this mismatch between assets and liabilities for diffent durations. and if you look at the filings and the big balance sheets, it should have been spelled out right there if anyone was looking for it. it's a question of wheer the regulators or banks could see the problem brewing here. >> kaylee leinz's wi bloomberg television. you can find her work on bloomberg.com. here to find -- talk about the president's mments yesterday when it comes to regulation. thank you for your time. each day at this time, we are taking a look at aspects of china and what it means for the u.s.. china's military. economic issues and other issues. today the topic of military and o gues are joining us. rich colby served in the trump ministtion --elbridge col

seed in e trumand ms fiher. we areoined by lyle gdstein. a visiting professor at brown university. thank you for your time this morning. what are china's military capabilities and what does that mean for the united states? >> china is certainly moving forward on the military front very rapidly. all across the board, there is hardly an area of military development where you can say china is not moving forward. it is quite impressive, the military analysts just to take one detail, for example, almost daily we are confrontewith a kind of new military innovation here but i was reading chinese sources as i am on a daily basis. i came across a weapon i was not aware of.

i was worried about the generation before that, which was a weapon. it is a hypersonic weapon. i will let the viewers know the united states navy does not have a hyper or supersonic missile. it's not true in every area, but this is an area where china is not just ahead but substantially ahead. >> mr. colby? >> building on what dr. goldstein said, yousked about china's capably's. a lo time o the chinese military was a peasant army focused on territorial defense and ground warre. they have evolved to one that is focused on resolving the taiwan issue but as dr. goldstein was pointing out, they've moved the on that. they areeveloping forces for wer projection. it looks like the american military. people say they're not building aircraft carriers. they are actlly. they're building space architecture, nuclear powered

submarines. they are not ready to contest this in the south pacific or the indian ocean, but they are on that way. and they are spending a significant fraction in the open source of what we spend. a couple points i make onhat. first would ty undestimate our numbe, second they get more banfor their buck because their lor cos are lower and the source internally. so we are loing at the first superpowed military since the viet union. that's why we call this an unprecedented miliry buildup. host: when the general looks at their reporting capabily, 900 75,000 active military personnel. 300 40 ships and submanes, nuclear warheads. that was as of 2021. do those numbers sound right? it was from the defense department and if they are right, are there more concerns there as well? >> well, you know, i might

disagree a little bit with my friend. i'm a little less worried about power projection capability. fo example, if we take the greatest symbol of power projection, aircraft carriers, they're moving ahead but it's important to keep in mind that they are just getting ready finish off their thirdeck, which wilbe in the range of capabiliti, but the fir two carriers are quite weak. so we're very far ahead of them. i do not consider this a really big worry, but i am someone who has for decas believed china has substantial nuclear deterrence already. they are trying to finish off the job of putting the icing on th cake for mutually assured destruction. keep that in mind and be very cautious with chi, because even if taiwan or an easchina sea crisis could escalate to the nuclear level. we have to play this extremely cautiously.

host: mr. colby? >> i think we should treat this with the utmost gravity. we need to have strength to deal with that. restrained strength. a broader defense perimeter that should include taiwan, assuming that they pull their weight. th is the besway to get to stability. but look, virginia comnd notifi the congress recently that the chinese exceeded the number of icbm launchers. at is only one criterion and a nuclear force -- of a nuclear force but it significant and for a long time people said they're not going to build a nuclear tribe. -- nuclear triad. the breakup that people feared for years, it looks at their cooperating with russia to get material to make nuclear weapons out of. my view is that i thi lyle is right that they are not where they need to go or want to be but they are on that trajectory and we can see where that's going so we cannot ignore this.

