ballooning effect of our national security state. okay, that concludes today's event, thank you for coming, it's give our speakers round of applause >> [ applause ] washington journal continues. host: joining us, taught harrison, the defense budget analysis director for the center for strategic and international studies, to talk about the call by the president for a space force. what does the president envisioned by the space force, and why do you think his call comes now? caller: he is talking -- guest:

is talking about creating a separate military service to all of our military forces and to align them together. the motivation for this is that right now if you look across the military all the different organizations that have responsibilities authorities and budget to do so, national security space, they are fragmented all over the military community. what he is looking to do is integrate all of those existing space forces into one service that would be dedicated and focused to this task. >> is the steps it -- separate from space organization? >> absolutely. space expiration is part of nasa. it is not part of the military. all the civil space programs to do expiration and science, that is not going to be affected by this in any way. and just to reassure anyone this is not to protect us from aliens or to conquer territory anywhere in space.

it has nothing to do with this. that is great science fiction. really this is just about how the military can better organize , frame, and equip the space capabilities it needs to prevail in conflict here on earth. we will talk more about it. if you have questions about the president's call, the president spoke about this last week. here's a little bit about what you say about it. >> when it comes to defending america it is not enough to merely have an american presence in space, we must have american dominance in space. so important. very importantly i am here by directing. the department of defense and pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to

establish a space force as the six branch of the armed forces. that is a big statement. we are going to have the air force and we are going to have the space force. separate but equal. >> todd harrison, what then if they says what the president wants, what are the national security concerns? what do we have to look out for in that space? >> the way i like to think of it is the four d's. space is more diverse. there are more countries that are using. more private companies that are using space now. we see the number of satellites in space growing financially. space has become more disruptive. private companies in particular are doing things in space that used to be the exclusive domain of superpowers, of government like united face. private companies have the ability to conduct high resolution imagery of the earth and collect signals and listen and on what is being

transmitted on the air. -- earth. that is a new development. space is getting more disordered. there are a lot of rules in space for what you can and can't do. there aren't norms of behavior. a good example is in 2007 china conducted an anti-satellite test. they blew up one of their own satellite and created thousands of pieces of space debris that are still -- in orbit today and are threatening military and civilian satellites. space is becoming more dangerous. we see countries developing counterspace technologies. things that can jam the communication signals. cyber attacks that can take control of your satellite. we are not as prepared as we need to be. a lot of our military satellite as the commander of strategic horses of the united date has said before, a lot of our satellite are just big targets for the adversary.

we have to change the way we operate and improve our defenses lest we lose the space capabilities in a crisis. >> what do you think the president describing this in terms of american dominance? does this have concerns for you? >> it is not a choice of words that people want to hear. there has been a lot of reluctance for military things in space. two weaponize space, to try to claim territory or ownership. some of that is prohibited by the space treaty. you can't claim territory. there are no borders in the race. it doesn't even make sense to try to claim territory. satellites are always moving over other countries. that is the utility of them. they can fly over other countries without permission. it is probably not the best choice of words. it is about protecting our space assets.

so that we can protect u.s. interest here on earth. a lot of people forget that the gps your phone uses, the chip in your phone is relying on military satellite. gps is a military satellite constellation. other countries are developing ways to defeat that. to cause gps to go down and not work. we need to be better protected against that. >> according to the union for concerned scientists, last year there are 800 satellites orbiting the earth. you talked about just gps alone, what are the widespread capabilities of those satellites are disrupted? >> we use satellite today for everything to monitoring the weather. there have been documented instances in the past where what we believe are -- have

been hacked and to the command control system for some of our noaa satellite. they could have destroyed them i taking control. we use satellites for missile warning. we rely on space to do that. we use satellites for communications of all kinds. commercial, civil government and the military as well. communication signals can be jammed from space. we don't have a lot of protection against that right now. about 95% of our satellite communications that the military used is not protected against jamming. those are things we need to improve. there are many other missions were used for space as well. imagery, signal intelligence and gps. one of the reasons we don't have as many collateral damage victims and conflict today is that we have precision guided weapons. if we don't have gps or all of

the great imagery from space that we get from our satellites, we can't find and can't hit target precisely and there would be more collateral damage. it would alter and weaken the way that we are able to fight and defend the country if we didn't have space. >> todd harrison is with the center for strategic and international studies. from iowa, democrat line you are the first call for our guest. go ahead. >> good morning. are you there? >> yes. >> i see there is something to do with budget analysis. i think this is just a big dog and pony show, another republican ploy. they bankrupt the government with tax and now we are going to grow government within -- i'm not saying it is not necessary to coordinate and use

