in the event of the situation with a european missile defense system becoming unfavorable to russia we reserve the right to take no further steps in the nuclear disarmament area. the kremlin has repeatedly demanded that nato guarantees that the european missile defense shield would pose no threat to russia's strategic interests sofa the west has refused to cooperate with moscow on the issue. intercontinental ballistic missiles through snowbound russian forests under the cover of darkness. shrouded in secrecy the people in need to perform training drills and test the hardware on the roof. suddenly the convoy comes to a halt. street. crossing it's quite a challenge for the drivers of motor vehicles weighing. as specially considering. heads. of heavy launches safely reach the opposite bank with the most hazardous huddle behind it the convoy is on the move again. as the convoy forges ahead to its destination they leave the forest and pass through villages the sound of powerful engines thundering past is becoming a common occurrence lately for local people. we need such missiles to defend r

the defense of need two countries. russia feels compelled to take countermeasures because the united states has refused to give legal guarantees demonstrating that the deployment of the american missile defense system in europe is not directed against russia. nato countries are in the list scripts the deployment of them military installations to europe. new american military bases may soon be set up in kazakhstan. turkmenistan and. once russia. it's been encircled by military base as a new geopolitical reality will emerge we need to take this reality into account already today but take measures to control potential threats to our security. meanwhile the view that the missile defense shield is too expensive is getting increasing currency inside the united states itself it provides financial backing to the armed forces moreover the project is making millions of dollars from nato subcontractors in various countries. between two thousand and five and two thousand and nine the u.s. has spent fifteen billion dollars and the

missile defense system in europe is not directed against russia. nato countries are in two respects the deployment of them military installations to europe. new american military bases may soon be set up and done. to administer tajikistan. about once russia has been encircled by military bases as a new geo political reality will emerge we need to take this reality into account already today but take measures to control potential threats to our security. meanwhile the view that the missile defense shield is too expensive is gaining increasing currency inside the united states itself it provides financial backing to the armed forces moreover the project is making millions of dollars from nato subcontractors in various countries. between two thousand and five and two thousand and nine the u.s. has spent fifteen billion dollars and the price to pay for the entire program that we are dealing with right now here in two thousand and eleven is another hundred fifty billion dollars that's larger than many country's entire military budgets. some of the fundi

defense of need two countries. russia feels compelled to take countermeasures because the united states has refused to give legal guarantees demonstrates that the deployment of the american missile defense system in europe is not directed against russia. nato countries are in the mood to list strips the deployment of them military installations to europe. new american military bases may soon be set up in kazakhstan. turkmenistan and tajikistan. about once russia has been encircled by military bases a new geo political reality will emerge we need to take this reality into account already today but take measures to control potential threats to our security. meanwhile the view that the missile defense shield is too expensive is getting increasing currency inside the united states itself it provides financial backing to the armed forces moreover the project is making millions of dollars from nato subcontractors inferiors countries. between two thousand and five and two thousand and nine the us has spent fifteen billion

controversial missile defense shield for europe stay with us. the most vital national security interests of the united states would be most effectively realized not through hostility to rush through cooperation with it. i think russia and the united states can we just settlement of the establishment of a global missile defense system. this plan research is in jeopardy even the new strategic arms reduction treaty between moscow and washington has been unable to help. at a time of warmer bilateral relations needs whose top brass decided to deploy a missile defense system protecting europe but they were setting up too close to russia's borders and must go didn't view it as a friendly gesture. we wanted to fill in the whole of europe not just some european countries with one or european allies and friends to join in on missile defense strategy. flew in the event of the situation with a european missile defense system becoming unfavorable to russia we reserve the right to take no further steps in the nuclear disarmament area. the kremlin has repeated

missile defense well and consider is iran to be a real threat and destroy this antara missile defense is is not against russia it's against the iranian threat because the russian army there the russian military capability it may destroy it and overcome it will likely easily move why doesn't russia buy this argument. this issue is very complicated first. where do you think that iran is the threat for united states or for the russian federation approve the way do you think of that until missile defense is that maybe a threat to russia so the americans are wrong then it's easy for us to crack this thing you say that when you create the need defense you have to take into account real threats for example if you decide to construct your pretty shutoff or house. you will decide you will look around you will see what kind of climate news in this place is what kind of saw all of this in this place people are living next door by the way by their way and then you decide the work carlo be them you will be it will be necessary for you to construct for example if you leave in desert for example it

