Full podcast episode: kzread.info/dash/bejne/pGirrrqHqcfglbw.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: kzread.info Guest bio: John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power.

@far-middle

6 ай бұрын

He left out the Budapest Memo. Ukraine gave up all its nuclear weapons for assured security assistance from the US, Russia, and UK. Russia wont use them in Ukraine because of that document

@braedon1986

6 ай бұрын

*There's nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause!*

@superstar455

6 ай бұрын

'

@brianmaguire6814

6 ай бұрын

Tick tock Lex...

@Teslacustoms

6 ай бұрын

Nailed it!

This was probably the best interview of all in this podcast. Pls bring him back in the future. This man is as sharp as Japanese katana.

@user-wm5rt9pw5l

6 ай бұрын

He contradicts himself in the same interview but stupid fans are too stupid.

@NikolaiPetrenkoMDPhD

6 ай бұрын

Actually katana were not sharper than any knife, probably even less sharp due to the lack of good steel in al Japan.

Professor Mearshiemer is someone you can hear all day and never get bore

@intraaudit

5 ай бұрын

True, the gentleman is brilliant!

@omarionbayley9721

4 ай бұрын

So true the man speaks facts and he speaks it so u can understand, and I'm all here for it.

@rafaelsantana3022

3 ай бұрын

Agree first time watching him interview and I’m hooked. Very intellectual and knowledgeable.

@xvbd6067

3 ай бұрын

The guy that predicted the ukrane war 10 years ago, censored in his own country, accused of being a apologist

@drachenmarke

2 күн бұрын

Les and his terror complex is getting old.. if his palm sweat so bad, let Rogan do the interview MTFU.

This entire interview might be my fav YT interview of all time. Outstanding.

PLEASE stop overlapping clips.

Lex makes a great point about what would happen when that news traveled. People worldwide would panic extremely hard.

@deesse8892

4 ай бұрын

Sure, but isn't that the most obvious, basic point to make about a nuclear attack 😂

These conversations are moot. Russian nuclear weapons doctrine is very specific in their use. There are only two scenarios in which Russia will use nuclear weapons, and this has been confirmed time and time again by Putin and the defense ministry: a) they are attacked with nukes first and will hence use them in retaliation; and b) there is a direct and imminent threat to the existence of the Russian governmental system as a whole. Russia isn't stupid. Using nukes offensively and indiscriminately will trigger a retaliation from NATO (if not with nukes then definitely full military retaliation); it will ostracize Russia within the global community, and it will kill all their global alliances, especially with China. There is absolutely no reason or benefit for Russia to use nuclear weapons outside of the two points in their doctrine. Even if they wipe out their military opposition, they will become isolated and probably invaded and probably nuked in return. I also really don't think Russia wants to pop off a nuclear war and endanger the whole planet. Russia and Putin aren't anymore evil than the west. They have their own selfish interests just like every other global power. Russia is as likely to use nukes as the USA. Israel (more specifically Netanyahu's Likud thugs) is more likely to use nukes than Russia.

@toatsmagoats72

Ай бұрын

Saying Putin isn't anymore evil than the west is a clean way to your wipe the credibility. Yes, we are all serving our own self interests but his interests are purely internal and thus destructive to those outside. Our self interest involves the self interest of others hence why you can even point to 'the west' as a unified group in the first place.

The professor is good at human behavior & pure simple logic.

@far-middle

6 ай бұрын

He left out the Budapest Memo. Ukraine gave up all its nuclear weapons for assured security assistance from the US, Russia, and UK. Russia wont use them in Ukraine because of that document

@8darktraveler8

6 ай бұрын

I totally disagree when it comes to nukes, no nuclear power will accept their national parks being hit with nukes...

@TheFightingSheep

6 ай бұрын

Yes, but it's logic, based on the premises of a multipolar world, and nation states being sovereign. The plannedemic has clearly demonstrated, those premises are completely false, as no nation state has challenged the one world order.

@spankminister

6 ай бұрын

He previously described Putin as "too smart" to invade Ukraine. Cold Warrior game theory thinkers seem to get no shortage of passes when they decide to apply their study of history into theories that predict the future and screw up.

@elijahFree2000

6 ай бұрын

​@@spankministerMersheimer is a Putin apologist

I think The Rock is the best. It’s on a small mountain, but still low enough to easily provision. It’s warm enough to live in all the time. It’s got a huge maze of tunnels that only the defenders know to potentially sneak in more food. It might even be possible to survive a dragon attack by hiding deep in the mines.

