Novelist Elliot Ackerman and retired Admiral James Stavridis — the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander — join the Chuck Toddcast to discuss their new novel 2084 and to deliver some deeply uncomfortable warnings about where war, technology, and great-power competition are actually headed. The duo, whose previous collaboration 2034 imagined a U.S.-China war, are quick to clarify that their work isn't predictive fiction — it's cautionary fiction, written from the conviction that major disasters almost always stem from a failure of imagination, and that the only way to prevent the worst-case scenarios is to seriously imagine them first. Ackerman and Stavridis argue that war has fundamentally changed, that superpowers are now uniquely vulnerable to asymmetric warfare, and that victors are made or unmade by their willingness to adapt to new technologies — pointing to the Ukraine war as a real-time revolution in drone combat and AI-driven battlefield decision-making. They raise the hardest moral question facing modern militaries: do you always need a human in the loop of the kill chain, and if not, who is morally responsible when something goes wrong? Different countries are answering that question in different ways, with profoundly different ethical and strategic consequences.
The conversation broadens into the deeper structural concerns animating 2084. Ackerman and Stavridis warn that one of the gravest threats to the international order is the rise of corporations whose power is beginning to rival that of nation-states — and they argue the defining feature of a nation-state has always been its monopoly on violence, meaning governments will eventually be forced to ensure corporations can't apply violence at scale (a fight that has already begun in subtle ways). They flag Trump's recent summit with Xi Jinping as a massive win for China, with Xi clearly presenting himself as the senior partner while Trump walked away with very little — and the meeting was particularly catastrophic for Taiwan, whose strategic standing has now been visibly weakened. The authors discuss whether democracy will remain the defining feature of America going forward, whether the country can overcome its current internal divisions, and how human patterns of warfare repeat themselves across centuries even as the technology evolves. They make the case that the 1983 film War Games was prescient and overdue for a reboot, that military action against Cuba would be nothing like Venezuela — politically much tougher given the engaged Cuban-American community in Florida, and economically far more expensive on the reconstruction side — and that Venezuela itself has the natural resources to one day become "the Dubai of the Caribbean" if its politics ever stabilize. Their bottom-line warning is the one most worth sitting with: the war between the United States and China is the one we all hope to avoid, and the only way to make sure it never happens is to take seriously the possibility that it could.
Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order.
Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life!
Timeline:
(Timestamps may vary based on advertisements)
00:00 Elliot Ackerman & Admiral James Stavridis join the Chuck ToddCast
01:00 2084 is not predictive fiction, it’s cautionary fiction
02:00 Major disasters come from a failure of imagination
03:15 Planned the arc of multiple books in advance
04:30 You can’t be too dystopian or too pollyannish
05:30 War has changed and superpowers are vulnerable to asymmetric war
06:15 Victors are made by adapting to new technologies
06:45 Ukraine war has revolutionized fighting with drones and AI
07:30 War is terrible and drones risk “gamifying” it
09:00 Questions surround whether humans must be involved in “kill chain”
10:45 Always having a human in the loop may not always be best option
11:45 AI tools have moral questions that countries answer differently
13:00 The risk of corporations being more powerful than nation states
14:15 Nation states will ensure that corporations can’t apply violence at scale
15:15 Defining feature of a nation state is a monopoly on violence
18:00 Book predicts that Greenland will be growing wine due to climate change
18:30 War between U.S. and China is the one we all hope to avoid
19:00 Trump’s summit with Xi was a massive with for Xi and China
19:30 Xi seemed like the senior partner, Trump got very little\
20:15 The summit was terrible for Taiwan
21:30 2034 started with the thesis of the U.S.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This episode of the Chuck Toodcast is brought to you
by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, artisonal pastries, and
fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty
five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wildgrain
uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow
(00:22):
fermentation process that can be a lot easier on your belly,
little gut health there right, and richer in nutrients antioxidants.
There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The Wild Grain
boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box,
they have a gluten free box, a vegan box, and
a new protein box. I will tell you I have
(00:42):
done the gluten free box. I have done it a
second time. I have also used the code, the todcast code.
If you use the promo code Toodcast at checkout, you
get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as a
gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It is
hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic.
They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this.
(01:06):
There is nothing like having an artesion bakery in your freezer.
Right now, Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off
your first box plus free croissants for life. Come on
when you go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to
start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first
box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain
(01:26):
dot com slash podcast, or simply use the promo code
podcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace,
so use that code. Sometimes when you're trying to figure
out the best way to talk about political reform, writing
fiction can be the way to get people to sort
(01:50):
of broaden how they think and realize that actually, this
interesting fictional piece of work is actually trying when it
comes to using fiction to teach. My friend, Jim Staviriti's
retired admiral former NATO Supreme Ally Commander, has been at
the forefront of this and with his writing partner in
(02:14):
this one, Elliott Ackerman, they have a sequel now. They
wrote sort of a futuristic, realistic, futuristic, semi dystopian view
of where the world could be in twenty thirty four.
This is their sequel, twenty eighty four. Almostaviti's good to
see you, sir.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Good to see you, sir.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
And I think, as you said in the run up there,
this is not predictive fiction, let's hope not.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
This is cautionary fiction. The idea is.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
To engage the reader to understand how difficult the future
could be while we still have time to reverse engineer
it and avoid it.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Ellie, your motivation for getting involved with this, and tell
me how you got got in with the Admiral.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
Well, I think you know, Jim touchdown, I think you know.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
We believe that if you look at the great challenges
facing humanity in the twenty first century, which this series
of books addresses, whether it's you know, twenty thirty four,
which is pure level war, you know, twenty fifty four
was about artificial intelligence and domestic politics in the United States,
and that twenty eighty four deals with a climate crisis.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
And really the future of war.
Speaker 5 (03:29):
It's this idea that if we can imagine these worst
case outcomes, that's actually the first step in avoiding them.
And if you look at the great national security failures
that our country has faced over the last I don't know,
you know, fifty to one hundred years, you know, So
everything from Pearl Harbor to nine to eleven to the pandemic,
they've all been failures of imagination. So if you want
(03:49):
to prevent those, you know, start imagining those outcomes so
that you can avoid them. And the second part of
your question, the way we hooked up is long story short.
We're both graduates the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, where.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
The Admiral was the dean.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
He and I knew each other as alumni, and just
sort of by way of coincidence, we had a shared
book editor at Penguin Press who played who played matchmaker
between the two of us. So and I would say
also our writing duo is really, in some ways of
writing trio because we've had the same editor for all
of these books, Scott Moyers, who's.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
Been a great steward of this series.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
That I think is the hardest part and co authoring
I've done it is agreeing on a style. Nobody writes
the same, you can certainly you know. And how difficult
was that at first? And or was it pretty easy
the whole time? Or is that the work of the editor.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
We divided and conquered if you will.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
I kind of developed this strategic remit this idea putting
these three novels together.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
And then is was this one?
Speaker 1 (04:55):
By the way, let me pot was this like, were
you like George Lucas here you outlined the entire arc, Yes,
and you just knew, okay, we're going to do this
one is book one, this one is book two, and.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
This is the three Okay, absolutely, And so fortunately my
editor said, eh, Stevrid is here a great guy. You've
never written a novel. Why do you think you know
how to write fiction? And oh, by the way, I
had this brilliant young novelist, Elliott Ackerban.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
He had no idea.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I knew Elliott, and I said, oh, Elliott ackerban Man,
I'd love to learn how to write fiction from him.
So that's kind of how it got going to answer
the question style wise, if I'm the strategic creator of
the art and detailed outline, guy Elliott is the one
who has his fingers on the keyboard kind of writing
(05:46):
that beautiful prose.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
But then it's very shared.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Then it just goes back and forth and back and
forth until we're both happy with the final product.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
So I followed quite a few what I would call
economic optimist who call themselves futurists, And one of their
big complaints about fiction and about writing about the future
and these sort of is that we all are more
dystopian than what the reality is. Do you accept that premise?
Speaker 2 (06:17):
I do.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
And if you think of Malthusian predictions about the population
is going to hit a point where the planet can't
support it, none of that is coming true. It's kind
of the opposite. Actually, assume nations are going to be
competing for immigrants.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
I think.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
And at the end of the day, yeah, you can't
be too dystopian, nor should you be so pollyannish.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
And so the idea is to.
