The Rest Is Classified - 195. How Silicon Valley Took Over National Security

Episode Date: September 17, 2026

Why are Silicon Valley billionaires developing defence tech? Could Elon Musk build a nuclear bomb? And why did Steve Jobs owe his early success to the CIA? Listen as David is joined by national security journalist Sharon Weinberger to discuss her new book, Valley of Death: How Big Tech Is Fuelling the Future of War. ------------------- Sign-up for our free newsletter where producer Becki takes you behind the scenes of the show: therestisclassified.com/newsletter ------------------- Buy Valley of Death: https://guardianbookshop.com/valley-of-death-9781399831673/ ------------------- Join the Declassified Club to go deeper into the world of espionage with exclusive Q&As, interviews with top intelligence insiders, regular livestreams, ad-free listening, early access to episodes and live show tickets, and weekly deep dives into original spy stories. Members also get curated reading lists, special book discounts, prize draws, and access to our private chat community. Just go to ⁠⁠therestisclassified.com⁠ or join on Apple Podcasts. ------------------- Get a 10% discount on business PCs, printers and accessories using the code TRIC10. Visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://HP.com/CLASSIFIED⁠⁠⁠⁠ for more information. T&C's apply. ------------------- EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/restisclassified Upgrade your online protection with an all-in-one security app! It’s risk free with NordVPN’s 30-day money-back guarantee 🌍 ------------------- Email: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[e-mail]⁠⁠⁠ Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@restisclassified⁠ Producer: Becki Hills Head of History: Dom Johnson Exec Producer: Tony Pastor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For exclusive interviews, bonus episodes, ad-free listening, early access to series, first look at live show tickets, a weekly newsletter, and discounted books. Join the Declassified Club at the Rest is Classified.com. This episode is brought to you by HP. In intelligence, you quickly learn that you are only as strong as the network around you. It's rarely a single major event that undermines an operation. It's the gaps between systems. That's where information leaks.

It's the same in business. Leaders face a constant battle against strict timelines, mismatch tools, and the worry their security isn't as tight as they think it is. Which is why HP approaches technology not as a collection of gadgets, but as an integrated system. And crucially, that protection is built in at hardware level. It runs quietly in the background, blocking threats without requiring constant specialist oversight. With the team of business advisors, HP helps businesses of all sizes find technology. that fits their needs and budget. To see how HP helps businesses work securely and productively,

visit HP.com forward slash classified. Trick listeners also benefit from 10% off HP business technology with the code Trick 10. Trade ice skating at Nathan Phillips Square for ice cubes in your umbrella drink. Let Porter Airlines fly you from Toronto Pearson nonstop to 10 top sun destinations in Mexico, the Caribbean, and Costa Rica. Enjoy award-winning Porter service Toronto has loved for 20 years and start your vacation as soon as you're on the plane. Book your sunny getaway today at flyporter.com

and actually enjoy economy. You've got to try breakfast at A and W. You've got to try breakfast at A.W. And what better way than with a delicious. is Pratt Organic Coffee, starting with just $1 all day, every day now until December 31st. You gotta try breakfast at ANW at participating A&W locations in Ontario. Welcome to The Rest is Classified. David McCloskey here. We have a very special bonus episode today on a absolutely wild article that was recently published in the Wall Street,

Journal, all about the hidden debt that Apple owes the CIA, which immediately got my interest because I love any story about someone owing a debt to the CIA. It is a great story on its own, but it's also a great jumping off point for a much bigger conversation about the intersection of tech and espionage and national security. We are very lucky to have with us today the author of that article and a terrific new book on this topic. And we're also lucky that Gordon is still gone on vacation. So I am running the show here all by myself. We are joined today by Sharon Weinberger, who has covered the intersection of technology and national security for more than 25 years. She has been the national security editor at the Wall Street Journal and The Intercept.

She's the author of wonderful books on DARPA, the Pentagon's very strange weapons program. She is now the editor-in-chief of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and her new book is called Valley of Death, how big tech is fueling the future of war. And I have read it. It is absolutely essential reading for people who want to understand what is going on in national security today. So, Sharon, thank you so much for being with us today. Hey, thanks so much for having me. I want to start with the article because it's this absolutely fascinating story about the CIA saving Steve Jobs' Bacon back in the 1980s. So I'm wondering if you could just, if you could set that story up for those of us who maybe haven't read the article.