Even if Kissinger wouldn't have initiated a nuclear escalation in the event of a Warsaw Pact victory in Europe (itself extremely unlikely), France would have. They have their own independent nuclear arsenal, and would use it if the alternative was to be invaded by Warsaw Pact. So the world would not have escaped a nuclear escalation scenario. And that's something that Kissinger should have known and prepared for.

@andrej052

5 ай бұрын

Thats a very good point. Any country who possesses such weapons could use them if the conditions are right, naive too think otherwise.

@kylemutti2992

5 ай бұрын

I love when people like you many years removed have a better stretaegy and more insight than the people who are reacting in real time to what’s going on in the world lol its foolish

@ennio5763

5 ай бұрын

@@kylemutti2992 Kissinger never ever had to react in real-time to whatever. He's not a soldier on front line. He's not reacting to a street fight. Heck, he's not even a politician, he doesn't even have to make a statement, nor take any decision ! No, its role is to "theorize", to prepare in advance what would be the better decision *if* .... So, all the time in the world to think a problem correctly. Which is fine, the world needs people in such position. They have the means (time and information) to foresee far in advance, extrapolate from little nuance, and because their mind is somewhat tuned to this exercise, are generally unable to act decently in the face of immediate pressure. But I guess that's way too much nuance for a troll. Your urge to throw a random disparaging thought to feel superior in the moment had an imperious priority. Thinking, after all, is limited to Kissinger & Co.

Mr Lex , there is so much valuable content in this interview, you could make a 3 day seminar of it. I had to watch several clips, videos multiple times to be able to absorb all the historie, topics and views of it. Also the energy and view difference between your obliged positive naivety and your guest surprised, doubtful (but pleased there is still hope) reaction is fantastic to see on the screen. I’m also pleased you brought a guest giving insights from a rather other side compared to your previous guests. Not easy for you to go ahead with your promise of giving platform to all sides (left, right, middle). You walk the talk, keep up with the great work. Ever tough bringing 2 opposing guest for 3 hours in an interview, you moderating? I think the outcome results in trough bromance between the opposites, or at least them getting closer.

@AFuller2020

5 ай бұрын

Why people worry so much about a country with the GDP of South Korea? Been there several times, a lot of hard working people who just want to get along with everyone.

So it's better to normalize low yeald nukes in warfare than just an all out nuke war? I don't see that as a better option.

@LoL-gf5ux

6 ай бұрын

Nobody said its "better" to nornalize lol

Lex saying "The fact we don't see aliens...". Hybrid John smiles in silence...

@what_comes_next_88

6 ай бұрын

You could be wrong. He was just sitting content for having an interesting conversation and listening to a good point. There is no evidence of aliens in the known universe as of yet. Scientifically speaking.

@lexreinstein4244

6 ай бұрын

@@what_comes_next_88 "scientifically speaking" are the words you choose to blindfold yourself. Do not confuse "science" with what the media wants to define as "science". Science means empirical evidence and transparency. When you have whistleblowers in Congress, air force pilots on JRE and army vets in prison for releasing videos you should automatically know there is an accountability issue, a transparency issue and a withholding of information issue. Saying "scientifically speaking" there is no evidence at this point is akin to saying "I don't even want to look at the evidence available as I'm not prepared to contemplate a world that is different from my acquired perception of it". "Scientifically speaking" we should have full access to all facilities mentioned by Bob Lazar, we should have all videos mentioned by Lt. Frazer, we should release all documents mentioned in Congress. "Scientifically speaking" we should not automatically dismiss any "alien mummy" popping out of South America, the shamanic oral traditions of every corner of the world and even religious accounts from India, the Middle East, Tibet, South Africa and other places. "Scientifically speaking" we should look into each claim and whenever we find someone witholding information we should ask "Why?", "Who is paying you?" and "show me your bank transactions". Only then, "scientifically speaking", you'd have a chance to understand something about the real science, not the sterile watered down version they want you to believe in as if it was a religion of minimalism, conformism and economy of thought. What you call "science" is nothing more than the modern equivalent of puritanism.

@mw9297

6 ай бұрын

We do see aliens 👽

Understanding power dynamic is so important to have civil and mature negotiations, no matter who wins or loses. So many things could go wrong and escalate uncontrollably.

