BBCNEWS — The Context USA
20260915 190000 UTC
501 transcript segments
Original Broadcaster Captioning (Enhanced)
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:07] MUSIC
[00:00:16] Hello and welcome to The
[00:00:18] Context USA with me Caitriona Perry Perry in Washington. And with me,
[00:00:21] me, Ben Brown here in London and
[00:00:23] and this hour the US military confirms
[00:00:25] confirms for the first time that that it has deployed weapons in space.
[00:00:29] space. I went to the US Space Force
[00:00:32] Force in Colorado last year and they
[00:00:34] they made clear that they were going
[00:00:37] going to defend their interests in
[00:00:40] in space. Pentagon leadership under under the spotlight. New information
[00:00:44] information on the cost of the US US war with Iran. While the Secretary
[00:00:47] Secretary of Defence is threatened threatened with impeachment by a
[00:00:51] a Republican congressman. The Secretary Secretary Hegseth has acted in a
[00:00:55] a manner contrary to his trust as
[00:00:57] as Secretary of Defence and subversive subversive of constitutional government.
[00:01:01] government. Plus, the head of European European Parliament's defence committee
[00:01:05] committee will be joining us live live on the programme after warnings
[00:01:08] warnings from Lithuanian leaders leaders that the war in Ukraine is
[00:01:11] is spreading. Nato forces shoot down
[00:01:13] down a Russian drone over Lithuania.
[00:01:15] Lithuania. We seek no conflict with
[00:01:18] with Russia. We are a purely defensive defensive alliance and I think I
[00:01:22] I make that clear. But we can't pretend
[00:01:24] pretend we are not seeing what Russia
[00:01:27] Russia is doing. Joining us on our
[00:01:29] our panel, Matthew Foldi editor in in chief of The Washington reporter
[00:01:33] reporter and Chris Maher, former former assistant to the Secretary
[00:01:36] Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs
[00:01:38] Affairs and former White House deputy
[00:01:41] deputy press secretary. Hello. You're
[00:01:52] You're very welcome to The Context Context USA now for the first time,
[00:01:55] time, the US military has confirmed
[00:01:58] confirmed that it has deployed weapons weapons into space to protect itself
[00:02:01] itself from what it's calling hostile hostile adversary action. It's being
[00:02:05] being called a landmark moment in in the growing militarisation of
[00:02:08] of space. Yes, the announcement came came from the US Secretary of the
[00:02:11] the Air Force, who was speaking at
[00:02:13] at a space and cyber conference. conference. Well, in response to
[00:02:17] to what he said, both China and Russia
[00:02:19] Russia issued statements of condemnation condemnation even though they are
[00:02:23] are widely both thought to be part
[00:02:25] part of a new arms race in space. space. Russia said it was calling
[00:02:28] calling for space to be kept free free from weapons, while China said
[00:02:32] said it opposed what it called the
[00:02:34] the weaponization of outer space. space. Space said China should not
[00:02:38] not be turned into a battlefield.
[00:02:41] battlefield. China has. Always been been committed to the peaceful use
[00:02:44] use of outer space and safeguarding safeguarding security in outer space.
[00:02:47] space. We urge the US to stop its its military build up and war preparations
[00:02:51] preparations in outer space, and
[00:02:52] and take concrete actions to safeguard
[00:02:55] safeguard global strategic stability.
[00:02:59] stability. So that was China's view. view. Let's talk to Clayton Swope,
[00:03:03] Swope, who's deputy director of the
[00:03:06] the Aerospace Security Project and and a senior fellow in the Defence
[00:03:09] Defence and security department at at the centre for Strategic and International International Studies. Good to have
[00:03:13] have you with us. I mean, first of of all, I suppose people might be
[00:03:17] be asking, well, A, what kind of of weapons does America have in space?
[00:03:20] space? And B, why are they announcing
[00:03:23] announcing this now? Well, Ben, I'm I'm asking the same question. We
[00:03:26] We don't know what kind of weapon weapon that the US has in space.
