The Team House - We are Going to Bomb Venezuela | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: November 3, 2025

In this episode of Eyes on Geopolitics, Dee and Mick Mulroy discuss the escalating military presence in Venezuela, exploring the implications of U.S. foreign policy, the legality of military actions, and the potential for regime change. They delve into the constitutional concerns surrounding the War Powers Act, the role of diplomacy, and the political motivations behind military interventions. The conversation also touches on the broader context of drug trafficking and nuclear testing, concluding with reflections on the representation of military actions in cinema.Support the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseSubscribe to our new newsletter!!!!https://teamhousepodcast.kit.com/joinNew merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comCheck out Mick's new podcast here:⬇️Apple Podcasts:https://podcasts.apple.com/at/podcast/pub-and-porch-applied-stoicism/id1836955475Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/show/1k3QPmkAMwnGJxMLDwUSSd?si=n6piIu8XRcag1Z0K43A3bQFind Mick Mulroy here: Fogbow ⬇️https://fogbow.com/Lobo Institute ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/Twitter ⬇️https://x.com/mickmulroy?s=21&t=-Ze3F_Ix2vlJ18KFvORTCALinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/Bluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.socialMick’s publications ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/publications/publications-of-michael-mick-patrick-mulroy/Find Andy Milburn here: Twitter ⬇️https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023Substack ⬇️https://amilburn.substack.com/Andy’s book ⬇️https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-OperationsBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.socialFind Jason Lyons here: LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?uBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.social"Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio"00:00 Introduction and Context of Venezuela's Situation01:57 Military Buildup and Strategic Implications05:59 Legal and Constitutional Concerns of Military Action10:07 Potential Outcomes and Historical Precedents13:54 Distraction or Genuine Threat?18:01 Comparative Analysis of Global Authoritarianism25:16 The Complexity of U.S. Foreign Policy28:22 Nuclear Testing and Its Implications34:37 The Impact of Nuclear Warfare40:24 Cinematic Representations of War and IntelligenceBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics. I'm here with Mick Mulroy. I'm Dmitry Contacos. A little bit of housekeeping. Nick's got a new podcast called The Pub and the Porch Applied Stoicism. It's all about stoicism. He's got a great co-host, too, Adam Piercy.

I listen to that pod every week. Check it out. It comes out on Mondays, right? It does, yes. Videos coming soon as well. You can grab it anywhere. Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen to podcasts. I'll have a link in the description as well, so check it out there.

What's going on? Make a lot happening. It looks like we're about to attack inside Venezuela. I'm still trying to understand why we're doing this. I don't know if the American people are really interested in like another war. Just a little bit of context. Russia voice support Venezuela. I don't even know what that means.

Like, what can they do? Maduro ask for help from allies, quote, unquote, China, Russia, and Iran. Requested defensive radars, aircraft repairs, and possibly missiles. And I parenthesis, too little too late. Probably should have asked for this a couple months ago. A lot of U.S. hardware in the Caribbean, I'm going to put in, like, a little graphic. I think that Reuters did that, like, shows, like, everything that's going on down there, and it's a ton. Trump was asked about it, I think, on the way back from the China summit.

are the Asia, you know, his Asia tour. Trump denied it as a fake story. He said same thing before we hit the Iranian nuclear sites. So, you know, take that for what it's worth. And a little fun fact. This is the largest buildup unrelated to disaster release since 1994 when we had two aircraft carriers and 20,000 troops deployed to Haiti for Operation uphold democracy. So, Mick, you like that little fun fact. It's not really a fun fact, to be honest, but it's kind of shitty fact.

But what do you make of this? So, Dee, I mean, we've been talking about this a couple of times. One thing I think most panelists would say is this is obviously far more than what's needed to just strike boats taking illicit narcotics of the United States, right? Not that they can't do that, but they certainly don't need. I think we're at eight warships now, which includes several destroyers, cruisers, an amphibious ready group with a marine expeditionary unit, several squadrons being pushed to Puerto Rico, our strategic bombers doing flights by Venezuela. we have the USS Gerald R. Ford, I think it's probably leaving the Mediterranean right now. It will be on station in the Caribbean with its three or four escort vessels, which are all significant by the birthday of my beloved core is what I'm told. October, I mean, November 10th is supposed to be on station in the Caribbean.