we need to prioritize this is my view. ho: our guest is with us for the hour and if you want to ask them questions about the nuclear capabilities of ina, part of our series, call. for activend retired military or former military, if you want to call in thchines president made a speech yesterday. part of it was translated and it said to an extent this, this is from a sryakinto the 3000ates at the closing session about china' rubberstamp parliament, the national people's congress with president xi jinping demanding the modernization of all fronts to build the people's armed foesnto a great wall of steel that is capae of safeguarding national sovereignty, security and development interests. does this rhetoric speak to

intention? >> i look mostly at the capabities ty are building and that tells you what they're doing. they are building a military to seize taiwan. they're practicing ssile attacks about -- against japanese forces in the desert. the tentions are clear. we do not have to speculate. the great wall of steel, th phrase that xi jinping used at the university of the commonest party, a great wall of blood and ste. he is very clear that he is turning -- i don't want to exaggerate the point. but firm nationalism is lied to the great rejuvenation of the chinese nation, a strong nationalist president. and the other thing i don't want to undermine is they feel under threat. people who take a tougher line on china as i m tend to say they are desperate. no, he said recently in the wall

street journal that china is being strangled. he used the term suppressed. i don't speak chinese but that's the way it was translated in the prest. -- in the press. some conductor sanctions etc. theyre feeling threatened. this is a dangerous situation and a dangerous situation in the coming years. not something that is a long-term problem like 2045. in my view, we have combined real strength militarily so that xi jinping and the chinese leadership do not see an opportunity to strike. we need to be careful how far we push them and provoke them. this is a balanci act that i'm not sure we have been navigating well lely. host: m goltein? >> i have areas agreement with rich here. heas written that we do not want to overstress ideology or get into some great ideological stggle here. he has also mentioned i know that we do not wanto trigger the security dilemma here.

but i do feel tt u.s. and china relations are in a very dangerous spot. you know, this is not merely rhetoric on the chese side, there is a fear and insecurity there. thiss becse, you ow, the scenario before us, the taiwan scenario could be right in our front yard it touches their core interest, pushing the idea that because of this, you know, they are considering it quite possie that a war will break out. i do not know if americans have grappled with that ft. and here is where mr. colby and i disagree quite strongly is that do not think the u.s. -- taiwan has to be outside the perimeter. this is not good ground, probably the first -- worst place to takon china. have all the advantages. so we should use data to our advante and defend japan and

the philippine you can realistically defend in depth. otherwise we will be dragged in a cflict which at the end of the day is a kind of mily quarrel. the bance is against us, t asymmetry of will. they care about this aot mor than we do. and againgoing back to e nuclear risk that is you could certainly see it. i know mr. colby is aware of this, and a taiwan scenario. host: mr. colby? >> i agree with the dangers. the way i look at the taiwan situation is it is in america's interest that it not fall. we forcibly support it for geopolitical reasons. i think the thing that lyle was saying makes sense in a vacuum but governments in tokyo, hanoi etc. are looking at what the united states does evenfter

the suspension of recognition in the taiwan relations act. taiwan is militari valuable if the chinese were able, they would have uninhibited access in the pacific and under nine -- undermine the interests. the way i think of them is they are 70 out of 100. the key thing for us is to laser focus on the defense of taiwan and drive the cost and risk downward. the thing we have going for us is what has kept taiwan basically free the last 70 years plus. which is it is hard to launch and sustain an invasion in the teeth of a prepared defense. they dominated the european continent but could not get across the english channel. we have to foc and we have not been focusing enough. we will see in the defense budget, they say this, they say they're focusing on this.

what i will say about the taiwan issue is if we end up in a situation where we are compelled to redraw taiwan out of its perimeters because we are ill prepared, it is going to be more dramatic and dangerous and extreme the steps we are going to have to take to compensate. in a lot of peoples mind the country they're there thinking 1941the japanese bombed us but we can always turn to the industry. bear this in mind, in941, japan was one half d we have e largest indurial base. no chinas an economy of equivalent size, industrial many fracturing, it's far larger. we get that point,e could be not only in real trouble, but it removably so. host: before we take calls, mr. colby with the marathon initiative, what is that, how do you find it, what is it? mr. colby: it is a 5013 c nonprofit. we do research of the u.s.

