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