All language subtitles for Modern.Warfare.2.0.S01E03.Shock.and.Awe.1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP2.0.H.264-RAWR_track3_[eng]

...expecting an overcast
start to the day

with showers in the afternoon...

And now
to the mysterious illness

that has sickened
more than 200 American

spies and diplomats
around the world.

Five years after it first
surfaced in Cuba,

the cause and culprit
remain unknown.

Today, new information has
surfaced that sheds new light

on the phenomenon
from a fresh perspective.

For the first time,
three of the original victims

in cases known
as "Havana syndrome"

are speaking on television

with the approval
of the State Department.

They say they are going public
now because they are alarmed

by the escalation of incidents
and out of concern

for their colleagues.

It felt like
I was stuck in this state

of, like, disorientation,

not able to function--
"What is happening?"

And my whole body was pulsing.

My daughter woke up
in the middle of the night,

gushing blood.

My ears were ringing.
My head was spinning.

I felt like I was gonna vomit.

I couldn't stand up.
It was terrifying.

It was like a high-pitched
metallic drilling noise.

Something that I'd never
experienced in my entire life.

My baseline changed.
I was not the same person.

It's become known
as "Havana syndrome."

The American embassy...

...a mysterious illness.

American embassy...

...attacks affecting
US diplomats.

White House staff
and their families.

Where did the direct energy
come from?

Who undertook
the attack?

How do you develop these
systems,

but also regulate them
so technology enhances life

but doesn't take life?

Tonight, we're launching
an effort which holds

the promise of changing
the course of human history.

...the capabilities on which
society depends

for its very survival
and existence.

More stealthy and sinister
than bullets or bombs,

a new class of weaponry
is completely invisible.

It can incapacitate personnel
and disable equipment

with bursts of pure energy.

It's an ancient idea,
set loose in modern times.

When Archimedes developed
his mirror ray of fire to burn

the Roman Republic fleet
in 212 BC,

and Pliny the Elder talked
about using water and glass

to set people alight in 77 AD.

And Da Vinci used
concentrated solar power

against human bodies.

Little did we imagine that
these great minds of European

thinking would be starting
to open Pandora's box.

Conventional weapons are all
based on one basic premise.

Whether it's a bullet,
whether it's a directed energy,

it's still meant to cause
some sort of damage

on the final target.

With a directed energy weapon,
we don't have a bullet.

It's just pure energy
that comes from an emitter

and reaches a target.

We're talking about any weapon
that uses a form of energy.

There are five different types
of energy weapons.

Radiofrequency weapons,

sound blasters,

light-based weapons,

laser-based weapons,

and electromagnetic pulses.

Radiofrequency weapons
that could be microwaves,

that damage
and disrupt electronics,

or millimeter waves
that generate heat.

So here an example would
be the US Military's

Active Denial System, ADS,

also known as the heat ray.

Long range acoustic weapons,

basically sound cannons
or the thunder generator.

Light-based weapons
are also part of this.

You would have
the LED incapacitator

that creates strobe lights,

and thereby dazzles
your opponent.

There are laser-based weapons
that can be either

high powered, and they are able
to burn electronic circuits,

like the laser Avenger,

or detonate explosives,
like the Zeus.

Or they can be more low
powered, like the PHASR rifle

that is used
to dazzle opponents.

Energy weapons are different
from most other military

weapons insofar as most
of the time they are used

not to kill the opponent,
but rather, incapacitate them.

Near the border
with Afghanistan,

the streets resembled
a war zone.

Police used both tear gas
and steel-tip sticks.

Police fired water cannons.

Tear gas is being fired
through every two minutes.

Authorities used tear gas
and fired live ammunition

into the air to repel
thousands of demonstrators.

Police began using forceful
measures, including tear gas.

Despite the use
of water cannon,

many students
remained steadfast.

This protester,
according to witnesses,

fainted from the tear gas.

There are plenty of methods
used for crowd control,

like tear gas, rubber bullets,
or water cannons that,

even though they're less lethal
than regular weapons,

they're not injury free,
and some of those injuries

are debilitating.

