The Tucker Carlson Show - Nuclear Expert Predicts How Launching a Single Nuke Could Wipe Out All of Humanity

Episode Date: October 17, 2025

It’s a measure of their insanity that leaders around the world are seriously considering nuclear war. Ivana Hughes of Columbia on what that would mean. (00:00) How Powerful Are Nuclear Weapons? (09:46) What Would Happen if a Nuke Detonated Over Times Square? (24:56) Ozone Layer Destruction (29:08) How Many Times Have We Launched Nuclear Weapons? (33:57) The Horrifying Effects of Radiation (41:29) Is Nuclear Testing Infecting Our Food and Causing Cancer? (1:06:16) North Korea’s Nuclear Program (1:19:59) Are World Leaders Calling for Nuclear War? Paid partnerships with: Hallow prayer app: Get 3 months free at https://Hallow.com/Tucker SimpliSafe: Visit https://simplisafe.com/TUCKER to claim 50% off a new system. There's no safe like SimpliSafe. Preborn: To donate please dial #250 and say keyword "BABY" or visit https://preborn.com/TUCKER Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Thank you, Professor, for doing this. Let me start with the most simple of all questions. How are nuclear weapons different from conventional weapons? Nuclear weapons are different from conventional weapons in many ways. One of the things that I like to say is that they really defy the kind of concept of both space and time. And let me explain what I mean by that. if you have a conventional weapon and you exploded over a city, wherever, that explosion is going to have an impact in that local place and it's going to have that impact in time and then

you could come back and clean up the area and rebuild and so on. Nuclear weapons are not like that. A nuclear explosion in one place, in one location and in one supposedly, moment of time can have both global effects, and it can have impacts over actually even thousands of years through the effects of radiation and the kind of radioactive isotopes that get deposited in the environment. But there are sort of a number of ways in which even a single nuclear weapon explosion can be incredibly dangerous and devastating. And then there's a number of impacts in which a nuclear war in which many nuclear weapons are used can be. Obviously, quite clearly, much more devastating.

So the thing that people know about nuclear weapons is the one nuclear weapon can be much more powerful than any kind of chemical explosion. So, for example, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 80 years ago. 80 years ago, almost exactly, had what's called energy yields of 15 and 21 kilotons. of TNT. Now, these bombs were made out of uranium and plutonium, uranium for the Hiroshima bomb and plutonium for the Nagasaki bomb. But when we describe their energy yield, we describe it in terms of the equivalent amount of

chemical explosive that you would need. So that's where the 15 kilotons, 15,000 tons of TNTs, how much you would have needed. of chemical explosive to produce the energy of equivalent to that explosion. And that in and of itself is huge. And just to give you one kind of point of comparison, the Oklahoma City bombing, which I'm sure you remember, it was actually the first year that I was living in the United States. It was in April of 1995.

And it was a devastating event. it was the equivalent of two and a half tons of TNT. So Timothy McVeigh had filled the rider truck with chemical explosives, lit it up outside of a federal building, killed 168 people, including 19 children in the daycare center. And there was damage in the radius of up to, I think, 16 blocks, something of that order. So absolutely an incredible and devastating event at the same time, that explosion was 6,000 times less energetic than the bombing of Hiroshima. So 15,000 tons of TNT versus 2.5 tons of TNT. So that just begins to give you a scale for just how power. a single nuclear weapon can be.

And then on top of it is that we now have weapons that are far more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. In fact, in 1945, the U.S. had three nuclear weapons. One was used as a quote-unquote test, the Trinity test in the desert of New Mexico, and then two were used on the attacks on Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today, we actually have 12, on the order of 12 and a half thousand nuclear warheads, many of which are far more powerful. How much more powerful? So we know that both U.S. and Russia have nuclear bombs currently that are on the order of one megaton.

That's about 70 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. At the height of the Cold War, when we were first testing nuclear weapons and actually first testing hydrogen bombs, which are different from the atomic bombs that were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I can explain that as well, we were even testing the largest test that the U.S. had ever conducted took place in the Marshall Islands. It's called the Bravo Test, Castle Bravo test. And there was a thousand Hiroshima bomb equivalents. And yet, the Soviets actually tested something even more powerful. They did so up in the North Sea region called Novaya Zemlya. And they tested at some accounts, say, 50 megatons. So that's more than 3,000

Hiroshima bomb equivalents. I've even seen accounts to say 58 megatons. So that would be basically, you know, 4,000 Hiroshima bomb equivalents. The Castle Bravo test, which took place on March 1 of 1954, that test, that mushroom cloud, so we all sort of, you know, have this vision of a nuclear explosion

that produces the mushroom cloud, that mushroom cloud was 25 miles. or 40 kilometers high. And at the widest, about 60 miles wide. So 60 miles? Miles wide, the mushroom clouds. It's quite simply something that's unimaginable. And that test actually had truly devastating consequences

for people living in the Marshall Islands, about 100 miles from where the test was conducted, the population was living in a place called Rangalup Atoll, and those people were very, very sickened and impacted by the test. It's a long story. They stay there for three days. They were moved away. But to kind of cut to the present day, and this is actually from some of the research that

I've done with colleagues and students at Columbia University, currently there's still parts of the Marshall Islands, where radiological contamination is very high. And that testing ended in 1958. So it's now nearly seven years later, and there's still contamination. That quite simply is not safe. The way I like to put it is it's not safe for a multi-generational community to live in and to live there full time. The most dangerous lies, not the ones that are shouted in your face.

The most dangerous lies are the ones that whisper to you. And chief among those lies is the idea that prayer doesn't work. It doesn't matter. Oh, thoughts and prayers, they say mockingly. Actually, prayer is the single most important thing and the single most effective thing you can do ever. The push to Morph America into a godless country didn't happen all at once. It was a very slow process.

And the people who did it want you to fall for it through ambivalent. by not even noticing. Downloading the Hallow app is the perfect way to foil that plan. It's one of the most effective things you can do to root yourself in God to improve the life of your family and your life here and in the hereafter.

So the idea of little lies pulling you from the truth is not new. The classic CS Lewis book, The Screw Tape Letters, puts it perfectly. And Hallow's newest prayer series encapsulates the message of that book, resisting the forces, to separate you from God.

Embrace faith and prayer. It is literally the only way. Downloading Hallow will help. Everyone here loves it. Everyone in my family loves it. Daily conversation, actually. So there's a battle for your attention, for your heart, and ultimately for your soul.

You can ignore it or you can be prepared. Hallow is the number one Christian prayer app in the world, and that is a well-deserved accolade. Download Hallow today, reclaim the power of prayer, which is the fundamental prayer in the universe. Three months of free Hallow at hallow.com slash Tucker. So what would happen if a nuclear weapon, modern nuclear weapon, detonated overtime square? Yes.

Over time square, one megaton bomb is going to have. So there's something that makes the numbers a little more complicated. You can have two different kinds of explosions. One can be an air burst and one can be a surface. explosion. In the case of an air burst, what you actually do is you cause a lot more damage, a lot more the shock wave is sort of stronger and the destruction of the city is much more effective. A surface burst produces more radiation and kind of more of those long-term effects. So between the two, let's just say that basically the radius of this fireball is about two

about a mile. And so you now have, depending on where it explodes, you have a radius that, and the fireball is quite literally the temperature of the sun. And so you have a fireball where everything is evaporated, absolutely evaporated. And then, again, depending on if it's an airburst or a surface explosion, you kind of have these different concentric circles of heavy blast damage where just everything is absolutely destroyed. The shockwave is such that it just just everything collapses, buildings collapse, everything collapses. Then you might have a kind of lethal radiation dose concentric circles.

Then you might have moderate damage where you still have buildings collapsing, injuries, are widespread and so on. And you kind of keep going, but you started out with quite literally evaporating everything in this fireball and you kind of keep going out of that. And in New York City,

for an air burst, you're looking at something like on the order of one and a half million people dying and about 2 million people being very severely injured. There's also a concentric circle where the temperature is so high that everybody gets third degree burns. And this is something that happened, of course, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's where it just, you know, people's skin quite literally melts.

