141 Podcast: Congressman Dusty Johnson on Global Leadership and Dr. James Bosbotinis on Hypersonic Weapons

Congressman Dusty Johnson
Breaking Battlegrounds logo
Breaking Battlegrounds Official Podcasts
141 Podcast: Congressman Dusty Johnson on Global Leadership and Dr. James Bosbotinis on Hypersonic Weapons

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, we are joined by friend of the show, Congressman Dusty Johnson of South Dakota. Later in the program, we speak with Dr. James Bosbotinis, a UK-based specialist in defense and international affairs.

Dusty Johnson brings an energetic and optimistic style to Washington as South Dakota’s lone voice in the U.S. House of Representatives. A recognized leader in issues related to rural America, agriculture, and welfare reform, he serves on the Agriculture Committee and as Chairman of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee. As a member of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Dusty has been focused on finding solutions to the supply chain crisis through his Ocean Shipping Reform Act which passed the House in 2021. Appointed to the Select Committee on China, Dusty addresses the 360-degree threat posed by China, especially their ownership of American ag land and ag businesses and control over tech. Prior to being elected to Congress, he served as chief of staff to the Governor and as vice president of an engineering firm specializing in rural telecommunications. Dusty lives in Mitchell with his wife and three sons.

Dr. James Bosbotinis is a UK-based freelance defence and international affairs analyst. He has particular expertise in the study of contemporary maritime strategy, assessing naval and air force developments, geopolitical analysis, and generating understanding of the connections between strategy and capability development. He is the Book Reviews Editor of The Naval Review, the professional journal of the Royal Navy, an Associate Member of the Corbett Centre for Maritime Policy Studies, King’s College London, and a member of the research team of the Peking University Institute of Ocean Research South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative. He is also a contributor for Warships International Fleet Review. He has extensive experience encompassing academic and policy-relevant research and analysis for a range of customers, including UK government bodies. He is also the Co-CEO of J B Associates, a geopolitical risk advisory.

Podcast Transcripts:

Sam Stone: [00:00:11] Welcome to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I’m Sam Stone. Folks, up first as our guest today, a returning guest and friend of the program. Welcome to Congressman Dusty Johnson, the lone representative from South Dakota. He serves on the as chairman of the Commodity Markets Digital Assets and Agriculture Committee. Or sorry, I am all over the place reading this today. He serves on the Agriculture Committee and as chairman of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets and Rural Development Subcommittee and as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He’s also been doing a lot of work as part of the Select Committee on China. Dusty, thank you so much for joining us and welcome to the program.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:00:53] Well, thanks for having me again. I’m glad I didn’t flunk the first appearance.

Chuck Warren: [00:00:57] We are, too. I’ve been horrible for ratings. All right. So China has made a secret agreement with Cuba, which is about 100 miles south of Florida. For those of you who bet on geography that they’re going to do electronic eavesdropping facility in Cuba, is this alarming or should it be?

Congressmen Dusty Johnson:[00:01:16] It is alarming. It’s alarming for two reasons. Number one, I mean, they’re going to have the capability to do all kinds of electronic surveillance across the southeastern United States from there. That’s going to give them access to stuff that they don’t otherwise have. They can’t get this same stuff from space. They could get it from balloons. But obviously, balloons are pretty easy to to bring down. So this is going to give them new capabilities, particularly to scoop up information communications from military sites in the southeastern United States. But the second reason it’s concerning is that it shows additional provocation by Xi Jinping. They just keep pushing the envelope. They keep pushing us. They want us to know that they’re going to be the bosses of the next 100 years. And it’s a problem. I mean, we have a rules based international system was largely erected by the United States after World War II and our allies. And China hates it. They just hate it. They don’t think those rules of fair play make any sense. They want to knock down that system and build a new international system with their values at the core of it. And all of these provocations are just part of a longer term strategy. And I would just say this by way of closure. They have a strategy. I’m not sure our country does. I think we just we don’t have a thoughtful and deliberate plan on how to make sure that the next century continues to be part of, you know, an American century.

Chuck Warren: [00:02:46] Speaking of that, so now we’re talking about Cuba. Is the United States with really no strategy neglecting Central and South America, which China seems to be focusing on?

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:02:58] Yes. Yeah, we. So many Americans. I mean, we’re in a little bit of an isolationist time. People want to, you know, America first. And listen, of course, when we make policies, we should look first to how is it going to impact America, How is it going to strengthen American prosperity and security? But America first can’t mean America. Only some people will sometimes say, well, why would we care about Guyana? Why would we care about, you know, Qatar? Why would we care about Ukraine? But when we recede from international leadership and create a vacuum, China is all too willing to step up and fill that void. They love it. They love it when Americans put our head in the sand. They what I would call the Southern globe. They really are trying to be the dominant force there. China is the largest trading partner with every single South American country. That’s it used to be America, and now it’s China. In public opinion surveys, increasingly, citizens of African nations are saying that it is China that is the leader of the world and not the United States.

Sam Stone: [00:04:03] Well, and that is a matter of world opinion, not U.S. Opinion, too. I think we have to take that into consideration. You can’t be the leader of the world just because the people in your country say so.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:04:14] Right. Yeah, that’s a really good point. And I just think a world where people think China is in charge is a more dangerous world for freedom. And the thing that I’ve loved about America through the last 247 years is that to a greater degree than any other country in the history of the world, we have been on the side of the right guys, of the good guys, and we’ve fought for values. And, you know, we haven’t been perfect, but we’ve gotten it right way more often than anybody else has. And that is not China’s track record.

Chuck Warren: [00:04:46] Well, and it’s interesting. China has sort of become the world’s loan shark. It’s loaning money to these third world countries for ports, infrastructure. When they can’t pay it back.

Sam Stone: [00:04:57] They kneecap.

