How to Prepare for a Nuclear Apocalypse, Explained by a Chemical Engineer

Thank you, Professor, for doing. this. Let me start with the most simple of. all questions. How are nuclear weapons different. from conventional weapons? Nuclear weapons are different from. conventional weapons in many ways. One of the things that I. like to say is that. they really. defy the kind of. concept of both space and time. And let me explain what I mean by. that. If you have a conventional. weapon and you exploded. over a city or.

wherever, that. explosion is going to have an. impact in that. Local place, and. it's going to have that impact in. time, and then you could come back. and clean up the area and. rebuild and so on. Nuclear weapons are not like that. A nuclear explosion in one. place, in one location, and in one split. moment of time. can have both global.

effects and it can. have impacts over actually. even thousands of years through. Are the defects of. radiation and the. kind of radioactive isotopes. that get deposited in the. environment.

But there are sort of a number of. ways in which even a. single nuclear weapon. explosion can be incredibly. dangerous and devastating. And then there are a number impacts. in which nuclear war, in which many nuclear weapons are. used, can be. obviously quite clearly much. more devastating. The thing that people know.

about nuclear weapons is that. one nuclear weapon can be much. more powerful than. any kind of chemical explosion. So for example, the. atomic bombings of Hiroshima. and Nagasaki, 80 years ago, almost exactly, had what's. called energy yields of. 15 and 21. kilotons of. TNT. These bombs were made.

out of uranium and plutonium, uranium for the Hiroshima bomb and. plutionium for the. Nagasaki bomb. But when we describe their energy. yield, we describe it in terms of. the equivalent amount. of chemical explosive that you would. need. So that's where the 15. kilotons, 15,000. tons of TNTs, how. much you would have needed. Of chemical explosive to produce. the energy equivalent to.

that explosion. And that in and of. itself is huge and just. to give you one kind of. point of comparison, the. Oklahoma City bombing, which I'm. sure you remember it was actually. the first year that. I was living in the United States, it was in April of 1995. And it was a devastating. event. It was the. equivalent of two and. a half tons of TNT.

So Timothy McVeigh had. filled the Ryder truck with. chemical explosives, lit it up outside of a federal. building, killed 168. people, including 19 children in. the daycare center. And there was damage in the. radius of up to, I think 16. blocks, something of that. order. That's it! Absolutely an incredible. and devastating event.

At the same time, that explosion was. 6,000 times. less energetic. than the. bombing of Hiroshima. So 15,000 tons. of TNT versus two. and a half tons of TNT. So that just begins to give you a. scale. For just how powerful. a single nuclear weapon can be. And then on top of it is. that we now have.

weapons that are far more powerful. than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. bombs. In fact, in 1945, the U.S. Had three nuclear weapons. One was used as. a quote unquote test, the Trinity test in the. desert of New Mexico. And then two were used on the. tax on Japanese cities. of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today we actually have 12, on the order of 12 and a half. thousand nuclear warheads,

many of which are far more powerful. How much more powerful? So we know. that both US and. Russia have nuclear. bombs currently that are on the. of one megaton, that's about. that's about 70. times more powerful than the. Hiroshima bomb. At the height of the Cold War, when we were first testing. nuclear weapons and.

actually first testing hydrogen. bombs, which are different from. the atomic bombs that were used in. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I can. explain that as well, we were. even testing the. largest test that the U.S. Had ever conducted took place in. the Marshall Islands. It's called the Bravo Test, Castle. Bravo Test. And that was a thousand Hiroshima. bomb equivalents. And yet the Soviets actually. tested. something even more powerful.

They did so up. in the North Sea, a region called Novaya Zemlya. And they tested some. accounts, say 50 megatons. So that's more. than 3,000 Hiroshima bomb. I've even seen. accounts that say 58. megatons. So that would be basically, you know, 4,000 Hiroshima. bomb equivalents. The Castle Bravo test,

which took place on March. 1 of 1954, that test, that mushroom. cloud, so we all sort of, you have. this vision of a nuclear explosion. that produces the mushroom cloud. That mushroom cloud was 25. miles or 40 kilometers. high and at the. widest, about 60. miles wide. So miles wide, the mushroom clouds. It's quite simply something that's. unimaginable.

And that test actually. had truly devastating. consequences for people living in. the Marshall violence. About a hundred miles from where. the test was conducted, a population. was living in a. place called Rongalapa Toll. And those people were very, very. sickened and. impacted by. the test. It's a long story. They stayed there for three days, they were moved away,

but to kind of cut. to the present day, and this is. actually from some of the research. to them. Done with colleagues. and students at Columbia University, currently there's. still parts of the Marshall Islands. where radiological contamination. is very high and that. testing ended in. 1958. So it's now nearly seven. years later and there's. contamination that quite simply.

is not safe. Um, the way I like to put. it is it's not safe for. a multi. Generational community to. live in and to. live there full time. The most dangerous lies are not the. ones that are shouted in your face. The most dangerously lies are the. ones that whisper to you, and chief among those lies. is the idea that prayer doesn't. work. It doesn't matter. Oh, thoughts and prayers, they say. mockingly. Actually, prayer is the. single most important thing and the.

single most effective thing. you can do ever. The push to morph America into a. godless country didn't happen all at. once. It was a very slow process. And the people who did it want you. to fall for it through ambivalence, but not even noticing. Downloading the Hallow app is the. perfect way to foil that. plan. It's one of the most effective. things you can do to root yourself. in God, to improve the. life of your family and your life. here and in the.

hereafter. So the idea of little lies pulling. you from the truth is not new. The classic C.S. Lewis book, The Screwtape Letters, puts it perfectly. And Hallow's newest prayer series. encapsulates the message of that. book, resisting the forces seeking. to separate you from God. Embrace faith and prayer, it is. literally the only way. Downloading Hallow will help. Everyone here loves it, everyone in. my family loves it. Daily conversation, actually. So there's a battle for your. attention, for your heart, and. ultimately for your soul. You can ignore it, or you can be. prepared.

Hallow is the number one Christian. prayer app in the world, and that. is a well-deserved. accolade. Download Hallow today, reclaim the. power of prayer, which is the. fundamental prayer in the universe. Three months of free. Hallow at Hallow.com. slash Tucker. So what would happen if. a nuclear weapon, modern nuclear. weapon detonated over Times Square? Yes, over time square, one megaton bomb is. going to have, so there are two,

there's something that makes the. numbers a little more complicated. You can have two different kinds. of explosions. One can be an air burst and. one can be a surface explosion. In the case of an airburst, what you actually do is. you cause a lot more damage, a lot more the shock wave is. sort of stronger and. And the destruction. of the city is much more. effective. A surface burst produces more.

radiation and kind of more. of those long-term effects. So between the two, let's just say that basically. the radius of this fireball. is about a. mile. And so you now have, depending on where it explodes, You have a radius. that, and the fireball is. quite literally the temperature of. the sun, and so you. have a fireball where everything.

is evaporated, absolutely evaporated. And then again, depending on if. it's an air burst or. a surface explosion, you kind. of have these different concentric. circles of heavy. blast damage where just. everything is absolutely destroyed, the shockwave is such that it. just... Just everything collapses, buildings collapse, everything. collapses. Then you might have a kind of. lethal radiation dose,

concentric circles. Then you may have moderate damage. where you still have. buildings collapsing, injuries are widespread and so on. And you kind of keep going, but you start out with quite. literally evaporating. everything. In this fireball, and. you kind of keep going out. of that. And in New York City, for an.

air burst, you're looking. at something like on. the order of one and a half million. people. dying and about. two million people being. very severely injured. There's also a concentric circle. where the temperature is. so high that everybody gets. third degree burns. And this is something that happened, of course, in Hiroshima and.

