of the the hello and welcome to worlds apart. almost 14 years ago when the united states and the soviet union and were ultimately pursuing a doctrine of mutually assured destruction. english thinkers, thing compulsive, now, legendary heath about the russians who hopefully loved their children to a few months ago, the american nuclear adoption was extended to include not only of russia, but also china and north korea. what does it mean in practical terms? and is it still a given that to me, share the same biology regardless of ideology or to discuss that i'm now enjoyed by

ted postal professor emeritus of science technology, a national security policy at mit. i'm former scientific advisor to the us chief of naval operations for his of postal is great to have you on the show. thank you very much for taking the time. well, thank you very much for having me. uh, i think that the discussion between uh, russians and chinese and americans is a very good thing to be doing. and i'm very upset. as an american citizen, i should say that the united states is not talking to russia and china about these important issues. well, let's have this discussion between the 2 of us. i know that you are very concerned about an accidental nuclear war between russia and the united states on lots of men . the fraud history between our countries has known quite a few examples of technical malfunctions which made that risk very high. but during

the cold war, both the leadership of the 2 countries, um, often times the commanders on the ground were seen enough to think twice, not to rush into the confrontation, is something like this were to happen today, some sort of technical glitch. do you think the response would be the same? well, i think um that, uh, the possibilities are more and more serious in terms of the dangers. there are 2 aspects to this situation. one is of course the technical capabilities and limitations of each of us of so let me focus on russia and united states of each side. and the other has to do with the behavior of the leadership. and of course, the military organizations that are supposed to be following the orders of the leadership on both sides. i've had a very considerable to experience speaking with

the russians on this. and i want to start out by saying that i do not have great confidence in the sobriety and the professionalism of both the russian military and the russian political leadership. this is not a partisan thing. i'm saying, i'm saying this as an analyst, because i have watched, and i've had interactions with the american political leadership. and i am very worried that the american political leadership has almost no idea what it's doing. and, and because of the, what i would call reckless and uninformed the behavior of the american political leadership, i think there is a greater danger of

a serious accident in your articles here indeed, often le, ma'am, the lack of understanding of nuclear issues at the top of the us government then, i want to clarify here is a lack of understanding or deliberate neglect on that understanding. the american political system requires that any individual who hopes to be part of the, of the system itself, of the decision making apparatus. i think in a certain way and agree with the limited ideas and ignorant, actually ignorant ideas in order to be acceptable as a member of the so called team. and it's, it's been a process that's been going on for a very long time. and, and the,

the process has filtered out anybody who as the, any chance of being independent in their thinking and the ignorance of these people is for me at least a standard, you know, that can be any requirements. and you want the placed onto, you know, american officials, vocal or an implicit, but there is a reality on the ground. and then you can warheads, a band of the day off the military hardware. i mean, they, they have, so don't send me the material reality to and that doesn't actually, you know, depend on, uh, some preferred deal. i mean that it's just the, what it is, and i think rushes military doctrine space in printing direct terms that if a russia where to start losing and then put in a conventional war, it in times to use tactical nuclear weapons. first of them, if it's survival, as a nation is threatened, it has strategic nuclear weapons to rely on and law square has been back in that

pledge with an active practical password to upgrade its nuclear arsenal. so what is there that the us leadership or us officials failing to on this down to perhaps accept about russia stones because again, they may believe in whatever they want, but it doesn't change the reality on the ground here in russia. well, the reality on the ground, i agree. incidentally, i agree completely with your assessment of the reality on the ground. the question is whether american leadership understands the reality on the ground. so it's not, it's not simply a problem of whether or not they understand it, whether they understand the reality. the question is whether they know what they're doing and could they do things that would invert late cause an accident.

