ryan is, is more or less of the law because when you actually add everything that they're pledging and just assuming that they could somehow fulfill the budget, it still is not enough to change the title. what is happening on the ground. so this is what the u. s, we saw the u. s. doing enough ganeth, then they realized bad, painted themselves into a corner and they, they stubbornly held on because when we talk about all of this money being paid for weapons in your brain, it not disappearing into a black hole. going into the u. s. arms industry, as long as it's profitable, they will try to perpetuate it for long. it's awesome. yeah, and there certainly are people that are profiting off of this one. now, there are critics who argue that the current u. s. foreign policy towards russia is based on an outdated cold war mentality and fails to take into account the current geopolitical landscape. do you think the u. s. should reevaluate its foreign policy and do you think that there's any hope of

it doing so in the near future? it absolutely must reevaluate its foreign policy regarding this desperation to cling to unit polar and some is unrealistic decades. and then before that centuries ago, imperialism operated. on the premise of one nation having economic and technological and puts military problems, the disparity between themselves and everyone else that's asperity no longer exists . the balance of economic military power continues to level out. and as long as it does, the idea of the u. s. achieving or maintaining, or reasserting germany over the planet is entirely unrealistic. but will the united states realize this and ship this foreign policy now, not with the people currently in power right now a lot of this is, is driven by a period already complex phase themselves. ready personally can cannot shed,

so we'll have to wait for this to fail and hopefully more realistic circles of power, replace them. and the u. s. can find a construct the role play among the world nations rather than the attempt to impose the top on them all. yeah, certainly a lot at stake here, but great inside as always, former us marine and geopolitical analysts, brian berlin, thank you so much for your time. thank you. and that's all for now. be sure to check out our t dot com for all the latest breaking news and updates. we'll see you right back here at the top would be our aah! last year the world 9 nuclear arm states spend over $82000000000.00 collectively on their nuclear arsenal. that is a dramatic increase from the previous year and shows that despite the calls to the arm state have continue to invest and modernize their arsenal. at the top of this

list is the u. s. spending $44200000000.00 on nuclear weapon. china is 2nd at $11700000000.00, and russia is 3rd with $8600000000.00. but why the country need so many missiles and what are the chances that they end up being used in nuclear conflict? i'm because the i and you're watching the cost of everything. where today we're going to be discussing the economic ramifications of a nuclear escalation. ah, the countries continue to stockpile nuclear missiles falling. america's lead america justifies the $3800.00 warhead arsenal, under the theory of deterrence. sending a message that you as retaliation would be so awful that it shouldn't be provoked

in the 1st place. but for practical purposes, there is no reason for this massive arsenal. once you've dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on a city, a couple more will just make the rubble shake. building nuclear weapons is expensive and requires technical expertise. nuclear weapons have 2 basic parts, the warheads and the delivery system. now 1st to build the warhead, the most important components is enriched uranium. the physical isotope uranium $235.00, which makes up less than one percent of natural uranium must be separated from uranium to $38.00, which is the more common isotope the your am needs to be refined to concentration of at least 80 percent to be considered weapons grade via a gas centrifuge process. a nuclear bomb needs about 15 kilograms of enriched uranium to be opperation all. and one kilogram of uranium $235.00 costs about $15000000.00. now possessing fissile material is not enough though. next,

a country also has to master design and manufacture of a bomb. now this is a significant hurdle, as there are delivery system and that nation devices as conventional missiles cannot carry the extra weight of a nuclear warhead. the u. s. has bombs that can be delivered by aircraft, or air launched cruise missiles and submarines. these delivery systems are more expensive with systems like the minute man's land based missile costing over $50000000.00. the cost of deploying $1.00 land based nuclear weapon would be roughly $85000000.00. the tried in summary, and based missile cost, a $140000000.00 a piece. and finally the b to stealth. * bomber air launch missiles cost, roughly $270000000.00. now for more, let's bring in activists and journalist patrick masa. so patrick,

given the path we are on today, do you think that we are rattling attention? are we still trying to keep everything at a low center so it doesn't come to head? and do you think it's even possible to keep everything contained so that we don't come to head? well, when you look at the pathway in the ukraine more, it seems that both sides are on an escalation path on either side seems, seems willing or able to get off that escalation path. so it's very concerning how and how far it goes is, is anyone's guess. we know that there are nato troops, us troops training in, in romania right now in poland, close to ukraine. if in any way they, they cross the border into ukraine, all bets are off. i don't believe that nuclear there