Speaker 3 (06:46):
Frame these challenges in a way that strikes a reader,
is realistic and sort of puts pressure on solving the problem.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Why you can still do it.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
So I want to talk about future of war because
I feel like wars, the war has changed and we
haven't realized it yet. When I say we, I'm talking
about the United States. I think we know it. I
think are certainly folks that the Pentagon are aware of it.
But I think it's dramatic. I mean, we're already seeing it.
(07:20):
I mean, what great power is it vulnerable to asymmetric
warfare at the moment.
Speaker 5 (07:27):
Well, I think if you look at that, I mean,
the history of war, right is a history of you know,
technology is changing, one side having the upper hand, you know,
whether that's you all the way back to you know,
Alexander the Great and the Sarissa, which is basically just
a very long spear that he used to conquer all
of the known world to you know, the United States
and naval warfare and the fact that we were the
first to sort of understand the premiacy of the aircraft carrier.
(07:51):
So there's constantly these you know, cycles of technology and
war changing, and the victor is really who can adapt
the most quickly. And I think what we're doing in
these books is we're trying to pose those questions.
Speaker 4 (08:03):
You know, how is war changing? You know, how can you.
Speaker 5 (08:05):
Be like Gretzki and you're not going to where the
puck is or go to where the puck is going?
And you know, that's one of the inspirations behind this
series of books is to try to get people to
imagine what the future is going.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Well, let me add one thought to that, Chuck, your point,
we're watching war change in front of US, and we're having.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
All these particularly Russian.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I think it really we're going to look back at.
Ukraine is very pivotal in the art that Elliott just described.
But I want to make a point using that war
in Ukraine. Sure, it's drones, it's artificial intelligence, it's high
tech materials, it's all that very advanced starship troopers kind
of thing. The war in Ukraine is also World War One.
(08:50):
It's all quiet on the Western Front. It's blood, guts, trenches,
artillery tanks. Yeah, it's changing, but there's a certain terrible
brutality to war that I don't think is changing. We
need to be careful, we don't kind of gameplay our
world that thinking these are all videos. Somehow war is
(09:13):
still terrible, and that's what we try to imagine in
these books.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Well, I appreciate that you're doing that, and I guess
and Elliott address you, Gohda and addressed this question. I mean,
because in some ways the books are dealing with this
is what happens when it feels as if you don't
have to sacrifice a human being to conduct a war.
Speaker 4 (09:36):
Yeah, you know, I think like fundamentally war is a
human activity, right, because it is you know, it is
a it is a political act, right, I mean Klauswitz said, right, politics,
war is politics by other means.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
So well, war. I heard somebody say something the other
day that, I, you know, war means you're terrible at diplomacy.
That's another way to put it, and I would agree
with that too.
Speaker 5 (09:59):
So you know, you get you a nation gets to
the point where it is trying to inflict its will
on another nation. So it is always ultimately human beings
trying to inflict their will upon one another. Now there's
you know, layers of technology, you know, so we go
back to the days of Alexander that was literally at
the point of one human being, you know, doing it
with a spear face to face. I mean, now we
(10:19):
obviously have over the horizon weapons but do this, but
it's always the human influence in that chain, no matter
how exquisite or remote the technologies get. But we're also
you know, there's very interesting world questions going on right
now and some of these new defense technologies, I mean
questions about where human should exist in the kill chain.
You know, should we have autonomous weapons that don't require
(10:43):
being human beings to give the final authority to you know,
to take life. And these are all really live questions
right now, what.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Do you presume in your arc, Jim, I.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Want to jump on that kill chain question.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Yeah, that's what I'm curious about. This, to me is
something I fear. This should be like the Geneva conventions.
We should all agree on this around the globe, and
yet I don't think we will.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
I don't think we will.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
But I'm going to give you a counterintuitive, more controversial
view here, but I'll pose it to you in a
very personal way. Suppose your interac and you go to
collect water for your family because the pump pump isn't working.
So you get five or six huge containers, You go
(11:34):
to a pump, you fill it up with water.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Now you come back to your house.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
A predator is overhead, and a human in the kill
chain makes a decision that you're a terrorist based on
a variety of intel tips they've gotten. That human is tired,
that human is young and inexperienced twenty three year old
Air Force drone pilot, and that human in the kill
(12:04):
chain says.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
He's a terrorist.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
I'm going to kill him, And everything I just described
to you actually happened.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
This has happened. I was just going to say, you're
describing something that I've read about recently.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
You have in Afghanistan.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
And so at the end of the day, if that
predator is up there with a missile trying to decide
that Jim Stavritez is a terrorist or a good human being,
I'm not sure I want an exhausted twenty three year
old making that call. I might want that, AI, and
(12:36):
I think that's coming sooner than you might imagine. So,
as Elliott says, at this point, these really are interesting questions,
and I'm quite skeptical of people say, oh, I always
want that human in the loop.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
I'm not so sure.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Interesting, Kelly, you agree with that, I know you having.
Speaker 5 (12:56):
These systems, I think absolutely. I mean, I think a
lot of these systems are going to wind up evolving
into sort of dual use systems, so they will enhance
human judgment. I mean, one of the one of the
truisms that I'm jumping talk about, I can talk about
it in my own military experience is the experience of
being in combat is being completely overwhelmed by information and
decisions and you're exhausted and everything coming at you. So
(13:17):
any tools you can provide a decision maker on the
battlefield to be able to make clearer, safer decisions those
you know, those tools are net positive. But the implementation
of these tools, you know, pose definitely certain moral moral questions,
(13:37):
and different societies will come to different answers as to
how they want to employ these tools in the future.
But I definitely think these technologies can also be a
great force of good.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
Yeah, this is something we explore in twenty eighty four.
Not only at the tactical level, Chuck, but this also
has to occur at this strategic level. When you're making
that decision about whether to go to war or not,
AI can look at every conflict that's ever unfolded in
the history of mankind in a nano second and make
(14:09):
a probably better informed decision than Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Is making right now about going to war in Iran.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Who should Here's so, I'm going to confess to a
dystopian show that I found myself more consumed with than
I ever imagined I would be. And it was called Fallout.
And I have no idea whether either one of you
have seen it. Elliott, you might be familiar with it familarly. Yeah, Yeah,
And the premise of fallout is in some ways, basically
(14:39):
the corporations are more powerful than the nation states, right
and the people behind. And so you sit there and
you're like, well, that's not like you know, it's science fiction,
but it's not totally crazy. Right. We already now have
companies that are more valuable than a bigger in some
ways GDP wise than many a country. You know, how
(15:03):
concerned should we be and how do you deal with
this in your dystopian future of corporate You know, the
because this technology is not being developed by the government,
it's being developed by the private sector. Who's in charge
of it, who owns it? And therefore, you know, do
you have nation states that are essentially have to bow
(15:23):
at the altar of a corporation?
Speaker 3 (15:25):
In twenty eighty four in the book, we kind of
explore that with a very large international finance firm that
has a great.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Deal of influence and power.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
And I think that's quite realistic, and that real static
power is dialing somewhat away from nation states and somewhat
toward private entities call them corporations, call them finance firms,
call them big conglomerates. But I think nations are going
(15:59):
to continue to hold firmly to two things, one of
which is the ability to apply extreme violence at large scale.
And I think nation states are going to ensure that
these corporations don't get that level of power. And that's
a longer conversation how that could occur. But then secondly,
(16:19):
I think nation states are going to maintain control of
currencies of actual dollars and yu one in every Euro's.
Nation states are not going to surrender those and that's
why cryptocurrency I think has a kind of a shelf.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Life that's going to diminish.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
I think nation states are going to remain prevalent in
those two areas.
Speaker 5 (16:46):
I think, just to Gem's point, I mean sometimes we
lose sight of that. It's sort of because it's the
water that we swim in, but that, you know, one
of the defining qualities of a nation states that it
holds a monopoly on.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
Violence, Okay, until it doesn't.
Speaker 5 (16:59):
Right well, that I mean that you as as a
nation state, that's what defines you. You know, if I
go out and you know, kill another citizen, I get
in a lot of trouble for it.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
If we as nations we are going to war and
we're going to kill. We are allowed to do that.
We have a monopoly on violence.
Speaker 5 (17:13):
That's sort of one of the when the nation, when
the modern nation state was created, one of the powers
that was given to it was this monopoly on violence.