Sure. So I think like a lot of journalists, you know, we, we hear stories, especially in national security, intelligence, you hear stories, sort of urban tales, apocryphal stories. Some of them are true. Some of them are not true. And a lot of what we do is trying to run them down. So about 10 years ago, shortly after I had published my last book on DARPA, The Imagineers of War, a former DARPA director named Vic Reese had dropped in to see me at my office, and we were just chatting and catching up. And he starts telling me this story about meeting with Steve Jobs when he was the director of DARPA back in the early 1990s. And he said sort of half jokingly, he's like, you know, I save Steve Jobs. And I'm like, what?

He's like, I bought a whole bunch of next computers for DARPA, which of course makes perfect sense because DARPA had been behind ARPA net, early internet, computer networking. And then he's like, okay, I bought maybe a few dozen. But I heard from someone at DARPA who had come from the national security agency that the NSA had bought a whole lot of next computers. And he's like, so, you know, maybe I save Steve Jobs, maybe the NSA Steve Jobs. but we save Steve Jobs. And I'm like, that's fascinating.

I wonder how I track that down. And I've dealt with the NSA a lot from my days working at the Intercept when we were publishing on the Snowden Archive and had, you know, a very good relationship with NSA as much as one can have. It's a very forthcoming organization in my experience, right? Yeah, but I knew it wasn't going to be like, can I call up the NSA and like, did you really, you know, buy, you know, millions and millions of dollars? So I kind of put it on what I call an informal list of backpocket stories, you know, things that I kind of scratch away at. So when I have interviews with other people, this is 10 years ago. I asked people about it every once in a while like Google. I look through FOIA archives, looking for any clue. Because like, where do you even start? Because even the DARPA director,

he knew was probably true, but, you know, he couldn't be a firsthand confirmation of the intelligence community part of it. Did you think it was true at that time? Or did you think it was this kind of like apocryphal sort of exaggerated made-up story? Both, meaning I thought it was certainly true. I mean, obviously it was true that DARPA had bought some. The Vic Reese, the DARPA director, had heard about it. It was from an employee at DARPA who had come from the NSA. So it was definitely true that NSA had bought a larger number than DARPA had, but that it saves Steve Jobs, which was the whole point of the story, that it saved Steve Jobs and by extension Apple, enabling Steve Jobs to go from next back to Apple.

So I didn't, that part I was a little bit dubious on. And then I think it was about three or four years ago, I was, you know, on LinkedIn, and I see a random post from a guy I didn't know talking about the NSA and Steve Jobs and saving Western civilization. And I'm like, okay, that is a little too weird that some, you know, random in the sense that I didn't know this person was not a person currently in the

intelligence community. And so I immediately emailed the guy and I'm like, I'd love to talk to you about Steve Jobs and the NSA. And this gentleman was named Dane Erring. And so it turns out two things. A, he worked on the contract and B, even more bizarre. The NSA was just a cover for the CIA, that, which for me was very sort of weird. Like, why would you, I mean, you know, NSA, no such agency, why would you use that to cover for a CIA contract? It gets even more convoluted. But I called him up and he talked about, you know,

he had worked at the time as a contractor for the National Reconnaissance Office. So it turns out the NRO, the agency that controls our strategic spy satellites, that they had been the end customer. But as you probably know better than me, there used to be program B in the CIA, which managed reconnaissance programs. So the CIA was the buyer of these. But it was a CIA contract. The NSA was used as cover and the end user were spies in the NRO. And Dane opened the doors to his former boss, Joe Ramella, who had worked at the CIA. And from there, you know, that was a real breakthrough. So that began to sort of unspool the threads of the story.

Jobs at this point, what is he doing? We think of the Black Turtleneck Jobs launching the iPhone, but at this point in time, he's not at Apple, right? He's preparing to return. Yeah, so he had been exiled from Apple and, you know, as often happens in these management disputes instead of, in fact, there's another great book out called Steve Jobs in Exile, which covers little bits of this as well. and is a great book for people very interested in Next.

