Husband, Dad, Scout leader. Director of Allison Center for Nat Sec @Heritage. Post on China, nukes, missile defense, Springsteen, & backpacking. Views my own.
Washington, DC
Joined April 2023
- Tweets4.3K
- Following377
- Followers1.3K
- Likes4.3K
Pinned Tweet
Very proud to share the documentary: Breathtaking.
It examines the implications of the 🇨🇳 nuke breakout.
Thanks to @SenatorFischer; @RepChipRoy; @RLHeinrichs; ADM Chas Richard, Frank Miller, Bob Joseph, and the @Heritage team for making this happen.
xitter.cf/i/status/1907817346284…
Let’s say the President of the United States wanted to respond to a Chinese nuclear attack on the American Air Force base in Guam by targeting a similar Chinese site with our own tactical nuclear weapon. We probably couldn’t do so if we tried.
Our new mini-documentary explores the vulnerabilities of our current nuclear arsenal and what must be done to restore nuclear deterrence from the growing threats of nuclear adversaries around the world.
🔗: heritage.org/defense/report/…
Its not only that we didn't invest much in them for "a few decades." We are going on "half a century" of not investing in ICBMs.
Thats part of the reason why the cost is so high AND why we must invest now.
A short OpEd from @WilsonCBeaver and I on the recent IndoPacific strategy he and I did for @Heritage.
Give it a read!
realcleardefense.com/indo-pa…
Bob Peters retweeted
A pleasure to meet with @DepSecGenNATO on the margins of @WarsawForum today to talk about the future of the alliance, European energy security and how NATO should not be a museum—I look forward to further discussions @Heritage in Washington and @NATO in Brussels:
Bob Peters retweeted
A pleasure to be working overtime on Columbus Day (for which we won’t be taxed!) with my friend and former colleague @USAmbNATO moderating the @WarsawForum “NATO 3.0” panel at which he made this astute and historical observation:
Bob Peters retweeted
Glad to join @WarsawForum to discuss why NATO needs a transatlantic defense ecosystem that enables Allies to develop, produce, and field advanced capabilities, building on Allied innovation and industrial base expansion.
Bob Peters retweeted
Ignore the naysayers: The Greenland deal secures the sovereignty, security, and economic interests of Washington, Copenhagen, and Nuuk and helps cement trans-Atlantic security cooperation in the Arctic for decades to come.
@WilsonCBeaver is a Senior Policy Advisor for Defense Budgeting and NATO Policy. Read more: dcjournal.com/the-greenland-…
Bob Peters retweeted
There has been much discussion lately about whether & SHOULD the US defend its allies in the WestPac.
Some argue that they & the First Island Chain are indefensible.
This new Special Report by me and @WilsonCBeaver says otherwise. A thread.
heritage.org/defense/report/…
Bob Peters retweeted
China seeks to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the Western Pacific. With trade across the Pacific exceeding $1 trillion a year, deterrence of a high-intensity war depends on who can win.
@WilsonCBeaver is a Senior Policy Advisor and @RealBobPeters is Director of the Center for National Security. Read more here: heritage.org/defense/report/…
Defending against Chinese aggression is far easier on the bases from Japan, Okinawa, Philippines, plus Taiwan, than a line that runs past VERY small and remote islands such as Tinian, Saipan, Guam, Palau and Yap(!!!).
I don't believe that America is in decline or that we "can't" defend allies or project strength. We absolutely can. It simply requires strength, dedication, and the will to do so.
And America still maintains deep reserves of all of that.
At any rate, give it a read.
Thanks to the great team @Heritage for their support. All mistakes are mine, not of my great co-author, @WilsonCBeaver.
And @realDonaldTrump's investments in the Defense budget are real and generational. With these budgets, we can in fact field the forces we need in the coming years to defend American interests and be meaningful, good allies and partners.
To those who say we don't have the budget to build all this, again, this too is false.
Our defense budget is large--but it is far smaller than what it was during the Cold War, the Korean War, or the Reagan buildup as a percentage of GDP.
To begin with, we offer that a stable, secure, and prosperous IndoPacific is in America's interest--and that such a region dominated by China is decidedly not.
As such, a robust forward presence is needed to secure the peace to deter Chinese (and DPRK) aggression.
Further, judicious husbanding and if necessary employment of forces will be required, coupled with clear messaging about US willingness to defend its allies and interests, even in the face of high-intensity aggression from capable actors.
But it's not just weapons. Training, exercises, capability co-development and co-production are also important, if we are going to address very real quantitative shortfalls in the conventional arsenal.