That we're allowed to use violence as a nation state,
and that's seen as legitimate. And so I think just this,
that's the Gem's point, you know, do will you see
the influences we've seen of corporations over nations. Yes, absolutely,
And as technology becomes more powerful, you know, the technology
(17:37):
that is private will have so over a nation state,
but the nation state remains the entity that holds a
monopoly on violence.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Let me cross those two streams, which is say, as
an example in history, British East India Company, Dutch East
India Company, these were mercantile entities that did raise an
effect private military forces both at sea and ashore. Ultimately,
in both cases the nation state suppressed that and found
(18:08):
can't be two purveyors of violence in this same ecosystem.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
I think that's going to hold true for a while.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Let's talk about you know, when you first came out
with twenty thirty four, it felt far away. We are
now eight years away in theory the next president will
be president when your fictional twenty thirty four becomes not fictional.
Now that we're closer, what do you think you're getting right?
And what do you what are you like thinks that
(18:39):
the outcome is still to be determined.
Speaker 5 (18:43):
I think, you know, I think for you know, each
of the books is always a little bit different, and
again there works a speculations.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
So I don't think ours no has ever been to you.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
Know, necessarily call it right, but to say, listen, if
you know, let's not get these things. Let's not get
these questions wrong, because we don't want the the futures
that we predict, and particularly in twenty thirty four in
the other books. But I think one of the things
has been a lot of fun in writing these books is,
you know, seeing the ideas that we're tinkering with and
experiment and experimenting when it start to sort of manifest themselves.
Speaker 4 (19:15):
So I think in.
Speaker 5 (19:16):
Twenty eighty four, I'll say, you know, we've been working
on this one for a while. So I like to
say to Jim, you know, we were talking about Greenland
before it was cool, so sort of you know, fun
as we were in the later stages of this book
and to see you know, Greenland and the future of
sort of these these northern provinces, you know, is very
much up for grabs. And in twenty eighty four, I mean,
(19:37):
I don't think this is a real spoiler, but you know,
we talked about the lush, verdant wine land that exists
up in Greenland and that they're making some of the
best chardonnays around in twenty eighty four because of climate change.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Yeah, let me let me pick up on twenty thirty four.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
I think we have correct the ongoing tension between the
US and China. The fundamentals are bad between these two countries.
I think we get right a miscalculation that becomes a
spark to ignite the war that we hope we can
still avoid. One thing I think we got wrong in
(20:15):
twenty thirty four, which is not that far away, but
we did not bring artificial intelligence into it. It doesn't
play a role I think that we miss By twenty
thirty four, I think AI is going to be deeply
embedded in all aspects of war.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
This episode of the Chuck Toodcast is brought to you
by Soul. So if you love that end of the
day unwined, but hate the hangover. Soul's out of Office
is for you. These sparkling THHC drinks and gummies give
you the same relaxed social feeling without the alcohol, without
the calories, and without the crash. Soul is a wellness
brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy.
(20:56):
Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THCH and CBD products
designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. They're
best selling out of office gummies were designed to provide
a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood and enhance creativity
and relaxation. With five different strengths, you can tailor the
dose to fit your vibe. So also has a variety
(21:18):
of products specifically designed to help you get a better
night's rest, including their top selling Sleepy Gummies, a fan
favorite for deep restorus sleep. Look. I have made no
secret I am a believer in this stuff, in cannabis
and hemp derived I do not partake in alcohol. For
the most part, I think this stuff is a lot
safer than alcohol, a lot less addictive than alcohol. And yes,
(21:39):
I have to say I love these drinks. It is
the glass of wine and you know after work, that's
what this is. So no hangover and no excess calories
like this. I'm a big fan, So bring on the
good vibes and treat yourself to Sold today. Right now,
Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order.
Go to getsold dot com and use the word toodcast.
(22:00):
That's getsold dot com promo code podcast for thirty percent off.
And yes, I too, am a customer. Well, let's talk
about the real world here in this most recent China
trip that he had. You tell me, I can't remember
last time a president was so hat in hand on
(22:23):
a trip to China.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
I couldn't agree with you more. I think President She
had a great summit.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Oh, yes he was. You know it's domble. I mean,
let's be honest.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah, the title of the old Tom wolfbook A Man
in Full that's President She. He was definitely looked like,
acted like mature the senior partner.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
That's how it felt to me. I was. I was
sorry to see that.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
I think President Trump conversely had a pretty bad ad
summit in the regard of how it played globally. Also,
very few deliverables. I think President Trump wanted to sell
five hundred and six hundred seven hundred Boeing jets, huge
trade deals on soybeans, beef.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
Haven't seen that.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
Maybe it'll still emerge, but I don't see it as
a very good summit for President Trump.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
And I'll tell you who. It was a terrible summit
for terrible for Taiwan.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Really brought the Taiwan question, not in a good way,
onto the agenda.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
So I.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Came away from the summit thinking, no, not our finest.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Hour, Elliott, how much?
Speaker 3 (23:43):
What it?
Speaker 1 (23:44):
So? I participated in something recently and I shared it
with my audience. The Atolls Society did a sort of
a war game for politics, a wargame for a democracy,
and there were three teams Nationalists, Capitalists, institutionalists, and and
I was curious because I was thinking, if I were
in your shoes, I'd probably want to participate in quite
(24:06):
a few sort of of of war games to use
it or simulations like this? Did you do that? Is
that helpful? And what simulations were in your head as
you were as you were writing this with Jim?
Speaker 5 (24:22):
I think, you know the process of writing this together
is often but you know we both read very deeply,
you know, we share a lot of books, we share
a lot of articles, and I think in that, you know,
in that, we start plotting out, you know, the direction
these books are going to take. And then once you
start telling the story, of the story itself starts posing
immediate questions to you. Like for example, when we set
(24:44):
out to write twenty thirty four, I think the initial
premise was, you know, what would it look like if
the US.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
And China went to war? And sort of almost like
guns of all.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
You started from that, here's the thesis if they go
to war? What does that look like? Right? And what's
the new work.
Speaker 5 (24:57):
Backwards it's going to be you know, like okay, maybe
it's feels like a Gulf of Tonkin type incidents, So
what would that look like? And so you're asking yourself
these questions, there are immediate other questions that come down
and so it probably wouldn't surprise you that very quickly,
like okay, the US you know, suffers a surprising loss,
and then we're like, well what about nuclear weapons? Like
of course, and like that question gets posed to us
(25:18):
in twenty thirty four and it comes up in that novel.
But it wasn't a question that we set out with right.
It's a question that just becomes obvious as you start
going down this sequential path of what will happen I
mean and other questions, because you know, you brought up
the politics. You know, a question was, you know, in
twenty thirty four, who's president?
Speaker 4 (25:34):
You know?
Speaker 5 (25:35):
And in twenty thirty four we have an independent as president.
The first endeprint in sense George Washington and twenty fifty
four we imagine domestic politics in the US that the
parties have basically dissolved, and so you have a sort
of extremist party called the Truthers against a more kind
of rivncious.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
Independent party that we call the Dreamers.
Speaker 5 (25:59):
And by the time you get to four some of
the political contours of the US have melted away. So
you know, Florida has broken off and become an independent republic,
and some of the Pacific states are also broken away
from the United States. Now, are we predicting that's what's
going to happen? Neecessarily, But we're engaging in these types
of thought experiment. That's because what's so exciting about it
is when you do that, it leads you inevitably to
(26:21):
these follow on questions. About what direction you know, not
only we're going with our domestic politics, but also where
we're going with geopolitics and military questions. I think get
put on the table, Jim.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
You're really good at sort of identifying these forks in
the road. So walk me through the next five years
of the forks in the road we're going to have
that you think are going to make decisions about whether
your novels look more accurate or less accurate.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
The biggest fork in the road is actually not in
that great geopolitical, turbulent world. Biggest fork in the road
over the next five years is right here in the
United States of America. And there are two distinct forks
in the road. One is will democracy continue to be
(27:12):
our central organizing political feature, democracy being defined as the
legitimate will of the majority of the people making decisions.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
I think that's a question.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
The second internal fork in the road, and even more important,
is can we pull together? Can we overcome the big
divisions in the nation. I think both of those are
questions that Ellie and I interrogated in the middle book
in this trilogy twenty fifty four, and I think we're
(27:45):
going to learn a lot about them over the next
five years, it's going to be a very exciting time
for brilliant political analysts like Chuck Dodd to help us
understand the answers to those two forks.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
You know, sometimes, Elliott, though, I worry that we're we're
we can be constrained by history, and it goes back
to that failure of imagination. So how do how do
you both ground the work in history so that there's
there's a logic for readers like me versus the which
is how we began our conversation. This failure of imagination
(28:21):
issue that I have a friend of mine who says
this constantly about the Trump era failure of imagination. He goes,
that's the number one thing he talks about all the
time when it comes to how why opponents keep keep
whiffing on Trump.
