Latest / Elon Musk Podcast / BREAKING - Senator and Astronaut Mark Kelly says Trumps golden dome could push enemies to nukes

Transcript

BREAKING - Senator and Astronaut Mark Kelly says Trumps golden dome could push enemies to nukes · Elon Musk Podcast

• 0:01
  Hey everybody, welcome back to the Elon Musk Podcast.
• 0:05
  This is a show where we discuss the critical crossroads, the
• 0:08
  Shape, SpaceX, Tesla X, The Boring Company, and Neuralink.
• 0:13
  I'm your host, Will. Walden.
• 0:15
  He's Senator Cotton. Senator Kelly, you are.
• 0:17
  Recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, General
• 0:21
  Cotton, General Whiting, thank you for being here.
• 0:24
  Want to first touch on Golden Dome and then I want to save
• 0:27
  some time for Slick Em and agree nuclear deterrence keep keeps us
• 0:35
  safe. And General Cotton, you
• 0:38
  mentioned 2 nuclear peers. One of my biggest concerns is
• 0:44
  the third one, which is the DPRK.
• 0:49
  And I think it's fair to say that most of the time we with
• 0:55
  our nuclear peers, we're dealing with rational actors.
• 1:00
  We hope that's the case. That's the thing, that part of
• 1:05
  nuclear deterrence that they will act rationally.
• 1:08
  Not so sure that's the case with the DPRK and they are building
• 1:13
  more nuclear weapons. They're working on other systems
• 1:18
  to deliver them and they can now range into the United States.
• 1:23
  I believe that's our view as a nation.
• 1:26
  So can you talk a little bit about Golden Dome?
• 1:31
  And my concern with this is it could potentially, even though I
• 1:36
  am not against the idea of a system that can protect the
• 1:40
  entire United States from incoming ballistic missiles
• 1:46
  nuclear armed at the same time this could accelerate a growing
• 1:53
  number. Our adversaries response to
• 1:56
  having a missile defense system could be to build more nuclear
• 1:59
  weapons. And if one or two get through
• 2:04
  that is too many. Right now.
• 2:06
  We do have a defensive system to protect us from a rogue actor in
• 2:13
  launching one ICBM. And my understanding is, and if
• 2:16
  you could share a little bit General Cotton about how
• 2:19
  effective that system is with the interceptors we have in
• 2:21
  Alaska and in California. So could you provide an estimate
• 2:28
  of how much this would cost and what enhanced capability we
• 2:33
  would get out of this? And do you feel we could build a
• 2:36
  system that is not penetrable? Well, thank you, Senator Kelly.
• 2:44
  I don't want to get out of my lane because Northcom General
• 2:47
  Guillo is the one that's undertaking that role.
• 2:49
  My responsibility from Golden Dome is twofold in accordance to
• 2:53
  the EO and mine is to make sure that I can assure that a second
• 2:58
  strike capability for the United States remains.
• 3:01
  And how do we ensure that as far as the reliability of of the the
• 3:09
  ground based interceptors piece once again that I, I don't own
• 3:12
  that platform, that platform belongs to North Common.
• 3:15
  That's probably best for for General Guillo to answer that.
• 3:18
  I do believe and we heard my colleague talk about the, the,
• 3:21
  the layered approach that is kind of the essence of Golden
• 3:25
  Dome for America. I think that's that's the answer
• 3:28
  and the key on, on on how that system can be deliverable moving
• 3:33
  forward. All right, and thank you.
• 3:37
  Thank you, General. I, I do agree, I think it's
• 3:40
  something we need to look into and we need to do look at a cost
• 3:44
  benefit analysis of this and also consider how it would
• 3:50
  potentially change the nuclear deterrence posture of not only
• 3:55
  us, but China and Russia on, on Slickham.
• 3:59
  And I know it was brought up here also general if if one of
• 4:05
  my concerns here is one of the things that makes makes us stand
• 4:09
  out is our submarine force, especially the attack submarines
• 4:13
  are incredibly effective. To integrate a tactical nuclear
• 4:20
  missile into a Virginia class sub would take modifications
• 4:29
  that are significant. And you have to put the security
• 4:32
  system that we have in effect for nuclear weapons.
• 4:35
  And my problem I think that I have with this is in the Western
• 4:44
  Pacific, this is a capability. Our attack submarine force is
• 4:51
  incredibly capable and I think this would be somewhat
• 4:54
  disruptive. I think that needs to be a
• 4:56
  consideration before we go down the road of significant
• 5:01
  modifications to these systems. If you could just comment
• 5:04
  briefly on that. Well Senator, I think from my
• 5:07
  perspective a lot of those are TTPS that the Department of Navy
• 5:11
  had and I think they need to pull those out of the out of the
• 5:16
  cupboard and and look to see what those TTPS were when we had
• 5:19
  T lamb ends. I don't know if it would be
• 5:23
  disruptive especially now that what we're seeing especially in
• 5:25
  the Indo Paycom theatre in regards to our allies and
• 5:29
  partners ability of letting us have a dual use nuclear capable
• 5:34
  things arrive on their shores. The fact that, you know, I can
• 5:39
  now have B52's fly into Japan where I I didn't before and,
• 5:45
  and, and on the on the Korean Peninsula, I think there's,
• 5:48
  there's work to be done, but I think it can be accomplished.
• 5:51
  Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• 5:54
  Thanks for listening to the Elon Musk Podcast today.
• 5:56
  I appreciate your support and I appreciate you spending the time
• 6:00
  here with me today. Now, if you could take a second
• 6:03
  and hit the subscribe or follow button on whatever podcast
• 6:06
  platform you're listening on right now, that would be amazing
• 6:09
  and it would help the show tremendously.
• 6:11
  So thank you for that. Also, please take care of
• 6:13
  yourselves and each other and I'll see you in the next one.