now defense only accounts for 20% of our budget, but the first traunch, is going to come out of defense and so is the second, so we could look out ten years and be talking $100 billion a year cut out of defense over what has been projected in previous budgets. to me, the most from pressing need right now is we need to fix the sequestration, if we allow it to move forward and hit us next january 1st the way it's currently drafted, just across the board cuts of 8%, 12%, depending on if personnel are taken out of the equation, thinking of all of the multiple contracts, i don't know how many contracts you have out mr. secretary, but i'm sure it's in the hundreds if the not thousands. that would have to be rewritten. renegotiated. i just see total chaos on january 1st of next year approximate if approximate this has not been fixed. i would like to ask you, general, what you're doing, what you're contemplating doing, and what planning you may be doing to prepare for the problem that m may, confront us if we do not address this issue before january 1st. what will you be doing? >> mr. chairman,

department of defense. general martin e. dempsey, united states army, chairman, joint chiefs of staff. the honorable robert, if i heal, tunds secretary of defense, and controller of the department. thank you for being here. mr. secretary, the time is yours. >> thank you very much, members of this committee, always nice to be able to return to the house i'll ask that my statement be made part of the record. >> no objection, so ordered. >> i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the president's budget request for fiscal year 2013 for the department of defense. these brave men and women, and they are, for anybody that's gone to the battlefield and talked to those in uniform, they are without question, the next greatest generation of individuals. along with the department easy vilian professionals who support them, they've done everything that's been asked of them and more during more than a decade of war and, again, i thank you for the support you provided to them. if fy 13 budget request for the department

ballistic missile defense review report. anybody can read it. when we came into office, what we inherited was a proposal from the george w. bush administration to put some interceptors, ten interceptors, in poland. and a radar, a sophisticated radar in the czech republic. and assorted other capabilities and it was basically justified as an attempt to deter or necessarily to degrade an iranian attack on european targets. but it did provoke the russians who saw this as kind of a toe in the water leading to a capability that could degrade their strategic retaliatory capability. now, many times under clinton, under george w. bush, and under president obama, senior americans have met with the russians, have given detailed power point presentations and other kinds of discussions to demonstrate, i think, very persuasively that there's no way that these systems could seriously degrade a russian attack, not that we want the russians to attack. we want the russians to feel comfortable that the retaliatory capability is not threatened. remember, if you hav

the defense of need two countries. russia feels compelled to take countermeasures because the united states has refused to give legal guarantees demonstrating that the deployment of the american missile defense system in europe is not directed against russia. nato countries are in no mood to respect the deployment of their military installations to europe. new american military bases may soon be set up in kazakhstan go to stun turkmenistan and tajikistan. about i see a boy once russia has been encircled by a military base there is a new geopolitical reality will emerge we need to take this reality into account already today but and take measures to control potential threats to our security is up. meanwhile the view that the missile defense shield is too expensive is getting increasing currency inside the united states itself to provide financial backing to the armed forces moreover the project is making millions of dollars from nato subcontractors in various countries.

the department of defense just published a report by the defense science board. in fact, the report was asked for by ash carter when he was assistant secretary. now he's deputy secretary. and so ash carter asked for this report. and let me tell you what i think happened. i'm going to be very cynical here, so those -- don't be too shocked. i think the defense science board inadvertently hired some contractors to do the study who actually did a study. because the people who signed these documents when you get up to the pentagon, you know the people who sign these documents have nothing to do with, actually, what the study is. and they were so careless -- i say careless because i'm ascribing a motive of concealing information from you, the american people -- they were so careless that when the unclassified version of this document was put out, they inadvertently spilled the beans. so let me tell you what this document that the current deputy secretary of defense asked for and is now out there in the open. incidentally, send me an e-mail, i will send you the letters

without an agreement with the united states on missile defense and in the face of potential military threats russia was compelled to think of countermeasures. the country has declared in the past that it may withdraw from the strategic arms reduction treaty and said it will introduce measures to counter the missile defense shield. we will go ahead with the deployment of our missile defense system it is beyond me is that this presupposes deployment of its components in poland in romania in a radar station in turkey obviously this will also until the is there mission of a base in spain for american ships equipped with the ag system. it is obvious that the missile defense systems will be targeted at the russian federation rather than some mythical middle eastern countries possessing a virtual missile. at least fifteen countries around the world have been involved with the nato missile defense shield. their radar stations in denmark and britain which is also host to interceptor missiles in. canada too is going to join the project anti missile functions will be given to norad the agency r