Nagasaki. It's where it. just, you know, people's. skin quite literally melts. There are kind of descriptions from. survivors of the bombing of. seeing people. There's, you know, skin looking like. it was it was clothing just. sort of hanging over. them. This is quite. simply a site. of total and absolute horror. and devastation. And it would destroy it would.

destroyed a US city. The thing that we know. and render it uninhabitable. Render and render it. potentially uninhabitable. for decades, hundreds of years, potentially even. thousands of years. Again, it all depends on how you do. it, how large. the weapon is, how it's. detonated. But the really scary. thing that we do know, and this comes from.

the kinds of war games that. take place in Washington all the. time. Is that because. we now live in a world with. 12 and a half thousand. nuclear warheads, it doesn't just end with one. nuclear warhead being used on. one city. We not only have all of those. warheads we also have. things like intercontinental. ballistic missiles which can. actually carry multiple warheads. at once. Delivered them all to the same.

target. So you might, if you wanted. to attack New York City, you. might explode one in Times Square, but you might explode one, you. know, on the Upper West Side. and another in Brooklyn and another, you know. So, you could have a. kind of. a constellation of explosions. And the War. in Washington suggest. that 100%. of the time. one nuclear weapons.

explosion, regardless of. how it starts. An accident, a miscalculation, a deliberate use. It all ends in. a full blown nuclear. war. And part of the reason why it all. ends, in the full blown, nuclear. war, is that the kinds of. structures we've built, the kinds of. policies that we have on this. are such that... You just, you pretty.

much just follow the. protocol and the protocol. is that you attack. If you, the United States has. something called launch on warning. And that means that if we think. we're being attacked, even though we. haven't absorbed an attack, even. though if we haven't actually, you know, seen that. a. warhead has exploded in one of our. cities, we launch an attack. Um, and, uh, this, these decisions are.

made in a matter of minutes. This is, um, uh. described really, um. kind of with amazing clarity. in the book by any Jacobson. nuclear war scenario, which describes exactly minute by. minute how nuclear war. starts, um and. can start and then what. happens for the next 72 minutes. And then sort of these. long-term consequences of. nuclear war, and I can talk about. some of them.

So 72 minutes, the entire. war, that's the duration of the war. That's the duration of a war between. the United States and Russia. In Annie's book, the scenario is. that basically the. US gets attacked. by a. kind of lone warhead. coming from North. Korea, attacking Washington. DC. That's an intercontinental ballistic. missile, which we detect within.

seconds of. the launch. And then there's a second in her. scenario, there's the second. warhead being. exploded. launched from a submarine in. the Pacific and exploding. in Diablo Canyon, which is. a nuclear power plant in. Southern California. And in. that, you know, in that scenario, the US. then responds to.

the knows it's being attacked by. North Korea in. a matter of minutes makes a decision. to attack North Korea. I think the response is something. like 82 nuclear. warheads. But the. route that the warheads take from. our ICBM silos. in the. Midwest, in the Dakotas and. so on, the route uh, goes over Russia and,

um, In Annie's book, the scenario is such that the US. can't communicate fast enough. with the Russian. leadership. And Russians now think they're under. attack because they're. detecting these. warheads coming their way. And so they launch an attack, a thousand nuclear warheads, and then the US responds in. turn and attacks the. United States.

These kinds of. sort of estimates of. what would happen, the number of casualties, people who. would die and so on, in a US-Russia. full-blown nuclear war, the current estimate, and this. is based on slightly more than. a thousand warheads. from each direction, and it's. equivalent to about one third of the. current arsenals.

The number of casualties. from the. moment of the explosions. is on the order of 360. million people. And that's nothing but the. deaths from, you know, you were either incinerated. or, you know, your. body was broken. into who knows how many. pieces by the shock wave. That's not even including. deaths from radiation, which would. occur over some.

period of time, of course, very. intensely in the. immediate aftermath, but. then also over time. And then there is. the business of what such. a nuclear war would. actually do to the environment. of the planet. And there it's not just about. local effects. Now we get into the global. effect. So. Back to my initial assertion, that nuclear weapons sort of defy. rules of time and space,

the time aspect is. these radiation impacts that. can really, the radiation contamination that. can last for decades, hundreds, even. thousands of years for certain. radioactive isotopes. The spatial aspect. is that of course there is a. local impact. of the nuclear explosion. But in the case of a nuclear. war, the impact. becomes global.

And there are at least two. different ways in which this. happens. One way is called nuclear winter, and I can explain what that is. And the other is ozone layer. destruction. And these are actually things that. we've known about. both of them for a. long time, although I will. say that more recently, We've had much better simulations, just much more computer power, much more surveyability to really.

figure out what that would look. like. So let's start in order. What's nuclear winter? So nuclear winter is. the idea that following a nuclear. war, there would be such. widespread fires. everywhere that. would burn. things like everything. that's in the city and. produce so much soot. that would go up into the atmosphere. and block incoming. sunlight.

And that as a consequence. of this, for a period of. about, again, depends on how many. warheads, what energy yields and so. on. But for a, period of up. to about 10 years, temperatures would drop so. significantly, some estimates for the war that. I keep citing of one. third of US and Russian arsenals. are used up, the estimate is 10 to 15. degrees Celsius. That's about 18 to.

27 degrees Fahrenheit. This is a completely. different planet and those. temperature drops. occur very, very quickly. And so the temperature drop, what. it does is it. actually makes it. impossible for food. to grow in particular. in the Northern. Hemisphere in kind of our bread. Breadbasket latitudes and.

food just. stops. growing, agriculture. begins to fail, and. people begin to starve. And the estimates there, there's a. paper that was published in Nature. Food by Alan Roebuck. and Lilijia and. their colleagues at Rutgers. University. Um, according to that paper, this. particular scenario where I said 360. million people would die from the.

attacks, um, they estimate over 5. billion people would die of. starvation. SimpliSafe stops crime before. it happens, which is the way to. stop it. Most security systems work. backwards. They react to a break-in. They alert the authorities once. someone's already in your house. You don't want someone in your home. in the first place. You want to deter that. That's why you get Simplisafe. AI-powered cameras detect threats. while they're still outside your. home, and then alert real security.

agents before anything else happens. Those agents take action right away, confront the intruder, let them know. they're being watched on camera, call the cops, Sound a siren, triggering a spotlight, whatever it. takes to get them out of there. That is actual security. SimpliSafe's monitoring agents have. your back even when you're not at. home. Wait for someone to break in in a. home invasion. Yeah, no thanks. We trust Simplisafe. Why will there are no long-term. contracts or hidden fees? It's been named best home security. system for five years running, and. there's a 60-day money-back.

guarantee. Setup is super easy, the. app is simple to use, the. monitoring is reliable. Real peace of mind whether you're at. home or not. And right now you can save 50% on a. SimpliSafe home security system at. simplisafe.com slash Tucker. Simplisafe, S-I-M-P-L-I, safe.com, slash Tucker, there. is no safe like Simplisafe. Over five billion within. two years of a nuclear. war from starvation all. around the planet. And here's a kicker actually,

the number is actually really more. than six billion because when they. wrote the paper, they based. all of their calculations, simulations, modeling on. a worldwide population of seven. billion. We now have more than eight billion. people on the planet, so that just. quite simply means that going. to have an extra one billion people. dying of starvation. So it's really, I mean, this is. quite simply, this, is not, this the end of human. civilization.

This is the end of. humanity as we know it. I'm not saying, I don't think we. know that everyone would die, although it's quite possible. I don't think it means. all of life on the planet. it would be extinguished, although. even that's possible. But this is quite simply not the. planet we'll live on today. And then on top of it, there is. the radiation effects. And I can talk more about radiation. And then there's this business of.

ozone layer destruction. And that's somebody at Columbia whom. I actually knew. quite well. He passed away recently. in his 90s. His name was Mal Ruderman. He was one of the. first people who they. wrote about in. the 1970s. About nitric oxide. production as a consequence. of nuclear war and. the impact that this would have. on ozone layer,

on the ozone layer. Those, that kind of research. has been done also. more recently with the new model. simulations and so on. Those estimates suggest. that the war scenario. I keep mentioning between. US and Russia. would result in 70%. ozone layer destruction. This is again, this is not a place. where you go out to sunbathe.

This is a place in which. UV radiation is incredibly. dangerous, not just to. people, but it would also be, it would also impact agricultural. production because it would impact. plants. So again, this would be another hit. on sort of food. supplies. Um, but you know. This is all of this is just. so, so horrific. This idea that we would ever.

Conduct something like nuclear. war. I mean, Reagan and Gorbachev. said in 1986, nuclear war cannot be won and. must never be fought. Khrushchev said, in the 1960s, that the survivors would envy the. dead. And yet here we are, you know, 80 years into the nuclear age, still in, I would say in. many ways, playing nuclear roulette.

with. I've noticed that ever. more recklessly, especially in the. last three years. Let me ask you a couple of. questions just to tie up what you. just said. You said in the. simulation, the theoretical account. that Annie Jacobson wrote about in. her book, very influential book, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Site in. California is hit with. a nuclear weapon. What is. the effect of a nuclear power. plant? Getting hit by a nuclear.

weapon is. That's just, that one is really, really devastating. I hadn't actually, I mean, I think. with the war in. Ukraine, we. had sort of gone a sense, right, that a nuclear power. plant presents this. very kind of. special type of threat. in war zones. And this was the war, in Ukraine was. actually quite simply the. first war where we.

had active fighting. In a country, active military conflict, violent. conflict in a country that. had nuclear power plants that just. had not been the case previously. And, you know, there are a whole. lot of things you could say about. nuclear power and potential. dangerous threats and so on. But in in the. in the case of a conflict, a nuclear power plant can become a. weapon in of itself.