An energy weapon offers
the ability to stop a crowd

without permanently
hurting anyone,

but it still serves
as a deterrent.

These energy tools are
much more attractive

in terms of political
expediency.

On the face of it,
these weapons may appear

to be more humane,
but importantly,

they're also harder to trace.

Where did the direct energy
come from?

Who undertook the attack?

All of these attributes give
you a degree of political

deniability that becomes
increasingly attractive.

Among these invisible systems
are other things that create

electronic fields,
radio frequency fields,

or magnetic fields.

The constant exposure to these
high levels of energy could

cause the symptoms that are now
known as the "Havana syndrome."

Mysterious brain injuries

reported by US National
Security Officials.

It was like a dentist
drilling on steroids.

I got vertigo.

The US Government publicly
doubts that an adversary

is targeting Americans.

An investigation alleges
they may have been targeted

by a secretive Russian
intelligence unit.

A report that links a Russian
intelligence unit

to "Havana syndrome."

The reports of effects
vary greatly with strange

sensations, with high pitched
noises, sense of pressure,

hearing loss, vertigo,

and cognitive impairment.

All these things were
experienced widely

by a wide group of people
across a wide area.

This was a global phenomenon.

When I took a look at a map
that showed where these type

of injuries are being reported,
I noticed that the majority

of them happen to be in places
where we consider it

a high counterintelligence
threat.

That means that we
and our friendly neighbors

are employing all sorts
of electronic countermeasures.

I couldn't help but wonder
if those themselves

could contribute to the problem.

Investigators attributed
the sound to a special type

of cricket, the West Indies
short-tailed cricket,

But the same symptoms

were also found among diplomats
in Vienna, where this type

of cricket obviously
doesn't live.

The JASON report of 2021
firmly denies

that any such direct
energy weapon

was the cause
of these issues.

And yet, how would
you attribute their attack?

How would you know
if it actually came about?

Several people have said that
the impacts of what they have

felt have stopped them
from living normal daily lives.

Neurologists and behaviorists
will tell you how deeply

the brain can be impacted
by energy waves,

giving symptoms
very much the same

as those experienced
by American diplomats in Havana.

Even before
the "Havana syndrome"

kind of got everyone's attention
in the news,

the issue
of direct energy weapons

has been out there
for years now.

There's all sorts of questions
against what kind of impact

does it have on a human.

Some people still
believe they are harmless,

but they're increasingly
in the minority.

We're now trying to deal
with a vast array

of second and third order
implications

and impacts of weapons

that we're not sure
we fully understand.

If you look at what happened
in the protests in Iran

over the last couple of years,

the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Forces

were out in the streets
using non-lethal means

to suppress the protesters.

But in many cases,
they're actually shooting

rubber bullets
and there's countless reports

of protesters literally having
their eyes shot out.

But what we're starting to see
is those quote unquote--

"Non-lethal means" can actually
lead to significant harm.

So is non-lethal less evil
than a lethal solution?

Now, when you start talking
about directed energy,

that same kind of concept
begins to come to question.

Where are the boundaries?

Another driver of this interest
in energy weapons

is the simple economics
and cost of war.

It's not really economical
to use

a $65,000 missile to shoot down
a drone that costs maybe $600.

The idea that energy weapons
don't require reloading

that are cheap
on a cost-per-kill basis

is very attractive
both militarily,

politically, and economically.

Think about a ship,
for example, that has a bunch

of missiles in its silo,
some drones coming towards it,

and each one of those you have
to fire off a missile to use.

And yet reloading the missile
requires you

to transit back
to your home base,

taking you off-station

for perhaps
months at a time.

Instead of that,
a direct energy weapon

allows you to stay on station
and available to shoot

time after time after time.

Decades of popular culture
imagine this futuristic

long-distance weapon
as a death ray.

Then, science brought us...

the laser.

Laser is an acronym
for Light Amplification

of Stimulated Emissions
of Radiation.

It's created when particles
of gas are contained

between two mirrors.

They get excited by the energy
from an electrical source

and emit a series of photons
that are increased

with the help of mirrors,

allowing the beam
to be directed.

