The President's Daily Brief - February 7th, 2023. Why the US Allowed the Chinese Spy Balloon to Cross the US.

Episode Date: February 7, 2023

It’s February 7th. You’re listening to the President’s Daily Brief. Your morning intel starts now. ------ A good day to you, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve got four briefs for you this morning that are shaping America — and the world. First, an update on the Chinese Spy Balloon saga. It turns out my counsel to you all yesterday was spot on regarding one thing in particular. We’ll discuss it. Second, we’ve spoken a lot about a potential war between the US and China over the island of Taiwan. But if war ever came, would the Taiwanese people actually stand up and fight? I’ve got an answer. Third, an update to the Drone Wars in Ukraine. The country of Iran has agreed to help build a drone factory in Russia to keep Moscow fully supplied for years to come. Fourth, a brief on Dirty Green Energy / but it is unlike anything we’ve talked about before. It involves the deep ocean, and it takes us all the way back to the 1960s with CIA spies and a connection to sunken Soviet submarine. Later, we close out the podcast with a quick brief about tonight’s State of the Union address in Washington DC on the topic of debt and deficits. ----- Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of the President's Daily Brief. Email: [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Own it all. Pay off your home, travel for life, drive a Ferrari. In celebration of the world premiere of the Monopoly Big Board Buckslot Machine by Aristocrat Gaming, Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package. The biggest prize in Yamava's history. Club Serrano members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29th.

Don't pass go and own it all. Only at Yamava, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Details at yamava.com must be 21-20. Please gamble responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro. Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion. It's February 7th. You're listening to the President's Daily Brief. I'm your host and former CIA

Officer Brian Dean Wright. Your morning intel starts now. A good day to you, ladies and gentlemen, I've got four briefs for you this morning that are shaping America and the world. First, an update on the Chinese spy balloon saga. Turns out that my counseled to you all yesterday was actually spot on regarding one thing in particular. We'll discuss it. Second, we've spoken a lot about a potential war between the U.S. and China over the island of Taiwan. But if war ever came, would the Taiwanese people actually stand up and fight? I've got an answer to that question. Third, an update to the drone wars in Ukraine. The country of Iran has apparently agreed to help build a drone factory in Russia to help keep Moscow fully supplied for years to come.

Fourth, a brief about dirty green energy, but it is unlike anything that we have talked about before. It involves the deep ocean, and it actually takes us all the way back to the 1960s with CIA spies and a connection to a sunken Soviet submarine. Later, we close out the podcast with a quick brief about tonight's State of the Union address. That's, of course, in Washington, D.C., talking about a lot of things, but we are going to discuss the topic of debt and deficits. But before we get to that, we got to get started with this. First, a developing tragedy this morning, out of the countries of Turkey and Syria. Two earthquakes struck an already very struggling and poor area of those two nations,

killing at least 4,000 people. The images that I'm seeing, and I'm sure that you have seen, just shock the conscience and break your heart. So I'm watching this story for ways that we can help these folks, because no matter your views or your politics, the suffering that we are seeing just brings tears to your eyes. And if you're like me, you want to find ways to help. so I'm going to keep watching this and I will let you know.

Meanwhile, let's talk about our first main brief this morning. I've got confirmation about why the Biden administration allowed that Chinese spy balloon to pass through the entirety of the continental United States before it was shot down. Now, before I tell you the reason, let's remind ourselves of something that we talked about yesterday. I briefed you that the U.S. military and intelligence community likely gave Joe Biden and his team three options. First, to shoot the balloon down immediately. Or second, let the balloon float around for a while, maybe just across Canada and into Montana. Or the third option was, you know, let that thing float all the way through the Atlantic Ocean and then shoot it down there.