that would bring it up to 12, 13, and a considerable portion of our naval assets. Yeah, I'm putting up a thing on the screen right now. I'm sharing the screen where it shows a ton of like the action as of, I think, 31st or as of Friday night. And it's a ton of shit. I mean, it's more stuff than I think is probably needed. But I mean, we don't even know what's what the plan is, to be honest. right the gerald law four is the do d will tell you is the most sophisticated naval weapon system in the world right so which is good that we have it so that's what's happening people can speculate there's a lot of speculation on friday that you know something was going to happen there was

notice to airmen the no-tams blocking off restricted air spaces apparently that was public And then, of course, the White House denied it. And then, of course, the people who were speculating said, well, that's what they did before we did the air strength in Iran. So it obviously didn't happen or we'd be talking about it right now. But it's clear that, to me, at least, it's either one or two things. We're trying to set up so much force that it's not deterrence, right? I mean, Venezuela wasn't going to attack the United States. Perhaps it is deterrence for these associated narco-terrorists bring drugs to the United States, maybe.

If Maduro has direct control of that, he might say, knock it off entirely. I don't know if we'd be willing to keep this level of force there if that's what would cause it. And it is important to point out that if it's truly about narcotics, which is a very worthy cause to go after, It would also include Peru, Columbia, and obviously Mexico, right? So this seems to be more about either forcing Morduro to leave, go to Cuba or somewhere, or actually set up for a Noriega-style operation, which would apprehend him. And he's already indicted in the United States. And we looked it up last time.

I think he was indicted going only back to 2020. So that could happen. or for a regime change organically. The problem is there's not a lot of historical references. If we do start bombing, that air capacity alone could force regime change, right? You tend to, when you attack the country, the problem is that even those who are disenfranchised with the government tend to rally around the flag. You see what I mean?

because it's our country. Yeah, I'll understandable. Yeah. So I don't know. I don't know. It just seems to be well beyond anything necessary for counter-narcotics operation. The rumor around the street is this military presence is going to expand to the Pacific. So I know we're already doing strikes there, but this force is also going to expand to the Pacific.

So there's a lot of issues that come with. I think we're on our 15th, one last night. Yeah. I remember. Yeah. And the Caribbean. Yeah. So 15 strikes.

There's over 50 killed. So there's the issue of whether we should be pushing for regime change. There's the issue of whether we should be using lethal. Whether it's legal, right? Whether it's legal, yeah. There's the other issue of the constitutionality of Congress having no say. And I think the White House just came out and said, we don't think the War Powers Act applies. Therefore, 60 days, which is in the War Powers Act, 1973.

I don't understand how that doesn't apply. Well, that's, I mean, if the White House can simply decide on its own whether, you know, laws apply or Article 1 of the Constitution should be triggered. Or, and this is another thing that even Republicans, and as you know, I'm not partisan, but Republicans are, pushing back against, they gave a briefing and they excluded Democrats in the, and the Intelligence Committee. Like that? Wait, wait. Come again?

Say that one more time? Sorry. So they gave a briefing on the intelligence that's obviously going into leading to these lethal strikes, and they excluded the Democratic side of the committee. Jesus. So. They gave a briefing to the committee? Yeah.

The Senate Select Committee on the case. That usually has both Republicans and Democrats. Correct. yikes I mean that's not remember this I mean

whether you can see yourself one side of the other yeah all this is set in the standard so if you're going to be outraged if it's if you consider yourself on one side of the other

if the other side does it then be outraged now yeah yeah because I mean or your outrage is just you know hypocrisies

you know in high supply in DC that come out right to start with the constitution of it. No president, whether it's

President Trump, President Obama, Bush, President Biden, has ever acknowledged that the War Powers Act's Constitution. I got you. Right? So they say Article 2, I'm the commander-in-chief. You can't restrict me. Yeah. Congress obviously says, well,

we're the ones that declare war. It says we're in the Constitution, Article 1. We're the ones that raise armies and navies. And pay for that. And set the rules. The issue I have is, okay, that's a clear, not a conflict, but a clear issue in the Constitution. The Supreme Court, I don't know what else they have better to do than decide what is the core function of any federal government, especially ours, is the decision to go to war. So if they pass this act, and I think I'm correct.

In fact, check, me listeners. I think it was in the 70, 73. So we're talking like 50 years. The Supreme Court should, and I know they've, they have ruled on part of it. But they just need to rule on a constitutional and appear. Right. So is the law constitutional based on Article 1 of the Constitution and their right to declare war? Yes or no.

