their performance. and if they do a great job let's let them open another school. and if they do a terrible job let's replace them with stronger operators. >> tonight on c-span2 a discussion about japan's defense strategy. a look at the legacy supreme court justice antonin scalia. and the term which begins on october 2. retired japanese metallic offices talk about the country's defense strategy and efforts to strengthen us-japan alliance. other topics included cybersecurity, preparations for the 2020 tokyo olympics and north korea's recent ballistic missile launch. firms the stimson center and washington dc, this is an hour and 1/2.>> good morning.

welcome. this is our voices for japan program at the stimson center. this is the annual event that japan program hosts to invite those whom we often do not get to listen to here in washington. this year i am extremely honored to have these leaders. have been my mentors and i respect them deeply. they have taught me 70 things over the years and that time that i have known them. i'm very happy that they agreed to come to washington and talk to us this morning. you all have a bio, their detailed bio in the program in your seat. i will save you from a lengthy

introduction. very quickly to my immediate left is general transport next to him is admiral -- and lieutenant general --. they are all retired but demonstrate the importance of a joint operations on the forces. we will listen to what they have in mind about japan's defense posture. before we start i am late in introducing myself. i yuki tatsumi. i am the japan program director. this could not have happened without a lot of the sponsors and supporters of the japan program. i would very much like to thank all of the japan program supporters at this location.

you can see the list of supporters at the back of the brochure. hopefully, this supportive circle of corporation will grow over the years. a couple of administrative announcements before we start the program. first of all, it you'll, some of you have picked up a transition headset. if you have not done so if you need one, there rent a side of the room. channel 2 is english and channel 10 is japanese. obviously, the speakers will speak in japanese so you will probably need, most of you will probably need a headset and channel number two. if you have not done so, please do so at this time while i am stretching my time making these announcements. and you also noticed that you will see a note card and a pen or pencil in your seat to

conduct the q&a session more efficiently. i usually do this only for this event but as you look at the speakers, if a question pops up in your head please write them down. staff will go through the aisles to collect the card from you and give them to me. then i will try to consolidate the similar questions working together so that we have more time for questions to the speakers. finally, there is a headset they just picked up when you leave this room, please leave it in your seat. we will get charged for any lost equipment. it is very important. they are expensive so please help us. this is how we are going to do, first half hour or 45 minutes i will post them with a couple of questions and asked responses.

after i go through those questions we are open at the floor to your questions and their feedback. >> with that, i will go ahead and start with the first question. the first question to each one of you, since the prime minister came into the office he promoted the concept of corrective contribution to peace. he also pursued the peace and security legislation under his watch. the japanese government had reinterpreted the constitutional interpretation of the japan can exercise the right of collective defense or not. from outside, particularly here in washington, it looks to us like that there are great changes that are happening.

on the legal foundations, and policy orientation and how it japan engages with the international community in the area of international security in particular. and how does that look to you? do you feel that japan should reorient in a very different way from that it has been doing so in the last seven years? the way that it engages with the world and in the realm of security policy? i'll start with you general and then i will go down the aisle. >> good morning everyone. before i answer this question, there are two things that i would like to say on behalf of myself and my colleagues. the first is that recently

there has been to marine disasters near japan for john mccain in the fitzgerald had accidents close to our country. and as a result, 17 sailors perished. and every -- i would like to express my condolences. their wonderful contribution has helped to maintain peace in our region and has also helped to bolster our national security. so i would like to once again, express my thanks to the united states for its work and also to express my condolences for these irreplaceable lives that

were lost. that is the first thing i want to say. the second is, the country have been supporting us for a number of years. and so it is wonderful that we have the opportunity to spend time with you today, the three of us are graduates of the national defense academy and we have had long relationship with ms. yuki tatsumi. and the center played a large contribution in allowing us to have a direct talk and exchanges of views and i would like to once again, express my thanks to ms. yuki tatsumi for everything she has done. as far as the question that we were just asked, my thought is that the leadership of the prime minister has really

helped to change our posture through legal measures and the idea of a peaceful contribution, proactive contribution to peace. those of us who have served in the forces feel that our constitution is something that of course, we need to protect. and it is something of what we can do but it is important for us to pursue proactive contribution to peace and also like we have had a new interpretation of our constitution allows us to change our stance and what it is that we can do. in other words it has been a change in security,

legislation. further, as far as what we can do, we have been able as a result of some changes brought about the administration to do more to support the united states. so we are able to do things that we were not able to do until now because of the checks placed by the contribution. further, japan with article 9 of the constitution was not allowed to use force and some people misunderstand and think that we know will be using force but that is not the case. the constitution has not changed. we will not use force outside of japan. there is no change in our stance. so there hasn't been much change in the constitution in the room for operation but some people also think why is it that there is so much discussion in japan and what i

