yeah, so it takes all takes all to the international office, social media platform. this comes off the meta, who did us off facebook and instagram as well. because the fact is, western governments done what you knowing what we're saying here. what are the international cuz you pro, accost life and the russian federation most sanction country in the work, the hello and welcome to worlds a part of 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. they, american nuclear adoption was extended to include not only a 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 him? i'll discuss that. i'm now enjoyed by ted postal professor emeritus of science technology and national security policy at mit. i'm former scientific advisor to the u. s. chief of naval operations. professor 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 the 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're very concerned about an accidental nuclear war between the russian and the united states on lots of mid the fraud history between our countries has known quite a few examples of technical malfunctions which made that the 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 in 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 it 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 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, as for me at least astounded. you know, that could 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 in the, in a conventional war, it in times to use tactical nuclear weapons 1st. and then they said 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 drugs. 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, um 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 a techno, 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 over large scale nuclear war, but there's certainly no chance at all at the united states can achieve

a goal of the charming china and russia with our nuclear forces. there's no chance at all. but the miss rawlins a, the, the, the poor understanding that leads to this kind of, of, 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 put matters. 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 reduced 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 old based writing that i see in 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 us 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, a $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. it 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 entered charlotte because it improves the ability to do that for a single word bin to or 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, perfect, 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 what is part of the, the employee would post that isn't the defense you of us and that in the word part is it something deeper, more complex,

might be present good. let's stop without collision. let's go out of the the welcome back to all the parts with the postal professor emeritus of science, technology and national security policy that might be on former scientific adviser to be yours chief of naval operations professor postal before the break,

he 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 will be so called ultimate don't say weapon the poseidon robot. some marine with are quite powerful, striking capabilities to do. you're seeing that announcements will cool down the hall pads in washington, or is it more likely to have an opposite fax of making them even more ability or, and well i'm, i'm hopeful that this weapon that was introduced progress undersea 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 to 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 work. i mean, a norm as nuclear warhead and the russians have demonstrated in 1961, the 50 mega ton war had. this was terminated on the volumes emilia, in in 1961. and that warhead could have 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 a to house a 100 megatron morehead. now what i tried to explain to americans is

that if that morehead were detonate in the harbor of the us city, it would destroy any 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 ultimately coordinating its military policy with china and earlier this

here at present points and travel to north korea where he made a statement. but pre d, i'm bigger as mean wouldn't statement, but nevertheless, states that the 2 countries i'm going to support each other in the event of a nuclear attack. now it was specifically awarded not to presume automatic involvement of either rational, norfolk worrying, but i think that indicates that these 3 countries that have been singled out by the united states as a nuclear memories 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 i mean one powerful enemy, as it was during the cold war. the united states has now seems to be pursuing 3 animals or 3 adversaries at the same time. what's the point? well, uh, you know, american uh, policy has uh, been, uh,

totally incompetent. i would say not only unrealistic and competent if we uh, we have uh, 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 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 the political leadership, not just to i want to be clear human and the american rhetoric. mr. potent is, is, is an animal. oh, it would kill anybody and do anything. and i mean, it's remarkable that he has been demonized to the point that he has in the 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 live stream, the sober and careful leadership a mr. putting on this issue as here, perhaps no, the russian doctrine is now being revised. there is a lot of low being as far as going on here in moscow, from the hard liners pressing mr. put in the russian president to be, um, well i guess to what they how they phrase it is to introduce t or a back into the bilateral relations between the 2 countries. the argument is that nuclear deterrence is no longer detouring americans, many, many hardliners and most coats, 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, this sort of 5 is also like even the russians, at least some part of the russian establishment, scientific and militaristic. which meant that now pushing president pointing towards taking a far more hide line stands 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 roll to towards an accident. so i think that the president put in his 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 it would be the destruction of the world is 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 got 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

you're 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 the 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 wouldn'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 the arrival, resend the diplomatic um, negotiated way, because uh,

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, anthony blinking, i, 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 and 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 weapon. so i don't think it was an accident, it was a decision by the rush of leadership to deploy such a weapon, to weapon was deployed, so that even an idiot who believes the missile defense as some capability and it has none. and 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 on stop. oh, 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 is 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 part of the acceptance. and i'm going to plan with you whatever you do. do not watch my new show seriously by watch something that's so different opinions that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to please do the have the state department c i a weapons, bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. i changed and whatever you do, don't watch my show state main street because i'm probably going to make you

comfortable. my show is called stretching time, but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the way inside the head. zillow launches, were tyler trees frank's own? that is where i left the only be activate. see i and go over a 100 real quick. so in gauge with some get through to the city of the israel's northern front, isn't matching, strikes with block southern level, 45 lives. the claims however local say they wrote the israel is killing civilians is only strengthens are result a to my house was destroyed twice.