now, in the case of russia, russia has worked very hard. vladimir putin has done a great deal to improve russia's early warning capabilities. unfortunately, and i do think it's extremely unfortunate. there are certain technical limitations that russia happens to have at this time with regard to its satellite early warning systems. and because of those limitations, which i believe can be solved and i, i'm hopeful will be solved. but given those limitations now, it could easily result in a mistake from the russian side where it looks like where they cannot tell if they are under attack or not, and they take action based on their lack of understanding. now i also,

i want to underscore that the russians have shown, particularly the russian military has shown a tremendous high level of professionalism with regard to this danger. what i wanted to ask you a specifically was the american leadership sounds. because if you're arguing before that, it's not really tracking the reality, i'm just, i think there are some indications that you know, american scientists and american officials are you know, keeping that taps closely on the topic. and you know that according to the new york times earlier this year, president biden has signed a new adopted detour. and it's a strategy for the united states that is suppose to include not only russia, but also china and north korea. and i want to ask you, what do you think it means in practical terms? disability a to 5 north, just one, but suppose at least 3 nuclear war simultaneously. and that's the united states.

have the capacity to do that, both political, perhaps the logical as well. well, it, it has the capacity to try to do it. and in but, but if the, if it tries to essentially going to result in the end of the modern world as we know it, and quite possibly the end of the human life on the planet. then we don't know the full consequences of, of a large scale nuclear war, but there's certainly no chance at all at the united states can achieve a goal of its arming china and russia with our nuclear forces. there's no chance at all, but to miss all a j. d. the poor understanding that leads to this kind of, of uh, of fiction is a great danger because if they start something,

there's no question in my mind that the russians and chinese will be left no choice but to respond. and, and it doesn't matter that it would be absolutely delusional, recklessly delusional, to attack a china and russia with nuclear weapons wouldn't matter is if it starts, there's going to be no way of stopping it. no one is going to be able to stop it. so the real big problem is the miss perception of leaders and their lack of knowledge that makes them think that they might be able to, in one way or another disarm or, or, you know, in some meaningful way reduce to strike power of russia and china by attacking their forces 1st, i think one of the factors that may be a fuel wing dismissal withdrawal misconception is all based writing that i see in

the western media about a new super fuse that the united states has been sitting onto all its uh, strategic ballistic missiles. and it is presented as something that vastly improves us nuclear fire power that gives the united states as a central pre emptive strikes capacity. and i want to ask you as a specialist, is it enough for the united states to claim full nuclear superior warranty? and i mean, not only in starting the war, but also in, you know, proceeding with it and the winning is ultimately well, 1st of all, this super fuse issue is a very important issue. it actually became public because of work i did and published initially. and that work had to do with me analyzing patents, patents that were taken out by the u. s. navy. and then looking at the military

improvements and strike capability that resulted when, you know, if the patents were executed properly. this program was so secret that it, it was hidden from the congress itself. members of the congress had no idea what this program was doing. and the program was misrepresented to the american congress as improving reliability. but it was in fact improving the strike capability of the united states forces. and what it does, it allows the us to use a lower yield nuclear warhead $100.00 killer ton nuclear warhead. that is in very large numbers on us submarine forces to destroy russian and chinese ballistic missiles that are in protected underground cycles

improves, in effect, it improves the accuracy of delivery in a way that substantially increases the likelihood that a single warhead to destroy a more a missile and it's silent because it improves like the ability to do that for a single word bin to more heads are not needed. one on top of another to do the same job, but one more head can do. now that has tremendous implications because it now means that an a very large number of warheads that would otherwise be used to double attack silos are now free for a tax on other targets. in other words, the, the striking capability of the american forces is doubled or tripled with regard to those particular words. now, professor, i also mean,

i'm sorry for interjecting here. we have to take a very short break, but i promise to come back to this very important issue in a few moments state and the the,

