There can be no limited nuclear war, at least in my opinion. And there is no viable first strike option that would leave no surviving forces on the other side. The question was always and will always be, how many millions are we willing to lose? A tactical nuclear weapon could wipe out an armored division or an aircraft carrier in one blow. Would we just accept that and not escalate further. Doubtful.
Yes, it's realistic to make certain assumptions about the immediate context, but unless there is a real reason to perpetuate tensions between large nations until the end of time, it might be suggested that we recognize that there is no longer any rational reason to assume that the US, Russian and China cannot simply co-exist. There is a continuing inertia that assumes the inevitability of tensions between these powers, in many policy making circles. This inertia is not reducible to the interests of defense contractors (though that is certainly part of it). It's mainly due to habits of thought, to the almost a-priori assumption that tension between large powers will never really abate. From a longer term perspective, what is genuinely 'realistic' is the impossibility that civilization will continue to exist, unless policy makers recognize the unsustainable nature of such tensions, and figure out how-to unwind the assumptions that underlie what is being expressed here and in similar talks. Does anyone realistically believe that humanity can negotiate the next 50-75 years in a world with WMD, if we continue to re-inflate these adversarial relationships? It is miraculous that the world survived he first 75 years of the 'nuclear age'. How many more times do we wish to continue rolling the dice? Basically the American people, and hopefully policy groups and elected officials, will increasingly recognize that tensions are not really metaphysically necessary.
Very prophetic. Rev 20:8 "And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea."
I love Jasen's lectures about these topics. He is clearly a Democrat but it never plays into his assessments of policy, reality, and risks. I wish he would do more chats thru Lawrence Livermore and why did you cut out the questions?
Another thing if you believe as I believe that Finland will fare better than Sweden. Why would you Focus your resources on Sweden? You have to be willing to Focus Resources Where they are best utilized. My sister's father was a nucular scientist at your laboratory. Even though you claim you don't do nuclear.
The speaker mentioned Russia parading their arsenal and advances and said it is for domestic consumption, but that is about as far as he went. He goes into detail on US posture, but almost zero about published Russian posture, i.e., Russia has a no first use policy not only in official statements, but also in law (and supposedly implemented in war planning and COC structure etc). Does the speaker not believe them and think they are lying? How can one speak on assessing their posture and not discuss what they say are their policies and laws? It should be called 'Assessing America's response to what they think Russia would do'. His main premise was that conventional inferiority caused the USA to adopt first use policy during the Cold War, so therefore Russia now being in a similar position will do the same. Russia's statements and laws on nuclear weapons use say that they will only use them if they are used against Russia, but there is a caveat. It also says 'or in the case of existential threat to Russia', which would be a scenario like a massive invasion etc. In other words they are quite specific about the scenarios that would cause their use. They are not 'ambiguous'. Another thing that concerned me was how this speaker framed the possible levels of response using nuclear weapons. The scale began at no first use and only gets worse from there! He said ruling out first use is not a possible option and implies the ideal posture is somewhere between that and full unleashing of them. Ruling out not being the first to use nukes is a little troubling i think. p.s. There was a recent show down between the USA and Russia the second time the USA hit Syria with a salvo of cruise missiles. Russians began to wonder if the USA actually wants war. They were afraid. I worked with Russians for 12 years. My understanding is that what they fear is losing control of their vast natural resources to Wall Street etc and basically becoming tenants and debt slaves in their own country. Russians will go through a lot to prevent that. Their perception of liberalism is also harmed long term by the Yeltsin years. They associate liberalism with the aggressive privatizations that caused so much hardship and the looting of their country by the oligarchs that rose in that time. The word liberalism is as distasteful to most Russians as communism is to many Americans (I do not mean liberal like it is used in the USA to describe left wing). This is a reason why Western backed liberal politicians garner very little support there.
Currently The United States cannot decide on a nuclear strategy of their own. The problem that they are having is actually very simple one. In order to come up with a good strategy You have to be willing to lose something. You have to sacrifice something. If I told you that Australia does not exist in the future but New Zealand does. Well then You have a sacrifice You can use it to strategize To your advantage. If I tell you that in the future Hungary exists Then understand that that is not a sacrifice. In order to strategize you have to be willing to sacrifice.