So Steve Jobs have been thrown out of Apple and formed his own company called Next. That was building, and people, even people who are not into computer history will probably recognize these very beautiful black boxes. And this was the company that was like, you let a genius loose with no controls, and this is what happens.

He designs this beautiful, wonderful computer ahead of its time with built-in networking capabilities before you have even the internet and it's beautiful and functional and has beautiful graphics, and it is too expensive for anyone to buy. It was too expensive. So we're in the 1980s now, mid-1980s. And so they were targeting universities that was one of the major customers, never really caught on there. It had little bits of business here and there. Some talent agency bought it because they thought it looked really cool, which it did. But they weren't really using. its full capabilities. And Joe Romero, the CIA official, who was sort of a CIA official ahead of his time. He was,

you know, a technology enthusiast and was looking at, you know, how do we get into the hands of people looking at satellite imagery computers that can allow them to, to interpret, share, basically do what they're doing a lot better and taking advantage of stay-of-the-art capabilities. So that's where Joe Romello and then also his colleague Jeff Harris, who goes on to become head of NRO, enter the picture. So what capability do those computers give the U.S. intelligence community and military that they didn't have? I also understand from the article that once they were procured, there were some modifications made to them along the way. So there's a difference between what, as often happens with new technologies, between what people thought they would get out of them. And Joe Romello talks about how, like, you know, his idea was that, okay, it has high-speed processing, good graphics, but also that you could literally download onto an optical disk, that you could share briefings.

You could share intelligence around town. And they did. They did what I think he called aftermarket modifications, where they used some of their own contractors in Silicon Valley to upgrade the computers that they didn't even necessarily. tell Steve Jobs about originally. So the idea was that you could ship these to analysts at different places, different NRO analysts, and it would allow them to do things that they couldn't do with the old workstations in terms of graphics, in terms of interpretations, and in terms of creating presentations and share those presentations, whether with the White House, senior military commanders or others. Interesting. And then from the other side,

what does that contract do for jobs? And why didn't jobs ever thank, thank us for this, this amazing contract? I mean, so those are too. I think it would be too much to say, you know, next was not going to go bankrupt per se. They had at that point investment, I think one of their most significant outside investors was Ross Perot, as is well known, but the company was doing badly. And so if the idea was that either the company was going to succeed. It wasn't doing that or become a springboard for Steve Jobs to do something else. So that going back to what I thought was the most apocryphal part of the story where I'm like, okay, so the intelligence community bought a bunch of computers. How much of a difference did that

make? Now, there may be people associated with Next who disagree with this, but the people I spoke to both on the intelligence side and who were senior within Next at the time, all agreed that that contract was absolutely essential for the health of the company of keeping it going and more importantly showing what it could do. In particular, Dean Erring, who worked on both sides, he had originally been a contractor with NRO working directly to support Joe Romello at the CIA, and then later went on to work at next. The argument he makes to me, which is similar to others, is that those years allowed Steve Jobs to mature as an entrepreneur, to realize, perhaps some of his, you know, the limits of needing to listen to other people to show that he could

deliver. It gave him basically a runway that he wouldn't have had. And I am sure there are ways to nitpick at that argument. But when you look back at the other sales of Next, there really wasn't much else there. There were bits here and bits there. But that federal contract, that contract to work with the NRO and CIA was really the most significant thing around and made a huge difference to the company. Do you think jobs? Like, how did he, how did he see it, I guess? I am not a jobs expert. And I was mostly, so I've read, as other people have read about jobs, fascinating, unique, sometimes volatile person, iconic entrepreneur. So I think that there, there was this one moment. I remember a story that I tell in the book where they're about to go to