Chuck Warren: [00:04:57] Them. They kneecap them. Exactly. And trademarked that term. And so we do that. And so that brings me to we talked about I feel the United States for decades has ignored Central and South America. Right? I mean, we have every abundant resource in the world in our hemisphere. We seem to ignore it. And now you have The Washington Post came out this morning with the Saudi crown prince privately threatened a major economic pain on the US amid a showdown over oil cuts. Leaked intelligence show. And now you have Saudi Arabia inviting China over. We just dropped the ball here. I mean, I don’t I don’t think I have felt this insecure about our ability in the world right now since I have the late 70s.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:05:44] And I would tell you, this sort of sense of populism that’s growing on both sides of the aisle is contributing to that. Free trade is out of vogue. It used to be that that was a key Republican value, that a willing buyer, a willing seller, that kind of free trade without undue government intervention that made both sides more prosperous. Again, it’s voluntary. I mean, they’re only going to enter into it if they if it makes their individual lives or country stronger. Correct? At least in theory. I mean, Colombia is the fifth largest market for American corn. Is that because Colombia’s a top five nation in population or wealth? No, is because Colombians have some unique tastes for corn. No, it’s because we have a free trade agreement with Colombia. And so the invisible hand just kind of wants this American product to flow toward that country. And this administration, the Biden administration has no trade policy, Zero. There have been no there’s been no progress on any trade deal in the last two and a half years. And the world when I have people come to my office from other countries, they they want to do business with America. They want to buy our beef, our dairy, our corn. They want to buy our manufactured goods. And we are not making it very easy for them. And you’re right, that kind of stepping back of American leadership is absolutely. Injuring American competitiveness.

Sam Stone: [00:07:14] Well, they want to buy our products because our products are well made. They’re safer than food coming from China. Know all of those things. We have this really good capitalist system, but at the head of it is a government that has no idea what it’s doing and keeps making radical course changes between administrations. That has to be throwing out all of our allies for a loop.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:07:37] That it is they they still realize that, you know, when we lead, we’re the best leader in the world. There’s nobody else can bring to the table what America does. They get a little nervous when they feel like America is too inward focused. Tony Blair, former prime minister of the United Kingdom, told me a few months ago that America’s political division is a global security threat, that when our Republicans and our Democrats are bickering, the rest of the world gets concerned. And when we’re getting along, when America is united, the whole world just breathes a sigh of relief. Oh, thank goodness. Mom and dad, they’re the cops on the beat. There’s going to be more security. There’s going to be more free trade. There’s going to be more prosperity across the globe. When we drop the ball, everybody feels it.

Sam Stone: [00:08:30] How much is what China is doing right now is really reminiscent of an economic version, if you will, of the Empire Building of the 18th and 19th and early 20th century. How did they how do Chinese people view what they’re trying to do in their territorial ambitions? Have you gotten any information on that from your briefings? I mean, do they have real popular support in their country for this sort of muscular foreign diplomacy?

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:09:00] We heard from two survivors of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Last week, it was the anniversary of the massacre. And what was most interesting to me about that briefing wasn’t just replaying the terrible events of that day, but about how little awareness there is among the Chinese people about the actions of their government. The Great Chinese Firewall is for real. It is very difficult for everyday Chinese people to gain understanding of what their government is doing. And this is the most sophisticated surveillance state that has ever been constructed with human knowledge. And I don’t I think Americans don’t understand how bad it is. I mean, there are regions in China where you can only get toilet paper in a public restroom by scanning your ID. They want to know where you are. They want to know what you’re doing. They want to know how much toilet paper you’re using. This is an almost breathtakingly deep invasion of people’s privacy, so people are not comfortable speaking out there. There is not a free media. And I not only do they not understand what their government is doing today, there is almost no historical memory of the fact that this has been a repressive and oppressive regime for decades. It is a major problem. The Chinese people are not are not an adversary to our nation. It is just Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party.

Sam Stone: [00:10:35] Well, and that brings up a good point. You talk about the digital wall that they’ve created. I mean, one of the ways that we’ve really advanced towards ending the Cold War and ending the antagonism with the Soviet Union was with Voice of America, with other communications, where they started seeing on TV the lies their government was telling. Because their government says everyone in America, its poor, it’s racked by race riots. All the time. It’s a terrible place to live. And then I talked to one ex-Soviet who said, hey, they showed us that. But then they’re saying these are the ghettos and everyone has cars and none of us had cars. How do we break through the digital wall? I mean, is there a way for us to start trying to to direct more information to these folks?

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:11:25] Yes. And I think things like low earth, low orbit satellites can can play a role in giving people access to Internet that doesn’t go through the great Chinese firewall. It can help, you know, one, 1.5 billion Chinese people understand that their regime is evil and is working to make them subservient every single day. But that requires an investment like putting satellites up in space and giving people access to, you know, the World Wide Web. This is not something that happens for free. And I think in our political system right now, if somebody said, well, we want, you know, X hundreds of millions or, you know, a few billion dollars to be able to deploy these satellites like the Voice of America to cut through these tyrannical regimes. What do you all think? I mean, I think a lot of Americans would say, well, why do I care what’s going on in Hong Kong? Why do I care what’s going on? I mean, I just it seems like it doesn’t affect my life.

Chuck Warren: [00:12:24] And well.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:12:25] The so I think we’ve got some information sharing we got to do. Well.

Chuck Warren: [00:12:28] We’re almost out of time here for this first segment. But I think my final comment here real quick is there’s just so much going on in the world. You’re saying, how much can I handle mentally? I think that’s a big part of it. Now, we’re with Congressman Dusty Johnson, South Dakota. This is breaking battlegrounds. Find us at breaking battlegrounds, dot vote or your favorite podcast. We’ll be right back. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. I’m your host, Chuck Warren and Sam Stone. We are honored to have friend of the show, Congressman Dusty Johnson, Republican from South Dakota, a true leader in Congress. And folks, are you concerned about your retirement? You probably should be. Things aren’t getting cheaper. Social Security going to have to be altered some, whether you like it or not, in the future. That’s why Sam and I are recommending to you Yrefy? They are a great opportunity to help students pull out of their private loan college debts, and you can get up to a 10.25% return. That’s right, 10.25%. So learn more about how to make your investment dollar go further better than the stock market, actually. And that’s why we suggest you call Why Yrefy at eight, eight, eight. W Yrefy two four? Again, call eight, eight, eight Yrefy two four and tell him Chuck and Sam sent you.

