Feb. 24, 2023 - Bannon's War Room
47:46
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| Biden finished his trip in Europe. | ||
| China's top diplomat continued his tour of Moscow. | ||
| Chinese state counselor Wang Yi met with Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday. | ||
| I mean, what's he doing? This is like going to Vegas right now and say, hey, you know what? | ||
| Can I bet on the Red Sox winning the World Series? | ||
| I want to put all my money down on the Red Sox winning the World Series. | ||
| This is one day. It's not going to happen. | ||
| After Putin delivered his national address. | ||
| It's not going to happen. Putin's losing. | ||
| What's China doing? | ||
| During the portion of the meeting that was public, weapons were not discussed. | ||
| But U.S. officials have warned that China could seek support to support Russia with weapons in its war on Ukraine. | ||
| Instead, Putin highlighted their economic partnership. | ||
| Because, I mean, really, seriously, you look at Russia... | ||
| A country that had a smaller GDP than Texas before the war started. | ||
| I mean, if he keeps going, it's going to be Mississippi. | ||
| Yeah, predicting... Lowest GDP in America. | ||
| Predicting China and Russia's trade volume could reach $200 billion this year, which would be up from $185 billion last year. | ||
| They expressed once again that their relationship is strong, with Putin adding that he looks forward to welcoming his friend, Chinese President Xi Jinping, to the Kremlin soon. | ||
| You know, the thing is, Willie, I can only guess. | ||
| The Chinese, even though they've been acting short-sighted over the past several years and been doing things that have hurt themselves internally and across the world, I can only guess that this is a public, an outward-facing show of support, | ||
| because they know it's in their best interest for this war to end, for them to be able, we talked about them trying to cobble back together their relationships with European powers, and to move beyond this war, make no mistake of it, for a country who is struggling right now, as China is, this war makes absolutely no sense to them. | ||
| And China may be the key eventually to ending this war, but you're right, what strange timing. | ||
| On the one-year anniversary of the failed military invasion that has gutted Russia economically, brought on sanctions of the world, the condemnation of the West, all these countries where that same guy, Wang Yi, was in Europe trying to assure European capitals that China was with them to keep their business relationships alive, | ||
| and then on the one-year anniversary to be in Moscow and for China to be conducting military exercises with Russia, Setting that signal, we stand with Russia in this failed war in which war crimes are being conducted, John. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You can't get away from the seating arrangement at the Kremlin today, where President Putin had no problem sitting very close across that table with Wang Yi, the high-level diplomat, foreign policy diplomat there. | |
| And I know that the United States and others are concerned about what China might do. | ||
| Do you have any evidence that the Chinese government has made a decision to send lethal aid to Russia? | ||
| Have any private companies started helping Russian companies or the Russian military with information, equipment, whatever they might need? | ||
| Christian, as you know, we've been having this conversation with the Chinese government, including at the level of President Biden and President Xi Jinping, starting from before the war began, but including the meeting in Bali in November and My boss, Secretary Blinken's meeting with Wang Yi in Munich just this week to say that you, China, claim to be neutral in this fight. | ||
| You claim to support UN charter principles of the sovereignty of states and non-aggression. | ||
| So behave that way and do not contribute to this fight. | ||
| We have had some evidence that we have shared of some Chinese companies beginning to dally in this pond. | ||
| As you may know, a couple of weeks ago, we sanctioned a Chinese company called Spacity, which was providing geolocation information to the Wagner Group, which is fighting in Bakhmut. | ||
| That sanctioning, I think, caught the Chinese by surprise. | ||
| We are also looking hard now at sanctions evasion by Chinese firms. | ||
| And I think when you see the big package of new sanctions that we roll out tomorrow, you'll see us trying to go after those evasion targets. | ||
| But what's most important is the conversation that we're having at top levels where we're making clear that there will be very strong consequences in our bilateral relationship and in China's global reputation if it gets into this fight. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But it is getting into this fight, at least diplomatically. | |
| It's chosen on the eve of this war not to come here, but to go there and sit closely and talk about, you know, both, you know, the crisis that they need to exit from, you know, their eternal friendship. | ||
| Why do you think, you know, strategically, diplomatically, China would take this decision to cozy up to what now looks like a losing bet by Russia? | ||
| Why? Well, I'm not going to get into the heads of Chinese leaders. | ||