can tell you is that our public sentiments are still not completely mature i think. we do not know exactly how it is that we should act. how it is that we should be on the international stage. and what it is that we should do to maintain peace. should we do something outside of japan to try to maintain global peace? i think that we change, the change in legislation has allowed us now to play a larger role then we could up until now. the media in japan wants to try to lead people in thinking that there will be a change in our constitution but it will be a dangerous path from here on. but that is not the case. we have not had really an adult conversation in japan yet about this. so i think that we have had a

couple of steps forward as a result of the administration and i think that it is one thing i would like to have you understand. >> as for, i am concerned i am a fellow of the navy and up until now i have been in a position where i have had to keep from criticizing the united states but now i am an academic i have a way to express myself fully. as far as the question that was asked about a 10 national security policies where this is changed or not. i think that the -- and the coalition partners have, it

looks as though they had changed their stance but if you look at the different angle, what you can see is that things have not changed drastically. it is just that during the democratic party, there was not much progress in terms of our legislation relating to a national security. basically i think what has happened is that there has been a little bit of a change such that we are able to apply our security legislation, policies in a different way. with three years over the democratic party and japan's rule there are a number of different things that happened that i do not think that the dpj was allowed to respond to. the first that the government

releases the captain of a chinese fishing vessel that caused an accident near our lands. the other thing is the east, great japan earthquake and the nuclear incident at fukushima. i do not think the government responded effectively. and so, this basically set the stage for a change in government. how is it that japan will change its stance on security issues? one thing, if you look at the guidelines, it is easy to understand the guideline itself was published in 1978. and it set out to be a roadmap to guidelines cooperating with the united states under the alliance and in 1997 this was revised and then it was -- up

until 1994 there was the first nuclear crisis in the korean peninsula and so there was a discussion about what it is that we should do to support the united states in the case of a contingency or a crisis around us.so the guideline was revised with that in mind. in 2005, there was another revision of the guideline and in 2015 rather, it was revised after the earthquake and tidal wave after fukushima. so there was an idea about not just crisis and our environment around us but also what we can do to respond to domestic issues. this led to a discussion of joint, more joint planning. >> from here on out, how is it that japan should be involved in its national security and

what sort of policies should it pursue? one thing i think that we need to do is to continue to apply our policies as we have in the past. one thing i can say is that in 2015 the revision of the guideline i think that will probably walk the resides this is what's happening in north korea possible in the future, japan or north korea might have missiles, might be able to have nuclear weapons. that sort of thinking did not exist when the guidelines were revised. and so, there is a question of whether the revision, the most recent revision still is and align with the times are not. and so i think that this is something that we are going to need to think about. i think there are three points to consider in this regard. the first is the forward

deployed forces of the united states. can the united states and japan have interoperable planning or not? and can they fight interactively. and with north korean missiles, we need to have a 24 hour operations that will allow us to respond to any crisis that might emanate from the korean peninsula and we need to look at what we can do to cooperate more in a three party type of situation with south korea. what it is that we can do together with not only as japan but also us, japan and korea. another thing i should talk about is that there is a limit to what forward deployed forces of the united states can do. >> -- those countries should

work together. how we maintain a presence in western pacific at the incorporation is really needed in that regard. as aforementioned, around the korean peninsula long-term, the posture needs to be pushed from that perspective. it is of course japan must enforce this so i think it is very important to be deployed. and third, in order to reduce us burden, japanese engagement in the region, we need to revise our posture once again. the burden which is currently owned by the united states in order to reduce that, we should take more initiative in order to contribute to the peace and stability of the region. there is a good possibility.

i think we should discuss this, the us forces in order to have a better coordination between japan and united states. i think that would be the new way for japan's engagement in this region. thank you very much for this opportunity. up -- for two years in washington d.c. i was a research fellow in dc. and for two years i was involved in the purchase to think about foreign policy and from different - i was invited to attend a symposium and i mostly turned down and i returned to japan and then i got temptation from the sun and

i could not tell not request them. and for me before answering her question, very briefly i would like to talk about some forces and the united states and how the alliance each of the two countries should work. in 1954 the agency was established. and in 1950 the one year before the korean war, it was, it started as a result of the police force and two years before the american started. but the self-defense forces of 73 years ago in 1954, 63 years ago? no, it was started -- after that, there is a good development but if i may summarize briefly, during the cold war era, and in 1989,

there was a collapse of the berlin wall, even after that -- there were deployment forces in order to keep their presence including logistical activities making a great effort. -- in order to put emphasis in other areas. and both maritime and the air, surveillance activities have decreased. together with the us members, we had been fighting together. i would like to emphasize that. and after the terror and also for other - american bases in japan. we have been protecting those bases together. we already explained by two