There are kind of descriptions from survivors of the bombing of seeing people with their, you know, skin looking like it was clothing, just sort of hanging over them. This is quite simply a sight of total and absolute horror and devastation. And it would destroy a U.S. city. The thing that we know. And render it uninhabitable. And render it potentially uninhabitable, you know, for decades, hundreds of years, potentially even thousands of years. Again, it all depends on how you do it, how much, you know, how large the weapon is, how it's detonated. But the really scary thing that we do know, and this comes from the kinds of war games that take place in Washington all the time,

is that because we now live in the world with 12.5,000 nuclear warheads, it doesn't just end with one nuclear warhead being used on one city. We not only have all of those warheads. We also have things like intercontinental ballistic missiles, which can actually carry multiple warheads at once, deliver them all to the same targets. So you might, if you wanted to attack New York City, you might explode one in Times Square,

but you might explode one, you know, on the upper west side and another in Brooklyn, and another, you know, so you could have a kind of constellation of explosions. And the war games in Washington suggest that 100% of the time one nuclear weapons explosion, regardless of how it starts. an accident, a miscalculation, a deliberate use, it all ends in the full-blown nuclear war. And part of the reason why it all ends in the full-blown nuclear war is that the kinds of structures

we've built, the kinds of policies that we have on this, are such that you pretty much just follow the protocol, and the protocol is that you attack. If you, the United States has something called launch on warning, and that means that if we think we're being attacked, even though we haven't absorbed an attack, even though we haven't actually, you know, seen that a warhead has exploded in one of our cities, we launch an attack. and these decisions are made in a matter of minutes. This is described really kind of with amazing clarity in the book by Anya Jacobson

nuclear war scenario, which describes exactly minute by minute how nuclear war starts and can start, and then what happens for the next 72 minutes, and then sort of these are long-term consequences of nuclear war. And I can talk about some of them. So 72 minutes, the entire war, that's the duration of the war. That's the duration of a war between the United States and Russia. In Annie's book, the scenario is that basically the U.S. gets attacked by a kind of lone warhead coming from North Korea, attacking Washington.

DC. That's an intercontinental ballistic missile, which we detect within seconds of the launch. And then there's a second, in her scenario, there's a second warhead being exploded, launched from a submarine in the Pacific and exploding in Diablo Canyon, which is a nuclear power plant in Southern California. And in that scenario, the U.S. then responds to the nose it's being attacked by North Korea in a matter of minutes makes a decision to attack North Korea. I think the response to something like 82 nuclear warheads. But the route that the warheads take from our ICBM silos in the Midwest, in the Dakotas and so on, the route goes over Russia. And in Annie's book, the scenario is such that the U.S. can't communicate fast enough with the Russian leadership. And Russians now think they're under attack because they're there. detecting these warheads coming their way.

And so they launch an attack a thousand nuclear warheads and then the U.S. response in turn and attacks the United States. And these kinds of estimates of what would happen, the number of casualties, people who would die and so on, in a U.S., Russia, full-blown nuclear war, the current estimate, and this is based on slightly more than a thousand warheads from each direction, and it's equivalent to about one-third of the current arsenals, the number of casualties from the moment of the explosions is on the order of 360 million people. And that's nothing but the deaths from, you know, you were either incinerated or, you know,

your body was broken into, who knows how many pieces by the shock wave. That's not even including deaths from radiation, which would occur over some period of time, of course, very intensely in the immediate aftermath. but then also over time. And then there is the business of what such a nuclear war would actually do to the environment of the planet. And there it's not just about local effects. Now we get into the global effect. So back to my initial assertion, the nuclear weapons sort of defy rules of time and space.

the time aspect is these radiation impacts that can really the radiation contamination that can last for decades, hundreds, even thousands of years for certain radioactive isotopes. The spatial aspect is that of course there is a local impact of the nuclear explosion, but in the case of a nuclear war, the impact becomes global. And there are at least two different ways in which this happens. One way is called nuclear winter, and I can explain what that is, and the other is ozone layer destruction. And these are actually things that we've known about both of them for a long time, although I will say that more recently we've had much better simulations, just much more computer power, much more sort of ability to really. really figure out what that would look like. So let's start in order. What's nuclear winter? So nuclear winter is the idea that following a nuclear war, there would be such widespread fires

everywhere that would burn things like everything that's in the city and produce so much soot that would go up into the atmosphere and block incoming sunlight. And that as a consequence of this, for a period of about, again, depends on how many warheads, what energy yields and so on. But for a period of up to about 10 years, temperatures would drop so significantly. Some estimates for the war that I keep citing of one-third of U.S. and Russian arsenals are used up. the estimate is 10 to 15 degrees Celsius. That's about 18 to 27 degrees Fahrenheit. This is a completely different planet.

And those temperature drops occur very, very quickly. And so the temperature drop, what it does is it actually makes it impossible for food to grow, in particular in the northern hemisphere in kind of our bread basket latitudes. And food just begins to stops growing. Agriculture begins to fail. And people begin to starve. And the estimates there, there's a paper

that was published in nature food by Alan Roboc and Lily Jia. and their colleagues at Rutgers University, according to that paper, this particular scenario where I said 360 million people would die from the attacks, they estimate over 5 billion people would die of starvation.

5 billion? Simply save stops crime before it happens, which is the way to stop it. Most security systems work backwards. They react to a break-in. They alert the authorities once someone's already in your house. Ooh, you don't want someone in your house in the first place.

You want to deter that. That's why you get Simply Safe. AI-powered cameras detect threats while they're still outside your home and then alert real security agents before anything else happens. Those agents take action right away, confront the intruder, let them know they're being watched on camera, call the cops, sound a siren, triggering a spotlight, whatever it takes to get them out of there. That is actual security.

SimplySafe's monitoring agents have your back, even when you're not at home. wait for someone to break in in a home invasion. Yeah, no thanks. We trust Simply Safe. Why will there are no long-term contracts or hidden fees? It's been named Best Home Security System for five years running, and there's a 60-day money-back guarantee. Setup is super easy.

The app is simple to use. The monitoring is reliable. Real peace of mind, whether you're at home or not. And right now, you can save 50% on a SimplySafe home security system at SimplySafe.com slash Tucker. SimplySafe, S-I-P-L-L-I, Safe dot com slash tucker there is no safe like simply safe over five billion within two years of a nuclear war from starvation all around the planet and here's a kicker actually the number is actually

really more than six billion because when they wrote the paper they based all of their calculation simulations modeling on a worldwide population of seven billion we now have more than eight billion people on the planet so that just quite simply means that you're going to have an extra 1 billion people dying of starvation. So it's really, I mean, this is quite simply, this is not, this is the end of human civilization. This is the end of humanity as we know it. I'm not saying, I don't think we know that everyone would die, although it's quite possible. I don't think it means all of life on the planet would be extinguished, although even

that's possible. But this is quite simply not the planet will live on today. And then on top of it, there's the radiation effects. And I can talk more about radiation. And then there's this business of ozone layer destruction. And that's somebody at Columbia, whom I actually knew quite well. He passed away recently in his 90s. His name was Mal Ruderman. He was one of the first people who they wrote about in the 1970s about nitric oxide production as a consequence of nuclear war and the impact that this would have on ozone layer on the ozone layer and those that kind of research has been done also more recently with the new models simulations and so on those estimates suggest that the war scenario I keep mentioning between U.S. and Russia would result in 70% ozone layer destruction.

This is, again, this is not a place where you go out to sunbathe. This is a place in which UV radiation is incredibly dangerous, not just two people, but it would also be, it would also impact agricultural production. because it would impact plants. So again, this would be another hit on sort of food supplies. But, you know, this is all of this is just so, so horrific, this idea that we would ever conduct something like nuclear war. I mean, Reagan and Gorbachev said in 1986, nuclear war cannot be won and must never be, fought.