Introduced in the 1960s,
it has been used

for several scientific
and industrial applications,

as well as being
for mere entertainment.

But it's also been adapted
for military

and defense applications.

PHASR stands
for Personnel Halting

and Stimulation Response Rifle.

Its purpose is to temporarily
disorient and blind a target.

Another weapon is
the Avenger laser system,

capable of firing power shots
of up to 10 kilowatts.

This is designed to be able
to shoot at drones to scramble

the internal electronics
of the system being targeted.

The Solid-State Laser
Technology Maturation,

or the SSL-TM, was test fired
in the Gulf of Aden in 2021

and successfully
engaged the target.

Before that, the USS Portland
used that same laser

to bring down a flying drone.

Russia has now deployed
five operational units

of its Peresvet system, being
used to destroy UAVs in Ukraine,

and with a range--
Russia claims,

of up to 1,500 kilometers.

But at this point,
it is not entirely clear,

whether that is just
Kremlin propaganda,

or whether that has
really happened.

One of the issues with lasers
is that you can't use them

over long distances.

The earth's atmosphere being
full of particles mean

that the power,
the energy of a laser beam,

it's broken up
over longer range.

This doesn't happen in space,
where the lack of particles

in a vacuum allow you
to reach much longer ranges

with the same power laser.

This is why lasers have become
a really important tool

in what's become known
as space warfare.

You are go for landing-- Over.

The Soviet Union astounded
the world by being the first

nation to launch an artificial
satellite into outer space.

The failure, nicknamed Sputnik,
seeded American fears

of technological inferiority.

The Soviets still had more
humiliation to exact.

Yuri Gagarin ushered the human
race into the space age.

The Americans assumed
that the first man in space

would be an American.

One power or another is going
to seize that strategic

high ground of space
and then dominate the globe.

My fellow Americans,
tonight we're launching

an effort which holds
the promise of changing

the course of human history.

Stories and controversy
over SDI,

the Strategic Defense
Initiative.

The Soviet Union is believed
to have a ground-based laser

already capable of destroying
satellites in space,

and like the United States,
has for many years

had the ability
to take out satellites

with missile technology.

As the arms race
continued to escalate,

the narrative changed
for new weapons tech.

The Strategic Defense
Initiative focused

on weapons of defense
rather than annihilation.

In the early 1980s,
US president Ronald Reagan

decided that he needed
to reset the relationship

with the Warsaw Pact.

The era of mutually-assured
destruction, when both the US

and Soviet Union had developed
enough nuclear weapons to wipe

each other out, looked like
there was no end in sight.

Reagan was being told
by his generals that they were

outmatched and outgunned
on the battlefields

of Western Europe.

Coming out of the Cold War,
everyone was weary

with the threat that US

and the Soviet Union
might go to nuclear war.

Reagan understood that
the West's economic might was

a key factor in the battle
against the Soviet forces.

Reagan put forward the
Strategic Defense Initiative,

otherwise known
as "Star Wars."

The SDI consisted
in developing a system

of space-based
sensors and lasers.

So an armed satellite
that could detect and destroy

missiles shortly after launch.

They would be complemented
by Ground-Based Interceptors,

GBIs, missiles that could be
fired against incoming missiles

in mid-course and outer space.

Destroying a missile in outer
space has two advantages.

First of all, you, of course,
destroy the missile.

Secondly, you also minimize
the effects from the blast,

most notably, the radiation.

Now, the American public had
the hope of a totally new type

of weapon system,
one that attacked the missiles

that were attacking us.

That made "Star Wars"
very attractive

to the average citizen.

SDI held huge promise against
a Soviet Union who, whilst

being a space-faring nation,
didn't quite have the same

ability to match
the technological progress

and promise that "Star Wars"
could deliver.

This was the moment at which
the world was about to shift.

The idea that mutually-assured
destruction,

the doctrine that had held
the balance of power together

for the previous generation,

was no longer going
to work

against a "Star Wars" program

that promised a real
defense for the United States.

But it was all a bit premature.

We did not have the lasers that
would be required to actually

interdict a missile, and we did
not have the capacity to detect

all of the Russian
missile launches.

