 Good morning, I Love how in the Navy when I say good morning everybody says it back like we did in kindergarten Totally awesome Thank you very much for that kind introduction. It's really an honor for me to be here today Before we get started I'd like to pause to reflect on the terrible tragedy this weekend in Orlando My heart goes out to the victims and the families Yesterday secretary Mabas said no act of terror can change Who we are the values that make us Americans? And I think that's an important reminder as we contemplate the theme of this conference today So with that in mind It's an honor to be here. It's great to see some old friends Andy Krepenevich one of my mentors you're all are gonna be very honored very lucky to hear him speak today I'm sure he's gonna have all the answers for you, and then you won't have to have the rest of the conference That's usually how it works It's great to take a look at this the theme of the conference today strategy and complex and uncertain times The strategic environment is indeed complex and uncertain We need clear strategic thinking about the critical and enduring Role the United States Navy and Marine Corps play in support of American leadership in the world So I want to take this opportunity today to propose a fairly practical Policymaker approach to strategy to share with you how I think about strategy and its limitations I'll tell you how strategy informs my work every single day in the Pentagon and how I hope the work that each of you Are doing can help shape the future So my job is under secretary of the Navy is to help translate the president's vision into something concrete That is to organize train and equip our Navy and Marine Corps to align with our nation's strategic objectives Now this requires vision because as the theme of this conference rightly points out the future is always uncertain Our strategic guidance from the president's national security strategy to the secretary of defense and the chairman's defense and military Strategies collectively provide a framework for how to approach this task But ultimately it's up to the secretary of the Navy and his team of advisors including myself and the CNO and the Commandant To determine what force structure design is best This process is further complicated by the fact that the Pentagon's force development processes are complex expensive and very slow Most of the ships planes and sexy new technologies that we're dreaming about and building today will not actually be in the hands of our Sailors and Marines for another one or two decades We tend to keep our ships and submarines and aircraft up to five decades Which drives the need for modernization in stride My point here is that modernizing a force while also procuring the next generation of capabilities is slow and Expensive yet it is vital to introducing the state-of-the-art technologies Many of our ships and planes fighting our current fights even the ones that I flew Were designed and built in the 60s 70s 80s and 90s The debates over these systems their munitions and their con ops began even earlier and were informed by lessons from the past classic theorists and even science fiction The strategies doctrines and concepts of operations had been dreamed up Lessons had been learned or as we discovered sometimes unlearned by people like us Like you and me in places like this The littoral combat ship the Virginia class submarine fifth generation fighters the Ford class carriers We're all designed after the fall of the Soviet Union When we assume the world's oceans were free and open to American maritime power as much as we try to predict the future our Platforms are still often a reflection of the times in which they're designed in this case We emphasized power projection capabilities over the need for sea control and contested waters So today as we think about our day-to-day work mine and yours I want us to remember we're not building a Navy just or Navy and Marine Corps for ourselves We're building it for the next generation for our children and probably for our grandchildren We must continually assess if we have the right balance in our concepts and in our fleet and future designs So how do we begin? We begin with strategy And I know we academics and policymakers like to talk about strategy, especially grand strategy linking ways and means to well articulated ends is a very tidy construct But alas grand strategy of the sort. We'd like to teach has nearly always been a frustrating and elusive endeavor This is certainly more true today than in the Cold War, but let's not fool ourselves Even then when the Soviet Union and the terrifying threat of nuclear annihilation American grand strategy and the role of America's of America in the world was still hotly debated So today like before there is not total agreement on the exact ends ways and means of American strategy or even on America's role in the world So let me offer my perspective into this debate I'll tell you how I managed to cope with this perennial uncertainty and debate Let me give you some of my ideas on where and how to place some thoughtful Bets today to help shape and secure the future that we want First putting strategy to work as I think through the type of Navy and Marine Corps we need in the future I think about what we want that future to look like and at a minimum I think about what we are trying to preserve our security our values our very way of life Although day-to-day most people can't feel it or touch it It turns out that maintaining these things from Wall Street to Main Street