and i await to them and by 08 to myself that i became and continue to become to remain engaged. towards the end of my field work people started to encourage me to teach at the university as a program at gratherford. so i taught a number of class is in the years that followed through the program. is that enough? i don't know. i'm not a protectionist. but i think if i have some kind of responsible practice going, then that's not the worst thing in the world. right now i'm working on a project with a philosopher and anthropologist. the working title is called break every yoke that is lined with from messiah that the abolitionists used and we were having a conference in the fall. we were writing a book i think in which we were going to try to make public and marshall the

kind of religious resources that might prove to be useful in helping to cultivate a mass movement against mass incarceration akin to the kind of mass movement that we had going on 200 years ago against slavery. ..

>> thank you. it is a pleasure to be back. ladies and gentlemen, also my lovely wife, a delighted to be here. "mayday" is a form of french for help me. when the aviator's declare an emergency and request help. is it chose this as the title for the book which is a subject of this afternoon's event because our seapower is in trouble. the last official statement of u.s. maritime strategy was published six years ago

with the acknowledgement of usc powers traditional role as hater nuclear and conventional deterrence projecting power a and responding to of crisis and a 2007 strategy emphasizes cooperation with other navies in humanitarian missions. these documents help to prevent wars and policy that is inconsistent with the policy of the past which has usually responded rather than anticipated conflict. more important than navy 2007 strategy did not mention the word china. not once, as a means to

antagonize china but yet china has made it clear that the policy is to deny the united states access to the western pacific with u.s. access to the western pacific our ability to honor our commitments, to the five nations with which we have security treaties in southeast asia would be called into question. chinese building a ballistic missile system to target large american vessels as aircraft carriers under way at a distance of 1200 miles. china has conducted cyberattacks against u.s. government as well as industry. it has declared the international waters of the

south and east china sees lie within the sovereign grasp. the military budget continues as it has over two decades to increase by double-digit figures from year-to-year. it has built a formidable array of surface-to-surface and surface to air missiles and continues to amass an arsenal -- an arsenal from the straits of taiwan. despite the shift it has drawn to a close it will remain volatile endangers the so if i wray and becomes a nuclear power. some of you may have read the washington-based institute for science and international security report published on tuesday this week.

that predicted that everyone can produce weapons-grade uranium by the middle of 2014 without being detected. in addition, as current events demonstrate, they are in turmoil. turkey has reversed direction and is pursuing is on the stand for policies that are the equal of the text. syria is in the midst of a horrific civil war. we must rely on the egyptian military prudence to avoid a similar outcome in the arab world's greatest state. recent developments of to we shed did not look promising either. the eastern mediterranean is to the stability through

recorded history and the mediterranean naval force that once had to carrier battle groups consisted day of a command ship based in italy in three or so surface ships with ballistic missile defenses. in the mediterranean this soft power that the bombing administration favors in fact, is unsupported by the hard power. into the vacuum left by our departure, others are stepping. iran has said the much larger carrier into the mediterranean and china ordered a destroyer and add guided missile and logistics' vessel and this

year up until now has two guided missile friggat for algeria, malta, morocco and france. russia currently has 16 ships on station employee and save rotational schedule with the presence of 12 ships moscow is also looking to see the basic agreement that would allow russian combat aircraft however my point that is also noted in the book not so much to paint as a troublesome military development with

the allies but rather to emphasize of the strategy to prevent the of course, neither u.s. naval nor national leadership has acknowledged that we are in fact, a strategic competition with china that requires diplomatic and military strategy the rebalance to asia as the obama administration terms it, does not clearly state what the objective of the rebalance and is. it is to counter the military power in the region with the slight redistribution of naval forces away from the rest of

the world and to asia that the administration has announced will not keep pace with china's arms buildup and will not keep peace either end with 500 million already subtracted from the defense department from the first obama administration and sequestration will move at equal amount, where will the funds come from to deploy and maintain a larger pacific fleet in the future? a substantial portion of "mayday" looks at the size of today's fleet and its prospects for growth for the future. but the question is to what and? i believe our security is best served if we have a