Washington. They're going out with their federal contractor partner that was helping on the contract ESL. And suddenly, Steve Jobs is like, you know what? I don't want to do this. I don't want to work with the feds. And they're like, Steve, like the limousine is like idling outside. We got to go to the airport. And I think they basically have to get Ross Perot to intervene. And when I asked the person who told me the story who had been a senior person at Apple and then at next, like, well, why? What, what happened? And that incident triggered this guy's resignation where he's like, I just couldn't take it anymore. Like, that was the last. straw. And somehow, we don't know why he threw a fit. Like, suddenly, I'm not going to work with the

feds. And we don't know why he changed his mind, although I think it was probably Ross Perra's intervention. So he certainly had some frustrations. But at the end of the day, and the question of thinking the CIA or not, the only thing he cared about was his vision. And so he was going to take and did take CIA money, intelligence community money, if it was going to help him succeed. And the second, he didn't need that money to succeed. And he had the consumer market, he wasn't going to turn back and be like, thank you very much. I mean, that is sort of the singular focus of visionaries. It can be fantastic or it can be frustrating. We're still waiting, Apple. We're still waiting for our thanks. So I want to widen the aperture a little bit and ask you about the dynamic that we're seeing

today between Silicon Valley Defense Tech and the government? Because I think one of the kind of themes of your book is tracking this relationship over time and how the power dynamics have shifted, how the innovation dynamics have shifted. I'm just kind of curious if you could give us, as we fast forward from the 80s and early 90s of these government contracts helping to save jobs. Where are we today in this dynamic between the tech guys and the agencies? So the job story ends where there's a break in that partnership because both the, you know, Steve Jobs no longer, he has the consumer market. That's booming.

And government doesn't fully realize how important, you know, the computing revolution and software may be and just isn't used to operating that environment. So fast forward to today, we now. are at, I mean, I would, I would have said, like, even six months ago, we were, you know, six months away from the beginning of a huge wave of Silicon Valley, you know, really going in on defense tech. Now, we are, like, in the middle of it. Every day I'm hearing of new companies, and when I say Silicon Valley, I mean it metaphorically. Some of them are certainly Silicon Valley, but it's also, I mean, the sort of the Silicon Valley venture capital community. You know, we have

tens of billions of dollars going from venture capital into defense startups. And there are now hundreds of new companies. And more than that, sort of this political alignment, this sort of like defense tech bro moment, which I mean both positively and negatively in some senses, where it's like let's build, let's reindustrialize, let's help America. And it's interesting from a national security perspective. It's interesting from a political perspective. I think there's some uneasy divisions within this temporary alliance that we have. But we are really in what I would call a Silicon Valley defense tech moment. That's a turning point. Where do you think it's come from? Because, I mean, for a long time, I guess the sort of generalization, which I think spoke to something

that was true, is that Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs and general wanted very little to do with the national security state. I mean, obviously there are exceptions, but there was kind of this arm's length, you know, perspective. And it feels like the dynamic you're describing is, I mean, in some ways a return to form of an earlier era of, you know, when the Pentagon was playing a significant role in kind of nurturing Silicon Valley. So, I mean, is it a cyclical thing where we're back to where we started or, yeah, where does this new dynamic come from? It's cyclical, but it's a different dynamic. So I think at this point, a lot of people know that Silicon Valley was sort of founded on the backs of Pentagon funding, on semiconductors, on electronics, on all the early things that we needed in the Cold War, which created, really, really created was responsible for the companies and the atmosphere that eventually became Silicon Valley as we know it today. So it's cyclical in the sense that now we have this return of Silicon Valley to defense. But there is a big. difference between then and now. So in the Cold War, the Pentagon was the biggest funder around,

whether it was for semiconductors, whether it was for other digital technology or electronics going into the military system. Darpa created the underlying research for computer networking. They were the only ones funding computer networking at the beginning. Now, what venture capital, the dollars in the private sector and the capital markets can bring dwarfs what the Pentagon can spend on research and development. So once again, we have Silicon Valley working in defense, but now Silicon Valley has a lot more power than the Pentagon had back in the Cold War because it's not relying on Pentagon dollars. It wants the Pentagon as a customer, but it doesn't need the Pentagon to develop new technology, which introduces this whole new dynamic that I look at in the book, which is what

happens when sort of venture capitalists and billionaires have a lot of control over the underlying technology or sort of what I call the billionaire's bomb. And so you can see that. Love them or hate him, Elon Musk is an incredible entrepreneur. He saw back over two decades ago the potential of the military market, of the launch market and really, really went into that before anyone else did in a successful way. But when he's had disputes with the government, you know, for example, during his break with Trump, and he threatened, well, you know, we just don't have to send people the International Space Station. Good luck to you. And he backed down and didn't do that, but it raises this fascinating question. I mean, you wouldn't have had Lockheed Martin back in the day saying, well, you like your