without an agreement with the united states on missile defense and in the face of potential military threats russia was compelled to think of countermeasures. the country has declared in the past that it may withdrawal from the strategic arms reduction treaty and said it will introduce measures to counter the missile defense shield. we will go ahead with the deployment of our missile defense system it is obvious that this presupposes deployment of its components in poland in romania in a radar station in turkey obviously this will also until these their mission of the basis be for american ships equipped with the ag system. it is obvious that the missile defense system will be targeted at the russian federation rather than some mythical middle eastern countries possessing virtual missiles. at least fifteen countries around the world have been involved with the nato missile defense shield . their radar stations in denmark and britain which is also host to interceptor missiles. canada two is going to join the project anti missile functions will be given to norad the agency responsible

in the event of the situation with a european missile defense system becoming unfavorable to russia we reserve the right to take no further steps in the nuclear disarmament area. the kremlin has repeatedly demanded that nato guarantees that the european missile defense shield would pose no threat to russia's strategic interests sofa the west has refused to cooperate with moscow on the issue. intercontinental ballistic missiles are transported through snow bound russian forests under the cover of darkness. shrouded in secrecy the people in need to perform training drills and test the hardware on the roof. suddenly the convoy comes to a halt there's a forest street. crossing it's quite a challenge for the drivers of motor vehicles weighing many tons. as specially considering carrying heads. the heavy launches safely reach the opposite bank with the most hazardous huddle behind it the convoy is on the move again. as the convoy forges ahead to its destination they leave the forest and pass through villages the sound of powerful engines thundering past is becoming a common occurrence lately

to genie in the event of the situation with a european missile defense system becoming unfavorable to russia we reserve the right to take no further steps in the nuclear disarmament area. the kremlin has repeatedly demanded that nato guarantees that the european missile defense shield would pose no threat to russia's strategic interests sofa the west has refused to cooperate with moscow on the issue. intercontinental ballistic missiles are transported through snowbound russian forests under the cover of darkness. the movements are shrouded in secrecy the people in charge need to perform training drills and test the hardware on the move . suddenly the convoy comes to a halt there's a forest stream blocking the path. crossing it's quite a challenge for the drivers of motor vehicles weighing many tons. as specially considering that they're carrying nuclear warheads. engine is make sure that the heavy launches safely reach the opposite bank with the most hazardous huddle behind it the convoy is on the move again. as the convoy forges ahead to its destination they leave the forest and pass

now, there is a technical potential for building a defense. it is a kind of boost phase defense. mike said it's not possible. i don't know how he knows that because i've actually been studying it in great detail. and you could -- i did not say that. >> that's what i understood you to say. >> i said there are three phases and missile response involves a layer of defense. >> i apologize for misquoting you. >> extensive work going on in all three phases. >> there are not. that's one of the problems. that's one of the things that i've been trying to do. with incidentally bill perry, another hippie. and there are things you could do -- there are things you can do that could allow you to build a defense of some capability. and there's no point -- i would be happy to talk with you privately. i've done a lot of work on this. we're talking to the russians about it. we're trying to talk to the administration but they always seem to be too busy. i don't know what they're doing, but, you know, it's really difficult. >> ted, they may not know what they're doing but i know what i'm doing and i

agency responsible for north america's air and outer space defense. japan has decided to assist the nato missile defense shield it's taking part in the manufacture of a just into septa missiles. japan is going to build a forward based radar station on its territory. a similar radar station has already been built in turkey. the czech republic rumania hungry and poland are ready to allow nato as missile defense complexes to be placed on their territory. that it that would make a forward based american military presence which means the deployment of bases in post is so. republics notably in central asia is an element of u.s. domination as a powerful ramified infrastructure any military base has the capacity to deploy units of agents supplying electronic intelligence. russia has taken adequate measures to counter such actions but i'm like nato it confines its activities to its own territory a radar station is being put on combat duty in the kaliningrad region russia's westernmost. systems are being deployed in the country's west and. they can hit any targ