| I do know that Putin, for a very long time, has been standing outside Xi Jinping's doorway asking him for more, more, more. | ||
| And the Chinese have largely Chosen not to answer that call. | ||
| They do believe and claim that they can be peacemakers in this, and that they will have some ideas unveiled tomorrow. | ||
| Frankly, if the Chinese can get Putin to end this war and go home, I think we'd all be happy to give them a peace prize, but we have to see what these conversations are about. | ||
|
unidentified
|
真正令人担忧的是美國對世界合併穩定起到的迫害性作用。 美國是最大的戰爭製造者美國建國240多年的歷史當中只有16年沒有打過仗二戰結束以來世界上發生的武裝衝突當中由美國發起的佔到約80 %美國也是侵犯別國主權干涉別國內政最多的國家 據報導 二戰結束以來美國試圖推翻五十多個外國政府粗暴干涉至少三十個國家的選舉試圖暗殺五十餘位外國領導人美國還是挑動陣營對立對抗的最大源頭美國領導下的北約對阿富汗 伊拉克 敘利亞的戰爭導致超過九十萬人死亡三千七百萬人淪為難民美國的霸權政策和好戰傾向延續一天 It's Thursday, | |
| 23 February in the year of our Lord, 2023. | ||
| Open the second hour here. | ||
| And we played Morning Joe because that's the mouthpiece of the conventional wisdom in your nation's capital. | ||
| And also, that's Victoria Nuland. | ||
| For those of you that are not watching us on streaming service or any of the Real America's Voice or Lindell TV or Hulu, wherever you see the TV version, if you listen to the podcast, The second was Victoria Nuland. | ||
| She's the architect at the State Department of this entire fiasco. | ||
| She's been on this for a decade. | ||
| I wanted to bring it up for the immaturity, the lack of historical understanding with people like Joe Scarborough, who's never been anywhere in the world, just a complete dangerous clown, and more dangerous clown, Victoria Nuland. This has been very well thought through. | ||
| by these regional power Russia and an emerging global power, the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| This is a merger of the KGB and the CCP, two transnational criminal organizations that are in a very rapid movement to consolidate the Eurasian landmass. | ||
| And now with news we've got coming out of the Secretary of the Navy also to come at the United States with our Mahan strategy, the old British Royal Navy strategy of controlling the ports and the In the waterways and the straits, the choke points that come after us on our naval presence, too. We're going to get into all of it. | ||
| In the meantime, Russia, which is just a regional power, as we've argued for years, a regional power. | ||
| However, armed to the teeth, With nuclear weapons, we brought that in. | ||
| I've asked Bradley Thayer and Frank Gaffney, two of the smartest guys I know, not just smart with knowledge, see a lot of people on TV and they know this stuff, but actually have wisdom, judgment, and discernment. | ||
| Frank, you've been in this business a long time, right? | ||
| I mean, you were part of the Reagan administration over at DOD. I mean, this is what your professional life has been about. | ||
| Have you ever seen it more dangerous? | ||
| In your time as a senior defense official and somebody's been engaged in this for, what, 40 years plus than it is right now? | ||
| And I'd like you to opine to the immaturity and lack of knowledge of, like, the people in Morning Joe, and they spout this every day out there as, like, set doctrine. | ||
| Frank Gaffney. Steve, I think this makes the Cold War at its height pale by comparison for the simple reason that We now are facing a Soviet Union-style nuclear capability on steroids in Russia as a direct result of an immense buildup that has taken place. | ||
| I think the last count I heard was that there are something like 22 new nuclear systems of various characters and types. | ||
| that have been put into place by the Kremlin in the past 10 years or so, including some that Putin has just announced are going to be either deployed like the Sarmat system, the huge, heavy intercontinental range ballistic missile known in NATO as Satan II, appropriately enough, capable of delivering 10 nuclear warheads. | ||
| And hypersonic missiles, both ground and sea-launched, and a new class of ballistic missile submarines. | ||
| But in addition to all of that, we're now looking at a whole other superpower with similar kinds of advanced strategic and other nuclear weapons in the form of the Chinese Communist Party's strategic rockets and tactical and theater nuclear forces. | ||
| The worst of it is that these powers, the Russians on the one hand under Vladimir Putin, the Chinese under Xi Jinping, have in recent years been engaging in a series of strategic nuclear exercises in which they have simulated thermonuclear attacks against their common enemy, | ||
| namely us. That's a whole order of magnitude more dangerous situation than we've seen in the past, as well as the fact that these guys are rather insistently now talking up the idea of actually using these nuclear weapons against us. | ||
| Bradley, drafting over what Frank said, when you hear this thing about a failed war and why is China there and it's going to be ridiculous, you see the thought that the Chinese have. | ||
| And by the way, they've been working on this for years. | ||
| They signed this pact during the, I think, Winter Olympics last year, which I consider now what they're doing now like the Molotov-Ribbentov pact. | ||
| We're in 1939. We're in 1938 with Hong Kong. | ||
| Nobody stood up there. | ||
| That was Czechoslovakia. | ||
| Now we're in 1939. | ||
| And people, I think, forget the history. | ||