And the goal of the last two options of, you know, let it float, well, those options were all about collecting intelligence on this new piece of Chinese equipment. It's a balloon that had the ability to maneuver itself rather than just float around. the wind. Well, yesterday afternoon, we learned that the Biden administration specifically chose option three to let it float all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. According to General Glenn Van Herc, who's the U.S. commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, he suggested that the White House decided to let the balloon pass all the way through the United States in order to collect intelligence on the balloon as it, well, as the balloon collected intelligence on us. So here's what General Van Herk said. Quote, there was a potential opportunity for us

to collect intel where we had gaps on balloons. This gave us the opportunity to assess what the Chinese were actually doing and what kinds of capabilities existed on the balloon and what kind of say transmission abilities existed. Yes, he said that they in fact did learn some very important things. For instance, that balloon used both the wind and its propulsion system to guide it to sit atop military targets below. And by the way, the general then finished his press conference yesterday by saying, quote, you'll see in the future that the timeframe of letting China's balloon pass over all of the United States, well, that was worth its value to collect intelligence. Now, this does conflict with the statement made by Mr. Biden on Saturday.

when he insisted that he told Pentagon to shoot down that balloon, quote, as soon as possible, end quote, all so that the falling debris wouldn't harm civilians below. In other words, they need, well, they need to get their story straight. But putting that aside from what I continue to hear from my sources is that it does make clear, at least from the military and intelligence community's perspective, that they wanted and they got option three. In other words, they were, willing to let China spy on us from Idaho to South Carolina so that we could in turn spy on them. But I do want to go back to the general's last statement that doing this option three was, quote, well worth its value to collect intelligence, end quote. And I just want to emphasize something.

That is his personal opinion. And he should have said that. Because we don't know if that's true yet. But more importantly, it's a political call, not a military. one. So let me explain. As I shared with you all yesterday, there were costs to that option three of letting China and the world watch as Beijing floated their spy balloon across the country. Right. One cost was that it gave the optic of weakness. And that's because you and me and China and the whole world saw that balloon go all the way from Idaho to South Carolina without being touched. And yeah, that made America look weak. Now, that was the political cost that Biden and his team accepted. All right. Was that the right call? Well, this is where we have to step back and be a little bit fair.

Reasonable people, I think, can disagree on this one. It's a matter of opinion and goals. And I author at my view yesterday that the intelligence gain wasn't worth the global hit to our reputation. Now, maybe it was at first when the whole thing was private. It was a game of spy versus spy. But by late last week, the whole shebang went public. And for me, based on my work in the field of intel and politics, the risk of weakness outweighed the intelligence gain. Again, that's my view based on my experience.

But what's most important, ladies and gentlemen, out of this statement from the commander of Norad, if you put everything aside, well, you all got some helpful information yesterday about the likely options presented to the White House. and why they would have chosen, say, option one, two, or three. My hope is that that conversation yesterday gave you an ability to sort through some of the partisan noise of this very important story and walk away a little bit smarter about the issue, irrespective of whether or not you and I agreed, because that as ever is the goal of the PDB. So I'll keep you posted, folks, on what the intel was that we learned, and whether it was or was not,

worth the risk. Moving on for our second brief this morning, we are actually going to stick with the issue of China and the United States, but we're actually going to switch gears to the issue of Taiwan. As PDB listeners know, that's the province that would likely cause war

between Beijing and Washington. So this morning, I'm going to talk about one variable that will help us answer the question of who would win that war. And the variable is this. Will the Taiwanese people fight for their island, if war ever came. So to refresh our memories as to why this is so important, we know that the U.S. will likely win the first few weeks of a war with China, but not if the Taiwanese people don't

fight back in those first few critical days. And as we've discovered in Afghanistan and in Ukraine, that will to fight is exceptionally important. In Ukraine, for instance, the U.S. intelligence community assumed that the Ukrainians would flee from the Russian invasion, but they didn't, generally speaking, and that bought Kiev time and, of course, weapons from the West. So now we should ask, how about Taiwan? Do those people have the same will to fight? Well, we've got some new data to consider as we answer that very important question. There was a recent survey of the Taiwanese people called the Taiwan National Security Survey, or TNSS, conducted back in December. It's actually a very long-standing poll run each year

asking the people of that island lots of questions about national security. And one of the questions was this, if Taiwan and China were to fight a war, what action would you take? So in the open-ended responses, 31% of the people gave answers that could be seen as saying that they would fight for Taiwan. Another 15% said, I'd do whatever the government told me. So if you take those together, that's 46% of Taiwan. these people who said that they would fight back. They would take on China. So if that number seems low, 46%, well, yeah, it kind of is.