Didn’t Israel put nuclear bombs on planes at the start of the 1973 war when they thought they might get overrun by Egyptian and Syrian forces?

@Man-u-flex

6 ай бұрын

Prob that’s how they descalated the Egyptians

@Go-lova

6 ай бұрын

Israel behaves with the Palestinians the same way the Germans did with the Jews in 1939

@oleyullah

6 ай бұрын

Every nuclear power has inits doctrine a provision for using nukes in a scenario of imminent threat to said country's existence.

@Go-lova

6 ай бұрын

All my comments about Oppenheimer was deleted. This is American Democracy and Free of Speech.

@adamesd3699

6 ай бұрын

@@Man-u-flexNot really. Egypt had a bunch of Russian ballistic missiles with unknown warheads aimed at Israel. Kissinger was wrote about the whole situation.

Very nice dialogue 👍

Wow that was a great episode

John is so damn sharp and just makes sense.

STOP THE WAR

Every time lex has a thought the nuclear weapon emoji face goes off

I mean there is only one country so far that has actually used a atomic weapon on people that were mostly civilians btw not once but twice, but they seem to deflect from that and dont want you to talk about it lol

@alexandremaximov3885

6 ай бұрын

What point are you trying to make?

@liquidragonfu5546

6 ай бұрын

@alexandremaximov3885 the point is the US seems so worried about other countries using them when they are the only country that has in a war killing thousands of civilians in the process seems pretty hypocritical, no? But I know anything the US does is justified and ok, though, right? The point seemed pretty obvious to me

@alexandremaximov3885

6 ай бұрын

​@@liquidragonfu5546 Oh I know the US is plenty hypocritical. Me being Russian automatically means I'm obligated to hate them :P But let's try using your argument, so you can see where I'm coming from. The so-called targets of those nukes have themselves slaughtered tens of millions of Chinese civilians. By your logic, that means the Japanese are not allowed to protest what gets done to their civilians since they've done plenty right? Do you see the flaw with this? The problem with your point is that you're insinuating that they should just be fine with everyone having and using nukes however they wish. These aren't toys, they're world-ending weapons. I believe it is good to restrict the number of countries that have access to nukes and protest their usage in war. The US does have a problem of doing BS things, and then whining about others who start doing the same. I agree with you there. They should be called out by the international community when it happens. But I think when it comes to nukes, they're right to be worried about who and how they might be used.

@liquidragonfu5546

6 ай бұрын

@OigySmoigy you seem to be grasping at Straw to try and say I'm wrong about idk something.....just seems to be proving my point lol idk you are not making alot of sense

@User-jr7vf

6 ай бұрын

I know where you are coming from, but keep in mind that people used to say something similar about Iran. Namely, that the US downed a civilian Iranian plane killing all on board, how irresponsible and evil of the US to do that. Then in 2020 Iran did the same... they shot down a civilian plane killing everyone on board. My point is... your argument will have no validity the day when Russia or other nuclear armed state uses its nukes against civilians. And that's not something very unlikely to happen.

It’s not if, but when.

Nukes make great powers less likely to go to war? What about Gas, Germs, Rays, Rats, Cats or Bats?

What's more terrifying...the disclosure of an alien presence or what these two are talking about?

This was a great interview

It's unbelievable how people sit in a chair and talk so lightly about "manipulating" risk which can blow us into oblivion.. It's so annoying that some people have this kind of power

yes

What were nukes made for

Lex Fridman, I want to meet you. How can we arrange a meeting?

"Will Russia use nuclear weapons?" That is a very stupid question. Yes, they will under the right circumstances. Just as the good old USA did on Japan. Isn't it funny how America is so concerned about any Nation using Nukes when they are the only Nation in the history of the world that has used Nukes?

@bernardbarry447

6 ай бұрын

The other difference is that Jason was going on a land grab through the pacific going as far south as bombing Darwin in Australia. A-holes like that Japanese emperor, Hitler and now Putin need to be stopped.

@timmy-wj2hc

6 ай бұрын

US didn't need to use nukes on Japan. They admitted it. Plus Japan didn't surrender because of the nukes but rather because the Red Army was going to invade Japan and they were terrrified.

@bernardbarry447

6 ай бұрын

@@timmy-wj2hc so 6 days after the second nuke they surrendered. Quite a coincidence.