It shouldn't be. It should be pretty caught and dry, yeah. If you don't decide, then it's irrelevant. And right now, that makes Congress irrelevant. Because if the executive branch can say, we don't care what you have to say, then they can launch wars without any authorization, any president, not just President Trump, indefinitely. Congress should cut off the money, but they're not going to cut off the money for the entire Defense Department.

It's the only bill that passes, right, the National Defense Authorization. So anyway, that's my plug for today is this should be decided in a way that it's not unclear. There should be open debate about it, right? Sure. And then the Supreme Court should decide, you know, and if they take away the War Powers Act, then we have the unitary executive when it comes to the power to wage war, which doesn't seem to be what the, you know, the far right at the political spectrum, has been saying for several years now should be the case.

So they're going to be promoting something that they were saying the opposite of. But that's their issue. The issue that I think for Americans is what is the actual constitutionality of the U.S. going to war, not going to war, limitations on that, when do they have to have authorization? And that's apart from the legality. of these strikes, right? Like, what if, I'm not saying we're going to do this, I think it's very unlikely, but what

if we're going to have made, that's where, like, full on and you pay, right, right, resumed change like we did in Iraq. Can you just do it? Just raise, you know, a quarter million plus troops and then, you know, sustained military operations for years at a time without approval of Congress. Like, at least the Iraq war was approved by Congress, right? Like, right. Right.

And what I'm, what I would be, well, I'll just pose it to the audience. You say, well, you know, Congress can cut it off. Okay. But if the president, any president can launch it, put our troops there. Yeah. Until it runs out of money and then go to Congress and say, hey, you're going to cut off the troops in the field? They're fighting right now. Right.

That's a different conversation, right? What if you were Congress going to like, no, we shouldn't be there, but the hell if I'm going to, right? So it's, they're easily tab. like you can tag congress people who are not going to fund like an ongoing military operation as like anti-trups and stuff like that you know that's the last thing yeah one of the last things a congressman would want or a senator yeah so i think that's that's that's what uh the issues are as at least as as i see it um the legality now i personally think although i don't know so i'll caveat with that that there's no targeter in defense department or the CIA that's going to promote

striking a target if they didn't have solid intelligence. I just don't see that to be the case. I don't see the military agreeing like, we have no idea who these people are. Right. And then just pulling the trigger on a hillfire missile, you know, killing. Well, I listen, I totally agree with you. Like, they're absolutely like good at their job and what they do targeting and carrying it out. But, you know, even when, you know, we had a ton of our bandwidth focus on Afghanistan or Iraq with, like, targeting and stuff, mistakes were made, right?

And at least Afghanistan and Iraq and even the drone strikes, like in the tribal regions of Pakistan or Yemen or wherever, like going after AQ guys. Like that was approved by law as covert operations for the CIA and probably J-Soc to do, right? So, um, and, but I'm saying just mistakes are made. And like this is like the, I know they're bad guys and they're drug runners, but like the, the cartel boss isn't in those boats. You know what I'm saying? Like it's not, you're not really doing anything to stem the flow anyway. Like, uh, we talked about it before.

Fentanyl, everyone talks about how fentanyl is like this scary thing. And it absolutely is. It's deadly that's made in China, right? Right. Right. Just had a China summit, you know, where Trump met Jijing Ping. I mean, if you want to call that a win, they're all calling it a win. Literally nothing happened, like at all.

He rolled back some of the stuff he imposed. So it's like he created a problem, then fixed it, the problem that he created. It's like we're kind of back at square one more or less. So I just don't see the, I don't see the value in doing this at all. Soup to nuts with Venezuela. Yeah, I mean, if, I guess if they, You know, looking at it from the White House perspective, obviously Maduro's a dictator, anti-democratic, taken a country that, you know, has $14 trillion with a proven oil and gas and somehow brought it into the collapse where 7 million people had to flee the country because they couldn't find food and come to the United States, right?

Yeah, yeah. At least a lot of them. if they could show a force that that just gets this guy to flee. And like, who's his likely successor? Machado, who just won the Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, it's like a made-for-Hawleywood movie, right? If it worked. I'm not saying she's going to come in and, you know, be perfect,

although my Stoic podcaster, we gave her the Rufus, which is a loose who exemplified stoicism, even if she doesn't consider herself a stoic. she is super impressive and it wasn't not just because she won the I would be surprised but so I mean to their to their way of thinking they show a force if they could do it without even like launching an operation and this guy departs uh it's going to be messy we all know that it's not just going to be they're going to lift machado up and take her down right streets of caracas and you know we've got it's a liberal democracy utopia no yeah it's not going to everybody

i'm sure everybody listening knows that not going to be the case but But if it does happen in any semblance of that, I think they would say, okay, so we show a force and it worked. So whether we're actually going to be willing to send in, there's a special operations vessel. I wouldn't say it if it wasn't all out in the public ocean trader that's down there. Right? So there are reports of the Marines on the Mew doing a lot of live fire practice. So that could all just be part of the show. It could be just to scare the bejesus out of Maduro and his henchmen.