government and take funding from u.s.-based foundations. and we are focused on competition, preparing the u.s. for partnershi. host: mr. goldstein, director of engagement, how is it funded? mr. goldstein: we do not take money from the government. we are privately funded by u.s.-based funds. host: let's take some calls. let's start with alex in california, independent line, you're on with ouruest. good morning, go ahead. caller thank you for taking my call. have two comments, the second will have an associated question. when commentators talk about taiwan, they never talk about whether the american people want too to war over taiwan. rather, they talk about whether government officials want to go to war over taiwan. so the second comment is that whether we go to taiwan -- war over taiwan depends on e american people. it's easy for beijing and

amican ambiguity on taiwan by conducting a poll to ask if the people areilling to go to war. my question is simply to your guest, why hasn't the beijing military or governments conducted such a poll to ask the american people whether they're willing to go twar ove taiwan? because if they're not, that basically means beijing is free to take taiwan by force? host: mr. goldstein, do you want to start? mr. goldstein: sure. think the caller hints at this asymmetry of will that is -- i do not think there was a poll that asked americans if they knew where taiwan was on a map. a strong majority could not find taiwan on a map. there are a lot items out there in their defense and this one is especially close to china. it's about 90 miles across. so it's quite reasonable that americans generally do not want to go to war for taiwan.

i know the more the china threat is hyped and there's a lot of threat in fleet -- inflation going on, erases that number. until people are really getting killed and were talking about thousands of americans dying every day in such a war, that could get much worse. like i said, nuclear level, this could have casualties on par with world war ii. when americans consider that they better consider alternatives for defense which are instead japan and the philippines, a much more defensible area, i think the american peoe have a lot of common sense. i'm not sure about the washington elites. this is a bridge too far and we should recognize that. it does not undermine our position. disagree, it does not undermine the security of japan. that's not rational. japan is wholly defensible. they believe in spending 1% for a long time. they have a large number of islands and they have a fine

self defenseighting fleet. so they have to take on china, though be ready, we can he them. though be ready, we can help them. but having to draw the line, the redline over taiwan is a grave mistake i think americans understand that. mr. colby: a couple of points, first is the polling that i have seen is actually suggesting there is at least a significant amount of support for american action to support taiwan. i would point you to the chicago council on foreign relations. i think it is polling, as well as the reagan foundation. i should be clear that it is no means this positive for directly the issue. and it is kind of abstract at this poi. the issues that le raises are real. i'll just respond to his point, i was doing a book event virtually in manila a year or so

ago and a gentleman pointed out that the attack on the philippines in 1941 was the foremost. if you think it is 100 miles, it is roughly 100 miles fm taiwan, maybe a little more. south korea is a hundred miles from the peninsula in china. these are tightly coupled and all the issues that apply taiwan also applied -- in fact, at this point, one area of agreement for people who watch it i shoulday is that the chinese expect the united states to come to taiwan's defense. i'm not sure that weven ha the option of cuttin off taiwan because the chinese appear to be preparing for a laer conflict. they would probably attack u.s. and japanese sces. philippine forces in the philippines and australia. whether or not it is going to be a larger conflict, godfrey did. host: mr. goldstein? mr. goldstein: i have to disagree.

china does not want to fight the u.s., that is very clear. while they are preparing to do so, i believe the opening move in the taiwan scenario, i'm quite sure about this, would be attackg taiwan and not doing their best to avoid hitting u.s. and japanese forces, that is by degn. they know that we do not want to go to war with china either. they want to keep this from escalating, but do we let them is the question? i have to dispute this point that the defense in mr. colby's thinking that taiwan is a trampoline. china is going to jump on the trampoline and leapt to taiwan in the philippines. i really think this very mistaken. there is just no evidence for that. we do not see -- every day the chinese military media will threaten taiwan. because a civil war, from the cold war after all, americans do

not realize but the official title of taiwans the republic of china. so this should hint to you that this was a lontime civil war. it's just not true in the philippines or japan. they dispute uninhabited rocks and things like that. there are no serious territory disputes between japan and china and between china and the philippines. so to call taiwan some sort of trampoline, aggressive on the part of the japanese, aggression in the pacific war is wholly mistaken. it's a historical. they do not speak chinese in japan or in the philippines. so we need to treat taiwan as an isolated case and i think realize that again, it is probably not defensible. a bridge too far. but that does not mean that we

do not have a good defensible position. we do. host: quick response and will take a call. mr. colby: i didn't use the word trampoline. i called it an unsinkable aircraft character. submarine operations off the east coast would be much easier facilited in taiwan. we could live in a world which allows arguments. compelling with the militaries china is building. that's not the world th were living in. the military bases beyond taan, summer larr area wise than the district of columbia. hugely advanced. power projection. look at where the u.s. government is saying they're looking for bases. indian ocean, south pacific, even the atlantic coast of africa. the problem is in theory we could live in that world but that's not the world we been living in. host: let's hear from joe. he called on the democrats line. you're on with our guests. good morning. caller: good morning.