Khrushchev said in the 1960s that the survivors would envy the dead. And yet here we are, you know, 80 years into the nuclear age, still in, I would say in many ways, playing nuclear roulette with not. Yeah. Ever more recklessly, especially in the last three years. Let me ask you a couple of questions just to tie up what you just said. you said in the simulation, the theoretical account that Annie Jacobson wrote about in her book,

very influential book, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Citing, California is hit with a nuclear weapon. What is the effect of a nuclear power plant getting hit by a nuclear weapon? That's just, that one is really, really devastating. I hadn't actually, I mean, I think with the war in Ukraine, we had sort of gone a sense, right, that a nuclear power plant presents this very kind of special type of threat in war zones. And this was the war in Ukraine was actually quite simply the first war where we had active fighting in a country, active military conflict, violent conflict in a country that had nuclear power plants.

It just had not been the case previously. And, you know, there are a whole lot of things you could say about nuclear power and potential dangerous threats and so on. But in the case of a conflict, a nuclear power plant can become a weapon in and of itself. Of course. So I read the book a while back. So I... But is it possible you could get an exponential effect from... Absolutely.

No, no, no. This is now a radiation. you know, so now people are dying all over the western United States from the absolutely enormous amount of radioactivity that is spread, right? So you hit the nuclear power plant. It's not the blast and the fireball. I mean, yes, it is there locally, but that's not what's going to kill the people in L.A. What's going to kill the people in L.A. is the radiation that's going to spread. So what does that look like? That was my second. question. You said you would flesh out the concept of the danger of radiation. What does that look

like? We know something about that because of the bombings 80 years ago. We know something about that because of the bombings from 80 years ago, absolutely. And I can say a little more about those. But we also know a whole lot about the impact of nuclear explosions on the environment, the impact of radiation on the environment. Because Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were not the only two, or even count Trinity three times. It's not that we've exploded nuclear weapons three times. We've exploded nuclear weapons more than 2,000 times on this planet. And that was as part of...

Full nuclear weapons explosions as part of what it's referred to as nuclear weapons testing programs. I was in March at the United Nations, actually, at the third meeting of states' parties. of a treaty called the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. And I was speaking to a woman from French Polynesia where the French-tested nuclear weapons. She's actually a member of the French Polynesian Parliament now. Her name is Hina Moira Cross. She's a relatively young woman, I think, in her 30s.

She's a mother. She's had leukemia for many years. and as and many people in French Polynesia have been impacted by the testing that took place there. Leukemia can be a result of exposure radiation. Absolutely. And I can explain that as well. But Hina Morera said to me something really interesting. She said, you know, when we call it testing, when I was young and people would talk about, oh, we had the testing.

I just imagined scientists kind of playing in a laboratory and, you know, doing some kind of a test. These were full-blown nuclear explosions. They described Bravo, described the Soviet so-called test, the Tsar bomba. There were over 2,000 such explosions. Many of them, atmospheric tests, the majority still underground tests, but even underground tests have had. devastating consequences. In 1963, there was really a kind of seminal agreement that was made initially just by the U.S., the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom of stopping atmospheric testing. And that was a real victory for the people of the world because it helped to,

some atmospheric testing continued. China and France actually both continued to test in the atmosphere post-1963. France tested in the atmosphere until 1974 and China tested in the atmosphere until 1980. So both of those continued. Everybody else has conducted to our knowledge, underground tests, to my knowledge, only underground tests. as it is, politics is not the answer to this country's or man's greatest problem. The only solution is Jesus. Sorry, that's true. At its core, politics is a process of critiquing other people and getting them to change. Christianity is the opposite. Christianity begins with a call for you to change, me to change. It's called repentance, and it brings you back to God.

When God is at the center, hearts change. Only that, will lead to the end of abortion, the greatest atrocity this country's ever participated in. The normalizing of killing babies is a stain on this country. Our friends at Preborn are doing everything they can to stop it by providing free ultrasounds to pregnant women. Preborn is rescued over 380,000 children. There are a lot of nonprofits out there. A lot of them call themselves pro-life or I wouldn't trust all of them. Sorry, I do trust pre-born. I know them well. What they do works. Once a mother hears her child's heartbeat for the first time, she becomes twice as likely to have the baby.

The ultrasound saves lives. It's $28 for you to sponsor an ultrasound and join Preborn's movement. Just call pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 keyword baby. Or pull it up at preborn.com slash Tucker. That's preborn.com slash Tucker. Defend the preborn. There's nothing, nothing more worth it.

We hope you'll join us. So tell us what the effects of radiation. So how long does the pollution last? How bad is it? Yeah. So depending on what kind of a bomb you have, so let me go back to a kind of key distinction here. We have two types of nuclear weapons.

One we refer to as atomic bombs. Those are again, 1945 weapons. those are based on the process of fission. Fission is when a nucleus of an atom splits. And basically one element, we all know elements like hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and so on, but an element like uranium or plutonium splits and produces two other elements. And energy is produced in such a reaction. And, you know, a tiny amount of energy is produced in one reaction,

but when you have many, many, many reactions, you can have a lot of energy. Another process is called the process of fusion. And that's when actually nuclei of two elements come together and produce energy that way. So, for example, two hydrogen nuclei come together to form helium and energy is produced that way. that process actually takes place in the sun. That's how the sun produces its energy. So fusion is a good thing. We quite simply wouldn't have life on this planet if it weren't for fusion.

But again, using fusion for the purpose of weapons is a whole other thing. So depending on, you know, sort of what you do, and here's the interesting thing about fusion or hydrogen bombs, in order to actually bring, so you know that, so if I have hydrogen nuclei, so this is, let's just step one second to just remember what an atom is, what elements are. So we have different elements on the planet. The atoms are sort of the smallest units of the element, but those atoms are made up of different kinds of particles. So the nucleus is at the center of the atom. It might have just a single proton like in hydrogen or it might also have more protons and also neutrons and so on. And then there are electrons around it.

In chemical reactions, everything basically happens with, not basically, everything happens with the electrons. So the nuclei just stayed the same. With nuclear reactions, everything is about what happens in the nucleus. The nucleus either splits or the nuclear in fission or nuclear come together in fusion. In fusion, if you have a nucleus that is positively charged, electrons are negatively charged,

this is what keeps the atoms stable, if you have one nucleus that's positively charged trying to come together with another nucleus that's positively charged, they repel each other, right? So we now, you know. So they repel each other. So you actually need to invest energy to overcome that electrostatic repulsion and the amount of energy that's needed can only be supplied by something like a fission bomb. So even for fusion for hydrogen weapons, right, we actually need to have fission as the fuel that kind of sets up the conditions for the fusion to actually take place.

How much more powerful is a hydrogen bomb than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima Nagasaki? So the Bravo one was a thousand times more powerful than a Hiroshima bomb. The currently, like if we have a one megaton bomb, that's about 70 Hiroshima bombs. But hydrogen bombs actually, there's kind of no limit. Like you could keep making them bigger and bigger and bigger. Somehow we've stopped making the really big ones. I think China has probably the most powerful, the most high energy hydrogen bombs currently in their arsenals. I think they have five megaton bombs, hydrogen bombs, in their arsenals.

That's more than 300 Hiroshima bomb equivalents. But then again, if you have a missile that can carry 10 warheads, it almost doesn't matter, you know, much a single one is. But just back to radiation. So basically you, what you're doing is you're producing this chain reaction of splitting atoms or fusing them. And in so doing, you produce some radioactive isotopes, radioactive elements that are going to basically be in the environment both locally, they're going to get, you know, kind of blown up, you know, things get blown up evaporated, going into the mushroom cloud, you produce these radioactive isotopes, they're mixed with everything. Some of that will kind of fall back onto the planet locally. Some of it

will be carried up into the atmosphere, high level, stratosphere, and so on, and actually become, you know, part of sort of a global deposition where you, it goes so high up in the atmosphere, it stays, you know, stays up there. And then you could also end up having, depending on exactly how far up it goes, you could have it come down with weather events. And so when the United- So it's raining nuclear isotopes. It's raining radioactive nuclear isotopes. The U.S. I mentioned the testing in the Marshall Islands. We also tested in another Pacific island state called Republic of Kiribati. And we tested on our own soil both in Nevada where there were 100 atmospheric tests and some 828 underground tests as well as in Alaska where there were just

underground tests. But the testing in Nevada actually produced fallout that went all around the United States. And it quite simply depended on whether or not there was rain in a local. So the fallout was carried across towards the east, given the easterly winds. And then if there was a rain, a weather event in some place, the fallout would get deposited there. And there maps of the United States that quite simply looked like looked like you sort of gave an empty map to a child