It could be to try to get, you know, the people around them to say, you know what? This guy has a big reward on his head. Let's just catch him, turn him over the U.S. He's indicted. He'll get prosecuted and, you know, they'll be rich. We'll avoid the actual conflict if they think it's happening. It could be that too. It could be all the above.

There's even a report. I have no idea with this true. I think it was, if it is, it's kind of cool that the agency was trying to recruit the pilot for Maduro. I did see that, yeah, yeah, to just drop them off like in America or Puerto Rico. Like, hey, this is not, you know, correct. I think they did that with the FBI, did that with one, El Mayo, the guy from the Sinaloa cartel, like El Chappo's, like, partner for a long time. Either they, I don't know if they, like, got to the, they're his own pilot or, like, he just chartered a jet, but they chartered a jet in Mexico and they ended up in El Paso, Texas.

That's where they landed and that's where they arrested them. Yeah. That's just be funny. Yeah. I mean, man. Realize he's landing in Miami instead of corrupt. Yeah. Yeah.

Listen, I get it. I mean, I'm sure. But here's another fact. Like, it's been reported that, like, Maduro's regime has offered Trump and America, the America, um, their oil, like, deals with them to get, and stopping deals with China and Russia, you know, everything that you think that Trump would go for. And again, like, I don't think all this bandwidth, like, you know, I guess it's good for the troops and stuff and, like, our J-Soc to, like, spin up and, like, get some practice.

But I don't see the value in this whatsoever. And, like, yeah, Machado got screwed over, like, 100%, but, you know, take a map out and point at a country. and, you know, authoritarianism is rising everywhere, right? It's becoming all the load, you know, so I don't know. I just don't, I don't see the real value in this, at least me as a regular American citizen. Like, I don't want to see guys die, like, for this shit.

Yeah, that's a very valid concern, right? I mean, any kind of military operations got risk, and this has substantial risk. So, I mean, that's what. I think the agency, I don't know what my old group's doing or not, but if they could do something that reduces or removes a risk to U.S. military, that's one of the best things that the agency can do. I just don't know. Yeah.

I don't know. We'll have to see. I think, you know, according to a lot of reporting, we might see this week what's going to happen. It looks like it's about to happen. And once you hear, at least when I hear Trump say, you know, it's fake news, it's like, okay, it's probably happening. I do have this circled and underlined. The word is distraction, question mark.

Like, is this, we had Jack Murphy on and Jack Murphy. He's obviously more of a cynic like I am. Is it a distraction? You know, because we can, you know, we can get the Florida National Guard together and probably take over and fuck up Venezuela militarily. Like, why are we picking on a smaller country that it just like, it seems like an exercise and some, like, I just don't, there's no clear path to me. Like, I don't buy, like, I'm going back, I'm saying the same thing I said, but I don't see

a clear path as to why we're doing this. So why our state. The National Guard scored away, by the way. Absolutely. With distraction of what other political stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Epstein follows, you know.

I mean, if you look back, I mean, at the history in the first Trump administration, there was a lot of discussion on this. There's a lot of discussion. So this isn't new. So that would be my argument again, just be an distraction to current other stuff, right? This is very consistent with the way the first Trump administration was going, and then several, you know, different personalities in the first Trump administration,

I think persuaded President Trump the first away from it. All right. Those personalities don't aren't in this. So, yeah, that's what I was going to ask. Like, okay, I could talk. totally see like the general Kelly's your old boss Jim Mattis maybe I think he's more like squared away though John Bolton you know the neocon the prototypical neocons who are like yeah let's do it like any you know the Lindsay Grams who are like to you know get so excited when

there's an opportunity to bomb a country um those guys aren't there any I mean John Bolton's under indictment like those guys are not there anymore right like the you know the quote unquote and I'll give it like you know guys like Jim Mattis obviously the adults in the general Kelly too you know those guys are not there anymore Mick you were there right you guys like you guys who have been doing this your whole career right and have an understanding of what really goes on it feels a little bit more like just kind of ready fire aim to me dude I'm going to be honest yeah and I you know that there was discussions about changing the regime, the first administration, but I was the Middle East

