and for that reason, we maintain the full nuclear deterrent here in the triad. every aspect of the triad is maintained because i believe that is extremely important to our ability to protect our homeland. with regards to the specific decision on the funds there, even though it's less than what we've provided, the fact is that it meets our needs in terms of upgrading the missile system that we have our missile system is in place. it is ready to go. it is effective. we're not going to reduce that effectiveness in any way here. the soul point here is to try to do what we can to obviously achieve some savings, but at the same time, make sure that it doesn't impact on our readiness. and i can assure you that nothing in this budget impacts on our ability to respond and protect this country under the nuclear deterrent. >> well, mr. secretary, i don't doubt for a moment your commitment to this country, i would just suggest to you that the policies that we're hearing here should alarm us all. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you very much

fully. [ inaudible ] >> because most of us are used it to starting, bum, bum, bum, that's a desending triadas the 20th century you'll find pin indications of that triad, it's not codified. it's not formally. even back in 1951. but when hoover signed the declaration, i mean the effort that began in 1918, it wasn't completed until 1981, there was no addressing a version on it. the different branches of the american military had their own versions. they tried to write an official version, and all this testimony and time went on, they went forget it, we just can't do. so nothing came of that is thing singer is so busy, they changed the time signature from three beats to the measure which i think is really going too far. sing the song the way it's supposed to be sung, it's got some vim and vigor, sure the key's lyrics differ in mood for the melody for shumplt and that's why i'm about to sing for you a resetting of key's lyrics from a new melody from 1816. so this addresses that often made complaint, well it shouldn't be our national anthem because it's too hard to sing. it wasn't designed for ev

the rest of our gallery finishes up just look ageing at the triad looking at how the trial was conducted as a military tri bun. a little bit about why it was conducted that way. and the outcomes that might have been different if it had been -- gone to a normal court. as well as looking at where they were imprisoned and giving you a little montage here at the end of the president and one of the hoods that all of the conspirators, except for mary surratt and dr. mutd, has to wear at some point in time. between lincoln's funeral train and the hunt for john wilkes booth, it was high entertainment in some ways. people were riveted by what was happening in the newspapers and by the reports of this chase and what was going to happen to him. so it was sensational. and as soon as it was realized that he was the person that was responsible, all sorts of information started coming out that this wasn't an isolated incident, that it was a conspiracy. i think it was hard for people to sort of understand why he had done this, and it was such a drastic act, nothing like this had really happened in the h

have a reduced number of ballistic submarines in a time when we know it's a critical deterrent to our triad. looking where we are reemphasizing our efforts, that seems to be counter to that. and i would ask this. with that in mind, have we looked at and can you tell me from the perspective of china, you tell me how many subs they are building per year and how many subs they will have in fy-'17 and beyond, just to have a comparison as to where we're going to be strategically? >> if i could, congressman, we should take that for the record and make it in a classified setting. >> okay.+++ you talk about the seven cruisers that are going to be brought out because of the cost of modernizing them to a platform. but you're also looking too at a fleet that has been really pushed. we're talking maintenance that has been put off. many ships, as far as their operational availability is really being pushed. if we're looking at that and a strategy that denotes more challenges there in the future, especially with our naval capability, and just having been to an exercise, a bold alligator and looking at ou

what is he going to do the nuclear triad. >> sean: i always said 'president is on overhead.nezuela, they are not a threat. >> there is a huge naivete. he said back in 2009 we need to cut our nuclear arsenal because we can convince iran and north korea to cut theirs. he truly is over his head. to be making cuts so deep, his own secretary of defense talking about the risk we're incurring, we need a new president. >> sean: i think there is no option based on the time frame that leon panetta and soviet union has mentioned that iran is that close to getting a nuclear weapon. the logical thing to do was join israel take out those sites which is going to be extraordinarily differ based on the proximity and location and spread throughout the country and dug deep into the ground. >> very difficult. but the important thing to remember, all the risks taking military action to take out that nuclear program are outweighed by an iran armed with a nuclear weapon with nuclear blackmail. >> sean: we have the worst relationship with israel i can't even think back. >> we're doing the wrong thi