[00:03:30] space. It's just that the US has has a weapon. It's similar to saying
[00:03:33] saying we have a weapon at sea. We
[00:03:35] We have a weapon on land. There could
[00:03:38] could be a lot of different types types of weapons that we're talking talking about here. When we talk
[00:03:42] talk about counterspace weapons, weapons, space control weapons, we
[00:03:44] we usually think about kinetic weapons. weapons. These are weapons like a
[00:03:48] a missile that might be shot from from a satellite at another satellite
[00:03:51] satellite to destroy it or disable disable it. They might be jamming
[00:03:54] jamming and spoofing of signals. signals. It might even be something something like a laser that's meant
[00:03:58] meant to dazzle the sensor of another another satellite. So it really runs
[00:04:02] runs the gamut of type of weapons weapons that we're talking about.
[00:04:04] about. But really what is significant significant is just that the US has
[00:04:08] has said we have weapons in space,
[00:04:10] space, period. And we heard, as I I mentioned, their condemnation from
[00:04:13] from China and Russia. But I mean, mean, the assumption is they're also
[00:04:17] also trying to get weapons in space, space, even if they don't have them,
[00:04:21] them, they're already. When it comes
[00:04:24] comes to Russia, it's really not not an assumption. Going back to
[00:04:26] to the Soviet Union during the 60s,
[00:04:29] 60s, the Soviets were developing developing technology co-orbital
[00:04:33] co-orbital anti-satellite weapons, weapons, which would shoot out projectiles
[00:04:37] projectiles at other satellites to
[00:04:38] to disable them. And Russia has continued continued testing technology like
[00:04:42] like that. The United States and and allies routinely call out Russia
[00:04:45] Russia for tests that we all see see from the earth. It's very apparent
[00:04:48] apparent what happens when Russia
[00:04:50] Russia is testing co-orbital kinetic kinetic anti-satellite technology.
[00:04:54] technology. I think with China it's it's a little more murky. We don't
[00:04:57] don't quite know what China has on on orbit when it comes to weapons.
[00:05:01] weapons. We do know China tests a a lot of technologies that are dual
[00:05:05] dual use. They could serve a civilian
[00:05:07] civilian purpose like debris removal removal or satellite servicing, but
[00:05:10] but they could also serve as weapons. weapons. So China clearly has the
[00:05:14] the technology to have weapons on on orbit. And it's really just a
[00:05:17] a matter of intention, is that technology technology intended as a weapon or
[00:05:20] or is it intended for a civilian civilian purpose? And that intention
[00:05:23] intention could could flip in an an instant. So is there a kind of
[00:05:26] of arms race in space at the moment?
[00:05:28] moment? How important is space militarily militarily between these sort of
[00:05:32] of rival powers? Yeah, that's a really really interesting question. I think
[00:05:35] think if you look back to the earliest earliest days of the space race,
[00:05:39] race, really the first human made made object into space, not into
[00:05:42] into orbit, but just into space. space. This was a V-2 missile test
[00:05:46] test in June 1944 from Germany. So So really from the start, it's hard
[00:05:49] hard to separate the military use use of space with a civilian and
[00:05:53] and peaceful use of space. Space Space has always played a strong
[00:05:56] strong military and defence role role throughout the Cold War. You You know, the things that maybe are
[00:05:59] are different today is that you do do have more activities in space
[00:06:02] space that are not just government
[00:06:03] government activities. It's an area
[00:06:06] area of economic growth and commerce. commerce. People want to make money
[00:06:10] money in space. People are flying flying satellites in space. Companies
[00:06:13] Companies are not just governments. governments. So you've kind of created created more of a diverse environment
[00:06:16] environment that looks like the land. land. It looks like what's happening happening on earth. So it's a lot
[00:06:20] lot more complicated than it was was in the early days of the space
[00:06:23] space race, when humans first went went into orbit. So really that's that's the change there. But this
[00:06:27] this idea that we're now just using using space for military purposes,
[00:06:31] purposes, that's just not correct. correct. It's a trend that has been been going on for a very long time.
[00:06:35] time. All right. Well, good to get
[00:06:37] get your expert analysis then of of where we are with weapons in space.