Speaker 5 (28:38):
You know, I think it's sort of it it's it's
it's sort of that, you know, that classic idea that
you have to hold to contradictory I had thoughts in
your mind at the same time and not go crazy.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
And what I mean by that is.
Speaker 5 (28:53):
We can't be trapped by history, but we have to
look to history to understand how human beings behave in
a whole host of situations, and I've written a lot
about war over my career, and I think one of
the things that's interesting about writing on war is that
it's a singular human activity that we have always engaged in,
and you can you can see how patterns repeat. But
(29:15):
at the same time, you know, the only thing you
can truly hang your head on is that everything will change,
and this idea that you know every you know that
that everything must change so that everything can stay the same.
So I think we're we're always looking at, you know,
human motivation, understanding the way human beings consistently behave in war,
in politics, while overlaying on that all of the things
(29:36):
we know are going to be different, fundamentally different away
humanity has never experienced before, everything from artificial intelligence to
breakthroughs that are going on right now in the enhancement
of you know, biology, you know, the the enhancements that
we're seeing and the changes in climate in warfare. So
trying to take that sort of deeply rooted understanding of
(29:57):
history and human behavior and merge it with new, unprecedented
technologies and rightly turning that into you know, a story
that people want to read that's character driven. At the
center of all of these books are the characters, and
many of those characters have through lines that go from
(30:17):
twenty thirty four all the way to twenty eighty four,
both them individually and their children who appear in multiple books.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
What were your to both of you? What were some
Did you have any books that you read in the
past that attempted to do that served as pretty good
examples of what you were trying to do, or books
that you read to sort of help give you a
(30:44):
sense of, you know, how other authors have done this. Yes,
what was your inspiration?
Speaker 3 (30:50):
Very consciously, as we sort of mapped out the whole
project was Cold War fiction? And what I mean by
that is there were many brilliant books films in the
Cold War era that did help us imagine what the
terror and the horror of a global war would be like.
(31:11):
Think Doctor Strangelove, on the Beach by Neville Shoot, the
Bedford Incident, Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy, Sir John Hacket,
the Third World War. Those were very much in our
minds as cautionary fiction, and they succeeded. I think it
(31:32):
helped frighten the world that contributed to avoiding a nuclear confrontation.
I always say the Cold War is the most important
war we ever didn't fight, and it is also a
singular victory for the West for our ideals, very very important,
(31:53):
and I think part of that can be traced to
this idea of cautionary fiction. So there are a few
books on my mind. And final thought Elliott's wonderful point
about character. You know, you can write all the policy
books in the world about how awful it would be
if there were a nuclear holocaust event. Read on the
(32:14):
Beach by Neville shoot about Australia as the last country
left as a nuclear cloud descends to the south, knowing
they are all going to die, how do they spend
those final days? It's an extraordinary cautionary tale, deeply moving
novel that has always been.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Very much in my mind writing these books.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
And how would you answer that, ont.
Speaker 5 (32:38):
I mean, I agree, I mean all the books that
Jim mentioned have certainly been on our minds. I would
also add, you know, sort of in terms of the
scope of the trilogy. You know, books like you know
orson Scott, Cards Enders, Game Speaker for the Day, you know,
the works of Isaaca as an off foundation, and these
are not I mean, they're not really science fiction, although
(32:58):
by twenty eighty four sort of roving science fiction. But structurally,
you know, how do you tell a story over generations
so that you.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
There's a TV show on Netflix based on a book,
The Three Body Problem, which is also one of these.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Sort of that is a terrific trilogy, by the way.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
And I have so a friend of mine is a
huge advocate of it, and I keep he's been pushing
me to do that. But when you were talking to
both of you, I kept thinking, you know, one of
the movies that may have actually helped. We don't know
how much it helped, but I just think about the
movie War Games, Yeah, and how it did catch it
(33:39):
got it went so mainstream. I have no idea whether
I had an impact or not, but you kind of
hope it couldn't have hurt.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
Well, I think it's one worth dusting off.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
Given a well, I think it needs to be rebooted.
I cannot believe this is just I mean, in some
ways it was so ahead of its time. What happens
if a computer takes over our military arsenal Right? Like, like,
my god, that turned to be way too precious, Elliott,
you're about to say.
Speaker 5 (34:09):
I was just going to say, I'm a huge fan
of that that movie too, Chuck, and we have a
tic tac toe reference in the books that is an homage, total.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Homage, A fantastic look. I got a few minutes left, Jim,
you did Southern Command. I was speaking with somebody who's
very aware of sort of how the Cuban military works,
and I was reminded that the tourist industry is controlled
(34:41):
by the Cuban military, which is how they get their financing.
This isn't going to be Venezuela, is it.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
I don't think so. I think Team Trump thinks it
is going to be.
Speaker 1 (34:54):
They think it is.
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Yeah, but boy, I'd be cautious there. The people of
Cuba have no living memory of democracy. The people of
Cuba have a deeply embedded, hardcore military that's been trained
by Russia for decades. China has been a participant in it.
(35:18):
It's going to be a very different and tougher nut
to crack than Venezuela. And I hope we are wise
enough not to leap in with military power. Having said
all that, we say in the world of investing, the
foremost expensive words are this time is different and I
(35:41):
wouldn't rule out that this time is different for Cuba.
And the wild card in it is the Cuban American
community in South Florida, which you and I both know
pretty well. They could be potentially very engaged here and
I think Marco Rubio is the avatar for that.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
So tough one to call. But no, it's not going
to be as well.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
That's I mean, that's my look. We know what the
outcome is likely going to end up being, but this
isn't going to be Venezuela. And that's sort of what
I don't I think people have an expectation that this
is going to be They're going to snatch Raoul. You know,
It'll be like taking one of those ninety year old Nazis,
you know, and you know we get to frog march
them and everything folds. That doesn't feel like it's going
(36:25):
to be. Yeah, And what about the island itself. I
think the other thing I keep hearing is that, like
you know, sometimes you buy a house that needs to
be rebuilt, but it has a good foundation. I don't
know if there's a foundation. I think it's a I
think this is almost like an abandoned island. You got
to start from scratch when it comes to infrastructure and
(36:46):
things like that.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
I couldn't agree with you more. I think what is.
Speaker 3 (36:51):
Underestimated is the scope of the problem here. This is
not a fixer up or this is a demolition project,
and uh, you know it, it is not going to
be easy. I think Venezuela, you can make the argument
they have so many resources with the oil, the gas,
the gold, the rearers. Venezuela could be Dubai on the Caribbean.
(37:16):
Cuba not so much. And and it's going to be expensive,
hugely expensive. And if we walk in there and suddenly
we get rid of the regime and we have to
then construct a new Cuba could be wildly expensive. I'm
not sure we thought through to the far end of
(37:38):
the economics of it.
Speaker 1 (37:40):
And Elliott, since this is your you get into a
lot of writing. Is this what do you want to
do next? After this?
Speaker 3 (37:50):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (37:50):
I you know.
Speaker 5 (37:51):
I mean, both Jim and I have our own projects
that we do independently. So I have I have a
book that came out last summer called Sheep Dogs, which
is a thriller. It's kind of a heist novel, and
so I'm working on the sequel of that as well,
and so and that's set up as a be a
(38:12):
TV series over at Apple.
Speaker 4 (38:14):
So I'm working hard on.
Speaker 1 (38:15):
That and it's pretty good. Hit the series ready to
go before finishing the second novel. Huh. Yeah, that's a
great deal in that.
Speaker 5 (38:24):
And I know Jim's got his projects coming out that
I'm sure we'll talk about, but I will I will say.
You know, we've been working together on this since I
think twenty eighteen, and it's been it's been a lot
of fun. So handing in and publishing the last book,
at least for me, has been has been bittersweet.
Speaker 4 (38:40):
It's been a great ride.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
And I assume if somebody needs to read the first
two before they pick up twenty eighty four.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
Right, No, absolutely not, absolutely not. They all are very
independent of each other, but.