>> senator, one of the things in our budget is to maintain the triad, the nuclear triad and deterrents that we have. we think we need to maintain our missiles, maintain our submarines, maintain our bombers that are part of our depercent, and we'll continue to do that. the one thing you're referring to is a review that was being conducted, i think, pursuant to legislation from the congress to review our nuclear stockpile and nuclear issues, and there were, you know, a number of options that were discussed. there is been no decisions on that, and frankly, one of the options that was presented was maintained in the status quo. >> i appreciate that, particularly in light of what's happening in iran now, deterrents may be absolutely necessary, and my final area of concern, because i got a letter just this week from a man in the military who is about to retire, and his family has been a part of tricare, and he appreciates thattings but he's heard these comments about how the cost for tricare, the participation was going to have to go up, and the reason he wrote me is because he has a sister

traffic of foreign fighters, fighters from syria, from places outside of iraq, came through the haditha triad and then down into points south and east like fallujah and on into baghdad. >> narrator: control of haditha was vital in order to protect a massive dam that provided electricity to all of anbar province. to retake haditha, the marine corps sent in some of its most battle-hardened men, kilo company, from the legendary third battalion, first marines-- the thundering third. >> the 3-1's one of the most decorated battalions in the marine corps. their history goes on back through vietnam, korea, world war ii; all the major conflicts that this country's been in, the 3-1's been involved in. >> narrator: iraq was no different. barely a year before they were sent to haditha, kilo company had taken another city back from insurgents in the most intense urban combat marines had faced since vietnam, the second battle of fallujah. >> fallujah was like the o.k. corral, the wild, wild west. >> when i first joined the marine corps, that's what i thought i'd do as a marine. here's the enemy-- they're r

we work this as a triad. we make sure we are bringing to bear the appropriate technologies to bring things back on line as quickly as possible, and we make sure we have an investigation going to try to determine the source and the attribution. >> first of all, my job, i do not believe this. i mean, director clapper, what do you think here? there you are. is the president going to call you? >> the fact of the matter is it happens a fair amount now. when it comes to identifying the attribution of a particular domestic intrusion, it generally falls to us. what we currently do is we get ourselves and dhs at the table and we will put a team out as soon as we got the word. there would be a team. generally, we would lead the team. wherever the outages are, wherever the investigation leads us, we would have a team of ourselves, dhs, and if it goes overseas, we would have nsa and others from the community in there. we do this as a matter of course now when we get a substantial intrusion that needs immediate investigat

the other is technical, potential for attack of failures within the various components of the triad,known as icbms, slbms and bombers. i believe they talk about the fact that there still are both of those are relevant. i think the technical heads tends to be a more deterministic issue and what the size of it is. it is an issue clearly been looked up in the current review because the size of the head required as part of that calculus about how low can you go. >> i would just add on that point there are different ways that you can address the issue of need for technological hedge. one way that we have been considering i'm looking at very seriously and developing a budget for this to have a modernized weapons infrastructure, a so-called response of infrastructure would be more capable of responding to psychological surprise than our current weapons infrastructure. that is one of the reasons we've been placing an emphasis on modernizing the infrastructure and making up a responsive to those kinds of responses. at the very considerable investment considered over the next 10 years will onl

, it clearly linked our senses and defenses and swords and shields, and that new strategic triad was not called by the same name in the obama nuclear review, but all the pieces are still there and it is not operating the same way. >> thank you very much. again, you addressed it to all three which doesn't make my job easier. do i have any volunteers? dean, you look like you already. >> let me pick up on the last point you made. it is true the likelihood of iran ever launching a nuclear tipped missile is very low. in my mind, the problem is there is tremendous source of leverage iran can gain by threatening to do that. they can split coalitions. they can dissuade countries from joining coalitions. they may even dissuade the u.s. and even entering the region, if let's say, let's take the straits of her moves, for example, since that's in the news, that they closed off the street and the u.s. decides to go in and take a threatening nuclear attack against u.s. allies are must -- much less the u.s. homeland. that there is a very potent threat. and in my mind, missile defense gives you a sh