[00:06:40] space. That's Clayton Swope deputy deputy director of the Aerospace
[00:06:44] Aerospace Security Project. Thank
[00:06:45] Thank you very much. Well, let's
[00:06:49] let's bring in our panellists Matthew Matthew Foldi editor in chief of
[00:06:52] of the Washington reporter and a a former congressional candidate
[00:06:55] candidate in Maryland. And Chris Chris Maher, former Pentagon spokesperson
[00:06:59] spokesperson and former White House House deputy press secretary in the
[00:07:02] the Biden administration. Thanks Thanks to you both for being here,
[00:07:05] here, Chris, to you first, having
[00:07:07] having worked in the Pentagon, should
[00:07:10] should we be afraid, nervous, concerned concerned about this admission that
[00:07:13] that there are weapons now in
[00:07:18] space? Yeah, I'd say it's interesting. interesting. You know, the thing
[00:07:20] thing about our space operations
[00:07:23] operations is it's almost entirely
[00:07:25] entirely classified. And the United United States government, the Department
[00:07:29] Department of Defence doesn't often often talk about it. But the fact
[00:07:31] fact is the US has to be ready to
[00:07:34] to compete with adversaries in every every domain. That includes space.
[00:07:38] space. I think you've seen over the
[00:07:40] the last decade or so a real investment investment in that domain. That's
[00:07:44] That's why we have a combatant command, command, space command that's focused
[00:07:47] focused on space. It's why we have have an entire military branch, the
[00:07:51] the Space Force dedicated to space.
[00:07:53] space. It's essential to virtually
[00:07:56] virtually every military operation. operation. Now you have GPs, satellite
[00:08:00] satellite communications, missile missile warnings, a lot of missiles
[00:08:04] missiles fly through different orbits
[00:08:05] orbits in space. And so we need to
[00:08:10] to invest heavily in space capabilities
[00:08:13] capabilities because this is where
[00:08:15] where a lot of the sort of next fights
[00:08:18] fights might take place or what's what's happening in space might impact
[00:08:21] impact what's happening on the ground. ground. And Matthew, I mean, it's
[00:08:24] it's no surprise at all really that that the US military is doing this.
[00:08:27] this. Just as we were discussing discussing the Chinese and the Russian
[00:08:31] Russian military, as are too. But But I suppose what the surprise is
[00:08:34] is that the US military should talk talk about this. Why do you think
[00:08:37] think they have done that? It might might be a possible shot across the
[00:08:41] the bow. And I disagree with you you guys calling it a landmark. I
[00:08:43] I think it's more of a space mark
[00:08:45] mark here, but it definitely is.
[00:08:48] is. It's literally it's undoubtedly undoubtedly a huge deal. And I mean,
[00:08:51] mean, look at the end of the day, day, the difference is our government. government. Yes. While Chris is right,
[00:08:55] right, we probably want to keep some some of these things clandestine. clandestine. We live in an open society
[00:08:59] society with the free press, whereas whereas who's really angry about
[00:09:01] about this right now? China, Russia,
[00:09:04] Russia, these are countries that that are probably working on it. it. Think about what happened with
[00:09:08] with AI. No one had ever heard of of DeepSeek. And then all of a sudden
[00:09:11] sudden China says, hey world, here's here's a free AI tool that's definitely
[00:09:14] definitely not spyware that you can can install on your laptops. They're
[00:09:18] They're definitely both working on
[00:09:19] on this as well. China may be too
[00:09:22] too busy building islands in the
[00:09:25] the Pacific, and Russia may be too
[00:09:27] too busy killing people in Ukraine,
[00:09:30] Ukraine, killing civilians to be
[00:09:32] be focusing on the space race. But
[00:09:34] But remember back in the 80s when
[00:09:37] when Trump's political ideology was was being formed, when he was first
[00:09:40] first looking at running for office, office, Ronald Reagan was building
[00:09:43] building out Star Wars. He was mocked mocked for this. But this is widely
[00:09:46] widely credited for helping to ultimately ultimately bankrupt the Soviet Union
[00:09:50] Union and also prepare America for for the 21st century. I think the
[00:09:53] the other point that's really important important here is the dual use capability
[00:09:57] capability of technology. Think about about Starlink, for example. That's
[00:10:01] That's not a military technology. technology. But when I was in Ukraine
[00:10:04] Ukraine earlier this year, we were were getting shelled or drone struck.