it affects all the agencies, not just defense. but for the moment i think we want to give the congress time to do its job and to pass a far- reaching change that halts sequestration. >> but if it goes through and it does have to happen, you guys are going to have to come up with the money. >> absolutely. we will have to plan for it at that point and make it happen. it doesn't go into effect until january 2nd of 2013. you know, we're 10 months off from that, so it isn't next month that this is going to happen. again, i want to give congress time to do its thing and to make changes in the deficit. >> let me take you to -- you mentioned omb. every budget cycle is give and take, obviously, between the white house and the pentagon at the end of the day and we're told by numerous foablgs that, for example, the pentagon -- the the white house did get involved, told the navy you guys have to keep one more carrier. there was a cost issue. it was a military pay increase that had to be covered at the end of the day. how much of this budget i

again, half of that comes out of defense. now, defense only accounts for 20% of our budget. but the first tranche, 50% of the savings came out of defense. the second tranche, another 50% of the savings is slated to come out of defense. so we could look out ten years and be talking about $100 billion a year cut on defense out of what had been projected in previous budgets. to me, the most pressing need right now is we need to fix the sequestration. if we allow that to move forward and hit us next january 1st, the way it is currently drafted, just across-the-board cuts, either 8%, 12%, depending on if personnel are taken out of the equation, thinking of all of the multiple contracts, i don't know how many contracts you have out, mr. secretary, but i'm sure it's in the hundreds if not thousands. that would have to be rewritten, renegotiated. i just see total chaos on january 1st of next year, if this has not been fixed. i would like to ask you, general, what you're doing, what you're contemplating you're doing to prepare for the problem that may confront us if we do not address

russia relations and how it's affected by controversial american plans for a missile defense system based in europe. the most vital national security interests of the united states would be most effectively realized not through hostility to russia but through cooperation with it. i think russia and the united states can reach a settlement of the establishment of a global missile defense system. this plan research is in jeopardy even the new strategic arms reduction treaty between moscow and washington has been unable to help. at a time of warmer bilateral relations needs whose top brass decided to deploy a missile defense system aimed at protecting europe but they were setting up too close to russia's borders and must go didn't view it as a friendly gesture. we want to defend the whole of europe not just some european countries with one or european allies and friends to join in on missile defense strategy. in the event of the situation with a european missile defense system becoming unfavorable to russia we reserve the right to take no further steps in the nuclear disarmament area. the kr

it's not a cut in defense budget, it's cut in defense program. in other words they cut $437 billion out of a projected increases in defense. if you take a look at over 10 years, i'm talking about the basic budget, not the war funding budget, it's an 8% real cult. and the seconds reagan administration, when the country had a deficit problem, we cut 10% in çreal terms, not from projected levels. so i think it's been over- dramatized. i worry it's sending the wrong signal both at home and broad that somehow the united states is disarming. >> it's a reduction in the rate of increases. >> we focus just on the base budget, we're missing a very substantial reduction that happened under obama and war funding. they've come down by 50% in overseas war funding. if you put it all together, because money is money, the prediction in buying power for the department of defense between the peak year 2010 and the end of the five-year plan, 22%, just like -- >> after vietnam was 30%. >> not over that. >> no, no, i'll show it to you right here. >> seven-year peer,

the department of defense just published a report by the defense science board. in fact, the report was asked for by ash carter when he was assistant secretary. now he's deputy secretary. n so ash carter asked for this report. let me tell you what i think happened. i'm going to be cynical here. so don't be too shocked. i think the defense science board inadvertently hired some contractors to do the study, who actually did a study, because the people who sign these documents when under the circumstances into the pentagon you know people who sign these documents have nothing to do with actually what the study is. . they were so careless. i say careless, because i'm describing a motive of concealing from you, the american people. they were so careless that when the unclassified version of this document was put out, they inadvertently spilled the beans. let me tell you with this document, the current deputy secretary of defense asked for and is out there in the open. incidentally, send me an e-mail. i will send you the letters that a colleague and i wrote to the nati

that the missile defense system is not. russia feels compelled to take countermeasures because the united states has refused to give legal guarantees demonstrates that the deployment of the american missile defense system in europe is not directed against russia. nato countries are in those moods to respect the deployment of them military installations to europe. new american military bases may soon be set up in kazakhstan. to administer tajikistan. once russia has been encircled by military bases a new geo political reality will emerge we need to take this reality into account already today but and take measures to control potential threats to our security. meanwhile the view that the missile defense shield is too expensive is getting increasing currency inside the united states itself it provides financial backing to the armed forces moreover the project is making millions of dollars from nato subcontractors inferiors countries. between two thousand and five and two thousand and nine the us has spent fifteen billion dolla