Um, so I read the book a. while back, so, I, I. But is it possible you could get an. exponential effect? Absolutely. No, no, no. This is now. a radiation. So now people are dying all. over the Western United States. from the. absolutely enormous amount. of radioactivity that. is spread, right? So you hit the nuclear power plant. It's not the blast and the fireball. I mean, yes, it is there locally, but that's not what's gonna kill the.

people in LA. What's gonna killed the people in. L.A. Is the radiation that's. going to spread. So what does that look like? That was my second question. You said you would flesh out the. concept of the. danger of radiation. Like what does it look like we know. something about that because of the. bombings 80 years ago? We know something about that because. of the bombings from 80 years ago, absolutely. And I can say a little. more about those, but we also know. a whole lot about.

the impact of nuclear. explosions on the environment, the impact of radiation in the. environment. Because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. not the only two or. even count Trinity three. times. It's not that we've exploded. nuclear weapons three times. We've exploded nuclear weapons more. than 2,000 times on. this planet. And that was as part of. nuclear weapons, full nuclear. weapons explosions as part.

of what it's referred to as nuclear. weapons testing programs. Um, I was in March at. the United nations, actually, at. the third meeting of state's. parties of a treaty called the. treaty on the prohibition of. nuclear, weapons. I was speaking to... A woman from French Polynesia. where the French tested nuclear. weapons. She's actually a member of. the French Polyneasian Parliament. now. Her name is Hina Moira. Cross. She is a relatively young woman, I.

think in her 30s. She has had leukemia. for many years. Um, and. and many people in French. Polynesia have been impacted by. the testing that took place there. Leukemia can be a result of exposure. to radiation. Absolutely. And I can explain that. as well. But Hina Morera said to me something. really interesting. She said, you know, when we call it.

testing, when I was young. and people would talk about, oh, we. had the testing, I just imagined. scientists kind of playing in the. laboratory and doing some. kind of a test. These were full blown. nuclear explosions. They describe Bravo, describe the. Soviet so-called test, the Tsar Bomba, there. were over 2,000 such. explosions. Many of them atmospheric tests,

the majority still underground. tests, but even underground tests. have had devastating consequences. In 1963, there was really a. kind of seminal agreement. that was made initially just. by the US, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom of. stopping atmospheric testing. And that was a real. victory for the people of the world, because it helped to.

some atmospheric testing continued. China and France actually. both continued to test in. the atmosphere post 1963. France tested in the atmospheric. until 1974, and trying to test it in the. atmosphere until 1980. Um, so both, both of those, uh, continued, everybody else. has conducted to. our knowledge, um, underground tests, to my. knowledge, only underground. tests.

As important as it is, politics is. not the answer to this country's. or man's greatest problem. The only solution is Jesus. Sorry, that's true. At its core, politics has a process. of critiquing other people. and getting them to change. Christianity is the opposite. Christianity begins with a call for. you to change, me. to change it's called repentance. And it brings you back to God. When God is at the center, hearts. change. Only that will lead to the end.

of abortion, the greatest atrocity. this country's ever participated in. The normalizing of killing babies. is a stain on this country. Our friends at pre-born are doing. everything they can to stop it by. providing free ultrasounds to. pregnant women. Pre-born has rescued. over 380,000 children. There are a lot of nonprofits out. there. A lot of them call themselves. pro-life. I wouldn't trust all of. them. Sorry, I do trust. pre-borne. I know them well. What they do works. Once a mother hears her child's.

heartbeat for the first time, she. becomes twice as likely to have. the baby. The ultrasound saves lives. It's 28 bucks for. you to sponsor an ultrasound and. join preborn's movement. Just call pound 250 and say the. keyword baby. That's pound 250. keyword baby, or pull it up at preborn.com. slash Tucker. That's preborn dot com slash Tucker, defend the preborn, there's nothing, nothing. More worth it. We hope you'll join us.

So, tell us about the effects of. radiation. So how. long does the. pollution last? How bad is it? Yeah, so depending. on what kind of a bomb you. have, so let me go back to. a kind of key. distinction here. We have two types of nuclear. weapons. One we refer to as atomic bombs. Those are again, 1945. weapons. Those are based on the process of. fission.

Fission is when a nucleus. of an atom splits. and basically... One element, we all know elements like hydrogen. and oxygen and carbon and so. on, but an element like uranium. or plutonium splits. and produces two other. elements. And energy is. produced in such a reaction and, you know, a tiny amount of energy. is produced in one reaction,

but when you have many, many, reactions, you can have a lot of. energy. Another process. is called the process of fusion. And that's when actually nuclei. of two elements come together. and produce energy that. way. So for example, two. hydrogen nuclei. come together to form. helium and energy is. produced that way, that process. actually takes place. in the sun. That's how the sun produces.

its energy. So fusion is a good thing. We wouldn't, we quite simply. wouldn't have life on this planet if. it weren't for fusion, but again, using fusion for the purpose. of weapons is, is a whole other. thing. So depending on, you. know, sort of what you do and here's. the interesting thing about fusion. or hydrogen bombs in. order to actually bring, so you know. that, so if I have hydrogen. nuclei. So this is...

But just step one second to. just remember what an. atom is, what elements are. So we have different elements on. the planet. The atoms are sort of the. smallest units of. the element, but those atoms. are made up of different kinds of. particles. So the nucleus is at the center of. the atom. It might have just a. single proton like in hydrogen, or. it might also have more protons and. also neutrons and so on. And then there are electrons around.

it. In chemical reactions, everything basically happens with, not basically, everything happens. with the electrons. So the nuclei just stay the. same. With nuclear reactions, everything. is about what happens in the. nucleus. The nucleus either splits. or the nuclei infusion. or nuclei come together in fusion. In fusion, if you. have a nucleus that is. positively charged, the electrons. are negatively charged.

This is what keeps the atoms stable. If you have one nucleus that's. positively charged trying to come. together with another nucleus that's. positive charged, they. repel each other, right? So we now, you know. So they repels each other. So you actually need to. invest energy to. overcome that electrostatic. repulsion. And the amount of. energy that's needed can.

only be supplied by something. like a fission bomb. So even for fusion, for hydrogen. weapons, right, we. actually need to have fission. as the fuel that. kind of sets up the conditions. for the fusion to actually take. How much more powerful is a hydrogen. bomb than the bombs dropped on. Hiroshima and Nagasaki? So, so the Bravo one. was a thousand times more. powerful than. a Hiroshima bomb.

The currently like if we have a. one megaton bomb, that's about. 70 Hiroshima. bombs. But hydrogen bombs actually there's. kind of no limit like you could keep. making them bigger and bigger and. somehow we've stopped making the. really big ones. I think China has... Probably the most powerful, the. most high energy. hydrogen bombs currently. in their arsenals. I think they have five megaton. bombs,

hydrogen bombs in their arsenals, that's more than 300 Hiroshima. bomb equivalents. But then again, if you have. a missile that. can carry 10 warheads, it almost. doesn't no matter how much a. single one is. But just back to radiation, so basically what. you're doing is you're producing. this chain reaction. of splitting atoms. or fusing them, and.

in so doing, you produce. some radioactive. isotopes, radioactive. elements. That are going to basically. be in the environment. both locally. They're going to get kind of blown. up. Things get blown up, evaporated, going into the mushroom cloud. You produce these radioactive. isotopes. They're mixed with. everything. Some of that will. kind of fall back. onto the planet locally.

Some of it will be. carried up into the. atmosphere, high. Levels stratosphere and so. on and actually become, you know, part of. sort of a. global deposition where. you go so. high up in the atmosphere, it stays, you know, stays up there and. then you could also end up. having, depending on exactly how. far up it goes, you could.

have it come down with. weather events. Um, and so when. the United. So it's raining nuclear ice? Raining radioactive. nuclear isotopes. The U.S. I mentioned the testing. in the Marshall Islands. We also tested in another. Pacific island state called. the Republic of Kiribati. And we tested on our own soil, both in Nevada where there were. a hundred atmospheric tests. and some 828.

underground tests, as. well as in Alaska where there was. just underground test. But the testing in Nevada actually. produced fallout that. went all around the. United States. And it quite simply. depended on. whether or not. there was rain in. a local. So the fallout was carried across, towards the East, given the. easterly winds. And then if there was a rain,

a weather event in some. place, the. fallout would get deposited there. And their maps of the United States, they quite simply look like. you sort of gave an. empty map to a child and they played. with paint kind of. sprayed, you know, blotches of. paint on Jackson Pollock painting. Yeah, exactly. And it's and it's where. radiation had been deposited.

from these. Do we know the health effects of. that? The health effects are very. severe and very serious. So let me just name a few of. the top radioactive isotopes. that are problematic. Problematic. There's something called iodine 131. There's something called cesium-137, something called strontium-90, and. there are a number of different. isotopes of plutonium. And the thing about these. is that they quite simply.

last in the environment for. different amounts of time. So some of them, there's a concept. called half-life. So a radioactive isotope. will have a specific half-. life. And what that means. is if you have, if you start out. with say a thousand atoms of. this isotope, after it's half life, you will have 500. And after another half life you'll. have 250 and so on.