@damndippindots560

6 ай бұрын

Obviously Lex is asking the question in the context of Ukraine and potential circumstances that may occur. What he’s doing is asking an expert to weigh those potential circumstances to determine what may tip the scales. Pretending like this is a stupid question can only hold up as a semantic strategy where others’ words are used against them in a literal and rigid manner ignores common speech and communication patterns. Or, to be brief, take the stick out yo ass.

@bernardbarry447

6 ай бұрын

@@OigySmoigy Russia has the worlds largest nuclear arsenal. No one is going to fire at them or invade them. That’s why this isn’t about NATO, this is about him wanting puppet regimes instead of successful democracies in his area. Effectively a new USSR.

It is only terrifying if you value your life. Most people do not. Now THAT is terrifying to me.

Every side has a General Jack Ripper, Mr. Mearsheimer

Maybe leaders need to watch The day after and Threads again.

*There's nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause.*

Though this is a frightening subject to discuss, Mearsheimer is a pleasure to listen too.

Al Haig 2 minute warning in the Baltic sea

Wow!

Short answer….nope.

Just one little nuke in the middle of nowhere... "just a little demonstration of power"... hopefully the world wouldn't overracte that that. lol

I agree Lex,the use of a nuke would set a terrifying precedent,initially I thought the mere fact of sending the stingers and javellins that sent Russian soldiers home in body bags might prompt use of nukes. Surprisingly not and the lethality of weapons to Ukraine has increased gradually. There is this opinion that the US and Europe should send even more but we all know that an outright defeat of Russia would trigger the policy of "the survival of the Russian state "doctrine advocating the use of nukes. All the talk of wanting Ukraine to win is a smokescreen,stalemate is the preferred course of the West because we can't take the risk of a Russian loss scenario. Feel bad for the brave Ukranian people and the effort and lost lives,but the consequences of a Russian collapse are too horrifying to contemplate. The hidden Western strategy is to bleed Putin of conventional military power and have a negotiated settlement.

The perfect way to end this discussion - humans versus aliens! Very convincing! No theoretical basis at all . . . but why not?

📍9:01

“Better red than dead” - Brilliant 😂

thank goodness Russia does not need to use nuclear weapons because it has enough alternatives. But Russia has a trip wire automated response set up where it will not be caught with nuclear weapons on its soil. One goes they all go. This is according to Scott Ritter.

@deanmoxom1330

6 ай бұрын

Death hand

what if they do the same thing about sending nuclear bombs.

nicr k20a swapped lotus

Putin would have went left when the pipeline, "spontaneously combusted."

I was alone again in the unquiet darkness

What for? Dont forget what country actually used it already...

The discussion on the possible use of nuclear weapons seems to me very relevant. The problem is that western media and many people in western countries do not understand the logic behind and they believe that Russia would not use nuclear weapons.

@TrueDaturaMindNz

5 ай бұрын

Putin is smart enough not to use them

@user-rv9hp6bo3y

5 ай бұрын

It's an overblown conversation by the same people who keep telling us that while being the incompetent Russia is still about to take over Europe after Ukraine. Ukraine has less dead children in 2 years of war than Gaza had in the first month and unlike Baghdad that had it's water supply bombed in the first few days of the invasion Kyiv still has running water, it doesn't seem to me that the Russians would do these things then decide to drop nukes on their border in a country that contains many of their own people. In the 50 years they've had nukes they've never saw fit to use them, in fact the only country that has used them (on defenseless civilian populations) is that bastion of liberty and freedom the USA

@user-qw1vt6qg6j

5 ай бұрын

​@@TrueDaturaMindNzNo

@bladeoflucatiel

5 ай бұрын

I dont they they would unless someone joins in

@user-rq3kt1jn8r

4 ай бұрын

Not true, nukes ended the Japanese conflict and they will likely end this conflict. Western people live in a fairytale and think that the US and the EU are Gods that control what people can and can’t do in a war. Putin does not think like they do. He knows that if he nukes Ukraine then no other nation will do anything significant due to the fact that they aren't directly participating in this war, and if they did than it would be suicide. No one in the West ever thought a group of Islamic terrorist would blow up the WTC in 2001 but look what happened@@TrueDaturaMindNz

They are now saying if they use hypersonic weapoms. There is no radiation. .They are more environmentally Friendly's.

It never appeared as if Russia was losing.