guy, right? Sure. You're asking me. You hear on the hall. Sure. But I do think that there was personal as a time. You mentioned some. And I think it's important to point out that, you know, when it comes to generals, like General Kelly

and General Mattis, at least in my experience, or just military people in general, you know, people think, oh, they're just going to be a hawk. They're generally not. It's kind of like the Spartans, you know? Spartans actually were very hesitant to go to war. Why? Because they were all very familiar with war, right? So it's easier to be a chicken hawk than a hawk that's actually been on the battlefield. So I don't, I am talking about them to, but I'm talking in general. Sure, sure. But I don't know what their position was at the time. So I'm just saying that to counter the idea that there's some kind of distraction that the administration is making up now, I think it's, It's been around for a while, that's what I'm saying. So I think it's actually something they really, or whatever they're doing is something that they generally want to do, not for the sake of distraction. Yeah. So, I mean, following the logic, right, of going after Venezuela because they're narco-terrorists and that and they're socialists.

I mean, you don't really, you hear that a little bit, but you're not really hearing more about, like, the drug stuff. That same logic should be applied to Mexico, frankly. because Mexico's like the biggest hub of like drugs into the United States. There's a reason why they have the biggest cartels. Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, you know, every single drug producing state and specifically trying to. It just seems like we're picking on the smallest guy on the block, bro. That's what it seems like.

And I understand it's like, okay, yeah, Maduro's a piece of shit. Totally. But there's so many, so many pieces of shit in this world. like authoritative dudes, you know? So that would go to the argument that this is more about regime change, right? Yeah. Mexico elected their president. Yes, they do.

I think 90% of Fentinaw comes to Mexico. So it's certainly a big deal. And we should, and I think we have designated a lot of the drug cartels or Mexican base as foreign terrorist organization. But the idea of regime change in the country next to us and the country that elected And, you know, I don't know, but I think she's pretty competent, but that's not our choice, right? As well as, you know, like Columbia, obviously, we disagree with the president. But it's a different status than the guy who basically blocked his opposition in Machado.

And then her protege he did run against, who won. And then still said ask her, I'm still a total. So it's, I think. That would make the argument that this is more about regime change for Venezuela than the overall issue of drugs coming into the United States. Right. But that both are important, not important. But, yeah. Yeah, I just don't like it.

I'm not a fan at this at all. I get like CIA get to work, right? Covertly with some J-Soc help and stuff like that. You see an opportunity, take it, right? I'm totally fine with that. I just don't... Just bombing fucking Venezuela. Just, I don't know, to scare this guy

and just saying, I'm done, who's wishful thinking, I would say. I've always been a... Not just because that's the world I come from, a proponent of the agency... Of course, diplomacy, right? Diplomacy should always leave U.S. foreign policy. But then the agency,

and in some cases, J-S.-Soc, doing everything we can to prevent it from being an actual war. Yeah, yeah, yeah. In fact, if we actually have to go to war, in some cases, I think that means we fail our mission by all organization. It's not our choice, but I think there's a lot of goodness in what we do to prevent an all-out conflict, not only for the case of our military,

because a lot of people would die, but whenever we have a, especially a convention, Well, a lot of people die. A lot of people die. A lot of people that shouldn't die die, die. I mean, civilians that are caught in the middle. So I think that is always something that we should be doing. I'm sure we are.

And maybe we haven't been successful or maybe that's what they're waiting for. I don't know. But there is also a real question about whether, you know, the biggest democracy, not the biggest, but the oldest democracy in the world should be going around top of the governments. I think you can make an argument either. way as if it's not a correct government. But in the other part of the argument, whether you agree one way or the other is shouldn't Congress have a say, you know, the representative of the people, right?

Because it's not that they individually are so important, but they represent the whole country, right? Yeah. Every district, every state. They are on the committees whose constitutional duty it is to oversee the Defense Department, CIA, obviously the State Department. to weigh in to fun things to not fun things. I completely agree.

I mean, we've seen more and more of the last year or so this, the oldest democracy in the world acting less and less like one, in my opinion. So, yeah, we'll see what happens. Likely, if it does happen this week at some point, we'll be talking about it next week and doing a lack of a lack of a better term, a post-mortem on it. All right. Moving on.