Speaker 1 (38:55):
You're rewarded a bit if you've read the other tes sure, sure, okay, okay.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
True for many trilogies.
Speaker 3 (39:02):
I am just finishing up a two volume work of
historical fiction, Chuck. First one came out last Fall, The
Restless Wave.
Speaker 1 (39:13):
It's a novel bring You're Back and You're going backwards?
Right it?
Speaker 3 (39:16):
Sort of with that, true, I am exactly and there
are many lessons from World War Two that feel very
very influential impression right now. And then the sequel to
that novel, second volume, think Wins of War War in Remembrance.
The second one is called The Turning Tide, and it
comes out in November, and those two I think have
(39:41):
some potential for future cinematics.
Speaker 2 (39:46):
We'll see there it is.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
Look at you, you're mister ip. You got a lot
of eyep sitting out there, my friend, so do you, well,
not as much as you, but it is a you
know how this world works these days, Elliott, you still
want to play in the independent arena in politics.
Speaker 4 (40:05):
I don't think. I don't think.
Speaker 5 (40:07):
I don't think right now, though I'm an avid watcher,
you know, and appreciate all the work that that you're
doing so as much.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
It's other people working, taking the work your dad did
and and what you were a part of and all
that stuff.
Speaker 3 (40:21):
And.
Speaker 4 (40:23):
Predicting global wars and predicting domestia.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
No, it is, but it's a bunch of patriots, so
you got to love that at the end of the day. Anyway. Congratulations,
I always learned something from you, Admiral.
Speaker 2 (40:36):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (40:36):
It's good to see Elliot. It's good to see you.
Speaker 4 (40:38):
It's been too long, all right, My friends
This episode of the Chuck Toodcast is brought to you
by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, artisonal pastries, and
fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty
five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wildgrain
uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow
(00:22):
fermentation process that can be a lot easier on your belly,
little gut health there right, and richer in nutrients antioxidants.
There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The Wild Grain
boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box,
they have a gluten free box, a vegan box, and
a new protein box. I will tell you I have
(00:42):
done the gluten free box. I have done it a
second time. I have also used the code, the todcast code.
If you use the promo code Toodcast at checkout, you
get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as a
gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It is
hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic.
They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this.
(01:06):
There is nothing like having an artesion bakery in your freezer.
Right now, Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off
your first box plus free croissants for life. Come on
when you go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to
start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first
box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain
(01:26):
dot com slash podcast, or simply use the promo code
podcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace,
so use that code. Sometimes when you're trying to figure
out the best way to talk about political reform, writing
fiction can be the way to get people to sort
(01:50):
of broaden how they think and realize that actually, this
interesting fictional piece of work is actually trying when it
comes to using fiction to teach. My friend, Jim Staviriti's
retired admiral former NATO Supreme Ally Commander, has been at
the forefront of this and with his writing partner in
(02:14):
this one, Elliott Ackerman, they have a sequel now. They
wrote sort of a futuristic, realistic, futuristic, semi dystopian view
of where the world could be in twenty thirty four.
This is their sequel, twenty eighty four. Almostaviti's good to
see you, sir.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Good to see you, sir.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
And I think, as you said in the run up there,
this is not predictive fiction, let's hope not.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
This is cautionary fiction. The idea is.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
To engage the reader to understand how difficult the future
could be while we still have time to reverse engineer
it and avoid it.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Ellie, your motivation for getting involved with this, and tell
me how you got got in with the Admiral.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
Well, I think you know, Jim touchdown, I think you know.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
We believe that if you look at the great challenges
facing humanity in the twenty first century, which this series
of books addresses, whether it's you know, twenty thirty four,
which is pure level war, you know, twenty fifty four
was about artificial intelligence and domestic politics in the United States,
and that twenty eighty four deals with a climate crisis.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
And really the future of war.
Speaker 5 (03:29):
It's this idea that if we can imagine these worst
case outcomes, that's actually the first step in avoiding them.
And if you look at the great national security failures
that our country has faced over the last I don't know,
you know, fifty to one hundred years, you know, So
everything from Pearl Harbor to nine to eleven to the pandemic,
they've all been failures of imagination. So if you want
(03:49):
to prevent those, you know, start imagining those outcomes so
that you can avoid them. And the second part of
your question, the way we hooked up is long story short.
We're both graduates the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, where.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
The Admiral was the dean.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
He and I knew each other as alumni, and just
sort of by way of coincidence, we had a shared
book editor at Penguin Press who played who played matchmaker
between the two of us. So and I would say
also our writing duo is really, in some ways of
writing trio because we've had the same editor for all
of these books, Scott Moyers, who's.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
Been a great steward of this series.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
That I think is the hardest part and co authoring
I've done it is agreeing on a style. Nobody writes
the same, you can certainly you know. And how difficult
was that at first? And or was it pretty easy
the whole time? Or is that the work of the editor.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
We divided and conquered if you will.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
I kind of developed this strategic remit this idea putting
these three novels together.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
And then is was this one?
Speaker 1 (04:55):
By the way, let me pot was this like, were
you like George Lucas here you outlined the entire arc, Yes,
and you just knew, okay, we're going to do this
one is book one, this one is book two, and.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
This is the three Okay, absolutely, And so fortunately my
editor said, eh, Stevrid is here a great guy. You've
never written a novel. Why do you think you know
how to write fiction? And oh, by the way, I
had this brilliant young novelist, Elliott Ackerban.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
He had no idea.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I knew Elliott, and I said, oh, Elliott ackerban Man,
I'd love to learn how to write fiction from him.
So that's kind of how it got going to answer
the question style wise, if I'm the strategic creator of
the art and detailed outline, guy Elliott is the one
who has his fingers on the keyboard kind of writing
(05:46):
that beautiful prose.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
But then it's very shared.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Then it just goes back and forth and back and
forth until we're both happy with the final product.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
So I followed quite a few what I would call
economic optimist who call themselves futurists, And one of their
big complaints about fiction and about writing about the future
and these sort of is that we all are more
dystopian than what the reality is. Do you accept that premise?
Speaker 2 (06:17):
I do.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
And if you think of Malthusian predictions about the population
is going to hit a point where the planet can't
support it, none of that is coming true. It's kind
of the opposite. Actually, assume nations are going to be
competing for immigrants.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
I think.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
And at the end of the day, yeah, you can't
be too dystopian, nor should you be so pollyannish.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
And so the idea is to.
Speaker 3 (06:46):
Frame these challenges in a way that strikes a reader,
is realistic and sort of puts pressure on solving the problem.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Why you can still do it.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
So I want to talk about future of war because
I feel like wars, the war has changed and we
haven't realized it yet. When I say we, I'm talking
about the United States. I think we know it. I
think are certainly folks that the Pentagon are aware of it.
But I think it's dramatic. I mean, we're already seeing it.
(07:20):
I mean, what great power is it vulnerable to asymmetric
warfare at the moment.
Speaker 5 (07:27):
Well, I think if you look at that, I mean,
the history of war, right is a history of you know,
technology is changing, one side having the upper hand, you know,
whether that's you all the way back to you know,
Alexander the Great and the Sarissa, which is basically just
a very long spear that he used to conquer all
of the known world to you know, the United States
and naval warfare and the fact that we were the
first to sort of understand the premiacy of the aircraft carrier.
(07:51):
So there's constantly these you know, cycles of technology and
war changing, and the victor is really who can adapt
the most quickly. And I think what we're doing in
these books is we're trying to pose those questions.
Speaker 4 (08:03):
You know, how is war changing? You know, how can you.
Speaker 5 (08:05):
Be like Gretzki and you're not going to where the
puck is or go to where the puck is going?
And you know, that's one of the inspirations behind this
series of books is to try to get people to
imagine what the future is going.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
Well, let me add one thought to that, Chuck, your point,
we're watching war change in front of US, and we're having.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
All these particularly Russian.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I think it really we're going to look back at.
Ukraine is very pivotal in the art that Elliott just described.
But I want to make a point using that war
in Ukraine. Sure, it's drones, it's artificial intelligence, it's high
tech materials, it's all that very advanced starship troopers kind
of thing. The war in Ukraine is also World War One.