The budget would be better spent on Earth Sciences and education. There are folks selling a young Earth, a lot of them. How can you understand this conversation, if so?
The people understand the threat of Nuclear war in an environmental and science-fiction （Teminator setting）and the Devestion it would bring. Besides with access to wikipedia, just look up Hiroshima. i've actually been to the Nagasaki Peace Park and Atomic-bomb Memorial Museum on my first homestay to Japan when i was 14 years old. And on my second homestay, i went to Hiroshima Dome Park and the Hiroshima Atomic-Bomb Memorial Museum. And living in Japan for.17 years has taught me, those Atomic-Bombs left a permanent scar on the Japanese peoples' psyche. People would have more faith in science. If it were done correctly with openness and transparency. Starbucks funds all the caffeine studies. Novartis and Merc fund all the pharmaceutical safety studies. Ajinomoto and Procter and Gamble run their studies on the safety of the addictive obesanogenic and neurotoxin, MSG. My own doctor doesn't recommend i eat foods with MSG. Of course the pharmaceutical companies and food companies are going to give false or biased info to the FDA and pay them off. As for vaccines. Something tells reason has gone out the window. with angry mothers who have kids that fall into the autism spectrum. i think the vaccine recipe has changed and is kind of risky for people with weakened immune systems. But for society at large vaccines are good. As for the children with autism spectrum could they be victims of project Artichoke.
@@wtfhowbizarre1946 All good information and points, thank you. Folks just don't know or can't know, atomic decay theory was the last or best proof of the age of our planet and beyond and that is both amazing and threatening. The Tepco Daichii disaster spread more proof, another test. The waste of it all is spread across the planet.
Because he collaborated with our allies, and was willing to raise taxes and would have had a second term if it wasn’t for another republican run against him and Clinton
There can be no limited nuclear war, at least in my opinion. And there is no viable first strike option that would leave no surviving forces on the other side. The question was always and will always be, how many millions are we willing to lose? A tactical nuclear weapon could wipe out an armored division or an aircraft carrier in one blow. Would we just accept that and not escalate further. Doubtful.
An excellent summary of nuclear strategy. Best one on UA-cam at least.
Rather on point right now
Could you post the slides for the talk?
Yes, it's realistic to make certain assumptions about the immediate context, but unless there is a real reason to perpetuate tensions between large nations until the end of time, it might be suggested that we recognize that there is no longer any rational reason to assume that the US, Russian and China cannot simply co-exist. There is a continuing inertia that assumes the inevitability of tensions between these powers, in many policy making circles. This inertia is not reducible to the interests of defense contractors (though that is certainly part of it). It's mainly due to habits of thought, to the almost a-priori assumption that tension between large powers will never really abate.
From a longer term perspective, what is genuinely 'realistic' is the impossibility that civilization will continue to exist, unless policy makers recognize the unsustainable nature of such tensions, and figure out how-to unwind the assumptions that underlie what is being expressed here and in similar talks.
Does anyone realistically believe that humanity can negotiate the next 50-75 years in a world with WMD, if we continue to re-inflate these adversarial relationships? It is miraculous that the world survived he first 75 years of the 'nuclear age'. How many more times do we wish to continue rolling the dice?
Basically the American people, and hopefully policy groups and elected officials, will increasingly recognize that tensions are not really metaphysically necessary.
Very prophetic.
Rev 20:8 "And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea."
This guy is a rock star. Very enjoyable for the layperson.🚀
Would love to be able to fallow Jason in current times
I love Jasen's lectures about these topics. He is clearly a Democrat but it never plays into his assessments of policy, reality, and risks. I wish he would do more chats thru Lawrence Livermore and why did you cut out the questions?
Another thing if you believe as I believe that Finland will fare better than Sweden. Why would you Focus your resources on Sweden? You have to be willing to Focus Resources Where they are best utilized. My sister's father was a nucular scientist at your laboratory. Even though you claim you don't do nuclear.
The speaker mentioned Russia parading their arsenal and advances and said it is for domestic consumption, but that is about as far as he went. He goes into detail on US posture, but almost zero about published Russian posture, i.e., Russia has a no first use policy not only in official statements, but also in law (and supposedly implemented in war planning and COC structure etc). Does the speaker not believe them and think they are lying? How can one speak on assessing their posture and not discuss what they say are their policies and laws? It should be called 'Assessing America's response to what they think Russia would do'.