Requires a stable and cooperative global order And we have had such an international system one based on our values and the rule of law and free trade for over 70 years It may not be perfect But in light of the very bloody history of the world it ain't too bad Now maintaining the status quo may not sound like a very sexy end state For a grand strategy But consider the nature of the current global order and how that system benefits the United States and indeed the entire planet How eggs and how existentially at risk it currently is The current rules-based global order is often taken for granted as though it is a natural set point for global affairs But in fact in so many ways it is a most unnatural historical anomaly The post-World War two system of international order which includes things like the World Trade Organization the IMF the World Bank the United Nations Began with the massive reconstruction of Europe and Japan and has been characterized by over 70 years of economic growth and development Literally billions of human beings have been lifted out of poverty and desperation as a result of this system And I do not think it's an overstatement This massive reconstruction growth and development could only have been possible without could not have been possible Without the kinds we've got the kinds of catastrophic wars fought in the first half of the 20th century Wars this system was designed to prevent So just because that's sort of a counterfactual observation it does not make it any less true When you travel abroad or live overseas, you know it you feel it in your bones The thing is that this system and the stability it provided was not an accident It was carefully crafted and actively managed by the United States of America along with its partners and allies we did it with vision and through shrewd day-to-day diplomacy and Importantly especially for this forum with the relative peace and security guaranteed by the United States military America's military has underwritten this unprecedented era by sustaining its lethal technological edge and as Secretary Mabus points out by being there From the full to gap in Europe to the sea lanes around the world the lethality and the global presence of the American military has been indispensable This epitomizes the wise observation of a former assistant secretary of the Navy and president Teddy Roosevelt When he said a good Navy is not a provocation to war It is the surest guarantee of peace So I drag you through this short history or IR lesson as a reminder that we cannot take peace and world order for granted The system is only as strong as our willingness to manage it and in the unique case of the United States to lead If we see it as a natural set point and take our guard down It could crumble Our values in the rule of law human rights free trade which are the foundation of our way of life Define this global order and are the fruits of global stability So today this system is under threat and indeed active attack It is threatened by transnational challenges like climate change refugees migration piracy economic shocks global pandemics and violent extremism all of which require cooperative international strategies to address Yet no one nation not even the United States can solve problems like these by flying solo But even though the United States cannot solve all these global challenges and uphold a global order on its own We retain a unique and preeminent leadership role The fact is when we lead others follow and when we fail to leave people don't often act So while the system is being threatened from below and within by these transnational challenges It is also under active attack by a couple nation states that probably understand the system's weaknesses And the degree to which it is dependent on the United States may be a little bit better than we do Rising China and a revanchist Russia as well as Iran and North Korea are challenging this order from many angles Iran and North Korea present the horrifying threat of nuclear proliferation While China and Russia have found ways to take and hold territory and strategies short using strategies short of classical military invasions Using little green men and Crimea and dredges in the South China Sea These two nation states are cleverly operating just short of what our international system calls war and little by little they're trying to redraw the maps and rewrite the rules So at the operational level Russia is now able to operate more aggressively from its bases in Crimea in Kaliningrad Thus militarizing the Baltic and the Black Seas and China is militarizing the South China Sea with new bases and artificial islands Climate change has given Russia a similar opportunity in the Arctic where they are also building out bases setting up SAM sites and staking claims At the strategic level whether deliberately or accidentally this behavior challenges the international system It raises questions about the capability and resolve of NATO and about the validity of America's security guarantee the very guarantee that has underwritten the global stability since World War two and This is what makes such behavior so dangerous So to stop the destruction of this order We must attempt to convince these various actors these rivals that this international system can and does Benefit them and that it is worth preserving and protecting but At the same time we must also remain vigilant and Prepared to counter their potentially destructive impulses and designs should they fail to be persuaded and This is our task and the United