(08:50):
It's all quiet on the Western Front. It's blood, guts, trenches,
artillery tanks. Yeah, it's changing, but there's a certain terrible
brutality to war that I don't think is changing. We
need to be careful, we don't kind of gameplay our
world that thinking these are all videos. Somehow war is
(09:13):
still terrible, and that's what we try to imagine in
these books.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Well, I appreciate that you're doing that, and I guess
and Elliott address you, Gohda and addressed this question. I mean,
because in some ways the books are dealing with this
is what happens when it feels as if you don't
have to sacrifice a human being to conduct a war.
Speaker 4 (09:36):
Yeah, you know, I think like fundamentally war is a
human activity, right, because it is you know, it is
a it is a political act, right, I mean Klauswitz said, right, politics,
war is politics by other means.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
So well, war. I heard somebody say something the other
day that, I, you know, war means you're terrible at diplomacy.
That's another way to put it, and I would agree
with that too.
Speaker 5 (09:59):
So you know, you get you a nation gets to
the point where it is trying to inflict its will
on another nation. So it is always ultimately human beings
trying to inflict their will upon one another. Now there's
you know, layers of technology, you know, so we go
back to the days of Alexander that was literally at
the point of one human being, you know, doing it
with a spear face to face. I mean, now we
(10:19):
obviously have over the horizon weapons but do this, but
it's always the human influence in that chain, no matter
how exquisite or remote the technologies get. But we're also
you know, there's very interesting world questions going on right
now and some of these new defense technologies, I mean
questions about where human should exist in the kill chain.
You know, should we have autonomous weapons that don't require
(10:43):
being human beings to give the final authority to you know,
to take life. And these are all really live questions
right now, what.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Do you presume in your arc, Jim, I.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Want to jump on that kill chain question.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Yeah, that's what I'm curious about. This, to me is
something I fear. This should be like the Geneva conventions.
We should all agree on this around the globe, and
yet I don't think we will.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
I don't think we will.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
But I'm going to give you a counterintuitive, more controversial
view here, but I'll pose it to you in a
very personal way. Suppose your interac and you go to
collect water for your family because the pump pump isn't working.
So you get five or six huge containers, You go
(11:34):
to a pump, you fill it up with water.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Now you come back to your house.
Speaker 3 (11:39):
A predator is overhead, and a human in the kill
chain makes a decision that you're a terrorist based on
a variety of intel tips they've gotten. That human is tired,
that human is young and inexperienced twenty three year old
Air Force drone pilot, and that human in the kill
(12:04):
chain says.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
He's a terrorist.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
I'm going to kill him, And everything I just described
to you actually happened.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
This has happened. I was just going to say, you're
describing something that I've read about recently.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
You have in Afghanistan.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
And so at the end of the day, if that
predator is up there with a missile trying to decide
that Jim Stavritez is a terrorist or a good human being,
I'm not sure I want an exhausted twenty three year
old making that call. I might want that, AI, and
(12:36):
I think that's coming sooner than you might imagine. So,
as Elliott says, at this point, these really are interesting questions,
and I'm quite skeptical of people say, oh, I always
want that human in the loop.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
I'm not so sure.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Interesting, Kelly, you agree with that, I know you having.
Speaker 5 (12:56):
These systems, I think absolutely. I mean, I think a
lot of these systems are going to wind up evolving
into sort of dual use systems, so they will enhance
human judgment. I mean, one of the one of the
truisms that I'm jumping talk about, I can talk about
it in my own military experience is the experience of
being in combat is being completely overwhelmed by information and
decisions and you're exhausted and everything coming at you. So
(13:17):
any tools you can provide a decision maker on the
battlefield to be able to make clearer, safer decisions those
you know, those tools are net positive. But the implementation
of these tools, you know, pose definitely certain moral moral questions,
(13:37):
and different societies will come to different answers as to
how they want to employ these tools in the future.
But I definitely think these technologies can also be a
great force of good.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
Yeah, this is something we explore in twenty eighty four.
Not only at the tactical level, Chuck, but this also
has to occur at this strategic level. When you're making
that decision about whether to go to war or not,
AI can look at every conflict that's ever unfolded in
the history of mankind in a nano second and make
(14:09):
a probably better informed decision than Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Is making right now about going to war in Iran.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Who should Here's so, I'm going to confess to a
dystopian show that I found myself more consumed with than
I ever imagined I would be. And it was called Fallout.
And I have no idea whether either one of you
have seen it. Elliott, you might be familiar with it familarly. Yeah, Yeah,
And the premise of fallout is in some ways, basically
(14:39):
the corporations are more powerful than the nation states, right
and the people behind. And so you sit there and
you're like, well, that's not like you know, it's science fiction,
but it's not totally crazy. Right. We already now have
companies that are more valuable than a bigger in some
ways GDP wise than many a country. You know, how
(15:03):
concerned should we be and how do you deal with
this in your dystopian future of corporate You know, the
because this technology is not being developed by the government,
it's being developed by the private sector. Who's in charge
of it, who owns it? And therefore, you know, do
you have nation states that are essentially have to bow
(15:23):
at the altar of a corporation?
Speaker 3 (15:25):
In twenty eighty four in the book, we kind of
explore that with a very large international finance firm that
has a great.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Deal of influence and power.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
And I think that's quite realistic, and that real static
power is dialing somewhat away from nation states and somewhat
toward private entities call them corporations, call them finance firms,
call them big conglomerates. But I think nations are going
(15:59):
to continue to hold firmly to two things, one of
which is the ability to apply extreme violence at large scale.
And I think nation states are going to ensure that
these corporations don't get that level of power. And that's
a longer conversation how that could occur. But then secondly,
(16:19):
I think nation states are going to maintain control of
currencies of actual dollars and yu one in every Euro's.
Nation states are not going to surrender those and that's
why cryptocurrency I think has a kind of a shelf.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Life that's going to diminish.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
I think nation states are going to remain prevalent in
those two areas.
Speaker 5 (16:46):
I think, just to Gem's point, I mean sometimes we
lose sight of that. It's sort of because it's the
water that we swim in, but that, you know, one
of the defining qualities of a nation states that it
holds a monopoly on.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
Violence, Okay, until it doesn't.
Speaker 5 (16:59):
Right well, that I mean that you as as a
nation state, that's what defines you. You know, if I
go out and you know, kill another citizen, I get
in a lot of trouble for it.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
If we as nations we are going to war and
we're going to kill. We are allowed to do that.
We have a monopoly on violence.
Speaker 5 (17:13):
That's sort of one of the when the nation, when
the modern nation state was created, one of the powers
that was given to it was this monopoly on violence.
That we're allowed to use violence as a nation state,
and that's seen as legitimate. And so I think just this,
that's the Gem's point, you know, do will you see
the influences we've seen of corporations over nations. Yes, absolutely,
And as technology becomes more powerful, you know, the technology
(17:37):
that is private will have so over a nation state,
but the nation state remains the entity that holds a
monopoly on violence.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Let me cross those two streams, which is say, as
an example in history, British East India Company, Dutch East
India Company, these were mercantile entities that did raise an
effect private military forces both at sea and ashore. Ultimately,
in both cases the nation state suppressed that and found
(18:08):
can't be two purveyors of violence in this same ecosystem.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
I think that's going to hold true for a while.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Let's talk about you know, when you first came out
with twenty thirty four, it felt far away. We are
now eight years away in theory the next president will
be president when your fictional twenty thirty four becomes not fictional.
Now that we're closer, what do you think you're getting right?
And what do you what are you like thinks that
(18:39):
the outcome is still to be determined.
Speaker 5 (18:43):
I think, you know, I think for you know, each
of the books is always a little bit different, and
again there works a speculations.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
So I don't think ours no has ever been to you.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
Know, necessarily call it right, but to say, listen, if
you know, let's not get these things. Let's not get
these questions wrong, because we don't want the the futures
that we predict, and particularly in twenty thirty four in
the other books. But I think one of the things
has been a lot of fun in writing these books is,
you know, seeing the ideas that we're tinkering with and
experiment and experimenting when it start to sort of manifest themselves.
Speaker 4 (19:15):
So I think in.