[00:10:08] struck. Obviously I lived by Russians. Russians. One of the things that that the Ukrainian military was emphasising
[00:10:12] emphasising to the group that I was
[00:10:14] was with is they want Starlink access
[00:10:16] access into Russia so that they can can use it to aim their missiles.
[00:10:20] missiles. So the same technology technology Starlink that I used when
[00:10:23] when I was in a jungle in Rwanda Rwanda to be able to send emails,
[00:10:27] emails, can also have a very clear clear and obvious military purpose.
[00:10:30] purpose. That said, the Trump administration administration is saying, yeah, we
[00:10:33] we have weapons in space. I think think that this is sort of the f
[00:10:37] f a faux muscular foreign policy policy that we see from Trump a lot
[00:10:39] lot of the time now extended to infinity
[00:10:44] infinity and beyond. And Chris, does does it raise other questions about
[00:10:48] about jurisdiction, as in, who owns
[00:10:50] owns the space in space, if you like, like, if people can countries can
[00:10:54] can just send up weapon systems or
[00:10:56] or defence systems as the case may
[00:10:59] may be. Yeah for sure. And you know,
[00:11:03] know, I there's questions about space
[00:11:07] space debris when when and if you
[00:11:09] you know, a satellite from an adversary adversary strikes one of our satellites
[00:11:12] satellites and it blows up. So there's there's a lot of different considerations
[00:11:15] considerations here. I think Matthew
[00:11:18] Matthew landed on an important point point that this announcement could
[00:11:21] could very well be about strengthening strengthening our deterrence. You
[00:11:25] You know, I don't know that the goal
[00:11:27] goal is to militarise space. It's It's to prevent conflict from spreading
[00:11:31] spreading there. And the US making
[00:11:34] making clear that we have assets
[00:11:36] assets up there that can take the
[00:11:39] the battle to the adversary and that that attacking American space assets
[00:11:43] assets could carry consequences while while establishing, you know, channels
[00:11:47] channels to reduce that that miscalculation.
[00:11:51] miscalculation. I think that's probably probably an important point for the
[00:11:54] the United States military to make
[00:11:56] make to some of our adversaries as
[00:11:58] as we're contemplating this new frontier. frontier. All right. Well, Chris
[00:12:02] Chris and Matthew, thank you for for those opening thoughts and remarks.
[00:12:06] remarks. We're going to take a short short break. We're going to be talking
[00:12:08] talking actually about defence matters matters here on earth, specifically
[00:12:11] specifically to do with the Pentagon Pentagon and Defence Secretary Pete
[00:12:14] Pete Hegseth. In just a moment. We'll We'll be back in a
[00:13:18] broadcaster compete with the global global streaming giants. That's all
[00:13:21] all on The Media Show on BBC News.
[00:13:29] News. You're watching The Context Context USA on BBC News Now. The
[00:13:32] The US Defence Secretary of War Secretary
[00:13:34] Secretary Pete Hegseth is no stranger stranger to controversy. And today,
[00:13:38] today, on the floor of the US House House of Representatives, Republican
[00:13:42] Republican Congressman Thomas Massie Massie has introduced a resolution
[00:13:45] resolution to impeach the secretary.