>> our mission is to maintain the nuclear triad and the deterrence that we have. we think we need to maintain our missiles. we to maintain our submarines. we to maintain our bombers that are part of our deterrent. we will continue to do that. the one thing you're referring to, that was being conducted pursuant to legislation from the congress to review our nuclear stockpile. there were a number of options our success -- that were discussed. one of the options that was present was maintaining the status quo. >> i appreciate that, particularly in light of was happening in iran right now. in my final area of concern, because i got a letter just this week from a man in the military was about to retire and his family has been a part of tri- care and he appreciates that, but he has heard these comments about how the cost for tri-care, the participation was going to have to go up. the reason he wrote his he has a sister who is on welfare. his sister pays no where near the cost that he does. so he is not sure that the military is such a good deal compared to welfare. that

raised in the posture review but really settled for the foreseeable future is this question of the triad. having three different types of nuclear forces -- bombers, land- based missiles, and see based missiles -- submarine missiles. they're all reduced to a single warhead. this is something we have been pushing for 20 or 30 years. if you have approximately equal weapons on the other side and you have only one warhead on each silo based missile, you cannot gain anything militarily by trying to attack them because just for reliability and reaction purposes you have to target at least two to have a reasonable chance of the strong one on the other side. the force balance will move against free to try to attack a single warhead missiles. this is a stabilizing move on our part to reduce the number of warheads on those missiles to one. that leaves them pretty much as a hedge against some kind of failure in the other forces and also as a force that has more reliable command and control. if you are looking at trying to reduce any need for a prompt launch and there are no longer attractive targets

lab for serious and force structure reductions that outlined earlier it also sustains the nuclear triad of the bombers, missiles and submarines to continue to ensure we have a safe and reliable effective nuclear deterrent. even with some adjustments the budget sustains a military that i believe is the strongest in the world. an army of more than 1 million active and reserve soldiers with 18 divisions, approximately 65 brigade combat teams and 21 combat aviation brigades. the naval force of 285 ships the csis force that we have today that we ran the most powerful and flexible force on earth. a marine corps with the infantry battalions, ten artillery battalions and 20 tactical air squadron and an air force that will continue to ensure that their dominance with 54 combat fighter squadrons and the current bomber fleet. last, we can't just as i said cut. we have to invest today we have to leap ahead of our adversaries by investments in the latest technologies. that's why this budget provides 11.9 billion for science and technology is. it includes 2.1 billion from atv to basic research it pro

the other one is tactical, the potential for technical failures within the fairies components of the triadknown as try of many icbms, as obedience, and i believe they talk about the fact that they think that there still are both of those dimensions are relevant. i think the technical hedge tends to be the more deterministic issue on what the size of it. it is one of the issues that is clearly being looked at within the current review. because the size of the hedge that is required is part of that cat just about how low can you go. >> and i would just add on that point, there are different ways that you can address the issue of technological hedge. one way that we have been considering and looking at very seriously, and developing a budget for is to have a modernized weapons infrastructure, so-called responsive infrastructure that would be more capable of responding to technological surprise and that our current weapons infrastructure. that's one of the reasons we been placing emphasis on modernizing the weapons infrastructure and making it more responsive to those kinds of problems. >> yes

other one is technical, the potential for technical failures within the very is components of the triad known as the try again icbms as obedience and bombers. i believe they talk about the fact that they think there still aren't both of those dimensions are relevant. i think the technical hedge tends to be the more deterministic issue on what the size of it. it is one of the issues that is gripping look that within the current review, because the size of the hedge that is required is part of that calculus about how low can you go. >> and i would just add on that point, there are different ways that you can address the issue of need for technological hedge. one way that we have been considering and looking at very seriously, and, indeed, developing a budget for is to have a modernized weapons infrastructure, a so-called infrastructure be more capable of responding to technological surprise than our current weapons infrastructure. so that's one of the reasons we've been placing an emphasis on modernizing weapons infrastructure and making it more responsive to those kinds of problems. >> y