States Navy and Marine Corps are indispensable in meeting this challenge For it is the world's oceans that connect the global community and are the lifelines for commerce and communication 80% of the Earth's population lives within an hour's drive of the ocean and 90% of the global trade is seaborne 95% of voice and data are carried by undersea cables so we must protect these assets and defend this rules-based order 24 hours a day 365 days a year on any ocean in any Latoral from the seabed to space across cyberspace as well as on land where all the people live For these reasons more than any time in our history the world needs the Navy and Marine Corps So with this as the strategic backdrop, let me turn to what this means for the Department of the Navy today How do we ensure this future is secure? Navy and Marine Corps leaders and theorists need to focus on the operational and tactical levels in support of our strategic objectives We need innovative thinking on how to link creative new concepts and operations with emerging technologies and We need to do all this much more cheaply and quickly This is our challenge Fortunately innovation is a key strand in the DNA of the US Navy and Marine Corps Both are used to adapting new technology as well as creating new tactics and operational art consider such groundbreaking new tech groundbreaking new advancements as the switch from sail to sea power to steam power Meaning naval tactics were no longer driven by the prevailing winds Or the rise of carrier aviation in World War two which supplanted the battleship as the premier strike platform It allowed the Navy to strike targets hundreds of miles away an operational concept that won the war in the Pacific The ship from guns to precision guided munitions enabled our ships and submarines to accurately engage shore targets up to a Thousand miles away without sending manned aircraft into harm's way The Navy and Marine Corps have evolved beyond sea control and seizing advanced bases to project projecting power far and lend to influence events there In each of these cases the Navy and Marine Corps leveraged new technologies in novel ways to irrevocably alter how the Navy force fights So what are the next new concepts technologies or combinations of both that will make the difference in the future? So let me start with concepts Having been commissioned in the 80s I am a product of the post-goldwater Nichols era and as a strategist an operator an academic Policymaker my thinking begins with a joint lens So from my past vantage points as an Air Force officer and an academic and then again in the policy Offices working working in the Pentagon's policy shop I've watched the Navy and Marine Corps as they seem to generally peacefully coexist I've noted the professional respect that exists among the naval officers of the two services But we know that historically they have tended to think quite naturally it turns out about the matters that impinge more directly on their Individual service rather than on the possibilities inherent in a greater level of operational integration between their two services And this is something I've been thinking quite a bit about since I was nominated for this job And it's a subject. I'm working hard to elevate this year Now it turns out To some extent that I'm pushing on an open door As I surveys the rich and operational doctrinal thinking going on with the department I see glimmers of hope and real movement toward greater integration and creative concepts. I See it in the 2007 2015 seapower strategies. I see it in the concept for latoral operations in a contested environment I see it in the concept of electronic maneuver warfare I see it in the concept of distributed lethality, and I see it in the reemergence of thinking about advanced space operations Real opportunities are presenting themselves for operationalizing a broader vision of American seapower And I see the two services moving forward to capture them For example, I don't think we've yet scratched the surface of just how game changing the integration of the f-35b Into our big-deck amphibs could be When I think of the power that plane will bring to the 11 decks an additional 11 decks that can now Participate more meaningfully in seat control power projection and maritime dominance I see the building blocks of an integrated seap American seapower begin to emerge When I hear the Navy talking about a desire to add offensive weapons to the amphibious ships as a method of distributing firepower When I hear the Marine Corps talking about wanting to put a squad of infantry and a couple of attack helicopters on the LCS I see the building blocks of an integrated American seapower begin to align themselves The Navy Marine Corps team has always been a force multiplying partnership that is unique Among all the US armed forces and without peer across the globe Not only does our Navy and Marine Corps team provide our military commanders with unsurpassability To conduct a full range of combat missions But because it is always forward it also provides our nation's leadership with an easily scaled flexible instrument of diplomacy able to influence would-be aggressors and regional troublemakers So by being forward in the right numbers With the right capabilities the Navy Marine Corps team provides the president the secretary of defense and our combatant commanders powerful deterrence and response options Naval forces that revolve around the central proposition that globally distributed American seapower requires creatively integrated Forces from the Navy