[00:13:48] secretary. Yeah, he accuses Mr Hegseth
[00:13:50] Hegseth of defying Congress and illegally illegally continuing the US war in
[00:13:53] in Iran. The resolution also takes
[00:13:56] takes aim at the Defence Secretary Secretary over American military
[00:13:59] military operations in both Yemen Yemen and in Venezuela. It claims
[00:14:02] claims Pete Hegseth illegally directed directed the operation to capture
[00:14:06] capture the Venezuelan president, president, Nicolas Maduro. Without
[00:14:10] Without congressional approval. As As secretary, Hegseth has acted in
[00:14:13] in a manner contrary to his trust
[00:14:16] trust as Secretary of Defence and and subversive of constitutional
[00:14:19] constitutional government to the the great prejudice of the cause cause of law and justice and to the
[00:14:23] the manifest entry of the people
[00:14:24] people of the United States. Wherefore,
[00:14:28] Wherefore, Secretary of Defence Peter Peter Hegseth, by such conduct has has demonstrated that he will remain
[00:14:32] remain a threat to the Constitution Constitution if allowed to remain
[00:14:34] remain in office and has acted in in a manner grossly incompatible incompatible with his duties and
[00:14:38] and the rule of law. Peter Brian Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment
[00:14:42] impeachment and trial removal from from office and disqualification
[00:14:45] disqualification to hold and enjoy enjoy any office of honour, trust
[00:14:48] trust or profit under the United
[00:14:50] United States. Now we're going to to be talking about a new report
[00:14:54] report on spending at the Pentagon Pentagon in just a few moments, but
[00:14:57] but let's bring our panellists in in here on this issue of potentially
[00:15:01] potentially the impeachment of Pete Pete Hegseth. Matthew Foldi and Chris
[00:15:04] Chris Meagher are with us. Matthew, Matthew, we saw earlier in the year
[00:15:07] year Democrats launch articles of of impeachment against Pete Hegseth
[00:15:10] Hegseth as well. And now coming from from a Republican congressman, could
[00:15:13] could he be in trouble here? Could Could we see impeachment proceedings
[00:15:17] proceedings against him? No, I don't
[00:15:21] don't think so. And for our viewers viewers across the pond, you got
[00:15:23] got to understand Thomas Massie is
[00:15:27] is basically persona non grata with
[00:15:29] with both his fellow House Republicans Republicans and with the Trump administration.
[00:15:33] administration. What this will probably probably do because we live in an
[00:15:36] an era of reverse polarisation is
[00:15:39] is ingratiate Hegseth to Trump even even more. Trump and his allies poured
[00:15:43] poured millions and millions of dollars, dollars, one of the most expensive
[00:15:46] expensive House primaries ever in
[00:15:49] in successfully defeating Massie Massie in a Republican primary earlier
[00:15:52] earlier this year, there had been been halfhearted efforts in the past,
[00:15:55] past, but almost the entire organised organised Republican Party this year
[00:15:59] year said it's finally time to get get rid of Thomas Massie. He would
[00:16:01] would vote with Democrats on almost almost every single procedural issue.
[00:16:04] issue. So now, in his final weeks
[00:16:06] weeks in office, he's launching a
[00:16:09] a crusade of sorts against Pete Hegseth. Hegseth. What will be interesting
[00:16:12] interesting to see if this comes comes to a vote, which it probably probably won't, is what level of
[00:16:15] of support you see from Democrats Democrats on this prior to our election,
[00:16:19] election, because an open question question that we face heading into
[00:16:21] into the mid-terms is Democrats are
[00:16:23] are trying to figure out how they
[00:16:26] they message their probable plans
[00:16:28] plans to impeach Trump while also
[00:16:31] also saying, hey, voters, we're going going to be responsible. We're going going to focus on affordability,
[00:16:35] affordability, not on impeaching impeaching Trump and his cabinet. cabinet. This is actually, I think,
[00:16:38] think, going to be more of a difficult difficult issue for Democrats to
[00:16:42] to navigate. Republicans will just just brush this aside very quickly.
[00:16:46] quickly. Chris, is this really just
[00:16:48] just a bit of a political stunt?
[00:16:52] stunt? Yeah, I mean, I think the
[00:16:55] the timing and as Matthew sort of
[00:16:57] of laid out, a lot of the context
[00:17:00] context around Congressman Massie,
[00:17:01] Massie, you know, I think it'll be
[00:17:04] be interesting Republicans to sort sort of flip the conversation. Republicans,
[00:17:07] Republicans, in theory, I think,
[00:17:08] think, have enough votes to defeat
[00:17:12] defeat this idea, this proposal.
[00:17:14] proposal. But it could be a complicated
[00:17:16] complicated vote for some members
[00:17:18] members and competitive, competitive,
[00:17:21] competitive, elected election districts.