But still, "Star Wars" was
considered a success.

It was a powerful
psychological weapon.

Psychological operations became
a hallmark of the Cold War era.

We found that sometimes
if an enemy believed you had

a weapon system
or a capability,

that was almost
as good

as actually
having that itself.

The Soviet Union's efforts
to pour a bunch of money

into developing their own type
of "Star Wars",

led to the collapse

of their already weak
economic system.

This helped the walls
come down in Berlin.

Whilst the strategic defense
initiative was eventually

shelved and never used,
it elicited a fear about

the changing balance of power
and the way the world thought

about space and about warfare.

Just the mere threat
of space-based weapons

was to have
the grandest of implications

back on Earth.

The night of July 8, 1962,

would be a very different
night for the residents

of O'ahu, Hawaii.

At exactly 11 PM
and nine seconds,

a series of disturbances
with electronics

started to occur all over
the island.

As many as 300 streetlights
simply switched off.

And all of a sudden,
strange lights in the sky

illuminated the Hawaiian shore.

Slow, flickering lights
would change colors

for what seemed
like a few minutes.

And when it all seemed over,
a very bright light

was seen on the horizon.

For a good minute,
the sky over the island

was as bright as during daytime.

Even a local telephone company
had its microwave link damaged.

Atmospheric nuclear test
over the open ocean.

A thermonuclear device off
the coast of Christmas Island.

The city returned to darkness
after the clouds turned

pink, rose, and orange.

An intense blow appeared
to the north,

then spread south
and disappeared.

Star Fish, by far, the most
widely discussed nuclear test.

24 weapon development shots
were fired

at the Christmas Island site.

To determine the effects
of high-altitude

nuclear explosions

on radar
and communication systems.

Five seconds, four, three,
two, one, zero...

The cause was a project called
Starfish Prime, which led

to the unexpected discovery
of the electromagnetic pulse

as a side effect
of a nuclear detonation.

In a world growing more
dependent on electronics,

EMP would become
a game-changer.

Starfish Prime was
a high-altitude nuclear test.

It was done to learn about
the damage that a nuclear

detonation in a high altitude
could do.

It was discovered that an after
effect of nuclear detonations

was the destruction
and disruption of electronic

equipment in a wide
geographical area.

The EMP effects of that blast
overload circuits

and destroys any system
that is used to conduct energy.

That means that the system
is also destroyed long term

and needs to be rebuilt.

The question this raises is,
can you take an EMP pulse

and direct it to a refined
target where it does fry out,

overload, or burn
an electrical system?

And what are the impacts it can
have on a battlefield?

Well, what happens if you can't
understand how to replicate

that energy in a very
targeted manner?

Given how digitized
the battlefield is becoming,

the idea of an electromagnetic
pulse being used in any way

that would shut down anything
electronic on a battlefield

is fundamentally reshaping
how we might think

about battlefields
in the future.

All the unprotected equipment
on the battlefield

would be destroyed.

That would include
the targeting system for tanks,

all radios, any system
that runs on electronics,

and that includes something
as simple as a device

that has any kind
of capacitor, diode, chip,

anything that relies
on electronics.

Even planes would not be able
to stay in the air.

One of the things we're seeing
right now is, kind of,

the evolution
of military doctrine.

It's understanding how an EMP
pulse can be used

as a first-strike doctrine
to degrade or weaken your enemy

before more conventional action.

EMPs can be created
by nuclear explosions,

but there are also other ways
to create an EMP,

and that allows it
to be more targeted.

The equivalent of a million
tons or more of TNT.

It may well prove to be man's
greatest hope for peace.

Like a man-made sun,
the fireball glows

high above the Pacific Ocean.

Although the physics
behind EMP are complex,

the results are clear.

Basically, it's a nuclear bomb
which fries every electronic...

It may also affect
satellite communication.

What is being done today
to protect the grid

from weaponized
electromagnetic pulse?

They would challenge
our communication ability.

Resiliency against
electromagnetic events.

Make sure our systems are ready
to go on a moment's notice.

Once the value of EMPs
was realized,

new weapons were
developed

to bring its power
to the battlefield.