[000:00:00;00] the welcome back to all the parts with postal professor emeritus of science, technology and national security policy that might be on former scientific adviser to be yours, chief of naval operations, the 1st of postal, before the break, you mentioned the substantial increase in the us striking capability on i think, you know, better than anyone else. the other countries are also not sitting. i delete the russians, for example, have recently revealed the existence of the so called ultimate don't say weapon the

poseidon robots, some lorina with quite powerful, striking capabilities to do. you're seeing that announcement will cool down the hob has in washington, or is it more likely to have an opposite effects of making them even more ability or, and well i'm, i'm hopeful that this weapon that was introduced to this under c robot that was introduced will will sober american political leaders? i have done everything i can to use what little public exposure or public opportunities i have to speak and describe this weapon and its consequences and what the average american does not understand. and i have worked hard to help them understand this is that this weapon could potentially carry a 100 mega ton nuclear war it. i mean,

a norm as nuclear warhead. and the russians have demonstrated in 1961, the 50 mega ton warhead. this was terminated on the via as m o u in, in 1961. and that warhead could've easily been twice a year old. if the russians chose to make certain simple and straightforward modifications. if you look at this, poseidon, what we call the poseidon, the underwater robot. it has the volume in it to house a 100 megatron morehead. now what i try to explain to americans is that if that morehead, which of detonate in the harbor of the us city, it would destroy an area out to 70 or 80 kilometers from the actual destination point. the reason for that is the blast wave is not as

important as the super hot fireball. it's like bringing a piece of the surface of the sun down to the earth and letting it, uh, you know, give off its energy for an instant of time. the light and heat from the destination point is so enormous that it will set fire to things at enormous range and professor as far as i understand, and i'm certainly not an expert, but this is just one example of why technology that russia is developing. but on top of that, russia is openly coordinating its military policy with china and earlier this here at present points and travel to north korea where he made a statement, but predict i'm bigger as me wouldn't statement, but that's never the less states that the 2 countries i'm going to support each other in the brand of a nuclear attack. now it was specifically awarded not to presume automatic

involvement of either rational, north korean. but i think that indicates that these 3 countries that have been singled out by the united states as a nuclear avenue now, coordinating among themselves, what does it mean for the united states and what the logic i don't understand of having instead of one and to me one powerful enemy, as it was during the cold war, united states is now seems to be pursuing 3 animals or 3 adversaries at the same time. what's the point? well, you know, american policy has been totally incompetent. i would say not only unrealistic and competent if we we have turned russia into anatomy that we did not have what i was in deeply involved with russian scientists who were very,

very deeply interested in working cooperatively. but what happened is american policy treated rusher as an enemy, even when russia was in a state of exhaustion which it was at the time in $199010.00. of course we re, neg, on an agreement with gorbachev to not expand nato eastward. so you can find a lot of false scholarship, fraudulent scholarship in the united states, claiming that the agreement was never made. but anybody who looks at the facts knows for absolutely, absolutely, certainly that that agreement was made. and the russian, um, um a political leadership,

not just to i want to be clear you made me american rhetoric. mr. potent is, is, is an animal hooked up? oh, would kill anybody and do anything. and i mean, it's remarkable that he has been demonized to the point that he has in american discussion. i mean it's, it's impossible to believe that people can be so stupid and so gullible, to believe these things. all they have to do is look at how mr. brewton has behaved and made decisions. in fact, i am not as frayed. i am afraid of a nuclear accident that leads to an uncontrolled exchange between russia and the united states. but i am much more confident and that it would be less likely to happen because of the stream, the sober and careful leadership a mr. putting on this issue. as in your perhaps know,

the russian nuclear adoption is now being revised. there is a lot of low being efforts going on here in moscow from the hard liners, pressing mr. puts in the russian president to be um, well i guess to what they how they phrase it is to introduce tier a back into the bilateral relations between the 2 countries. the argument is that nuclear deterrence is no longer detouring americans and made many hardliners and most goats claim exactly what you said. the american leadership has become totally reckless. and in order for it to actually see the reality, it needs to be scared. it needs to be in touch with its own here. and the only way of doing that is to make sure that the american leadership believes that the russia can actually use its nuclear arsenal. what do you think about this idea?