[00:17:23] districts. Here we are 49 days away away from the primary. You know,
[00:17:26] know, this war is and continues to
[00:17:30] to be incredibly unpopular among
[00:17:33] among the American public. It's contributed
[00:17:35] contributed to rising costs in the the United States and made things
[00:17:39] things more expensive for people. people. And people have made that
[00:17:41] that direct connection between the
[00:17:43] the two. So how Republicans line
[00:17:48] line up on that issue will be interesting interesting should this actually
[00:17:51] actually come to vote on the House House floor? Well, we're going to
[00:17:53] to talk about the costs of the war war with Iran right now, actually.
[00:17:56] actually. And today we got a slightly
[00:17:58] slightly clearer sense of what those
[00:18:00] those costs might amount to. Indeed,
[00:18:05] Indeed, because President Trump has, has, of course, long maintained that
[00:18:08] that the US has virtually endless endless stores of the resources that
[00:18:12] that it needs in warfare. He's always
[00:18:15] always talking about the strength strength of the US military. But
[00:18:18] But for the first time, the Pentagon's
[00:18:21] Pentagon's independent inspector inspector general has officially officially acknowledged that the
[00:18:24] the US seven month war with Iran
[00:18:26] Iran has created what it calls strategic
[00:18:30] strategic inventory shortfalls in in key munitions. Well, let's talk
[00:18:33] talk to our White House reporter reporter Bernd Debusmann, who has
[00:18:37] has been following this report today. today. Indeed lots of developments
[00:18:40] developments relating to the Department Department of Defence and the Pentagon
[00:18:44] Pentagon today. But on this point
[00:18:46] point of how much the war with Iran
[00:18:48] Iran has cost, what's this report
[00:18:51] report telling us? Well, the new
[00:18:55] new report from the inspector general general at the Pentagon put the price
[00:18:58] price tag for the war at over $33
[00:19:01] $33 billion. And of that, two thirds
[00:19:03] thirds are a result of expanded stockpiles, stockpiles, expended ammunition.
[00:19:06] ammunition. Now that's, as you mentioned, mentioned, very, very different than
[00:19:09] than what we've heard from President President Trump, from Defence Secretary
[00:19:11] Secretary Pete Hegseth and other other administration officials who
[00:19:15] who for months had said that the
[00:19:17] the US has enough munitions to continue
[00:19:20] continue the war if it so chose and and that it doesn't have any shortages
[00:19:23] shortages that might cause problems problems in other potential theatres
[00:19:26] theatres of war overseas. So you're you're seeing two very different different pictures of the cost of
[00:19:29] of this war from the administration administration and from the Pentagon's Pentagon's inspector general, and
[00:19:33] and a separate report from the Congressional Congressional Budget Office put the
[00:19:35] the price tag slightly higher at at $38 billion, taking into account
[00:19:39] account things like rising fuel prices prices and replacements for damaged
[00:19:43] damaged and destroyed aircraft. Now
[00:19:45] Now the other bit of information information that we learned today
[00:19:48] today in this report from the Inspector
[00:19:50] Inspector General is around the damage
[00:19:52] damage that has been caused to US US military infrastructure from this
[00:19:56] this war with Iran, from those Iranian Iranian retaliatory strikes, because
[00:20:00] because many commentators have been been questioning for months now trying
[00:20:03] trying to get answers as to what what has been the damage, what has
[00:20:06] has been the level of casualties, casualties, first of all, and how
[00:20:10] how many hits the US has sustained
[00:20:12] sustained on its bases in the region?