There is a battery powered,

anti-drone,

electromagnetic pulse rifle.

The device emits a separate
electromagnetic pulse

that cuts off the drone's
contact with the operator,

loses control,
and then is rendered useless.

I believe that in Afghanistan,
some of these newest rifles

were tried with various levels
of success.

But think about being
on a large battlefield,

where you might encounter

drone swarms of 10, 20, or 30
of them coming at you,

each one
with the capability to kill.

The THOR weapons system is one
of our first steps in trying

to counter this problem.

It stands for
Tactical High-Power
Operational Responder.

It's designed to be used
against the small, cheap type

of drones that were used
against us in Afghanistan.

The THOR uses
an electromagnetic pulse

over a much wider field that
enables you not just to take out

one drone,
but potentially a whole swarm.

But the pace of drone
development quickly outstrips

all countermeasures.

And the THOR is still
relatively limited

in range and coverage.

So, wider range EMP weapons

have been researched
and developed.

The latest EMP weapon overcomes
THOR's limitations

by taking the fight to the air.

One weapon that has been
successfully deployed and tested

by the US Military
is called "CHAMP."

CHAMP stands for
the Counter electronics
High power

microwave Advanced
Missile Project.

Essentially, it is a missile
that has the capability

of emitting multiple EMPs
at various targets.

And so the result
of the CHAMP is a directed

EMP in a highly targeted area.

So you can use CHAMP to disable
enemy electronics, and that can

either be the mission itself
or it can be the first stage

of a two or three stage attack.

As far back as 2012, one was
tested that actually disabled

seven different targets
before it self-destructed

over an empty desert.

During that test,
the CHAMP missile navigated

a preplanned
and programmed flight.

Then it emitted high-powered
energy bursts over each

of its targets, knocking out
both their data

and electronic systems.

The ability of CHAMP to fire
from over the horizon

and wipe out systems and
subsystems from a great distance

is a real evolution in how
we think about warfare.

The idea that you can fire
a cruise missile

from hundreds of miles away,

that it could fly
over the horizon and target

not just potentially
a server farm, but even down

to an individual computer,
is now becoming a reality.

But the fact
that we developed that in 2012

and reportedly have deployed it

makes me wonder...

by now, do any of our enemies
have it?

And if they do, would they not
consider using it

against a civilian populace?

In the event of a large EMP
attack, you could imagine

a situation where all
electronic systems

don't work anymore.

Communications, transportation,
the financial market,

even our hospital,
our healthcare systems,

nothing would work anymore.

Generally, EMPs aren't lethal
to the human body

or anything organic.
It just destroys electronics.

But, of course,
the secondary effects could be

absolutely catastrophic because
our societies so highly rely

on electronic measures.

If the healthcare system
collapses, that could also kill

a lot of people
as a secondary effect.

Conventional thinking would
have you believe at the moment

that any kind of semi
apocalyptic scenario would have

to be conducted by a state,
someone who possessed

nuclear weapons and the ability
to put them high up in space

to give you these impacts.

And yet, the idea that
a lone wolf attack,

that a non-state actor

could conduct
an attack like this,

is not beyond
the realms of possibility.

So the downside and the risk
of disruptive technologies

is what happens
when that technology falls

into the hands
of the wrong person,

whether you're talking
about a criminal organization

or a terrorist organization
or a non-state actor

that's acting on behalf
of an adversary.

The ramifications and the impact
of that are massive.

As disruptive technologies
continue to evolve

in the 21st century,

what we're gonna
start seeing is a significant

reliance on space-based systems
and space-based platforms

that are gonna enable
these systems.

You're starting to see
the evolution

of yet another domain
of warfare,

in this case,
space warfare.

T-minus ten,

T-minus ten, nine, eight,
seven...

six, five, four...

three, two, one.

Go Falcon, go Dragon,
go .

Endurance ascends.

An international crew destined
for the international...

Stage one propulsion...

That's 1.7 million.

...calls from the propulsion
officers here.

Propulsion's phenomenal.

Sophisticated weaponry can
never assure peace on Earth,

but now the stakes
are growing infinitely higher

as we expand into space.

