[01:00:00;05 - 01:00:10;14] Speaker 2 Numerous Washington DC think tanks and the military itself have run war games adjudicating the possibility of a US-China war [01:00:10;14 - 01:00:34;08] Speaker 2 over the sovereignty of Taiwan. In nearly every war game, the United States exhausts stockpiles of missiles, interceptors, and drones in less than four weeks. Replenishment then takes months. The country is not yet ready for war. And the Strategic Equipment Reserve is how we fix that. [01:00:34;08 - 01:00:46;01] Speaker 2 This episode's topic is our proposal for a Strategic Equipment Reserve, the defense industrial base, and what it will take to sustain and win war in the 21st century. [01:00:46;01 - 01:00:59;15] Speaker 2 And Doug, I think that's worth framing the episode up front. That's right. That war in the 21st century is going to look a lot different than even the global war on terror and probably a lot of the experiences that you and I [01:01:00;19 - 01:01:30;05] Speaker 2 trained for and fought in. I actually remember we would spend a ridiculous amount of time when I was a cadet and in some of my early infantry days training for what would happen if we came across an IED on the road. And to me, that is kind of representative of this very narrow, short time horizon concept of what could happen in war, when in reality, I think the military needs to start considering not just the conflicts we're fighting now, but what future conflicts could look like. [01:01:30;05 - 01:01:33;13] Speaker 1 Yeah, that's right. It's the whole purpose of what we're doing here is making sure the [01:01:34;26 - 01:02:05;01] Speaker 1 public out there knows there are certain things we have to do for the long term good of the country so that we can win these wars and we can't be deluding ourselves into, oh, everything's going to be fine. Because at this point that you just make Iran, we're just coming out of that. And that was more-- we get to pick our targets and all that stuff. But you talk about a possible war with the Chinese and the Pacific. And no matter how you shake it out, it's probably like three, four, maybe five weeks of missiles that will go flying back and forth. [01:02:06;03 - 01:02:11;10] Speaker 1 And it took us five, six years to make all those. And we can't replace them. So [01:02:12;12 - 01:02:20;12] Speaker 1 I'm no logistics genius or anything, but that's a bad spot to be in. And I think that we just have to recognize that through the Biden years-- [01:02:22;03 - 01:02:31;11] Speaker 1 obviously, it's easy to pick on Biden and Obama. But there's been an ongoing negligence here in terms of the battery and what's available and things like that. [01:02:31;11 - 01:02:39;26] Speaker 1 And it just got heightened when we're just like, oh, let's just give the Ukrainians all of our artillery shells. It's like, well, what about when we have to go to war? Ah, we'll figure it out. [01:02:39;26 - 01:03:33;25] Speaker 2 Well, let's start there, because I think that puts the problem in a really stark contrast. You can talk whatever you want to say about the war in Iran, Operation Epic Fury. You can talk whatever you want about the extent to which we should or should not be supporting Ukraine in their war against Russia. But the reality is that the defense industrial base, the military, did not appreciate the reality of modern warfare until President Trump's second term. That's right. Some numbers. The military was buying 12 Tomahawks a year during the Biden administration. And in the first five, five and a half weeks of Operation Epic Fury, the US military shot 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles, nearly replenishing our stocks. We had to move THAAD missile interceptors out of Korea. We shot, some would say, 83% of those stocks. [01:03:34;28 - 01:03:54;03] Speaker 2 The military has said that we have enough weapons to fight one war. Well, I think there's at least some real question on if that's the case. And then that's not even factoring, how do you manage multiple conflicts, manifesting at one time as easily could happen in this day and age with hot spots around the world? [01:03:54;03 - 01:03:57;23] Speaker 1 Well, right. And I think that's the part that everybody has to get their head around, because I think we've been [01:03:57;23 - 01:04:06;18] Speaker 1 lulled into this, oh, they had to fight this thing over here, and then fight this thing over here. You're kind of separate and stuff like that. It's totally feasible [01:04:06;18 - 01:04:12;08] Speaker 1 that we get involved in a major conflict. And then some other enemy is like, oh, good. They're distracted. [01:04:12;08 - 01:04:12;24] Speaker 2 Yes. [01:04:12;24 - 01:04:39;17] Speaker 1 And now we're going to attack them, which is the way warfare has been done for all of time. We have just been living in a window of time where stuff like that didn't really happen. But it totally could. So that's what we're advocating for. You have to have enough stockpile to fight two wars for a year. That sends the message that, yeah, you might attack us when we're weak because we're fighting somebody else, but it hasn't