Sam Stone: [00:14:00] Congressman, thank you for sticking with us, folks. He’s going to be on for one more segment after this. Also. So, Congressman, we very much thank you for your time this morning. But one thing we wanted to touch on before we move on to other topics is we’ve been talking about China. You’re part of the China Select Committee. We had Congressman Dunn on the program a couple of weeks ago, and he told us something that I actually was not aware of and hadn’t heard that all those little South Pacific islands that MacArthur used as essentially the latter to Japan and that we would, quite frankly, need in a war between Taiwan and China to be able to effectively operate in that theater. The Chinese, just like you were talking about in South America, they’re making both economic and military overtures and essentially weaponizing that ladder against us. Can you tell us any more about that or is what are they doing? Because it seems very clear that they are gearing up for an attack on Taiwan.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:15:01] Everything you said is absolutely spot on. And we talked about in the first segment about American leadership receding a fair amount across the broader world. There are diplomats who say, oh, you know, from from these smaller countries who say, when I talk to the Chinese, I get an airport. When I talk to the Americans, I get a scolding.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:15:22] And.

Sam Stone: [00:15:24] I’ll take the airport. Thanks.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:15:27] Yeah. And that’s what they’re saying now. They know that the airport is going to be built in a very shoddy manner. They know that there’s this loan shark mentality that you described, but these are poor countries. And there are times when they’ve got their backs up against the wall where they don’t really know what else to do. They also don’t get the sense that this is I mean I mean, Americans have a tendency to view things in pretty stark terms in kind of black and white. I think, by the way, that’s when we look at the Chinese Communist Party. We are right to look at them as the bad guys. I think it is that simple. I think Xi Jinping is every bit as big a villain and a tyrant as the famous tyrants of the 20th century we all learned about in third grade. And so I do think that that we are right to look at it in those terms. The rest of the world, you know, these poor countries, they’re not so sure. They’re trying to make sure their people are fed. And so when these overtures that you’re talking about are made, they are far more open to them because America is a little missing in action. Now, I think we have an opportunity here to step up our game because they don’t want to cut these deals with the Chinese, but we have to give them an alternative. One more thing in there have been some recent years where where China’s Belt and Road initiative invested more money in the developing world than the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund combined. And so it’s not just America that’s getting outspent by the Chinese. It’s really the entire free developed world. We just were getting lapped.

Chuck Warren: [00:17:00] Do you think the American public, especially those under the age of 40, really understand what communism is?

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:17:05] No, and in part because both political parties are free to use those terms whenever they think that it will provide a short term political benefit. So we really don’t I mean, there’s not a deep understanding of different political philosophies. No, it is with some communities. It’s very clear. I mean, Carlos Gimenez from Florida is on the Select Committee on China with Neal Dunn and myself. And he having spent some time early on in his life in Cuba, I think does understand the backbreaking poverty that can be caused by communism, by socialism. So it’s not I mean, it is not unusual among Cuban Americans or among people who emigrated from Eastern Europe for them to understand those concepts. But native born Americans, we just don’t get it.

Chuck Warren: [00:17:56] I want to switch subjects real quick here. Let’s talk about Isgs for a moment. So there’s a report out today by the Texas Public Policy Foundation that says under Biden, oil and gas investment is down 80%, 80%. So we just talked earlier about Saudi Arabia threatening economic sabotage on the American economy because Biden doesn’t know what he’s doing. And now you have these folks that are afraid to put capital on new oil and gas wells, refineries, pipelines, etcetera. We have a problem here because we can be you know, look, there’s two things. America should always be self-sufficient on food and energy. There’s no reason for it. How do we turn this around?

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:18:38] And that is really well said. I do think food and energy are they are the very base of the pyramid. It’s hard to build anything upwards if you don’t have those as the foundation. And we know that it’s almost impossible to cite big projects, whether they be energy or infrastructure in this country. The same project that you can get done in two years in France or Germany takes you five years to get done in this country. I mean, France is not generally considered a paragon of regulatory efficiency. So when we are getting our butts kicked by France, I think that is a should be a major wakeup call. And this is bipartisan, by the way. We’ve had Secretary Buttigieg come to our transportation committee and talk about how we need to streamline permitting. We have clearly, Senator Manchin has tried to be a leader on this issue. We have really made no meaningful progress until last week. Where the debt ceiling deal, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which I think was pretty unfairly maligned by, you know, far right conservatives for the first time since the 1970s made major improvements in how we can streamline these things. It gives a shot clock for environmental review on energy projects and other projects. So you can’t take five years to complete an environmental impact statement. It makes sure that there’s a federal government, one agency who’s the coordinator who’s trying to drive these decisions to fruition. I mean, it does a lot of things that we’ve been talking about for a long time, but we need even more of it because I think affordable energy is a is an American competitive advantage and we are squandering it.

Sam Stone: [00:20:21] Yeah, that’s also very well said. It’s a huge advantage. We have just about a minute here before we go back to break. We’re going to be coming back for our third segment with more from Congressman Dusty Johnson of South Dakota. Congressman, how do folks follow you and your work? Stay in touch with both what you’re doing at the Capitol and while you’re at home there in South Dakota?

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:20:41] Well, at Rep Dusty Johnson, so Rep, Dusty Johnson kind of on all of the social media platforms, not TikTok, because that’s just Chinese malware, but basically everywhere else, that’s where we’re at. And we’d love to have people join the conversation.

Sam Stone: [00:20:56] I did a thing not too long ago for a group of folks asking about different social medias. I went through the purpose of each one of them. I got to Tik Tok and I said, If you have this, throw away your phone.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:21:06] Yep, yep. It’s true.