stealth aircraft, but we're mad at you. Maybe we're not going to give it. It's just a completely different dynamic. And we have to deal with that and not pretend it doesn't exist. Yeah, I think when we talk about the defense industry, there's a tendency to think about the big primes here. You know, you think about Raytheon, you think about Lockheed. The dynamic you're describing is one where, I mean, that's still true. But now we're sort of, we have to think about SpaceX and we have to think about Palantir and we have to think about, you know, Microsoft and Anthropic and all of these big tech players that are now involved in the defense ecosystem. I mean, what do you think this dynamic will do?

to the way that the Pentagon or the intelligence community sort of arms itself and prepares for future conflicts. Like, what are it going to be the political implications of this? It's going to be a real problem. So let's take the Anthropic dispute with the Pentagon. So a number of months ago, shortly after the Maduro raid, Anthropic, which was the AI provider on classified networks for the Pentagon, raised. questions about how their models were used in the raid. They were concerned about two of their red lines, which were that they don't want AI to be used for lethal targeting without sort of human in the loop. They want human decision makers. And their second red line is on having their AI

use for mass surveillance of Americans. And so it was obviously the first that they were, you know, probably concerned about both for the Maduro raid and in other areas. the Pentagon and particularly the chief technology officer, Emil Michael, who comes from the world of Silicon Valley, was sort of outraged. Like, how dare you ask the Pentagon, tell the Pentagon, how your model should be used? And so he, in true Silicon Valley fashion, went all in and said, we're not only going to end your contract, we're going to deem you a supply chain risk so that no other federal... So it kind of became this... It was like, it was the, the, you know, battle of the tight Silicon Valley versus Silicon Valley only played out in the Pentagon.

Which is like what we do for like Chinese manufacturers of like intermediate components. You're like you're a supply chain risk. Exactly. That's well. I think there were problems on both sides of this dispute. So I think there's a tendency among some people to be like, oh, Anthropic was fighting for all that is good and right in this world and like stopping Terminator robots. And I'm not saying that they were or weren't.

But I think that there was a very legitimate Pentagon concern. about like who is this, you know, why are they dictating how we use their technology? And so even if you agree with Anthropics red lines, and there are arguments that those red lines already existed inside the Pentagon, but even if you agree with them, suppose it was a CEO that you didn't agree with, and they were doing red lines you didn't agree with. So that sort of conflict has to be addressed. And it's not being addressed, I think, in the most productive way. Because this is the real problem. Like, I think it is legitimate to be like, we don't want CEOs to dictate to government how things should be used.

On the other hand, they can because Anthropic is a private company. Space X is a private company. And so that is the problem, you know, when Elon Musk gets mad about something and said, oh, I'm not going to let you do that. You know, you can just think, oh, the government can wave a magic wand and make companies do things. It's not that easy. and there actually are laws that dictate what the government can or can't do. And it's kind of hard, which is why I think the Pentagon went overboard on the supply chain. You know, they're sort of what levers of government can we use to pressure them?

And it's because they don't own the technology the company does. You mentioned earlier the phrase, the billionaire's bomb. And in the book, you walk into this incredibly interesting war game that the Pentagon's office of net assessment runs. I thought it was a wonderful illustration of the essence of the problem here. Could you describe that? Yeah. So the two stories that really got me thinking about this as a book, one was the Apple and Steve Jobs story.

And the other, which came from a different former DARPA director, was about an Office of Net Assessment. This is this sort of strategic think tank in the Pentagon that does sort of long range thought studies, war games, et cetera. And I had been told that the Office of Net Assessment commissioned a study back, and I think it was about 2013, looking at could a rogue entrepreneur company, maybe a billionaire, and they did mention billionaires, could they create a company that would surreptitiously build and sell nuclear weapons as a commodity? Like, you know, countries want nukes and we want to build them.