because on the one hand, you know, a fear helps us survive. but on the other hand, they've sort of 5 little to like, even the russians, at least some part of the russian establishment, scientific, a, militaristic, which meant that now pushing present pointing towards taking a far more hard line stance on those issues. i don't agree with that argument that these people are making. i think all they will do by following that argument is they will lower refresh or hold to towards an accident. so i think that the president putin's strategy, which is to be from and to make it clear that a nuclear war will result in everybody's destruction. and that he doesn't want to do it. he's been very, very clear about that. and he's also been very clear that if he is attacked, russia is attacked, he will respond, and the destruction of the entire world will occur. he's been absolutely clear

about that. he's been, uh uh, he's expanded this discussion to are to make it clear that he understands that would be the destruction of the world. he's made it clear that he does not want to see that happen. but he's also made it clear that he will respond if he has to have . so dr to me is enough. and you know, if, if the people in political decision making a positions in the united states don't understand that, then we will all be dead. professor postal i wanna um, mentioned that one of the things i find most remarkable about your advocacy is that the you actually petition there is government to share with russia assistant technology or for example, in the domain of an early warning system. uh, specifically, to make russia less anxious, and therefore less likely to uh,

respond to it responsibly to any type of um, malfunction or perhaps a fear of attacks. but you also mentioned that in your writing that the united states has it's insecure. it is to, for example, it has little to no capacity to intercept any ballistic missiles and he said that they couldn't be vulnerable to a balloon carrying a nuclear warhead. and i think one, that underscores is the both sides of both countries as well as other countries, like uh, china and north korea perhaps. better off trying to, um, you know, settle, di arrival, resend the diplomatic um, negotiated weight because you can never fully insulate a country from all types of threats, no matter how you know, big or how powerful the country is. so why do seeing that throw there is no longer pursue it's like there was that you actually contributed a lot to both during the cold war and later on when you worked on disarmament and

stuff like that. well, the problem is related to what i brought up earlier, that the american political establishment has cleaned out. anybody with real expertise and knowledge from the decision making apparatus. if you look at this bethany blinking night, it's, it's hard for me to believe he lives on the same planet when he starts talking. so there needs to be a change in, in, in, in the way political thinking and, and what the way we select are people in, in advisory roles. i don't know if that's going to happen. but i think president putin has done a very good thing with this underwater, the world ending

a weapon that has this tremendous nuclear warhead on it. because even an idiot, even a total idiot would understand that missile defenses cannot do anything about this with it. so i don't think it was an accident that there was a decision by the rush of leadership deployed such a weapon. the weapon was deployed, so that even an idiot who believes the missile defense as some capability and it has none. and then that's another discussion. but it, he just wanted to make it clear to anybody that even mister biden, even mister blinked and even mister sullivan, that it doesn't matter. but you have missile defenses. because even if they work, everyone in your country is going to die. and, and we're all going to die. and it's not, you cannot stop that as a consequence of an attack on russia. and i think, you know, i don't like that

a weapon like this has been produced. but i think it's a sensible choice for the russians to do. and it actually is in a strange way good for american political leadership because it's silver is the political leadership up with regard to thinking that can get away with anything. and that's a big problem, because once something starts, it will be unstoppable. that's the big problem. well, uh, professor postal, we have to leave it there. but let me thank you for being with us today and sharing your expertise with our audience. it's my pleasure and i wish there were more discussion of this kind between americans and russians and in particular, the americans would, would take a little bit more initiative to do this. got to have these kinds of discussions. so thank you very much and thank you for watching hope to hear again on the walter part of

the there's no end in sight over how you're going to continue to destroy the earth. is the case for the med, most of the people. i tried to go to the gym, but i'm certainly not ready to fight russia. this is also of soon. this is the 3rd world lunacy re washington as well. so the funder line likes to say, we have the tools while we just start with stability and business deals to living on mac, have very close propaganda. you know, price here in new york. i think we don't know the aftermath any time that you're not allowed to ask questions, you should ask all of the questions. some more questions ask the better. the answer is will be

the the region 2024. the one on august, the 6 ukrainian troops across the border and launched a full scale encouraging interrupt as cosca, which in the nationalist battalions and foreign medicine res went in fast. the labor is going to