clear understanding of the strategy to secure our interest and those of our allies but i don't think we do. notwithstanding the question of this seapower for it is quite serious. at the end of the cold war u.s. combat fleets the goal of reagan said of 600 ships and 15 carrier battle said. at approximately 285 ships ships, today's fleet is less than half that size. their goal of the 313 ship fleet to which the navy have striven for the better part of the last decade has post -- most recently been reduced at 306 ships a three-star admiral who up until his recent retirement

was responsible for naval warfare systems, i predicted that without the contingency funds that help of military operations the size of the fleet would decrease to approximately 195 ships over the next 30 years. both the cbo has a large gap between the 306 ship fleet in the actual ship cost of inflation and likely available funding. the navy is asking for $14 million for shipbuilding this year regardless regardless of sequestration. but the navy enologist the shipbuilding budget of $80 billion per year is needed for each of the next

30 years to reach 306 ship fleet. but they say it truly underestimates the cost that is quite a large difference. sequestration, as you know, , is a big matter. prior to the implementation it decided to trim costs by not having the truman battle group to the middle east this leaves a single carrier battle group there as iran as warning signals to reach nuclear weapons increase with surface combatants with many years of useful service life still left in them. the best way to save money

is to reduce operations and the way to do this? a reduced budget target but also diminish the distributed global presence of u.s. combat. several aircraft carrier wings were reduced to a minimum safe flying levels and that they would not be prepared for combat if there was a crisis. it would take time. the pacific command was laid up and that is particularly important because of the immensity and are commensurate need to resupply vessels on patrol of the furthest reaches. other costs eight -- cost-saving measures include a reduction of the escort ships that accompany the battle group and an early

return to port of a friggat assigned to the southern command that is responsible among other things for stanching the flow of illegal drugs from south america into the united states. for now, as chief of naval operations, admiral greeter at told congress and this is a quote, we will not be able to respond in the way the nation has expected independent on us. in short, that is the end of his''. and in short the baby will have sequestration by operating less while extending the deployment of ships at sea which ironically increases the cost of repairing them and also buying fewer ships in the future.

it will reduce our fleet over the short term as it diminishes the seapower stability to recover the presence in the future. there is no good news here. history offers sober prove. the state -- the state can achieve great power by taking best proximity and then lost the dominant seapower. to ignore pericles' advice to get the advantage of this seapower and lost both the peloponnesus anwr and a great power status. in this sort -- search for

resources on land to build a powerful fleet it then became tangled of the italian city states and ignore the transformation of naval architecture from inland sea vessels to oceangoing holes and propulsion and alienated the partners by overtaxing them. for what the seapower created remains, the power that made it possible nearly five centuries ago. of the dutch use the merchant fleet to establish europe's most vibrant economy and figure the wealth of protected by a naval force or at least a small one would suffice. they learned the hard way it is no guarantee of peace. and made relatively easy pickings for the english and

lost, the dutch lost and never to recover the maritime source and a power. equant, burdened by the unexpectedly high cost of their work and the adl that government debt at any level was an evil begin to abandon its global presence even before world war i. today there is 19 surface combatants less than one-third of what it possessed as recently as the falklands war. the likelihood the british will reestablish their position as a great power or a great maritime power, is beyond my imagination. the state whose greatness rests on the security benefits, the ability to protect and to be sustained

by the naval force the power equals tholos of national greatness. and although my book does not cover this subject in detail, it is worth noting that the gathering debate over the republican party of america's engagement with the world including the resources to support such an engagement is an ominous sign. not only for those that see the connection between a powerful u.s. and more democratic and safe world, but the world itself. as britain began to give up the global reach before world war i, it was there to have an important part of the discarded mantle, if those in the republican party for reasons differ

them president obama is a triumph, america's retreat of less influence and less participation in the world will offer neither stability , nor prosperity. there is no democratic state in the sidelines waiting for our current responsibilities. there is china. less powerful, it will diminish the international demand for american products and risk our leadership position in europe and asia and will disperse to a new international order one in which liberty, a free-market its common human rights rights, respect for territorial sovereignty in freedom of navigation on the

high seas are not priorities. i don't think any of us want to see this happen. here returning to the central theme of my book, i think there are many steps we can take to reverse naval decline. this would mean in acknowledging the importance of the strategic competition in which we find ourselves opposite of china while also emphasizing the importance of the middle east and hemispheric defense. such a declaration of priorities would help answer questions about the size and character of the u.s. fleet. as these questions continue to dog the us today. the second step is greater discipline of the design of naval vessels cost overruns