that nuclear war is necessarily going to break out. the russians have many military options right now beyond that are far in that don't involve nuclear, nuclear weapons they, they have only used a portion of their, of their military power. and they have an interest in not using nuclear weapons because it would strain their alliances with china, their friendly relations with countries of the global south, such as india and turkey. and they, they really don't have an interest in setting off a nuclear weapon close to their own borders where the radiation would simply blow over back on to their own people. however, there is a danger in, in, in that many times in the past we have come close to nuclear

war by mis miscommunication. misconception. there are, there, there is what we have just noted the 60th anniversary of the human missile crisis, where it was negotiated through diplomacy, the removal of human mis, of harmony of soviet missiles in cuba. we had another incident which was less well known, which i've written about recently at my, at my blog, the at the raven blog, which is the abel archer incident of 1983 where the russians, the soviets, thought us and nato were preparing a 1st strife on the soviet union, under the cover of a, of a nuclear exercise, mimicking nuclear war. and they were prepared to strike at the least sign that, that the u. s. was ready to launch us weapons. we've had incidence in, in a, in a,

in our us nuclear alert system where there have been foss alerts based on a war games tape being placed in, in the computer or a failure of a micro chip. which in this current environment. and if there was a, if there was a false alert showing on nuclear missiles going over the over the poll from either side, it could trigger a nuclear war. so that's, that's my greatest fear is, is war by miscommunication. ah, by mr. strewing the other, which is why whatever our differences are with the ukraine, or we need to be talking to each other, we need to make sure we're in contact with each other to. and so we know each side knows the other's intention. if there is a limited nuclear war where couldn't be and what, when the economic cost b,

i don't think there can be a limited nuclear war. and i think it's just school shove us to think their candy. um, wargames consistently have shown that it's hard to start once you, once you start that, once you start on an escalation pathway, um it's hard sharp. and there is this phenomenon with, with the, the ground based intercontinental ballistic missiles, with the ground based bombers of use it or lose it. if one side feels the other side is ready to attack or believes it is under attack, it has to launch its missiles and get us bombers in the air quickly or the or they will be lost, especially true of the missiles. this is a matter of minutes decision. so that makes it very dangerous. so

even the possibility that a, what i mean the, the policy makers of both sides actually do form their policy on the basis. they think there can be a limited nuclear war. but if we have even the, this, the smallest potential that a, that a so called limited nuclear war could escalate, we should not be, we shouldn't be planning for that. we shouldn't be thinking about that. so i would say that the cost of any nuclear war is an incalculable, ah, but we can see flash points in, in ukraine. we can see flash points around taiwan and china. again, you know, we look at a, of were games that have been conducted by u. s. navy, in, in, and around, supposedly defending taiwan from china. they always escalate nuclear. so we can't

really think in terms of a limit of nuclear war, we should ditch that. we really should all, all the nation should adopt a no 1st use policy which states that the only reason we have nuclear weapons is to deter other people using nuclear weapons. that's really the only only good use for nuclear weapon and how much a spend and build a and researching new types of rock at the nuclear weapons. well, that's about, you know, there's, there's about $80000000000.00 a actually, it's more like $82000000000.00 annually and go go to research are building and the maintenance of the nuclear arsenal. um it around the world of that about half about to 4044000000000 is u. s. a. china is is 2nd at about i think around 17 rushers comes in 3rd.

oh that. and the u. s. also is engaged in a what's called a modernization of the strategic tree at which is a new or missile submarine, a new nuclear bomber, and a new new icbm, the congressional budget. the says, we will spend this decade from 2021 to 203634000000000 on nap and averaging about 60000000 a year. so it sees an escalation of u. s. expenses. the modernization will go beyond that, or if it continues and the total cost that us is projected to be about $1.00 trillion dollars. and of course we know with military stuff, it always escalated, always the costs always blow up. so who knows where that stops one and a half 1000000. ah, needless to say we, we have

a lot of other needs in the us. we could be spending that money on affordable housing up. it's fast rail transit that works. a water supplies for communities, but instead we're spending it on an entirely new nuclear korea has any year for a 3rd. our technology come into the market place from work on advancing nuclear weapons will. yeah. only we, you know, a lot of money has been put into an, into nuclear weapons. and so, yeah, i mean, if you were nuclear burke, in as much as you consider nuclear power, valuable um is, is a product of the nuclear weapons complex. it started the 1st nuclear reactors were to make barnes. and that's a fact of, of nuclear power is that any nuclear reactors are potentially the waste coming out is potentially useful for making nuclear weapons the fuel cycle going in this

