operate the way we operate now and we have a requirement to meet our needs by operating the way we are now. it is not a budget issue. it is an operational decision. so stretching programs out or sequencing them better would have implications for the pentagon and they has to think about how they can operate. the second way you could stretch the programs out, but as a good budget year would take to tell you, the longer it takes, the more it costs. there is some increment that you will add to the total cost by making it go slower. if you are trying to fit into your budget for the next year or the next five years, you don't worry about that. stretching it out gets the numbers and then you flatten it out. and you and you worry about the long-term costs later. the technical term for that --

muddling through. [laughter] that is another option. you can slow them down. from the weapons community perspective, that is fine. -- are both going to be around until 2040 area that probably would not undermine in nuclear mission. on the other hand, the air force needs those bombers to meet requirements. so once again, your solution interferes with your operations and requirements. i am not arguing that the operations and requirements are set in stone, but for now, bear with me. the third way to address the overwhelming problem of too much money spent and not enough in the budget is to concave the programs. 400 -- or of buying

80-100 newarines, or bombers, you can buy fewer. but if you are looking at getting in under the bow wave, buying fewer items or truncating programs takes money from the assets. so if you are the person in congress trying to fit the budget in, truncating the programs helps but on the other hand, it is something we do often. the i started working in sierra cover years ago, we were --nning to buy between 1021 21-24 submarines. then it was 18. and now we have 14.

so the numbers and the out years change. anybody remember when we planned to buy 132 bombers? and then the president reduced it to 75 until the cold war ended and now it is 21? so truncating the program happens often but it doesn't solve the near-term budget problem. the point i'm trying to make here is that we don't use budget arithmetic. tells theon, when it president what it wants, it is trying to meet a set of requirements. and the requirements determine the size and force of the structure. so even though someone in the arms control committee can stand and say, we need 1500 warheads. of eight submarines in set

12, i can do that. i can make the math work. but it doesn't mean the pentagon is meeting requirements. submarines on stations, ready to meet the deterrent role from both georgia and washington. if you reach into the number of submarines, it interferes with the pentagon's ability to operate. those requirements are not necessarily set in stone. they can change. but we would prefer that a question of what our requirements should be and what the goal of our nuclear weapons are and what the mission mechanism we used to meet that role, that it remains and then the budget comes after. if you have the force to make a budgetary needs, you make for less coherent changes. said, there is a technical

term for the way we do it, muddling through. one would think that one would want to decide what the requirement needs are and then decide accordingly. ways toe two other solve the bow wave problem. heard, is toas you raise the top line in the budget. roomwill ask anyone in the who thinks we are too much money -- would youapons be ok if we raised the top line of the budget? no. is there anyone in the room who wants to do that? ok. you want to cancel some of the programs. because they cost too much money? that you just proved are not having a debate about

how much they cost, you are having a debate about how much they are worth. is the issue of the goal and requirements for nuclear weapons. and that is the discussion the obama administration had in the first few years in office. when they came up with the limits in the plan, but then the discussion changed. in november 2011, when congress passed the budget control act. and now we are having a discussion on how much these weapons cost and how we can't afford them under the ceiling set by the budget control act. but ask yourself whether you want to keep having that conversation or if you want to have the conversation about how much they are worth, and what the role of the missions are. i recognize that is a difficult conversation. at if you want to have conversation about how much they cost, you have to understand that people feel differently from you. look at the last chart in your packet from before.

it is only 5% of the defense budget. is that so awful? to which one would say, there are opportunities. , and thererade-offs are priorities. the problem is not that they cost a huge portion of the defense budget, it is that for those people who don't believe we ought to be pursuing these to puts, who don't want the priority on the nuclear weapons program for other whoons -- for those people do want to follow through with the modernization program, they do want to prioritize the weapons program. if you are going to have that discussion at the beginning of the next administration, and you continue to have the discussion based on how much they cost versus how much they're are worth, he will not make progress. that debate has been going on for five years. it requires getting back to a discussion of what they're worth

. you may have the ability to find on bothge of opinion sides of the debate where you can come to some conclusion. the next administration is going to have to address how much they are the next administration is going to have to address how much they are worth to figure out how much they are going to spend. and want to remind you, even though you have asked the panel to talk about cost, you are really talking about worth. [applause] andy: you are right. this is about what we need. heartened by the comments -- what can d obama

administration still due to push through the tapes in the next seven months? that is a term that president obama uses frequently. there is a lot he can do. first, what i call the low hanging fruit. not leaving ms for your successors. then, i have some longer things that the administration can work , presidenttainly obama can leave the foundation for that. first, i want to do is rarely done and that is take credit for what he obama administration has secure ensure safe and nuclear deterrent. i was part of that, and am very proud of what we did. i think the neglect of the previous decade has been

reversed. we have, in full production, the warhead. that program will be finished in 2019. so, the heart of the deterrent will be in very good shape. do ade a decision to limited life extension program, replacing the theventional explosive -- other sea launch missile. the missile situation is in very good shape. we have to ohio class replacement program. it is also on a very good path. the question is not doing the, it is, how many to reread? and, the savings what did you

buy 12 books, templates, eight boats, 10 boats, oats. b the command and control system has been significantly advanced. them.ld have thousands of we did not have a good, safe, and secure deterrent. b-52 is aacing the good investment. . support the new bomber procurementrly

phases. we need a new polymer. doing it 60 or 100 chuckle -- we need 100 or 60? that is another conversation. whiskey sustained effort supported by a bipartisan congress, our deterrent is on a good path. i think our administration deserves credit for that.

the let's talk about low hanging fruit. amy talked about the requirements. that is the right place to start. what is the deterrent we need going forward? we need to thinklow hanging fru. about how about modernization investments are viewed around the world. that is something we do not do very well. the requirements for nuclear by one are made individual, president of the united states. it is unlike every other weapon system where they are derived through the process that the pentagon called the requirements process. if you look at an about how amazing case study in history, the 1991

initiativel nuclear that was led by colin powell, in three weeks, they changed the requirements for nuclear weapons. then, they implemented that. it just takes a stroke of the pen because the president can determine the requirements for nuclear weapons. study and is case on the ntu website. a goodmend it for example of what can be done in a very short time. change that the president could make today is to retire immediately a weapon that no one talks about. bomb.s the p 83 gravity

there is no legitimate use for it today. b2, and we are consolidating four different model so we have a replacement plan. we do not need that. we could save money. just keeping these things around costs money. up to realit adds money. it would also, after the visit to hiroshima, show that we don't weapons in the mega yield.nge another one is the replacement missile --ear launch

i think it stands for long-range strike weapon. it is the system that is plant to replace the alkyl. missileetrating nuclear would be combined with the penetrating bombers. it is plant to beat on the p2 -- .he on the b2 it is more than we need, frankly. a is about to enter milestone . once it enters the program, it is very hard to stop. at a minimum, the president not box in his successor and should make it part of the .ext administration

decision would be made to replace the missile. i think it needs to be a considered decision. the new gravity from, combined th the stealth bomber, gives many decades to come up -- makes the air like a formidable part of the deterrent. that would be without replacing the air launch gives many decades to come up -- makes the air missile. not a disarmament step. indeed, it is doing what related

to -- we need to do. on the other side, we have already done the work. 300now we can go down to without having an impact on the deterrent. it is a political problem. i would suggest closing down the wing. it would not require closing down the base. not a disarmamentthe economy is doing quite well. we have two warheads. one that is modern. we could make a decision to not replace