to both of your guests, i would say mr. goldstein has the most reasonable take on the issue of taiwan. and your other guest mr. colby has an unreasonable one. i think the chinese consider taiwan as they both know as part of their country. so t united states is involved in internal affairs, that is mething that they will not allow. they have been able to do it with rhetoric but i don't think that they're going to put out the military -- interference in taiwan. recently the u.s. has dispensed military units to taiwan but essentially for training. i think that's the first step in the wrong direction if i was dealing with the issue of iwan. if we have to do with the issue at all, it's an issue that should be lt to china to defend, not the united states. but we would takeart as the united states and another country around the world, try to

help. it's not some thing that's reasonable. most chinese would not agree with anyone coming into the country and taking a stand on what they should do with their own property. host: color, thank you. mr. colby, go ahead. -- caller, thank you. mr. colby: you're making a moral argument. taiwan is a democracy and i don't stress this from our perspective but they do not want to be subordinated by china or live in a communist party dominated world of xi jinping. they don't want that to happen what you did in hong kong where the chinese snuffed out democratic freedoms that existed in hong kong. we can argue, but we've been talking about strategic elements, the notion that it is a moral is going to be ruled out. host: mr. colby? mr. colby: here, i think, you know, that there's -- i do not think that we wa to exaggerate the democratic iss.

i think mr. colby himself has madehis argument. we cozied up with vietnam just fine. they're not en close to a democracy. ho kong was also ry democratic. incredibly it is notow. no one in their right mind would suest that the u.s. military would try to defend hong kong. this really is not very different tually, unfortunately. i would like a return to the point about the stopping power of water. technology has made that obsolete, but i think the caller is right. this is viewed as a civil war that came from 1949 and then there's carryover from the cold war. i mean, after all, the u.s. recognize that taiwan was part of china in 1943. president roosevelwho knew a thing or two about china did that. and truman relegated that point. the national museum in taiwan, go to the website. they brag about having 700

thousand chinese relics, the most incredible collection in the world, and it is true. but that is partly because again this was aivil war, these relics were on the mainland. so we should recognize that. the u.s. has been trapped in civil wars going back to vietnam . afghanistan, iraq, let's not impose another civil war. let's draw a redline with our treaty allies japan and the philippines. host: one in washington and one in california about chise militaryn respe to our mitary, it wathe defense department yesterday, the assistant to an secretary kathleen hicks talked about the budget being planned to release to congress, particularly words she had direct toward china. i want to play you what she had to say and get your response. ms. hicks: competition does not mean conflict. still, we must have combat credibility to win if we must fight. first a foremost, this budget is a procurement budget.

it puts the m on the ale in favor of gamchanging to bullies that will deliver not just in the out years t the near term two. our greatest measure of success and the one we use around your st often is to make sure the prc leadership wakes up every day considers the risk of aggression a concludes today is not the day. and for them to think that today and everyay between now and 2027, now in 2035, now in 2049 and beyond. host: so that was from yesterday. 840 $2 blion projectedudget. wall street journal highlights were that money is going. when you hear thatind of talk from the defense department, what does it say not only about their concerns about china but how we are preparing for it? mr. goldstein: i agree that we are not at all prepared for a war in the taiwan straight. i think there is unfortunately a very real possibility that we

would lose such a war. nobody knows what would happen. but unfortunately, -- but again, we would have double, triple or quadruple our defense budget and we might not have adequate arms, because of the distances involved china can bring more firepower against the island than we could possibly -- it's 8000 miles away from the united states. so we -- look, we need to have a strong sense but instead of spending more and more, w should choose a more rational defense line and spend wisely. for example, i worked for the navy for 20 yearand i can tell you we do not need a huge number of big decks. that is super carriers. we should move away from that. they are not survivable for attackand marines. and we do not have enough attack submarines. we do not need to spend more money, we just need to spend wisely. mr. colby: i thought the comments from deputy secretary hicks re excellent that you showed. that's exactly right and it

