Latest / DEEP INSIGHT / US Defense Secretary Hegseth puts Elon Musk in charge of military future warfare review

Transcript

US Defense Secretary Hegseth puts Elon Musk in charge of military future warfare review · DEEP INSIGHT

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: In the United States, U.S.
• 0:01
  Speaker 2: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has announced the launch of Project Meridian.
• 0:06
  Speaker 2: It's an initiative aimed at studying the future of warfare
• 0:09
  Speaker 2: and identifying technologies that the U.S. military will need in
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: the coming decades. Hegseth said the initiative will focus on
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: autonomous warfare, developing weapons and systems for future battlefields, and
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: that it will be co-led by Tesla and SpaceX founder
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: Elon Musk. The defense secretary also confirmed that the U.S.
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: military plans to cut 20 percent of its existing generals
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: and admirals across the military.
• 0:38
  Speaker 3: Project Meridian, the future of warfare, is not about developing
• 0:41
  Speaker 3: new strategies or new policies.
• 0:43
  Speaker 4: We already do that.
• 0:45
  Speaker 3: Rather, its purpose is to creatively look to the future
• 0:49
  Speaker 3: and identify the domains that we must conquer and capabilities
• 0:54
  Speaker 3: we must master. We should have been thinking about Autonomous
• 0:58
  Speaker 3: Warfare Command 10 years ago.
• 1:00
  Speaker 4: We need to be.
• 1:00
  Speaker 3: Looking forward into the future to achieve technological and military
• 1:04
  Speaker 3: dominance on the battlefield for decades to come. It is
• 1:08
  Speaker 3: futuristic on purpose. Their work will be focused on discovering, developing,
• 1:14
  Speaker 3: and fielding the weapons and systems that our children and
• 1:17
  Speaker 3: our grandchildren will need in their lifetimes without any creative
• 1:23
  Speaker 3: limitations or restrictions.
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: All right, I'm going to pull in now Ryan Probst.
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: He is the deputy director of the Center on Military
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: He focuses on U.S.
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: Defense strategy, military capabilities, and the defense industrial base. He
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: joins us tonight from San Jose, California. Ryan, it's good
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: to have you with us. I want to just ask
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: you about the role of Elon Musk. We know that
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: he builds rockets, cars, and AI, but he's never commanded troops.
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: He's never fought a war. Why should he be helping
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: to decide what the future of American warfare looks like?
• 2:01
  Speaker 4: Elon Musk was likely selected for this role as a
• 2:04
  Speaker 4: result of his role in being a technological pioneer across
• 2:08
  Speaker 4: several industries, the most relevant of this being SpaceX, which
• 2:12
  Speaker 4: has greatly increased the ability of the United States to
• 2:14
  Speaker 4: launch satellites into orbit. However, you do make a good
• 2:18
  Speaker 4: point that he's not necessarily an expert on warfare, and
• 2:21
  Speaker 4: the fact that he runs a business that contracts with
• 2:24
  Speaker 4: the Department of Defense could create conflicts of interest. So
• 2:29
  Speaker 4: it'll be up to Secretary Hegseth and the rest of
• 2:31
  Speaker 4: the Trump administration to fully explain why he was selected
• 2:34
  Speaker 4: for this role.
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: Do you think there is a danger that the Pentagon
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: is falling for the Silicon Valley belief that technology can
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: solve everything when Ukraine has shown us that wars still
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: come down to soldiers, ammunition, and an ability to absorb
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: enormous losses?
• 2:56
  Speaker 4: There is certainly a risk whenever any warfighting organization starts
• 3:01
  Speaker 4: to believe that technology is fundamentally going to replace people.
• 3:05
  Speaker 4: Warfare is always going to involve people, and longer wars
• 3:09
  Speaker 4: also require an ability to scale industrial production. anyone saying
• 3:13
  Speaker 4: that technology is the only answer to war is simply incorrect.
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: Do we know what will fundamentally change about the way
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: America fights a war 10 years from now? I mean,
• 3:25
  Speaker 2: what will machines be doing that soldiers are doing today?