and the Marine Corps will be uniquely postured and comprised for the term for deterrence of conflict And for rapid response to crises as we reimagine our concepts and doctrines with our emerging technologies We must think through how the nature of deterrence is changing and how the fine lines between Conventional and strategic deterrence may be blurring in the eyes of our adversaries This is the intellectual task of maritime strategists for those of you in this room many of those of you in this room In order to deliver on this proposition for more creative integration However, the two services must continue to build on their recent efforts to more closely align to interoperate and to cooperate The Navy Marine Corps shall no longer go to sea together But to go to sea as one Integration also means the leveraging of new technologies Now some of these concepts such as the integrated flight ops are only possible if certain emerging technologies like the f-35b are fully fielded And others suggest new ways to use old capabilities Our tech communities are exploring new capabilities the strategic and operational implications of which are yet to be uncovered by our strategist theorists and war gamers These communities need to see how the next technology Operational concept or combination of the two might spawn an operational leap in warfare unmanned systems or more accurately autonomous systems hyper velocity projectiles directed energy weapons cyber warfare Or perhaps technology we haven't even envisioned for military use Considered that distributed lethality has driven our tomahawk land attack missile To anti ship capability and the sm6 an anti air missile now has the capability to hit and kill ships So once in the fleet these weapons will provide our ships and submarines unprecedented capabilities We also need to think through the implications of a world where technology is no longer available to just the few well-heeled large militaries Advanced and disruptive technologies are rapidly proliferating to everyone Our adversaries no longer just nation states But a growing number of transnational actors that appear and operate at the speed of the internet and social media Moore's law which suggests exponential growth per year in digital technologies has effectively been exported Enabling our adversaries to adapt and employ technology as fast as the commercial world develops it Which compared with our overly bureaucratic and politicized processes is much faster than we usually can For example one very real real potential threat that encompasses the synergy of rapidly evolving commercial technology and unmanned systems is a weaponized commercial quadcopter like the ubiquitous semi-autonomous GPS guided phantom drone that is present at sporting venues and other public events It's not a far leap of imagination to envision a small swarm of these drones Armed with explosives in remote detonators attacking one of our ships or marine bases Now our self-defenses were designed for large missiles and aircraft traveling at several hundred miles an hour Not drones less than two feet long and traveling less than 20 miles per hour Even if we were able to target and kill these armed drones at a cost of about a thousand dollars per quadcopter They present a challenging asymmetric threat in place that places us on the wrong side of the cost curve This example demonstrates that we must also be innovative in our use of resources The fiscal pressures on our Navy and Marine Corps are real This means that our platforms and weapons systems must offer flexibility Capability and capacity while also being as cost-effective as possible The innovation challenges is how to provide the lethality we need at exponentially lower costs and this is not something that comes naturally to us At the R&D level we are more focused on the asymmetries gained with the technology and capability itself Not necessarily with the asymmetries of cost The Department of the Navy has some exquisite precision guided munitions over the last 30 years, but they are pricey As our adversaries develop more cost-effective weapons often leveraging commercial technology that is just good enough We can no longer afford to trade weapons priced in the millions in order to kill thousand dollar weapons This becomes especially true of our adversaries asymmetric tactic is to send swarms of low-cost low-tech Platforms or weapons systems against our sailors and Marines. We need to get on the right side of that cost curve This may mean adapting existing weapons systems and platforms from one-trick ponies to multi-mission capabilities That harness new cheaper technologies with new concepts or old tech and new innovation in new new and innovative ways So we in the Pentagon look to the Naval War College and those present here today To lead the next generation of war games and maritime strategy development that will identify and capitalize on asymmetric concepts in new technologies Our naval strategist must work hand-in-hand with our acquisition force and the fleet to develop or adapt The equipment necessary to execute these new tactics and strategies as well as to train our sailors and Marines on how to implement them The prime example and focus of the secretary of the Navy is on man systems. How will we use this capability? This is an area the secretary may best fully intense to develop into a core tool in the war fighting tool bag He has acted decisively and established two new offices a deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for unmanned systems and an office in the Op