@cellardoor9882

5 ай бұрын

russia Is losing. they wanted to conquer Kiev in 2 days

@labordayweekend

5 ай бұрын

@@cellardoor9882 Winning less quickly than initially intended is still winning.

@cellardoor9882

5 ай бұрын

@@labordayweekend right. but what doea winning mean to russia? conquering the ukraine as thes envisiones? never going to happen

@labordayweekend

5 ай бұрын

Winning to Russia is controlling the Donbas and securing access to Crimea from the north, which they've already done. The only objective that they haven't achieved is taking Odessa. They never wanted Kiev.

Why doesn't MAD apply to Iran and North Korea????

@DaviSouza-ru3ui

6 ай бұрын

What do you mean? Elaborate it, because a question like this and it seems you´re a internet bot. Iran is not a nuclear power (yet) and North Korea only has, till now, relativelly limited nuclear capabilities to strike an enemy like the US.

@fs3579

6 ай бұрын

@@DaviSouza-ru3ui come on it is clear already. why does mutual assured destruction not apply to all? if they get the bomb why are they going to use it because they will get wiped out in response!

@jamricsloe

6 ай бұрын

How does it not? Hamas by proxy is an asset of Iran. Israel isn't attacking Iran, but they are prosecuting a proxy war vs them.

@imjustsam1745

6 ай бұрын

Means of delivery. They lack reliable means of getting warheads to North America. The furthest a North Korean ballistic missle test has been made wouldn't take one to Pearl Harbor. Iran only has regional ballistic missles. Backpack nukes may or may not be possible, I've heard arguments both ways from nuclear physists, but assuming they exist the reliability of delivery would still be a crap shoot. Summation: MAD requires two technologies. The warheads and critically ICBMs. The idea of MAD was conceived over a decade post Hiroshima when missile technologies in Russia and North America meant shooting down the bombers no longer saved civilization.

@ceroid3752

6 ай бұрын

​@@DaviSouza-ru3uiPretty sure he meant how the West is throwing a fit about NKs nuclear arsenal and about Iran getting nukes. Which in my opinion is extremely hypocritical since they don't mind Israel having them and Israel is a hyper-aggressive, racist and apartheid state.

Adult in the room says, stop the fighting, draw some lines - response: no, response: *launches nukes* - would be powerful, destructive, inhumane, but the kids would also shut up.

Thanks for being quiet when he talks.

Well the bright side of nuclear weapons IS that there wont be no wars after their use

@DirkVaughan

5 ай бұрын

Put us out of our misery already.

Why would Russia use nuclear weapons on its own border lol

@far-middle

6 ай бұрын

It would look so bad considering the Budapest Memo explicitly provides protection to Ukraine in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons in the 90's.

@sixmillionaccountssilenced6721

6 ай бұрын

@@far-middle And who actually should provide protection to Ukraine?

@mw9297

6 ай бұрын

Putin said first place getting nuked is the UK.

SHORT ANSWER: NO

I hope so. All this greed in the world it’s inevitable

There was no way that Soviets wouldn’t instantly respond with a nuke if nukes would fly towards USSR

The memo

From the observation that aliens do not exist, I would not infer that they destroyed themselves in war, but rather that they never existed in the first place.

That’s a great point that the Professor mentioned Russia could get away with using a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine since Ukraine doesn’t have any to retaliate with and of course we wouldn’t ever use any because that would escalate the situation into a full blown nuclear war but at the same time Russia would be hesitant about using one in Ukraine not knowing what our response would be because nobody wants a nuclear Armageddon.

Hmm, there are always millions of experts that will look back on things that happened and provide elaborate and twisting reasons as to why these things happened. Though none of them will ever be able to predict the future course of events. Thus, as pleasent as it is to listen to them, their models of reality are useless. This is not how the world works.

I'll move to Australia in case of mad world

@cor2250

Ай бұрын

Mad Max

Every time I listen to Lex, I am embarrassed by how little he adds to the conversation. He just rambles like someone trying to be deep, but failing.

@lucyyl.5454

6 ай бұрын

Stop listening to him then, I Like Lex, I Like John ❤❤

@YitroBenAvraham

6 ай бұрын

@@lucyyl.5454 he has interesting guests, but he needs to get some sleep and try less hard to be cool.

@biltumahato1138

6 ай бұрын

Lex adds nothing to discussion other than his irritation. Better he shut up n let the expert speak.