speakers, there has been some sign of changes. we really need to adjust our roles. the security legislation, during peace time i think we all incorporated into what we can do during the peace time and that legislation. emergency or contingency order for playing the roles more appropriately there are more things to be done. so we have come to the point where we really think about those points more seriously. >> thank you. i think that is a great segue into the second question i have for all of you. we talked about how japan had responded and adjusted to the changes in international

security environment. which resulted in the internal changes that you all laid out. in that context, as i just said, and as lt. gen. masayuki hironaka pointed out, we need to really rethink about how to posture themselves to respond to such changes. what they kind of defense posture should be, the next 10, 15 or 20 years. i will start again from you general and go down perhaps. >> thank you very much. the ever-changing environment that was mentioned, in order to show the concept together. four years of the government,

there was a cabinet decision for the national defense program guideline here that is a program for the next 10 years. when we think about the changing environment, north korea, china and russia are very important factors to take into consideration.seven or eight years ago, we thought that north korea was the crisis there. and that china is the crisis in the near future. russia was the crisis in the distant future. that was our interpretation seven or eight years ago. but after the last four or five years i think there has been some change in our perception. and north korea, this is exactly imminent threat. and the china i think the threat for the near future and

russia, watch closely for it will be very dangerous. i think those are the changes of perception about the crisis. and four years ago under those circumstances, in order to respond to the change of the crisis, the integrated the posture. so in other words, the southwestern islands which was the vacuum that is from the south to taiwan and the china quoted the first island change from okinawa to the southwestern islands and the taiwan in philippines. that is the first island chain. and the distance in this region, there -- deployed in the area coming to taiwan.

there is no other force. so there was a vacuum of the forces. in this region and first that vacuum historically when you consider china over the 50 or 100 years, china has been building up their strength and you can see in the china seas. we really have to go the belcourt structure for the concept from 4 to 5 years. the vacuum area of the southwestern islands, they decided to build up and strengthen the power. and there are three things. the first is we have -- when there is any emergency or contingency here, new force will be injected and the force

will be injected in order to eliminate the vacuum in the southwestern area in order to strengthen the deterrent. so those are the two ways to increase the deterrence. and the third stage, some island is taken. we have to retake it. so the new force for that purpose is created. so those are the phases in order to avoid and fill the gap of the vacuum of the southwestern islands in order to build up the defense peers of that program started four years ago and where in the fourth year so we are still in the -- this program has been underway steadily.

>> in japan we are attempting to maintain this. there are those in the neighborhood trying to change the status quo. but in order to keep the status quo, what is it that we need to do? the maritime self-defense forces are thinking about what japan needs to be able to do in order to maintain it. as far as the maritime self-defense concern i would like to say that we want to have two kinds of deterrence. one is deterred by punishment and the other is by denial. and these two kinds of deterrence would allow us to maintain the status quo. another thing is that india and the -- in order to maintain the

status quo here we need to have sufficient forces. the third is to have a strong us-japan alliance and we, the self-defense forces, the maritime self-defense forces must do their part in order to maintain a strong alliance with the united states. people often think about nuclear weapons but there are two kinds of nuclear weapons. what is tactical and what is strategic. we of course are dependent on the united states for nuclear deterrence.and what it is that japan can do is to maintain deterrence with conventional weapons. and so in order to do that, dependency strengthen his forces and also japan has or needs to be able to maintain and strengthen its deterrence by denial. as i said earlier about north

korea and the change of situation there, what is it that we can do to respond to that? what we need to do is to strengthen our cooperation with the united states in our region. another thing is the reactive versus proactive deterrence. up until now, the self-defense forces, especially the self-defense has temporary and we would be able to respond. we have the ability to respond to that would include our vessels and airplanes. one thing is a submarine warfare. in order to respond to something with a submarine, we

would look at that threat. we would look at and sink the ship posing a threat. that sort of reactive but proactive defense has to do more with a gray zone upper internal strength. always having sufficient information. also, to have a situation awareness under the sea and on top of the sea. and if there was a crisis would be able to use that in order to gain the advantage if hostilities were to break out. and so, this sort of proactive deterrence is something that i think we need to enhance for the self-defense forces in the future. >> i am hoping to hear the perspective from you. >> i will talk about the air

self-defense forces. the us air force was mentioned, 1947. in 1954 - the imperial army did have an air force component. it was set up in 1910. that was the first time in which we had an air force in japan and in 1945 we lost at the end of world war ii and that was the end of our air force. so we really only have this new air force for a relatively short period of time. it has been 35 years since our air force was set up. so in order for us to have an organization that can fight