And they did this very detailed analysis of like where they would get uranium. how much it would cost? How much would it cost to enrich? Where would you base the assembly? Where would you base the salespeople? How would you evade detection? And I eventually got a hold of the study itself and then spoke to all of the living people who worked on it. And what they told me, and you think this was back in 2013. So it's kind of amazing. They're like, yeah, we were thinking of an Elon Musk. We were thinking. Did they say its name? What do you interview? No. So the study specifically says that we are not going to name. any Americans in the study. And they actually don't name any billionaires, but they specifically talk about it. And the people who worked on the study did tell me that they were thinking of, and not that they thought Elon, I want to be very clear. They weren't saying that Elon Musk was going to go build a nuclear bomb, but that was the type of person or company they were thinking of. And what they came to the conclusion is that, yeah, that you could start such a company, and for maybe a billion

dollars in five years, you could build nuclear bombs, sell them, and be pretty profitable. But the point that the people said wasn't just nuclear weapons. It was the idea, and this is sort of the underlying theme of the book, is that as technology has left the monopoly of government, that government is no longer in control, it no longer controls space travel. It no longer controls a lot of the underlying technology like AI. And as that moves to the private sector, what can companies and investors and billionaires do that they control that could represent a potential threat to whether it's the U.S. or other countries? It's interesting because we have, I think, the same dynamic going on in the intelligence world where a friend of mine who did some very interesting things inside

the Directorate of Operations looking at how you'd have to adapt the human intelligence. intelligence game to the world of like ubiquitous technical surveillance and all these kind of biometrics, all these dynamics. Well, he says the intelligence game has jumped the tracks to the point where a lot of a very sort of focused visionary pool of capital and resources in the private sector can do most of the things that an intelligence agency does. Not all of them, but most of them. And I think the dynamic you're describing in with the billionaire's bomb here is very similar,

where these things that these domains of kind of warfare and geopolitical competition that used to be sequestered inside government agencies are now spread across the private sector. And the power dynamic as a result between Silicon Valley and the government is changing. We're seeing this in sort of what you might call the lower tech areas like drones, but in many ways those are high tech. We're seeing it in satellites, in spy imagery. You know, we're seeing it in surveillance. We're seeing it across the board. And that's something that the intelligence community has to grapple with that the Pentagon, that other governments do.

And in a way, that was a little bit of the moment that the Steve Jobs story comes in, in a very different time period where the intelligence community was asking the right questions. They're like, things are going on in the commercial market for computing that we're not taking advantage of it and how do we take advantage of it. And so I think I'm sure inside government you have some of those same, you know, visionary people thinking about what do we do about it? But the solutions are not going to be easy. And I think, you know, I never like to get overly dramatic about things in my books. But I do think that we really need to think about

the power dynamic involved and in how much power Silicon Valley could have, does. has have over our national security. And by extension, over our democratic institutions. I think you're seeing that in our political moment right now. And I think that will play out in the elections ahead of us because I think there's a lot of growing concern. How do you think our current model of the sort of power dynamic and the flow of capital and IP and all that between Silicon Valley and government? How do you think that compares, for example, to the Chinese model? As you stack them up against one another. They obviously have their sort of pros and cons. But do you think this sort of chaotic dynamic we've been describing is actually well prime to deal with a massive, you know,

geopolitical competition that we'll have with the Chinese for most of the rest of this century? Or what's your thought? It's a big question. I don't think it's working very well now. And I think you can see that with what's going on with military operations in Iran. You know, even setting aside the questionable decision to do that. Just putting that aside, the entire argument of Silicon Valley getting involved in defense was we can move quickly, we can innovate, we can do X, we can, you know, we can make cakes and bombs and all of this stuff. And I don't mean to degrade. I think there's lots of interesting new companies out there doing good work, but it's like we're running out of interceptors what, you know, and you can point the finger that's the fault of the Pentagon

of the prime contractors. But all I can say is like Silicon Valley has not solved that problem. And, you know, if that's not their problem to solve, like, what are they doing for us? I think that you bring up the Chinese model, which is really interesting, because in the years leading up to this sort of wave of defense tech spending, a lot of the people who were in favor, I mean, rightfully, of Silicon Valley's involvement, I think there is a role for Silicon Valley. We're saying, well, look what China is doing with, you know, billions and billions of dollars into these, like, government-guided investment funds, where the government would guide this money into industries that will help defense. we need to be doing the same. And so we've sort of followed that model, except it's not so much the government guiding it. It's Silicon Valley. And here's the question I raise. The argument of Silicon Valley, which is 100% correct, which is the military requirement system is broken. You know, it takes us, you know, decades and decades to develop new weapons, and we have doodads and do hickies