shows a rare area of bipartisanship. when i was the pentagon i was try to push this as well as i want to commend her not only for the focus on china which is a challenge. they have taiwan in their scenario that they are preparing for so i commend tm for that. in the near term, in the sense that we cannot prepare for 2040, we have to be ready for 2027, no one knows what's going to happen. the real question is in the implementation. it does the budget follow-through? are they moving with directness and urgency? in my perspective, we are facing a superpower for the first time in 150 yrs since we became the world's largest economy. for the first time we aren't facing a genuine -- we are facing a genuine peer economy. china is in the lead in various technology as they pointed out. we need fundamental change. what i see so far is the department of defense doing a lot -- people like secretary of the air force, the chief of the

air force, there are good things happening. in order to deal with a generous generational challenge from china, whether or not you think we will defend taiwan, i thing we should, we're going to have a much more fundamental change. you've seen the last time i was on the show with mark, we were talking about defense. there has been a lot of talk about that, some changes, things like -- but that's not going to do the trick. we need politic investment, top level fromhe president down saying this is a genuine national priority a he is capable of doing that but i've not seen it yet. host: guess joining us from this conversation, mr. colby, cofounder and principal under the trumpet ministerip for the department of defense. lyle goldstein defense professor. it fitting professor at brown university. anthony in penylvania, republican line. hello. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call.

i am really mystified on how it could be possible that a fighter jet could fire a missile and miss a balloon. and number two, maybe you can comment on this, the balloon that flew over the country, how come they could not get iand bring it down before it flew all over the states? host: mr. goldstein, let me ask you to the balloon shoot down change a lot of what we ask from china, particularly when it comes to military defee or other issues? mr. goldstein: i don't think it changed very much. i mean, in my view, this probably was some sort of mistake. and, you know, i think china should be a bit embarrassed about this. or maybe more than a little embarrassed. but china will do more and more surveillance. china's surveillance, i think they have 24/7 over the

satellite that watches everything, every movement of our ships and so forth, which is why i am concerned. but i do not think we want to be overly concerned. the balloon, they do use balloons and a conflict over taiwan, for example, but balloons flying over the united states, idling in think tha's part of their plan. i think it was a mistake. balloons are hard to shoot down. so, you know, i do thin we shou have gotten it earlier. host: with respect to the question as far as how it changed perspective? mr. colby: for people who watch china closely this was baked in. but it had an impact on the man on the street, woman on the street perspective. it drove home that china really does have global ambitions. they have the ability to operate in our skies in a way that people said i think of it as

meone half a world away. i think that is correct sort of inference or take away from wha happened. sometimes the missiles are not engineered must necessarily for taking down a balloon. it's not something the air force has been practicing a lot. as the northcom commander has pointed out, this has revealed gaps going on. host: this is t independent line, good morning. caller: i think some people are a danger to this country. what is the basis for this false narrative we get, this hysteria about china? these are the same people who lead us into several warthat we lost, and dennis then we didn't do well, libya, we didn't do well, iraq was lost.

now they are telling us they can manage china. frankly after what happened afghanistan, a lot of guys should've been fired and there ould have been in rest and they should have gone to prison. why are we pulled into this crusader is him? there is an element of racism anhave this narrative of china is painted. you want us to spend the liens of dollars on war weapons. weent for those same weapons and we coul'vene in afghanistan. now we must retoolnd spend more in taiwan. the raise a good point. you ask americans to fight taiwan on the map and they cannot fd afghistan either. we wake up every day, not worrying about chinese -- knocking on the door. we worry abo sending her kids to college

worry about who can ford housing, we worrabout the job market and if we have enough sangs to last six months i sh this untry would fos on domestic isss. host: wgot your point. guest: we ha a prey ft-winbiden admistratn. ok at what the national security advisor said. they are saying china is the biggest challenge. 's not threat inflation. take it from them. it's the simple fact is the largest military old up in a generation or more. that's just the reality and you look at what the chinese have created in terms of social catal scores and what they did in hong kong and tibet. that's the reality.