Nav and 99 and they work together and He has he has charged me as under secretary to elevate and energy energize their efforts as they focus on developing these unique capabilities The Department of the Navy has embarked on a series of tabletop war games workshops and conferences to explore novel operational concepts for unmanned systems and I intend to stay engaged in all of these efforts and to sponsor a capstone event toward the end of the year My focus is to bring the various communities together scientists operators industry and others to find the creative game-changing applications for these new technologies and This is where your efforts will be critical to our success It is not enough to only focus on developing the technology the technological capabilities are necessary, but not sufficient We must also discuss and develop the policy the concepts of operation and tactics to shape and enable these capabilities Develop your war game scenarios and workshops to challenge us to think not only about how we defend against disruptive technologies But also about the offensive uses of such systems and how all of this affects how we think about deterrence There are myriad areas to explore through your research in gaming How to develop the man machine interface to make autonomous systems a force multiplier for our more expensive and exquisite man platforms? How our existing and emerging concepts of operations such as distributed lethality and electronic maneuver warfare? Will integrate swarming autonomous systems nano robots all in the undersea airborne and ground domains How will our adversaries employ these systems and how will they adapt their new tactics? Will there be revolutionary change like the airplane or the tank requiring new concepts of operations and theories of battle Or will they just be a tweak to how we currently operate? Through new concepts and theories in gaming we must shape our future not just admire the complexity and uncertainty That our Navy and Marine Corps face So I hope that I've adequately framed the challenges and drivers that will shape our future maritime strategy for you Fiscal limitations are rapidly evolving and increasingly complex security environment and technology that is advancing and being adapted at astonishing speeds This in turn drives our Navy and Marine Corps to become more innovative and adaptive in our operational concepts Tactics and strategies. We must not allow ourselves to become myopic and fixated on just one threat We must continue to leverage the lessons of the master strategy strategists Facilities Sun Tzu, Klausowitz, Mao and Mahan for even as the world changes their core lessons hold true I strongly believe in the importance of learning from the past both historical successes and failures as we look to the future especially those examples of unforeseen or evolutionary changes to warfighting capabilities tactics operational art and strategy History has shown us that when America is stronger our allies are stronger and the world is safer So thank you again to the Naval War College for hosting this event for 67 years and To all of you here for the work you do and for your enduring commitment to America's sailors and Marines. Thank you Do not be shy If I don't have the answers Andy Krepenevich well Yes, ma'am Lieutenant Commander Bobby hand via student here at the War College. Thank you for your time in your comments They ring true with a lot of stuff that we've talked about through this year And as a member of the gravely research Advanced Warfare Research Group, we've also discussed that in detail With the adaptable and rapidly evolving technology One of the things that we find ourselves particularly as operators and going into the senior leadership positions How the acquisition process is very slow and lethargic? Get there you comment on what's being done to make that process more agile and shorter so that we don't have As you said in 20 30 they are lead time sometimes on some of these because the technology is evolving so fast Sure, it is it is a big challenge And I think you have to break up the the acquisition thing into categories I mean acquisitions of major major weapons systems like aircraft carriers the replacement for the Ohio class submarine You know ships airplanes Those are going to those are gonna be very it's gonna be very challenging to accelerate those kinds of processes. We have a Design process that takes takes a long time. You don't just throw a nuclear submarine in the water more over You know have many many restrictions in in law from Congress that you have to that you have to deal with for those things to Make sure that the that the processes are competitive and safe so that's one category and At least in the Navy our acquisition Assistant Secretary Sean Stackley has been Has been pretty crafty trying to find ways to to at least lower the cost curve Which is another problem for some of those systems And to try to accelerate I think though for a lot of the technologies we're talking about today autonomous systems You know swarming technologies things that sometimes we may think could be off the shelf I think that we could be a lot more clever about how we how we do that the Secretary of Defense's initiative DIUX Is is designed to do just that is designed and has it's under new leadership now, and I met with them just last week What they're trying to do is Kind of what we're taught what I'm talking about here today is link the communities the operators and the theorists With the developers that are already making things right and