potential also potentially useful for, for making nuclear weapons. so that's one reason why a lot of people have questions about nuclear power. our missiles space missiles still watching a specialty. they came out of the military research. ultimately looking at creating the creating missiles to launch nuclear weapons. and some of the original mainframe computers were created by i b, m under contract with the government to, to manage the, the, the early warning system and the, the nuclear system. so we have technology spin offs from, from nuclear weapons. i mean, we could have, obviously, directly invested in, in those technologies are probably at lower cost and still have had all the benefits of them. but sure you spend a lot of money you,

you should get some other benefits then be able to book the world. and how long does it take to recover from a nuclear war? we're talking about rebuilding population cities infrastructure as well as environmental damages. and would there be any changes in the environment that would be planning? well, well, what is not taking into account in, in nuclear strategies is something we have little note about for a long time. we've known about this since 1983 that you blow up enough nuclear weapons. it will throw a cloud of blocks certain to the atmosphere that will shield the sun and cause a global cooling back to ice age conditions, which will crash agricultural production in many parts of the world, and resulting in billions dying of starvation. so even if millions or tens of millions die in the initial exchange,

it would result in the death of billions by starvation. so there's really, you know, when you're really looking at is the collapse of civilization. what we found in recent years, studies have shown that we were, we would experience a nuclear winter, not just with a full nuclear exchange by the major powers us in russia, but the nuclear arsenals of india and pakistan are enough to set off a nuclear winter. oh, it would not be as large a nuclear winter, but it would still result in d. t. cutting in and cultural productivity for a decade. i mean, you could see, you could see a couple of 1000000 people die. and again, with all that, you know, you're really talking about something that at minimum stresses civilization and, and probably collapses it. so it really is,

is insane. i would say to continue to maintain nuclear weapons. and i believe we need to abolish them entirely because really, the, the risk is that if we have nuclear weapons, they will eventually be used and if they're eventually use it will result in an escalation scenario. it brings about a nuclear winter and a and a at least an a deep, deep set bat for human civilization which, who knows how long that would take to recover um, decades, centuries. we don't know, but the risk is simply unacceptable. we, we really need to get rid of the sense thank you so much, patrick martha coming on today. and when we come back, what, what a world look like in the aftermath of a nuclear war?

the clock is ticking, but don't go away. ah ah at this hour, american and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from great. who's with the food and medicines and supplies and fleet with

ah ah, oh, the western countries are very concerned. the china might be sending russia missile weapons as a way to help rush us military campaign in ukraine. oh, personally that's my just approved personal view. i'm very suspicious of god. i

don't buy doc to contradicts to what i see. the basic logic flow behavior puts on the phone, the trends things. ah ah, welcome back to the cost of everything. today we're analyzing how the world would look like in the aftermath of a nuclear war. now, besides the immediate destruction of cities by nuclear blasts, the potential aftermath of a nuclear war could involve fire storms, a nuclear winter wide spread radiation sickness, a loss of much of our modern technology due to electromagnetic pulse disturbances, our history, all the accomplishments and achievements. we've made in technology gone, as most tech is kept in data centers and cloud hosting hugs. not only that, but

e. m. p. 's would disable hospitals, water treatment facilities, food storage facilities, communication and cause power outages for months or even years. as of 2021, humanity has about 13410 nuclear weapons. thousands which are on hair trigger alert. every nuclear country is currently undergoing modernization of its nuclear arsenal. most bombs today are tens or even hundreds of times as powerful as the bombs dropped and world war 2 destination or something like that would render the local ecosystem virtually on livable. it would take less than a 10 percent of the explosive yield of the current global arsenal to bring about devastating agricultural collapse and widespread famine. these stock powers of nuclear weapons around the world has sucked up government funding, diverting money that could have been allocated to health care education,