And so after six, seven, call it. even 10 half lives, it's. gonna be gone from the environment. Iodine 131 has a very. short half life. It's eight days. And so within a matter of weeks, it's gone from the environment. But if you were there at the. time of the. explosion, and if you got. exposed to iodine 131, that actually went. into your body. mostly because the iodine.

actually went into the grass. and then the cows ate the grass, and you know, people drank the milk. and so on, but it goes right. to your thyroid. And it's it has caused. Who knows, numerous, numerous. cancers in this country, but. actually in many. other parts of the world. Strontium-90 and cesium-137. have half-lives of. about 30 years each. That means they stick in the. environment for a few, a couple.

hundred years, at least. And what's interesting about both. of these isotopes, Strontium-90. is chemically. similar to calcium and. you know that when you drink milk or. eat cheese or whatever you're taking. calcium that calcium goes into. your bones goes into it's. it's building up your bone marrow. and strontium-90. will go to those exact places. so the reason we mentioned.

leukemia earlier The reason. that people got, and especially they called... Leukemia, the atomic bomb. disease in Hiroshima and. Nagasaki after the bombings, the reason for that was the. exposure to strontium-90. Also, importantly, because it acts like calcium, it also gets incorporated by. plants will take it up from. the environment and you can. ingested.

Cesium-137 is. the same half-life. around for a long time is. chemically similar to. potassium. And you also know that if you eat. banana or if you drink some. kind of a electrolyte drink or. something, you take in potassium. Well, the same thing happens. If cesium is in the soil, plants will take it up. thinking because.

it behaves like potassium, they take. it out, it gets incorporated. And now... When you eat. that food, that cesium is now getting. incorporated into your. cells, the kinds of soft tissues. that use potassium. Your brain actually needs a lot of. potassium. And so when. instead of taking up potassium, you've now brought cesium-137.

into your body. Now, the cesium. Is this radioactive isotope. that's gonna basically, after a certain amount of time, it's going to split and. it's gonna give off. gamma radiation. And now that gamma radiation is. inside your body, it's attacking. your cells, it attacking your DNA, it's making you sick. And a lot of kind. of soft tissue cancers, including. brain cancer, come. from that cesium-137.

Did you see markedly higher. rates of those cancers after. Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes. Oh, absolutely. I mean, the estimates. for the casualties. of the. Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, it's often cited what people. think it was like 70, the ideas is maybe. 70,000 people died on. the day of the attack, and then another 70,00.

by the end of 1945. from on. Both kind of acute radiation. sickness as well as cancer, but the cancers continue. to happen. There's a particularly touching. story of a young. girl who was two years. old in Hiroshima, the day. of the bombings. Her name was Sada Kososaki. And when she was 12, so 10 years after the bombing, she developed leukemia.

Um, she had been you know, growing well and was. very athletic and very active. and she developed leukemia. and she is the. one who she. learned the story of the paper. crane, the folding of the origami. Yes. And she learned a story that. if you fold a. thousand paper cranes, your wish. will come true. And now some differences. in kind of details of what happened, how many paper crans she folded and.

so on. But, needless to say, she died. And after she died, it was actually. her friends who wanted to do. something in. her honor. And essentially, over, you. know, the decades, the paper. crane that she was folding. really became a. kind of symbol of peace. And this sort of message, you know, she...

She was wishing, folding the paper cranes, she was. wishing not just to get better, but she was for world peace. And that's kind of what got taken. up by. So if you had the. U S and Russia fire. one third of their nuclear arsenals, you're saying that every. study, uh, projection. has shown like an elimination of. like life on earth, basically. certainly human life on earth, human. civilization.

Yeah, I would say it's. absolutely certainly the. end of the. world as we know it, whether we all perish. or some people survive, the latter is certainly possible. It's actually the UN is now. advancing a study. on the consequences of nuclear. war, It's something that really. hasn't been studied, I would say. Um, in terms of,

uh, the current, the. world that we currently live in, right. So we live in a very. globalized world. Um, you know, we. often might eat food. from other places in. the world, right? Like, what is that in the. current context that wasn't. necessarily true to. the same degree in the 1980s, people, for example, ate food that. was more local and so on, um, so what does that look. like today? The science.

of nuclear winter. and, for example, ozone layer destruction, that's. very, very solid science. It gets attacked all the time, but it is very solid. And old. You said this has been something. that people have been studying for. 80 years. How many nuclear weapons are there. in the world globally? Today, we have 12. and a half nuclear warheads. in the world in possession. of 9,000.

nuclear. warheads. In the world, in possession 9. nuclear armed states, U.S. And Russia have the. vast majority Over 90%. of the nuclear warheads are. in the possession of US and Russia. Are we pretty sure of. that? I mean, we know where these. warheads are. Yeah, no, we actually know. The good news about nuclear. weapons is they're not a garage. project.

There are other things you could do. in your garage that could be very. dangerous. You can't do that with. nuclear weapons. You really, it. takes a tremendous amount. of, not just resources. and kind of human. ingenuity, but infrastructure. You know, Part of the reason they. did that in the You know, the. Manhattan project in the Los Alamos, it was all that isolation. and so on. Do we know where they are? We do, for the most.

part, we know where they are. Probably not all of them. I think it's kind of known where, for example, Russia's. military bases are, but. perhaps not exactly how many. where and how. The other piece is that we. do have a lot of nuclear warheads on. submarines, which could. be pretty much anywhere in. the world's oceans. What's interesting, so submarines. keep moving most of the time,

isn't it dangerous to have a nuclear. warhead continuously. on a boat? Yeah, some of these nuclear. submarines. are carrying so. many warheads. They're carrying so many missiles. and each missile is carrying. warheads, I think they call them handmaidens. of the apocalypse. There were incidents in. like the 1950s where. US and the Soviet submarine. like, you know,

crashed into one another. They're also, they're. Nuclear armed and. nothing happened. We've actually been, I mean, this is one way. of looking at the history of the. entire nuclear age, so. 80 years of the nuclear age is. that we've been very, very lucky. that the scenarios. I'm describing, the scenario. Annie Jacobson is describing, nuclear winter, ozone layer. destruction, there's a whole other.

thing which you probably also know. about. I know you spoke with Dennis Quaid. The electromagnetic pulse, that's. another thing you could do. You could shut down the electricity. over entire countries. Like you need like three nuclear. warheads to shut down, the electricity, over the entire. United States. And this isn't a case where. you, you know, it's a blackout. and we're all inconvenienced for a. week. This is like the electricity. is not coming back.

So you wouldn't even need to. like explode nuclear. weapons on cities, you just. need to shut down our. electrical grid and then, you know, good luck to all. of us. So during the Cold War, a Russian sub, Soviet sub, and a. U.S. Sub collided. Um, luckily, you know, the bombs didn't go off, but there were also examples. of warheads being lost, right? Yeah, warheads being lost,

war heads being dropped to. the bottom of the ocean. There are about 50 nuclear warheads. at the bottom of the oceans. With their 50 nuclear warheads right. now at the bottom of the ocean. Right now at the bottom of the. ocean. Yeah. And no one's tried to retrieve them? Fell off a submarine, fell off. a plane, you know, all kinds of accidents. It wasn't just two submarines. colliding. It was also, there was also. airplanes carrying nuclear warheads. colliding.

There was once, yeah, there was once. a. a nuclear warhead that was. dropped quite literally into. someone's backyard in. South Carolina. It didn't go off. It had like multiple security. kind of systems and. the last one held. Everything else, you know, had. given way. Wait, the U.S. Military dropped a nuclear bomb in. someone's backyard in South. Carolina? Yeah, absolutely. I forget the exact year.