technology to protect these assets, but to militarize in a way or to grow government when they have no intention of paying for it, no way to pay for it because corporations and rich people get away with all the money. my point is made. it is ludicrous. it is crazy. >> major point color. mr. harrison. >> the budget question is important. simply creating a space force does not add more money for military space capabilities. what you would be doing is carving out the existing organizations and their people and resources and infrastructure and budget. all these organizations that are working on space issues for the military and moving them under a unified in chain of command. now you would be adding some overhead, and headquarters staff to that. there would be some additional expense there. that would be relatively small compared to the $10 billion a year that we currently spend

unclassified on our military space. it would just be reorganizing where the money is spent within the org chart not adding a new $10 billion. >> active military if you want to give your thoughts on this too, it is 202-748-8003. >> i want to ask a question about why doesn't someone do a bus tour. i want to ask why someone doesn't door -- do a bus tour of each administration in each state. appreciate the call. not the topic we are addressing right now. cape canaveral independent line, hi. >> my question is you are talking about the space force. my sun served in the army for

over 10 years. he was in afghanistan. he was deployed in north korea. and then he joined the space force one month before president trump took office. the first space battalion they were called. spartans. you are talking about creating a space force that already existed. i don't understand your topic here. this is stuff that can go back all the way to ronald reagan. >> got you color. mr. harrison. >> you are right. there are space forces already within the military. the army, that your sun is in. they already have a space and missile defense command. within that they have space battalions. they are completely separate and dependent -- independent from the space force of the air force. almost all of the air force

space force is in air force space command. the navy builds and launches and operates a fleet of satellites. the other services use them as well. there space forces are in san diego. there is an office call the program executive office for space out there. it goes on and on. there are all these different space organizations and space forces that are scheduled around different parts of the military and intelligence community. spy satellites are not operated by the air force other services. they are operated by the national reconnaissance office. all these capabilities are spread about. that is a problem we have had. there has not been a unity of that effort. there's a lot of disjointed miss and lack of ordination. their exemptions -- examples of where one service has built and launched munication services. another service was supposed to build radios to communicate and they got behind and they cut the budget for those radios.

we had satellites in space but we couldn't take full advantage of them because we didn't have the radios to use them. that is what happens when you have all of these disjointed organizations that are not aligned under one single budget and one single service and one chain of command. >> this argument is under headline called say no to a space force. the air force has been paying 30% of its hundred and $50 billion to launch y sp reconnaissance satellite. it also launches and operates several satellite inflations itself. they're doing a good job using the services of united launch services. according to the website, he goes on from there to make a case like you say that other branches are doing these kinds of things. >> absolutely. our military has tremendous space capabilities.

we shouldn't disregard that at all. the fact remains that we can do better, we need to do better. our ability to use space is being increasingly threatened by the space capabilities others are creating and we are not responding quickly enough. that is what is behind this push to make an independent service. if you have an entire service devoted to space they will jealously guarded and advocate for it. right now when a lot of our space capabilities are in the air force and some in the other services, they have competing priorities within the service. air force is focused on airpower. how do we do better in the air? space has not been the primary focus of the air force. by creating a separate service you would create an organization where it's focused his space. >> nasa is working on commercial

space efforts. should it stay with the military? >> the military leverages space capabilities to an incredible degree. about 80% of our satellite indications that the military was using for things like drones , 80% of that band with came from commercial satellites. we had to lease transponders because the military didn't have enough capability of its own. we are dependent on commercial space abilities. you ok at launch today, it is a thriving commercial industry for lunch of large payloads. you have companies like a sex that are disrupting -- like space x that is disrupting the market. that is not anything that the dod did. it is in spite of what they did. companies like spacex used private capital and one

government contracts even though the military was resistant at first. now it is bringing down the cost of launch for the military. there's a lot in the culture that needs to change. if we are going to leverage what is happening in the private sector. >> this is martin from the democrats line. >> can you hear me? i didn't hear the other color. i meant to hear and to talk about the budget. i thought that trump talked about the fact that we need to reorganize government and we are doing too much spending and now we can't spend money. no one realizes he is going to cut basic services like social security, medicare. no one realized there is health insurance, retirement, disability to these tax cuts. you are growing all these things for defense and money that is not needed. it is ridiculous. what about

basic services that people need live? >> i will put on my budget hat for a second. i do two different services. in the trump administration 20 19 budget request it proposes some steep cuts with the exception of veterans. veterans is growing. it is one of the fastest growing areas of the federal government. we can debate if it is being spent effectively and providing good care but it is not for lack of funding. you look at the non-defense side of the budget and there are a lot of steep cuts being proposed. it is not likely they will make it through congress but things that will make life hard for lower income people in america. you look on the defense side of the budget and it is growing. in 2019 the total defense budget will be up to $716 billion. that is the highest it has been

