Russian Nuclear Doctrine: Escalate to De-Escalate

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:24):
In the dark shadows, in thewhite cold. Fearlessly we search for knowledge
new and old. We drink thestrong spirits and read the ancient tones.
The order of the Abercast. Weare the brave and the bold, a

(00:55):
court history, conspiracy and violence.Hey, everybody, welcome to the Abercast.

(01:42):
I'm your host, doctor John Towers. Um. We're going to be
talking tonight. Uh, We're gonnabe continuing our look at them the possibility
of World War three in or nuclearwar. It seems like all sides are
sort of rubbing up for it.Um. We did an episode about this

(02:04):
a few weeks ago and it seemedto have gotten a little bit of traction,
so I thought we would just doan update on it. UM.
So yeah, so let's go.I mean, we got plenty of material
to get through. UM. Ihave my vessel of the art here um
filled with my gingihad, my weaponof mass destruction. Also, just as

(02:28):
a little side note, today,I got um, oh man, what
it's got to be a little Nineweeks ago, maybe ten weeks ago,
I did UM an episode talking aboutmy uh my adventures and prepping and whatever.
And at the end I was wewere talking about it. We did

(02:51):
an equipment dump. We were talkingabout my body armor a little bit,
and I got this idea to getsome you know, um morale. They
call them morale patches on your gear. Uh, you know, like they're
the little flag, uh, likethe little American flag velcrow patches to stick

(03:12):
on your gear, on your uniformor your belt or whatever. I got
the idea to get some Abercast moralepatches done, and I just got them.
I just got them return today andthey look fantastic. Um. So
I'm gonna take a couple of themand put them up on the storefront.

(03:32):
That might be done by the timeof this episode drops. If not,
just keep your eye out um onthe storefront um on abercast dot com.
Um. But yeah, if youwant to get a good look at them,
um, you can hit up theunderscore Abercast on Instagram. I got
a couple of pictures of them stuckon a patrol cap and stuck on my

(03:54):
um plate carrier and whatnot. I'min love with them and I think they're
all I'm gonna order some more,or I'm gonna order more gear the stick
the stick on him to stick themon right now. So um yeah Abercast
dot com check it out. Storefront'sgot some good stuff, some T shirts
and stickers and fucking my tarot carddeck. It's got all kinds of stuff.

(04:21):
So we're gonna start here. Um. At the New York Post this
article called how Putin might use anuke and how we should respond? So
I'm sure how we should respond iswho knows how the hell we're gonna respond.

(04:46):
He could use a nuke and wecould send him a, um,
a case of ice cream. Youknow, our economy is strong as hell.
So this is my General, WesleyClark, so he might be sober
minded about this whole thing. Sixmonths into Russia and invasion of the Ukraine,

(05:08):
the unthinkable has happened. Russia islosing. Vladimir Putin is determined and
nevertheless and increasingly desperate. He hasundertaken a partial mobilization formally annexed four regions
of sorry about that, of who'smoving the ship when I'm not down here,
and renewed his threat of using nuclearweapons. I'm not kidding is a

(05:30):
threat reel? And if so,how should the US respond? Russia has
a substantial nuclear arsenal. That's anunderstatement. They they have the biggest nuclear
arsenal in the world. They haveway more nuclear weapons than we do,
including strategic missiles and the bombers,and a new autonomous torpedo designed to explode

(05:57):
in harbors to create massive tsunamism,and a vessel with that weapon system is
now missing. They're called the Poseidonmissiles. There there's a it's like the
fucking hunt for Red October. Thesewarheads explosive power range in the hundreds of

(06:17):
thousands to seven million tons of TANDT equivalent. Russia also has more than
two thousand tactical nuclear warheads that couldbe fired from artillery and mortars, as
well as made it to dual purposeintermediate range missiles like the Ascander or the

(06:39):
kin Shy, or dropped by aircraft. These tactical warheads are expected to be
the range of tens to a fewthousand killed tons of power, less than
what the United States dropped on Japanin nineteen forty five. Well, those
were only our first two. Comeon, we were we were just warmed

(07:00):
up. With the forces falling backin disarray, Putin has backed himself into
a corner by annexing the four regionsof Ukraine and then ruling out any negotiated
withdraw. The unruly mobilization of sometwo hundred thousand partially or untrained men lacking
proper equipment is unlikely to turn thetides on the battlefield in the immediate future.