• 3:31
  Speaker 4: So machines will certainly be doing some of what soldiers
• 3:34
  Speaker 4: do today. Ukraine has shown important roles for both flying
• 3:40
  Speaker 4: and ground autonomous vehicles in the role of resupply, as
• 3:45
  Speaker 4: well as in assault forces attacking enemy positions. But they're
• 3:49
  Speaker 4: certainly not going to replace all of the tasks that
• 3:51
  Speaker 4: soldiers do, and soldiers are almost certainly going to have
• 3:54
  Speaker 4: new tasks as well. Warfare is fundamentally a human endeavor,
• 3:59
  Speaker 4: and people are not going to be replaced in it.
• 4:02
  Speaker 4: It's worth noting that you know, the conflict between Russia
• 4:04
  Speaker 4: and Ukraine is the most roboticized conflict that we've ever
• 4:08
  Speaker 4: had thus far. And there are still hundreds of thousands
• 4:10
  Speaker 4: of casualties. We shouldn't expect people to be replaced on
• 4:13
  Speaker 4: the battlefield anytime soon.
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: What about the role of AI, Ryan?
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: Should an AI system ever be allowed to decide on
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: its own to kill a human being?
• 4:26
  Speaker 4: So there are our already arguably some weapons that can
• 4:31
  Speaker 4: do that. And the Pentagon has a process for carefully
• 4:34
  Speaker 4: evaluating lethal autonomous weapons. These aren't new and nor is
• 4:40
  Speaker 4: AI necessarily a game changer for them. It probably makes
• 4:44
  Speaker 4: them more effective, but autonomous weapons have been around for
• 4:47
  Speaker 4: quite some time. My personal opinion is that in some scenarios, yes,
• 4:53
  Speaker 4: although these have to be carefully monitored and reviewed. for
• 4:57
  Speaker 4: any safety concerns.
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: I wonder, is China, is it really the unspoken reason
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: that we're seeing this Project Meridian? I mean, is the
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: Pentagon looking at the possibility of a war over Taiwan
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: and concluding that the U.S. military as it exists today
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: simply is not ready?
• 5:20
  Speaker 4: So China has certainly been the pacing threat, which means
• 5:23
  Speaker 4: the threat that the Pentagon is trying to keep up
• 5:24
  Speaker 4: with for quite some time. And given how the conflict
• 5:29
  Speaker 4: with Iran went, I'd be quite surprised if people in
• 5:32
  Speaker 4: the Pentagon felt comfortable that the U.S. military was able
• 5:35
  Speaker 4: to comfortably handle a threat today. However, that's far from
• 5:39
  Speaker 4: saying that the Chinese Communist Party has a decisive edge.
• 5:43
  Speaker 4: What it is meaning is that nobody can say for
• 5:45
  Speaker 4: certain what the result would be, but it'd certainly be
• 5:48
  Speaker 4: better for the United States to err on the side
• 5:50
  Speaker 4: of caution, make the investments in defense necessary to deter
• 5:54
  Speaker 4: a war that can still be prevented.
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: You know, Ryan, if a major war with China began tomorrow,
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: could the U.S. defense industry, could it actually keep America,
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: the military, supplied?
• 6:10
  Speaker 4: So if there was a full-scale war with China that
• 6:13
  Speaker 4: went longer than a few days or weeks, it would
• 6:17
  Speaker 4: require mobilizing the entire US economy on a scale that
• 6:20
  Speaker 4: hasn't been seen since World War II to keep up
• 6:23
  Speaker 4: with it. So the answer is, as the defense industry
• 6:26
  Speaker 4: is now, no, but that's not really a surprise. And
• 6:30
  Speaker 4: China would also have to do the same thing. Nobody
• 6:32
  Speaker 4: is going to be, quote, ready for a you know,
• 6:36
  Speaker 4: a major war like that until it actually begins.
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: You know, you mentioned mobilizing the civilian economy. Could America's
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: biggest military vulnerability actually be its.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: Factories rather than its weapons technology?
• 6:52
  Speaker 4: Certainly, U.S. technology has, you know, proven very effective. The
• 6:57
  Speaker 4: issue is we just simply don't have enough of it.
• 7:00
  Speaker 4: In the war with Iran, there are critical shortages of
• 7:03
  Speaker 4: ballistic missile interceptors and other air defense systems, as well
• 7:07
  Speaker 4: as long-range strike munitions like cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
• 7:11
  Speaker 4: And these are quite concerning. The issue is that those
• 7:14
  Speaker 4: systems didn't work. It's that we didn't have enough of them.