and they played with paint and kind of you know sprayed you know blotches of paint onto a Jackson Pollock painting yeah exactly and it's where radiation had been deposited from these

do we know the health effects of that the health effects are very severe and very serious so let me just name a few of the top radioactive isotopes that are problematic. There's something called iodine 131. There's something called cesium 137, something called strontium 90, and there are a number of different isotopes of plutonium. And the thing about these is that they quite simply last in the environment for different

amounts of time. So some of them, there's a concept called half-life. So a radioactive isotope will have a specific half-life. And what that means is if you have, if you start out with say a thousand atoms of this isotope, after its half-life, you will have 500. And after another half-life, you'll have 250 and so on. And so after six, seven, call it even 10 half-lives, it's going to to be gone from the environment. Iodine 131 has a very short half-life. It's eight days. And so within a matter of weeks, it's gone from the environment. But if you were there at the time of the explosion, and if you got exposed to iodine 131, that actually went into your body, mostly because the iodine actually went into the grass

and then the cows ate the grass and, you know, people drank milk and so on. But it goes right to your thyroid. And it has caused, who knows, numerous, numerous cancers in this country, but actually in many other parts of the world. Strontium 90 and cesium 137 have half lives of about 30 years each. That means they stick in the environment for a couple hundred years at least. And what's interesting about both of these isotopes, strontium 90 is chemically similar to calcium. And you know that when you drink milk or eat cheese or whatever, you're taking calcium,

that calcium goes into your bones, it goes into, it's building up your bone marrow. And strontium 90 will go to those. exact places. So the reason we mentioned leukemia earlier, the reason that people got, and especially they called leukemia the atomic bomb disease in Hiroshima Nagasaki after the bombings, the reason for that was the exposure to strontium 90. Also, importantly, because it acts like calcium, it also gets incorporated by plants will take it up. from the environment and you can, you can ingest it. Césium 137 is the same half-life, you know, around for a long time,

is chemically similar to potassium. And you also know that if you eat banana or if you drink some kind of an electrolyte drink or something, you take in potassium. Well, the same thing happens. If cesium is in the soil, plants will take it up, thinking, because it behaves like potassium, they take it up, it gets incorporated. And now when you eat that food, that cesium is now getting incorporated into your cells, the kinds of soft tissues that use potassium, your brain actually needs a lot of potassium.

And so when instead of taking a potassium, you've now brought cesium 137 into your body. Now this cesium is this radioactive isotope that's going to basically after a certain amount of time, it's going to split and it's going to give off gamma radiation. And now that gamma radiation is inside your body. It's attacking your cells. it's attacking your DNA, it's making you sick. And a lot of kind of soft tissue cancers, including brain cancer, come from that cesium 137. Did you see markedly higher rates of those cancers after Hiroshima Nagasaki?

Yes. Oh, absolutely. I mean, the estimates for the casualties of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, it's often cited what people think. It was like 70, the ideas is maybe 70,000 people died on the day of the attack. And then another 70,000 by the end of 1945 from both kind of acute radiation sickness as well as cancer. But the cancers continue to happen. There's a particularly touching story of a young girl who was two years old in Hiroshima.

of the bombings. Her name was Sadako Sasaki. And when she was 12, so 10 years after the bombing, she developed leukemia. She had been, you know, growing well and was very athletic and very active. And she developed leukemia. And she is the one who, she learned the story of the paper crane, the folding of the origami. Yes. And she learned the story that if you fold a thousand paper cranes, your wish will come true. There are now some differences in kind of details of what happened, how many paper cranes she folded and so on. But needless to say, she died. And after she died, it was actually her friends who wanted to do something in her honor. And essentially over the decades, the paper crane that she was, the paper cranes

that she was folding really became a kind of symbol of peace. And this sort of message, you know, she, when she was wishing, folding the paper cranes, she was wishing not just to get better, but she was wishing for world peace. And that's kind of what got taken up by. So if you had the U.S. and Russia fire one-third of their nuclear arsenals, you're saying that every study projection has shown like an elimination of like life on earth, basically, certainly human life on earth, human civilization. Yeah, I would say it's absolutely, certainly end of the world as we know it,

whether we all, you know, perish or some people survive. The latter is certainly possible. Actually, the UN is now advancing a study on the consequences in nuclear war, something that really hasn't been studied, I would say, in terms of the current, the world that we currently live in, right? So we live in a very globalized world. You know, we often might eat food from other places in the world, right? like what is that in the current context that wasn't necessarily true to the same degree in the 1980s people for example ate food that was more local and so on so what does that look like today the science of nuclear winter and for example ozone layer destruction that's very very solid science it gets attacked all the time but it is very solid science and old you said this has been And something people have been studying for 80 years, how many nuclear weapons are there in the world globally?

Today we have 12 and a half nuclear warheads in the world in possession of 9... 12.5,000, sorry, 12 and a half thousand nuclear warheads in the world in possession of nine nuclear arms states. U.S. and Russia have the vast majority over 90 percent of the nuclear warheads are in the possession of U.S. and Russia. Are we pretty sure of that? I mean, we know where these warheads are? Yeah, no, we actually know. The good news about nuclear weapons is they're not a garage project.

There are other things you could do in your garage that could be very dangerous. You can't do that with nuclear weapons. You really, it takes a tremendous amount of not just resources, and kind of human ingenuity, but infrastructure, you know, part of the reason they did that in the, you know, the Manhattan Project in the Los Alamos, it was all that isolation and so on. Do we know where they are? We do. For the most part, we know where they are. Probably not all of them. I think it's kind of known where, for example, Russia's military bases are, but perhaps not exactly how many where and how. The other piece is that we do have a lot of nuclear warheads on submarines, which could be pretty much anywhere in the world's oceans.

What's interesting, so submarines keep moving most of the time. Isn't it dangerous to have a nuclear warhead continuously on a boat? Yeah, some of these nuclear submarines are carrying so many warheads. They're carrying so many missiles. and each missile is carrying warheads. I think they called them handmaidens of the apocalypse. There were incidents in like the 1950s where a U.S. and the Soviet submarine like, you know,

crashed into one another. They're also... Nuclear armed. Nuclear armed. What happened? And nothing happened. Like, we've actually been... I mean, this is one way of looking at the history

You have the entire nuclear age, so 80 years of the nuclear age, is that we've been very, very lucky that the scenarios I'm describing, the scenario Annie Jacobson is describing, the scenario I'm describing nuclear winter, ozone layer destruction, there's a whole other thing, which you probably also know about, because I know you spoke with Dennis Quaid, the electromagnetic pulse, that's another thing you could do. You could shut down the electricity over entire, countries. Like you need like three nuclear warheads to shut down the electricity over the entire

United States. And this isn't a case where you, you know, it's a blackout and we're all inconvenienced for a week. This is like the electricity is not coming back. So you wouldn't even need to like explode nuclear weapons on cities. You'd just need to shut down our electrical grid. And then, you know, good luck to the country starts to. Yeah. Yeah. Good luck to all of us. So during the Cold War, a Russian sub-soviet sub-collided, luckily, you know, the bombs didn't go off. But there were also examples of warheads being lost, right? Yeah, warheads being lost, warheads being dropped to the bottom of the ocean. There are about 50 nuclear warheads at the bottom of the ocean.

So, wait, there are 50 nuclear warheads right now at the bottom of the ocean? Right now at the bottom of the ocean, yeah. And no one's tried to retrieve them? So, fell off of submarine, fell off a plane, you know, all kinds of accidents. It wasn't just two submarines colliding. It was also, there was also airplanes carrying nuclear warheads colliding. There was once, yeah, there was once a nuclear warhead that was dropped quite literally into someone's backyard in South Carolina. It didn't go off.

like multiple security kind of systems and the last one held. Everything else, you know, had given way. Wait, the U.S. military dropped a nuclear bomb in someone's backyard in South Carolina. Yeah, absolutely. I forget the exact year. This was most of these incidents were in the 1950s. But that was kind of a period of really stupid accidents. And then the, you know, the, you know, What it's often referred to in the field as close calls, you know, sort of got more, more sophisticated. In 1962, of course, we had the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yes, famously. That's a whole, famously, a whole set of things.