effectively, we need to keep in mind the fact that there is not much history to the air force and the united states air force, really was also set up after world war ii. and so what is it, what kind of role should our forces play in the air? basically it is to support operations on the ground and on the sea. there are many different discussions about this and various ideas so that perhaps the air force is should be more independent. they should have their own landing, on operations. some people have that sort of view on things. and this was tried during the persian gulf war. and so, we need to get this historical's perspective in mind when we think about what it is that the air forces should do. i think that one thing is that

the air force needs to have extremely advanced technology at its hands. and the air self-defense forces. what is it that we need to do? and as far as they, the ideas about protecting the southwest asian islands and enhancing our deterrence. i think that air self-defense forces fit into here. having especially deterrent effect. the idea of having strategic chemical weapons is not something we are considering now. but the air forces are charged with protecting the country with conventional weapons. and so how is it we can enhance deterrence with conventional weapons. it is that they will really need to consider and so, i think this is the thing that is really at the center of what it is that we need to think about.

>> if we can start collecting the cards, if you have the card already filled out, waved to these people and they will get your card and give it to me. up to here we talked about how japan should engage in the world and what type of defense posture is appropriate for the force to adequately provide international defense. but when you think about these goals, one of the challenges that you see? either internally or externally? and then i think for the last question, i think i might flip the order and that is okay i would like to start with lt. gen. masayuki hironaka and come back to gen. kiyofumi iwata. >> as i said earlier, is the

beginning of the self-defense forces, we have had quite an abrupt difference from the imperial army. we have had a very close cooperation with the united states. also we have had our tactics, our technology and the support in all these areas. our self-defense forces function as a defense force of a democratic country and we have one block from the united states in that regard. the united states really helped us to build up our forces and i think that we need to think from here on out what it is that we can do to have joint planning with the united states. a better planning with our wonderful friends in the united states. that is the most important thing that we need to think about. >> let me talk a little bit

more in abstract terms. unfortunately this will be a little bit abstract. i think one thing we need to do is make sure that we are aware of the situation, have a good take on the situation. we, there have been huge changes in the international security arena and what is it that japan is suited to respond to this? we really need to have a clear view of what is happening and we need to try to have a better clear view of what's happening and as i said earlier, the guidelines that are currently in place may not be sufficient to deal with today's reality. things need to be revised.

we need a clear take on what is happening and is that for the course in which we want to proceed?/this is a way in order to compare the forces and that we come to understand the shortfall. also a wargame which is a dynamic.so those are the ways that we have to make - and i think gen. kiyofumi iwata will talk about this more. japan has not been very eager up to this point so we have to - we have static of that assessment. we should share the crisis. the consciousness and awareness. as a nation the approach is needed. and in japan we have a national security council which is established and so that could -

now we are able to return to the same future and be able to move ahead together. and in the private sector should also involve in order to have a break during a crisis situation in the environment in order to address all different kind of crisis. how to result the private and the public that work together in the next in japan, we have a country which can handle this very well. one country and government is able to control the resources, the time and energy freely, including the private sector peers are just like the south china sea, reclamation in 1976, the reclamation by china started but when the timing arose, they actually created the islands in a very speedy

manner. so the resource and energy could be used under the - by our neighbor. for japan's response i think the public and private should work together to make this moving to the same direction. since the change is so rapid now, the alliance needs to be maintained in a very robust manner.and rather than defending the united states what japan can do independently and we need to think about, if you think about maritime self-defense force, that we learn from the u.s. navy, the introduce new equipment and also learn from the tactics from the u.s. navy. and now times have changed. the maritime defense force together with the navy we have to develop new equipment, new tactics and we have to think

together how to fight the war and i think that is with the u.s. navy would have to do. that is something i would like you to tell us. so in the region, the us influence, not absolute but their influence has been in decline at least our perception has been in decline. so now maritime force together, with maybe we should make joint efforts to keep us presence completely in the region. and so now they make up for some shortfall of the us forces and that is the purpose of the alliance and i think that we should work together for the purpose. >> and from my side as i said, we need to understand the - four years ago when we created

the guideline, the pace of change has been accelerated. if you think about north korea, the other day, the second time that their missile that flew over the hokkaido, the threat is real. so over the last two years this, the threat has increased. so we do need to challenge this and make a force for that purpose. tenant is aggressive in south china sea. from east china sea for the first time, the straight of - moved to the pacific ocean and particular over the last four or five years. a very rapid space as a fleet, the activities become more

aggressive. and -- this china strategy they have already demonstrated by using their own activities in naval and air force and china have become more aggressive so we do need to step up our efforts and respond to the change. and the other change is the change of the strategy. and so, in order to counter that first, the first island change, retreat us forces to the east of guam and the first island defense is left up to the alliance. and using long-distance

strength tried to contain china. and we had at the strategy has been studied. at the strategy becomes reality, as adm. tomohisa takei mentioned, i think over the last four years we really can study from now with all of his changes, japan has come to the point where the national defense guidelines four years ago the situation has changed and if weight there is and adapt to the new change, new national defense guidelines should be put in place. and the minister - i think the prime minister also gave the instruction to study this. and so what kind of a change is necessary? my personal view is that north

korea should be further -- those alone cannot withstand the many attacks from north korea and japanese capability of, this needs to be deployed. and it can be deployed very soon. it should be done quickly. and china, the defense of the southwestern island, the three, the services of japan have done that but we should reinforce that. and the strategy is the retreat of the us forces to guam, the sense of the southwestern islands for the japan just step up to defend this.