His main premise was that conventional inferiority caused the USA to adopt first use policy during the Cold War, so therefore Russia now being in a similar position will do the same. Russia's statements and laws on nuclear weapons use say that they will only use them if they are used against Russia, but there is a caveat. It also says 'or in the case of existential threat to Russia', which would be a scenario like a massive invasion etc. In other words they are quite specific about the scenarios that would cause their use. They are not 'ambiguous'.
Another thing that concerned me was how this speaker framed the possible levels of response using nuclear weapons. The scale began at no first use and only gets worse from there! He said ruling out first use is not a possible option and implies the ideal posture is somewhere between that and full unleashing of them. Ruling out not being the first to use nukes is a little troubling i think.
p.s. There was a recent show down between the USA and Russia the second time the USA hit Syria with a salvo of cruise missiles. Russians began to wonder if the USA actually wants war. They were afraid. I worked with Russians for 12 years. My understanding is that what they fear is losing control of their vast natural resources to Wall Street etc and basically becoming tenants and debt slaves in their own country. Russians will go through a lot to prevent that. Their perception of liberalism is also harmed long term by the Yeltsin years. They associate liberalism with the aggressive privatizations that caused so much hardship and the looting of their country by the oligarchs that rose in that time. The word liberalism is as distasteful to most Russians as communism is to many Americans (I do not mean liberal like it is used in the USA to describe left wing). This is a reason why Western backed liberal politicians garner very little support there.
Currently The United States cannot decide on a nuclear strategy of their own. The problem that they are having is actually very simple one. In order to come up with a good strategy You have to be willing to lose something. You have to sacrifice something. If I told you that Australia does not exist in the future but New Zealand does. Well then You have a sacrifice You can use it to strategize To your advantage. If I tell you that in the future Hungary exists Then understand that that is not a sacrifice. In order to strategize you have to be willing to sacrifice.
flexible response invented in the 1960 lead to conventional warfare dominance today.....
The budget would be better spent on Earth Sciences and education. There are folks selling a young Earth, a lot of them.
How can you understand this conversation, if so?
The people understand the threat of Nuclear war in an environmental and science-fiction （Teminator setting）and the Devestion it would bring. Besides with access to wikipedia, just look up Hiroshima. i've actually been to the Nagasaki Peace Park and Atomic-bomb Memorial Museum on my first homestay to Japan when i was 14 years old. And on my second homestay, i went to Hiroshima Dome Park and the Hiroshima Atomic-Bomb Memorial Museum. And living in Japan for.17 years has taught me, those Atomic-Bombs left a permanent scar on the Japanese peoples' psyche.
People would have more faith in science. If it were done correctly with openness and transparency. Starbucks funds all the caffeine studies. Novartis and Merc fund all the pharmaceutical safety studies. Ajinomoto and Procter and Gamble run their studies on the safety of the addictive obesanogenic and neurotoxin, MSG. My own doctor doesn't recommend i eat foods with MSG. Of course the pharmaceutical companies and food companies are going to give false or biased info to the FDA and pay them off. As for vaccines. Something tells reason has gone out the window. with angry mothers who have kids
that fall into the autism spectrum. i think the vaccine recipe has changed and is kind of risky for people with weakened immune systems. But for society at large vaccines are good. As for the children with autism spectrum could they be victims of project Artichoke.
@@wtfhowbizarre1946 All good information and points, thank you.
Folks just don't know or can't know, atomic decay theory was the last or best proof of the age of our planet and beyond and that is both amazing and threatening. The Tepco Daichii disaster spread more proof, another test.
The waste of it all is spread across the planet.
George H. W. School of Government? Why the hell would you name it that? Don't they want people to attend their school and learn something?
An idiotic comment. HW was hardly a bad president, he was reasonable and measured compared to W and the current disaster.
Because he collaborated with our allies, and was willing to raise taxes and would have had a second term if it wasn’t for another republican run against him and Clinton
I tried... But the audio is garbage. I can't struggle to listen to this. Too bad though. It seemed like an interesting concept.
@Stacy J Yes!
Thumbs down
bot detected