Senator Tom Cotton joined me this morning to discuss the scoop in Saturday’s Financial Times on the CCP’s and PLA’s successful launch of a hypersonic into an earth orbit and return within a few dozen miles of its target:

Audio:

10-19hhs-cotton

Transcript:

HH: If you, like the rest of us, read Demetri Sevastopulo’s article in the Financial Times on Saturday on the launch by China of a hypersonic missile that orbited the globe, taken into space by a Long March missile, you’ll be very interested in what Senator Tom Cotton, who joins us now, has to say about that. Good morning, Senator Cotton.

TC: Good morning, Hugh. Good to be on with you.

HH: It’s great to talk with you. Now I know you’re a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, so Demetri’s article in the Financial Times may not have shocked you like it shocked me, but what to make of that news?

TC: Well, Hugh, it’s a reminder the Chinese Communist Party wants to replace the United States as the world’s dominant economic and military superpower so they can call the shots, so they can dictate to the United States what our policies will be around the world and who we can and cannot support, that they can hold all of the United States at risk with the threats of nuclear annihilation.

HH: How significant is a hypersonic in space?

TC: Pretty significant, Hugh. Again, it’s not shocking. The Chinese have been working on these hypersonic missiles. That’s been known for a while, as has the United States. We are still more advanced than China is, but China, as they are in so many other cases in their military buildup, is closing the gap. The main difference for probably the purposes of your audience, Hugh, between a hypersonic glide missile and a ballistic missile is that hypersonic glide missiles are designed to evade ballistic missile defenses. Ballistic missiles follow a normal trajectory. You know, it’s just like if you watch a crime procedural drama and they talk about the ballistics of a bullet, the same thing with a rifle, the same thing with a missile. It goes up, it comes down in a predictable pattern. That’s what allows missile defenses to work. Hypersonic glide vehicles are able to move at a much faster rate of speed, and to take evasive or unpredictable maneuvers. So it’s not surprising that China is pursuing these, because they want to be able to strike and hold at risk all of the Continental United States.

HH: Now the only response to hypersonics is either MAD, mutual assured destruction by having our own that can do at least as much as theirs can, or an undetectable, indestructible nuclear deterrent, such as the Columbia-class might present, or directed-energy weapons, which I understand are at least five years away. Does this announcement or this scoop make it more likely that the Democrats will pause in their rush to spend at least $1.5 trillion dollars and put some of that into national defense, Tom Cotton?

TC: (laughing) Well, Hugh, I wish that were the case. But frankly, the Democrats have been the party of military weakness for decades now going back to the Vietnam War and then Jimmy Carter, and on through Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Like clockwork, when Democrats take power, they cut the military and they waste money on welfare programs and on their clients and their patrons. So you would think that China conducting such a rapid military buildup would have been a wakeup call to the Democratic Party for a long time. It’s just not the case, though, Hugh. And they don’t understand that strength is what matters in foreign policy, because only the strong can survive in a dangerous world. And for that matter, only the strong can protect the weak, and only the strong can afford to be merciful.

HH: Now am I not correct that any single Democrat or Angus King, independent from Maine who caucuses with them, and I like Governor King, Senator King a lot, or Jack Reed, who is allegedly a hawkish kind of, could not any single Democrat insist that part of this massive firehose of additional spending that we’re poised to pour out on the United States include Columbia-class funding or hypersonic or directed-energy weapon funding?

TC: Yes, Hugh. In principle, you are correct, because Democrats only have a 50-50 Senate, control the agenda only by virtue of Vice President Harris’ tie-breaking vote. But for any Democrat, even those you mentioned who are serious at times about our national security, to hold up the Democrats’ massive welfare bill and green new deal to demand more military spending would be about as popular in the Democratic Party as holy water is to vampires.

HH: But you know, at some point, well, maybe not at some point. Let me play you Jen Psaki yesterday for our audience who has not yet heard it. I played it a couple of times. She gets a question on the hypersonics, cut number 17, Jen Psaki at the White House yesterday:

Reporter: Can you comment on reports that China tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile over this summer to the surprise of U.S. officials? Are these accurate? And do these raise concerns about China’s increased capability?

JP: Well, I know General, Secretary Austin, I should say, was asked this question this morning and addressed it. But I’m not going to comment on the specific report. I can say and would echo what he said, which is generally speaking, we have made clear our concern about the military capabilities that the PRC continues to pursue, and we’ve been consistent in our approach with China. We welcome stiff competition, but we do not want that competition to veer into conflict, and that is certainly what we convey privately as well.

HH: Now Senator Cotton, we welcome stiff competition has never exactly been the Democratic line on arms control and nuclear weaponry. But if we’re going to have stiff competition, it’s going to take some money. So what is it? Are we giving up, or are we going to compete?

TC: Hugh, first off, I’d like to address this common rhetorical turn of Joe Biden’s administration. The President himself has said it on numerous occasions that we welcome the competition, or we’re not afraid of vigorous competition. Hugh, this is not like some Olympic matchup of figure skaters or basketball teams where you go out and you compete in a game and then you all shake hands and hug on the medal stand afterwards. This is a struggle for mastery of the world in which life or death are the stakes. So for these Democrats to keep saying we welcome the competition is the height of folly. We don’t welcome the competition, we’ll see who the best team is, and maybe we’ll play a best of seven series the way they’re doing with Major League Baseball right now. We want to beat China. China is waging a cold war against us. Part of that cold war is the military buildup, not just these hypersonic glide missiles, but the new missile silos they’re building in Western China, fortifying their air force and naval capabilities just across Taiwan on the Taiwan Strait, all of a piece with their efforts to replace the United States as the world’s dominant superpower. And it’s time to get rid of this idea that it’s just a friendly competition and a game and face the fact that we have to win this cold war. Otherwise, we will lose it by default.