(07:27):
Hence the rising risk that Putin willemploy nuclear weapons and Russia in Russian
exercises rather in recent years, theRussian doctrine of escalated, escalate to de
escalate has been employed. One ormore nuclear weapons is fired against say oh,

(07:49):
a Polish city, after which NATOterminates its operations rather than to respond.
But NATO is not a party tothe current conflict, though NATO members
are helping arm, equip and adviseUkraine. If Russia were to use nuclear

(08:11):
weapons against Poland at some or someother NATO member, NATO would have little
choice put to respond in kind.While NATO lacks the numbers and sophistication of
Russian tactical nuclear warheads, NATO doeshave available some one hundred aircraft deliver nuclear
bombs, as well as the US, the UK, the French nuclear missiles

(08:35):
that could strike Russia. While somein the West have expressed fears of World
War three, Putant seems unlikely totake such a profound escalation at this point,
especially with China and India on thesidelines distincting themselves from his conflict and
undoubtedly opposed to such a step.I heard that he's buying planes from Iran,

(09:01):
so he's got that going for him. Got quite an axis forming over
there. This leaves open the optionof using tactical nuclear weapons against cities,
key facilities, or choke points oractual forces in Ukraine. The US exercise
experience during the Cold War suggests thateven pulses of multiple tactical nuclear warheads with

(09:26):
power and the range of ten kilotonsare difficult to use effectively against maneuvering battlefield
forces. I would like to seedata on those exercises. Locating targets,
mating weapons to guns and launchers,and tracking the targeted forces are difficult,

(09:46):
so the weapons often missed. Whatresulted was a radioactive battlefield, often rendered
impassable by craters and debris, andsubstantial risk to our own forces. Okay,
I'm probably a little bit older thanyou, and I remember being scared

(10:07):
pissless in the in the eighties.I was, you know, in elementary
and middle school, oh, elementaryschool anyway, and I remember just being
terrified of nuclear war. You hearit everywhere. I mean it was literally
everywhere, even with modern drones andGPS, and assuming Russia has modernized its

(10:31):
warhead to achieve neutron bomb effects,achieving significant battlefield impact with a few cannon
fired weapons will be problematic. Now, when they say problematic, they don't
mean like when woke. When wokepeople say that's that TV show is problematic.
They this really is a fucking problem. On the other hand, stationary

(10:52):
targets like rail and road junctions,villages, or urban areas are certainly capable
of being hit and destroyed, butoften without any immediate tactical benefits, and
likely with a global condemnation. Idon't know. I don't know about that.
So Putin's threats must be seen asprimarily psychological, designed to heighten the

(11:18):
fears of World War three. SAPWestern Resolve reduced military assistance to the Ukraine
and encourage the voices calling for animmediate halt to military action by Ukraine instead.
In January, prior to the conflict, of Russia encouraged the five major
nuclear powers to agree that there couldbe no winner in a nuclear war.

(11:39):
Putin echoed the sentiment as late asAugust first. This was a continuation of
a decade long effort by the SovietUnion and Russia to force the West to
abandon nuclear weapons development and seed nuclearsuperiority to the Soviet Union, and clearly

(12:01):
designed to feed the West anti nuclearsentiments. So from a psychological standpoint,
um, you know, this isa general Wesley somebody or other talking about
how the response should be ordered ifnuclear weapons were to be used in Ukraine
by Russia. Who's to say thatwe would respond at all at this point,

(12:28):
after after the withdrawal in Afghanistan,and after how we we've sort of
been acting. We're just as likelyto do nothing. I think too,
we would be just as little aslikely to buckle like a fucking belt than
to do any anything. In myestimation, looking at our leaders are quote