that the missile defense system is not directed against it. russia feels compelled to take countermeasures because the united states has refused to give legal guarantees demonstrating that the deployment of the american missile defense system in europe is not directed against russia. nato countries are in no mood to list tricks the deployment of them military installations to europe. new american military bases may soon be set up in kazakhstan gets down to administer and tajikistan. about once russia has been encircled by military bases a new geo political reality will emerge we need to take this reality into account already today but take measures to control potential threats to our security. meanwhile the view that the missile defense shield is too expensive is getting increasing currency inside the united states itself it provides financial backing to the armed forces moreover the project is making millions of dollars from nato subcontractors inferiors countries. between two thousand and five and two thousand and nine the us has spent fifte

missile defense system in europe is not directed against russia. nato countries are in. the. deployment of them military installations to europe. new american military bases may soon be set up in kazakhstan. turkmenistan and tajikistan. once russia has been encircled by military bases a new geo political reality will emerge we need to take this reality into account already today but and take measures to control potential threats to our security. meanwhile the view that the missile defense shield is too expensive is getting increasing currency inside the united states itself it provides financial backing to the armed forces moreover the project is making millions of dollars from nato sub contractors in various countries. between two thousand and five and two thousand and nine the us has spent fifteen billion dollars and the price paid for the entire program that we are dealing with right now here in two thousand and eleven is another hundred and fifty billion dollars that's larger than many country's entire military budgets. some of the funding for the missile defense system i

agency responsible for north america's air and outer space defense. japan has decided to assist the nato missile defense shield it's taking part in the manufacture of a just into septa missiles. japan is going to build a forward based radar station on its territory. a similar radar station has already been built in turkey. the czech republic rumania hungry and poland are ready to allow nato as missile defense complexes to be placed on their territory. if that were america forward based american military presence which means the deployment of bases in post is so. republics notably in central asia is an element of u.s. a global domination as a powerful ramified infrastructure any military base has the capacity to deploy units of agents supplying electronic intelligence. russia has taken adequate measures to counter such actions but i'm like it confines its activities to its own territory a radar station is being put on combat duty in the kaliningrad region russia's western most part. tactical missile systems are being deployed in the country's west and

that's because the theater or terminal high altitude defense system is a mature theater defense system. we used to call theater missile defense systems. the language has changed a little bit. the standard missile three, naval system is quite mature. the ground-based interceptor in alaska people talk about. the least reliable of hit to kill intercepters we have. this has been failing in several test flights for a host of reasons. not only is it less reliable, it's more expensive on the order of $70 million per interceptor, whereas these ones here are down in the thaad, 10 to 15 million. these architecture built on these more mature missile defense assets is going to be less expensive. most people talk about the intercepters. that's what captures the public's imagination. the most important asset or technology behind missile defense is the sensor architecture and control system. the sensors are radars, the spy-1, cruiser and forward-based x band radar or tpy-2. this is the radar associated with the thaad missile defense system. both are mature. thaad and tpy-2 are sophisticated and effec

>>> tonight on "nightline" -- insanity defense. he claims the devil was the voice of barry white came to him in a vision, before he gunned down a young father, dropping off his son at preschool. tonight, the intriguing connection between the shooter and the victim's wife. >>> and cash course. incredible footage of a high-flying catastrophe. watch as this b.a.s.e. jumper smashes into rocks at 120 miles per hour and survive. but why do people do these things? inside the minds of extreme sports junkies. >>> plus, all my meerkats. it's a family saga filled with love, anger, and a fierce mother/daughter rivalry. but this mellow drama stars a gang of meerkats. we show you the cutest soap opera on tv. >> announcer: this is "nightline." february 23rd, 2012. >>> good evening. i'm cynthia mcfadden. tonight, we begin with a riveting trial taking place in atlanta. a young father, gunned down as he dropped his 2-year-old son off in the morning at preschool. the victim, 36-year-old rusty snyderman. and the man on trial for his murder, is pleadin

the reality is the defense spending both in the core defense budget and the core defense budget and the war cost has grown dramatically and has been a factor in contributing to the recent deficits. and 1997, we spent 254 billion on the department of defense, and 2012 when we include war cost we will spend about $645 billion on the department, which is down slightly from the peak in 2010. all of the decline from 2010 to 2012 came from the reduction in the war cost. the court department of the budget has been about flat since 2010 but remained at a very high level. if we compare recent overall defense spending and budget function 03 coo 50 to the recent non-defense discretionary spending we can see that overall defense funding has remained at about $554 billion since 2010 not including the war cost. while bonn defense funding has fallen from 540 billion to $489 billion in a 2012. so, of the discretionary pact, basically defense is level, non-defense down slightly. looking forward to the president is proposing a small reduction in the department of defense funding in 2013, bringing it down