Trump tweeted or truth socialed when he was on his way back from South Korea with talks with Xi Jinping about, this is so funny. Calls for nuclear testing again in, I'm not going to write what I wrote. I'm going to say what I wrote. In a demented tweet

after the summit meeting with Donald Trump. Some fun facts here. In his tweet, he wrote, other countries have been testing programs. They do not. The last confirmed nuclear test was North Korea in September 2017. The last U.S. nuclear test was in 1992. Russian nuclear test in 1990 and Chinese tests was in 1996. Six, yep.

So what the fuck is he talking about, Mick? So, well, let's first look at the options. he could be saying it could be this could be response to you know president Putin talking about testing this nuclear powered missile which NATO calls the skyfall that that can drop a new can be a nuclear weapon as well there's two parts right so you got nuclear powered weapon systems and you have nuclear weapons In the case of what Russia's the skyfall, it's both. Right? So if he's talking about testing nuclear-powered means to deliver nuclear weapons, then okay.

I mean, I think we already do that. I mean, we have nuclear-powered submarines tooling all over the oceans right now, and guess what? They can deliver nuclear weapons. So in a way, we're testing ours all the time. Maybe he's talking about testing something the equivalent of the skyfall. I would guess, and I don't know or I wouldn't say, that we have something. Or that we've looked at the skyfall and realized that it's not so important to spend that much money on. I mean, there's some discussion that it leaves a trail of radioactive, you know, nis all over the place, and it's easy to track.

Don't know if that's true. But if it is, then why waste the money doing it? You know what I mean? Why waste the money building a nuclear reactor on a missile that you're going to run into something? tracked all around the world because I don't know if this is the case but if to give the president some leeway here not that he needs it from Mick from Montana but he might be talking about that he might be certainly talking about their testing their their means to deliver nuclear powered weapon systems that deliver a nuclear weapon so away okay or he's talking about testing nuclear

weapons. That's where, and you just laid out, so the NPTP, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, yeah, that essentially would be broken because we would be tested nuclear weapons at a time where we're all concerned of the expansion of nuclear armed countries. So we have the most effective, I think, most resilient nuclear triad in the world. We have over 5,000 nuclear weapons. We can launch them from land, sea and air, and maybe space for all. I mean, we have a treaty about space, too, but as far as I know, we could. And it's the most modern.

So even though Russia has slightly more, like 500 more or something. Yeah. We have the most modern, most effective. perspective, we can test with computer models, not actually testing them. We're in the driver's seat. So I don't know why we, China has what, 600? Yeah, I think just over 500, but they're worried that they're going to keep pile up. Right.

And if we start testing, again, we don't know that's what he meant. So we're just going on speculation now. If we start testing, then China might go, oh, cool. Now's their chance to expand our nuclear. Well, they haven't done that many tests, and they're not that confident in their systems and their weapons. And they might use it to expand greatly and test it, and then they're more effective. I mean, the last thing we need is a more effective China with new nuclear weapons that have been tested. Yeah.

So that's one problem. It might invite other countries to do the same, or it would invite, not might. it's against the theory or at least the underlying philosophy of the New Start Agreement, which is going to expire in February, you know, next year, so a couple months. It would cost what I read over $100 billion just to get the Nevada test site ready to do it, and over $100 million a piece of tests to do, which is not done by the DOD, it's then by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear, the National Nuclear Security Administration. So there's a lot of reasons.

In fact, the reason why I'm wearing all these fancy duds that I'm going on to debate this, apparently, with a bunch of other folks on TV. And I asked the, you know, the person that was producing it, like, is there somebody out there that's really pushing? Like, this is a good idea. I was just going to ask that, yeah. It's like, because they called it a debate. And I said, well, I can get on. and discuss it because I'm an analyst. I don't really think.

Yeah. But she indicated to me that somebody out there from the U.S. side is going to push nuclear testing. So I don't know how I'm going to be interested to hear that person's. I don't understand. Yeah, I don't get how, where you find. Yeah. We have the most advanced modeling in the world or, you know, at least top two. And let's still blow up nuclear weapons in the desert somewhere or in the ocean or, you know, wherever.

it makes fucking no sense. Because the fact is, like, yeah, we're big and bad our military, but we don't want to, nobody wants to use nuclear weapons because we know what's the result, the end result will be. Yeah, look at a model of just a limited exchange between, say, Pakistan and India. Yeah. People go, oh, that would be horrible for Pakistan and India. No, it would be horrible for the world, man.

Like, this is, it has major, massive environmental consequences that could significantly all, the ecosystem of the world and therefore make it a lot more difficult to grow food, which millions could die. And I'm not trying to be like, you know, your Cassandra here. Just Google it. Just watch the random six models on the limited nuclear exchange. And I think you'll see that it's not an exaggeration.