(13:00):
leadership unquote, we're just as likelyto do to do nothing, to be
just terrified. I mean, wewould send you know, I don't know,
help. We would send him moremoney to launder Hey are your banks
still working here? We still launderthis money to a seed to Peuton's threats

(13:37):
would be to abandon our principles standagainst aggression and in support of the rules
based international systems and all the meansthat have helped check aggression in the post
World War two eric chaos would ensuewith every nuclear armed power free to attack
its rivals Pakistan, India. Itwould be like fun Armageddon, dogs and

(14:01):
cats living together. So America andour allies must not only stand firm against
Putin's nuclear saber rattling, which weare doing, but also are we doing
that? I got an article comingup about Biden out there going It's gonna
be armageddon. So are we standingfast in the face of Putin's saber rattling,

(14:24):
but also prepare a strong response shouldRussia use nuclear weapons. Ideally,
this response would include international condemnation,war crimes charges directly against Putin, more
sanctions, and crucially active US orNATO military interventions directly against Russian forces in
Ukraine. The United States should bebuilding up it's expeditionary air force capabilities in

(14:50):
Romania and Poland to have the capabilityto strike in seriously degrade Russian forces,
their logistics and command and control ina kershon Or, zeph vor Zia or
Crimea. The Black Sea Fleet sufficientlyto deny Russia the capability to hold these

(15:11):
annexed territories. So he skips thepart about where we sell all of our
strategic oil reserve to China. Huhin our in this buildup scenario, he
skips the part where we give allof our jet fuel and diesel fuel,
where we sell it all to China. But in the face of Putant's threats,

(15:33):
it is also time for the UnitedStates to call publicly for Peutant to
withdraw from all Ukraine and offer tobroker the talks designed to secure this promptly
and peacefully. Russia must account forthe dead abducted in missing, pay reparations,
and cooperate with war crimes investigations.Right Okay, Ukraine's future security can

(15:56):
then be arranged and the economic recoverybegun. This is the right way forward.
General Wesley Clark is a former NATOSupreme allied to Commander. There seems
to be some gaps here and uhwhat um and the general the General's assessment
of the situation and what's what mightactually be happening? Will you find this

(16:22):
on the New York New York Post. So he throws this uh. He
throws this term out to escalate tode escalate, which is Russia's nuclear deterrence
strategy. So I just wanted tokind of talk about that escalate to de
escalate Russia's nuclear deterrent strategy. UM, Russia's military doctrine dictates the use of

(16:48):
nuclear weapons in response to any nonnuclear assault on Russian territory. So blowing
up pipelines, destroying bridges they're usingfor their logistics, arming the Ukrainians,
sending them what are we up tosix sixty billion dollars again or something like

(17:15):
that. So, so, themilitary doctrine of Russia is to use nuclear
weapons in response to any non nuclearassault on Russian territory. This encompasses a
broad range of potential national security threats, including local, small scale wars,
regional or large scale wars, internaland foreign military threats, the Russian military's

(17:37):
budget, and a host of militaryrelated, technical, political, social,
and economic issues. Additionally, thedoctrine defines the circumstances under which the nuclear
weapons are to be used by thearmed forces of the Russian Federation in response
to a threat to Russians. Russia'snational security. The current addition of the

(18:00):
Russian military doctrine, when compared tothe national security strategy and Military doctor and
published in nineteen ninety three, specificallylowers the threshold under which the use of
nuclear weapons is permitted. While inninety three doctrine allowed the first use of
nuclear weapons only when the existence ofRussia's Russian Federation is threatened, the version

(18:23):
published sense in two thousand explicitly statethat Russia reserves the right to use nuclear
weapons to respond to all weapons ofmass destruction attacks on Russia and its allies.
Furthermore, the doctrine released in twothousand and all subsequent versions allows for
nuclear weapons use in response to largescale aggression, utilizing conventional weapons in situations