And really what we understand from that is that could have led to a nuclear war, you know, from deliberate kind of, you know, U.S., Kennedy was under a tremendous. this amount of pressure to actually invade Cuba. By that point, the Soviets actually had nuclear warheads and missiles in Cuba, you know, had that invasion or they're gone. You know, we quite simply would have had a nuclear war. But it wasn't just that. There were incidents during that 13-day period. Three of them on the same day, October 27th, it was a Saturday's. often referred to as the Black Saturday.

There were three things that happened that day. One was a U.S. plane that was doing some kind of monitoring near the North Pole and had accidentally gone off, lost radar, lost kind of the ability to navigate where they were and gone deep into the Soviet Union and was actually too high up for the Soviet you know defense to air defense to

and they really tried to shoot it down but the guy escaped then there was an airplane that was shut down over Cuba and the American captain was killed on that day

and Kennedy did not decide to move towards an invasion and so on and then perhaps the most serious one was where the U.S. was trying to enforce a blockade of kind of, you know, the Soviets weren't supposed to be coming to Cuba to, you know, bring any sort of military equipment.

And to enforce this blockade, they were using something called depth charges, but they were using kind of simulating depth charges and depth charges like a weapon to attack. a submarine. And so they were using ones that would sort of simulate an attack but not really attack. And one Soviet submarine had sort of three officers on board was being attacked by these deaths charges. They interpreted it as a real attack. They actually thought that maybe there was a war going on.

And they were nuclear armed. They had a nuclear torpedo on board. And what they needed, this wasn't, you know, like they needed permission from some higher authority. They needed all three of them needed to agree to employ the nuclear warhead. One of them, his name was Captain Archipov, decided that he did not want to approve the use of the nuclear. torpedo and basically saved the world in that moment. The very next day, October 28th, was actually the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis where the Soviets agreed to withdraw their nuclear missiles from Cuba.

President Kennedy had, in turn, agreed that the U.S. would withdraw its nuclear missiles from Turkey. This wasn't known until relatively recently because at the time Kennedy asked Khrushchev, you know, you have my word, we'll do this, but I just need a little time and I'm not going to make it public. And that was the agreement. It ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. And that was a very, very, very dangerous moment. And it seems to have changed President Kennedy's views of nuclear weapons or hardened his views and he became entirely committed to preventing new nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.

He became committed to preventing new nations from acquiring nuclear weapons that was absolutely really important to him. But he was also, he was very, he was looking towards disarmament. And it was even before the Cuban Missile Crisis, in 1961, he gave a very famous speech at the United Nations General Assembly. which he stated something to the effect of we must abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us. So this is quite simply something we've known for a long time. And this was, Kennedy, I understood this before we understood nuclear winter, before we understood those only air destruction, maybe around the time we were figuring

out electromagnetic pulse and so on. So he understood this at the very deep level. The part where he really put in his energy was the atmospheric Taspen Treaty, and that was negotiated with Khrushchev the following year in 1963. That was a tremendous achievement and a really, really important achievement. Going back to our discussion of radiation, you know, often sometimes when I sit in a room full of people or stand or whatever and speak about this. I sometimes say, you know,

there are people in this room who are alive today because of that atmospheric test ban treaty because had we continued to test to the degree and the levels that we were doing, we would have just sickened more and more and more people in our own country and around the world. One thing I'll just add is that I didn't say earlier because I was talking about the isotopes.

I never told you about plutonium. They're actually different isotopes of plutonium, and some of them have half lives of thousands of years. There's an isotope of plutonium with a 24 and a half thousand year half lifetime. That means that thing's going to be in the environment for a couple of hundred thousand years. So this is, this is again back to that issue of transcending time and space. This is not something that just has an immediate effect. We clean it up and we move on. The plutonium, in fact, the plutonium has been deposited globally.

And we actually have an understanding that hundreds of years from now, hopefully there will be scientists who studied the planet who will say, oh, look, this is when they tested nuclear weapons. Here's the plutonium line in the geologic record. And can I ask you about President Kennedy's efforts to to prevent nuclear war? One of the things he did has been written about to some extent is try to prevent David Ben-Gurion, then Prime Minister of Israel,

from developing a nuclear weapon at the Demona site. I think we have a lot of correspondence now that shows the president demanding inspections of the Demona site. Ben-Gurian resigned as Prime Minister, I think, as a result of this of this controversy. What happened there? Yeah, I think Israel was really avoiding any sort of oversight by the President Kennedy thought that proliferation of nuclear weapons was incredibly dangerous. He was definitely concerned and didn't want other countries acquiring nuclear weapons.

eventually led even after his death to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, whose goal was that, but there are other goals, and I can talk about them as well. In the case of Israel, he felt very strongly that if this was our ally, you know, we, and we were going to tell the rest of the world not to acquire nuclear weapons. We also had to actually, you know, know, do what we were preaching and sort of be consistent in our approach to Israeli nuclear weapons. But they went ahead and, I mean, I think it's thought that the first functional Israeli nuclear weapon was developed in 1966. And so this was actually, interestingly, before the nuclear non-proliferation treaty came together.

It was negotiated over a long period of time, but finally kind of signed in 1968, and then it entered into force in 1970. It's still currently one of the largest international agreements amongst states in the United Nations. How many nuclear arms states have signed it? So that treaty recognizes five nuclear weapons states, their U.S., Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China.

Those are the five that had nuclear weapons up to that point, declared nuclear weapons arsenals. Again, Israel had actually begun its program. At this point, Israel has, is thought to have 90 nuclear warheads. The other five of what's interesting is they were from the very beginning of the treaty. All five were recognized as nuclear weapon states. But China and France didn't join the treaty until 1992. So it sometimes takes time for these treaties to actually bring everything. So the other nations would be India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

So there are, yes, so there are four others. So nine nuclear arms states, five recognized by the United Nations, also all five members of the UN Security Council with veto power. And then the four that are outside of the treaty, Israel, which has this unique policy of ambiguity of an undeclared nuclear arsenal. But again, we think it's a 90 nuclear warhead arsenal. And we're sure, pretty sure that there is. Oh, absolutely. I think there's no doubt about whether or not they have them.

India and Pakistan never joined the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, both essentially, you know, tested nuclear weapons underground. They each have on the order of 150 nuclear warheads today. And then North Korea was actually a part of the treaty until, they left the treaty in the early 2000s and have since, you know, pursued a nuclear weapons program. We think that North Korea actually currently has 50, 60, maybe 70 nuclear warheads. What North Korea has done is it has also actually developed the delivery systems. And we think that today North Korea actually has the kind of.

of delivery systems that could deliver a nuclear warhead to any part of the United States. And this to me is actually really for, you know, there are many reasons why we have to eliminate nuclear weapons. I can make a case about that very strongly. But in the case of North Korea, it seems utterly crazy to me that you have a country. like the United States, which let's for just a moment imagine that we live in a world free of nuclear weapons.

Who's going to attack the United States? You know, we've got the oceans, we've got the conventional military. I've actually heard our mutual friend, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, say that the United States could be the safest country in the history of humanity.

But in a world with nuclear weapons, we are so vulnerable, and we're not just vulnerable with however you want to classify Russia and China, but let's call them peer adversaries or near peer adversaries. We're vulnerable to them, but we're also vulnerable to a country like North Korea, which is relatively small, relatively poor. This is not a world's superpower. And yet, North Korea could destroy the United States, as we know it.

Where is Iran, this is such a heavily politicized question, but there's got to be a science-based answer. Where is Iran on the continuum toward getting a nuclear weapon? Iran has been enriching uranium to 60%, which is you don't need that for nuclear power. It is not quite weapons grade, although if you wanted to make a weapon, you actually could make a weapon even out of the highly enriched uranium they currently have. Now, my understanding is that they, they, and I actually listen to their statements in venues like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty meetings at the UN, they always say they're not interested in building nuclear weapons. They do emphasize that their religion, you know, doesn't, you know, requires them not to pursue nuclear weapons.