Speaker 5 (19:16):
Twenty eighty four, I'll say, you know, we've been working
on this one for a while. So I like to
say to Jim, you know, we were talking about Greenland
before it was cool, so sort of you know, fun
as we were in the later stages of this book
and to see you know, Greenland and the future of
sort of these these northern provinces, you know, is very
much up for grabs. And in twenty eighty four, I mean,
(19:37):
I don't think this is a real spoiler, but you know,
we talked about the lush, verdant wine land that exists
up in Greenland and that they're making some of the
best chardonnays around in twenty eighty four because of climate change.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Yeah, let me let me pick up on twenty thirty four.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
I think we have correct the ongoing tension between the
US and China. The fundamentals are bad between these two countries.
I think we get right a miscalculation that becomes a
spark to ignite the war that we hope we can
still avoid. One thing I think we got wrong in
(20:15):
twenty thirty four, which is not that far away, but
we did not bring artificial intelligence into it. It doesn't
play a role I think that we miss By twenty
thirty four, I think AI is going to be deeply
embedded in all aspects of war.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
This episode of the Chuck Toodcast is brought to you
by Soul. So if you love that end of the
day unwined, but hate the hangover. Soul's out of Office
is for you. These sparkling THHC drinks and gummies give
you the same relaxed social feeling without the alcohol, without
the calories, and without the crash. Soul is a wellness
brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy.
(20:56):
Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THCH and CBD products
designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. They're
best selling out of office gummies were designed to provide
a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood and enhance creativity
and relaxation. With five different strengths, you can tailor the
dose to fit your vibe. So also has a variety
(21:18):
of products specifically designed to help you get a better
night's rest, including their top selling Sleepy Gummies, a fan
favorite for deep restorus sleep. Look. I have made no
secret I am a believer in this stuff, in cannabis
and hemp derived I do not partake in alcohol. For
the most part, I think this stuff is a lot
safer than alcohol, a lot less addictive than alcohol. And yes,
(21:39):
I have to say I love these drinks. It is
the glass of wine and you know after work, that's
what this is. So no hangover and no excess calories
like this. I'm a big fan, So bring on the
good vibes and treat yourself to Sold today. Right now,
Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order.
Go to getsold dot com and use the word toodcast.
(22:00):
That's getsold dot com promo code podcast for thirty percent off.
And yes, I too, am a customer. Well, let's talk
about the real world here in this most recent China
trip that he had. You tell me, I can't remember
last time a president was so hat in hand on
(22:23):
a trip to China.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
I couldn't agree with you more. I think President She
had a great summit.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
Oh, yes he was. You know it's domble. I mean,
let's be honest.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah, the title of the old Tom wolfbook A Man
in Full that's President She. He was definitely looked like,
acted like mature the senior partner.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
That's how it felt to me. I was. I was
sorry to see that.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
I think President Trump conversely had a pretty bad ad
summit in the regard of how it played globally. Also,
very few deliverables. I think President Trump wanted to sell
five hundred and six hundred seven hundred Boeing jets, huge
trade deals on soybeans, beef.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
Haven't seen that.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
Maybe it'll still emerge, but I don't see it as
a very good summit for President Trump.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
And I'll tell you who. It was a terrible summit
for terrible for Taiwan.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Really brought the Taiwan question, not in a good way,
onto the agenda.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
So I.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Came away from the summit thinking, no, not our finest.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Hour, Elliott, how much?
Speaker 3 (23:43):
What it?
Speaker 1 (23:44):
So? I participated in something recently and I shared it
with my audience. The Atolls Society did a sort of
a war game for politics, a wargame for a democracy,
and there were three teams Nationalists, Capitalists, institutionalists, and and
I was curious because I was thinking, if I were
in your shoes, I'd probably want to participate in quite
(24:06):
a few sort of of of war games to use
it or simulations like this? Did you do that? Is
that helpful? And what simulations were in your head as
you were as you were writing this with Jim?
Speaker 5 (24:22):
I think, you know the process of writing this together
is often but you know we both read very deeply,
you know, we share a lot of books, we share
a lot of articles, and I think in that, you know,
in that, we start plotting out, you know, the direction
these books are going to take. And then once you
start telling the story, of the story itself starts posing
immediate questions to you. Like for example, when we set
(24:44):
out to write twenty thirty four, I think the initial
premise was, you know, what would it look like if
the US.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
And China went to war? And sort of almost like
guns of all.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
You started from that, here's the thesis if they go
to war? What does that look like? Right? And what's
the new work.
Speaker 5 (24:57):
Backwards it's going to be you know, like okay, maybe
it's feels like a Gulf of Tonkin type incidents, So
what would that look like? And so you're asking yourself
these questions, there are immediate other questions that come down
and so it probably wouldn't surprise you that very quickly,
like okay, the US you know, suffers a surprising loss,
and then we're like, well what about nuclear weapons? Like
of course, and like that question gets posed to us
(25:18):
in twenty thirty four and it comes up in that novel.
But it wasn't a question that we set out with right.
It's a question that just becomes obvious as you start
going down this sequential path of what will happen I
mean and other questions, because you know, you brought up
the politics. You know, a question was, you know, in
twenty thirty four, who's president?
Speaker 4 (25:34):
You know?
Speaker 5 (25:35):
And in twenty thirty four we have an independent as president.
The first endeprint in sense George Washington and twenty fifty
four we imagine domestic politics in the US that the
parties have basically dissolved, and so you have a sort
of extremist party called the Truthers against a more kind
of rivncious.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
Independent party that we call the Dreamers.
Speaker 5 (25:59):
And by the time you get to four some of
the political contours of the US have melted away. So
you know, Florida has broken off and become an independent republic,
and some of the Pacific states are also broken away
from the United States. Now, are we predicting that's what's
going to happen? Neecessarily, But we're engaging in these types
of thought experiment. That's because what's so exciting about it
is when you do that, it leads you inevitably to
(26:21):
these follow on questions. About what direction you know, not
only we're going with our domestic politics, but also where
we're going with geopolitics and military questions. I think get
put on the table, Jim.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
You're really good at sort of identifying these forks in
the road. So walk me through the next five years
of the forks in the road we're going to have
that you think are going to make decisions about whether
your novels look more accurate or less accurate.
Speaker 3 (26:52):
The biggest fork in the road is actually not in
that great geopolitical, turbulent world. Biggest fork in the road
over the next five years is right here in the
United States of America. And there are two distinct forks
in the road. One is will democracy continue to be
(27:12):
our central organizing political feature, democracy being defined as the
legitimate will of the majority of the people making decisions.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
I think that's a question.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
The second internal fork in the road, and even more important,
is can we pull together? Can we overcome the big
divisions in the nation. I think both of those are
questions that Ellie and I interrogated in the middle book
in this trilogy twenty fifty four, and I think we're
(27:45):
going to learn a lot about them over the next
five years, it's going to be a very exciting time
for brilliant political analysts like Chuck Dodd to help us
understand the answers to those two forks.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
You know, sometimes, Elliott, though, I worry that we're we're
we can be constrained by history, and it goes back
to that failure of imagination. So how do how do
you both ground the work in history so that there's
there's a logic for readers like me versus the which
is how we began our conversation. This failure of imagination
(28:21):
issue that I have a friend of mine who says
this constantly about the Trump era failure of imagination. He goes,
that's the number one thing he talks about all the
time when it comes to how why opponents keep keep
whiffing on Trump.
Speaker 5 (28:38):
You know, I think it's sort of it it's it's
it's sort of that, you know, that classic idea that
you have to hold to contradictory I had thoughts in
your mind at the same time and not go crazy.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
And what I mean by that is.
Speaker 5 (28:53):
We can't be trapped by history, but we have to
look to history to understand how human beings behave in
a whole host of situations, and I've written a lot
about war over my career, and I think one of
the things that's interesting about writing on war is that
it's a singular human activity that we have always engaged in,
and you can you can see how patterns repeat. But
(29:15):
at the same time, you know, the only thing you
can truly hang your head on is that everything will change,
and this idea that you know every you know that
that everything must change so that everything can stay the same.
So I think we're we're always looking at, you know,
human motivation, understanding the way human beings consistently behave in war,
in politics, while overlaying on that all of the things
(29:36):
we know are going to be different, fundamentally different away
humanity has never experienced before, everything from artificial intelligence to
breakthroughs that are going on right now in the enhancement
of you know, biology, you know, the the enhancements that
we're seeing and the changes in climate in warfare. So
trying to take that sort of deeply rooted understanding of
(29:57):
history and human behavior and merge it with new, unprecedented
technologies and rightly turning that into you know, a story
that people want to read that's character driven. At the
center of all of these books are the characters, and
many of those characters have through lines that go from
(30:17):
twenty thirty four all the way to twenty eighty four,
both them individually and their children who appear in multiple books.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
What were your to both of you? What were some
Did you have any books that you read in the
past that attempted to do that served as pretty good
examples of what you were trying to do, or books
that you read to sort of help give you a
(30:44):
sense of, you know, how other authors have done this. Yes,
what was your inspiration?