(18:51):
critical to the national security of theRussian Federation. Succinctly put, Russia's entire
national security Reggie is predicated on theconcept of nuclear de escalation. So there's
a lot of sort of legal wiggleroom in these statements, like, um,

(19:15):
what is a weapon of mass destruction? Well, back in the day,
a weapon of mass destruction was classifiedas a nuclear weapon, and then
they were like, oh, alsoweapons of mass destruction can be yellow cake,
radium, dirty bombs, and thenmore and more, then more and

(19:40):
more items got put up weapons ofmass distraction or destruction Freudian slip. I
need a drink of that. Weaponof mass destruction could be biological or nerve
gas is a weapon of man destruction. You know, we live in a

(20:03):
world where when when a politician sayssomething wrong, instead of fixing it,
they go and literally change the definitions. Where we're living in nineteen eighty four.
I swear to fucking god, youknow, so who's to say,
like, well, why don't wejust um, well, we're going to
change the weapon of mass destruction andsay, uh, you know include you

(20:27):
know, the bombing of this pipeline, it's that's economical economic mass destruction like
this one. Uh. Nuclear weapons. We can use nuclear weapons to respond
to large scale aggression, utilizing conventionalweapons in situations critical to the national security

(20:51):
of the Russian Federation. What's largescale aggression? Is it sending sixty billion
dollars to their enemy? Is sendingall all of the howitzers we have send
her, sending them all to Ukraineto use against you? Is that large
scale aggression? I imagine that somelawyer somewhere can make that argument better than

(21:15):
I could, But it seems like, yeah, so there's historical context to
the NATO intervention in the Balkans.In the year before the release of Russia's
two thousand Military Doctrine, Russian militaryand political leaders warily observed as NATO executed

(21:37):
the efficient and precise conventional military operationin the former Republic of Yugoslavia ninety nine,
Russia was facing renewed tensions in Czechniain the aftermath of the disastrous war
that broke out following the Soviet Union'scollapse. It was clear that the United

(21:59):
States and its allies possessed far greaterconventional military capabilities than Russians, plus the
underlying ethnic and religious issues in Kosovo, which led to NATO seeking action where
seen by Russia as almost identical tothe underlying and the First Czechnian War.
These similarities, combined with russians historicalview of Serbia, the successor state to

(22:22):
the Republic of Yugoslavia, as itsquote little brother unquote, led to Moscow
developing deep anxiety that the United Stateswould involve itself in another war within Russian
borders. In two thousand, Russiareleased the updated Military Doctrine, in which
it outlined the concept of de escalationthrough a limited nuclear strike. This idea

(22:49):
put forth the notion that if Russiawere subjected to a major, non nuclear
assault that exceeded its capacity for conventionaldefense, it would quote de escalate unquote
the conflict by launching a limited ortactical nuclear strike. While this policy has
never been publicly discussed with a relationto any particular conflict, the concept of

(23:12):
nuclear de escalation undoubtedly was on theminds of Western leaders during the Russian invasion
of Georgia in two thousand and eightand in the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine.
The Soviet unions collapse and the effectiveend of the Cold War in the

(23:33):
nineties let Russia in the United Stateswith significantly significantly less reason to fear that
one would launch a massive, surprisestrategic nuclear attack on the other, that
role the nuclear weapons played in theinternational geopolitical framework was fundamentally altered. Nuclear
weapons no longer were the centerpiece ofsecurity relationships based on the concept of mutually

(23:57):
assured destruction. Instead, they becamea status symbol at the very most,
and were considered the ultimate insurance policyagainst unforeseen aggression. Nuclear weapons maintained their
role as the penultimate security guarantee however, they had very much moved to the
background of the international security stage.Many, particularly in the West, believe

(24:22):
that the global nuclear disarmament was anattainable goal. During the Cold War,
deterrence was effective in maintaining peace betweenthe two superpowers because both states ensured that
the other would be deterred on alllevels in the event of escalating tension.
At the time, the security relationshipbetween the US and the USSR was heavily