But it's actually higher than in the past when that number was only around 30% who said that they would fight back against China. So if I could pivot now to analysis and opinion to help us make sense of this, well, if you're perplexed by these numbers, well, I understand. because only 46% of Taiwanese people, well, they're willing to fight. That seems very low, and it is. And it actually speaks to the complexity of how Taiwanese people view themselves and their government and, frankly, their fate. After many decades of living under the shadow of Beijing and the threat of invasion,

there's this real mix of how people identify as either Taiwanese or Chinese or some sort of hybrid of both. there's also great debate as to whether or not they should demand independence or remain sort of ambivalent as they currently are. Or if there's a war, should they fight or not? And I'll tell you that complexity is very relevant as we think about whether we in America or the West should fight and sacrifice for them. So that's why I'm going to keep a very close eye on these numbers, especially if that 46% who said that they would fight, if that grows higher or shrinks back towards that 30% because it's very important for you and policymakers around the world to consider. For our third brief this morning, let's talk about the drone wars.

That's the fight in Ukraine, where both sides are using different types of drones to, well, kill each other. Well, last spring, the United States provided a variety of modest suicide drones called switchblades. and they did have some effect against the Russians, but the big change was when Iran provided some of their drones called the Shaheeds this past fall. Russia bought around 1,000 or 1,500 of these things, and they actually targeted Ukraine's electricity grid. Well, as PDB listeners know, that grid has been repeatedly attacked and then repaired and then attacked again. And that takes us to today's update. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Iran has a to help Russia build an advanced manufacturing facility of these drones about 600 miles east of Moscow.

An Iranian delegation traveled to Russia in mid-January to conduct a site survey and prepare construction plans for a factory that, when complete, will pump out around 6,000 drones over the course of a year or so. And these drones, by the way, will not be the old versions that we have seen so far, the ones that I previously described as sort of go-karts in the sky. You know, they're sort of loud and obvious. Russia and Iran are apparently developing a new, more advanced version with an updated engine that'll be much quieter with further range. Now, that factory will probably take about a year or so to construct and begin production. And so because of that, Iran has agreed to continue manufacturing the Shaheed 136s back in Tehran until that factory in Moscow, or I should say east of Moscow, is up and running.

All right, so those are the facts and data this morning. Let me now pivot briefly to analysis and opinion. So, folks, what this means is that Russia is settling in for the long haul in this war, right? They think that they can outlast the Ukrainians from money to weaponry. And so they're building out their military industrial complex to include things like this drone factory in order to keep themselves fully stocked. In other words, this war of attrition in Ukraine is likely going to be with us for a vehicle. very long time years. And that means, as always, there's both a risk of steady escalation on purpose or by accident, and there will also be a steady demand by our partners in Kiev for your support.

And we should be very clear-eyed about that as we think about how or when or if we can ever negotiate a piece to end things sooner. With that, ladies and gentlemen, let's take a quick break. when we come back. I've got one more critical piece of news for you. So hang tight and we will be right back. Welcome back to the PDB. I've got one more critical piece of news for you this morning. So earlier today we kicked off the podcast talking about balloons

and espionage in the sky. Well, we are actually going to wrap up today's PDB by going in the opposite direction. We're going to dive deep into the ocean. And that's because a Canadian firm recently announced that they conducted a successful test of mining the floor. of the Pacific Ocean. And the reason they did that is because of dirty green minerals, minerals like cobalt, nickel, and manganese.

And this is very unusual. Virtually all of humanity's mining for minerals has happened, of course, in the ground, not deep in the water. And it raises a myriad of questions about whether this company or any company should be allowed to mine the ocean floor. And that's because we know so little about the ecosystems of that environment and the extent to which mining could cause irreversible damage. Now, before we get into this brief, to really tell it well,

I need to take you back to the 1960s, because the mining of the ocean floor actually started in earnest with some technology invented by spies, partnering with a very reclusive man named Howard Hughes, trying to recover a Soviet submarine that sunk in some, well, very mysterious circumstances. So let's actually start there. On March 1st of 1968, there was a Soviet ballistic missile submarine. It was called the K-129, and it set sail.