then trying to find new and clever uses for them and to expedite the contracting The contracting processes so they've got the contracting lawyers in a room together And they have recrafted some of the ways to do that So I think you'll start to see some of those things coming off the shelf and into the field a little bit faster And that's that's a that's good But at the end of the day Another part of the of that initiative is to is to try and fail like that like industry does and that That works for a while until Congress decides we're failing too much, and we don't know what that line is gonna be so But I I think that the the only way to do it is to test it to test that line and so I'm Moderately optimistic that they will be able to crack the code on some of those lower cost types of innovations But with the major weapons systems, I think we have a long way to go Dale Jenkins The as we all been reading the Chinese have developed a long range Course-correcting missile called the carrier killer which extends beyond the range of our aircraft on our carriers What implications to this does this have for the composition and tactics of the carrier battle groups? And also the cruise missiles that are on our cruisers that can counter that Chinese missile Well, I think that you have to look at the the challenges that we face beyond just Beyond just one weapon system and beyond just one adversary, but that said I take your point I think that some of the creative thinking that's going on in the concepts community for things like distributed lethality as well as a number of a Number of capabilities that are being developed are designed around those types of threats And I'm sort of optimistic about that. I think we need to I think we need to game it a lot more but the idea that That we're only going to use aircraft carriers and we're going to project power On to shore the way we've been doing for the past, you know, a couple decades I think we're I think we need to rethink that I think It's pretty well known that our adversaries Our future adversaries have been watching us for 10 and 20 years since the first Gulf War Since our precision guided munitions really changed the way they had to think about us And so I think as we look to the future We have to accept the fact that they've adapted to the way they think that we like to fight And we have to not fight that way, right? So that's why part of my remarks very Encouraged by a lot of the creative thinking in the concepts of operations that will challenge Challenge their emerging Concepts The first thing we were taught in this military school was to have independent Defense industry pursue on national interests. So that was basic things Turkish defense strategy, but I wonder your view about US view but allies to develop strategies to pursue their Interest which does not necessarily align with the United States and To and in this way they're acquiring new capabilities and Also exporting these regionally or globally. Thank you. Well, thank you for your question. I think that one of the most important things that America does is to develop and Maintain and nurture its vast network of allies and partners we do this in a lot of ways not just by Sharing our technologies and our weapons systems, but through training opportunities and exercises and an array of diplomatic engagements and My my attitude on this is that you're never it's never going to be perfect We are never going to perfectly align with any ally or any partner You're you're going to constantly on every single thing. You're going to constantly be having to be maneuvering are not maneuvering but massaging and and and in constant dialogue on on on the changing times so The refugee crisis in Europe is a great example it's Existentially affecting our partners and allies in the region and we want to help it's not affecting us in the same way So people have different interests and I think that I don't think that makes the relationships Fragile and I don't think it makes those relationships brittle. I think it can challenge them and and So that's the way we need to work. We need to work on that now the the idea that you you expressed about technologies being exported that's That's always been part of the part of the challenge or part of the gamble of these relationships And I don't see the United States changing Changing the way they operate with respect to allies because it is exactly what makes us Strong and safe as a global community I think that there's an old saying in Silicon Valley that when technology and bureaucracy meet bureaucracy wins a hundred percent of the time and I wonder how the Navy will think about the following challenge When Barnes and Noble was 18 million dollars Excuse me four and a half billion in sales Amazon was 18 million the problem that Barnes and Noble had was Smart people, but they didn't grow up with any technological way of thinking and Some people think the challenge for the DoD in the Navy is Smart people, but no technological way of thinking They're not the kind of people in the Navy that the old Michael Dell and Bill Gates ever would have hired So the challenge that the Navy has is it has defense contractors giving them stuff It has people with jobs and titles But none of them have the way of thinking that of those that get hired by Amazon and Jeff Bezos That is the time frame. So in a world where technology is the great leveler How is the Navy ever going to go as fast as the Chinese who are getting around that? some people have an advantage over us and that is that They find clever