(24:44):
dependent on the concept of parody.Conventional forces were deterred with conventional forces of
equal strength, while the nuclear arsenalswere positioned in support of mutually assured destruction.
The Soviet Union broke apart following yearsof economic stagnation, the United States
and its allies were demonstrating their significantconventional military capabilities in the ninety ninety one

(25:11):
campaign to expel Iraqi occupying forces fromthe oil rich state of Kuwait. Russia's
military and political leaders grew increasingly waryabout the imbalance to Russia's disadvantage and conventional
power projection in efficacy, so shiftingsecurity perspectives in a Cold War era,

(25:37):
Russian's asymmetric asymmetric deterrent strategy the anxietyamongst the Russian military top brass further developed
in the US led NATO nineteen ninetynine intervention in Kosovo, the United States
conventional military power became a clear anddistinct threat to Russia. There were many
similarities between the origins of Kosovo conflictin the Russia's own Eternal War internal war

(26:04):
with Chechnian separatists during the First ChechenianWar. What Russia feared most is that
the US would intervene in what Russiaconsidered its internal affairs. If the US
were to launch a non nuclear,ie conventional assault against the newly formed Russian
Federation, Russia's conventional forces would beof little benefit as nuclear deterrent theory.

(26:30):
Deterrence theory during the Cold War waspredicated on the concept of mutually assured destruction.
Deterrent strategy required that effective, incredibleforces were maintained at every level,
conventional and nuclear. To be effective. The United States collapse or the sorry
the Soviet Union's collapse decimated the military'sconventional force projection capabilities. The subsequent Russian

(26:55):
military ability to deter any conventional USor NATO mil terry actions against Russia was
rendered ineffective. The efficacy of theUnited States high precision conventional weapons was demonstrated
in both the Balkan and Iraq campaignsthe nineties. Unlike nuclear weapons, these
precision guided smart bombs were highly usableand effective and start contrast to the nuclear

(27:22):
weapons framed in this contrast. Inthis context, Russia military planners became painfully
aware of their strategic disadvantage. Thusthe concept of nuclear de escalation was born.
So that's all terrifying, I Ithink so in the last Nuclear Holocaust

(27:56):
episode, we kind of highlighted thespeech that Putin made, so I thought
it'd be fair to kind of highlighta speech that Biden made where Biden invokes
the possibility of armageddon in Democrat InDemocratic fundraiser speech, President Vladimir Putin is
indicated that the Russian using nuclear weaponsin Ukraine is a possibility. Biden said

(28:21):
an addressed to the Democratic Senatorial CampaignCommittee on Thursday night, that the country
under his leadership is close to armageddonas it has been since the Cuban Missile
crisis in the nineteen sixties. Andif you listen to this thing, he
says this like he's fucking proud ofit. It's so weird. It's so
bizarre. Speaking in a fundraiser inNew York, Biden addressed Russian President Vladimir

(28:48):
Putin threatening to use a nuclear weapon. Putin was not joking man when he
talks about using when he talks aboutthe use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological
or chemical weapons, Biden said,we have not faced the prospect of armageddon
since Kennedy in the nuclear missile crisis. Two Democrats. It's weird, That's

(29:15):
all that I'm saying. Russia,who both have awful foreign domestic policies,
by the way, so weird.Russia has hinted several times at the possibility
it could unleash weapons of mass destructionin its battle with Ukrainian forces. If
Putin believes the fate of the countryis at risk, I want to remind

(29:37):
you that our country also has variousmeans of destruction and for separate components and
more modern than those of NATO countries. And when the territorial integrity of our
country is threatened to protect Russia andour people, we will certainly use all
the means at our disposal. Cutonsaid in his addressed last month white out

(30:00):
officials, White House officials have saidthat Biden administration has communicated directly with Russian
officials about what kind of response usinga nuclear weapon would bring. While officials
have said that they aren't going toshare publicly what the US response would look
like, they have said it wouldbe quote catastrophic unquote. I don't think