| When Molotov and Ribbentrop, the Germans and the Russians, signed the deal, that their partnership, I think it was two and a half, three weeks later, Poland was invaded. | ||
| I mean, the official kickoff, I think World War II started earlier, but the official kickoff is 1 September 1939 in Poland. | ||
| It's just right after they signed their deal to work together and pick apart Poland. | ||
| The immaturity of Victoria Nuland, the immaturity of Morning Joe, and then we ended that with a senior Chinese statement that just threw down and said, hey, the United States are warmongers. | ||
| You've only been at peace 16 years of your total existence. | ||
| After World War II, you overthrew 50 governments. | ||
| You've killed 50 leaders. | ||
| You're nothing but a bunch of warmongers. | ||
| What is your assessment, sir? | ||
| Well, my assessment with respect to that is I wish we added one more into the governments we've overthrown, and that was the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| Sadly, we weren't able to do that, Steve. | ||
| And let's hope we're able to do that at some point in the not too distant future. | ||
| Look, these remarks are to be expected. | ||
| Frank's point is exactly right, that right now we're facing The combined...increasingly we're facing the nuclear threats of Russia and China. | ||
| Our nuclear deterrent capabilities were really only designed to deal with one pure competitor, the Soviet Union in the course of the Cold War and Russia in the post-Cold War period. | ||
| Now US Strategic Command is having to think through in a way which is stressing the force because we have too few nuclear weapons and too few conventional weapons to deal with the threats that we face from Russia as well as China. | ||
| And so it didn't have to be this way, certainly. | ||
| China is the existential threat that the United States faces. | ||
| If China does go ahead and arm Russia overtly, Then, of course, that puts the engagement school in a box. | ||
| The engagement school wants to engage, cooperate with China, and it wants to fight its war with Russia. | ||
| If China overtly is arming Russia, then the engagers are going to have a major problem. | ||
| That may be a bridge too far, even for the engagement school, given their focus on Russia. | ||
| So I think we need to recognize also, Steve, the fact that China probably has been covertly arming Russia and helping Russia in every way that they can. | ||
| Is China helping Russia? | ||
| Of course they are. | ||
| Diplomatically, you remember in September of last year in Uzbekistan at the Samarkand meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization where Xi stood with Putin And as you've stressed many times, it was Xi that really gave the green light to Russia before the invasion of February of 21. | ||
| But we see diplomatically their assistance. | ||
| We see economically the assistance that China is giving. | ||
| So China's in the fight on Russia's side. | ||
| And we need to recognize that. | ||
| And that makes China very happy because we are so focused on Ukraine and we're not focused on what China is doing around the world, particularly against Taiwan and our interests there. | ||
| Before I go back to Frank, I just want to reiterate something. | ||
| They announced today, just a little while ago, that if China had any more rubbing up and hugging on Putin, they were going to release intelligence to show that they had been arming them covertly. | ||
| Note to everybody in the world, as we have said since they signed that pact, they have provided massive non-lethal military assistance. | ||
| And I strongly believe, and I think we report here, they've been covertly sending military. | ||
| This is no surprise to anybody, Dr. | ||
| Thayer, that is in this line of country, as I say, that works in this line of country. | ||
| This is only a surprise to Victoria Nuland that comes on from the State Department to spread lies and misinformation and people like the Morning Joe set. | ||
| Everybody that follows this understands their working partnership, do we not, Dr. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Bradley Thayer? That's right. | |
| Steve, you're spot on. | ||
| China has been helping Russia in every way that it can. | ||
| And when the history of this war is written, when the historians get into this, we're going to see that there was a lot of covert military support for Russia. | ||
| And it's just a question of when that becomes overt. | ||
| Again, the Chinese, of course, aren't going to do themselves any favors with the engagement school if they do make that overt military support to Russia. | ||
| But that's not going to stop them. | ||
| Frank, this is why you're The water under your keel that you've had is actually helpful here because this is why I think it's much more dangerous than the height of the Cold War and I was what a naval officer from 76 I think to 83 in that time frame and in the Western Pacific in the Pentagon for the last couple years but the Western Pacific South China Sea Indian Ocean on a destroyer where the Soviet Union our mission was to you know to track fast attack submarines that would challenge the battle group. | ||
| But even the debates we had at that time, there were debates, and some people, you know, they had the nuclear weapons they were put into Europe, and there were million people marches and protests, and we were warmongers, and Reagan's a warmonger. | ||