This was most of these incidents. were in the 1950s, but that was kind of a. period of really stupid. accidents. And then what. it's often referred to in the. field as close calls sort. of got more sophisticated. In 1962, of course, we had the Cuba Missile Crisis, that's a whole, famously a. whole set. of things. And really what we understand from.

that is that could have led. to a nuclear war, you know, from deliberate. kind of, you know, U.S. Kennedy was under a. tremendous amount of pressure to. actually invade Cuba by that. point. The Soviets actually had. Nuclear warheads and. missiles in Cuba, had that invasion or. they're gone, we quite simply would have. had a nuclear war. But it wasn't just that,

there were incidents during. that 13-day period, three of them on the same. day, October 27th, it was a Saturday, it's. often referred to as the Black. Saturday, there was three things. that happened that day. One was a U.S. Plane that was. doing some kind of. monitoring near. the North Pole and. had accidentally gone off,

lost radar, lost the. ability to navigate where they were. and gone deep into the. Soviet Union and was actually. too high up. For the Soviet. air defense, and they really tried to. shoot it down, but the guy. escaped. Then there was an airplane that. was shut down over Cuba, and the American captain was killed.

on that day and Kennedy. did not decide. to move towards an invasion. and so on. Perhaps the most. serious one was. where the US was. trying to enforce a blockade. of kind of, you know, the Soviets weren't supposed to be. coming to Cuba to, you know, bring any sort of military. equipment and to. enforce this blockade, they were.

using something called depth. charges, but they were using kind of. simulating depth charges. That and depth charges like a. weapon to attack. a submarine. And so they were using ones that. would sort of simulate an attack but. not really attack. And one Soviet. submarine. had three officers. on board was.

being attacked by these depth. charges. They interpreted it as a. attack. They actually thought that maybe. there was a war going on. And they were nuclear. armed, they had a nuclear torpedo. on board. And what they needed, this. wasn't, you know, like they needed. permission. from some higher authority. They needed, all three of them. needed to agree to. employ the nuclear warhead.

One of them, his name was. Captain Arkhipov, decided that he did not. want to approve the use of. the nuclear torpedo and. basically save. the world. In that moment, the very next. day, October 28th, was. actually the end of. the Cuban Missile Crisis where. the Soviets agreed. to withdraw their. nuclear missiles.

from. Cuba. President Kennedy had. in turn. Agreed that the US would withdraw. its nuclear missiles from. Turkey. This wasn't known until. relatively recently, because at the time, Kennedy asked. Khrushchev, you know, you have my word, we'll do this, but I just need a. little time and I'm. not going to make it public. And that was the agreement and ended. the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And that was. a very, very, very dangerous. moment. It seems to have changed. President Kennedy's views of nuclear. weapons or hardened his views and. he became entirely. committed to preventing new. nations from acquiring nuclear. weapons. He became committed to. preventing new nations from. acquiring nuclear weapons. That was absolutely really important. to him. But he was also, he was very, he was looking towards. disarmament.

And it was even before the. Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1961, he gave a very. famous speech at the United Nations. General Assembly in which he. stated something to the effect of. we must abolish. nuclear weapons before they abolish. us. So this is quite. simply something we've known for. a long time. And this was, Kennedy. understood this before. we understood nuclear winter, before. we To those on layer destruction, maybe around the time we were.

figuring out electromagnetic pulse. and so on. So he understood this at the very. deep level. The part where he. really put in. his energy was. the atmospheric test band treaty. and that was negotiated. with Pushchev. On the following year in. 1963, that was a. tremendous achievement and a. really, really important. achievement. Going back to our. discussion of radiation,

you know, I often sometimes when I. sit in a room full of people. or stand or. whatever and speak about this, I. sometimes say, you know there are. people in this room who are alive. today because of that atmospheric. test ban treaty. Because had we continued. to test to the. degree and the levels that we were. doing we would have just sickened. more and more and more people in. our own country and. around the world. One thing I'll just add is that.

I didn't say earlier because I was. talking about the isotopes, I never. told you about plutonium. They're actually different isotopes. of plutonum and some. of them have half lives. of thousands of years. There's an isotope of plutonium with. a 24 and a half thousand-year. half-lifetime. That means that thing's going. to be in the environment for, you know, a couple of hundred. thousand years. So this is again back.

to that issue of transcending. time and space. This is not something that. just has an immediate effect. We clean it up, and we move on. The plutonium, in fact, the plutonum has been. deposited globally. And we have, we actually have. an understanding that hundreds. of years from now, hopefully there. will be scientists who studied the. planet, who will say, oh look, this is when they tested.

nuclear weapons. Here's the. plutonium line in. the geologic record. And can I ask you. about President Kennedy's. efforts to. prevent nuclear war. One of the things he did, it's been. written about to some extent, is try. to prevent David Ben-Gurion, then Prime Minister of Israel, from developing a nuclear weapon at. the Demona site. I think we have a lot of. correspondence now that shows the. president demanding inspections of.

the Demonic site. Ben-gurion resigned as Prime. Minister, I think, as a result of. this controversy. Um, what happened there? Yeah, I think Israel was, was. really avoiding any. sort of, um, oversight by the. president Kennedy, um. thought that proliferation. of nuclear weapons was incredibly. dangerous. He was definitely concerned.

and didn't want other. countries acquiring nuclear. weapons. This eventually led, even after his death, to. the Nuclear Non-Proliferation. Treaty, whose goal was. that, but there are other goals. and I can talk about them as well. In the case of Israel, he felt very. strongly that if. this was our ally, and we were going to tell the rest. of the world not to. acquire nuclear weapons, we.

also had to actually, you know. Do what we were preaching and. sort of be consistent. in our approach to Israeli nuclear. weapons. But they went ahead and. I mean, I think. it's. thought that the first functional. Israeli nuclear weapon was. developed in 1966. And so this was. actually, interestingly, before.

the Nuclear Nonproliferation. Treaty. It came together, it was negotiated. over a. long period of time, but finally. kind of signed. in 1968, and. then it entered into. force in 1970. It's still currently one. of the largest international. agreements amongst. states in.

the United Nations. How many nuclear-armed states have. signed it? So that treaty. recognizes five. nuclear. weapons states, their US, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China. Those are the five that had nuclear. weapons up to that point, declared nuclear weapons arsenals. Again, Israel had. actually begun its program. At this point, Israel is. thought to have 90 nuclear.

warheads. Um, the other five of. what's interesting is they were from. the very beginning of the treaty. All five were recognized as nuclear. weapon states, but China. and France didn't join the treaty. until 1992. So it sometimes takes time for, for, um, uh, these treaties to actually bring-. So the other nations would be India, Pakistan, North Korea. So there, yes, so there are. four others, so nine nuclear armed. states, five recognized by the.

United Nations, also all five members of the UN. Security Council with veto. power. And then the four that are. outside of the treaty, Israel, which has this unique policy of. ambiguity of an undeclared. nuclear arsenal, but again, we. think it's a 90 nuclear warhead. arsenal. And we're pretty sure that. there is. Oh, absolutely. I think there's no doubt about. whether or not they have them.

India and Pakistan never joined. the Nuclear Non-Proliferation. Treaty, both. essentially. tested nuclear weapons underground. They each have on the order. of 150 nuclear warheads. today. And then North. Korea was actually a part of the. treaty. Until they left. the treaty in the early 2000s. and have since,

you know, pursued a. nuclear weapons program. We think that North Korea actually. currently has 50, 60, maybe. 70 nuclear. warheads. What North Korea has done. is it has also. actually developed. the delivery systems. And we think. that today North Korea. actually has the kind of. delivery systems that could. deliver a nuclear warhead. to any part of.

the United States. And this to me is actually. really for. many. reasons why we have to eliminate. nuclear weapons. I can make a case about that. very strongly. But in the case of. North Korea, it seems utterly crazy. to me. Do you have a country like. the United States, which let's. for just a moment imagine. that we live in a world free.

of nuclear weapons. Who's going to attack the United. states? You know, we've got the. oceans. We've got the conventional. military. I've actually heard our. mutual friend, Professor Jeffrey. say that the United States. could be the safest country in the. history of humanity. In a world with nuclear weapons. We are so vulnerable. and we're not just. vulnerable with however you.

want to classify Russia and China, but let's call them. peer adversaries or near-peer. adversaries. We're vulnerable to them, but we're. also vulnerable to a country. like North Korea, which is. relatively small, relatively poor. This is not a. world superpower, and yet- North Korea could. destroy the United States. as we know it. Where is Iran? This is such a heavily politicized. question, but there's got to be a. science-based answer.

Where is a Iran on the continuum. toward getting nuclear weapons? Iran has been. enriching uranium to. 60%, which is you don't need. that for nuclear power. It is not quite weapons grade, although if you wanted to make a. weapon, you actually could make a. weapons even out of the highly. enriched uranium they currently. have. Now, my understanding is that they, and I actually listened to. their statements in. venues like the Nuclear.

Non-Proliferation Treaty meetings at. the UN. They always say they're not. interested in building. nuclear weapons. They do emphasize that. their religion requires. them not to pursue. nuclear weapons, I actually think that they're. not pursuing nuclear weapons? How hard would it be for, I mean, they have every incentive to any. country that, you know, has its.

capital city bombed, probably wants a nuclear deterrent, I would think, and it's just common. sense. How hard is it, given. where they are right now, technologically, how hard would be. for them to build a nuclear weapon? I don't know what to do with this video, but I'm going to try to make a. video about it. I don ´t know. I don't think it would be very hard. I think if they wanted a nuclear. weapon, they could have had it. a long time ago. How hard in general is it to build. one? It is hard. It is a huge investment. of resources, both human and financial.

resources. It is a hard. thing to do. It's not a garage project, it's. not something that's going to evade, especially if. we were to pursue. nuclear disarmament, especially in the world. of today's technologies. It would be very. relatively easy to track. activity, to set up inspections, to do the kinds of things. that would rid the world of. this threat.