have been a problem in recent years when we see the expense of the navy's newest carrier c. contractual obligation. then you destroy your met the same problems and was largely canceled. the combat ship experienced similar issues initially and the modular systems that allow the same combat ship to perform different missions had yet to be built and deployed. who knows? paid for. some accountability is needed throughout the entire defense department. these organizations for procurement is heavily centralized in looks like a relic of the soviet union the secretary of defense is

and wielding an unnecessarily expensive and should be reduced and made accountable in heroes should be moved to the military services. at the same time those parts of the 1986 goldwater nichols to be changed to reestablish military service for their services that largely migrated to the secretary of defense with the joint chiefs of as professor huntington of harvard to die just a few years ago observed the famous 1954 article in proceedings that military services that do not have a clear view of their strategic view become purposeless and wallow about

conflicting and confusing goals and ultimately suffer both physical and moral d generation. " end quote. did we should move away from the political correctness from the military services. the legislation and encourage this and that president eisenhower divided military budget quite unevenly during the 1950's as he sought to improve the nation's long dash nation's nuclear deterrent that the army did not participate as extensively as the air force. i don't think i will surprise anybody here by saying i am pessimistic of the immediate future for our armed services and for the navy in particular. but in over the long run, i don't think americans have become isolationist.

i don't believe our fellow citizens would like to have a military second to any in the world. the question is whether as a nation we realize mistakes soon enough to take corrective action. i wrote "mayday" to encourage a national discussion i believe is needed to make these choices deliberately, consciously, n ot by default and i am happy to speak here this afternoon at heritage. because i think we share the same goal. thank you for your attention. i am happy to answer questions. >> please wait for the

microphone. ask questions and do not give a sermon. >> i am dick kaufman and i have no affiliation other than several years in the marine corps and ncaa. my question is your view of the vulnerability of the carrier battle groups to the chinese missile threat, i assure you are aware there is a lot of debate going on with the carrier battle groups in the future. what is your view? >> you mean about the vulnerability? china attested that missile that i referred to called the df-21 it was tested on

land and declared successful. i suspect other tests will follow at sea and eventually on a moving target. i don't know if they will succeed but they probably will. you don't have to hit the target on the first shot. it is not like one weapon and that's it. you can send 20. what is a ballistic missile cost compared to a large aircraft carrier with a full crew on board? in 15 or 20 years ago if somebody suggested ty not to accept -- china would develop such a device, i think most people in the military would say you must

me out of your mind. but today people are taking it much more seriously. i think it is a real threat. that does not mean the end of the military history so we will have to respond in some form or other. maybe defenses against a ballistic missile can be difficult but not impossible. the range of planes that would conduct surveillance and combat missions would be extended but of course, that would be to extend the range of the ballistic missiles. it is a problem. we have to do with it in one form or another and take the threats seriously.

>> thank you. i report from the voice american. i do not thank you think that china's threat is imminent because it takes years for china to reach u.s. naval. thank you. >> i'm sorry i am saying at don't thank you really do think that china's navy or its threat is imminent and it takes china years to reach the level of the u.s. naval. >> today i don't think anybody in the chinese military or pla, can you

hear me? >> no. [laughter] >> today, i don't think there is much of the contest between the u.s. navy and the chinese navy. i am concerned what things look like 30 years from now or even 20 years from now that if you combine sequestration with budget cuts that have already taken place or even more important than that those are signs of the american public for getting the importance of naval power. if that forgetful this is extended in we're not reminded how important the dominance patsy is -- at sea

is, the long-term trend is very serious for the united states because china is modernizing the fleet and building a larger one, they have an aircraft carrier they did not have one year ago at sea and it will take them time to learn how to operate effectively and safely with the plans for a second. a lot of the senior officers say it is only to. is only to today but try to think about what things will look at like three decades from now the navy is responsible for doing that and ask to report to congress where it will be 30 years from now and the reason that i pointed out the difference between the navy's estimates of what it will take to reach a reduced fleet and congress's estimate is exactly what