| But there's something deeper and more insidious here. | ||
| Even the American elite seem to at least be bound together with a set of principles, although it was vast disagreement. | ||
| There is something deeply wrong here. | ||
| This is just outright lying to the American people every day and treating them like school children every day on just some basic fundamental facts of this new axis of the KGB, the CCP, the Ayatollahs and Mullahs in Persia, Erdogan in Turkey, I don't care if he's in NATO, Erdogan in Turkey, throwing the House of Saudi Arabia, now Iraq, who just announced today they're going to take their big output deal with China, they're going to use RMB to settle in it, not petrodollars, not U.S. dollars. | ||
| He's throwing Pakistan and let's be throwing mini-me up in North Korea. | ||
| Did you ever see it were just the lies and misrepresentations of what the reality of the world is like, even in the worst, the most divisive parts of the Cold War? | ||
| Let me make three points real quick. | ||
| You're right, that's a new sort of stage we're in. | ||
| Partly The reason I say we're in far more dangerous waters than we were at the height of the Cold War is in addition to the points I made about the Russian modernization, the Chinese modernization, we have not engaged in basically any modernization of our arsenal since I left the Pentagon back in 1988. | ||
| We haven't tested our nuclear weapons. | ||
| We haven't been serious about them. | ||
| Our defense industrial support for that critical deterrence has been essentially allowed to atrophy. | ||
| And every single one of these enemies, you mentioned a number of them besides the Russians and Chinese, have taken our measure. | ||
| And that's why deterrence is in extreme jeopardy. | ||
| And yes, are government officials lying to us? | ||
| You bet they are, in part because most of them are I think people who have betrayed our country to the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| I used to say they were compromised, but that's too generous a term. | ||
| They've betrayed us. | ||
| And here's a thought on, just a thought experiment. | ||
| You talk about, and Brad's absolutely right, that Chinese have been helping the Russians all along. | ||
| I follow the money is the famous expression. | ||
| That's our money. I say this every time I'm with you. | ||
| You can bet that what the Chinese are paying for oil and food and other commodities from the Russians is at least in part a function of our pension funds being used by them. | ||
| But here's the thought experiment, Steve. | ||
| If they wanted to send covert arms to the Russians, what would be better than taking some of those $85 billion worth of American arms that we surrendered to the Taliban with no Chinese fingerprints into the fray? | ||
| I bet you that's going to be found to have happened at some point. | ||
| But either that way or other ways, you can bet that they will be making it possible for the Ukrainian people to be further ground to a pulp by the Russians. | ||
| And we just did, by the way, a terrific webinar on this very subject. | ||
| It'll be posted at Present Danger China shortly. | ||
| I would strongly commend it to all of your audience. | ||
| As I do with the new book that we've just written, with your encouragement, entitled The Indictment, which we hope to have out shortly. | ||
| We're going to get to the indictment in just a second. | ||
| Give me the name of the webinar. | ||
| I want to make sure everybody gets to push out. | ||
| What's the name of the webinar? The webinar is the one that we'll post, I believe, probably later tonight. | ||
| And the title of it is, Is Ukraine the CCP's First Front? | ||
| The idea being that there will be a second shortly in the Pacific. | ||
| Let's pivot for a second. | ||
| Bradley, I'll start with you and I want to come back to Frank. | ||
| If you heard Morning Joe and you heard Victoria Nuland, give me the Dr. | ||
| Bradley Thayer reality check. | ||
| Where in your mind exactly are we with the Chinese Communist Party right now and their involvement, this partnership with Russia and their evolving plan that they have for the consolidation of the Eurasian landmass? | ||
| If you were on the set of Morning Joe today, what would be your response to what they put out? | ||
| My response would be the following. | ||
| The remarks that they're identifying or that Victoria Nuland is touting is simply wrong. | ||
| They've consistently threat deflated. | ||
| They consistently underestimate the China threat. | ||
| And they've done that for decades. | ||
| They've done that for years. | ||
| So their obsession, their day fix is Russia. | ||
| And they continue to ignore the China threat, this existential threat that wants to kill us. | ||
| It wants to supplant the United States. | ||
| It wants to overturn our alliance relationships. | ||
| It wants to defeat the United States. | ||
| That is everything. | ||
| Steve, as you've stressed time and again, and so has Frank, that all of our energies have to be marshaled to deal with that threat, not sideshows like Russia or Ukraine. | ||
| Now, as a result of what the Biden administration has done, increasingly tightening the commitment to Ukraine, we're further locked into a sideshow rather than being focused on China. | ||
| And China, of course, is dancing in the streets at continuation of US strategic stupidity at having its energy sucked up in Ukraine and the Russo-Ukrainian War rather than focusing on it. | ||