(30:26):
there is any such thing as theability to easily use a tactical weapon and
not end up with armageddon, Bidensaid Thursday at Thursday Evening speech. He's
a guy by the name of MaxThornberry Fox News. We're gonna jump over
to the Federalist as Russia Thornton's nuclearwar who in this administration is putting America

(30:51):
first? By a guy named WilliamWolfe, who is leading so as to
avoid dagging the US into a directand possibly nuclear armed confrontation with Russia over
foreign soil. I don't know thisis a question, William, but this
is a question that I've been askingmyself because it seems like we're running towards

(31:14):
it. It seems like everyone's salivatingto do it. Former Deputy Assistant of
Defense recently asked the million dollar questionof the moment, is Ukraine worth fighting
a nuclear war over. If not, we should act accordingly. If your
answer that question is by putting America'sinterest first, the answer is obviously no,

(31:34):
or the world. This is thecase that Ukraine is not worth fighting
a nuclear war over. How thenshould the US act accordingly? Reasonable responses
could vary, But whatever a smartcourse of action might be, that's not
what we have witnessed over the lastten days from the Biden administration and the

(31:55):
pro war crowd. The most recentround of nuclear saber rattling I want a
dollar every time I have to readthat term started around September twenty first,
when Russian President Putin warned, quote, in the face of the threat to

(32:21):
the territorial integrity of our country,to protect Russia and our people, we
will certainly use all the means atour disposal unquote. He repeated a similar
warning on September thirtieth, as Russiacelebrated the annexation of four more regions of
Western Ukraine, talking about the precedentset by the US, including nuclear weapons

(32:44):
in World War Two. When approachingthis topic, some caveats and principled statements
are necessary. One, the Russianinvasion of Ukraine should be condemned two,
Putin should be taken seriously. Inthree, the use of any kind of
nuclear weapons tactical or otherwise, inUkraine or in defense of the annexed regions
would have would be a massive escalation. Meanwhile, I like how he just

(33:08):
throws out US precedent from World WarTwo if they had if they had stole
the nuclear bomb plans earlier and hada nuclear weapon. Are we are we
prepared to say that Russia wouldn't haveused a nuclear weapon against Germany? Is

(33:30):
that what we're going to Is thatwhat you're going to argue to be American
Americans insisting or sorry, American interestsdemand we act accordingly to avoid a nuclear
confrontation with Russia. But in responseto the ratcheted up rhetoric from the Russians,

(33:50):
it appears we have lost our collectiveminds. Has it? Has it
been decreed by the powers that bethat it's worth risking a nuclear holocaust over
the dawn Boss? It seems so. I just this is hilarious, Like
they're totally not taking into consideration thatwe are doing as much to escalate as

(34:16):
Russia is we are sending. Idon't I don't know what else I mean,
I've been bitching about it for weeksnow. We're sending all this money
while we're laundering money, but we'realso sending a bunch of nuclear or a
bunch of military supplies, arms toammunition over there to turn on the Russians.

(34:37):
We can go. Sunday, NationalSecurity Advisor Jake Sullivan told faced the
nation that we have communicated directly,privately, in a very high levels to
the Kremlin that any use of nuclearweapons will be meet with catastrophic consequences for
Russia, and that the US andour allies will respond decisively, and we
have been clear and specific about whatthat will entail. Suliman doubled down on

(35:05):
this line this past Friday during aWhite House press briefing. Win asked would
the US actively enter the war ifPutin used nukes on Ukraine. He didn't
say no. He didn't say thatwould be up to the Congress, since
they have the constitutional authority to declarewar. No. He repeated that we
have the opportunity to communicate directly toRussia a range of consequences for the use

(35:29):
of nuclear weapons and the kinds ofactions the United States would take given that
such an attack would it be onthe US or NATO. Just what consequences
is the Biden administration at liberty todispense without a formal declaration of war from
Congress. Well, we've seen thathe is not waiting around for stuff to