answers your point we're not getting where we need to go to go in the opposite direction. if it ends up in this situation in the united states is required to pull ships from everywhere in the world in order to do teacher or convince china it is not a good idea to think about going to war with the united states, we have done their british saying tanner no longer a dominant global power we can only put off power in one place when necessary. that is what i am concerned about, the future. >> 80 very much. my question is regarding the

technological change, for instance if the navy has a better disciplined of the shipbuilding but on the other hand, how can we balance that with the need of future technologies that can be game changers in naval warfare? thank you very much. >> designing and building new technology does not equal cost overruns. one of the major reasons for cost overruns, perhaps the most significant is you decide you will build a

particular ship like the combat ship for the new carrier for the new combat systems are being digit year for the first time. is -- as you built that ship your secondary prime contractor that you seek to do business with and say i have a better idea for doing this they and what we had originally agreed to. it may cost a little bit more. if you say let's do it once, no problem if you say it a thousand times, a big problem. console being disciplined about answering those issues would be a large step

forward in introducing the cost discipline that i am talking about into a system that has had trouble maintaining over the years. the does not mean they are not able to take advantage of guns or electronic catapults. it is unfortunately not a matter that that if you add all those up with a $360 billion overrun with the aircraft carrier. if you said no, just say now.

>> al milliken. what would you say about the u.s. navy and other national navy responses to that? >> i think the initial responses to piracy off the horn of africa were appropriate. they were useful. it seems to me the merchant marine, those running ships who aren't some of them have been as effective as a naval force. is a huge area the pirates have operated in if we put

half the navy into the area we still could not guarantee safety. the measures taken by the shipping companies have at least as successful as naval action in degreasing off the horn of africa. >> u.s. army. regarding technology and the defense -- a bent how does that affect the final number of ships and what is your projection as far as a number? i know you said three "mayday" but what do you think the ipo number should

be? >> there is the quadrennial defense review the key are. -- a the qdr there is the answer to the qdr in different point of view is required. the most recent one recommended a fleet of 350 ships. i think that is a sensible figure. it would allow the united states to maintain the three have the navy -- this three

hub may be in the pacific and middle east and this hemisphere. i think that is the most sensible approach. we don't need this 600 ship navy today. there is some truth with the assertion that increasing technology diminishes the need for a large, large fleet. but if you look at this like a calculus problem, it turns if for example, you could put the entire combat power of the navy into one ship, it you want to do that? no. because one ship cannot be in two places at once. 350 is about the right

number. that might decrease as technology improves. for example, if we talk about naval guns with rocket power with a range up at 200 miles, you could do that and make up 2,000 miles but to tell the captain of the constitution that the ships of the u.s. navy could fryer shows 200 miles they but think they were nuts. who knows? but for today i think that is the right number. >> my name is catherine or

men from the executive leadership group. when you discuss to reverse the trend of the needy decline you talk about greater discipline and i am curious if you have more actionable items of what we might do about the problem? >> maybe somebody here has a better memory than i do this sometime over the last two or three months, said the navy landed in an man to the vehicle of -- on the

aircraft carrier and it was not done by othello with a joystick but by machine, computer. drones are not cheap. but they certainly can reduce costs because you don't have to have people flying them and they are expensive to pay and provide benefits for and earned a berth on the ship and expenses and so on. so the and manned vehicles vehicles, and drones, both in the air and on the surface and underwater are one possible solution that will save money.

dozen aircraft carrier need to be as big as the ones we are building today especially at least for the foreseeable future to be vulnerable for the ballistic missiles or is there a good chance they will be vulnerable? probably not. to the smaller aircraft carrier be affected? i think so. would it be better to have three smaller carriers and one big carrier? for us it would force the enemy to redistribute the forces somebody has to cover for ships instead of one for crowfoot fad is another possibility. do we need to keep building only nuclear-powered submarines? they are quite expensive

expensive, not as quiet as diesel electric, the new technology coming on line for decades has been coming on line to allow submarines to operate independently. are those cheaper than nuclear? yes. same question with aircraft carriers is it better if we had three or four diesel electric or other nuclear powered submarines? from our point of view it would be better from the potential enemy point of view and that means for submarines instead of one. that as some examples of what we could do with our effectiveness and likely diminish cost. does that answer your question?