| And Steve, to the point that you made and Frank did too, this isn't the Cold War because in the Cold War we had a nuclear infrastructure and a conventional defense industrial base that was responsive. | ||
| It actually could generate ships. | ||
| It could generate nuclear weapons. | ||
| We're not there anymore, right? | ||
| I mean, this is like going out to your garage and thinking that your 1952 Dodge is gonna turn over, right? | ||
| You haven't done anything to it for a very long time, and it's not gonna start, right? | ||
| You're gonna have to invest a lot of money to getting that thing going again. | ||
| So, like, you know, as the Secretary of the Navy identified as stating the obvious, Chinese are cranking out ships at a pace, at a scale that we simply could not match. | ||
| And that's going to matter in a war of attrition against China, which sadly we may find ourselves in if deterrence fails. | ||
| And deterrence is failing because we haven't modernized our nukes, our nuclear weapons infrastructure, our nuclear capabilities, and our military, our conventional military. | ||
| So we're in a very dangerous situation. | ||
| It's very precarious. | ||
| The thing we never had in the Cold War after, I mean, we had Vietnam, we had Korea, but you never had the type of industrial war. | ||
| You've got an old-fashioned World War I, World War II war of attrition in Ukraine that is sucking all the resources, and I say just not monetarily, but also in Frank Gaffney, I've known Frank for, I think, going on 20 years now. | ||
| Frank has preached the gospel of our industrial base and how we don't have it anymore. | ||
| I tell you, we're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| We've got Dr. Bradley Thayer. | ||
| We've got Frank Gaffney. | ||
| We're here talking about the Third World War, the early years. | ||
| Next in the War Room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The Third World War. | |
| The Third World War. | ||
| Okay, I'm joined by Frank Gaffney and Dr. Brian Berman. | ||
| Bradley Thayer. Frank, you've preached this for many, many years, and my dad did too, for years and years and years. | ||
| He said, hey, you're stripping your industrial base. | ||
| When it comes down to it, you're not going to be able to make the tanks, but you're particularly not going to be able to make the shells, the bullets, all of it when you really have to fight a major war. | ||
| And people just laughed it off. | ||
| And then when you had the war of terror and then the conflicts we had in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were like skirmishes, Not full-scale battles like they're having in Ukraine right now. | ||
| When Dayer says this, how bad is your assessment right now with the obligations and commitments this government's made to rearming Ukraine that is supposedly firing 5,000 shells a day? | ||
| Artillery shells. 5,000 a day. | ||
| The Russians are firing 20,000 a day. | ||
| I don't know how many the Ukrainians are. | ||
| The 5,000, I think they may take a little off the top and monetize it somewhere else, just something for the effort. | ||
| But how bad is it right now, our industrial base, the ability to rearm our armed forces in the Pacific, and particularly our allies in Taiwan? | ||
| Again, this comes down to deterrence, Steve. | ||
| The cumulative effects of what we have done, and we talked about the atrophying of our nuclear enterprise. | ||
| It's just one example. | ||
| More generally, I remember that when Bill Clinton took office, he brought Les Aspen, one of the most leftist members of Congress, in as his secretary of defense. | ||
| And shortly after he got there, he held a confab with the defense contractors, the people who led what was still a pretty formidable Cold War residual industrial base. | ||
| And he said, there's not going to be enough money for all of you guys. | ||
| You're going to have to consolidate. | ||
| You're going to have to shrink. Some of you are going to Go out of business. | ||
| And that's what happened. And as a result, we find ourselves confronting this problem that you talked about, which is we're sending much of what we have now, and we've not only depleted our own We've been raiding what we have forward deployed in South Korea, which we may well need there shortly. | ||
| And Israel, which with Iran going nuclear any day now, we may well need there as well. | ||
| And we're putting that all into Ukraine. | ||
| Brad got it exactly right. | ||
| This is at the expense of our preparedness for dealing with China. | ||
| But more broadly, Steve, it's the combination of all of that And the obsolescence of an awful lot of what we have in the inventory today, particularly in the nuclear side, and the perception that the leadership of our country is now not simply going to be disinclined to defend us against China, | ||
| or China and Russia, as the case may be, but are actively working with and for the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| And that's a sweeping allegation, but we're going to talk much more about it in the days to come. | ||
| Trust me on this, because the Congress is going to have to get into the elite capture, a centerpiece of the indictment, by the way, of what they've done to us and the leadership, not just in the political space, but in the business community, most especially on Wall Street, in media and culture, on the academic campuses and so on. | ||