and as adm. tomohisa takei mentioned, we should never forget the standpoint of japan's alliance. and there is the japan us bilateral planning. in other words on a very equal basis, we should consider a japan us forces together. and four years ago, the guidelines were established and i did not think that the total alignment of japan us forces was knocked down under the guideline. and so after two years, we have a guideline the japan us defense corporation but i think they should have been done together. because mission capability should be carried out in joint consultation meetings and then in order to introduce -- the

strike against the enemy base. the us has been the sword and japan has been the shield that is the capability of the sword and a shield between japan and the nicest woman to think about this once again. so the part of the capability on the enemy basis can be owned by japan and so in other words, i think that we need to have a more good alliance of the strategy between japan and the united states. i think it will further increase. and adm. tomohisa takei said the assessment. i think we need to further study the assessment. and america has created the

vision and -- has implemented this and make it more concrete. in japan there is an assessment office. so now we need to create sanctions because we have counterparts so organizational needs to be approved so we should have a better alignment in japan and the united states in order to have the whole structure. thank you. >> there's actually a member in the audience so they should be grateful. [laughter] from here i will open up to the questions and answers. and actually thank you so much, especially given yesterday's missile launch by north korea, there were a lot of questions

on north korea. particularly focusing on the potential for japan to have a counter attack capability. do you support it? there were very direct questions about should japan have a tomahawk? [laughter] we are going to start on that. i will ask if you have some additional thoughts to add on the, whether japan should be seriously considering this ability or in case of -- a little something more drastic like tomahawk. whichever one of you.

>> the idea of having the ability to attack and or counterattack capability, we think about ballistic missiles i think there are things that are important. the first is to enhance the ability strike down a missile, that has to be with the aegis piece. and deterrence, to be able to strike. another thing is that we have cooperation with the united states. we need to continue that and then missile defense, whether we can protect 100 percent

against missiles, i think it is very difficult. so what is it we can do about damage control if we are not able to shoot down 100 percent of the missiles? that is the counterattack capability. japan does not have this at all. and my colleagues -- given that, what is it that we can do? as i said earlier, the us-japan strategy needs to be more in alignment. waiting to be more aware of what it is that we need to do and keep that in mind as we attain our movements and targeting information and a total overall strategy. we need to have a 360 degree view of this. without cooperation with the united states, we really do not have much that we can do. we need to be more on the same page with the united states.

>> the question about north korea that -- icbm that north korea has good there has been a lot of discussion about this. we need to keep in mind that around japan, there are countries that have nuclear missiles, long-range missiles, short-range missiles, medium-range missiles. russia and china, they already have these missiles. and whether we can or should have the tomahawk or whether we should be able to shoot down missiles or not, we do not think too much about this in japan. we think that, we always feel

with the good relationship with the united states, we have the alliance that denies that it has our back. the other reason why there is not much discussion of this is that china and russia are considered to be rational actors. in other words, they can make a reasonable decision. they are not rogue nations china and russia are not so they have these weapons with their rational actors and china and russia are basically friendly states to japan and so we have the nuclear deterrence of the united states and we have been able to rely on that. we've not had to do too much by ourselves but when it comes north korea, separate from the nuclear issue, we need to think whether they are rational or not. why does north korea want to

have nukes and icbms? i imagine is because they want to maintain the kim dynasty or to assure the continuation of the regime. i think that is one of the reasons. what would north korea do with nuclear weapons? i think there is no way that they would give up their nuclear weapons and i think that is of course, north korea poses a great challenge to us and then you consider what is it that we should do given that? how do we come to that? when north korea is able to put a nuclear warhead on a missile, i imagine that it will be difficult to deter them with american and nuclear deterrence and should japan be able to --

we think about the tomahawk missiles. my answer is, i do not know. i think this is something the government will have to decide and it will be very difficult. what can we do militarily? as i said earlier, if north korea is able to make rational decisions we might not have to worry about this. but if north korea cannot make rational decisions we will have to have some way to counter the threat. should we have our own capability or should we continue to depend on the united states we tomahawk or the ability to shoot enemy basis. this is not something we can just do with a couple of missiles.we need to have better information gathering, reconnaissance and a counterattack, what to do if there is an attempt to relieve an overall system -- we need to think this is an overall theater. it is not a one answer

solution. there is no one solution to the question posed.let me try to put this into perspective a little bit. in march of this year, there was discussion of having, there was a possibility for a discussion of having capability to strike an enemy base. assuming it is delivered and the discussion focused on long distance missiles. whether these were allowable in a legal sense or not and probably yes. and one large issue that came up is if japan were to arm itself with the ability to be offensive this is, it will be a huge change in our posture.

