scale
Speaker 3: it on any level anymore. It's one thing, you know,
Speaker 3: to launch a rocket, it is not just you know,
Speaker 3: pointing and shooting. At this point, you have to have radars,
Speaker 3: you have to have fire direction. All the different components
Speaker 3: of it are destroyed. So it's it's, you know, it's
Speaker 3: like having you know, empty weapons. If they have then
Speaker 3: the I'm sure they have you know, fifty to one
Speaker 3: hundred or so. Maybe if the fact that they started
Speaker 3: with ten thousand, they started with a large amount, but
Speaker 3: at scale they just can't deploy them, is really what's
Speaker 3: going on here. So I don't believe any of that
Speaker 3: at all. I think I think the weight out period
Speaker 3: that you know, the president is trying to be as
Speaker 3: diplomatic as possible, and those of us in the military
Speaker 3: are like, let's go come out, let's finish this off.
Speaker 3: I mean, every single analysts you see on television right now,
Speaker 3: that's what they're saying. And I think that would be
Speaker 3: the most you know, viable, quickly, quick way to end
Speaker 3: this thing. But you know, the president wants to stick
Speaker 3: to the plomacy right now, So that's what we're going
Speaker 3: to do well.
Speaker 1: And I think MBS of Saudi Arabia would agree with you,
Speaker 1: and MBZ at the u over there at the UAE
Speaker 1: would agree with you. So do you expect that to happen.
Speaker 1: That's what I expect to happen.
Speaker 3: I do. I think they can't risk leaving Iran weak
Speaker 3: but still able to move forward, and that's you know,
Speaker 3: it does mean regime change and never seen this historically happen,
Speaker 3: you know from the air in that regard. But they're
Speaker 3: looking for the country to internally collapse economically, but we
Speaker 3: can't leave them in a situation where in twenty years
Speaker 3: they're back doing it to you know, another different population,
Speaker 3: and that's still threatening the Middle East. And this president
Speaker 3: again is taking care of all family business. I think
Speaker 3: that he's not finishing. He says it all the time.
Speaker 3: He says, it's more important that we take care of
Speaker 3: the nuclear aspect here, and so I'm glad to see
Speaker 3: him do it. It's long overdue.
Speaker 2: Seems like there's a lot of flashpoints out there right now.
Speaker 3: Different yeah, no, in different spots. It's still they can
Speaker 3: still happen in the Pacific, in any of those straits
Speaker 3: that are there. Venezuela looks like that's going well. You know,
Speaker 3: Trump's talking about making them a fifty first state. I
Speaker 3: think Cuba will get resolved once Iran does. But I
Speaker 3: think again, the major one is in the Middle East,
Speaker 3: and you know, there's no proxy force that's been out
Speaker 3: there for Iran. Right now, we haven't seen terrorist attacks.
Speaker 3: Could be the calm before the storm. We'll see. Maybe
Speaker 3: Trump's try to get China to intervene.
Speaker 2: I don't think.
Speaker 3: I don't think there's a lot of people that are
Speaker 3: not happy with Pakistan being the mediators. They're not Trump,
Speaker 3: They're not independence here. They're on the side of Iran.
Speaker 3: And I think you seldom's Graham go go kind of
Speaker 3: crazy over that at a sentate hearing the other day.
Speaker 3: Maybe China was going to get involved. Trump's doing whatever
Speaker 3: he can, but I think he's very Machiavelian. He's treating China,
Speaker 3: he's flattering them, he's doing all he can, but he's
Speaker 3: also brought the hammer. He's not looking to be loved,
Speaker 3: he still wants to be feared by them.
Speaker 1: That's Mike Lyons. You can read his AI piece the
Speaker 1: next Summit that Trump should have at Defense dot Com.
Speaker 1: You can follow them at m Ajmike Lyons on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Thanks for your time today, Mike, appreciate that.
Speaker 3: Ye ye please me? Um?
Speaker 1: Was it oh reeldefense dot com? Sorry, is just underlend
Speaker 1: defense dot com? Cleardefense dot com, Realclear defense dot Com.
Speaker 1: What is the actual title here, Michael? Okay, why is
Speaker 1: it only interlined at defense dot com? Okay, it's realclear
Speaker 1: defense dot Com. Sorry about that. I got another comment
Speaker 1: about that, but first I got to tell you this
Speaker 1: about Incogne, which is just really, really a good idea.
Speaker 2: I hate the fact that.
Speaker 1: Every time I have to give somebody my name, address,
Speaker 1: phone number, whatever, then they have that information and they
Speaker 1: sell it to somebody. Then everybody has it, or sometimes
Speaker 1: they steal it, and then I get all these texts
Speaker 1: and emails and sometimes there are people trying to steal
Speaker 1: from me, and I hate the whole thing. You needed Cogny.
Speaker 1: That's what we do in Cogni. They actually go to
Speaker 1: the data brokers because they know who they are, and
Speaker 1: they use the laws that already exist and force the
Speaker 1: people to take your information off there. And you're going
Speaker 1: to notice a drop in spam, texts, emails, and calls
Speaker 1: right away, protecting you from all this stuff real digital threats.
Speaker 1: They can't scam you if they can't find you. Take
Speaker 1: your personal data back within Cognitate. That's I n cog ni.
Speaker 1: That's how it's spelled. Get sixty percent off the regular
Speaker 1: price when you use the code armstrong and a Cognitate
Speaker 1: dot com slash armstrong. That's sixty percent off when you
Speaker 1: use the code armstrong and at Cogni dot com slash
Speaker 1: armstrong and Cogniti dot com slash armstrong. So I hope
Speaker 1: my clients is right. He has a lot of sources himself.
Speaker 1: In the pushback against that big story of The New
Speaker 1: York Times had the other day saying that RAN still
Speaker 1: retains something like seventy percent of their rockets and thirty
Speaker 1: out of thirty five, I think they said of the
Speaker 1: rocket launchers right there along the straight or horror moves.
Speaker 1: Mike doesn't believe that. I hope he's right. Would the
Speaker 1: New York Times go with some analyst that wants to
Speaker 1: make Trump look bad?
Speaker 2: Hell yeah they would. So what's actually the truth?
Speaker 1: I don't know, But in terms of hoping, I hope
Speaker 1: Mike's right.
Speaker 3: Armstrong and Getty