. >>> tonight on "nightline" -- insanity defense. he claims the devil was the voice of barry white came to him in a vision, before he gunned down a young father, dropping off his son at preschool. tonight, the intriguing connection between the shooter and the victim's wife. >>> and cash course. incredible footage of a high-flying catastrophe. watch as this b.a.s.e. jumper smashes into rocks at 120 miles per hour and survive. but why do people do these things? inside the minds of extreme sports junkies. >>> plus, all my meerkats. it's a family saga filled with love, anger, and a fierce mother/daughter rivalry. but this mellow drama stars a gang of meerkats. we show you the cutest soap opera on tv. >> announcer: this is "nightline." february 23rd, 2012. >>> good evening. i'm cynthia mcfadden. tonight, we begin with a riveting trial taking place in atlanta. a young father, gunned down as he dropped his 2-year-old son off in the morning at preschool. the victim, 36-year-old rusty snyderman. and the man on trial for his murder, is pleadin

but the control act locked in defense and non-defense -- the budget control act lot in defense and non-defense spending caps -- locked in defense and non-defense spending caps for 10 years. the department rponded with a new program to meet our security challenges. the budget control act also included language requiring the congress to pass legislation with additional, far reaching a deficit-reduction. if congress does not come up with the deficit-reduction package by next january, one that locks in another $1.20 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, then automatic spending cuts will be imposed on both defense and non-defense programs. the budget the president sent us yesterday avoid sequestration by meeting the $1.20 trillion additional defense reduction target and approximately 1/2 in additional spending and 1/2 i additional revenues. the defense request for 2013 not only confirms -- conforms to the limits of the budget control act, but it reflects the results of the departments comprehensive and strategic review initiated by president obama in april of last year and the strategic item

without an agreement with the united states on missile defense and in the face of potential military threats russia was compelled to think of countermeasures. the country has declared in the past that it may withdraw from the strategic arms reduction treaty and said it will introduce measures to counter the missile defense . we will go ahead with the deployment of our missile defense system it is obvious that this presupposes the deployment of its components in poland in romania or station in turkey obviously this will also until these their mission of the basins be for american ships equipped with the system. it is obvious that the missile defense system will be targeted at the russian federation rather than some mythical middle eastern countries possessing virtual missiles. at least fifteen countries around the world have been involved with the nato missile defense shield . their radar stations in denmark and britain which is also host to interceptor missiles. canada two is going to join the project anti missile functions will be given to be agency responsible for north america's o

defensive arms and that so. is writing in this article that we discussed in the beginning of this interview i quote in the upcoming ten years around. so one hundred sixty six billion dollars will be allocated for modernizing the defense sector and quite well this money they will go mostly to the russian weapons producers over. yes of course it's will be all huge sum of money is it a lot for the russian i mean. to us we would like to get more. broadly please don't. get some. said by mr putin there. our economy our government is in debt to russian army because previously we did invest a lot of money to russian military and don't forget that at the same turn all of western countries including united states swallowed a lot of money huge sum of money and if you come here all ninety allocated for military industry in united states and western europe you can see the difference and of course we have to do what we want we would like to see. if. we need. efficient weapons for our army will you could i mean the russian arm

agency responsible for north america's air and outer space defense. japan has decided to assist the nato missile defense shield its taking part in the manufacture of ages interceptor missiles. japan is going to build a forward based radar station on its territory. a similar radar station has already been built in turkey. the czech republic rumania hungry are ready to allow nato as missile defense complexes to be placed on their territory. if there were many go forward based american military presence which means the deployment of bases in post is so. republics notably. element of global domination as a powerful. military base. russia has taken adequate measures to. its activities to its own territory. to protect space. station is classified the equipment. water supply. system. to be controlled by russia's president whose. chief of the armed forces. some time ago russia suggested to the united states that they jointly control space over the middle east using a similar radio transmission station to azerbaijan if nato is top brass agreed to cooperate the

