John: In a recent address to top military leaders, defense secretary Pete hegseth laid out his ambitious vision for the Pentagon.

>> This urgent moment of course requires more troops, more munitions, more drones, more patriots, more submarines, more b-21 bombers.

It requires more innovation, more ai in everything and ahead of the curve, more cyber effects, more counter uas, more space, more speed.

America is the strongest but we need to get stronger and quickly.

John: But questions remain about how the military translates that "More of everything" vision into reality -- especially as technologies like drones and ai rapidly transform the battlefield.

Ali rogin spoke with retired army colonel Ken glyman, the editor in chief of the "Small wars journal," and a professor at Arizona state university.

>> Thank you for joining us.

We know a priority for the military is finding out which technologies to invest in.

What are the benefits of these technologies like smaller, more agile and cheaper to develop drones, and what are drawbacks?

>> When we are talking about inexpensive but potentially lethal and highly capable systems, one of the benefits is that it are cheaper and they can cross the battlefield without risking the life of an individual human.

We are seeing this innovation cycle in the currentand we are more use to more expensive boutique systems that take a long time to develop and that we can't afford to lose.

So the question for the U.S.

Right now is how to get these types of systems that are less expensive that are highly, as I said, attributable and expensive.

Ali: And does that mean that the U.S.

Is really in catch-up mode when it comes to investing in these types of innovations?

Ken: I think the us is in catch-up mode, certainly depending on who you're comparing the U.S.

To .

When it comes these types of systems that you're talking about, the us may have some really great systems and technology around, but actually having the supply chains and the innovation chains and the procurement systems to build, acquire, and then to integrate these systems into formations.

I mean, I think that's where most experts would agree the U.S.

Is far behind.

The U.S.

Has these traditions of very expensive, very exquisite systems and now the defense community is seeing the need to change and change rapidly.

Ali: Are tools like ai and drones though, fundamentally changing the nature of warfare?

Ken: The nature of war remains the same and remains constant, but the character of warfare is what changes over time.

And it changes partly because of technology but also trends in human society.

And so I think these current conflicts, for example, in Ukraine, if anything, they remind us of the constant nature of the warfare that it is a human endeavor and that it is filled with violence and chance and suffering for those involved.

But we are seeing some differences in the ways that wars are fought.

And I think that drones, autonomous systems, ai, these are things that we're starting to see a bit more of.

Ali: What lessons can and should the military be learning from current conflicts like israel-gaza, like Russia- Ukraine?

Ken: We're seeing incredible adaptation in the war in Ukraine that's happening in weeks, not months or years.

Innovation is happening between battles, not between campaigns or over the course of the year.

That rapid innovation cycle, changing the way units are formed, the way they fight, the tools they used, it is quite hard to keep up with that.

I think one of the most important lessons that the U.S.

Is trying to learn is how do we replicate that before you have the pressure, the necessity that happens within armed conflict?

How do you create institutions that can rapidly adapt and scale capabilities that become important in the conflict?

That is one of the most surprising lessons and we've seen U.K.

Be able to do that.

We've seen Russia a little slower, but be able to do that as well.

Ali: Secretary hegseth has talked about needing more of basically everything, more troops, more big weapons, more nimble weapons, more strength.

Is that realistic for a defense department which is well-funded but still has finite resources?

Ken: Every secretary of defense faces this sort of giant dilemma, which is one that I think is best framed between the decisions of three things that all cost money and time.

And that's readiness, modernization, and capacity.

You want your forces to be ready for the kind of conflict you think they're going to face.

You want them to be.

Modernized so they are ready for what's next and not behind, and then you want to have the capacity to fight the wars that you think you need.

Everything's a trade-off.

The more you spend on readiness, you might not be able to spend on modernization.

The more you spend modernization, you may not be afford the capacity you need, so yes, wanting more is clearly the temptation.

But the real strategic choices come in how you do those three things.

But even the U.S., with its tremendous defense budget is, as , you said, quite limited in resources.

And the answer cannot be just more, more, and more.

Ali: Colonel Ken gleiman, editor in chief of the small world's journal, professor at Arizona state university.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Ken: Thank you.

It's a pleasure