(35:50):
be done in Congress. He's outthere writing executive orders. He's just saying
that he's going to do stuff,even though it's anti constitution. It's post
This is the new catchphrase that I'vebeen hearing. It's post constitutionalism. We're
after that's that's the old chit.We're now post constitutionalism. The constitutional question

(36:14):
didn't seem to trouble a former CIADirector General David Petraeus on ABC this week
either in response to the nuclear question, he told co anchor Jonathan Carl,
just to give you a hypothetical,we would respond by leading a NATO and
collective effort that would take out everyRussian conventional force that we can see and

(36:35):
identify on the battlefield in Ukraine andalso in Crimea, in every ship in
the Black Sea. Terrifying. Carlrightly noted that this would bring America and
NATO into the war. Yes,it would into the war, just like
that Congress and Constitution be damned,who's putting America first? In light of

(36:58):
all this brinks and ship I haveto ask, because it seems like no
one else is. Who's putting anAmerican interest first? Who in the cadre
of the of our adults that areback in charge is leading away? Is
leading in such a way as toavoid dragging the US into a direct and
possibly nuclear armed confrontation with Russia overforeign soil. It has been little more

(37:23):
than a year since here we goBiden's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal and a lingering reminder
that we have precious little to showfor our last twenty plus years of foreign
adventurism and failed exercises in nation building. Sacred democracy isn't an export every country
wants to take at the end ofa gun. Far too many American lives

(37:46):
were lost in the Middle East andfar too many freedoms at home here here
during the War on terrorism. SoI think I speak on behalf of most
of my fellow Americans when I saynot a single drop of American blood should
be spilled old on Ukrainian soil.While the military industrial complex might be thrilled

(38:10):
at the prospects of a hot warin Ukraine as they ride the irresponsible riverboat
of billions of dollars in aid.The American citizens are rightly wondering how any
of this spending, any of thisrhetoric, or any of this warmongering helps
them put cheaper food on their tablesand gas in their tanks. It's actually

(38:32):
working diametrically opposed to those goals.Ukrainian Ukraine is not a NATO ally.
For that we should be eternally grateful. Yet, even as Ukrainian President Vladimir
Zelinsky stages his made for TV NATOapplication signing we must be frank, the
Ukraine has no business being in NATO. This is very conversation about the possible

(38:55):
use of nuclear weapons, and anAmerican response under scores that reality. Let
us ask what if Russia were touse tactical nuclear weapon on the day or
on the battlefield in Ukraine. Tobe clear, that would be disastrous and
deadly escalation in an already ill fatedwar. Yet even if Russia did,

(39:19):
what possible benefit could there be forthe US and the American citizens by responding
and kind none whatsoever? The samegoes for an overwhelming or catastrophic conventional response.
Why are our leaders so confident Putinwould be willing to suffer a serious
strike than to back down the hubriusbeggars, believe. One of the things

(39:43):
I admired most about former President Orangemay And while serving in the State Department
in the Pentagon during his administration washis restraint, whether it was in our
pursuit of real diplomacy with the belligentnuclear power in North Korea or refusing to
escalate in response to the Iran shootingdown of one of our surveillance drones.

(40:07):
Trump displayed strength through restraint, powerthrough prudence, and now is a time
for restraint now. I can alreadyhear the neo Khan accusations of this posture
being pro Putin getting drafted over atthe Dispatch, to which I say,

(40:27):
let the Dispatch and the DC Beltwayboo. If the Beltway is booing,
the Heartland is cheering, and I'msure most New Yorkers would be cheering along
with the Heartland too, if itmeans they won't be witnessing a mushroom cloud
rising over Manhattan anytime soon. Manyso we're sliding into politics here. I'm

(40:47):
gonna stick with it for a littlebit, but I might ditch out of
this article. Believe it or not, we don't do politics when we talk
about World War three, upcoming impendingnuclear holocaust. It's actually because we're living
in history. We need to understandwhy these things are happening. It's not
just a smear one thing or another. That's why we don't really talk about