changed the fact that we've got enough munitions to beat you [01:04:39;17 - 01:04:40;01] Speaker 1 back. [01:04:40;01 - 01:05:32;06] Speaker 2 Right. It changes the calculus for the other guy. Oh, for sure. And so I think China can at least be a helpful example. It's kind of this clearing call against which we should plan. Because a potential conflict with Taiwan, although I don't want to make it a fait accompli, is this use case to examine what high intensity conflict with the neoprene adversary would look like in a very contested environment. The Taiwan Strait, as we would call it, would be a weapons-free space. Wouldn't be a lot of civilian targets. It would be military and military kind of bloodbath, so to speak, hopefully with a lot of drones so it's less bloody. But that's neither here nor there. But how we started the episode is true. There's a lot of evidence based on some really sophisticated war games that the United States doesn't have nearly enough missiles, [01:05:33;25 - 01:06:13;19] Speaker 2 air defense systems, to be able to sustain a fight in Taiwan. I want to introduce kind of two concepts to that point. One is battlefield geometry. Battlefield geometry is the notion that you have to kill the enemy before he can shoot you. So you have to have longer standoff weapons that hurt him before he's able to get close enough to hurt you. And that's a problem, right? That's a problem in the Pacific. We should assume that the United States won't have a lot of military presence on Taiwan when this happens. So how do we-- if we choose to defend Taiwan militarily, affect the Chinese. The second concept to introduce is battlefield algebra. [01:06:15;01 - 01:06:23;05] Speaker 2 How do I sustain a stockpile of affordable enough systems to either defend against the enemy or to hurt the enemy [01:06:24;06 - 01:06:31;05] Speaker 2 so that he runs out of stuff before I do? And I don't think we've gotten that math or either of those equations correct until now, really. [01:06:31;05 - 01:06:39;15] Speaker 1 Right. There's been a lot more attention on it, so people are starting to get it right. And I think when you said affordability just now, that's the key piece here. You can't just keep [01:06:39;15 - 01:07:27;08] Speaker 1 doing what we've been doing where we're just-- we hear this now. It's mainstream. You and I have talked about it a ton. It's like, oh, it'll take a $2 million missile to knock down a $25,000 drone. It's not a good way to do it. So you have to get to a place where we're not talking about stockpiles of these incredibly expensive weapons. We're talking about stockpiles of stuff that we can produce quickly. And we also have this conversation-- I know you're going to bring this up in more detail-- is this concept of you have the major defense contractors. They have a lot of sway over all this stuff. But we have to have little defense contractors coming in and doing this. Because that's the only way you get to a place where you get the innovation. And then you have the ability to put the stockpiles together and then replenish them as you go forward, whether stuff is aging out or you actually used it. [01:07:27;08 - 01:07:47;26] Speaker 2 Right. Well, and so the Department of War would buy products on roughly seven year timelines before now. So let's say, just an example, in 2018, the Department of War would tell the industry, hey, we want to buy a drone. And the drone should be able to do this, have this capability, this range, this payload. [01:07:49;13 - 01:08:03;03] Speaker 2 And then three years after that announcement, they'd test those drones. And then two to three years after that testing and that competition, drones would be in the hands of soldiers. But the problem is that those would be drones [01:08:03;03 - 01:08:06;26] Speaker 2 written from 2018, written based on requirements from 2018. [01:08:07;27 - 01:08:16;26] Speaker 2 We've got to move faster. But the thing that we propose, I think, is unique. Because we're really driving towards the establishment of [01:08:18;04 - 01:08:43;26] Speaker 2 global stockpiles of systems that sustain the fight in the 21st century for two wars at a time. And that's really the finer point that I think is worth talking about. There are a lot-- honestly, I think there are a lot of great initiatives that are coming out, coming out of the Pentagon these days. A lot of good support from Congress. In many ways, we're pushing against an open door here. But to put a finer point on being [01:08:43;26 - 01:08:47;14] Speaker 2 precise about the capability that we need, I think, is worth this discussion. [01:08:47;14 - 01:08:47;28] Speaker 1 That's right. [01:08:47;28 - 01:09:13;01] Speaker 1 That's right. And even when you get into the, oh, wow, that's expensive. It's like, yeah, that is expensive. But you know what's more expensive? Getting our ass kicked in a war. That's right. That's right. We've got a whole separate issue beyond that. So this is real stuff. And it really comes down to-- in all these episodes, we've been talking about personnel and different things and long term mentality and things like that. But this