HH: Some Democrats are in love with the rise and fall of great powers theory, that there must be a handing of the baton off every hundred years or so between Great Britain and the United States, or now between the United States and the CCP. That is actually dire, because they are not committed to what we’re committed to. They’re not even on the same playing field, Senator Cotton. Am I wrong? And I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic.

TC: Well, Hugh, a lot of these Democrats in Congress are Maoists, so maybe they are fine with the rise of the Chinese Communist power. But you know, to borrow from your Friday Hillsdale with Hugh conversations, many Democrats are deeply influenced by German historicism and this idea that history has a capital H and it’s determined by mechanistic forces, and therefore there must be a changing of the guard, so to speak of great powers. That is not the way the world works. It is influenced and directed by human choices here and in China and elsewhere in the world, and that decline is a choice. And if America declines and China replaces it, it won’t be because there was some kind of mechanistic, deterministic forces dictating that. It’ll be because leaders in the United States made the wrong choices over a number of years.

HH: Now Senator Cotton, you’ve got the three key committees – Judiciary, Armed Services, and Intel. This is being presented as a surprise, that China’s launch by a Long March missile of a hypersonic into space, and it did a global orbit and hit within a couple dozen miles of its target. Is it a surprise to our DARPA intellectuals, do you believe? You know, we know that hypersonics, the United States has about 7 different kinds under development, but I don’t know that we’ve actually tested any in space.

TC: Hugh, I wouldn’t say that it’s a shocking surprise. You know, we invest a lot of money in determining the military capabilities of our adversaries. Consistently in the Cold War with Soviet Russia, that was the intelligence that was best was assessing military capabilities. We’re much weaker at assessing the intentions of foreign leaders, in part because they keep those intentions very closely held. Nor is it, I wouldn’t say what some people call this a Sputnik moment. The thing that was shocking about the Sputnik moment is it demonstrated a capability that the United States did not then have. That’s not the case, as you point out, with hypersonic glide vehicles. We are also rapidly trying to build up that capability, and we’re still doing a better job of it than any country in the world. But it is again a reminder that China is not simply building defensive weapons to protect itself, to peacefully integrate into the world. They want to dominate the world order and replace the United States as the world’s superpower, and we cannot allow that to happen.

HH: There was an article by Ross Douthat in the Sunday New York Times, Senator Cotton, that James Bond’s newest movie, the 5th in the Daniel Craig turn as 007, or not 007, depending on how one reads the movie, left one with the impression that China didn’t exist. There is no mention of China not in any of the five Bond movies made by Daniel Craig except with Shanghai as a backdrop and another fleeting backdrop shot as opposed to the original Bond franchise was built on Russia being a menace, the Soviets being a menace. Do you think that’s purposeful on Hollywood’s part, just like the NBA silence on Hollywood is purposeful?

TC: No question, Hugh. Hollywood is filled with shameful Communist bootlickers who are desperate to have access to Chinese movie theaters. And therefore, you never see movies with Chinese bad guys, unlike, as you said, during the Cold War with Soviet Russia. And it’s not just Hollywood, Hugh. Think about it. Except for Fox, since they spun off their movie studio, every major news channel in America is owned by or affiliated with a movie studio – ABC and Disney, NBC and Universal, CBS and Paramount, CNN and Warner. Do you think they report the news straight on China? Or do you think the word has come down from on high that you can’t be too tough on China, otherwise we can’t get our new animated movies into Chinese movie theaters?

HH: I actually had never thought of that before, Senator. You’re making me, so every major news organization in America has an interest in China accepting their product from their theaters.

TC: Every major TV news channel, the three major networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, which is their, NBC’s affiliate, and CNN are all owned by or affiliated with a major movie studio. The only news channel for which that’s not the case is Fox since they spun on 21st Century or 20th Century Fox years ago. So do you seriously think the corporate executives of those companies allow their news channels to report the news straight on the Chinese Communist Party when they’re trying to get their latest James Bond movie into Chinese theaters, or trying to get their latest Disney animated movie into Chinese theaters? Give me a break.

HH: Have you ever held a hearing? That’s, that’s fascinating. I don’t know that the American people, I don’t even know if the, if that’s in the public interest for a news channel to have a movie relationship, something that is revenue dependent on. I don’t know that that’s in the public interest. I don’t know what you can do about it, but has there ever been a hearing on it?

TC: No, we haven’t had hearings about it. I mean, I have taken great efforts, I put out a big report on it earlier this year on what I called the China lobby, which is the vast influence peddling that China has across our country, not just in Hollywood and the media, but also in big business, all of whom want to access the Chinese market, many of them source their products in China, university presidents and college presidents across the country that depend in so smart for revenue from full rate Chinese paying exchange students. The China lobby is vast and pervasive in this country, and it’s something we have to understand and that we have to confront and defeat, because it exerts a baleful influence on our foreign policies directed towards the Chinese Communist Party.

HH: It’s also a lobby now trying to downplay what the hypersonic breakthrough means for them. Senator Tom Cotton, always a pleasure. Thank you, Senator. Great to catch up with you on this most important of issues. We will transcribe and post that interview with Senator Cotton.

End of interview.