During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing prior to the congressional recess, Sen. Angus King (I-ME) spoke about cyber threat deterrence.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00And I do believe we have another member that is just arriving and
00:07I would simply ask. Senator King, are you ready with
00:10questions? I'm always ready.
00:15I knew how he was going to answer that. He's always ready. Senator King.
00:20Thank you very much, General, for being here today. I take it my
00:23colleagues have talked. I'm sorry, I was at a hearing upstairs in the Intelligence Committee
00:27and it was an open hearing so I can't even tell you about it, but in any case
00:31I understand that my colleagues have talked a lot about the firing of General
00:37Hawk and how unfortunate that was, so I don't need to plow that ground.
00:43One of the issues that I'm principally concerned with in cyber is that
00:47we have no deterrent. Our strategy
00:51in all of our other military and national security
00:55approaches is based upon deterrence.
00:59Except in cyber, where we continually are attacked
01:02as we were Salt Typhoon, for example.
01:06Going all the way back to Sony,
01:08nothing ever happens to the adversary.
01:11And my belief is that until
01:13we start to impose costs
01:15and they understand that there will be costs,
01:17these attacks are going to continue. They're cheap
01:19and there's really no consequences.
01:22If you're sitting in the Kremlin and somebody said,
01:26let's interfere with the next election in the United States,
01:28your answer would be, why not?
01:30It's not going to really cost us anything
01:32and they don't respond. We're not at any risk.
01:37Do you agree with me that we need to
01:39have a more stronger
01:41retaliatory
01:43capacity, number one,
01:45and demonstrate the will to use it?
01:47Otherwise, these attacks are simply going to continue.
01:49Senator, thanks for your question.
01:57It's good to see you again.
01:58Yes, sir.
02:01So, Senator, we
02:02certainly agree that
02:04we need to continue to improve
02:06our capability
02:09in order to deter
02:10and respond to attacks.
02:13I will tell you that
02:15from our standpoint,
02:17there is certain activity that
02:19adversaries, to include China,
02:21will always continue to conduct
02:23and we have got to focus
02:26on the most credible capabilities
02:28to deter
02:30operations that significantly
02:32impact the national security.
02:34Just like you,
02:35I am aware of Salt Typhoon
02:37and Volt Typhoon
02:38and while we're certainly
02:40concerned about that
02:42and we will certainly develop a broad range
02:44of options to deal with that.
02:46I will tell you that
02:47the fact that
02:47we are able to see
02:50and observe that activity
02:51and we are able to work
02:53with industry partners
02:54in order to build defenses
02:56against that activity
02:57is something that provides us
03:00some advantage
03:01vis-a-vis adversaries
03:02like the Chinese.
03:04And I assure you,
03:04we are dedicated to developing options
03:06in order to counter that
03:07and I would be more than happy
03:10to work with your staff
03:11in a different setting
03:12to provide you some details.
03:13Well, I understand
03:14that you have capacity
03:15and you have capabilities.
03:17We demonstrated that in 2018
03:18with the hunt forward,
03:19defend forward
03:20that General Nakasone initiated.
03:23So I understand
03:24we have the capacity.
03:25My problem is
03:25we don't have a doctrine.
03:27We don't have a...
03:28Deterrence doesn't work
03:29unless the other side
03:30knows about it.
03:31Dr. Strangelove,
03:32why didn't you tell us
03:33about the doomsday machine?
03:35Well, the premier likes surprises.
03:38A deterrent isn't a deterrent.
03:39It takes two things,
03:41three things.
03:41capacity, which we have,
03:44will, which we apparently don't have,
03:46and knowledge of the adversary
03:49that we have those two things
03:51and that they are being held at risk.
03:53So I'm not questioning
03:54the capabilities.
03:56What I'm questioning is
03:57here we are with Salt Typhoon,
03:59you know,
03:59two or three, six months ago,
04:01nothing's happened.
04:03No response.
04:04No, you know,
04:05like I said,
04:06we haven't even responded
04:07to the Sony attack
04:08and that was 10 or 15 years ago.
04:10There's never a price
04:12to be paid by our adversaries.
04:13And until we develop that theory,
04:16it seems to,
04:17the concept of deterrence,
04:19and let them know
04:20that they're at risk,
04:22they're going to keep doing
04:23what they're doing.
04:24I understand defending
04:25and working with our private sector partners.
04:27That's all good.
04:28But you can't patch your way out of this.
04:31There's got to be,
04:32I believe,
04:33a credible deterrent
04:35that the adversaries understand
04:38that if they attack us in cyberspace,
04:40they will pay a price.
04:42It doesn't necessarily
04:43have to be in cyberspace.
04:44It may be some other kind of harm
04:48that puts them at risk.
04:51But the point is,
04:52until we start to develop that doctrine
04:54and let our adversaries know
04:56it's just going to keep happening.
05:02So, Senator,
05:03acknowledge your concern.
05:06Again, look forward to working
05:07with the committee,
05:09with the department.
05:10And I do think we could provide you
05:13some more information
05:13in a closed session.
05:14Well, I appreciate that.
05:16Thank you, Mr. Chairman.