It was armed with nuclear weapons, and it left the Soviet Union that day for a patrol station off the coast of Hawaii. But the submarine never arrived. An accident of some kind occurred. We still don't know why. But regardless, the submarine sank with the crew and their nuclear missiles. Now, the Soviet Union scrambled. They tried to find it, but they failed. The U.S. Navy?

Aha, they did find it. 1,800 miles northwest of Hawaii, sitting on the ocean floor at about 16,000 feet below the surface. Now, the U.S. government really wanted that submarine and its secrets, but at the time, there was no ship in existence that could reach down and grab that sub and bring it to the surface. So President Richard Nixon agreed in a very secret plan for the CIA to design a special ship for the job. Well, the CIA got to work, and within a few years and a whole bunch of money,

they had their ship. It was called the Hughes-Gomar Explorer. And the way it worked was pretty ingenious. It had a series of mechanical claws that using an innovative hydraulic system could be lowered with cables and then grasp a hold of the submarine and then pull it up. And now, once they got this sub to the main ship, again, did the GOMAR Explorer, there was this. this massive docking bay inside the hole of the ship that hid the cargo, the sub. But of course, this kind of very odd and large ship needed a cover story, an ostensible job that to the outside world would explain its purpose and the odd look. And so the CIA went to the very reclusive American businessman named Howard Hughes for some help.

And he agreed that one of his companies would take ownership of the vessel and say that it was for deep sea mining. In fact, they would tell everyone that they were looking for rare earth metals on the ocean floor for things like cobalt and nickel and manganese. And it was actually a plausible story because what's interesting about deep sea mining is that these minerals, they're not buried under the surface to be dug up.

Instead, the metals collect in, well, they're sort of like little balls or nodules the size of a big potato. And these nodules sit on the ocean floor. and they build up like little mini reefs over thousands of years through natural processes. Well, to make a long story short, the CIA and its secret Howard Hugheship were successful. They indeed sat about that Soviet sub, dropped their claw, and slowly raised it from the ocean floor. Unfortunately, as it was being raised, the submarine snapped in half.

But the other half, that was successfully recovered and taken to Hawaii for exploitation. Well, regrettably, this operation called Operation Azorian, it didn't stay secret for long. The press in Los Angeles got a hold of it through a very strange break-in at a Howard Hughes office, but regardless, even though the operation came to an end, the world got the beginning of something very special, its first real deep-sea mining vessel. Well, now, here we are, some 50 years later or so, and there's growing interest in once again going back down to the deepest areas of the Pacific Ocean, using in part the technology that reaches back to that era.

And the reason that folks want to go back down to the ocean floor, well, you can think dirty green energy for all that. You see, there's an area of the Pacific Ocean between Mexico and Hawaii called the Clarion-Clipperton zone. And in that zone, on the ocean floor, there are millions and millions of these potato-sized mineral nodules. And inside each nodule are around 35 different minerals, like copper and manganese, nickel, and cobalt.

In fact, estimates show that in this one zone, we could have twice as much nickel and three times as much cobalt as we have in known reserves on land. I mean, we are talking many billions of tons. Well, as you can imagine, that's a pretty attractive resource for companies who want to slice of that dirty green energy revolution and all those electric vehicles and their batteries that power them. So that's why this Canadian outfit called the Metals Company, or TMC,

conducted a test run last fall of their deep sea mining equipment. They wanted to see how much they could scoop or vacuum up off the ocean floor. Well, according to a press release from TMC, their systems worked quite well. They were able to collect at a rate of 86 tons of nodules per hour, with a plant rate of 200 tons of nodules per hour with continued tinkering of their equipment. As marine biologists and oceanographers will tell you, we know more about the surface of the moon than what lies at the bottom of the deep sea bed. In fact, less than 10% of the ocean floor has been mapped thoroughly enough

to understand even the basic features, not to mention the ecosystems and the aquatic life. In other words, we don't know the costs of this very new industry because we don't understand the deep sea environment in which it would operate. Plus, there's very little in the way of laws or regulations to help guide what's permissible or what's not. Now, there are two general treaties and organizations that give some clarity on this. There's the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, along with something called the International Seabed Authority. But not all nations belong to those, and not all nations agree. Again, that's because the science here is either non-existent or far from settled.