Right after 9-11, we heard a lot. about the potential for a dirty. bomb, nuclear material. with conventional explosives. attached that would pollute an. area. What would that look like? Is that an actual threat? I think that's still that remains. a thread. I think that woke up some people. in the early 2000s. to kind of think a little bit about. about the threat of nuclear weapons. Interestingly, it was in 2007,

I think this sort. of terrorist threat was. a big part of why they did this. Ibrad Kissinger. and George Schultz. Both of whom were former. secretaries of state under. Republican presidents, as. well as Bill Perry, Department of Secretary of Defense. under Bill Clinton and Sam Nunn, a long time Democratic senator. from Georgia, brought the four. of them together in 2007.

They wrote the first of. a series of articles in. the Wall Street Journal titled. something like toward the world free. of nuclear weapons in which they. actually may. The case for. both why we need a world. free of nuclear weapons and why. the United States should. lead that effort. Can I ask a dumb question I should. have asked before? So you've said it's been. longstanding policy for over 70. years, that if the United States.

believes there are incoming nuclear. missiles, that it will strike the. country of origin. What's the thinking there? Um... I've never questioned that, but if. you think about it, I mean, if. there's nothing you can do to stop. I think so much of this is. actually, I love, there's a. quote from Daniel Ellsberg who. released the Pentagon Papers. and is best known for that. He passed away a.

little over a year ago or so. Daniel Ellesberg, after. that kind of. effort to end the. Vietnam War, really ended up. spending decades speaking. about nuclear disarmament and. nuclear weapons issues. In the ages. Book, The Doomsday Machine, there's a quote I. really, really love. He says that nuclear weapons. policies, past and.

current, are. dizzingly insane. and immoral. And that's really all I have to. say in response to why would we, if we. think we're being attacked by. one or two nuclear warheads, why would we send 82 to North. Korea? Uh, you know, I, I think. Well, I mean, you know, if you can't, if there's some way to. stop the nuclear.

attack, then of course. I mean if it's them or. us, I'm for, you now, I am for us. always, however, if there's no way to Stop the. missiles from coming, if it really. is no technology that allows that, then what is the point of. killing 100 million other people. if you're gonna die. It's a really, it's a really good. question. I think one-. Has this been debated? So nuclear deterrence.

has kind. of become a sort of mantra. So let me just step back for. a second. I think one of the. problems we have. currently in this country is. number one, most people are. not aware of this threat. Don't understand nuclear weapons, don't understand what they do. sometimes when I speak or write or. You know, people will respond, oh, I remember Duck and Cover when I was. in school. And, you know people of a. certain generation still sort of. have a sense for, for what.

is going on. But many young people. are just utterly unaware. There is a section of society, however, that is aware. and understands what nuclear. weapons are and, you understand. some of the basic facts that we've. been talking about and so on. But has been convinced. by this idea that. nuclear deterrence works and. nuclear weapons keep us safe and. that's just all there is to it and.

there's just no way to undo. or put the genie back in the bottle. or any of that. And the truth is that. there are many problems with. nuclear deterrents. The first and. kind of to me most fundamental. is that there is quite simply. no plan B for what. happens if nuclear deterrence fails. It's just kind of like on. autopilot, we're. under attack, we're gonna attack. them. And even if you think.

about a scenario in which we. somehow actually managed. whoever the enemies are, we managed to disarm. them or disable or. even if we somehow magically. had a dome over the country, which by the way, we're not going. to, it's never going to work. We've tried this and there's just. no way to actually do that. But even if it did, to. destroy such. an enemy, right, we would. need to use so many hundreds or.

thousands of warheads. That we would create nuclear. winter, we would create ozone layer. destruction, it would be. in the Cold War, we called. it mutually assured destruction. or MAD, it is. actually always sad. It's always self-assured. destruction. If you're going to go. into nuclear war, whether. or not you end up getting attacked, you're going to create. conditions that are going to. actually destroy your.

own nation. I just want to tell you a story. about the. United States, so this, you. know, the claim that I made a. little earlier about. the united states actually. having in my mind, having the most to gain from. pursuing a world free of nuclear. weapons. Um, I was at a place called. Wilton Park. It's in the United Kingdom. It was like being in a Jane Austen.

novel. And it's a place where the. UK's foreign. ministry basically. brings experts, diplomats, academics, and. so on to discuss. various issues all year. long. And one week a year, they devote to this. nuclear nonproliferation treaty. diplomacy. And I was invited there last. December. These meetings are held, it was. about 30 of us actually spoke,

but it's a large room, it's about. 80 people. And it was all very, very. interactive. And in one such exchange, I actually made this case that the. United States has the most to. gain from a world free of nuclear. weapons. And these meetings are health under. what's called Chatham House Rules. So I can talk about what. happened, but I can't talk about who. said it. So I'm not going to say who. said. But a person responded. to me and I had made a. comment to their remarks and.

then made this comment about the. U.S. And this person. responded to me after which. I wasn't allowed, according to the. rules, to respond. So I'll tell you what the response. was. The response was, you're right, and I was shocked that. they accepted this, you. are free of nuclear. weapons. But our allies would not. be. And so because. I wasn't allowed to respond in.

the room, I waited until it. was after, you know, that session had ended. And in the lunch line, I approached this person and. I said, how. would the American people feel. if you told them. that we're not pursuing nuclear. disarmament because. of our allies? And take a guess what he responded. to me. I don't think he cares for the. American people. No, he said, now you. sound like Trump.

And I said, that's not an answer. A person goes, you want an answer? There would be no Europe. It would all be mother Russia. So, you know, there's this, the. idea. Or they're deranged. Yeah, yeah, but I mean, seriously, like. They'd be better off anyway. How are we. accepting to.

be under. mortal threat as. a nation, as a people, as humanity all. the time? JFK had another, he had so many brilliant statements. and. quotes and so on. Another one was like, humanity was not meant. to live in a prison, a waiting. Its final destruction. I mean, that was his view was like. we're all just sitting in this. prison awaiting, you know,

the nuclear war destroying, destroying our world. It does seem like we're, and. there's been this thing, the. doomsday clock, and I don't know. how, take that very. seriously because like, how would. you measure that? But just watching the. rhetoric carefully, it has changed since the Ukraine war. started. And you're seeing, I saw a piece. by some lunatic at. the Atlantic council recently. suggesting that we, you know, engage.

in a limited nuclear strike. Absolutely insanity. And so the taboo around using. nuclear weapons, at least. in this country, has. almost evaporated. Like, what is that? Yeah, I mean, I think the taboo. is still there. But I think some people are. definitely pushing pushing. the envelope and pretending. as if we really can. fight and win a nuclear. war.

What? Oh, I of course, I agree. What is it? What does it mean. though? Technically a limited nuclear. strike. I think people think that you could. have exchanges on say, say that we gave Ukraine. a few. kind of. low energy. yield and low energy means Hiroshima. bombs or that kind. of. size and. near range that.

you can use in a battlefield. NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Yeah, and nuclear weapons. And people have called for that. Yeah, I think that's, I think that in discussion. I mean, I think the. Anyone who discusses that should be. in prison for treason. I agree. I agree. Um... I agree. Yeah, any policy maker who advocates. for that is, is. imperiling our entire nation and. world. And that's a crime. Yeah, no, in the fall. of 2022, after the.

start of the Ukraine War, there were. serious discussions in the White. House and an. estimate from the Biden. administration that. there was a 50% chance. of nuclear weapons use over. the war in Ukraine. I mean, you must know some of the. people in the Biden White House. I mean like what? I actually don't-. You don't? Okay, they don't want to talk to you. I actually... But, I mean, these are supposedly. adults, Jake Sullivan and, you know, Tony Blinken.

Like, what are they thinking? I mean, the closest I come to. is when I try to speak. to diplomats. These are people mostly from the. State Department or from the. US mission to the United Nations. or examples like the. one I gained from Wilton Park. I've also spoken to diplomat. from other nuclear weapons states, including like a UK diplomat. where I was making this case that, you know, nuclear deterrence could. fail.

And he goes, yeah, yeah. You're right. And I said, and then what? You know, we destroyed the entire. human civilization. We destroyed the planet. We make it inhospitable to. not just human life. And he said, that's not going to. happen. So they not. only don't. have a plan B for. if nuclear The Trans Fails! They also really don't want. to think about it, right?