russia relations and how it's being affected by america's controversial missile defense system in europe. the most vital national security interests of the united states would be most effectively realized not through hostility to russia but through cooperation with it. i think russia and the united states can reach a settlement of the establishment of a global missile defense system. this plan research is in jeopardy even the new strategic arms reduction treaty between moscow and washington has been unable to help. at a time of warmer bilateral relations nato's top brass decided to deploy a missile defense system protecting europe but they were setting up too close to russia's borders and must go didn't view it as a friendly gesture. we want to defend the whole of europe not just some european countries we want to european allies and friends to join in on missile defense strategy. in the event of the situation with a european missile defense system becoming unfavorable to russia we reserve the right to take no further steps in the nuclear disarmament area. the kremlin has repeatedly dema

the defense of need two countries. russia feels compelled to take countermeasures because the united states has refused to give legal guarantees demonstrating that the deployment of the american missile defense system in europe is not directed against russia. nato countries are in the mood to list scripts the deployment of them military installations to europe. new american military bases may soon be set up in kazakhstan. to administer tajikistan. once russia has been encircled by military bases as a new geo political reality will emerge we need to take this reality into account already today but and take measures to control potential threats to our security. meanwhile the view that the missile defense shield is too expensive is getting increasing currency inside the united states itself it provides financial backing to the armed forces moreover the project is making millions of dollars from nato subcontractors inferiors countries. between two thousand and five and two thousand and nine the us has spent fifteen billion

and non-defense programs. the budget the president sent us yesterday avoids sentinal quest ration by meeting the $1.2 trillion additional defense reduction target, approximately one-half further cuts in spending and one-half in additional revenues. the defense budget for fy2012 13* -- fy2013 reflects the results of the department's comprehensive and inclusive strategic review initiated by president obama in april of last year and the strategic guidance that resulted. we look forward to the witnesses' explanation of the process they went through to develop the new strategic guidance, their assessment of the guidance's most important features and potential risks relative to the current and anticipated security environment, and how this budget request supports its strategic priorities and manages strategic risk in the near and long terms. the administration has called for two more base realignment and closure or barak -- back rounds. in my view, however, before we consider another round, the department ought to l

the defense of need two countries. russia feels compelled to take countermeasures because the united states has refused to give legal guarantees demonstrating that the deployment of the american missile defense system in europe is not directed against russia. nato countries are in no mood to respect the deployment of their military installations to europe. new american military bases may soon be set up in kazakhstan go to go to administer tajikistan. about i see a boy once russia has been encircled by a military base there is a new geo political reality will emerge we need to take this reality into account already today but and take measures to control potential threats to our security. meanwhile the view that the missile defense shield is too expensive is gaining increasing currency inside the united states itself it provides financial backing to the armed forces moreover the project is making millions of dollars from nato some contractors in various countries. between two thousand and five and two thousand and nine t

is planned for the anti missile defense system in europe and now this discussion is still underway it's actually a deadlock and there are different opinions coming from various sides. of parties in europe stand for unilateral. missile defense system which would include russia and the european union nato and the united states washington says that it's ready to cooperate but it has to have a tough stance always going to its defense while the foreign minister says that this is russia's foreign minister says this issue through etan's the positive relations between these two branches the eastern and the western branch of the european civilization like they said russia and the united states but of course there are many great examples of positive cooperation between russia and the northern north atlantic treaty organization for example cooperation in afghanistan and with transit problems for nato in pakistan russia is playing a major wall in the operation there giving its air corridor or through its airspace and there is also of course a great example of. cooperation between washington and mos

and it would come out of every area of the defense budget. and the danger is when you do it that way, you automatically hollow out the force. because what you're doing is, you're weakening every area of the defense budget by some kind of blind formula. and it mean even though we'll have a smaller force structure as a result of the cuts, they'll be ill-equipped, ill-trained and ill-prepared. >> secretary, when do you need to start making the changes? january 1st next year is when the sequester goes into effect. when would you have to start making changes at d.o.d.? >> i'm waiting for omb guidance, but i would assume sometime in the summer. >> so you're looking for something from congress prior to the summer. >> that's correct. >> we're now into the spring. and we would need to act very quickly. you talked about health care quickly. let me talk to you about a statistic. 17.4 billion is what you spent on health care in 2000, and you're spending 50 billion today. >> that's right. >> it's the biggest krins in your budgets, as i understand it. do y

civilization in my defense. in particular, i believe, tuz churchill's words for there are no better, if all british moral and material forces and convictions are joined with your own in fraternal association, the high roads of the future will be clear not only for us but for all. not only for our