i suggest you look at my personal record for my views. i oppose the iraq war in the intervention in syria and libya. i agree with you that a lot of people responsle for those wars should not be listened to. that would hopefully give me more credibility because i'm not a warmonger. i want to avoid a war. the united states did not follow your line of thinking in the cold war. we avoided war without the capitulation of western europe. your last point is very on point. this is about american prosperity. this is not about something going on in taiwan. we clearly see what china's ambitions are. they want to make the world and economy centered around

themselves. if you're worried about your economic prosperity, you need to be worried about china because if they succeed in their grander ambitions, forget about the things you're talking about. that will be a world dominated by beijing. guest: the callebrings up some good points. we have blundered into civil war after civil w, afghistan, iraq and going back to vietnam. how did we get into vietnam? we were trying to can chain -- contain china and quell chinese influence in south asia. the last cold war ended in a favorable way. let's not forget that i believe we lost 60,000 young americans in vietnam war and let's not forget theundreds of thousands of americans wounded.

this is not a desirable out come. we need to realize china's gains are limited. we need to realize this idea that china is trying to take over the world is patently false. look at africa, they have a military base in africa but they have not used for some large-scale even though they been there for a long time. they are mostly building roads and railroads and making money but africa is by and large improving. there are problems with any kind of major devopment around the world. china's names are limited. we have to keep our powder dry and keep a strong defense and perhaps we have to drasome redlines. we have a very strong and defensible position. we shouldn't bankrupt ourselves to try to defend taiwan and getting crazy about each move

that china makes in the asia-pacific let's imagine if china tried to defend cuba or somewhere in the caribbean against the united states. it would be ridiculous. this defensive taiwan is quite ridiculous. at some level, is a guns and butter question. we try to defend taiwan, americans will be worse off because we need to triple our defense budget. guest: i neglected to address the pot about racism. the countries we are working with, we don't want to be dominated by the chinese or east asians. countries like india in south asia. if there is racism involved,

it's a dismissive attitude about the chinese. i put the chinese very serious with the numbers and i've had long experience withhem personally. i am concerned. this is an extremely important country. there is often a kind of soft ideas the chinese -- older people in washington think the chinese are still riding around on bicycles or something. that is the farthest thing from reality. i tnk it's the opposite of being racist. guest: i appreciate that you take chinese capabilities very seriously. i think there is a racist component too many in washington. there is ts kind of yellow peril fear which is behind some ofheir issues. on japan, it seems that japan is

quite inexperienced in the way geopolitics in international affairs go. there is a lot of bad blood between the chinese and the japanese. have to look at this subjectively and realize japan is wte defensible. security interests in pan and china align white well. they want to trade and build infrastructure. we should be working to bring tokyo and beijg together instead of stimulating more bitterness. it will require some kind of reconciliation but the idea at china's inking of invading japan is detached from reality. therefore, jan is defensible and not really threatened. japan is choosing to spend a bit more that is reasonable and they should share the burden of some kind of adjustment i think they spent 1% of gdp which is far

lower than america. we a paying muchore and are worse off than defendg someone else. host: let's hear from richarin maryland, go ahead. caller: good morning, i don't think the chinese are afraid of australian submarines or america being a thousand miles away. what they do have respect for and the guy talked about japan, historically speaking, fully equipping japan is the linchpin for the asian basin would more than get china's attention. i think would give them a little hard earned the fact that the only ally they have over there is the one they bought which is north koa.

two equally arm and equip japan under their umbrella, the philippines could him in and even taiwan. could possibly get under that on brel and it wouldn't violate our one china policy. i think we need to try to convince the japanese to step up , be the linchpin for the whole security of that area and i assure you, having done so for doing so, it would take all the fire out of the chineseragon and the tiger wod be distemper. host: thank you very much. there was an announcement yesterday from president biden on the nuclear submarine sale to australia and here's part of his response from yesterday. [video clip] >> our unprecedented trilateral

cooperation i believe is the strength of the long-standing ties in our shared commitment of ensuring the indo pacific remains free and open, prosperous and secure, to provide opportunity for all come he shared commitment to a future rooted in our common values. that's the objective united states shares not only with the u.k. and ausalia but shared by her friends in the region, her friends in the pacific island and other treaty and close partners. there is one overriding objective whics to enhance the stability of the indo pacific among rapidly shifting global dynamics. host you can respond t that, i believe it's three submarines to australiay 2032. guest: ipplaud the presint for bringing attention to e undersea issue of submarines.