Sam Stone: [00:21:09] Congressman, thank you so much. We’re going to be coming back here with more from Congressman Dusty Johnson on breaking battlegrounds in just a few moments. We want to touch a little bit on something else that’s going on that the congressman has been working on, particularly relating to food security here in the United States and to our our food systems. That has been a major focus of his. And thank goodness we do have some folks in there focusing on it. Folks, make sure you download and tune in to our podcast only segment. You can get that wherever you get your podcasts. We are doing quite a bit on that these days. Those segments keep getting longer and longer and Chuck and I have a nice argument for you at the end of this one. So folks, breaking battlegrounds. Back in just a moment. Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I’m Sam Stone. On the line with us right now, Congressman Dusty Johnson of South Dakota. Congressman, one of the things that you’ve been working on really since the pandemic has been our food supply security, its supply chain crisis overall. You’ve been working on the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. Tell us what’s going on in both of those areas, because I think Americans still don’t realize how fragile our supply chain has been ever since 2020 and continues to be right now.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:22:37] There are a lot of factors that make that supply chain pretty fragile. I mean, we’re 80,000 truck drivers short. We only have five major ocean carriers. And so if 1 or 2 of them decide that they’re not interested in fairly hauling American products to market, we’ve got a problem. We had done somewhat of an underinvestment in infrastructure over the previous 20 years. I think that’s beginning to move back in the right direction. So we do listen. We have some work to do. And just to give you an example, during the kind of the 18 months after the worst of the pandemic, so we’ve moved past the worst of health issues, but we were still dealing with some economic fragility. 60% of containers that were going back to Asia were going back empty. This at a time when we had American food products literally rotting on the on the on the docks there because the foreign flagged ocean carriers just wanted to make a quick turn. They didn’t want to haul American goods. They wanted to get back, grab Chinese iPhones and bring them back quickly. And I totally get it in a in a true free market system. Okay.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:23:49] Listen, you get to decide how you want to make your money. If you can make more money doing that, I guess, good on you. But these guys are using American ports. And I just think at some point you need some basic reciprocity. And we pass the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. It was signed into law last year that said, there has to be if you’re going to use American ports, you’ve got to play by some very basic rules of the road, like not ignoring American goods just because you think it’s convenient to do so. And then we’re also passed out of committee two weeks ago, a bill that would allow trucks if they add a sixth axle to increase weight so we can have those truck drivers when they’re on the road do so safely. It doesn’t cause more damage to the roads, it doesn’t cause more accidents. It just allows those hardworking men and women to to work smarter and more efficiently. But we’ve got about 100 other things like that we’ve got to do throughout the system. If we fail to act, we’re just going to give China that much more control over the global economic system.

Sam Stone: [00:24:48] Congressman, how much do you think and you touched on this earlier, talking about China, but also talking about just our investment, whether it be a low orbit satellite system here in the southwest. We desperately need some new consideration for desalination and pipelining of water. The power grid across the country is very vulnerable and needs to be hardened. There are all these major infrastructure needs or or project needs here and around the world that we should be participating in investing in. How much more would the American public trust our government if we just started getting these things done?

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:25:29] There is a sense that the era of big projects in America is kind of in the rear view mirror. And I think that’s sad because I think the story of the 20th century in this country was so much about big projects, big dreams coming to fruition. I mean, rural electrification. The universal service where we everybody got a dial tone. The interstate highway system. We connected every one of the states. The the damn system that provides, you know, 15 or 20% of the electricity for this country. I mean, it was just major homerun after major homerun where we said this is America, this is the land of builders. And now it’s like you can’t I mean, you can’t get anything built without spending, you know, ten years in litigation.

Chuck Warren: [00:26:20] Right. Right.

Chuck Warren: [00:26:21] And and it’s people it.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:26:22] Makes me sad because we need we need to bring back that American swagger of just competence and construction. That doesn’t mean we’re going to roll over any landowners rights, but I think it does mean that these getting a maybe answer after ten years is obnoxious. Let’s give these companies a yes or no so they can figure out what to go invest in.

Chuck Warren: [00:26:44] Well, maybe he’s the third worst answer. The best answer is yes. Second best, no. The worst answers may be and that’s what we keep doing and what’s finally what’s funny is the progressives want to keep pushing these things that delay these projects, which would help a lot of low income and middle income families. And I sort of have to agree with Sam. Sam thinks this is on purpose because they want to break America. Congressman 30s, tell us what’s going good in America right now.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:27:06] Well, research and development, technology, I mean, those are really the things that make people’s everyday lives better. Government tries to screw that stuff up, but thank goodness we’re failing and innovation continues.

Chuck Warren: [00:27:21] We’re with Congressman Dusty Johnson. Congressman, thank you for joining us today. You can find him on all social media, on Twitter at Rep. Dusty Johnson, same thing on Instagram, same thing on Facebook. Congressman, thanks a million.

Sam Stone: [00:27:33] Never on TikTok.

Chuck Warren: [00:27:34] Never on TikTok. It’s communist. Thank you, Congressman. We appreciate it.

Congressmen Dusty Johnson: [00:27:38] You bet. Thank you.

Chuck Warren: [00:27:38] Bye bye. Bye.

Sam Stone: [00:28:06] All right. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I’m Sam Stone. Folks, are you concerned with stock market volatility, especially with Joe Biden in office? What if you could invest in a portfolio with a high fixed rate of return that’s not correlated to the stock market? A portfolio where you know what each monthly statement would look like with no surprises, you can turn your monthly income on or off, compound it, whatever you choose. There’s no loss of principle. If you need your money back at any time, your interest is compounded daily, you’re paid monthly and there are no fees. So go to investyrefy.com that’s invest the letter Y, then refy.com or call them at 88yrefy 24 and get yourself in line to earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. That’s right, folks. 10.25% fixed. It’s the best deal out there in investing today. So give them a call.investyefy.com or 888 y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you? All right, Chuck. Next up, a guest I’m very excited to talk to doing some very good work in the area of military affairs particularly, he is a specialist in defense and international affairs. They focus on maritime and Air Force developments. Welcome to the program, Dr. James Bosbotinis, He and thank you for joining us this morning. You have some fantastic pieces out on hypersonic weaponry that’s being developed. Can you tell us first what is a hypersonic weapon?

Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:29:29] Thank you very much. And, uh, it’s my pleasure to be speaking to you today. A hypersonic weapon is basically a missile that travels at speeds of in excess of Mach five or faster than the five times faster than the speed of sound. The difference between a hypersonic missile as attention is being drawn to now and a traditional ballistic missile which travel at speeds above Mach five and have been in service, uh, for decades now, is that the new generation of hypersonic weapons that are being developed? Hypersonic glide vehicles and hypersonic cruise missiles can maneuver within the atmosphere. Which complicates detection, tracking and defense.

Sam Stone: [00:30:27] That’s one of the first questions. Thank you. That was one of the first questions I was going to ask, because obviously a traditional ICBM is actually coming in faster than than these things go. And we have developed some systems to try to at least target those and be able to shoot them down. But your concern, you say, with these.

Sam Stone: [00:30:46] Is.

Sam Stone: [00:30:48] There’s almost no way to for our current defense systems, our ship point defense systems, our national defense systems to deal with this threat as it evolves at this time.

Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:31:00] Defense against the latest hypersonic threats at present is very limited. The United States has said it has a nascent capability against, for example, hypersonic glide vehicles, with the Sm6 deployed on US Navy warships. And it’s working to develop a glide phase interceptor, which will enter service later this decade, and that will be capable of intercepting the latest hypersonic threats that are being developed, as we have seen most recently in Ukraine. The Patriot Air defense. Air and missile defense system does offer a capability against the Russian kinzhal The Kinzhal is described as a hypersonic weapon system. And strictly speaking, it is. It travels faster than Mach five. But. It’s a sort of entry level hypersonic system. It’s an it’s effectively an air launched ballistic missile. It’s an air launched version of the Russian Iskander Ground launched tactical ballistic missile. So it it falls within the intercept capability of existing systems such as Patriot. The higher end systems glide vehicles such as the Chinese DF 17 or a hypersonic cruise missile. They are much more taxing.

Chuck Warren: [00:32:30] Why should Americans, our brothers and sisters, the United Kingdom, freedom loving countries be concerned about Russia and China having hypersonic missiles? Explain to them what is the danger of them in practical terms.

Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:32:46] A hypersonic weapons by virtue of their speed, their flight paths, their unpredictable trajectories and maneuverability, make detecting, tracking and engaging them very difficult. So they are particularly well suited to striking very high value targets. It’s why the United States, for example, is working to develop its own hypersonic weapons capability. If you want to hit something that is extremely high value, such as an aircraft carrier or a deeply buried, hardened command facility, a hypersonic weapon provides. That effective means of penetrating an adversary’s own missile defenses and striking it. Are not a panacea. They’re not going to be silver bullets. They form part of a wider strike complex, but because of those particular characteristics, they pose particular challenges. And that is why they are eliciting so much concern in terms of potential adversaries deploying them.

Chuck Warren: [00:34:02] The United States obviously omits and shows its power around the world through our aircraft carriers. There are amazing vessels. They show amazing presence. Why would a hypersonic missile mean to our aircraft carrier presence throughout the world? Let’s say Russia or Iran have one. What does that mean?

Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:34:24] It provides a potent means of targeting the carrier. But a carrier is inherently an extremely difficult target to prosecute. It’s mobile. A US carrier will be moving hundreds of miles a day. The maritime environment is inherently dynamic, and to find, fix, track and target a carrier is difficult. You need a very robust supporting kill chain or intelligence surveillance reconnaissance systems that can locate the carrier, keep track of it and help cue long range strike systems onto it. And those systems can be targeted kinetically so reconnaissance aircraft can be shot down. They can be targeted for electronic warfare and cyber means. So the system can be disrupted in a in a variety of means. But. Assuming that it’s still functioning, the adversary can launch a hypersonic missile, which because it travels so much quicker than a long range than other subsonic long range strike systems, the time a subsonic cruise missile would take to travel, say, 600 miles in an hour. A hypersonic missile can do in, say, ten minutes. So because it’s compressing the time that it takes to travel to the target, it means that the carrier and its strike group have a much shorter window in which to detect, track and engage the incoming threat. So that is why hypersonic weapons are seen as posing such a challenge to time critical targets such such as an aircraft carrier.

Chuck Warren: [00:36:07] You need people who think on their feet.

Sam Stone: [00:36:09] Yeah. One of one of your recent articles on that same point, it’s not just compressing the time that a carrier or carrier group has to deal with an incoming threat, But the potential for these missiles to be used in both conventional and nuclear configurations means that for political decision makers, these may compress the time in ways that really, really restrict their ability to react to a situation intelligently. Right.

Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:36:39] Yes, there’s always the problem with dual capable systems, that is weapon systems which are both nuclear and conventional, that when one is traveling towards you, you don’t know whether it is a nuclear weapon on its way or a conventional weapon. And that poses all sorts of challenges in terms of escalation control. Uh, for example, the Chinese DF 26 intermediate range ballistic missile is both conventional and nuclear. And if one is launched in the event of hostilities at Guam, uh, there is no way of telling until it detonates what warhead it it is carrying. So with any dual capable long range strike system that discern that, discerning whether it is nuclear or conventional is a particular problem. And, uh, certainly hypersonic missiles would be would be no different. And, uh. The Russian Kinzhal system, which is being employed against Ukraine, is a dual capable system. And. It’s likely that other hypersonic weapon systems will also be dual capable.

Chuck Warren: [00:37:56] With Dr. James Bosbotinis, he is a United Kingdom based specialist in Defence and International Affairs. He is co CEO of JB Associates, a geopolitical risk advisory. What have we learned about Russia’s military capabilities in Ukraine?

Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:38:13] We have learnt that pre-war assessments governing how Russian military modernisation efforts have proceeded over the past decade or so were. Overoptimistic, shall we say, the rush, the deep, deep structural flaws in the Russian military, which are reflective of the wider Russian state, have not been addressed. The Russian. The Russian military. Has. Made fundamental errors. For example. In the employment of the ballistic and cruise missile forces. They spent 20 plus years developing a doctrine of how to employ these. And when war broke out, they didn’t actually use them as they had written about how they would use them, which was extremely fortunate for Ukraine. The Russians haven’t conducted large scale combined arms training. Their air force does not train to anywhere near the level of Western air forces. They haven’t developed the joint command structures, all various issues. Their logistics system is, as we have seen.

Sam Stone: [00:39:39] When I was about 11 years old, I had a chance to visit still the Soviet Union, and we were there with a group of writers who were it was the start of glasnost. They were talking about some of the environmental damage. We came back. Everyone was plowed drunk one night from a Georgian restaurant in Moscow. One of the big writers in front of us was trying to open his door to his hotel room. He fell into the door, the door frame and all fell into the room, splintered apart. He rolls over, laughing. He looks back at us and says, And you were afraid of our missiles. I think that in certain sense still describes the nature of Soviet manufacturing and weapons propaganda.

Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:40:14] Yes, a lot of Russian weapons systems are not anywhere near to the same standard of equivalent Western missile systems or other weapon systems. On the other hand, they’re the they’re long range strike systems. They’re iskandar’s. They’re cruise missiles, for example. They have worked uh, it’s a question more of the human element in how in how the weapons are employed rather than the actual effect themselves. When a when an Iskander hits a target, it is detonating and it is causing damage and their cruise missiles have proved devastating. But the Russians, instead of launching these weapons at critical national infrastructure targets at the start of the war. Air defense systems, command and control facilities, they used them against civilian targets and firing, for the most part, firing a ballistic missile or a cruise missile against a civilian apartment block is apart from being an absolute war crime, it’s also a complete waste of a weapon system. So they didn’t actually employ their systems, right? Had they employed them differently, we could have seen a very different. Progression of the conflict.

Sam Stone: [00:41:35] Do you think that’s partially because they were trying to simply get the Ukrainian people to force a capitulation at that point? Or because that seems like the only reason you do that instead of targeting military assets.

Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:41:50] Yes, indeed. The operational planning was guided by completely false assumptions. The Russian government, the Russian government thought that a Ukrainian resistance would collapse after about three days and the Ukrainian people would simply greet the Russians with open with open arms. And so perhaps they thought that there’s no need to conduct air strikes against infrastructure targets. Yeah. Dr..

Sam Stone: [00:42:20] Dr. James Bosbotinis is a UK based specialist in defense and international affairs, particularly focus on maritime and Air Force development. Dr. How do folks follow you and your work?

Dr James Bosbotinis: [00:42:29] I’m on Twitter, I’m on LinkedIn. I write on a freelance basis for a variety of publications.

Sam Stone: [00:42:36] We appreciate you having having you on the program here today. I want to bring you back on again in the future. Thank you so much. We’re running out of time here in the program, Dr.. But I very much appreciate your time this morning. Well, welcome to the podcast. Only segment of breaking battlegrounds. Want to say thank you to both of our guests today, Congressman Dusty Johnson and Dr. James Bosbotinis. Good discussions there from both of them, Chuck. But there’s obviously some really big news kind of stirring the country right now. Broke last night with the indictment of Donald Trump on a number of charges, which are frankly hard to deny that that he did do those things. And it’s hard, hard to say he didn’t commit a crime, on the other hand. The prosecution. I have a real issue with the prosecution of Donald Trump. When you’re not prosecuting Hillary Clinton, when you’re not prosecuting everyone else who’s taken the documents, it’s this way.

Chuck Warren: [00:43:40] It’s again, a double standard. And that’s the problem with it. You know what? I understand and this could be wrong, is he was contacted by our archives and he delivered in January 20th, 22, 15 boxes of documents that they said should not have been taken from the White House. So he gave those back. And then through tips or something, I don’t know. It’s a little unclear. He supposedly had more documents and that’s hence we end up getting a raid in August. So the question is, you know, what they’re saying is different versus other people is that when he was approached about it or confronted however you want to term it, he sort of dug his heels on some documents. Now, again, you and I have discussed this. I have always believed that there was such chaos in that White House in the last days that who knows what’s packing those boxes, right? Well, yeah. I mean I mean, who knows? I mean, stuff gets thrown in boxes all the time. I mean, they’re talking about finding pictures within there and Newsweek and and magazines. So it tells me this wasn’t a really well conceived conspiracy to take documents. So the question is, I think.

Sam Stone: [00:44:52] They were just throwing everything in the offices in boxes and moving.

Chuck Warren: [00:44:55] Out the door. And I think and I think they’re going fast because they were disputing 2020. So I think that was their focus plus running the country. And then I think, oh my goodness, it’s Sunday and we got to leave Tuesday or whatever. And but I.

Sam Stone: [00:45:07] Also don’t think that’s terribly different than what ends up getting taken out of there by every previous president. Yeah.

Chuck Warren: [00:45:13] And and that’s what I just don’t know. I really wish they would tell us what these documents supposedly are that are endangering national security.

Sam Stone: [00:45:19] I mean, my problem with that is claiming it’s endangering national security at all, because at the end of the day, Donald Trump is not some foreign asset or weapon that whole narrative has been garbage. If anything, he kept these things for ego. You know, I mean, it’s as many presidents do, have a giant ego and they want to be able to, you know, show people after their career this letter they got from the president of France or whatever.