is really [01:09:14;09 - 01:09:44;18] Speaker 1 super hands on. Because if you have all the right people, but they don't have the stuff, what's the point? Exactly. And so this all ties together. And it's just been a neglected piece. But like you said, we're pushing on an open door. In a sense, we just need people to take one step further. We're having these conversations to what end? Where are we taking this? And we're saying, two major wars, four a year, you've got to have enough. Otherwise, you're inviting trouble when you do get into one war. [01:09:44;18 - 01:10:06;20] Speaker 2 I think this is what the equation looks after experimentation and testing, which is very much where the military and the defense industrial base is now. We have to get to a point where there is production scale and the delivery of systems at wartime speed and wartime scale. And this [01:10:06;20 - 01:10:39;11] Speaker 2 is not just about the military. It's about the American heartland. It's about our middle class. And it's about the nature of our economy. You know this better than me, Doug. We've exported not only jobs to China, but we've exported, I think, our integrity on autonomy over so much of the core components of what make our country prosperous. And in particular, it affects things like critical minerals in our supply chain. And so we're going to have to unravel a lot of that, too, as we push towards this goal. [01:10:39;11 - 01:10:43;12] Speaker 1 Oh, absolutely. And I'd like that first point, too, is that we have to keep in mind [01:10:43;12 - 01:10:52;27] Speaker 1 that how much productivity is happening outside of our country. We bring it back like we should, because I know we'll talk about the Chinese having control over too much of our stuff already. [01:10:54;00 - 01:11:03;10] Speaker 1 But you bring it back, and you have Americans making this stuff again. I spend so much time in Chicago, and you go around Illinois, and there's all these towns, and everything's just gone. And [01:11:04;27 - 01:11:11;10] Speaker 1 you start talking about this. It's like, yeah, it's defense production, but we need it. And Americans are going to make it right here. [01:11:12;17 - 01:11:43;27] Speaker 1 That's good, too. We've got to look at that side of it. And I think that there's nothing wrong with just playing it out and saying, well, how's this going to impact everybody? And I think it's net positive all the way around. And it gets us away from basically helping our number one enemy. I mean, the Chinese, all day, every day, they are trying to undo us. And if we're just going to let them have this, too, where they have way too many components of stuff that we need right now, we've got to take that-- step one, take all that back, and then start building it all here in our own country. I mean, it's a no-brainer. [01:11:43;27 - 01:11:58;03] Speaker 2 World War II produced an industrial revolution from the commercial, robust manufacturing capability of the 20th century America to the point where Ford was building cars and Sherman tanks. [01:11:59;15 - 01:12:26;06] Speaker 2 We've lost the ability to build cars. Obviously, there are still some car plants in America, but a lot of that is overseas. And so now I think we have to, in many ways, go in reverse. We have to build out the military industrial base to build things like drones, airplanes, other kinds of systems. And to then, from that good foundation, return commercial manufacturing to America. And so it's really a transcendent policy. [01:12:26;06 - 01:12:58;23] Speaker 1 It really is. And I think that we've covered many things on this series, too, about that are more just like, let's not do half measures here. This is go big or go home. Have a whole new mindset around this. Because if we don't, we're-- everything we've covered is like, hey, we've got to win the wars. This is the point of the military. It's not anything else. And if you can't win a war because you don't have enough munitions or you haven't thought about it correctly-- and this has got a relatively long tail on it, too. I mean, we're-- to get to this place, the place that we need to get, it's going to take [01:12:59;26 - 01:13:06;01] Speaker 1 seven, eight, nine, 10 years, somewhere in there, right? And so got to get busy. Got to get moving on it. [01:13:07;01 - 01:13:07;04] Speaker 2 I [01:13:08;04 - 01:13:41;27] Speaker 2 do want to kind of return to this broader context. Something interesting that I note about these war games is that they'll detail the losses of equipment. But in the end, a lot of them do say, oh, the United States is able to achieve victory in Taiwan in this simulated war game against the Chinese. And they define victory by the inability of the PRC and the PLA to seize Taipei, basically, the massive city on the island of Taiwan. [01:13:44;02 - 01:13:46;12] Speaker 2 But then when you turn the page and kind of look [01:13:47;17 - 01:14:06;14] Speaker 2 under the hood of what it takes, it usually looks like 15,000 dead Americans, 2,000 lost aircraft carriers, and then this associated catastrophe for our magazine depth. And to me, I refuse to accept those