since in the early obama administration at the peak of the surges in iraq and afghanistan. it is higher than even when you adjust for inflation than the peak of the reagan buildup in the 1980s. it is fair to question where the money is going and whether or not we have the right priorities. when it comes to a space force, creating an independent service for space is not going to grow the budget. it doesn't require a higher budget. you can do it with existing resources and surely within $716 billion for defense you can carve out money to keep our space system safe and reliable for the military. here is a caller from new mexico from the independent line. color from new mexico, good morning. one more time. >> hello? >> you are on go ahead. >> thank you for giving me a

chance to speak. as someone who has always supported nasa's desire to explore space, coming from the generation of a sci-fi kid. i have supported our exploration of space. i cannot support this government, this administration's attempt to go beyond our planet with its misogynistic and racist philosophies. oh no, i believe in america. i do not believe in not use them in space. how does that -- >> how does that philosophy apply specifically to space them? >> i do not want to see that philosophy go into space. should we meet another life form, i would hate them to be reduced to animal

>> i would address the callers concerns by saying the space force has nothing to do with space exploration or nasa or going out and looking for other li forms in the universe. the space force would not affect that. one of the common misperceptions about the idea of creating a separate service for space is that we would be putting soldiers and marines in space in orbit to do something. that is not the case at all. it is just a reorganization of the things we already do in space. what the military does in space is unmanned. it is all satellites that are operating up in space 24/7 and providing capabilities down on earth to protect the u.s. interest on earth. that is what the space force would continue to do. it would be putting all of the existing space forces into one existing organization.

>> general john heightened spoke last week at a hearing last -- hearing. he talked about other countries technologies to use against u.s. satellite. we will listen to him and get your thoughts. >> both china and russia have invested enormous amounts of their national treasure to build capabilities for the sole purpose of stopping united states advantage in space. enormous amount of their treasure is going with the sole purpose -- it is not for something going on in the western pacific. it is nothing -- it is to counter the united states advantage is in space. as the commander responsible for defending the nation in that domain, i have to look at those capabilities as real threats. after develop counters to those threats. todd harrison, expand on that.

>> he is talking about the counter space capabilities other countries are developing. there are kinetic counterspace threats. you want to missile and it goes into earth and strikes a satellite in orbit and smashes it to pieces. there are co-orbital threats. that is where you launch another satellite into orbit and you maneuver it over time to collide with your target satellite. it creates debris. both russia and china have capability to do that. beyond that, there are non- kinetic forms of physical attack on satellites. that is where you can use things like high power lasers from the ground or from another satellite to hit a satellite and cause it to overheat and cause physical disruption there. you can use things like a high- power microwave weapon that can cause circuits to overload on a satellite. if it is a high enough power, you can fry the circuits and permanently disable it.

other countries have demonstrated the ability to blind imaging satellites. you can use a laser from the ground or from an airplane and you put it right into the optics of a spy satellite and you can blind the sensor on it. no one else will see it. it won't make debris but the satellite will become on operational. one of the examples -- we recently did a report on this, you can find it on the website for download. we catalog all the publicly available information of what other countries are doing to create counterspace weapons. one of the things that stood out for me from that project was what russia has done with this plane. it is called an a 60 plane. they modified to put a laser on top of the plane. in case you were wondering, in case it wasn't clear what they were using it for, they put insignia on the side of the plane and it shows a falcon

holding a lightning bolt. it is going up into a spy satellite, what looks like a spy satellite. it is very clear that they intend to use this airplane and the laser on it is a platform to blind our imagery satellite. we have to be ready to defend against this. other countries are making space a domain of modern warfare and we have to be ready to defend our interest there. >> democrat line john from wisconsin. >> this guy that is on the, tight you are absolutely right about the space force. i worked -- i have been working with my grandkids and students at different schools. we have come up with all kinds of ideas as far as space is concerned. believe it or not i have a seven-year-old grandson -- he has a plane that he puts in the

yard. he takes it off and flies it around. it has a fence so it won't go out of his radial range. when he wants he pushes a button and it comes back and it lands right where it took off. this is the kind of thing that people need to get into, especially this country because i think we are starting to fall behind on a lot of things. it is important that we get a space force. a lot of things are happening up there that we don't know about. >> thanks, color. >> -- caller. >> this has been an ongoing debate. how do we organize the military for space. in the late 1990s is when the debate got going in earnest. at that time, congress created a special commission to go out and study how we should best organize ourselves and reform how we do space. that commission was chaired by donald rumsfeld.