Speaker 3 (30:50):
Very consciously, as we sort of mapped out the whole
project was Cold War fiction? And what I mean by
that is there were many brilliant books films in the
Cold War era that did help us imagine what the
terror and the horror of a global war would be like.
(31:11):
Think Doctor Strangelove, on the Beach by Neville Shoot, the
Bedford Incident, Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy, Sir John Hacket,
the Third World War. Those were very much in our
minds as cautionary fiction, and they succeeded. I think it
(31:32):
helped frighten the world that contributed to avoiding a nuclear confrontation.
I always say the Cold War is the most important
war we ever didn't fight, and it is also a
singular victory for the West for our ideals, very very important,
(31:53):
and I think part of that can be traced to
this idea of cautionary fiction. So there are a few
books on my mind. And final thought Elliott's wonderful point
about character. You know, you can write all the policy
books in the world about how awful it would be
if there were a nuclear holocaust event. Read on the
(32:14):
Beach by Neville shoot about Australia as the last country
left as a nuclear cloud descends to the south, knowing
they are all going to die, how do they spend
those final days? It's an extraordinary cautionary tale, deeply moving
novel that has always been.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Very much in my mind writing these books.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
And how would you answer that, ont.
Speaker 5 (32:38):
I mean, I agree, I mean all the books that
Jim mentioned have certainly been on our minds. I would
also add, you know, sort of in terms of the
scope of the trilogy. You know, books like you know
orson Scott, Cards Enders, Game Speaker for the Day, you know,
the works of Isaaca as an off foundation, and these
are not I mean, they're not really science fiction, although
(32:58):
by twenty eighty four sort of roving science fiction. But structurally,
you know, how do you tell a story over generations
so that you.
Speaker 1 (33:08):
There's a TV show on Netflix based on a book,
The Three Body Problem, which is also one of these.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Sort of that is a terrific trilogy, by the way.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
And I have so a friend of mine is a
huge advocate of it, and I keep he's been pushing
me to do that. But when you were talking to
both of you, I kept thinking, you know, one of
the movies that may have actually helped. We don't know
how much it helped, but I just think about the
movie War Games, Yeah, and how it did catch it
(33:39):
got it went so mainstream. I have no idea whether
I had an impact or not, but you kind of
hope it couldn't have hurt.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
Well, I think it's one worth dusting off.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
Given a well, I think it needs to be rebooted.
I cannot believe this is just I mean, in some
ways it was so ahead of its time. What happens
if a computer takes over our military arsenal Right? Like, like,
my god, that turned to be way too precious, Elliott,
you're about to say.
Speaker 5 (34:09):
I was just going to say, I'm a huge fan
of that that movie too, Chuck, and we have a
tic tac toe reference in the books that is an homage, total.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Homage, A fantastic look. I got a few minutes left, Jim,
you did Southern Command. I was speaking with somebody who's
very aware of sort of how the Cuban military works,
and I was reminded that the tourist industry is controlled
(34:41):
by the Cuban military, which is how they get their financing.
This isn't going to be Venezuela, is it.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
I don't think so. I think Team Trump thinks it
is going to be.
Speaker 1 (34:54):
They think it is.
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Yeah, but boy, I'd be cautious there. The people of
Cuba have no living memory of democracy. The people of
Cuba have a deeply embedded, hardcore military that's been trained
by Russia for decades. China has been a participant in it.
(35:18):
It's going to be a very different and tougher nut
to crack than Venezuela. And I hope we are wise
enough not to leap in with military power. Having said
all that, we say in the world of investing, the
foremost expensive words are this time is different and I
(35:41):
wouldn't rule out that this time is different for Cuba.
And the wild card in it is the Cuban American
community in South Florida, which you and I both know
pretty well. They could be potentially very engaged here and
I think Marco Rubio is the avatar for that.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
So tough one to call. But no, it's not going
to be as well.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
That's I mean, that's my look. We know what the
outcome is likely going to end up being, but this
isn't going to be Venezuela. And that's sort of what
I don't I think people have an expectation that this
is going to be They're going to snatch Raoul. You know,
It'll be like taking one of those ninety year old Nazis,
you know, and you know we get to frog march
them and everything folds. That doesn't feel like it's going
(36:25):
to be. Yeah, And what about the island itself. I
think the other thing I keep hearing is that, like
you know, sometimes you buy a house that needs to
be rebuilt, but it has a good foundation. I don't
know if there's a foundation. I think it's a I
think this is almost like an abandoned island. You got
to start from scratch when it comes to infrastructure and
(36:46):
things like that.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
I couldn't agree with you more. I think what is.
Speaker 3 (36:51):
Underestimated is the scope of the problem here. This is
not a fixer up or this is a demolition project,
and uh, you know it, it is not going to
be easy. I think Venezuela, you can make the argument
they have so many resources with the oil, the gas,
the gold, the rearers. Venezuela could be Dubai on the Caribbean.
(37:16):
Cuba not so much. And and it's going to be expensive,
hugely expensive. And if we walk in there and suddenly
we get rid of the regime and we have to
then construct a new Cuba could be wildly expensive. I'm
not sure we thought through to the far end of
(37:38):
the economics of it.
Speaker 1 (37:40):
And Elliott, since this is your you get into a
lot of writing. Is this what do you want to
do next? After this?
Speaker 3 (37:50):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (37:50):
I you know.
Speaker 5 (37:51):
I mean, both Jim and I have our own projects
that we do independently. So I have I have a
book that came out last summer called Sheep Dogs, which
is a thriller. It's kind of a heist novel, and
so I'm working on the sequel of that as well,
and so and that's set up as a be a
(38:12):
TV series over at Apple.
Speaker 4 (38:14):
So I'm working hard on.
Speaker 1 (38:15):
That and it's pretty good. Hit the series ready to
go before finishing the second novel. Huh. Yeah, that's a
great deal in that.
Speaker 5 (38:24):
And I know Jim's got his projects coming out that
I'm sure we'll talk about, but I will I will say.
You know, we've been working together on this since I
think twenty eighteen, and it's been it's been a lot
of fun. So handing in and publishing the last book,
at least for me, has been has been bittersweet.
Speaker 4 (38:40):
It's been a great ride.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
And I assume if somebody needs to read the first
two before they pick up twenty eighty four.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
Right, No, absolutely not, absolutely not. They all are very
independent of each other, but.
Speaker 1 (38:55):
You're rewarded a bit if you've read the other tes sure, sure, okay, okay.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
True for many trilogies.
Speaker 3 (39:02):
I am just finishing up a two volume work of
historical fiction, Chuck. First one came out last Fall, The
Restless Wave.
Speaker 1 (39:13):
It's a novel bring You're Back and You're going backwards?
Right it?
Speaker 3 (39:16):
Sort of with that, true, I am exactly and there
are many lessons from World War Two that feel very
very influential impression right now. And then the sequel to
that novel, second volume, think Wins of War War in Remembrance.
The second one is called The Turning Tide, and it
comes out in November, and those two I think have
(39:41):
some potential for future cinematics.
Speaker 2 (39:46):
We'll see there it is.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
Look at you, you're mister ip. You got a lot
of eyep sitting out there, my friend, so do you, well,
not as much as you, but it is a you
know how this world works these days, Elliott, you still
want to play in the independent arena in politics.
Speaker 4 (40:05):
I don't think. I don't think.
Speaker 5 (40:07):
I don't think right now, though I'm an avid watcher,
you know, and appreciate all the work that that you're
doing so as much.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
It's other people working, taking the work your dad did
and and what you were a part of and all
that stuff.
Speaker 3 (40:21):
And.
Speaker 4 (40:23):
Predicting global wars and predicting domestia.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
No, it is, but it's a bunch of patriots, so
you got to love that at the end of the day. Anyway. Congratulations,
I always learned something from you, Admiral.
Speaker 2 (40:36):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (40:36):
It's good to see Elliot. It's good to see you.
Speaker 4 (40:38):
It's been too long, all right, My friends
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com