Chuck Warren: [00:45:46] Well, there’s going to be so much more to come. Again, it does show why Hillary Clinton is not biased, why DOJ is protecting Hunter Biden. These are concerning matters. And if you’re going to apply the rule of law, I want it to be applied. Even Steven, I don’t want you to be picking who you decide should be prosecuted and who should not. And right now, I think this is the problem for DOJ. Now, I think it’s really funny. Look, if you prosecuted.

Sam Stone: [00:46:17] Clinton, I would have no problem with them.

Chuck Warren: [00:46:19] Prosecuting. I think I think a real funny thing is here’s the Biden administration saying we didn’t know anything about it till we saw the indictment come through. Oh, come on. Just just I mean, just it’s just better say I don’t know. It’s just such a lie. And the thing is, it puts when they do that.

Sam Stone: [00:46:32] Well, they can’t be honest because they’re using the DOJ to target their political adversary.

Chuck Warren: [00:46:36] So if you are a Trump supporter or are you inclined to believe the government is doing rotten things, making a statement like that, people like, come on, of course you know about this, right? And so it will be interesting. You know, we still have the investigation of January 6th. We still have the Georgia investigation, which I’d be surprised if indictments don’t come out of that. I mean.

Sam Stone: [00:47:01] They’re going to.

Chuck Warren: [00:47:02] It’s a big it’s a becoming. Is it becoming just such white noise now that people are ignoring it? That’s my.

Sam Stone: [00:47:08] Question. It’s white noise right up until the point where they actually convict him and lock him up. I mean, which they’re really threatening, like lengthy prison sentences with some of this. Yeah. I mean, so we’ll see how this plays out. But I got to say, I mean, yeah, I agree. He broke the law and there should not there should be consequences when you break the law. But on the other hand, if the consequences apply only to one side, then you don’t have a law.

Chuck Warren: [00:47:31] You just. Well, that’s.

Chuck Warren: [00:47:32] Well, that’s that’s not rule of law. Yeah. And that’s the problem with it. So, you know, it’s got to be clearly implemented for everybody or not at all. And that’s what apparently that’s not what we’re even at. We’re just like we’re going to depending who the political party opponent is, we’re prosecuting.

Sam Stone: [00:47:48] So this is this is a really politicized federal law enforcement and DOJ right now. And it’s really damaging to.

Chuck Warren: [00:47:54] It really needs to be cleaned up. It would be I would truly be interested in Congress passing something about some sort of lack of a better term term limits in the DOJ.

Sam Stone: [00:48:07] Yeah, absolutely.

Chuck Warren: [00:48:09] Something has to be done. It’s too entrenched with bureaucratic attorneys.

Sam Stone: [00:48:12] Well, you know what I was thinking about the other night and I didn’t realize it at the time, but I remember some of these articles from the time period Clinton towards the end of his term, and then Obama went big with this. They didn’t place people leaving their administration in your typical political appointee positions. They got them jobs inside the bureaucracy in all these agencies. And now we’re seeing the the fruit of having ceded all the federal agencies with political Democrat political activists rather than people who were there to actually do the job. They are infiltrated in every bureaucracy from the mid levels up. Right. And that’s a hard thing to dis entrench.

Chuck Warren: [00:48:54] Exactly. Exactly.

Sam Stone: [00:48:56] You’re talking about trenches switching topics here, Chuck, But there was a big announcement recently by the governor of Arizona about our water situation here, where they project a 4% deficit in water over the next hundred years.

Chuck Warren: [00:49:11] How much was.

Sam Stone: [00:49:11] It? 4% over 100 years. So we’re not talking end of the world stuff. But the way they did the press conference, it certainly made it sound that way. And they made a big announcement about we’re going to stop new construction in Arizona. Now, what they meant was new construction outside of areas served by water grids. Right. If you’re on the Phoenix Water or Tucson Water, Flagstaff, water, whatever, that wasn’t what they were talking about. But the way they present it, I really believe the environmentalist movement is pushing for planet wide population reduction. They don’t want any new growth. They don’t want any of this stuff. And this governor fell in this trap. And all week long I’ve been dealing with businesses from across the country going, hey, we were considering Arizona. We don’t think that’s viable. Now, if what your governor just said, they botched this thing from top to bottom. Katie Hobbs is utterly incompetent when it comes to handling the routine business of government, because you could have put this out in a press release with nothing else, instituted the exact same policy. We’re not going to allow growth in these wildcat areas where you don’t have water. That’s that is smart policy. Right. But the implementation of it and how she went about it. So Ham handed that it’s literally hurt the state of Arizona and that ties to what we’re talking with Congressman Johnson. Look, the solution to all of this. The entire US Southwest needs water enhancements. We need new water, whether from the Snake River to the north, the Mississippi, Missouri’s to the east or from the Gulf of Mexico, You.

Chuck Warren: [00:50:44] Know, And the.

Chuck Warren: [00:50:45] Technology is there to.

Sam Stone: [00:50:45] Do it. Yeah, it is. But the problem.

Chuck Warren: [00:50:47] Is you’re gonna have a bunch of environmentalists sue, which you’re going to delay at 10 to 20 years. And this is literally issues you can resolve in two years.

Sam Stone: [00:50:54] It absolutely is. And that’s the other point we brought. I brought this up with one of the other congressmen we’ve had on the program. But I don’t understand why we don’t just declare if something is environmentally beneficial and taking the southwest off of groundwater and off of river water would be massively environmentally beneficial. Augmenting our river water, taking us off of groundwater would help the environment here tremendously, period. No question. In that case, why? Why are these why are they allowed to sue on Nepa or any of this other stuff? The project should go forward. You just do the engineering reviews and you’re done.

Chuck Warren: [00:51:31] Well, it should be like something. Eminent domain. Yeah, that’s.

Sam Stone: [00:51:33] What I mean.

Chuck Warren: [00:51:34] Come on in. And just this needs to be done and it’s just ridiculous.

Sam Stone: [00:51:37] Like in this case, Look, all your lawsuits. No, you know, we don’t even entertain those things in this type of situation because it is an issue of national security and safety for our citizens here in the southwest and to have an assured water supply.