and requirement that just add on and just make things over cost and then are late and aren't needed by the we build them. But then the flip side I ask is so what you have now is Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, they're deciding what the military needs and they're building weapons that they plan to market sort of commercially, like you go to Walmart and you buy a TV and they're going to like, you know, build missiles and sell them. And in the book, I tour the factory floor of one company that had been founded by a teenager and had over, you know, I think like 160 million in BC. investment. He was 21 by the time I interviewed him. And he's just developing weapons that he thinks the military will want. I mean, very smart young man. And maybe he's doing it all right. But I have

questions about a teenager now 21. Like I ask like, where do you come up with your ideas for weapons? He's like, well, I've been reading about this since I was a teenager and I speak to generals and I speak to Ukrainians on the battlefield. And I don't know. Maybe he's building the right things. But I really wonder if that is the best way to equip our military. If it is, I'm not seeing the results yet. And if we're not seeing them yet when we need them, when are we going to see them? There are some notable examples of Silicon Valley helping. So I don't mean to degrade all of that.

But I think when you see how things are going, where literally we don't have the weapons we need. Then I think we have to ask ourselves, not who is messing up, but like how can we do this enterprise better? Do you think there's a 2026 version of the Jobs Apple Next Story? Like, is there a company out there who's sort of being quietly kept alive by a secretive customer? Or do you think it's, is it all just out of the open these days? Oh, I still think there's. There's always secret stories out there. And I am sure with, you know, you still have IQT previously called Incutal, the CIA's venture capital arm out there.

you still have a lot of classified funding going into things. I am, if anything, given the amount of money flowing into this space, both from venture capital, from the military intelligence community, I am sure in 10 years, you know, maybe sooner, maybe later, you are going to get some wild stories. I love the Steve Jobs. I mean, I was so happy. I didn't so happy it ended up being true.

But I think the funniest thing was I wrote just last week to the former DARPA director who first told me about this. And I'm like, Vic, I showed. I proved it was true. And his answer was, I mean, I think he was joking. He's like, you mean I didn't save Steve Jobs? It was the intelligence community. It's like, everyone wants credit for it.

And I think it's, I mean, it's just, it's such a wonderful story that encapsulates, I think, somebody of the dynamics in your, in your terrific book, Sharon. Thank you. And we should say Apple, you know, we're still waiting for our thank you note. Maybe that's the... You may have to wait a while because that is the most interesting thing is the trajectory of Apple, which it did, you know, Apple can be what it is today because it never needed the federal government as a major customer. You know, it is still the business of iPhones and Macs.

Yes, exactly. Well, Sharon, the book, again, is Valley of Death, how big tech is fueling the future of war. It's out in late September, both the U.S. at the UK and the article about the hidden debt. Apple, I was the CIA, which I would again recommend to everyone is with the Wall Street Journal. So Sharon, thank you so much for being repeated. Thank you so much, David. This was plotting. The great game, strategic struggle between Britain and Russia.

We assess a prime minister with high confidence it was Russian. Holding the Russians accountable is World War III. They took down a British passenger jet containing 350 people. Man in the Kremlin is playing, Alex. Got to ask yourself, you want to play or not? You're the Prime Minister. You've done nothing! We would need to understand the policy context.

All the relevant context will be structured as a framework today. And disseminated into an operation order, or Fraggo. A Fraggo that says to kill the president of Russia. Yes. New from Goldhanger Who is going to be able to pull this off? You're my soldier, are you? Sergeant Tom McDuffie!

An audio drama journey like no other. Men like Duffy, they are our most valuable weapons. Devised as a technically rigorous, geopolitical action thriller. We have two-tenth-friendly key-I-E. Where Britain plays its strongest hand. He's the best. Against its strongest foe.

Bear Hunt. Available now, wherever you're, get your podcasts.