we would have a system for targeting. we would have to have more surveillance. we would have to have better information gathering. what sort of weapons should we have? what sort of platform when we need? his overall systems approach would be necessary.we would really have to start all over again in our approach. and so, united states of course in this regard is extremely important and i'm glad to be able to have channels to talk to the united states. i think this would be a large change in the traditional posture. i think we need to take time and to have more discussion on this. to add to that, there is one thing we can do without spending more money and that is to include japan in american armaments.for example, tomahawk missiles, other armaments. we could have joint operations within the united states. it way would require to send

money. but in that regard we would have to lift the political and other obstacles we have had up until now. >> since the general raised the possibility that depending on the discussion toward the new national defense program guidelines and perhaps more specifically on a midterm defense program. there may be a need for some forces to look at how to equip themselves very differently. from the past programs. and we often talked about the -- that reorientation can start from. and i just want, that is actually another question. given that japan is hosting a couple of major international

sporting events. 2019 japan will host the world rugby cup and in 2020 tokyo olympics. so it seems to me that cyber may be the right area where these kind of how to equip themselves, what kind of capability that the defense force also needs to have and perhaps japan, over the government approach also needs to have is very appropriate. i want to get reaction on how do you feel about cyberspace? and how they should tackle this very new battle. whoever would like to start. signal me and i will ask you. >> outer space operations, it must be committed itself. because for the future, this is a new battle domain and

therefore, there is no way. but thinking about this seriously. in the us, the forces, those engage in cyber operation if you look at the sites of the operation and the size of the operation in -- this is just -- the operation is very small compared to the us.

and how we view with them. in other words we cannot get everything we want. so what we are able to have his limited resources and how they can be effectively used in cyber in outer space is a new challenge. therefore we need to put more

emphasis. maybe there is effort to stop what they have been doing so far. about the cyber area as mentioned already, between japan and united states, those who engage in cyber issues are in the tens of thousands and in japan it's about 100. in other words 100 of that but we need to increase the size of cyber and japan. and integrate the cyber up operations. so i think for both they come as a whole it has already created the organization to counter the cyber attack.

i know to prepare for the tokyo olympics and i'm sure we need to address cyber more seriously. on the new domain is also electromagnetic area, china and russia and inground, eric and maritime. so in addition to the, the cyber outer space and electronics. so those domains the study has been carried out. and those new to me was going to combat fighting. we need to join this kind of study. in cyberspace so how are we are going to take big steps like

with the fleet of the u.s. navy, or something like that it should be owned by japanese forces, they strengthen our capability against the cyber as has been mentioned they have been delayed in this area. therefore we need to have the support for the united states including educational support. those efforts started several years ago. and i should say in navy, and if the ship goes to the see people assume there is no cyber attack on the ship. however, the even the latest of the u.s. navy if there is at the

bottom the ship stinks but in the cyber to me so the gps and the communications satellite so through that communication satellite there is a chance of invasion so john mccain, the fitzgerald collision so it's always a were that a cyber attack might be possible and there is investigation carried out. so this thread has already come with the u.s. navy. and we should follow suit in the same area in the navy, u.s. and japan altogether and that could be a very perfect way in japan. i think we are not able to

engage in effective joint operation. we need to step up effort so japan and u.s. coordination can be well organized. >> these three gentlemen make my job easier because they feed off each other. that is why wanted them to come together. i'm glad they're able to do so. let me switchgear a little bit and talk about japan and the other u.s. allies in the region. japan has been investing along the security relationship with southeast asian countries, countries like australia, india, and in light of ratcheting up tensions in the korean peninsula, south korea is also a natural partner, elise is supposed to be that way.

how do you see japan's future of the security corporation with these countries? probably i would put south korea in a different category from the rest, this is really in response to specific and concrete threat, but more generally relations with this country in southeast asia, australia, india and even i would say with europe nowadays. who would like to start? >> the rule of law and free over the seas in order to maintain these we need to cooperate with countries that have is the same

guidelines as we do. in the center is the united states and in order to fill in some of the gaps that exist we need to cooperate with other countries. to think about the oceans, europe and eurasia is on the edge of the eurasia continents. the northern route will be opening up as a result of changes on this would allow us or force us to look at the safety and security of countries in northern europe. as for as australia is concerned we need to look at the indian ocean also. the regional powers, india

cannot be ignored, australia cannot be ignored also. another country, indonesia which is becoming more of a seapower also the u.k. which has business in the middle east. these are countries that agree with us. the importance of the world the free and open oceans. as far as north korea's concerned, is geographical issue between our two countries. the different dimension of how we can deter north korea and how we can maintain the status quo vis-à-vis north korea as we talked about the cooperation between the united states, japan and south korea but japan and south korea have a common geographical issue.