they are the most potent part of our toolkit out there in the pacific. i am glad for that have long advocated for larger submarine fleet. think we are something like attack bts and i wouldn'mind seeing like 100. i don't think thbudgeteeds to increase. we need to rejigr that and end less oairpower because those airbases are so vulnerable and i think the carriers also. i applaud the presidenfor focusing on submarines but not to mystic about it. there too cplex and too slo australia is a long way. from china. i don't think this deal would appreciatively change the china calculion. they might react and build up in a huge way to respond to what

they see as an undersea threat so we don't under estimate them. while don't agree with the thrust of the calle i don't think japan can te a lead here. i think japan eds to spend more. americans have been bearing an unfair burden and that should be readjusted substantially. i don't think japan is under a grave threat it's not a huge justment. the u.s. is in a very favorable position in the asia-pacific and that won't change because japan is strong and will be strong, australia is strong, india's strong, vietnam a song, south korea strong. we havto figure out what we are worried about. we had powerful allies that will remain so. the more we spend on their defense, the less they will.

we should be quite limited in our objections. i don't think china wants to invade india, australia or any of these countries. we don't want to exaggerate the threat generally. guest: everything you say leads to us defending taiwan. the philippines is not that far from taiwan. you said the stopping power of water is the same concept. that logic applies to china. mao cared about taiwan but he couldn't get added. the chinese have the ability to project amphibious forces but also the philippines and japan

or south korea but the u.s. is in a great position but taiwan should be sensible. i agrethat japan is our most important ally here. they are moving too slowly right now. i would like to point out that japan is a fraction of the size of china economically and it has had a capable military but underdeveled one. they have a long way to go. i agree that they need to step up in concert with our efforts. it's very encouraging and shows connection with the australians. i think it involves a lot of movi pieces and it's not clear how much additional capability will deliver. we want more submarines but the

problem is our defense industrial base, maintenance capability is below what we need the plans for the australians to help impve that situation. there is a lot of moving pieces in the one thing we st be cleabout iwe cant allo th to coromise t elderf our own u.s. submarine base. these are among the crown jewels of our military. we have to be confint about them and i think the australia are our best ally but this is high-stakes and nnot mess this up. i don't want to say through gold were -- i don't want to say it's rude goldberg. guest: you can talk about japanese defense. i brought up the historical issue because when eisenhower led air forces across the u.s. channel in 1944, he didn't have

a giant force of missiles were 1000 helicopters. he didn't have google earth or drones but there are fundamental differences between leaping 100 miles an leaping 500 or 1000 miles. to conquer japan, it would require immense effort. china would have to have five or 10 times the defense. budget it currently has the same with the philippines. the philippines is a gigantic archipelago and there defse is totally feasibleut tain is differt. it's 10miles om china at the small island and the geography is not favorable. the mountains would create fortss in taiwan are on the wrong side taiwan incredibly vulnerable and china can d things like you can fly and atta helicopter across the straight no problem and then

cye it back five times into the ght. it's very easy to wield those capabilities. it becomes more difficult at 500 or 1000 miles. jan andhe philippines are more defsible. that does't even mention the issue of will. china says it's geing ready to attack taiwan every day they havehe wiland the intention. there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that for japan or the philippines. guest: i don't think the chinese will annex the philippines or japan but they want to do something all along the lines of what we did iraq and vietnam and cambodia which is a use of eir military to impose a more friendly government. not only would they have access to taiwan but they have huge bases in the south china seas that undermine your point. they are specifically designed

to project power. we have to look at this as a dynamic situation. countries in asia are wondering whether it's prudent to stand up tohina. they don't want to have another vietnam. they want -- they don't want to live under chinese domination. guest: it's reasonable for countries that way back when we had problems with mexico and we learned to live with each other. that's the nature ogreat powers. the philippines is not in great danger and neither is japan. ultimately, the u.s. has the power to defend them extremely well. it's simply not true with taiwan.