@DirkVaughan

5 ай бұрын

@@lucyyl.5454shut up

@gtamyths96

Ай бұрын

Fr hes rly ignorant

We don't see Aliens BECAUSE they look at us and probably saying that where absolutely creasy species.

@ominousbiscuit

6 ай бұрын

Well we can't stop being creasy because the aliens won't tell us what it means

@mw9297

6 ай бұрын

They are the angels and demons. We saw the fighting thousands of years ago and we began to do the same thing. We we’re manipulated by the demons and still are. 👹👽🛸👁

... asks _the man in black_ .

Mad world? It’s bonkers.

Nuclear will be used the question is where and on whom

@corycg9624

2 ай бұрын

Maybe someday but not right now I don’t believe anyone is crazy enough

He’s not tea talking about Russia using a Nuke, he’s talking about Israel using Nukes against all the Muslim countries that don’t have any Nukes.

At the close, Lex is referring to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox....and as John said a bit earlier ...it should scare the bejezus out of everyone. Mistakes have happened many times before..en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

Lex looks like a polite James bond

@Edgedable

6 ай бұрын

007.1 Goldfinger release candidate

@jackharrison1175

6 ай бұрын

Bond, Khabib Bond

@thethree60five

6 ай бұрын

Nope, just a _man in black_ .

For those wondering... Yes.. He said he would so yes.. He will.. Ur all welcome

Like you say it's emotion, no one using their actual brain would fire a nuclear weapon??

@glebarhangelsky4351

6 ай бұрын

Americans have done it in 1945 whith what brain exactly?

May I point out to you that since Finland and Sweden have joined NATO, significantly increasing Russia's frontage to NATO, Russia's response has been rather mute. This suggests that there are other factors behind Russia's invasion of Ukraine than a pure NATO treat.

If I was President, Mearsheimer would be my Chief Advisor.

@user-wm5rt9pw5l

6 ай бұрын

If you had listened to his advice, you would have found yourself in the same position that Putin found himself in.

lex wht yre sayin is most likely

Why always Russia and not usa!!!!!????

@corycg9624

2 ай бұрын

It’s both neither side trusts each other

Correction......Will America and NATO force Russia to use nuclear weapons.

Russia? Err. What about Israel?

If NATO didn't go to Russia's border the Russians would have gone to NATO's border. These countries wanted to be apart of NATO and for good reason.

3 16 24 🎉🎉🎉

@cor2250

Ай бұрын

☢️

The US would not use nuclear weapons to retaliate? yeah right!, remember what happened in Japan, the US never needed to use them but did anyway.

What about nuclear attack by proxy? For instance, North Korea threatens South Korea while in a security pact with Russia to surrender without a fight? It’s illogical to think that any nuclear power is going to support South Korea if Russia guarantees nuclear retaliation.

@TheDavidlloydjones

6 ай бұрын

Hunh? What is a "security pact" with anybody "to surrender without a fight"?

@seanlander9321

6 ай бұрын

@@TheDavidlloydjones A security pact with Russia that guarantees North Korean integrity. Similar to NATO, but it’s members are nut jobs armed with nukes.

@DaviSouza-ru3ui

6 ай бұрын

Your question is nonsense. Why would Russia meddle itself in a fight between North Korea (a nuclear state) and South Korea (a non-nuclear state, until now)?

@seanlander9321

6 ай бұрын

@@DaviSouza-ru3ui It’s not about meddling, it’s about the power of a nuclear arsenal being put to use by a proxy to expand Russia’s influence. We’ve always assumed that MAD prevents the use of nuclear weapons between the nuclear powers, but that comfort disappears with the threat by a proxy protected by the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.

@2kusiainen

6 ай бұрын

What are you babbling about? Your message makes zero sense

Dude putin himself said he would

No, they won't. There is no point in nuking land you are trying to conquer. Stupid question. If they tried to nuke anybody else, their whole country would be glass in a couple of hours.

@j.erickson8571

6 ай бұрын

Yes, they would. It is hard for you to accept this, but they are mostly isolated from the civilized world. They have nothing to lose and keep returning to their old grievances with the West. For Putin, losing it is existential. The fact that Russia has terminated the last agreements about testing nuclear weapons is a sobering reality. Anything can happen, and we need to be prepared for any scenario.

"manipulation of risk" I love how corporate buzzwords make their way into ending the world. All these politicians and warmongers are clowns.