are these defense cuts simply not as important as they look? or maybe they're being trumped by something even bigger. could it be six of one, half dozen of another? here's the other thing, lockheed martin is not alone, there's some genuine defense pin action here. two contractors have been rallying in play and both within striking distance of their highs. the reasons, okay. first of all, as is often the case before a stock really takes off, expectations for this sector and for lockheed were very low and wall street has been negative on this group for ages. they all saw it coming. ever since the super committee failed in november, they've been bracing e ining for for the wor. congress doesn't have to figure out what to cut from the budget until next year, it's likely we won't hear about any more defense cuts until 2013. in other words, there aren't any negative near-term catalysts for the group like estimate cuts, but at the same time, the bar's been set incredibly low, that's why they'll go up on the slightest positive news or even on bad news

controversial missile defense shield for europe stay with us. the most vital national security interests of the united states would be most effectively realized not through hostility to russia but through cooperation with it. my senior russia and the united states can we just settlement of the establishment of a global missile defense system while. this plan research is in jeopardy even the new strategic arms reduction treaty between moscow and washington has been unable to help. at a time of warmer bilateral relations nato's top brass decided to deploy a missile defense system aimed at protecting europe but they were setting up too close to russia's borders and most go didn't view it as a friendly gesture. we want to defend the whole europe not just some european countries we want to european allies and friends to join on missile defense strategy. to jeannie with the event of the situation with a european missile defense system becoming unfavorable to russia we reserve the right to take no further steps in the nuclear disarmament area. the krem

the layer defense. different elements of the defense are focused on each phase of the trajectory of the attack. there is terminal intercept. as these technologies mature and as the networks and the sensor networks mature, we have expectations that the ability to degrade the attacking missile in boost phase, recourse or terminal phase, will grow. so the likelihood of penetration will be reduced. policy is about prediction. you are establishing policy because you expect if you do it is most likely that the following will result. sometimes you're right. sometimes you are wrong. but i think it is not helpful or constructive, the wood is often done, to impugn the motives purely -- though it is often done, to impugn the motives. dr. carter, who was undersecretary of defense at the time of the missile defense report and is now deputy secretary is in noted technology and policy expert, erodes scholar -- a rhodes scholar, a longtime harvard faculty member. hopefully will now be one of the key figures in the defe

and then beyond the department of defense? >> well, it is a great question. first of all, i'd say that policies developed, policies initiatives may come from within the department of defense, but if they are significant for the national security, they almost always get brought into a broader interagency discussion and process. and so, i think that it works a couple of ways. there may be a bright idea that comes from the bottom-up perhaps from the field or perhaps from somewhere in the department, and typically in my role, i will bring that into the deputy process so that you have the p deputy national security adviser and members of the intelligence community, state department, usaid and the treasury and sometimes the department of homelandappropriate, and we exercise the options for the initiative and ultimately decision for the president to consider. and other times a top-down decision where the president sees an opportunity and wants to go in a particular direction and that process wants to be harnessed from the top down. pu the good news, ample opportunit

sometimes called a layer defense. slightly artificially, trajectory of the attacking missiles is into boost phase, course, and terminal phase. dercht elements of the defense are focused on each phase of the trajectory of the attacking missile. so there's boost phase intercept, which is tough. there's recourse intercept, and there's terminal intercept. and as these technologies mature and as the networks and net -- sense of networks mature, we have expectations that the ability to degrade the attacking missile in either boost phase, mid course, orterminal phase will grow so the likelihood of penetration will be reduced. you know we say in policy, policy is about prediction. you establish a policy because you expect that if you do it, it's most likely that the following will result. sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong. but i think it's not helpful, it's not constructive, although it's often done, to impugn the motives, purely for grounds other than the technical capability. and dr. carter, whom we all know ve

services committee on planned defense >>> welcome to "this week in defense news." i'm vago muradian. france's amphibious assault 2o#" betake -- we take a tour of a novel vessel that packs a big punch at a bargain price. but, first, the ranking member of the house arms services committee joins us for an interview to discuss the administration's 2013 defense spending request which is to include $525 billion for the baseline budget and another $88 billion for overseas contingents. the white house will submit the budget to congress on february 13th. the administration proposes to cut $259 from planned spending levels over the next five years to meet congressionally- mandated reduction goals. adam smith is a representative who represents washington state's 9th congressional district which includes major boeing research and development and until the end of the year joint base lewis mcchord and surrounding communities that are home to 100,000 military personnel, their families, defense contractors and civilians. i started our interview by asking him his view of a plan tha