ways to copy our technologies Um You are bringing up a really important point and I think about the second time I came in to serve in the Pentagon it was it was December 2008 and President Obama had just won the election and I was asked to serve on the transition team in the Pentagon and You know the Obama campaign had been you know Dynamic and you know all these young people in Chicago and they were like on social media And it was really hip and cool and you know, I wasn't one of them in Chicago I was one of the boring think-tanky people in Washington, but so there we come together In the Pentagon on our first day and these kids come running in they whip open their laptops And they're like hey, what's the wireless code for the Pentagon? And I was just like Do you know where you are? You know, I'm there's no wireless at the Pentagon. Are you kidding me? But um and there's still no wireless at the Pentagon nearly seven eight years later But the point is this is how they operated. This is how we all operate it This is how I operated when I was outside for the last four years you know and I had I have my iPhone with me all the time and My assistant could text me and tell me I'm late for a meeting in the Pentagon They have to send out like a search team because nobody has their cell phones in the Pentagon, right? That's just an example that I'm reminded of every single day now that I've come back into the Pentagon How hard it is to operate inside our? Our our secure system now we do this for all the right reasons, but we have got to crack this code We have got to find ways to We can't continue to further isolate ourselves and Operate in a 20th century environment inside our systems when everybody else is operating in a different way for exactly the reason you say Because the next generation is not going to put up with that, right? They're just going to be like what no wireless code so and that's just one example and and it sort of Ripples into and characterizes the way companies and tech companies operate today so this is one of the reasons why I'm a big fan of Secretary Mavis and Secretary of Defense Carter's force of the future and Sailor 2025 initiatives where they really are trying to think through The next generation is going to think differently than we do They're going to operate differently than we do and we have got to adapt and we have got to change not only in our career management Methodologies but also in the ways that you just described so it's a huge challenge and it may it may require Accepting a little risk But I genuinely do not know what the answer is beyond that So over to you guys to figure that one out One more time Good morning, ma'am. Thanks very much for coming to speak with us today. I'm lieutenant commander Ed McClellan. I'm a Navy intelligence officer You started your conversation this morning with a discussion about the challenge to the international rules-based system of Order that was created after the Second World War And both the state-based and non-state-based challenges. And so I'm talking mostly about the state-based challenges here is the status quo best defended by a Policy that avoids escalation so that we promote stability or is it best defended by Resolve and a certain acceptance of risk of escalation Is that there's deterrence work best when we are willing to ride the escalation chain all the way? Thank you. I am so glad that that is the last question that You brought that up and that I'm gonna leave you with this idea because as my as my my team knows This is a big issue to me Deterrence I'll say the short answer is I don't think there is a best But the longer answer is we really need to rethink how we think about deterrence We have very sort of 20th century Just strategic nuclear ideas about deterrence if we have them at all And I say that because aside from places like the Naval Academy and the Naval War College and all the other PME institutions People won't study this stuff anymore So when you get to Washington and you know people like us have this ideas about deterrence by prevention or or deterrence by Denial right or deterrence by punishment the two two types that I think you're alluding to here There is just no you can't even start the conversation. So I do think that You know, there's a curve here where you can look strong and powerful and deter and assure your allies And then there's a point at which you could become provocative. That's your classic security dilemma But we rode that edge a lot in the Cold War and we we have to not be afraid to ride it today Because not everything you do is by definition provocative You may need we may need to provoke a little in order to deter right and I think that's what you're getting at So when we do fawn ops in the South China Sea, yeah, that's gonna provoke But but you know at what cost right so we have to really I'm a I'm with Harry Harris Admiral Harris in his endeavor to continue those because I think it's really an important thing. So my point is that With the challenge in the South China Sea and the challenge that Russia prevent presents They're actively trying to ratchet up that Curve and every time they go up and we do nothing they can go up a little bit farther They're gonna keep testing and that's not that doesn't match our normal classic deterrence models So we have to we have to rethink those So I charge you with that, but I think your basic premise is that not everything we do is Provocative and that we have to actually be a little more bold We do have to be bold sometimes in order to deter so thank you