disaster relief, and other vital services. so now let's bring in colleen more advocacy director and women's cross d n. z to talk further about the cost of a potential nuclear war. looking at the destruction of hiroshima and nagasaki, 77 years ago. how does that compare with what the potential destruction today might look like with the more advanced nuclear capabilities? yes, absolutely. i mean, looking at the atomic bombings, i mean, technically, bombings of hershey and nagasaki were technically limited nuclear war. but i mean, generations of victims have suffered and like you said, now we have bombs that are multiple times over bigger than those atomic weapons that were used on japan. so while i jo like say that there's the thing such as limited nuclear war because any usage of the nuclear weapon would be absolutely devastating, i'd have devastating consequences. not only for that population, not

a nuclear been, is use on, but it would also be very widespread and affect people around the world as well. and as you pointed out, what many are worried about right now is that worry, and we're in and even more dangerous situation now in the cold war than in the cold war in many ways. and one of those reasons, as, as you stated, that are, you know, nuclear arm control, countries continue to modernize their arsenals. we have much bigger and more advanced weaponry than we did 77 years ago. and, you know, even though the world has dramatically reduce arsenals over all many risk reduction measures have eroded since that time. so many guardrails have been removed, especially under the trump administration. there was the i n f treaty. the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty which banned the us and russia land based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, missile launchers,

with shore and intermediate ranges, and the open skies treaty, which allowed gathering of information about military forces and activities. but those treaties are gone and dialogue is not happening between the largest nuclear power relations are deteriorating, obviously, between the west and russia, with russia invasion of ukraine, great power competition between us and china, escalating arms, race, and lack of dialogue on the korean peninsula. so it is a very dangerous situation right now because of all those reasons. now, apparently the official justification for the u. s. using the bomb on japan was to cut the war in the pacific short of void and invasion of japan, and save hundreds and thousands of american lives. and truman even went on as far as say that you believe that it's a japanese lives as well. what do you make of this response and is it justified when the destruction was so catastrophic? yes, i think that is a very typical argument that is made. i think there's

a lot of arguments against the ultimate use of atomic bombs on japan for that reason, i think there's a lot of military arguments that, you know, the soviet union was entering the pacific theater a little bit more at that time. the war could have ended sooner rather than later. i think the argument that justifies the nuclear attack on japan is very over inflated. and i think the consequences of the use of the atomic bombs of japan is so much more far reaching than than they thought it might be. or maybe they knew that as well. but i think just the generations of victims i have suffered you know, nothing. i don't think war and that kind of response, and i think that is why working for the are bullish of nuclear weapons is so and or, and as because of these consequences, it's not just a, there's no such thing like i said is limited nuclear warfare because the

consequences are so far reaching, there's nothing that can really be contained to an area because of radioactive fall out. and they continue to experience these effects even to these days over multiple generations. so it yeah, nothing warren's response, a new their response. thank you so much. calling more for your insights today. in the event of a nuclear war, there will be no winners, only losers, and after the dust settles, the global food system would be obliterated. and over 5000000000 people will likely die of hunger. a study, analyze the amount of sunblock a, so ignited as a result of nuclear weapons. and this would decimate crops and render agricultural lands unfit for production with contamination. crop declines will be the most severe and the mid to high latitude nations and include major exporting countries, such as russia and the u. s. now, over the span of 2 years,

more than 75 percent of the planet would be starving. the ozone layer would also be destroyed by the heating of the stratosphere, producing more uv radiation at the surface, drying out the land, and killing off huge swats of wildlife. the world has come close to nuclear war several times, and while the ramifications are known to all, the risk of escalation is still present as there is a revival of the cold war mindset known as mutually assured destruction. the once on thinkable prospect of nuclear conflict is now back within the realm of possibility, as heretic, memories of hiroshima and nagasaki are fading. and as i ron, that's so many are worried about carbon emissions and climate change. when the more immediate threat is the potential for nuclear disaster, which would render all attempts to save the planets, a moot point, the best solution for the world is to ban nuclear weapons. but while the 5 year old

un treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons has been ratified by 66 nations, none of the 9 nuclear states has sign. i'm christy, i thanks for watching and we'll see right back here next time on the cost of everything. ah ah ah ah

ah, the city is essentially surrounded, whereas earlier we were fighting against the professional ukrainian army. now we're seeing more and more elderly men and boys in the news that shape the week. the had a rushes, wagner group issues the public grass, do trains. president zalinski telling him to let his severely weakened troops. lee from the city of ard him, often also known as back with a young boy cuz his life at risk while saving other children during a terrorist attack by a you premium extremist group. and the russian border region agree on.