Chuck Warren: [00:51:49] And it helps the environment.

Sam Stone: [00:51:51] And it helps the environment.

Chuck Warren: [00:51:52] Yeah. What do you say? You support helping the environment, but you’re fighting something that can absolutely help the environment, right?

Sam Stone: [00:51:59] That that is the ridiculousness of the modern environmental movement, which to me is frankly just a eugenicist movement in hiding.

Chuck Warren: [00:52:07] Let’s finish one last topic here. The Tampa Bay Rays are a third through the season and they are almost 30 games above 500.

Sam Stone: [00:52:16] Chuck, I’m a Red Sox fan and this is the podcast segment, so I can say what I really feeling right now, which is fuck you, man. Seriously, they are. No, they’re amazing.

Chuck Warren: [00:52:25] They’re amazing. They are an amazing organization.

Sam Stone: [00:52:28] What they do with no money, I mean, no money.

Chuck Warren: [00:52:32] And you sort of get the sense the Diamondbacks have taken a page from them, what they’ve building up on their farm system.

Sam Stone: [00:52:36] I’ve said for years, if you if you watched and do what Tampa does, but just add a little money to the mix where you can keep some of your best players from time to time and you don’t watch them go to the Padres. That’s that’s the that’s the formula.

Chuck Warren: [00:52:49] I agree.

Chuck Warren: [00:52:49] I agree.

Sam Stone: [00:52:50] Well, in which the Diamondbacks can go lock up Corbin Carroll right now.

Chuck Warren: [00:52:55] Well, they have, haven’t they.

Sam Stone: [00:52:56] Did they? Yeah. Did I miss.

Chuck Warren: [00:52:57] That? Was that the ten year deal?

Chuck Warren: [00:52:59] I don’t. Corbin Carroll? Yeah.

Chuck Warren: [00:53:00] Corbin Carroll, ten years.

Sam Stone: [00:53:01] We’re looking at the girl in the studio who’s getting married to a professional ballplayer. And she doesn’t.

Chuck Warren: [00:53:05] She knows.

Chuck Warren: [00:53:05] Nothing. She knows nothing. Corbin She hasn’t.

Sam Stone: [00:53:08] Even given us an update on the Idaho murders.

Chuck Warren: [00:53:10] I believe. I believe Corbin Carroll signed a ten year deal. That’s what everybody’s been going on about early. They just tied him in. So. Okay.

Sam Stone: [00:53:15] Well, thank goodness for that. Yeah.

Chuck Warren: [00:53:17] By the way, anything before we close off on the Idaho murders that we should be aware of?

Kiley Kipper: [00:53:20] No, not too much. I think they had like a few 20 days ago or something like that. They had 60 days to determine if he was going to get the death penalty or not. And then Brian Kielburger has now come out and said that he doesn’t want cameras in the courtroom. So now that’s the whole hot discussion is like, well, then let’s have them, because why does he not want why do we care what he says?

Speaker4: [00:53:40] Chuck.

Sam Stone: [00:53:41] You okay with the death penalty? In this case?

Chuck Warren: [00:53:44] I’m always okay of the death penalty.

Speaker4: [00:53:46] It’s a rare.

Chuck Warren: [00:53:47] Exception that I’m not okay with the death penalty.

Sam Stone: [00:53:50] And that’s the final.

Sam Stone: [00:53:51] Word today from Chuck.

Chuck Warren: [00:53:54] Maybe with those 9% shoplifters you wrote about.

Sam Stone: [00:53:56] Oh, yeah. No, we can start with them for sure.

Sam Stone: [00:53:59] Right?

Sam Stone: [00:54:00] Retail theft off with his head.

Chuck Warren: [00:54:03] Sam, closing here. How much does it cost the average American annually for shoplifting?

Sam Stone: [00:54:07] Yeah. So go go on. Our substack folks, because we ran the numbers on this Capital One putting out a survey and then I broke the numbers down $318 per person.

Chuck Warren: [00:54:17] That’s probably.

Chuck Warren: [00:54:17] Undercounted and.

Sam Stone: [00:54:18] That’s undercounted. If you read the article, you realize that’s the direct cross from the losses that they’re taking from shoplifting. Then you add in all the additional security, the other measures that they’re putting in place. Those things all cost money, too. There’s probably a lot, as we saw with Lululemon, that’s not reported because of politics, essentially where they’re fired, two employees for even just reporting a theft to the police. I doubt they’re reporting their numbers accurately and probably there’s a bunch like them. This might be a $5,600 per person a year tax is what we’re facing.

Chuck Warren: [00:54:53] Well, and folks, if you are purchasing from Lululemon, realize there is a shoplifting tax assessed on your clothing, whether whether they listed or itemized it or not, you’re paying for.

Sam Stone: [00:55:03] It before they go to Lululemon, though, Chuck, and this is a free plug. Isn’t your former assistants, Katrina, doesn’t she have a a clothing line or company that she.

Chuck Warren: [00:55:12] Works with a clothing line in Salt Lake knowing the ownership, they will not tolerate shoplifting.

Chuck Warren: [00:55:17] So okay.

Sam Stone: [00:55:18] What’s the name? Do we do you know? Do I know?

Chuck Warren: [00:55:21] We’ll tell We’ll put.

Chuck Warren: [00:55:22] It on our social.

Sam Stone: [00:55:23] On our substack. Yeah. Hey, look. Good opportunity to pay pay for a product from someone who actually feels the way you do.

Chuck Warren: [00:55:29] Exactly. Well, folks, we hope you have a great weekend. We hope you enjoyed our guests today, both wonderful people to have on the show and we hope you share it. You can download our podcast, go to breaking battlegrounds, dot vote, share it, rate it. We’d appreciate it. Help our audience grow. Have a great weekend.


Signup for our Monthly Newsletter

breaking battlegrounds logo

Thank You !

You will start receiving updates right here in your inbox.