| This is a fruit. | ||
| Of a long-term, patient effort to take us down. | ||
| It's well-advanced, and I fear that we're at a point now where if we don't man up urgently and remove from office those who are currently batting for the other team, the Chinese and the other enemies of this country will not only be emboldened to take us on, they will go for it. | ||
| Dr. Thayer, is the attitude they've taken, like the last individual we showed saying the United States is a bunch of warmongers when they're supposed to be, you know, morning, oh, they're going to be in Moscow, but nothing's going to happen. | ||
| Is the launch of the spy airship, particularly on the 20th, when they knew we had it, but we're still going to try to go over Blinken's still going to try to go over and have a meeting and kowtow to him. | ||
| Does the fact that we didn't send, as you wanted to, we didn't shut down the consulates, call the ambassador over, read him the riot act, sanction the senior members of the Chinese Communist Party, is all of these cumulative actions that we failed to do, do they so disrespect us now and think so little of us in your mind that they think of us as a tributary state? | ||
| We have a huge problem with our credibility under the Biden administration. | ||
| When this individual declares that we're warmongers, I think our response, of course, should be that we have liberated. | ||
| We are the greatest source of freedom in international politics who've generated essentially the long peace. | ||
| We generated a period of tremendous stability in international politics, and it was U.S. military power That really was the bedrock of that. | ||
| So far from being warmongers, we're the greatest source of peace and stability in international politics there is. | ||
| Now when he's going on, the 11th commandment is not that the US gets to be the dominant state forever, right? | ||
| The 11th commandment is not that if, you know, we don't have to do anything and all things will go our way. | ||
| We've lost tremendous credibility in our alliances and with China because of the fecklessness of Biden administration's actions beginning at Anchorage where the Chinese officials essentially read them the riot act Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan in a meeting at Anchorage and they stayed there and took the abuse rather than walking out which is what you should have done when the US is insulted and we've seen this time and again Afghanistan We've seen this in the very weak response to a host of issues. | ||
| The balloon simply, and most dramatically, we should have shot that thing down right when it entered our airspace, protecting our sovereignty. | ||
| And as you've noted, of course, we allowed that to float, which was a very important political weapon directed by the Chinese Communist Party against us. | ||
| They're telling the American people that they can kill the American people. | ||
| They have the ability to reach the homeland. | ||
| And the Biden administration won't do anything about that, which hurts our alliance relationships. | ||
| There are countries like Japan and Australia looking to us, partners like Taiwan and India. | ||
| And then, of course, that emboldens our enemies, like North Korea, Iran, and, of course, China. | ||
| So it was a disaster. | ||
| And then to have the Chinese essentially try to take a victory lap with the balloon, with the meetings essentially in Moscow, and then of course Xi's forthcoming meeting with Putin in the months to come, | ||
| it just shows the Biden administration is incredibly weak and needs to reverse course immediately because deterrence is about fundamentally Political calculations like credibility, the willingness to issue a threat and to have that believed, and also military capabilities. | ||
| Our military capabilities are not what they should be, and our political considerations are weak because of the lack of credibility in this area. | ||
| So deterrence is under tremendous stress with this administration. | ||
| And it has to be addressed immediately. | ||
| The reports of the Wall Street Journal today that there are some U.S. troops overtly in Taiwan is a great first step, but there needs to be a lot more of that and soon. | ||
| And frankly, as you've noted, as Frank noted, the defense industrial base can't produce the materials that we need soon enough. | ||
| And so, you know, even if we were to go to ocean Navy strategy, which is what we should do going back to 1940, Steve, as you've noted, very importantly to build the Navy that can deal with the China threat as well as the other problems that we have. | ||
| It's going to take time. | ||
| You just can't turn the essentially obviously the naval yards on like a light switch. | ||
| It's going to take tremendous effort, and it's going to take years of effort, as del Toro identified today, in order to bring about the force structure that we need. | ||
| And what's true of the Navy is true of the Army, it's true of the Marine Corps, it's true of the Air Force as well. | ||
| All of the services need to be augmented. | ||
| But we need to have leadership to do that, and we need to have credible leadership to do that. | ||
| And sadly, this is failing with the Biden administration. | ||
| Frank, I got a couple of minutes. | ||