The militaries of many nations
are looking at space

as the new frontier.

It's not unlike people many
centuries ago used to view

the oceans and the lands
beyond them.

Well, since the late 15th
century and well into the 19th

and 20th century,
the countries that were able

to project command and control
of the high seas were able

to really dictate trade,
commerce, communications.

So, as the importance
of the space economy continues

to grow, you are gonna start
seeing that arms race

between the likes of the US,

China, India, Western allies,
and Russia to try to create

and command control
of near space.

We have never succeeded
in freeing our planet

from the implements of war.

But if we cannot yet achieve
this goal here on Earth,

we can at least keep
the virus from spreading.

We can keep the ugly
and wasteful weapons

of mass destruction
from contaminating space.

And that is, just exactly,
what this treaty does.

Whether it's around
mining rights,

whether it's around controlling
certain assets in space.

Norms and decorum
between nation states

is going to be critical
to make sure that we tame

the wild frontier of space.

The Outer Space Treaty is
an internationally acknowledged

set of behaviors that says
you will not place weapons

in space that is designed
to come down.

That doesn't mean
that you can't put satellites

in space for surveillance,
for warlike purposes,

but that you can't place
weapons there.

This is really important
because all warfare

acknowledges the requirement
for height.

The essential nature of space,
therefore, means

that satellites become their key
assets, and space being

the ultimate high that any
battlefield commander

really needs to see
over the horizon

and to understand
the battlefield.

So if you look at the evolution
of conflict and warfare,

going back
to the medieval times,

if you're looking to lay
siege on a castle

before you actually attack it,

one of the things you're trying
to do is knock out the sentries

so they don't see
the attack coming.

When you look at space,

some of the same
basic concepts apply.

If we're gonna start relying
more on space-based systems,

it would be argued that before
a major conflict or a war,

does an adversary now
see or seek the means

and the ability to basically
shoot out your eyes and degrade

your ability to be able
to sense what's coming?

US policy is all countries
should have a right

to peaceful access to space.

The fundamental position
of the Russian Federation

is that outer space should be
absolutely weapons free.

It is our collective
responsibility to ensure

the safety of assets
in the space, like satellites.

We're concerned
about the impact that debris

from destroyed satellites
could have on other satellites.

We have identified 400 pieces
of orbital debris

from anti-satellite tests
that was done by India.

I think that's a very
troubling thing.

Earlier today,
the Russian Federation

recklessly conducted
a destructive satellite test

of a direct ascent
anti-satellite missile

that now threatened
the interests of all nations.

Anti-satellite weapons
have a long tradition

of shooting down satellites.

They've been tested
against decommissioned ones.

They've been used
and tested in commercial

and military spheres.

The idea being that you have
the ability to take out

individual or perhaps large
numbers of satellites

in a targeted and detailed way.

The US and our adversaries
continue at a rapid pace

to develop new types
of energy weapons

for both offensive
and defensive use.

Since 1995, and particularly
during the 2020s,

the PLA from China
have worked considerably

and used test fired laser
to dazzle weapons

against US satellite sensors.

The idea being to dazzle,
to temporarily disrupt,

but not destroy.

How do you protect them?

How do you harden them
and prevent them from either

an EMP attack or a cyber-attack,

or in some cases,
actual physical attack?

Satellites have small rockets
on them that allow them

to maneuver to avoid kills.

But the idea
of an electromagnetic pulse,

an EMP in space,
can destroy not just one,

but hundreds, perhaps thousands
of satellites.

This is really significant,
because unlike 50 years ago,

where there were only a handful
of satellites operating,

now there are hundreds
and thousands of satellites

in different orbits
around the Earth.

These provide the capabilities
on which society depends

for its very survival
and existence.

As our societies grow more
dependent on satellites,

space has become big business,
changing the relationship

between government
and private enterprise.

Dragon is on its way
to the space station.

This is the 100th
successful flight--

OK, pop the champagne.

Bringing the common man
into space.

Yeah, it's a great event.

Over the last 15 years,
it's becoming cheaper

and cheaper for private
companies to create assets

that create services in space.