(41:10):
polls and all this kind of nonsenseeither. So let's see where this is
going. But some might argue thiskind of bluster is what's necessary to ensure
real nuclear deterrence. James Troube atForeign Policy records that former Secretary of State
John Foster Dullis once boasted of hisgifts at nuclear blackmail, saying, some

(41:34):
say that what we're brought to theverge of war. Of course, we
were brought to the verge of war. The ability to get to the verge
without getting into the war is thenecessary art. That's quite a statement.
Such diplomacy may be an art,one that requires real skill. But allow
me to indulge one half of anotherhypothetical here. Even if it were worth

(41:59):
it for America to counter a nuclearstrike in Ukraine, does anyone seriously think
this administration is the one that canbe trusted to pull this off. Discretion
is the better part of valor,doubly so when incompetence defines your operations.
There is no John Foster Dullus oreven a nuclear equivalent serving in our national

(42:22):
security apparatus. The truth that fewseem willing to state clearly is this nuclear
brakesmanship over Ukrainian puts America last.Ukraine is Europe's problem, not ours,
and we are the only nation withnuclear weapons that might defend Ukraine. What
about the United Kingdom? What aboutFrance? When it comes to our domestic

(42:45):
priorities, the only party who standsto gain from America either fully entering the
war in Ukraine or returning nuclear fireon Russia is China. China, China.
There is no doubt that the ChineseCommunist Party is cheering on this development
with as much eager anticipation as theForever War uniparty. Here at home.

(43:08):
I would love to I would loveto play risk against Joe Biden. And
I've leveled this, I've leveled thisoffer before. When he's there and he's
talking about how he was a professorand he did he got triple degrees and
majors and all this stuff. Heliterally was like, I am smarter than

(43:31):
you, and I can do morepush ups than you. We there's a
it's a growing section in the featuretopic link about Biden um again not necessarily
political politics. It's like the guy'she's a it's a wild story. This
guy's a plagiarist. He doesn't knowwhat he's talking about nowadays, he doesn't

(43:54):
even know what room he's in orhow to get out of it, or
how to get off the stage.And I said, I would do any
intelligence test against Joe Biden. TikToktoe. I would love to play Joe
Biden and risk me and one morejust dude versus Joe Biden and risk without

(44:23):
all of his even if he hadhis advisors. That would be even funner.
That would be even funner to do. Still, there is no need
to let the beating of the nuclearwar drums marches into an unwinnable disaster that
may yield radioactive consequences on our ownsoil plugs. Biden says that there is

(44:45):
not one inch of NATO territory thatwe won't defend. Fine, but Ukraine
is not in NATO, Joe duThus there is not an inch of Ukrainian
soil. That is worth risking anuclear strike on our home soil over not
one? All right, So I'mgonna bail out of this. I had
a couple more to get into,but I must have babbled, It must

(45:07):
have ran along. I'm gonna getout of these. Maybe we'll hit these
next time. So I'm John Towersand this is the abercast. Hey,
um, now's a good time theprep to get some what have I been

(45:28):
saying? Uh? It? Nowis the time where you can do the
job of the first sergeant. Now'sthe time where you can solidify up some
of your your supplies. You canget some extra beans, extra bullets,
extra band aids. That's the firstsergeant's job. Now, now's the time
for that. You know, Imeant to mention the last episode, the

(45:53):
Cold Winter episode about um trying tograb some space heaters or something just in
case, like, now's the timeto do that. You know, when
the ship hits the fan, youcan you can become the platoon leader.
But now we need to be forthe company commander. But now is it

(46:14):
time to be the first start.And now's the time to get all your
shit together. And you know whenI get it your ship together. You
know what you need. You needsome Abercast morale patches for your body armor.
You're gonna be going to buy,so check out the storefront. Maybe
i'll get those up tonight. Um. I'm John, this is the Abercast.

(46:36):
Thank you guys very much. We'llsee soon.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Russian Nuclear Doctrine: Escalate to De-Escalate

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

Russian Nuclear Doctrine: Escalate to De-Escalate

Stuff You Should Know