I actually think that they're not pursuing nuclear weapons. How hard would it be? I mean, they have every incentive to any country that, you know, has its capital city bombed, probably wants a nuclear deterrent, I would think, I mean, just common sense. How hard is it, given where they are right now, technologically, how hard would it be for them to build a nuclear weapon? I don't think it would be very hard. I think if they wanted a nuclear weapon, they could have had it a long time ago. How hard in general is it to build one?

It is hard. It is a huge investment of resources, both human and financial resources. It is a hard thing to do. It's not a garage project. It's not something that's going to evade, especially if we were to pursue nuclear disarmament, especially in the world of today's technologies, it would be very, relatively easy to track activity, to set up inspections, to do the kinds of things that would rid the world of this threat. Right after 9-11, we heard a lot about the potential for a dirty bomb, nuclear material with conventional explosives attached that would pollute an area. What would that look like? Is that an actual threat? I think that's still, that remains a threat. I think that woke up some people in the early 2000s to kind of think a little bit about the threat of nuclear weapons. Interestingly, it was in 2007. I think this sort of terrorist thread was a big part of why they did this.

It brought Kissinger and George Schultz, both of whom were former secretaries of state. under Republican presidents, as well as Bill Perry, Department of Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton and Sam Nunn, a longtime Democratic senator from Georgia, brought the four of them together in 2007. They wrote the first of a series of articles in the Wall Street Journal titled something like toward the world free of nuclear weapons, in which they actually make the case for both why we need a world free of nuclear weapons and why the United States should lead that effort. Can I ask a dumb question I should have asked before?

So you've said it's been longstanding policy for over 70 years that if the United States believes their incoming nuclear missiles, that it will strike the country of origin. What's the thinking there? I've never questioned that, but if you think about it, I mean, if there's nothing you can do to stop. I think so much of this is actually, I love, there's a quote from Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers and is best known for that. He passed away a little over a year ago or so. Daniel Ellsberg, after that kind of effort to end the Vietnam War, really ended up spending decades. speaking about nuclear disarmament and nuclear weapons issues. And in his book, The Doomsday Machine, there's a quote I really, really love,

he says that nuclear weapons policies, past and current, are dizzingly insane and immoral. And that's really all I have to say in response to why would we, you know, why would we, If we think we're being attacked by one or two nuclear warheads, why will we send 82 to North Korea? You know, I think... Well, I mean, you know, if you can't... If there's some way to stop the nuclear attack, then, of course. I mean, you know, if it's them or us, I'm for, you know, I'm for us, always.

However, if there's no way to stop the missiles from coming, If there really is no technology that allows that, then what is the point of killing 100 million other people if you're going to die? It's a really good question. I think one... Has this been debated? So nuclear deterrence has kind of become a sort of mantra. So let me just step back for a second.

I think one of the problems we have currently in this country is, Number one, most people are not aware of this threat. Don't understand nuclear weapons. Don't understand what they could do. Sometimes when I speak or write or, you know, people will respond, oh, I remember duck and cover when I was in school. And, you know, people of a certain generation still sort of have a sense for what is going on. But many young people are just utterly unaware.

There is a section of society, however, that is aware. and understands what nuclear weapons are and, you know, understand some of the basic facts that we've been talking about and so on, but has been convinced by this idea that nuclear deterrence works and nuclear weapons keep us safe and that's just all there is to it and there's just no way to, you know, undo or put the genie back in the bottle or any of that. And the truth is that there are many problems with nuclear deterrence. The first, and kind of to me, most fundamental, is that there is quite simply no plan B for what happens if nuclear deterrence fails.

It's just kind of like an autopilot, you know, we're under attack, we're going to attack them. And even if you think about a scenario in which we somehow actually managed whoever the enemies are, we managed to disarm them or disabled. or even if we somehow magically had a dome over the country, which, by the way, we're not going to, it's never going to work. We've tried this. And there's just no way to actually do that. But even if we did, to destroy such an enemy, right? We would need to use so many hundreds or thousands of warheads that we would create,

we would create nuclear winter, we would create ozone layer destruction. It would be in the Cold War, we called it mutually assured destruction or mad. It is actually always sad. It's always self-assured destruction. If you're going to go into nuclear war, whether or not you end up getting attacked, you're going to create conditions that are going to actually destroy your own nation. I just want to tell you a story about the United States. to this, you know, the claim that I made a little earlier about the United States

actually having, in my mind, having the most to gain from pursuing a world free of nuclear weapons. I was at a place called Walton Park. It's in the United Kingdom. It was like being in a Jane Austen novel. And it's a place where the UK's foreign ministry basically brings experts, diplomats, academics, and so on to discuss various issues all year long and one week a year they devote to this nuclear nonproliferation treaty diplomacy. And I was invited there last December. And these meetings are held, it was about 30 of us actually spoke, but it's a large room, it's about 80 people, and it was all very, very interactive.

And in one such exchange, I actually made this case that the United States has the most to gain from a world free of nuclear weapons. And these meetings are held under what's called Chatham House rules. So I can talk about what happened, but I can't talk about who said it. So I'm not going to say who said. But a person responded to me, and I had made a comment to their remarks, and then made this comment about the U.S. and this person responded to me, after which I wasn't allowed according to the rules to respond. So I'll tell you what the response was.

The response was, you're right, and I was shocked that they accepted this, you're right that the United States would be safer in a world free of nuclear weapons, but our allies would not be. And so because I wasn't allowed to respond in the room, I waited until it was after, you know, that session had ended in the lunch line, I approached this person and I said, how would the American people feel if you told them that we're not pursuing nuclear disarmament because of our allies? And take a guess what he responded to me.

I don't think he cares with the American people think. He said, now you sound like Trump. And I said, that's not an answer. He goes, a person goes, you want an answer, there would be no Europe. It would all be Mother Russia. So, you know, there's this, the idea. Well, they're deranged. Yeah, yeah.

But, I mean, seriously, like. They'd be better off anyway. How are we accepting to be. under mortal threat as a nation, as a people, as humanity all the time. Jeff Kate had another, he had so many brilliant statements and quotes and so on. Another one was like humanity was not meant to live in a prison awaiting its final destruction. I mean, that was, his view was like we're all just sitting in this prison awaiting, you know, the nuclear war destroying our world.

It does seem like we're, and there's just been this thing, the doomsday clock, and I don't know how, I don't take that very seriously because, like, how would you measure that? But just watching the rhetoric carefully, it has changed since the Ukraine war started. And you're seeing, I read a piece by some lunatic at the Atlantic Council recently suggesting that we, you know, engage in a limited. nuclear strike? Absolutely insanity. And so the taboo around using nuclear weapons, at least in this country, has almost evaporated.

Like, what is that? Yeah. I mean, I think the taboo is still there. But I think some people are definitely pushing the envelope and pretending as if we really can fight and win a nuclear war. So, me ask, what is it, what, of course I agree. What does it mean, though, technically a limited nuclear strike? I think people think that you could have exchanges on, say, say that we gave Ukraine a few, you know, kind of low energy yield. And low energy yield means Hiroshima bombs or, you know, that kind of size.

and a near range that you could use on a battlefield nuclear weapons. Yeah, nuclear weapons. And people have called for that. Yeah, I think that's in discussion. I mean, I think the... Anyone who discusses that should be imprisoned for treason.

I agree. I agree. Yeah, any policymaker who advocates for that is imperiling our entire nation and world. And that's a crime. Yeah. No, in the fall of 2022, after the start of the Ukraine war, there were serious discussions in the White House and an estimate from the Biden administration that there was a 50% chance of nuclear weapons use over the war in Ukraine. So you must know, you're a, you teach a Columbia.

I mean, you must know some of the people in the Biden White House. I mean, like, what? I actually don't. You don't. Okay, they don't want to talk to you. I actually. But, I mean, these are supposedly adults. Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken, like, what are they thinking?