that was before he was secretary of defense. there were a bunch of retired generals and admirals from all the services. they studied this. they came back in january 2001 and issued a final report. they said the way the military was organized and how it was managing space is not commensurate with what space had four u.s. interest. think how much more dependent we are in space today. that commission report went on to recommend how to reorganize. they said in the middle term that we should create a space core within the air force, like the marine corps is a department of the navy. we should have a space core that still falls under the department of the air force and in the long-term that report said we should have a separate military department for space, a space force. this was recommended 17 years

ago. it has been hotly debated in defense circles ever since then. not a lot of the debate has made it out into public because it is a nerdy thing and it may seem far-fetched and whimsical and even silly. when i heard trump say it it did seem kind of silly. aid he sere are things like there is no place like space. it is a serious issue that has been studied for quite a while and there are a lot of big decisions to be made. it may be that a space force right now is not the right place to go, maybe we need an interim step. there are a lot of big decisions. do you carve out the space capabilities from the air force or the navy or the army? do you carve out intelligence agencies that have space capabilities, do you put all these things into one department ? would that be too disruptive? what is the timeline? there are a lot of big

questions that need to be decided. this is an important debate the country needs to have. >> bill nelson sent out a tweet saying the president told the u.s. general to create a space force as a six branch of military which generals tell me they don't want. thankfully the president can't do it without congress because now is not the time to rip the air force apart. too many important missions of steak. how significant is it that bill nelson said that? >> the senate has opposed this. the air force has vehemently opposed this idea from the beginning. from the 2001 space commission report. the air force has not wanted to do this. they would be giving up a decent part of their budget and responsibility. the fact that we are talking about it is an indictment of how the air force has handled space. there has been a lot of opposition. last year there was a bill in congress as part of the national defense authorization act.

the version of that bill that would have created a space core within the air force. that past the full house of representatives. the senate did not include a similar provision. what came out was they would take a pause and study the issue. dod has mandated to do two different studies. one is for the near term in terms of reorganizing and doing acquisition for space better. that is due in august to congress. the other is due in december and it says you will come back with a roadmap for how to create a separate department for space. that roadmap is due in december. i think that will set this up to be hotly debated in congress next year as part of the fiscal year 2020 national defense authorization act. i fully expect that we will see the house move forward with legislation to create something like a space core or a space

force. the senate is, like senator nelson there are a number of people in the senate who have come out and openly oppose this. a lot of the opposition has been backstopped by the air force telling them that they don't want it. now that the president has ordered the military to get on board with this and start preparing for it, that is what his statement said. he said don't create it, he said begin the preparations for it. it will be very difficult for the air force to oppose this, especially the secretary of the air force who works for the president at his pleasure. he is not going to be able to get out there and oppose this vigorously, at least not in the public. without that opposition from the air force, the senate may actually start to acquiesce to what the house is been proposing. >> joe is from auburn alabama, republican line. yes, go ahead. >> i have been sitting here watching.

i find it fascinating. it seems like just yesterday i can remember them sending back images from the moon. where is the people's sense of adventure? we have come a long way. >> it is interesting, the color from auburn alabama i believe you are probably in the district of representative mike rogers who is the champion in the house and the armed services to midi for creating a space core. he and his democratic counterpart on the strategic forces subcommittee, his counterpart is jim cooper from tennessee. they have been championing -- he is thrilled that president trump has gotten behind the idea but there is still a long way to go. the caller referenced

images from the moon. this would not affect nasa or space declaration. that would not be part -- exploration. this would only represent what the military is doing in space. >> what you expect to happen in the policy bill? >> i don't think there will be anything about this issue in this year's defense policy bill. i think it will have to wait until next year. the house and the senate have a number of differences. there is not a lot of changes when it comes to space in this year's bill. they are taking a pause to study it. they will get the report back. and figure out how to transition. we will see a lot of activity x year. >> todd harrison who looks at a lot at the defense budgets and aerospace. you can find more at their website at c yousis.org.

>> c-span's washington journal lives every year with issues that impact you. a discussion on immigration policy and new york democratic congressman also will join us to talk about immigration. be sure to watch c-span washington journal lives at 7 am eastern life. join the discussion. next a hearing examine the policy response to russia's interference in the 2016 elections. we hear about the timeline and initial government response to cyber security warnings about russia. witnesses predict that china will most likely be the next major cyber security threat to the u.s. from the senate intelligence committee this is an hour and a half.