[00:20:15] region? Well, it did paint a very very expensive picture of aircraft
[00:20:19] aircraft and equipment losses in in this war. There was as many as
[00:20:22] as 30 predator drones that have been
[00:20:24] been lost and some very expensive
[00:20:27] expensive aircraft FF15 fighter jets
[00:20:29] jets and one F-35 fighter jet. Also, Also, there's $200 million in damage
[00:20:32] damage to US diplomatic facilities facilities in the Gulf from those
[00:20:35] those Iranian retaliatory strikes strikes and all that collectively collectively comes together along
[00:20:39] along with the expenditures of the the munitions to bring that quite
[00:20:43] quite high price tag on the war. war. But we've not heard anything
[00:20:46] anything yet from President Trump Trump or the administration itself itself about that discrepancy between
[00:20:49] between what they've been saying saying about equipment losses and and the cost of the war and what
[00:20:53] what the Pentagon's inspector general general has said. OK, Burns, thank
[00:20:57] thank you very much. That's Bernd Bernd Debusmann there are White House
[00:21:00] House reporter thank you for that
[00:21:01] that update. Let's go back to our
[00:21:04] our panel. Matthew Foldi and Chris
[00:21:06] Chris Meagher. Matthew, I mean, as as we were just hearing there that,
[00:21:10] that, you know, the Trump administration administration for months has been
[00:21:13] been denying any shortage of ammunitions. ammunitions. Now we're hearing there
[00:21:16] there is a strategic shortfall. What's
[00:21:18] What's going on? Well, when you're
[00:21:21] you're taking out the head of the the snake of global sponsorship of
[00:21:25] of terrorism, your munitions aren't aren't going to go up. They're going going to go down. So I think that's
[00:21:29] that's what's going on. And it's it's not just with Iran. We've been
[00:21:33] been sending missiles to Ukraine. Ukraine. A lot of those were antiquated
[00:21:36] antiquated Cold War era missiles missiles that we probably don't need.
[00:21:39] need. And we ourselves probably don't don't want to use anyway. I think
[00:21:42] think the solution here is to just just build more so that we don't
[00:21:45] don't have any strategic shortfall shortfall whatsoever. But think about
[00:21:48] about this. It was just the 25th
[00:21:50] 25th year anniversary of 9/11. We
[00:21:53] We have let Iran run amok, its regime regime with blood on its hands, American
[00:21:57] American blood on its hands, British British blood on its hands. For almost
[00:22:01] almost five decades. The bill was was going to come due for that at
[00:22:03] at some point. And it's cheaper now
[00:22:05] now to pay it than later. And think
[00:22:08] think back to February, when we launched launched the initial decapitation decapitation strikes. I think that
[00:22:12] that that cost, I don't know, $1.3
[00:22:14] $1.3 billion to take out the entire
[00:22:17] entire first tranche of Iranian leadership. leadership. Honestly, I think that's
[00:22:20] that's actually a pretty good ROI. ROI. This isn't going to be cheap,
[00:22:24] cheap, but the alternative of inaction inaction and letting these guys control
[00:22:27] control the Strait of Hormuz, which which we're seeing the whole world world depend on, is something that
[00:22:30] that we were going to have to pay pay for one way or another down the the road. Trump is just taking the
[00:22:34] the hits on it right now, but a future future American President was going
[00:22:37] going to have to deal with this. Can I just press you though? though? I mean, you say it's not
[00:22:40] not surprising there is a shortage shortage of munitions or shortfall,
[00:22:43] shortfall, as it's called. But then then why is the administration been
[00:22:46] been denying that for so long? Well,
[00:22:49] Well, I think this goes back to what what we were talking about at the
[00:22:52] the beginning with China and Russia Russia more or less denying that
[00:22:56] that they have ambitions in space. space. Well, look, we live in an
[00:22:59] an open society and open country. country. The Pentagon has failed
[00:23:02] failed every single audit for the the past seven years. And we have
[00:23:05] have a lot of transparency with that. that. You know, I just think that's
[00:23:08] that's what it comes down to is we
[00:23:11] we don't have the restrictions on
[00:23:13] on information that the UK and America America put in place in World War
[00:23:17] War II, for example, to keep up full
[00:23:20] full support for the war effort. effort. Honestly, I think it's great
[00:23:23] great as an American to see our government
[00:23:26] government being this potentially potentially detrimentally transparent,
[00:23:28] transparent, even though we are at at war with the leading global sponsor
[00:23:32] sponsor of terrorism. Look, I don't don't know why they've said we don't
[00:23:35] don't have a shortfall of munitions. munitions. It's a great question. question. I don't know the answer.