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: Secretary Hegseth also wants to dramatically reduce the number of
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: senior officers, including a 20 percent cut in active duty,
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: four-star positions such as generals and admirals.
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: Is the U.S. military, is it genuinely overloaded with generals?
• 7:37
  Speaker 4: So there have been longstanding complaints across multiple administrations that
• 7:41
  Speaker 4: the Pentagon is too top-heavy with general officers. But a
• 7:46
  Speaker 4: 20% cut at the top seems rather excessive. And it's
• 7:51
  Speaker 4: also worth noting that it's a bit ironic that Secretary
• 7:53
  Speaker 4: Hegseth also wants to stand up a new combatant command,
• 7:57
  Speaker 4: Autonomous Warfare Command, at the same time that he's saying
• 8:01
  Speaker 4: the United States should be cutting its number of generals.
• 8:04
  Speaker 4: These two things are in conflict.
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: With each other. So what do you think he's thinking then?
• 8:10
  Speaker 4: I think he.
• 8:12
  Speaker 4: Is caught in the same bind that a lot of
• 8:14
  Speaker 4: previous secretaries have been in, and that they want to
• 8:17
  Speaker 4: reduce the overall number. But when you actually get down
• 8:20
  Speaker 4: to the details, it's very difficult to do so in
• 8:22
  Speaker 4: a manner that doesn't affect the combat abilities of the force.
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: You know, fewer generals, more tech billionaires. Is that serious
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: military reform? Or I wonder, is the Pentagon taking a
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: very expensive gamble on outsiders and So the.
• 8:48
  Speaker 4: Implementation of Project Meridian, which at this point is still
• 8:52
  Speaker 4: very unclear how that will happen, will determine whether or
• 8:56
  Speaker 4: not it's a serious military reform. And it's difficult to
• 8:59
  Speaker 4: say at this time. It is worth noting that the
• 9:02
  Speaker 4: Office of Net Assessment, which had previously been closed under
• 9:06
  Speaker 4: the Trump administration, was largely performing the same functions that
• 9:10
  Speaker 4: it sounds like Project Meridian will be doing in the future.
• 9:14
  Speaker 4: So I think there's serious hurdles for this project to
• 9:18
  Speaker 4: overcome if it's going to be successful and produce the
• 9:21
  Speaker 4: right policy outcomes.
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: You know, we were.
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: Talking about this Project Meridian earlier today, and every project Generation,
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: it seems, seems to be convinced that its new technology
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: is going to revolutionize warfare. What if Project Meridian gets
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: the future wrong? What is the mistake that could actually
• 9:42
  Speaker 2: cost America the next war?
• 9:46
  Speaker 4: I think one of the most costly mistakes the United
• 9:49
  Speaker 4: States can make is betting too big on one set
• 9:51
  Speaker 4: of ideas or technology and losing the ability to rapidly adapt.
• 9:56
  Speaker 4: Nobody gets their predictions of future warfare perfectly.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: Correct ahead of time.
• 10:01
  Speaker 4: There's always new surprises along the way, and the ability
• 10:04
  Speaker 4: to adapt is perhaps the most important variable. So as
• 10:07
  Speaker 4: long as we keep that and don't overinvest too heavily
• 10:11
  Speaker 4: in one thing, the U.S. military should be able to
• 10:14
  Speaker 4: overcome challenges thrown its way.
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: Ryan, let me just throw this curveball at you.
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: Other than Elon Musk, Newt Gingrich is going to be
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: heading this Project Meridian. What did you think when you
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: heard his name?
• 10:28
  Speaker 4: I think he was probably chosen as a result of
• 10:31
  Speaker 4: his political experience navigating Washington and perhaps some of his
• 10:35
  Speaker 4: management experience as well. I was a little surprised to
• 10:39
  Speaker 4: see him on there, but it does provide a certain
• 10:42
  Speaker 4: kind of set of balance to the individuals who are
• 10:45
  Speaker 4: co-leading the program.
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: All right. Ryan Brobstrein, good having you on the program.
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: Good talking through all of these interesting issues with you.
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: Thank you.
• 10:56
  Speaker 4: Thanks for having me.