Like to them, the solution is just, you just. keep going. And to me, it's just unfathomable. To me, the idea that. we're kind of putting all of. our eggs in this nuclear deterrence. basket when we actually. recognize that things could go. wrong, not just deliberately, not just because someone decided. To implement the strike, but because accidents could happen, because a miscalculation could. happen,

besides the Cuban Missile Crisis, besides these absolutely ridiculous. stupid accidents in the. in the 50s and even the 60s. In the 1980s, we had. two incidents in 1983, the first one in September, the. second one in November. Where we quite literally. could have had. the start of a nuclear war. One was called the Able Archer, that. was in November.

That was a NATO exercise. that had actually. added some. new kind of elements of realism. that were interpreted then by the. Soviets for the real thing. They thought they were under attack. They started. Quite literally, you know, putting. nuclear warheads onto missiles. and were ready to attack. And thankfully that was, it didn't go. all the way.

In September, there. was an incident where. an. officer in the Soviet Army. in some military. based it was monitoring whether. the Soviet Union was under attack. Received literally. like a computer glitch of. five signals in a row that. warheads were coming towards the. Soviet Union from the. United States. And it turns out those glitches.

came from an alignment between. high altitude clouds and. satellites. So something that had not been. predicted or accounted for, and according to the computers, the Soviet Union was under attack. This person, his name was. Captain Stanislav. Petrov, had decided. this was a false alarm. and actually didn't. pass the information onto his.

superiors, thus averting. nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis incident. that I was describing with the. submarine. That's often referred to the man who. saved the world and then Petrov is. also sometimes referred to as the. man could save the world. We've quite simply been, have had so many incidences. where we just actually. got lucky.

And there are scholars who really. kind of study all of these. examples who say, no, no no, it's not the nuclear. deterrence his work. It's that we have really. been very lucky. Not all countries that have. nuclear weapons are the same, though. some are clearly a greater threat. not because they're more evil. necessarily, but because they are. more unstable. And the UK, I would say, is a. perfect authoritarian country, a failed state in a lot of ways. that's got rioting in the streets.

It's clearly in a very. steep downward trajectory. Why should we sit back. and allow the. UK to have nuclear weapon? It actually gets much. better than that. The UK has nuclear warheads, they're their own nuclear warhead, but the only way they can launch. them is using. US delivery. systems. And so it's not just that they have. them, it's that actually will.

help them to have viable, you know, quote unquote. nuclear deterrent. So it's, it's it's that. one's actually in. our corner squarely. and we just recently. transferred or began. transferring some nuclear. warheads onto UK. soil. It was something we used. to do and then we. removed them and Now we brought them. back. Why would we do that? I don't know. In a country that's collapsing that.

will not be there in current form in. 20 years. That seems very reckless. I mean, when the Soviet Union. collapsed in 91, they. moved nuclear warheads. out of a bunch of different. satellite states, including Ukraine. Ukraine and Belarus and Kazakhstan. And when South Africa. ended apartheid in 1994, they moved the nuclear weapons out. So, but we're moving nuclear weapons. into an increasingly volatile. country. And we actually have, so it's, we of course have our own nuclear.

weapons. And then we have on our. territory as well as in these. submarines that travel. all around the planet. And we also have nuclear. warheads in five. other, now six, because it's clear we brought. some back to the United Kingdom. We have them in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and Turkey. Um, to me... Do we have any in Romania?

Um, not to my knowledge, not my knowledge to. me, you look at a globe. and you look at how small Europe is. nuclear weapons in Europe are. just about the craziest thing. that, that you could be. doing. Then they're all aimed at Russia. They are, yeah, aimed at, many of them. would need kind of bombers, planes to be delivered. I meant figuratively. I meant figuratively aimed, they're. there to deter Russia. I mean,

what a country like Belgium. is doing with nuclear weapons, because really all you would need. is like, Belgium is so small, you'd need like 10 nuclear warheads. to destroy all of Belgium. So there's never Belgium ever. again. You know, it just, it's really. insane. I'll see you in the next one. Well, Belgium can't even settle its. own ethnic disputes internally. Uh, uh, yeah. So, uh, wow, this, it doesn't seem like we're moving in. the right direction.

We're not moving in the right. direction. Although there are. some developments in the. international scene. So let me just make. this case for the. US just to underscore. this point that the. US has a lot to gain from this. So in 2007, Kissinger, Schultz, Perry, Nunn, they write this. article. They say the US should be. leading the world. Uh, towards a world free of.

nuclear weapons. The US has a lot to. gain from this. Um, and then it. was, I think that. call in 2010, there. was actually a review conference. of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation. Treaty that actually. had, um, come. up with a kind of action. plan that was very. promising. Um, it was a 13 steps. towards a free of nuclear weapons. kind of uh, action plan, um, with sort.

of very specific, both. a kind of set of goals and, and timelines and so on. And then by 2015, all of that had collapsed and. it's large part. because of what happened in Ukraine, um in 2014. Now we start to see this, you know, distrust between. the United States and Russia. It's again, it's no longer. You know, maybe we're working. together to rid the world.

of the threat, which was really the. goal of both Reagan and Gorbachev. instead. Now we're adversaries again. And now in some sense, the international community is. sort of. locked in on. kind of. living in a world which could. end at any point. And it was really a. group, a large group of. states. This was an effort that was.

beginning right around that time. that focused on. what people refer to. as humanitarian consequences. of nuclear weapons. So this is again going back to. what have nuclear weapons done to. people in Hiroshima Nagasaki, what have they done? Through these nuclear, so-called. nuclear testing programs to. 2,000 explosions. around the planet. And what is the. research, the kind of stuff.

that I've been describing, nuclear. winter, ozone layer destruction, so on, that tells. us about what is at stake. in the world with nuclear weapons. So these states started. negotiating eventually. an agreement which is. called the Treaty on the Prohibition. of Nuclear Weapons that was. negotiated in 2017. And it's an international. treaty that entered.

into force in 2021. and that currently has. 73 states. parties and. another 25 signatories. So in an international. agreement, They're served. two levels. One is a signatory, a head of state or someone like. a foreign minister signs. and that signals to the. country is. sort of ready to,

you know, commit to. these things in principle. And then the ratification follows. often through national. legislative bodies, whatever the rules of. a particular country are. After ratification, the country. is actually committed to. everything outlined in the. agreement. So the Treaty on the Prohibition of. Nuclear Weapons or TPNW. basically arose. now almost.

10 years ago and. has been active since. entering into force in 2021. And the goals of this treaty are. quite simply to prohibit any. and all activities having to. do with nuclear weapons. And the idea here is. that the countries. that are part of it, so clearly. none of the nuclear armed states. are part of it and I. would say not yet, but. the idea here is because.

of things like nuclear winter, because of radiation. that spreads all around the planet, these countries are saying that. your nuclear arsenals. are not just a thread. To your enemies or to your own. populations, they're actually. a threat to all of us as. well. And we want a say. in the fact that. you currently hold the. ability to destroy the world as. we know it. I bet they do want to say, but they're not. getting one because nobody cares.

So if you're North Korea, it's like, why do we care what you think? If you're the United States, why. don't we care? I mean, it does seem like. the way that states deal. with each other encourages. everybody to get a nuclear weapon. We don't boss North Korea around. anymore because they have nuclear. weapons. We just killed a bunch of. people, including civilians in. Tehran, and there's nothing And they. can do about it because they don't. have nuclear weapons, so... That's, those are law of the jungle. rules, which I object to as.

a Christian, but I'm, but they seem. in force. Like, I don't know what you do about. that. I think the idea that, I think to me, it is nuclear deterrence. that is the problem in. and of itself. Because if we're going to continue. to claim that we have nuclear. weapons because they keep us. safe, then absolutely everything. you just said follows from that, right? Then every country.

that can should acquire. nuclear weapons for itself to keep. itself safe. That is of course preposterous. Because we're going to- I totally agree. but. I totally agree, but I would flip it. around. I mean, by the way, I just. wanted to say I'm arguing with. you because I don't think any of. this will work, but I share your. views on the goals. I think nuclear weapons are evil. I think they're actually probably. inspired by supernatural. forces. That's my view. And I think they've. wrecked the world already, however. I just know the way people are, and.

I don't think that people have. nuclear weapons in order to secure. their own safety. I think they have nuclear weapon to. ensure their own power. I have at times described. it as a. license to be bad, and a license to be actually really, really bad. Well, of course. What are you going to do about. it? I've got nuclear weapons. Right. I mean, I think. from my perspective, kind of looking through the. history, it's been actually really. interesting to study. You mentioned the doomsday clock. So let me just say something.

for a minute or two about that. for people who don't know. So the doomsday clock is something. The Bulletin of the Atomic. Scientists, which was founded by. the likes of Einstein and. Oppenheimer, so on, who were. very worried about the. threat of nuclear weapons. In the mid-1940s, they founded this. organization. In 1947, they were publishing their first. issue of the bulletin.