| I don't want to give away the punchline to the indictment, but the concept of the indictment, what you're coming forward in, and you're saying something different than just incompetence and failure. | ||
| You and the Committee on the Present Danger is making a more fundamental, basic, and quite frankly, scary case against the national security leadership of this nation, particularly the Biden regime, correct? | ||
| Yeah, it's really an indictment, both of the Chinese Communist Party, for the war crimes they've committed against our people, unprovoked, over a long period of time. | ||
| To this point, not of the kinetic kind, to be sure, but of a whole host of others, and we enumerate them very carefully. | ||
| But also, the crimes against humanity that they've perpetrated mostly against their own people. | ||
| But aspire to perpetuate and impose elsewhere as well if they can become the world's hegemon. | ||
| But it's also an indictment of their friends, the people in this country who have enabled all of that. | ||
| And I've mentioned a number of them in the sectors that they're in. | ||
| Joe Biden is at the top of that list as the commander in chief. | ||
| It is a scandal of the highest order, a national security threat for that matter. | ||
| We're arguing in the indictment that has nine separate charges against the Chinese Communist Party and its friends. | ||
| That there are some 20 steps, at a minimum, that need to be taken now, if we're to do the sorts of things that my friend and colleague Brad Thayer has just talked about, and more, to try to right the ship, to try to maximize deterrence, | ||
| to buy us time to stave off possibly an imminent kinetic shooting war phase of this unrestricted war against us, and thereby preserve our country and enable us to bequeath to our children and our children's children, the freedoms that we've enjoyed. | ||
| Okay, we're going to launch the indictment next week at CPAC in a big launch, and we'll have more information about that. | ||
| Frank, how do people get to the Committee in Present Danger, how they get to Center for Security Policy, all your writings, and particularly your social media? | ||
| Thank you, Steve. The book is really drawn from the best of the webinars that we've done. | ||
| Brad's been on some of them, you have as well. | ||
| At presentdangerchina.org, the website for the Center for Security Policy, which is one of the sponsors for the committee, is securefreedom.org. | ||
| Our show at Real America's Voices at securingamerica.tv, and I'm at Frank Gaffney all over the place. | ||
| Thank you. Frank, honor to have you on here. | ||
| Thank you for giving us your wisdom and your judgment. | ||
| Bradley Thayer, can you give us your coordinates, sir? | ||
| Yes, Steve, thanks. I'm at B Thayer at the Center for Security Policy and then Bradley Thayer on social media. | ||
| Thanks, Steve, very much for calling attention to this and continuing to work the issue. | ||
| Oh, no, every day. | ||
| This is our calling to take down the CCP, to assist the Lao Bajing to take them down. | ||
| Real quick, the book you and Lin Xiao just came out was fantastic. | ||
| What's the title? And Bradley Thayer wrote Understanding the China Threat. | ||
| Lin Chow is the best. Fantastic book. | ||
| I devoured it in one sitting. | ||
| It was that good. Thank you, sir. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Honored to have you on here. Thank you very much, Steve. | |
| The Third World War is going to be quite different than the other wars that we fought. | ||
| You're still going to have the blood and the tears and the agonies you see in the Ukraine every day, in the constant shelling. | ||
| It looks like World War I, but it's also a battlefield that is enormously complicated and sophisticated away from just the old-fashioned artillery shells hitting you like back in Napoleon's War. | ||
| We got a cold open, then we're going to bring our own Joe Allen in to get us up to speed. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Just like any mobile device these days, it has cameras and sensors, and just like your phones and social media apps, it does facial recognition. | |
| Inside here is three grams of shaped explosive. | ||
| This is how it works. | ||
| Did you see that? | ||
| That little bang is enough to penetrate the skull and destroy the contents. | ||
| They used to say guns don't kill people. | ||
| People do. Well, people don't. | ||
| They get emotional, disobey orders, aim high. | ||
| Let's watch the weapons make the decisions. | ||
| Now, trust me, these were all bad guys. | ||
| Now that is an airstrike of surgical precision. | ||
| It's one of a range of products. | ||
| Trained as a team, they can penetrate buildings, cars, trains, evade people, bullets, pretty much any countermeasure. | ||
| They cannot be stopped. | ||
| Joe Allen, I knew a lot of this advanced technology we talk about all the time. | ||
| In addition to hurtling towards the singularity, it was going to have a good old-fashioned swords-not-plowshares involvement. | ||
| Walk me through what we just saw. | ||
| It sounds beyond scary. | ||
| Steve, that's a film, Slaughterbots, produced by the Future of Life Institute. | ||
| It's founded by Max Tegmark. | ||
| He's basically a pro-transhumanism, pro-AI pacifist. | ||