it sustains the nuclear triad of bombers, missiles, and submarines to continue to ensure that we have a safe, reliable, an effective nuclear deterrent. even with adjustments to force structure, the budget sustains the military that i believe is the strongest in the world. an army of more than 1 million active and reserve soldiers with 18 divisions, approximately 65 brigade combat teams, 21 combat aviation brigades. the naval force of 285 ships, the same size force that we have today that will remain the most powerful and flexible naval force on earth. a marine corps with a 31 infantry battalions, 10 artillery battalions, 20 tactical air squadrons. an air force that will continue to enforce their dominance with 54 fighter squadrons of the current bomber fleet. lastly, we cannot just, as i said, cut. we have to invest and leap ahead of our adversaries by investments in the latest technologies. that is why this budget provides $11.9 billion for science and technology. it includes $10.1 billion for basic research. it provides $10.4 billion to sustain the continued growth in special operat

. >> the one to direct my a rare marks to the ongoing section in the world through triad of two routennounce and it speaking at of freedom and justice and progress, also national sovereignty in to spare natgas there is such a divine right but it also cut to prosper and of course, his said the last month to be accompanied with hard work and to you should have read them and democracy in. it cannot be attained are inspired by nato. [cheers and applause] the invention by the arrogant powers and also of their spending $1 they expect hundreds of dollars. friars to ndp event the eyes of the animosity end hatred that will lead down to hatred to endanger the future the regional governance must be aware the nba create to save the regime with having discord among the nation and also among different religious schools but to create one in the city. they want to eliminate some others and later days they want to will eliminate as well. why should it be this way? they have enough to take care of that the election. you cannot put that into the lexicon and it would the single election has been held, th

military and especially its legacy weapons, ie our nuclear triad of defense, how will that come intoin the declining of america and its, and the decline of the west? will that act as a backstop or a brake? and second of all, if america is to decline or fall off the cliff and potentially break up, how do you see that -- is it going to break up regionally, or how? and i'll take my answer on the tv, okay? thank you. >> guest: very interesting questions, scott. it's, the idea of america's vast nuclear assets, scott essentially posed a question about the nuclear arsenal, the way washington looks at the pakistani nuclear arsenal. what if whole place goes belly up, and the nukes fall into the wrong hands? which is kind of fascinating. um, i think the problem with being a nuclear superpower is if you, if you look at, say, mullah omar on september 10, 2011, he had osama bin laden and the guys living in his country plotting what if it had gone right would have not just taken out not just the world trade center, but if fourth plane had made its target, taken out either the capitol or the white

lab for serious and force structure reductions that outlined earlier it also sustains the nuclear triad of the bombers, missiles and submarines to continue to ensure we have a safe and reliable effective nuclear deterrent. even with some adjustments the budget sustains a military that i believe is the strongest in the world. an army of more than 1 million active and reserve soldiers with 18 divisions, approximately 65 brigade combat teams and 21 combat aviation brigades. the naval force of 285 ships the csis force that we have today that we ran the most powerful and flexible force on earth. a marine corps with the infantry battalions, ten artillery battalions and 20 tactical air squadron and an air force that will continue to ensure that their dominance with 54 combat fighter squadrons and the current bomber fleet. last, we can't just as i said cut. we have to invest today we have to leap ahead of our adversaries by investments in the latest technologies. that's why this budget provides 11.9 billion for science and technology is. it includes 2.1 billion from atv to basic research it pro

it sustains the nuclear triad of bombers, missiles, and submarines to continue to ensure that we have a safe, reliable, an effective nuclear deterrent. even with adjustments to force structure, the budget sustains the military that i believe is the strongest in the world. an army of more than 1 million active and reserve soldiers with 18 divisions approximately 65 brigade combat teams, 21 combat aviation brigades. the naval force of 285 ships the same size force that we have today that will remain the most powerful and flexible naval force on earth. a marine corps with a 31 infantry battalions, 10 artillery battalions, 20 tactical air squadrons. an air force that will continue to enforce their dominance with 54 fighter squadrons of the current bomber fleet. lastly we cannot just, as i said cut. we have to invest and leap ahead of our adversaries by investments in the latest technologies. that is why this budget provides $11.9 billion for science and technology. it includes $10.1 billion for basic research. it provides $10.4 billion to sustain the continued growth in special operations