But no matter, the Canadian TMC company will be moving ahead as early as this spring for the next phase of their mining operations. They'll conduct further tests of their equipment and further analysis of what they're collecting. Now, to be fair, TMC does claim that their mining techniques minimize environmental impacts, most especially the what's called the sediment plumes that are created when scooping or vacuuming these nodules off the seafloor. And these plumes can in fact persist for a very long time and they end up covering the ecosystem with, well, a sediment dust of sort. And despite what TMC is saying here, we just don't know what that means for life down below because we haven't even discovered most of it. So all in all, folks, this is, I think, a really intriguing. area of mining that actually could be quite helpful. It could also help us avoid the sort of

not in my backyard syndrome where nobody wants to see, say, an ugly copper or nickel mine out their windows. But what's equally clear is that this is truly uncharted territory. We don't know what we will destroy, if anything, down there. So I'll defer to you this morning on whether the risks here are worth it. I'll let you decide if the needs of the Dirty Green Revolution are more important than the undiscovered world that sits thousands of feet below the ocean's surface. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we conclude your morning brief. But I've got one more thing before I let you go. We'll be right back.

Olivia Rodriguez, the unraveled special guests, get tickets Thursday, May 7th at Olivia Rodrigo.com. How many discounts does USA Auto Insurance offer? too many to say here. Multi-vehicle discount. Safe driver discount. New vehicle discount. Storage discount. How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the banner or visit usaa.com

slash auto discounts. Restrictions apply. Welcome back to the PDB folks. I've got one more thing before I let you go. For my American listeners, tonight is a big night in U.S. politics. Joe Biden, of course, is delivering the annual state of the union address. No doubt it will be full of lots of boasts and promises. But one issue that I want to flag for you is the likely mention about the debt ceiling and the budget cuts and crisis to come. And I want to talk to you about this conversation because we are going to be hearing a lot more about this, especially balancing the budget.

And that's because yesterday the Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy spoke about this issue saying, we must, quote, begin to eliminate wasteful Washington spending and that will put us on a path to a balanced budget. Now, as PDB listeners know, America spends more money right now than we take in with each annual deficit around $1.4 trillion, that's as of right now anyway. And that deficit adds to the national debt, which in turn stands at $31.4 trillion as of this morning and counting. So how do we tackle that annual deficit, which in turn helps slow or lower the nation's debt? Well, perhaps you raise taxes, which Republicans have said they will not do, or you cut spending, which Democrats have said that they will not do. But if we're going to be talking about cutting, it begs the question, if we are to cut, how much cutting would we need to do to balance the budget? Well, according to the committee for a responsible federal budget, which is a nonpartisan budget group, if we wanted to balance the budget over 10 years, we would have to cut total federal spending by 20,000.

And that's quite a bit. But a lot of folks in Washington don't want to cut, well, anything, especially though certain programs like Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Affairs, and the military. And heck, I can appreciate why. But if nothing from those areas get cut and you still want to balance the budget, that organization that I mentioned at committee, they say that we will need to cut everything else by 85%, which is, well, unreasonable in some ways, or unlikely, certainly. So the point, my friends, is that it is quite easy to talk about balancing the budget.

And I hope that we do, but hopefully these numbers that I just mentioned put the challenge into very stark relief. If we want to get our fiscal house in order, it's going to require some pretty painful cuts or possible increases in taxes or some combination of the two. In other words, to fix this problem, we are all going to be probably cranky about something. I just wanted us to all get ready for that fight to come. And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes your morning brief. As always, we close out the show, reminding each other of why we are here,

talking about our country and our world. It's the creed of every good spy and every smart American. It's from John, Chapter 8, verse 32. and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. Good day. Not loving your AT&T or T mobile bill.

Yeah, we've been hearing that a lot. Good news. Bring your AT&T or T mobile bill to Verizon and we'll give you a better deal. So get away from that unfortunate phone bill and get to Verizon. Run, ride, canoe. Whatever it takes, we'll be here.

Bring your AT&T or T mobile bill to a Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal on the best network. A better deal. No surprises. That's Verizon. This network based on root metrics, best overall mobile network performance U.S. second half 2025.

All rights reserved. It must provide a recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person who gave me the deal. Additional terms, conditions, and restrictions apply.