| But what the technologies they're warning about are in development and There's really no way until they're deployed to know or exhibited to know whether or not anything like that is right around the corner or years on down the road or ever. | ||
| But, you know, we were discussing about a week and a half ago, Eric Schmidt and his argument that the real AI arms race is between the West and the East, between the US and China. | ||
| And Eric Schmidt has just started to back a new company, Istari. | ||
| That company is working on drone technology very similar to what you saw there. | ||
| If I could read a quote from a Wired article, the title of that Wired article is, Eric Schmidt is building the perfect AI warfighting machine. | ||
| And the author of the article describes the project at Ishtari as basically an internet of things with a deadly twist. | ||
| And Schmidt says it would build a large number of inexpensive devices that were highly mobile, that were attributable, And those devices, or drones, would have sensors or weapons and they would be networked together. | ||
| So basically, what they're working on is exactly what was exhibited in that fictional film, Slaughterbots. | ||
| And the idea is that instead of relying solely on old-fashioned weaponry, the artillery, old-fashioned war-fighting jets, things like this, and especially the sort of, you know, men going into combat in cities, | ||
| you would be able to target specific individuals with these drones, and because of the swarm technology, you would most likely be able to evade any sort of countermeasures that didn't involve scrambling the signal. | ||
| Now, I think that the tension that it highlights, Steve, in this AI Race, the race to the singularity, is that there are, I think, legitimate reasons for developing and deploying these things, even if I myself am against them. | ||
| I do understand the motive and the incentive behind it. | ||
| You have Peter Thiel and Alex Karp at Palantir doing very much the same. | ||
| You have DARPA funding these public-private partnerships all over the place. | ||
| But I personally see it going nowhere but towards tragedy. | ||
| It's still a tension that has to be addressed. | ||
| When you have an enemy like China that's trying to develop something very much like that, or if we end up in a shooting war with Russia and they have an AI-driven, AI-guided torpedo, nuclear-tipped torpedo like Poseidon, well then what do you do? | ||
| This is much like what we talked about yesterday with the tension between AGI and world government. | ||
| I think you also have a tension between trying to reduce the advancement of artificial intelligence, put right face-to-face with the existential crises that we face with adversaries like Russia and China. | ||
| You know, there's two things, and we're going to get into this more tomorrow. | ||
| And over the weekend, I think on Saturday, we're going to have an incredible, just a special on tying together exactly what's happening in the world in this Third World War. | ||
| Two things. Number one, we've already been not just accused, I think we've admitted. | ||
| We're using artificial intelligence to do advanced target acquisition for the Ukrainians. | ||
| We're doing it from remote locations, probably in Poland and countries of NATO. Maybe you're here in the U.S., but we're actually a combatant and we're using our AI technology. | ||
| It's one of the reasons that the Ukrainians, with all their bravery and courage, have been able to kind of hang on because they've got an order of magnitude more sophisticated, at least in this AI on target acquisition. | ||
| That's what's being talked about right now. | ||
| The other thing that's very disturbing is that Peter... | ||
| Yeah, Palantir. The other thing that's very disturbing is that Peter Thiel, when he makes the argument, I think it was at Oxford with this clip you had, or he showed me the speech, even at Oxford, he goes, look, I'm against AI, you've got to really slow it down, we've got to, you know, this could be a problem, there's some good advances for humanity, but you've got to watch it. | ||
| However, comma, If we're going to have to continue in the AI arms race because China is pretty far down the road, so we still got to do this. | ||
| Give me your assessment of both of those. | ||
| We got about 45 seconds, and we're going to have you back tomorrow. | ||
| Give me your assessment of that. Like I say, Steve, I think that Teal, Schmidt, as much as I oppose the projects they're working on, and especially as much as I have misgivings about the direction that that AI development will go, I do understand the motive behind it, just like I understand the economic and social motives behind things like the chatbots. | ||
| I personally have the sense that this will end up in just the same sorts of kind of potentially hellish scenarios that nuclear weapons have led us right to the edge of. | ||
| We'll see what happens. | ||
| Okay, my man, how do people get to all your writings, all your great material? | ||
| JoeBot.xyz, WarRoom.org under the Transhumanism tab and my social media, Getter and Twitter, at J-O-E-B-O-T-X-Y-Z. Thank you very much, Steve. | ||
| Joe Allen, thank you so much. | ||
| We're back here at 10 a.m. | ||
| Eastern Standard Time tomorrow morning. | ||
| I'll probably be up on Getter throughout the evening. | ||
| Check it out. We'll see you back here in the War Room tomorrow morning, 10 a.m. |
Export Selection