Yeah, we talked about, I remember what we talked about it when India and Pakistan were getting a little squirrely like six or months or so back. and we talked about what a limited exchange would do, and it would cost like, like the Americas would get fucked with, like, our food crops and stuff like that, you know, and, like, I think it was like 20 million people would die of fucking starvation.

Really bad. Yeah, like so ungodly number. Yeah. Let alone the people actually impacted. And I don't know if you had a chance to watch House of Dynamite. I did, yeah. Did you?

You liked it? I did. Yep. I have my mutual friend of the director. Ugh. the movie was great and I have a buddy in that movie he plays one of the other guys in the beginning yeah this kid Sam awesome yeah he was really good great speaking role too uh the movie was gripping uh I have a problem with Catherine Bigelow a little bit because I'm a movie snob I've made a movie before and we didn't she went like the Academy Award me? Yeah for her locker which like all military people from the team house on say is nonsense they don't like a

Sarah Dr. either well let's stick the House of Dynamics because this is relevant to the court yeah

yeah maybe we'll touch on this after yeah yeah so house of dynamite was great it was super gripping

I love like the different perspectives and stuff it was a really good movie yeah my

my feedback was and it was after the fact I don't know if she cared or even got it but

um one I would have had a lot more debate, not just because I'm from the intelligence community, on who did it. Right? Right. They go into the like,

should we just nuke the world? I mean, they're looking at the three. There's always three options, by the way, in the military. Yeah. You know, and it's like, well, who did it?

Like, they would be screaming. The president on down. They would force the IC to say, you tell us your best estimate of who launched this missile. Or all the talk about what to do about it's irrelevant right and I know I mean I think in the scenario it was launched a C at C to probably obscure did it yeah but it would be like they'd be retasking every damn satellite they'd be they'd be sending everything that we have float to that to find out you know what I

mean like it and and they would not have allowed the IC to say we don't know they just really yeah I agree with you yeah right so and just like okay we're political reasons yeah all right all right We missed our intercept vehicle, misses it. It's going to blow a spoiler. It's going to explode in Chicago. Okay. Tell me what my options are now to just fucking nuke everybody. They were not going to nuke everybody, right?

So let's figure out who the fuck. Like you said, yeah, absolutely. They would have demanded it. They wouldn't have been a pass. So I thought that should have been added. So the other issue, not ours, but the Pentagon said, Oh, no, we would hit that thing. We have like 100% success rate.

I don't think that's, I know that's not the case. Everybody is a good. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're hitting a bullet with a bullet. You're never going to have 100% success rate. So I don't know if it was, it would have been depicted like this. We got one shot at it and say, oh, there it goes, you're going to be fair. To Miss Bigelow is like, you wouldn't have a movie if they hit it.

Right, it would be a short movie. Like, oh, we're the best. Okay. Yeah. There have been a really short movie. So obviously they have to make it go through. The other thing, which is purely cinematic, not technical ones, I think I would have showed the impact, right?

Because you still don't know, and maybe she did this on purpose. So maybe she's like, that's why I did it, whether we're chasing a ghost. Yeah. Whether we're chasing a ghost. But to really have that impact and then maybe not even show what the U.S. response was. Well, they didn't really show the U.S. response. They couldn't because they didn't show the impact, whether it was actually a missile, right? Yeah.

By the way, should say, spoiler, I'll have to be getting a lot. Sorry, guys. It's all right. You're still good.

It just switched the, my, the, yeah, yeah, it's a bit low, but it's all right. Yeah,

I would say it was totally gripping. And she's good at that. Zero Dark 30 was a good movie. I guess maybe I'm just too connected with Team House and stuff like that

to talk to, like, people and, And from what I understand is this, and I'm sorry, I know this is your former, uh, heads up. All right. I think we're okay. Yeah, I think we're okay. So this is your former outfit, right?

The CIA basically wrote the story for her. And I think, yeah, like they let him. I had no idea that. Like Panetta let him in the room, her and Mark Bull. Well, are you moving on to another movie you're talking about zero block zero dark third Oh yeah, I was just talking about Yeah, but I mean, listen

House of Dynamite, totally good movie You should watch it. It's on Netflix. Netflix send us a check, please. Yeah, but so zero dark dirty Just because I know you're in that world And you don't have to say anything The CIA

Welcome them in open And I'm not saying to not get, you know, use whatever you can with sources and stuff like that but it kind of feels like a CIA authorized movie, to be honest. And it's a cool movie, right? And obviously, you're not going to show the teams of people that have worked on Bin Laden. It's better to, like, anthropomorphize the entire crew into one person. I understand that for dramatic effect.

