During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) questioned Andrea Yaffe, who is performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, about the Russian nuclear threat to a U.S. space-based interceptor layer.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Moulton, for five minutes.
00:03Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
00:05General Collins, given what we have heard from industry,
00:08is it accurate that space-based interceptors would be deployed in low-Earth orbit?
00:14Sir, we have not finalized what the space-based interceptor architecture would be.
00:19We are going to open it up to industry.
00:20I fully expect that part of that would be in the LEO environment, sir.
00:24Okay. It's hard to imagine where else there would be.
00:27General Guilla, would you agree with that assessment?
00:30Yes, sir, I would.
00:31Okay.
00:32Mr. Affey, have Russia and or China publicly or privately expressed concerns
00:36with U.S. missile defense systems posing strategic stability concerns
00:41with regards to second strike capabilities?
00:46Sir, I think the Russians are on the record for many years expressing concerns
00:49about missile defense at the same time as they build their own capabilities.
00:52Yeah, the Chinese have as well.
00:54So, given General Collins' response regarding a space-based intercept architecture
00:59being placed in LEO, as General Guillaume affirmed,
01:03would it be susceptible to effects of a nuclear detonation in that orbit?
01:11Sir, were there to be a nuclear detonation in LEO, then perhaps it would be.
01:15Obviously, all the folks involved in the architecture discussions are tracking the threats.
01:19Yeah, so with what we know about Russia's efforts to develop and deploy a nuclear weapon in space
01:23and their fear of U.S. missile defenses,
01:26has there been an assessment done on the likelihood or increased chance
01:31that Russia would employ such a weapon in conflict early on
01:35to take out our space-based intercept layer?
01:41Sir, it sounds like an intelligence assessment,
01:43and I would defer that to the intelligence community.
01:45No, no, no.
01:45It's an operational question.
01:47You're going to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money
01:49building things that could inspire the Russians to say,
01:52oh, we need to take them out before they get used.
01:56You better figure that out if you're going to spend a lot of taxpayer money on this.
01:59Sir, I understand the question.
02:02I think we have seen that Russia is pursuing these capabilities in any case,
02:06given the threats that they see broadly.
02:08However, they also continue to counter these threats with their own missiles.
02:11Well, I'll tell you what, you better figure out,
02:13if you're going to build this whole thing at the cost of tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money,
02:18and then the Russians just plan to take it out with their space-based nuke,
02:21that's not going to work too well for anybody,
02:23because, of course, it's going to take out all the rest of our satellites as well.
02:26But, Zafi, you also used a word today that I've not heard before when describing Golden Dome,
02:32aerial.
02:34Is it indeed the President's vision to only defend against aerial threats
02:37like the Iron Dome system where he got this idea?
02:40So, in other words, all China needs to do is develop the kinds of sea-based delivery systems
02:45Russia started developing after we pulled out of the ABM Treaty just to get around Golden Dome?
02:50No, sir.
02:51The executive order calls for the defense of the United States
02:54against ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles
02:56and other next-generation aerial attacks, the earlier part of the year.
02:59Aerial attacks.
03:00Correct.
03:01Other next-
03:01So not sea-based?
03:04I mean, a sea-based ballistic missile would be part of this.
03:08As we all know, there's other ways.
03:10You can run a boat up into Los Angeles Harbor, right?
03:14It's clear that Golden Dome is not designed to defend against that.
03:17Is that your understanding as well, General Guillaume,
03:19since aerial is in the executive order?
03:21Yes, it is.
03:23Okay.
03:25Seems like another big hole we should investigate before we spend a lot of money on this.
03:30General Guillaume, given your responsibilities as the commander of Northern Command,
03:34do you believe that the strategic landscape has significantly changed in the past six years
03:39such that the second Trump administration would dramatically change its strategic defense policy
03:45from the first Trump administration?
03:47Congressman, I do think that the landscape has changed significantly
03:52with the number of countries that are either possessing or pursuing ICBMs, the hypersonics.
04:00Are you talking about China?
04:02Because we knew six years ago that China was doing this.
04:04No, I'm talking about Iran's pursuit and Pakistan's pursuit.
04:09Okay, well, Iran and Pakistan have been pursuing those things for a long time.
04:15Well, yes, sir, but they're certainly more advanced now than they were six years ago.
04:20Well, apparently we're going to get rid of Iran's nuclear capabilities with a deal,
04:25so I guess they're going to be off the table.
04:27Of course, we've had ways of dealing with Pakistan for a while.
04:30General Ganey, what's our pacing threat right now according to the National Defense Strategy?
04:34The North Korean threat.
04:38Actually, it's the Chinese threat.
04:40So given that we are conducting a shift to the Pacific,
04:45how does moving THAADs and Patriot batteries out of the Pacific into the Middle East
04:51help support our national defense strategy?
04:54Any movement of any of our Patriot or THAAD systems are taken under careful consideration,
05:04and we also have additional assets at home station prepared to deploy and fill those voids if necessary.
05:12But every deployment is carefully considered as part of our gift map.
05:15Thank you, Mr. Chairman.