if you look at the chinese lationship with his neighbors, evenountri far weaker and not defenda by the u.s. in central asia, china has quite good relations but there is no evidence to suggesthat china is seeking this regional hegemony. they are not necessarily a threat tthe essays. = >> we did nothing to stop them to put outposts in the south china seas. guest: the islands in the south china sea agree that it's more troubling. they are very extensive. there has also been a fair

amount of restraint on our part. there was a time u.s. leaders were asked what they are going to do about it but they said they don't want to go to war. china at some reasonable and important interests. all their oil comes across the south china seas and they have submarines operating in the area and they want to protect those. china has acted with summer straight. they could have put defenses into these islands but they have not done that they have acted with a little bit of restraint. we need to keea lid on tensions there and avoid escalation. u.s. ships and aircraft continue to circulate through the south china seas but there is no imminent danger. this is mostly about a contest

in the south china seas about oil and gas resources and fisheries. should the u.s. get involved in world war iii over fisheries? i don't think so. we have fishery conflict with canada. guest: there is good article in the wall street journal over the weekend. it shows a massive failure of u.s. policy. they say china has effective operational control of the south china se during peace time japan and t philippines and australia identify china as a big red. it's about how a great wer behaves. china is a rising superpower is just human nature and structural to expect them to expandt's

not exactly ninunder the marxist leadership. this is not franin rooselt this is a much different mplexion. asia is going to be the future of theorld. when we talk about our economic prosperity, the future of everyone's economic prosperity is going to be about asia because that's the world's largest market and at the chinese control that market area which they want to do, they will have a dominant position here because american companies will be put out of business and everything will circle around china. they got social capital and they will use da and ai. it's happening in china were peaceful have social credit scores. our best course is to be strong and forceful and clear and don't mess with us.

it's clear what r perimeters army understand the chinese and respect them. we are notacist and from that position, i think we can find most anything that we have to strengthen our position rst. guest: i think our position out there is very strong. we continue to have the strongt armed forces on the planet we have strong allies. we want to maintain stability in the taiw straits. if we adhere closely to the one china policy that is an essential comprise that nixon and kissinger orchestrated in the 70's, th's the bedrock of u.s.-china relations and we's ould seek to maintain it. we should not try to enter into another civil war nor should we think about world r iii over some kind of fishery dispute or dispute about drilling.

i ree that we can avoid bankrupt ourselves and wonder into catastrophic war which has the danger of nuclear eslation. host: the director for asia in gauge meant. -- for asia engagement. ♪ >> c-span washington journal, every day weake your calls live on the air on the news of the day. as we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, we take a closer look at china, it's going military, economic and geopolitical influence, and the threat the communist party poses to the u.s.. tomorrow, scott kennedy of the

center for strategic international studies doing this to talk about how their policy has evolved and how it is impacting our economy. and then michael davis, a president -- professor, talks about federal banking regulations following the collapse of silicon valley bank. watch washington journal life on c-span, on c-span itow, our free mobile app, and join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text and tweets. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies anymore, including cox. >> homework can be hard. but squatting in a diner for internetwork is even harder. that is why we are providing lower income students access to affordable internet so homework can just be homework. cox connect to compete. >> cox supports c-span as a

public service ang with these other television providers, giving you a front procedure democracy. -- rosita democracy. >> president biden and out the executive order on firearms to increase background checks, promote secure firearms storage and curb violence. "monterey park, the president also honored the victims of the shooting that took place there in january and acknowledges the heroic actions of brandon tsai who disarmed the government -- gunman. >> ladies angentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] pres. biden: please have a seat if you have one.

[laughter] good afternoon. saturday, january 21, 2023, lunar new year. a ti to enjoy. a ballroom dance studio, a place of happiness, friendship and longing. -- belging. people across backgrounds and generations celebrating their cultural roots and bonding through ballom song and dance. a place of refuge, whe immigrants have lived for years, to support new immigrants who just arrived, nojust friends or family. as we all saw a day of festivi and light turned into a day of fear and darkness. a holiday of hope and possibility marred by horror and pain. vibrant dances, music replaced by vigils and memorials. 11 souls taken.