we would work with japan and south korea can work more effectively together and we can use her geographical to our advantage. if you look at defense terms, deterring north korea requires our three countries work together and as was said, i agree with what you had to say. and that is if a country wants to change the status quo through power, we need to work together with united states and south korea are the united states and australia in this trilateral or multilateral arrangement.

and for the past ten years the u.s. japan south korea and australia we have been conducting strategic talks also from a different perspective from the philippines which is part of the island chain concept in the navy is not able to go into the philippines recently and japan might be able to fill in some of the gaps that exist with united states concert with the philippines. also with vietnam is a country that has issues with china and vietnam has worked with that with the pku in different operations. there's also mongolia and so these countries i think we need to cooperate with the have a multilateral or trilateral arrangement in order to counter

anything that might try to change the status quo by force. after 2000 the forces has been engaged in defense personnel exchange and there has been a lot of discussion about other countries with which we should cooperate. the first thing we need to do is make sure there are no accidents or mishaps in their other things we can do joint practice and exercises. the final level is fighting together in other countries and so the ministry of defense is looking at these issues. one thing i like to point out is that the euro japan relationship i think you are interested in the relationship between our two

countries. we consider many of you to be wonderful friends. as far as i relation, it's different between the united states and the u.k. there's a large difference. i think the difference, i can only talk about defensive shoes but if you look at the united states and foreign policy, the u.k. has a number of venues in which you can think and share the same values with the united states. as far as japan is concerned i think we should be able to become more in line with the united states and be able to look more in the same pages of the united states and increase our intelligence level in order to do that. we do have a wonderful relationship with united states but in the worst scenario can japan really fully exercise its

capability? that's something we need to think about. >> this is actually a good segue into an interesting question, we talked about japan's potential relationship with other u.s. allies and partners in the region. wondering if i can get a thought for me on japan and taiwan? obviously there is no formal diplomatic ties they have culturally, economically people the people, grassroots radical level they have enjoyed a close relationship and family relationship. in fact, a lot of the times in terms of revision of the guidelines, sometimes people

here raises where would japan fit in case of taiwan contingency plan is there independent security corporation similar to the interaction that u.s. and -- as so, i want to get your general thoughts on either potential or limitation of japan security relationship with taiwan i realize it is a sense of question. but there are several people who are very seem to know your thoughts. >> so i will give you the answer as best as i am able.

strategically, we are part of the first of taiwan, 1400 miles we are further south of the country and we have 180 people there on patrol. from hundred kilometers south of the in the next country down is the philippines. so strategically i think we need to cooperate with taiwan. that's my feeling. on the other hand, as the question was asked, as far as formal diplomatic relationships do not exist, so are active officers are not able to engage with the taiwan force. but we cannot just leave the

situation or can we, can we have a track to a relationship with taiwan that might be a possibility. that's about as far as i can go on my answer. >> as far as that japan there is no relationship currently up. up until now we have not had any exchanges with them. but if you think about preventing accidents at sea it might be more advantageous if we had some sort of relationship with the if one of our ships was to meet one of theirs on the sea. shouldn't we acknowledge each other. if they allow them to communicate we probably need to

move in that direction with taiwan as well. what is it that japan might be able to do with taiwan? that becomes a political policy issue. i think that is something we need to consider. the directly the taiwan issue has a large influence on american presence in our neighbor that we need to keep in mind. in concrete terms china's classification with taiwan and to the extent that taiwan is not reunited with china the cell for the communist party and taiwan

will continue to be central in the interest. if there were to be a crisis in taiwan be quite a dilemma. in other words is something to occur united states will be able to see the energy route. what can we do in times -- the indian ocean and other areas. so quite a lotta dilemma. it united states had a presence in our neighborhood this would affect quite a lot. we would need to have deterrence when exercise control.

if ships had to go around taiwan it would be quite inconvenient. so we need to think about what else we need to do to cooperate with united states to deal with issues that might occur in taiwan. >> so the taiwan issue if there's any issue think japan will be affected seriously. so china which is the greater part the north korea i think it's an incredible impact on japan. so instead need to think about all this scenarios. the u.s. taiwan relation. it is still a kid just like a japan taiwan relation.