But I'm not, I mean, but we all know that's that, you know, the part where, like, the enhanced interrogation was, like, a big thing, and that's how it was found and stuff like that. and I'm not going to say what I think I know, but like, I know that it wasn't just that, right? And I understand the dark history with the intense interrogation. And, like, frankly, CIA people do what the president lets you do, right? You're going to do, you know, guys or girls are going to do what they can to get what they can for the, to keep America safe. Like, I would do the same thing if I was there. I just, it just felt like nonsense.

And I don't, everybody, I know at least there was a walk-in. Yeah, I'm a little too close to that to that. Okay, yeah, I get it. If I start critiquing what's true and what's not, I'm down basically. I think if I thought systematically it was good, I knew a lot of it was accurate as, you know, it's public. If that would say anything, that was, you know, as a person who knew was coming was, you know, out there doing stuff, I'll leave it at that. I knew it was coming for a while. And then, you know, we, we carry it off.

Every American was super proud. For sure. Me too. And, you know, I was one of them. And then you see, like, every political figure in Washington tell every possible thing that he knew about. I was like, what the? Why did, I mean, I mean, obviously we're going to celebrate, you know,

getting the guy who as a country. Definitely. But, like, why talk about, I'm not even going to say it because it just justifies, or not justifies, but they just said every possible thing that we did, which was awesome. And it had no reason to be in the public space. Sure. So if anything, since we can't undo time, we should collectively decide like not to in the future.

And it had real consequences on people whose lives have been forever changed. Totally. Somebody wanted to say something about a person that would help us. And it, yeah. So I think the movie Cinematicallyly was very well done A lot of it was close But yeah, I'll just think of that

Yeah, yeah, you can't really get the specifics And even Her Locker was a good movie Cinematically, but like When I hear from like guys who were on the ground They were like that would never be the case, right? I understand you need to take some dramatic license But with the problem with Bigelow And Ball didn't write this new movie

but that guy Mark Bowles, I have a problem with a little bit. He's a screenwriter, I think, for Zero Dark 30, and I believe Hurt Locker, I might be wrong, is they take a lot. They act like, oh, we're, I'm a journalist, and I got this, this is fact-based completely, and this is totally the truth. And it's like, it's not completely the truth,

so stop talking like it is. Specifically, Mark Bull, I got a real problem with Mark Bull. He's a rat, in my opinion. so and there's a long history not to happen to do with me but a burke bobergdahl that whole thing he he's a piece of shit yeah he's a bad guy with what he did with bo bergdoll uh because obviously bobergdoll he he did a fucked up thing walking off base but he was clearly mentally ill and uh you know when we were in the wars you know the army did lower standards and stuff like that like he couldn't get into the coast guard and the army let him in so shout out to the coast

You know what I'm saying? So, and this guy just kind of manipulated that kid, to be honest, like a kid who was mentally ill, like he manipulated the shit out of him when he caught back and he was in, he was in captivity for five fucking years. On top of that, can't be good for your mental health. But anyway, I digress. This is me being a nerd, like, film, like movie guy. So I do have to jump on my debate about why we don't want to trigger a nuclear arms. Yeah, tell him it's a dumb idea for me, please.

I want you guys to check out Mick Fagbo Lobo Institute The new podcast link is in the description And our Patreon Patreon. Patreon.com slash the team house You get Teamhouse episodes and IZON episodes Ad free and early And it helps support the show

Mick as always I love you Thanks brother Great talking to you another good episode All right see ya Hey guys, how's it going it's Dee I want to thank you for watching the show I really appreciate it and I love for you guys to check out our Patreon.

It's at patreon.com slash the teamhouse. The link is in the description. Super easy to find. If you're listening, it's in the show notes as well. You can find it right there. What do you get? You get ad-free audio, ad-free video for both eyes on geo-politics and the Teamhouse podcast. So two podcasts, ad-free for the price of one.

You also get the shows a couple days early on both video and audio. And you have the opportunity to shoot us a message. questions whether it's team house or eyes on we could cover topics and stuff like that it really really helps support the show we really appreciate the patrons that are there now we couldn't do it without you guys so consider supporting the show it's at patreon.com slash the team house the link is in the description and in the show notes if you're listening to us on audio really appreciate it guys thank you