conditions of victory. [01:14:07;20 - 01:14:27;17] Speaker 2 And if the establishment DC think tanks are going to define victory as such, I think a big mission that we share is that we want Americans to come home alive when we fight a war. And we don't want to accept a world where tens of thousands of American families have to deal with this life-changing loss. [01:14:27;17 - 01:14:38;06] Speaker 1 That's right. It's got to be unfair in our direction. Right. An unfair fight. And so the other thing that we've talked about so much, especially on the conservative side, [01:14:38;06 - 01:14:40;08] Speaker 1 is it's peace through strength. [01:14:41;14 - 01:15:19;05] Speaker 1 And what's the best way to avoid a war? Make sure your enemy thinks they're going to lose if they take you on. And this is a huge part of it. All these things are a huge part of it. This in particular, and then, yeah, that's terrifying. I mean, that's what you just described in terms of just the amount of loss. And I don't think we're mentally prepared for that, nor does anybody want it. But if it comes about because we weren't prepared in all these things that we've been talking about, especially having the munitions on hand, then shame on us. Exactly. Shame on all of us patriotic Americans who aren't in the military. Maybe we were at one time, we're not. We got family members that were whatever else. [01:15:20;11 - 01:15:32;00] Speaker 1 We have got to be the ones now that say to our elected officials, fix this. Because the people in the military, they will weigh in the best they can. But they don't have a way to [01:15:33;14 - 01:16:03;09] Speaker 1 really weigh in on this. And we kind of want it that way, in a sense, because of the civilian control of things. But we can't just abdicate our responsibility as citizens to, well, I didn't serve, so I can't say anything. No. The fact of the matter is everybody's got a vested interest in the military. Because if we don't have a strong military, we don't have an economy, we don't have a country, something bad is going to happen. And the whole country is going to look different for your kids and your grandkids. So this is a very important part of it. It's big. [01:16:03;09 - 01:16:29;25] Speaker 2 Huge, though. There's a reason that this is episode six in a six part series. Right. You know, Doug, we've talked through who should be in the military, what our military should look like, how soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines should be trained, and then how the military should be organized. But at the end of the day, I think this episode is the last one we're filming. It's called episode six because [01:16:29;25 - 01:17:02;09] Speaker 2 we want the military to be an organization that has the people and equipment and resources it needs to fight and win a war that is unavoidable. Because I think that's the duty, I think, of you and I in this project. But it's ultimately the most sacred duty of policymakers. That's right. If a war comes to our shores or if we choose to fight a war, we cannot avoid-- we cannot afford a world in which our people don't have everything they need to win and win big. [01:17:02;09 - 01:17:02;23] Speaker 1 That's right. [01:17:02;23 - 01:17:07;13] Speaker 1 And we're doing the best we can to bring clarity to this stuff because I think what happens is [01:17:08;13 - 01:18:22;07] Speaker 1 the Department of War is so big and there's so much money and everybody's like, oh, that's just this big thing. It's like, no, there are certain areas that you have to be crystal clear on. These are hugely important. If we don't get them right, we're going to end up in the spot that nobody wants to be in. That's the value, I think, of what we're doing here. Credit to you, Will, and all you've done over the years and what we're doing here at Restoration America Foundation to bring attention to this because if you don't have clarity and identify the problem, you just kind of wander around. Exactly. And we can't do that. There's too much at stake, especially when it comes down to there's people out there right now that are deciding whether they're going to join the military. Parents are going to say, OK, or not. The recruiters always say, I don't recruit the kids. I recruit the parents. They've got to be OK with it. And if they look at the whole thing and they just feel uneasy-- they don't know exactly why, but they feel uneasy-- we're in big trouble. But if we can address these things and be clear about it and pursue them politically and get the legislation we need, it's the whole point of this. The NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, is this murky thing that just kind of floats along. We need our elected officials to say, no, these are the important things we're going to put in here. We're going to codify them. We're going to make them law. So that going forward, we can all rest assured that our military is where it needs to be. [01:18:22;07 - 01:18:23;14] Speaker 1 That's the most important thing. [01:18:23;14 - 01:18:25;18] Speaker 2 Yep. That's a perfect distillation of the stakes. [01:18:25;18 - 01:18:57;15]