I mean, the closest they come to is when I try to speak to diplomats. These are people mostly from the State Department or from the U.S. mission to the United Nations. Or examples like the one I game from Wilton Park. I've also spoken to diplomats from other nuclear weapons states, including like a U.K. diplomat where I was making this case that you know nuclear deterrence could fail and he goes yeah yeah you're right and i said and then what you know we destroyed the entire human civilization we destroyed the planet we'd make it inhospitable to not just human life all like and he goes that's not going to happen you know so they they not only um don't have a plan B for if nuclear deterrence fail

they also really don't want to think about it, right? Like to them, the solution is just you just keep going. And to me, it's just unfathomable. To me, the idea that we're kind of putting all of our eggs in this nuclear deterrence basket, when we actually recognize that things could go wrong, not just deliberately, not just because someone decided to implement the strike, but because accidents could happen, because a miscalculation could happen, besides the Cuban missile crisis, besides these absolutely ridiculous, stupid accidents in the 50s and even the 60s,

in the 1980s, we had two incidents in 1983, the first one in September, the second one in November, where we quite literally, you know, could have had the start of a nuclear war. One was called Abel Archer that was in November. That was a NATO exercise that had actually added some new kind of elements of realism that were interpreted them by the Soviets for the real thing. They thought they were under attack. They started quite literally, you know, putting nuclear warheads on to missiles and were ready to, um, to attack. And thankfully that was, uh, it, it didn't go, um,

all the way. In September, there was an incident where a, um, an officer in the Soviet army in some, um, military base that was monitoring whether the Soviet Union was under attack, received literally like a computer glitch five signals in a row that warheads were coming towards the Soviet Union from the United States. And it turns out those glitches came from an alignment between high altitude clouds and satellites. So something they had not been predicted or accounted for. And according to the computers, the Soviet Union was under a this person, his name was Captain Stanislav Petrov, had decided this was a false alarm and actually, you know, didn't pass the information onto his superiors, thus subverting nuclear war, the Cuban Missile Crisis incident that I was describing with the submarine, that's often referred to the man who saved the world. and then Petrov is also sometimes referred to as the man who saved the world.

We've quite simply been, have had so many incidences where we just actually got lucky. And there are scholars who really kind of study all of these examples who say, no, no, no, it's not the nuclear deterrence has worked. It's that we have really been very lucky. Not all countries that have nuclear weapons are the same, though. Some are clearly a greater threat, not because they're more evil necessarily, but because they're more unstable. And the UK, I would say, is a authoritarian country, a failed state in a lot of ways that's got rioting in the streets. It's clearly in a very steep downward trajectory. Why should we sit back and allow, like, the UK to have nuclear weapons? It actually gets much better than that. The UK has nuclear warheads. They're their own nuclear warheads. But the only way they can launch them is using U.S. delivery systems.

And so it's not just that they have them. It's that actually would help them to have a viable, you know, quote-unquote nuclear deterrent. So it's a, it's, it's, that one's actually in our core. squarely. And we just recently transferred or began transferring some nuclear warheads onto UK soil. It was something we used to do. And then we removed them and now we brought them back. Why would we do that in a country that's collapsing that will not be there in current form in 20 years? That seems very reckless. I mean, when the Soviet Union collapsed in 91, they moved nuclear warheads out of a bunch of different satellite states, including Ukraine.

Ukraine and Belarus and Kazakhstan. Right. And when South Africa, you know, ended apartheid in 1994, they moved the nuclear weapons out. So, but we're moving nuclear weapons into an increasingly volatile country. And we actually have, so it's, we, of course, have our own nuclear weapons. And then we have on our territory as well as in these submarines. Marines that travel all around the planet. And we also have nuclear warheads in five other Europe, now six, because it's clear we brought

some back to the United Kingdom. We have them in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and Turkey. To me... Do you have any in Romania? Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge. to me, if you look at a globe and you look at how small Europe is, nuclear weapons in Europe are just about the craziest thing that you could be doing. Then they're all aimed at Russia.

They are, yeah, aimed. Many of them would need kind of bombers planes to be delivered. I meant figuratively aimed. They're there to deter Russia. They're there to deter Russia. I mean, what a country like Belgium is doing with nuclear weapons because really all you would need is like Belgium is so small. You'd need like 10 nuclear warheads to destroy all of Belgium.

So there's never Belgium ever again. You know, it just, it's real insanity. Well, Belgium can't even settle its own ethnic disputes internally. Yeah. Yeah. So, wow, this, it doesn't seem like we're moving in the right direction. We're not moving in the right direction, although there are some developments in the international scene. So let me just make this case for the U.S. just to underscore this point that the U.S. has a lot to gain from this.

So in 2007, Kishinger, Schultz, Perry, Nunn, they write this article. They say the U.S. should be leading the world towards the world free. of nuclear weapons. The U.S. has a lot to gain from this. And then it was, I think that whole, in 2010, there was actually a review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that actually had come up with a kind of action plan

that was very promising. It was a 13 steps towards a world free of nuclear weapons kind of action plan with very specific, both a kind of set of goals and timelines and so on. And then by 2015, all of that had collapsed. And it's a large part because of what happened in Ukraine in 2014. Now we start to see this, you know, distrust between the United States and Russia, it's again, it's no longer, you know, maybe we're working together to rid the world of the threat, which was really the goal of both Reagan and Gorbachev. Instead, now we're adversaries again. And now, in some sense, the international community is sort of locked in

on kind of living in a world which could end at any point. And it was really a group, a large group of states. This was an effort that was beginning right around that time that focused on what people referred to as humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. So this is again going back to what have nuclear weapons done to people in Hiroshima, in Nagasaki, what have they done through these nuclear so-called nuclear testing programs to 2,000 explosions around the planet? And what is the research, the kind of stuff that I've been

describing, nuclear winter, ozone layer destruction, so on, that tells us about what is at stake in the world with nuclear weapons? So these states started negotiating eventually. in agreement, which is called the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, that was negotiated in 2017, and it's an international treaty that entered into force in 2021, and that currently has 73 states parties, and another 25 signatories. So in an international agreement, there's sort of two levels. One is a signatory, a head of state, or someone like a foreign minister, signs. And that signals the country is sort of ready to, you know, commit to these things in principle. And then the ratification follows often through national legislative bodies, whatever, the rules. of a particular country are, and after ratification, the country is actually committed to

everything outlined in the agreement. So the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons or TPNW basically arose now almost, you know, 10 years ago and has been active since entering into force in 2021. And the goals of this treaty are quite simply to prohibit any and all activities. is having to do with nuclear weapons. And the idea here is that the countries that are part of it, so clearly none of the nuclear armed states are part of it, and I would say not yet. But the idea here is that because of things like nuclear winter,

because of things like radiation that spreads all around the planet, these countries are saying that, you know, your nuclear arsenals are not just the, threat to your enemies or to your own populations, they're actually a threat to all of us as well. And we want a say in the fact that you currently hold the ability to destroy the world as we know it. I bet they do want to say, but they're not getting one because nobody cares. So if you're North Korea, it's like, why do we care what you think? If you're the United States, why do we care what you think? I mean, it does seem like the way that states deal with each other

encourages everybody to get a nuclear weapon. We don't boss North Korea around anymore because they have nuclear weapons. We just killed a bunch of people, including civilians, in Tehran, and there's nothing they can do about it because they don't have nuclear weapons. So those are law of the jungle rules,

which I object to as a Christian, but they seem in force. Like, I don't know what you do about that. So I think the idea that, I think to me, it is nuclear deterrence that is the problem in and of itself. Because if we're going to continue to claim that we have nuclear weapons because they keep us safe, then absolutely everything you just said follows from that, right? Then every country that can should acquire nuclear weapons for itself to keep itself safe.

That is, of course, preposterous. I totally agree, but I would flip it around. I mean, by the way, I just wanted to say, I'm arguing with you because I don't think any of this will work, but I share your views on the goals. I mean, I think the weapons are evil. I think they're actually probably inspired by supernatural forces. That's my view. And I think they've wrecked the world already. However, I just know the way people are.