andor that reason we maintain the full nuclear deterrent here in the triad.ry aspect of the triad is maintained because i believe that is extremely important to our ability to protect our homeland. with regards to the specific decision on the funds there, even though it's less than what we've provided the fact is that it meets our needs in terms of upgrading the missile system that we have our missile system is in place. it is ready to go. it is effective. we're not going to reduce that effectiveness in any way here. the soul point here is to try to do what we can to obviously achieve some savings, but at the same time, make sure that it doesn't impact on our readiness. and i can assure you that nothing in this budget impacts on our ability to respond and protect this country under the nuclear deterrent. >> well, mr. secretary i don't doubt for a moment your commitment to this country, i would just suggest to you that the picies that we're heang here should alarm us all. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, chair. t

>> we fully support all three legs of the triad in this budget in making investments at all of them.ne major area where there were some reductions is the years. that is largely an affordability we would like to let the program tries will, but it is largely affordability. >> there is not going to be a briefing provided for us today, so i'm curious if you could outline what was the decision between htx being shot? the sea-based x-band radar? >> you already know the answer. [laughter] services are coming later. >> how much of the share of cuts to the agency -- >> we are spending $9.7 billion on missile defense. i will tell you the broad strategy. we will protect our investment in home and missile defense, and we will protect european phased adaptive approach. cutting back on radars, cutting back on the missile buys, in anticipation that other areas will slow growth in this area. >> if you could articulate -- >> i cannot help you. you want to say something about that? our acting undersecretary. >> it is a research development. we thought we could get adequate data for the testing we're d

>> we fully support all three legs of the triad in this budget in making investments at all of them. the one major area where there were some reductions is the listed missile submarines, two years. that is largely an affordability we would like to let the program tries will, but it is laclargely out affordability. >> there is not going to be a briefing provided for us today, so i'm curious if you could outline what was the decision between htx being shot? the sea-based x-band radar? >> you already know the answer. [laughter] services are coming later. >> how much of the share of cuts to the agency -- >> we are spending $9.7 billion on missile defense. i will tell you the broad strategy. we will protect our investment in home and missile defense, and we will protect european phased adaptive approach. cutting back on radars, cutting back on the missile buys, in anticipation that other areas will slow growth in this area. >> if you could articulate -- >> i cannot help you. you want to say something about that? our acting undersecretary. >> it is a research development. we thought we cou

under george bush, it linked offenses and defenses, that new strategic triad was not called by the samee in the obama administration. all the pieces are still there it is operating the same way. >> thank you very much. you address it to all three which does not make my job any easier. do i have any volunteers? >> let me pick up on the last. you made. it is true the likelihood of iran ever launching a missile is very low. in my mind the problem is there is tremendous coerce of leverage iran it can gain by threatening to do that. they can split coalitions, they can persuade countries from joining coalitions. they may dissuade the u.s. from entering the region if there is -- let's -- let's take the strait of hormuz for example. they could threaten a nuclear attack against a u.s. ally or the homeland. that threat is a potent threat. in my mind, missile defense give zero a shield that you can rattle to neutralize the saber rattling of the offensive threat. it is -- missile defense serves a strategic purpose without anything ever being launched. that in my mind is a significant virtue. the ch

they certainly have triad to do -- tried to do that in texas but if you look at what's happening in a different time in 2000-2010 it's trying to preserve the gains of the 2010 race. last, on party, i think in talking about commissions, it's clear, i think, given the criticisms of both california and arizona that republicans now believe commissions are not in their interest. it wasn't always that way. it wasn't always thought that nonpartisan redistricting would have that kind of effect but it seems pretty clear to me that they believe that as an institutional form they have more to lose. a lot of that is they control so many state legislative houses so anything taking redistricting away from those state legislatures might be seen against their interest. finally, just regionally, the shift of congressional seats from the northeast and the midwest to the south and southwest, obviously, have a huge effect on congressional district. texas has four more districts to play with while the sunbelt does as well. as we're coming up this time demographic shifts with louisiana losing a congression