And they asked. an artist. Mardle Langsdorff or something, to draw a cover. And she just, she drew a. cover with a clock with. the time showing seven. minutes to midnight because she. thought we would serve, you know, that was a kind of good. representation of how. dangerous things were with midnight. representing this. sort of nuclear Armageddon end.

of the world. Type of scenario. And over time, the clock sort. of became something that they would. annually sort of. adjust and became. a kind of indicator of where. we are in terms. of the dangers. Also over time they added other. existential threats to. their considerations of the time. of the clock. Currently the clock is 89.

seconds to midnight. And we can totally talk about, oh, it's this, you know, like, how do you make sense of these. numbers and so on? I don't really see them as. I don't. see them literally as, oh. it's 89 seconds to midnight and that. somehow means something. I see them is relative numbers. So are we, for example, one. way you can think about it is. at the beginning versus at the. end of a presidency, right? Is the is the.

doomsday clock? Um, further or closer. to midnight. And I did this little analysis, um, since 1947, we've had 14 presidents, interestingly, seven Republicans and. seven Democrats, and. very interestingly, only under. five presidents has the. clock actually moved away. from midnight. Um, and those five were. four Republicans, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush.

senior. And only one. Democrat. You can probably guess John F. Kennedy. Those are the ones. You paid for it. Yeah. And so. under Republican administrations, there has been a move, a cumulative move. away from midnight of. something like 19. minutes and 10 seconds. over time. The farthest we've ever been.

from midnight was. in 1991. It was 17 minutes to midnight. So we've really done a lot. of damage since and. Democrats have actually. brought the clock closer. to midnight by. actually I got those numbers. Democrats 19 minutes. and 10 seconds staggering 19. minutes in 10 seconds towards. midnight and Republicans. 13 minutes. and 39 seconds away from.

midnight. So, on. the whole, the Republicans. have been much better. Than Democrats. And I think. we have to, I think. for this country, first and foremost, the general. public needs to be. aware of what's at stake. and needs to hold. its leaders responsible. I think President Trump is. probably since John F. Kennedy and then.

arguably Reagan. as well, who was very... Committed to this after. a certain point in his presidency. President Trump is the only one who. has said things like, we have. so many nuclear weapons, we could. destroy the world with them. He has questioned. our plans to modernize the. nuclear arsenals and spend actually. a tremendous amount of money. on them. Um, so I.

think that the US public. Can I ask you just a second? What would be the thinking behind, quote, modernizing the nuclear. arsenal? Oh, those are plans that. have been set in place for. more than 10 years. Those are plans to have been made. under President Obama. So President Obama got up in. Prague and talked about the. goal of a world free of nuclear. weapons in 2008 and. then more or less turned around. and made plans for modernizing.

the U.S. Nuclear arsenal. The logic is that our weapons. are going to get too old and we. need new ones. But the price tag is. currently estimated up to $2. trillion. But given the overruns and. all kinds of ways in. which these types. of programs can go over budget, who knows? We're literally talking. about. Spending trillions. of dollars.

perfect the way of destroying the. world. But there's no, I mean, is anyone saying that our current. nuclear arsenal just wouldn't work? Um, I don't think that's, I think. it's a, I think it is a. plan, you know, over a. decade or two, uh, of kind of replacing. I do think that they've in some. sense consistently been. updating, but this is a. whole other, this is like a whole.

sort of new way. of, you know, building them, making them. I mean, this, a lot. of this is, um, pay off to the fence contractors. Driven by the military. industrial complex, no doubt. about it. This is a very important. stream of. income for them. The US not only. spends more on. defense than the next 10. countries combined, we also. spend more on nuclear.

weapons than all. countries that have them combined. So I think here's my conclusion to. everything that you've said. I mean, I agree with your goals. vehemently. I think the, and I, but I don't know how to achieve. them. I'm skeptical of treaties. because people just ignore them or. won't sign them or whatever. I do think the first step toward any. change begins with articulating the. truth and stigmatizing, restigmatizing the use of nuclear. weapons. Anyone who is even. suggesting or thinking about or.

opening the of using nuclear weapons. is a threat to the world. And that's certainly worse than. cigarette smoking or drunk driving. or any other crime that we heavily. stigmatized in this country. Absolutely. And that person should. be like disinvited from every dinner. party. And like, you should look at. that person and scream criminal at. him because that's what he is. And let's just start there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If I light a. cigarette in an elevator, I am. a criminal and I'm treated like one. Man, if you did that and someone. caught you on video, like you'd lose. your job. Light a cigarette at an elevator.

But if you get up at the Atlantic. counts, you're like, we may need to. use like, you know, low yield. nuclear weapons on the battlefield. in Ukraine or a lot of them into. Russia to win the Eastern provinces. back. It's like, well, we'll debate. it. No, no, no. You're evil and you're a threat. to the world. Like maybe we just start there with. social sanction. Absolutely. I think we also have to, in some sense, stigmatize. the very idea that somehow. nuclear weapons are. a symbol of progress,

of advancement, of success. I really do think. that the ability to destroy. humanity should be seen. as a symbol of shame. If fireballs are not progress, actually. No, I don't think so. They're a symbol of hell. Yeah, absolutely. Pope Francis was actually. a strong supporter of the Treaty. on the Prohibition of Nuclear. Weapons and he wrote,

declared, stated more. than once that the mere possession. of nuclear weapons was. immoral. Um, in, you. know, in my mind, this is. quite simply the really. the most important issue in the. world, because everything else. is, you know, not going to get solved if we. destroy the world. in a nuclear war. Most mistakes are fixable, this one. is. Yeah, absolutely.

And I, you know, I mentioned. Jeffrey Sachs. before as well. We were at the Vatican together. last November. And he said something like, we can. fix all these other things unless. we blow ourselves up. And that's quite simply what we're. facing. I totally. And without the. general public really waking. up to the realities of what. we're facing, people were very. engaged in the 1960s. Some of that general public.

engagement was really key to. Kennedy actually getting. the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty. passed because it needed to be. ratified by the Senate. And the senators were absolutely not. interested in passing this. He Um, just he. galvanized the general public, um, he went on a kind of. two month tour, speaking to. people about the issue. And by the time the Senate voted, it was an 81 to. 18 Senator vote.

I mean, it was an absolute. wipeout. Well, again, I would refer you to. the end of that story. Yeah. He was replaced by. maybe the worst president in. American history, who embraced not. just the Vietnam War, but nuclear. proliferation. Professor, I really appreciate this. I hope every member of the U.S. Senate sees it, and I hope you keep. trying to stigmatize the. most obvious evil I can think of, which is nuclear war. Thank you so much. Thank you for having me. Oh my gosh. Thank you. Thank you.

We've got a new website we hope you. will visit. It's called newcommissionnow.com. and it refers to a new. 9-Eleven commission. So we spent months putting together. our 9-11 documentary series. And if there's one thing we learned, it's that in fact, there was foreknowledge of the. attacks. People knew. The American public deserves to.

know. We're shocked, actually, to learn. that, to have that confirmed. But it's true. The evidence is. overwhelming. The CIA, for example, knew the hijackers were here in the. United States. They knew they were planning an act. of terror. In his passport is a. visa to go to the United States of. America. A foreign national was. caught celebrating as the World. Trade Center fell and later said he. was in New York, quote, to document. the event. How did he know there would be an. event to document in the first place. because he had foreknowledge? And maybe most amazingly, somebody, an unknown investor,

shorted American Airlines and United. Airlines, the companies whose planes. the attackers used on 9-11, as well as the banks that were. inside the Twin Towers just before. the attacks. They made money on the 9-Eleven. attacks because they knew they were. coming. Who did that? You have to look at the evidence. The U.S. Government learned the name. of that investor. But never released it. Maybe there's an instant explanation. for all this, but there isn't, actually. And by the way, it doesn't. matter whether there is or not.

The public deserves to know what. the hell that was. How did people know ahead of time. why was no one ever punished for it? 9-11 Commission, the original one, was a fraud. It was fake. Its conclusions were written before. the investigation. That's true. And it's outrageous. This country needs a new 9-11. commission, one that actually tells. the truth that tries to get to the. bottom of the story. We can't just move on like nothing. happened. 9-Eleven commission is.

a cover. Something did happen. We need to force a new investigation. into 9-11 almost. 25 years later. Sorry, justice demands it. And if you want that, go to. newcommissionnow.com. to add your name to our petition. We're not getting paid for this, we're doing this because we really. mean it. New Commission Now.