Putin: ✍🏻

Solution to the Fermi paradox right in front of our face: our radio bubbles haven't expanded long enough to detect each other. If we're 20,000 light years away and have been producing radio waves for a combined 1,000 years, they haven't reached each other yet

@valdisgerasymiak1403

6 ай бұрын

150 years, not 1000

@JoshuaLuellen-rg8xp

6 ай бұрын

@@valdisgerasymiak1403 the 1000 is a hypothetical combination of ours, which is more like 100 actually, and another 900 from the aliens

@JoshuaLuellen-rg8xp

6 ай бұрын

@@valdisgerasymiak1403 that's why I said "combined"

@Elias_Avraham

6 ай бұрын

Not just that, if you're 100 lightyears away, a species with our current technology would need an antenna roughly the same square area of New York just to discern our signals from background noise. Oh, and I mean the state, not the city.

@mw9297

6 ай бұрын

Humanity is hidden, they are always watching

And these leaders are old

Love the conversation gentlemen. I'll continue to watch. MAGA

They don’t need to. Russia is beating NATO and a coalition of 40 countries in ukraine without it

Lex has been smoking to much ganja with Rogan. His brain is liquidizing

Russia NEVER used nuclear weapons against civilian... USA used it twice.... moreover, Russia doesn't want to get rid of Ukraine but to keep them into the fold. this is an absolutely ridiculous idea

@WillyLeclaire

6 ай бұрын

@OigySmoigy did you read my comment?... moreover it makes sense to use a nuclear weapon against a country far away and not your neighbour's since it will hurt your country as well ... if the previous argument didn't make sense to you.

@User-jr7vf

6 ай бұрын

@@user-dx2yu3fe8nno, Putin won't use nukes because there is no justification for it. In the same way he has been reluctant until very recently, to call his military operation a 'war'. And in any case, he has not formally declared war on you. Why? Because he can't justify going to war against Ukraine over the reasons he gave to his people. As simple as that.

@logitech1928

6 ай бұрын

yeah ofc, Russia is using conventional weapons against civilians, no need for the nuclear option. And no, the 1945 bombings are not the same thing as the lunacy we are experiencing today my little Kremlin bot.

Yeeup

The Russians wouldn’t use a Nuke. The Iranians on the other hand…they might do something stupid.

@yellowwasprakija2869

6 ай бұрын

Or the Americans, they have form after all

Y not usa did why can’t they

And what about the story of the Russian sub that was ordered to launch a nuke during the cold war and they didn’t obey the order!

@boggisthecat

6 ай бұрын

The head of the KGB directorate that was in charge of the weapons overruled the standing order. He was on the sub. Why was he on the sub? Most likely to overrule the standing order, should things go wrong. (In this case, US ships were attacking the sub, and their orders were to fire a torpedo at any attacker - a nuclear torpedo, to ensure the ship was destroyed.) if Khrushchev had been less attentive to the risks, then it’s likely that Kennedy’s orders would have been ignored by the US military per use of nuclear weapons and it would have rapidly escalated beyond anyone’s control.

@ninaloos3071

6 ай бұрын

A Hollywood story regarding disobeying a military order from the highest commander to send a nuke from a so called submarine. Pure story for O'Conner to play when he was alive.

Mearsheimer plays an interesting escalation game here, but the reality is that if only one nuke gets used the likely escalation scenario will end the same: global thermonuclear war. The movie WarGames figured this out long ago: the only winning move is not to play. But perhaps even that statement is naive, which makes me sad.

@User-jr7vf

6 ай бұрын

Why do you think so? The other nuclear armed nation might think: "oh, they launched theirs just for the sake of causing fear, they aren't serious about launching it at us, therefore let's not play their game". In such scenario there wouldn't be a massive response from the other nations to the launching of a single nuke by one of them.

@LoL-gf5ux

6 ай бұрын

​@@User-jr7vfare you sure with social media you can calm the masses if you are a leader of country ??? The Opposition in your own country will presure you and fed the tension "better we use nuclear to our enemy before they used them on us" i imagine this scenario is very likely and i dont know how you control that

@muscleman125

6 ай бұрын

ehhh I don't think we can say either way. A movie doesn't mean jack shit. It's a thought experiment at best. In reality I think whoever is involved would try to stop the threat rather than throw all their chips in the instant they have the option to do so.