the one who calls the taiwan country has to have some penalty. when they have to call it territory. however actually there is significant impact if everything happens between china and taiwan. so we really do have to have a good exercise remind. >> i think this would probably be the last question. i'd like to go back to the beginning with the challenges other than defense equipment and policy that japan faces. like aging population, very strict fiscal pressure. nonmilitary challenges that japan has when it comes to

thinking about japan's defense for the future. in a sense in the united states also we have been going through time with defense budget cut, sequestration has been put in effect. we have not seen that yet but it could come back depending on how the budget negotiation goes. more and more especially since the beginning of the trump administration there is an increased level of discussion that u.s. allies should not only do more, but provide more resources for its own defense. as most of the people in the room including ourselves now

japan spends roughly 1% of gdp on its defense. which is extremely low. low percentage given the capability needs to have and how would you respond to this average american question saying why should we spend our taxpayer dollars to a sense protect japan and provide stability in the asia-pacific when japan only spends a fraction of what we spend. how would you respond to that? >> thank you very much.

just a perception. the government has imports and if you look at the budget request by the government in august, that is a time of the budget requests. if you look at -- then after the .8% annually but the next year you look at the gross of the budget from this year to next year 2.5% of the growth is projected. at least the government helping make increase with the budget. so i think they have already succeeded in trump administration i think that is wright's approach.

i think that will be addressed so based on that consumption i would like answered. if you look at the taxpayers that pay money but that is not only for america, actually they work for peace and stability and also eventually the tax paid by the taxpayer is [inaudible] the protection of japan. it is for the world that ameri america. >> discussed on that issue if we wanted for our budget we would

be able to use -- to have that increased budget. now we do not look at spending without budget. the defense industry of course it is very clear that is if it's limited they're able to handle the we can look at our budget from 5-dollar reasonable and we can survive. if were told that you are able to provide this for $5 that our body cannot withstand that in her stomach may not so we really

have to think very carefully of how to increase, there's two ways to increase the budget so one is the percentage and if we increase the budget we would have to look at the reinforcement and the defense capability. when we look at it very important we have to look at the price and takes time to prepare and maintain. so just when the u.s. should bring about those areas so the joint research joined and it's very important. we do have the legal infrastructure that enable that. so even though the budget is so

limited that japan is able to make it within the budget. another words the technology for the after the war japan has engaged in the production of the submarines. in other words the skill compared to the u.s. workers as skill level is higher. so we look at in that regard and so we should exchange it actually should be the complementary it eventually leads to the stronger lines.

so if the pressure gets use for the stronger japanese defense capability i think that is the best way. as i mentioned in the beginning. sixty-three years ago the forces were established. that served as the ministry. we don't call it military defense or nation. and for the u.s. and japanese taxpayer what is the difference about the national defense? the greatest difference -- they are not in the self-defense forces. . .

those are three major players. and the force itself so the, we do not have basic knowledge. i think there is a lack as the taxpayers, why the forces exist? i think there is an understanding but there is, we are not educated that way. and there is change of the law during the term of the administration. so now the japanese people in

school, learn the way the state should operate but we were not educated as such and it will take another trend.the significance i think the basic understanding and basic understanding about the necessity has been lucky in the population at large. so when the budget increases we need to use the money effectively but in order for the organization, politics and the military, the communication should because of proffered judgment can be given for the important phases. so the military, civil military

relations are still yet to improve in japan. and with this i think forces are able to exercise that to the full extent. >> i have to admit this is the first and i have heard a four-star admiral talking about defense budget in the context of why the homemaker -- [laughter] it was actually pretty, it was enlightening. it kinda gives me a fresh outlook on this. i would like to thank adm. tomohisa takei, gen. kiyofumi iwata and lt. gen. masayuki hironaka once again for coming to washington for this gathering. i would like to thank all of you for joining us on a friday morning. i hope that the weather is cooperating with us. thank you again for coming and

i hope that you have a good friday. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. saturday morning, leo shane capitol hill bureau chief for the military times with key issues facing the is military as congress debates defense finally.

and the los angeles times healthcare reporter leavy talks about the future of the affordable care act and competing healthcare proposals on capitol hill this week. and in our final segment -- fran smith with science of addiction. i -- how addiction affects the brain. this is live saturday morning. during the discussion. >> sunday on booktv. live coverage of the brooklyn book festival. starting at 10 am eastern, msnbc host chris hayes talking about his book colony in a nation. cheryl cassian author of loving and author and new yorker staff writer -- talks about free speech. national book award nominated author kathy o'neill on her book, weapons of mass destruction.

generalist -- on immigration. watch our live coverage of the brooklyn book festival on sunday starting at 10 am eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> the newly published book scalia's constitution is about antonin scalia's career and legacy. this was held in washington dc. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning. i am paul peterson. i am the director of the program on education policy and government at harvard university and i am a senior fellow at the hoover institution.i want to welcome you all today to an event that surveys the publication of a new book called scalia's constitution. as is online eti