You're starting to see more
and more private enterprises

get involved
in the launch business.

As launch costs go down,
you're starting to see more

and more viable commercial
platforms and business models

that can take advantage
of putting up systems

and networks in near space.

It's not unlike centuries ago
when the British and Dutch

East India Tea Companies
fought for control

of the trade routes
on the high seas.

They often used
privateers or pirates

to fight that battle for them.

So as more and more companies
put satellites

and other vehicles in space,

and then new nations

are entering
into the space race,

space will become
a very crowded arena.

What's also starting to happen

is the US governments,
the European governments,

and organizations like NASA
are basically abdicating

having a presence in near space

and focusing on long term
space exploration.

That void is being filled
by private enterprise

that are creating platforms
to take advantage

of collapsing launch costs

to create a whole new
ecosystem and economy in space.

So the European way
is trade first,

government, military,
follow later.

The American way is
military first, trade after.

We don't really understand
how Russia and China

would do this in the same way,
because both of them have

government-led policies.

China space enterprises are
still government owned.

Russian space enterprises
are still government owned.

Whereas in the West,
you've seen this use

of commerce going first,
the idea that Elon Musk

was putting satellites up,

and now provides a service.

...two, one--

It's a really different way
of engaging with space

and philosophically,
how you go about it.

Our civilization is highly
reliant on space-based

capabilities, like satellites
that enable our communication,

GPS, traffic control systems,
everything from traffic lights

to track trains,
signal movements for ships,

airplanes, but also things
like the stock market

or the internet.

If you're able to knock out
the links between the satellite

capabilities in space and the
earth stations,

then you're
able to disrupt

the way that societies act
and behave.

Societies are now so dependent
and interconnected through

space-based capabilities
that there would be a snap back

to something
around the Iron Age.

Our reliance on satellites
leaves us vulnerable

to less sophisticated
satellite-killing weaponry.

Lasers are suddenly
relevant again.

Lasers in space have
a certain amount of attraction.

The ability to harness
greater power from the sun,

because there is no attenuation
from the air, allows you

to achieve greater power outputs
from a smaller area in space.

That means not only are
they more cost effective,

but they have greater reach.

This, of course, means that
a reinterpretation, perhaps,

of the Outer Space Treaty
would be required.

We had agreed between states
and actors in space

that we wouldn't place weapons
in outer space.

A laser, is, to all intents
and purposes, a weapon.

That re-imagining,
that breaking, that rewriting

of the Outer Space Treaty
is something that is likely

to be required
in the foreseeable future.

Reagan believed in peace
through strength.

That requires us to continue
to develop ever powerful weapons

with devastating effects.

But how do you continue to do
that without running the risk

that you create something
that can hurt yourself?

Weapons manufacturers,
armed forces,

political leaders, at least I'd
say in our liberal democracies,

Are striving to minimize
the risk of collateral damage

by developing more targeted,
and more precise,

and more sophisticated weapons.

So I think direct energy
weapons, they're gonna have

a much larger impact
on the battlefield than perhaps

we've seen or expected

So the original warfare
really involved

sticks and bricks and clubs.

The ability to exact a lot
of damage on bystanders

or civilian casualties
was limited.

But as you start to see
the growth and evolution

of warfare, the ability
for collateral damage

and bystanders being harmed
or killed become

much more real.

So as we see disruptive
technologies reshape

the evolution of warfare
and conflict

in the 21st century,

how do you develop these
systems but also regulate them

so they're not causing
mass damage and casualties

on bystanders and people
that are civilians?

But even if these weapons were
regulated, we can't be certain

of who has them
and who does not.

It wouldn't be beyond reach
for a rogue nation,

a terrorist group, or other bad
actors to either purchase

or develop their own.

They could use those against us
in a clandestine manner.

We may get the effects
of such a weapon,

but never know who caused it.

You need to understand
how we can control these

so technology enhances life
but doesn't take life.

The democratization
of weaponry, of sophisticated

capabilities, of people capable
of using these weapons now,

starts to crack open
that Pandora's box.

Have we progressed technology
and developed weapons

to a point where we don't really
understand what their utility

might be?