And I don't think that people have nuclear weapons in order to secure their own safety. I think they have nuclear weapons to ensure their own power. I have at times described it as a license to be bad. Well, of course. It's a do every, what are you going to do about it? I got nuclear weapons. Right. I mean, I think from my perspective, kind of looking through the history, it's been actually

really interesting to study. You mentioned the doomsday clock. So let me just say something for a minute or two about that for people who don't know. So the doomsday clock is something, the bulletin of the atomic. scientists, which was founded by the likes of Einstein and Oppenheimer, so on, who were very worried about the threat of nuclear weapons in the mid-1940s. They founded this organization. In 1947, they were publishing their first, like, issue of the bulletin. And they asked an artist, Mardel Langdorf, Langsdorf or something, to draw a cover.

And she just, she drew a cover with a clock with the time showing seven minutes to midnight because she thought we were sort of, you know, that was a kind of good representation of how dangerous things were with midnight representing this sort of nuclear Armageddon end of the world type of scenario. And over time, the clock sort of became something that they would annually sort of adjust and became a kind of indicator of where we are in terms of the dangers. Also, over time, they added other existential threats to their considerations of the time of the clock. Currently, the clock is 89 seconds to midnight. And we can totally talk about, oh, it's this, you know, like, how do you make sense of these numbers and so on? I don't really

see them as, I don't see them literally as, oh, it's 89 seconds to midnight and that somehow means something. I see them as relative numbers. So are we, for example, one way you can think about it is at the beginning versus at the end of a presidency, right? Right? Is the doomsday clock further or closer to midnight? And I did this little analysis. Since 1947, we've had 14 presidents. Interestingly, seven Republicans and seven Democrats. And very interestingly, only under five presidents, because the clock actually moved away from midnight. And those five were four Republicans, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush senior, and only one Democrat, you can probably guess, John F. Kennedy. Those are the ones. He paid for it. Yeah.

And so under Republican administrations, there has been a move, a cumulative move away from midnight of something like 19 minutes and 10 seconds over time. The farthest we've ever been from midnight was in 1991. It was 17 minutes to midnight. So we've really done a lot of damage since. And Democrats have actually brought the clock closer to midnight by actually, I got those numbers. Democrats, 19 minutes and 10 seconds, staggering 19 minutes and 10 seconds towards midnight. and Republicans 13 minutes and 39 seconds away from midnight. So on the whole, the Republicans have been much better than Democrats.

And I think we have to, I think for this country, first and foremost, the general public needs to be aware of what's at stake and needs to hold its leaders responsible. I think President Trump is probably since John F. Kennedy and then arguably Reagan as well, who was very committed to this after a certain point in his presidency. President Trump is the only one who has said things like, we have so many nuclear weapons, we could destroy the world with them. He has questioned our plans to modernize the nuclear arsenals. and spend actually a tremendous amount of money on them. So I think that the U.S. public... Can I ask you to suffer for a second? What would be the thinking behind, quote, modernizing the nuclear arsenal?

Oh, those are plans that have been set in place for more than 10 years. Those are plans that have been made under President Obama. So President Obama got up in Prague and talked about the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons in 2008. and then more or less turned around and made plans for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The logic is that our weapons are going to get too old and we need new ones. But the price tag is currently estimated up to $2 trillion, but given the overruns and all kinds of ways in which these types of programs can go over budget, But who knows?

We're literally talking about spending trillions of dollars to, you know, perfect the way of destroying the world. It is all insane. I mean, is anyone saying that our current nuclear arsenal just wouldn't work? I don't think that's, I think it's a, I think it's a plan, you know, over a decade or two of kind of replacement. I do think that they've in some sense consistently been updating, but this is a whole other, this is like a whole sort of new way of, you know, building them, making them. I mean, this is a lot of this is. Pay off to the defense contractors. Driven by the military industrial complex, no doubt about it. They, you know, this is a very important, you know, stream of income for them. The U.S. not only spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, we also spend more on nuclear weapons than all countries. They have them combined.

So I think here's my conclusion to everything that you've said. I mean, I agree with your goals vehemently. I think the, but I don't know how to achieve them. I'm skeptical of treaties because people ignore them or won't sign them or whatever. I do think the first step toward any change. begins with articulating the truth and stigmatizing, re-stigmatizing the use of nuclear weapons. Anyone who is even suggesting or thinking about or opening the possibility of using nuclear weapons is a threat to the world. And that's certainly worse than cigarette smoking or drunk

driving or any other crime that was heavily stigmatized in this country. Absolutely. And that person should be disinvited from every dinner party. And like, you should look at that person and scream criminal at him because that's what he is. And let's just start there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If I light a cigarette in an elevator, I am a criminal and I'm treated like one. Man, if you did that and someone caught you on video, like you'd lose your job, light a cigarette in an elevator. But if you get up at the Atlantic Council, you're like, we may need to use like, you know, low yield nuclear weapons on the battlefield in Ukraine or lob them into Russia to win the eastern provinces back. It's like, well, we'll debate it.

No, no, no. You're evil and you're a threat to the world. Like, maybe we just start there with social sanction. Absolutely. I think we also have to, in some sense, stigmatize the very idea that somehow nuclear weapons are a symbol of progress, of advancement, of, you know, success. I think, I really do think that the ability to destroy humanity should be seen as a symbol of shame. If fireballs are not progress, actually. No, I don't think so. They're a symbol of hell. Yeah, absolutely.

Pope Francis was actually a strong supporter of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. And he wrote, declared, stated more than once that the mere possession of nuclear weapons was immoral. In my mind, this is quite simply the, really the most important issue in the world. Because everything else is, you know, not going to get sold if we destroyed the world in the nuclear war. Most mistakes are fixable, this one, is it? Yeah, absolutely. And I, you know, I mentioned Jeffrey Sachs before as well. We were at the Vatican together last November.

And he said something like, we can fix all these other things unless we blow ourselves up. And that's quite simply what we're facing. No, I totally agree. And without the general public really waking up to the realities of what we're facing, people were very engaged in the 1960s. Some of that general public engagement was really key to Kennedy actually getting the atmospheric test ban treaty passed because it needed to be ratified by the Senate. And the senators were absolutely not interested in passing this.

He just, he galvanized the general public. public. He went on a kind of two-month tour, speaking to people about the issue. And by the time the Senate voted, it was an 81 to 18 senator vote. I mean, it was an absolute wipeout. Well, again, I would refer you to the end of that story. Yeah. And he was replaced by maybe the worst president in American history who embraced not just the Vietnam War, but nuclear proliferation. Yeah. Yeah. Professor, I really appreciate this. I hope every member of the U.S. Senate sees it, and I hope you keep trying to stigmatize the most obvious evil I can think of, which is nuclear war.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We've got a new website we hope you will visit. It's called new commission now.com, and it refers to a new 9-11 commission. So we spent months putting together our 9-11 documentary series. And if there's one thing we learned, it's that, in fact, there was foreknowledge of the attacks.

People knew. The American public deserves to know. We're shocked, actually, to learn that, to have that confirmed, but it's true. The evidence is overwhelming. The CIA, for example, knew the hijackers were here in the United States. They knew they were planning an act of terror. In his passport is a visa to go to the United States of America. A foreign national was caught celebrating as the World Trade Center fell and later said he was in New York, quote, to document the event.

How did you know there would be an event to document in the first place? Because he had foreknowledge. And maybe most amazingly, somebody, an unknown investor, shorted American Airlines and United Airlines, the companies whose planes the attackers used on 9-11, as well as the banks that were inside the Twin Towers just before the attacks. They made money on the 9-11 attacks because they knew they were coming. Who did that? You have to look at the evidence. The U.S. government learned the name of that investor, but never released it. Maybe there's an instant explanation for all this, but there isn't, actually.

And by the way, it doesn't matter whether there is or not. The public deserves to know what the hell that was. How did people know ahead of time? Oh, I was no one ever punished for it. 9-11 commission, the original one, was a fraud. It was fake. its conclusions were written before the investigation. That's true, and it's outrageous.

This country needs a new 9-11 commission, one that actually tells the truth that tries to get to the bottom of the story. We can't just move on like nothing happened. 9-11 commission is a couple. Something did happen. We need to force a new investigation into 9-11 almost 25 years later. Sorry, justice demands it. And if you want that, go to new case.

commission now.com to add your name to our petition. We're not getting paid for this or doing this because we really mean it. New commission now.com.