[00:23:38] answer. But now the solution moving moving forward is just build more. more. And that's what you see with
[00:23:42] with their prioritisation of reshoring reshoring of our own defence. That's
[00:23:46] That's very important moving forward. forward. And there is though a time
[00:23:50] time lag on, on rebuilding weapons weapons as we know. We've talked talked about that before. But Chris,
[00:23:53] Chris, is there a is there a management management question here in terms
[00:23:57] terms of as Matthew says, there is is a price when you mount a war,
[00:24:00] war, but if it leaves the US in a a place where it's perhaps not as
[00:24:04] as capable or not as ready, should
[00:24:06] should it have to defend itself in in another part of the world? Yes,
[00:24:10] Yes, of course. I mean, you have
[00:24:12] have to be planning for every contingency. contingency. It's very clear that
[00:24:16] that when Donald Trump decided to
[00:24:18] to enter into this war with Iran, Iran, that he thought he could put
[00:24:21] put an end to it within a couple couple of days. We're now several
[00:24:24] several months into the war. We're We're tens of billions of dollars
[00:24:27] dollars into it. And as discussed,
[00:24:29] discussed, we've used a lot of capabilities
[00:24:32] capabilities that we need to be stowing stowing away. You know, we're discovering,
[00:24:35] discovering, you know, there's a a lot of talk about China and Russia. Russia. They're watching this with
[00:24:39] with eyes wide open because they're they're seeing that our arsenal isn't
[00:24:42] isn't deep enough for the war, that that we're supposed to be preparing
[00:24:45] preparing for. Down the road in the the Indo Pacific, every interceptor
[00:24:49] interceptor we're firing over the the Middle East is one that we're
[00:24:52] we're not available to use to defend
[00:24:56] defend American forces or Nato allies
[00:24:58] allies or Taiwan down the road. When When it comes to the industrial base,
[00:25:02] base, there's been a lot of work work over the last several years
[00:25:04] years to speed that up, but you can't can't surge your way out of a six
[00:25:08] six month war if your industrial industrial base takes years to replace
[00:25:11] replace what you've been firing in in months. Some of these weapons
[00:25:14] weapons that we've been firing take
[00:25:16] take months, even up to a year to
[00:25:18] to build just one single capability.
[00:25:20] capability. And so I think it shows
[00:25:23] shows the short-sightedness of this this administration getting into
[00:25:26] into the war in the first place. place. Another example, the closure
[00:25:29] closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Hormuz. It doesn't really seem like
[00:25:33] like they had a plan for that when when it happened. And we've been
[00:25:36] been paying the price ever
[00:25:40] since. And of course, we're talking talking about that day in, day out
[00:25:42] out as things deteriorate in that that region as well, which we will
[00:25:46] will address a little bit later on. on. But we'll leave the discussion discussion there for the moment.
[00:25:49] moment. On matters at the Pentagon. Pentagon. Lots more else to talk
[00:25:52] talk about. Matthew Foldi and Chris Chris Meagher. Do stay with us and
[00:25:55] and please stay with us at home there there because we have lots more still
[00:25:58] still to come for you here. On The
[00:26:00] The Context USA on BBC News.
[00:27:36] still in the mid to high 40s by.
[00:29:54] online at bbc.com/business to get get the latest news wherever you
[00:29:57] you are. Business on BBC News. Make
[00:30:00] Make the connection. MUSIC
[00:30:10] MUSIC
[00:30:19] These are the latest headlines
[00:30:21] from BBC News. OpenAI Anthropic and
[00:30:24] and Google say they are working to
[00:30:26] to create an AI standards body as
[00:30:29] as concerns over the technology grow.
[00:30:32] grow. Baby wards in England are to
[00:30:35] to get cot cams after an inquiry inquiry into the nurse Lucy Letby,
[00:30:38] Letby, who murdered seven babies,
[00:30:41] babies, found that lives could have
[00:30:43] have been saved. China warns against against turning outer space into
[00:30:47] into a battlefield as the United United States confirms for the first
[00:30:50] first time it has deployed space
[00:30:52] space weapons. The leader of Reform
[00:30:55] Reform UK in Wales, Dan Thomas, has has stood down after he was arrested
[00:30:59] arrested at the