>> once worked in most when it was simple and smaller and i share your preference. can you keep a substantial piece of the fleet operational with substantial use of reserves? >> we -- reconfigured redesigned? i like the idea of the reserve officer. my experience that they

called on that this sort of an ancient prejudice against the reserves, i don't see that changing. you can never tell because if they are really pressed the country will rethink that in insist the reserves be used more in keeping with their potential of capabilities. but there is such a institutional resistance i have a story to illustrate i

know that you know, but to illustrate the point a few years ago at the american enterprise institute and the quadrennial defense review was conducted a now retired admiral said can you come over to do a think session to criticize the navy part of a the qdr? so i went over and we took pot shots in the third or fourth time that he called i said i happen to work for

you and he said what do you mean? i said i am in your reserve capacity on the weekends. [laughter] my advise would not have been any different. it is hard to overcome that. >> senator coats office you mention in the maritime strategy of this of cooperation and other navy does the recent panamanian it seizure of the cuban material can you shed any light on that? >> no. i can't but i can tell you that the southern command

navy to navy special operations partnership are a very high priority and they take very seriously. even more what it do you do with those partnerships? how did you use them? they are intended to facilitate other goals but i don't know about the panamanian case but i do know that they take the issue of partnership building very, very seriously prokofiev . >> eight you very much and fleece joining me to thank our guest seth cropsey.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] if the. >> cover author of wrote the best seller, and doctor, why did you choose to write the autobiography? >> it seemed like a good moment. i am getting older and it was useful results you go rehash memories and also a convincing her to write the book is seemed like the

right time to do it. this is just the first half up to where i wrote a that was it marked a natural watershed in my life it made sense to write two books. this is taking the trouble could in school days and university and early work as a scientist with my work through the ages 35. >> host: why was that the halfway point for you? >> this selfish gene the change my life. before that i was an ordinary research scientist then they stayed on the faculty but i became more of a public figure writing books for large audiences. >> who was john and jean

hawkins? >> they were my parents my mother is still alive but it my father was a biologist but it his career began similar to mine with the same kind of schools rather expensive, and then he went to oxford and he did research and i did research be he was into british colonial that was big in those days. but not anymore. and then looking at east africa and then our visit and i was born around that time. my mother was an art student

from a cornish family they had shared a love of wild things, of wildflowers so i was brought up in the atmosphere. >> host: were you brought up in the anglican church? >> my parents had no interest in religion. i think that is something that's normally happens. >> host: when did you lose that connection? >> suppose finally at the age of 16, but i had my doubts earlier but also at the age of nine from when i

was brought up. >> host: we would ask your parents? how would they respond? >> guest: my a mother told me the christian stories. i don't know if she believed them but then i went to school. >> host: richard dawkins, how did this selfish gene become about as a book? >> guest: 10 years before i wrote it in 1966 i was asked by my boss the nobel prize whittier -- winner i wrote a course of lectures of animal behavior that pretty much foreshadowed "the selfish gene" that all of these genes pounding through the generations all that rhetoric was is in that

1966 and that i might write to all down the you could find in "the selfish gene" almost the same word in 1966. i actually would put typewriter to paper about the t-72 or 73 when there was a strike in great britain and i could not do my research and i thought about here i need my long promised book. >> host: you did not need electricity. >> guest: it is a major oil typewriter. >> host: you also talk about john maynard?

who was the? >> guest: very wonderful man a wonderful character and constantly talking to students about real work. he did not do or where it was coming from. he would just get on with that. so to inspire generations of students so many of his ideas play a big role in the "the selfish gene." >> host: after "the selfish gene" was published, how did your life changed as a professor? real a celebrity professor in the sense? >> guest: not immediately.

so it did cause is a bit and i was finding myself being invited to see his son was not before. [laughter] but that did start to happen and that set me on a new course of right tea and other books after that. >> host: you are known not only as a scientist also has a neediest. when did you start writing about that? >> guest: "the selfish gene" has information on that i suppose all my books also what i wrote for the popular audience, all about the argument of design which

is the dominant reason why people believe in the supreme being and with the flowers and the birds it is all by chance but it is by chance it came about by natural selection which is the opposite of two units but it was an attempt to explain that but i think the subtitle was something like what the evidence shows the universe of our design. subleased interpreted that all my other books could be interpreted in the same way. here published 2006 that is

my biggest seller in fact, fact,, but apart from matt my book is not devoted to atheism. . .