Russia, Donald Trump, United States discussed on Worldly
Any government that gets bound by nuclear weapon has respond pretty frigging forcefully And so I'm I'm I just don't believe in the measured responses based on the kilotonne of the bomb. Yeah I mean that's the question right. Is that there's this the nuclear threshold sold right and the nuclear taboo is like a famous and of concept that's been talked about in political science into turns literature as that. There is a taboo on using any kind of nuclear nuclear weapons so the question is would that nuclear taboo hold if it's a low yield new like does the fact that it's still nuclear technology that it's still a nuclear weapon. Fundamentally still put you into that category of no we have to respond in kind with nuclear weapon as opposed to we drop a very large conventional bomb on on Moscow and also sorry to everyone in Russia. We're not actually joking about like bombing people in Russia. I understand this is very serious. And we're talking about about a very theoretical level so but we all understand this very horrific and very real terms in terms of possibility in human life so I don't think we're being to flip with that but if we were to drop a conventional conventional weapon would Russia or China respond with a nuclear weapon. Or would they think no. That's that's taboo. We don't want to cross so we would just respond in kind with a conventional weapon and I think that's the question is do low-yield. Nukes still meet nuclear taboo threshold right. Yeah no I agree completely. I think that that's That that is one of the bigger issues and I I guess I just. I am of the belief. It's these moments right. I have trouble believing like rationality of government because at one case. It's almost more rational to respond with a bigger nuclear weapon. If your mom to the mini-nuke you another sense. It's also kind of rational to not because if if you're rushing this case you do know that if you go into a nuclear with United States you're probably GonNa end up losing losing moving. Beat you strong. But everyone's not gonNA end up. Well right we show disrupt. Yeah exactly so like I'm just I would just be kind of like setting off off of me new leads to the obviously con side of this argument. which is you could start a nuclear war? This would be a problem. It's not even just like an issue you of if we use it during a conflict on its own right. There's also a question of announcing all of these new uses and theories. The reason and practical technologies and deployments for Nuclear Weapons has the potential to set off a version of a nuclear arms race. Swear if the US is starting to do all of these different kind of innovative and aggressive things other countries will have an incentive most notably Russia and China to do similar sorts of things. Things could make nuclear use more likely in the future so even just the act of declaring that we're putting these these mini nukes on our submarines is one on that could theoretically destabilize global politics right like not in an immediate catastrophic. I'm not trying to be doomsayer e about it. I'm just saying that. There is not only a risk in the event of a war with Russia and China which is unlikely to begin with anytime in the foreseeable future. It's that the act of doing so raises the risk of conflict on its own in a very very very small but I would say measurable way honestly measurable but it also so gets into trump's broader approach to the nuclear arsenal kind of in general You know we've talked about this on the show before but you know the end of of new start at the end of if these missile nuclear treaties that we've had with Russia going back to the Cold War when John Bolton was in the White House he he is not anymore. You may have noticed this week But he was very skeptical of arms control agreements and was trying to pull the US out of these various agreements. So it's not just this right if you take this one you know isolated issue of the of the submarine low-yield Nuke. Maybe that alone wouldn't kick off the nuclear arms race potentially but when you put it together with the entire rest of you know also going to say that we're GONNA do other issues field other Missiles and weapons that we haven't before under treaties And then you hear. Trump's statements on wanting to just rebuild the nuclear arsenal in general general that have collectively I think very much has the potential to set off a nuclear arms race. Let me give just a little bit of credence to the trump administration's argument here because as I mentioned before I'm ninety five percent persuaded by the arguments that you guys have said. The five percent on trump's side here is his team. I don't think he's thinking deeply about it but like we're kind of already in an arms race in the causation is hard to find great but you know. Russia is claiming to build a nuclear powered. Missile that is unstoppable. Russia has built an incredible missile arsenal. That would make it very hard to the United States to if in the event of a large war with China for us to kind of get involved we have the missile has nuclear weapons and also runs on nuclear power yet. That's the theory. Yeah Yeah Yeah. No one believes. That's true the batteries smart that's but anyway And then on top maneuverable it's a whole anyway And like I there are capabilities that we are missing like we Russia just to be clear. Sorry to cut you off but Russia does have like way more nuclear weapons than we do still route way more or it's where it's close but they do have more okay. It's not like at that point. It's like Marshall Returns right they do have numerically more but it's also aging etcetera right but like look Marsha tactical nukes as well We do have a thousand but they're on airplanes and they and it's hard to beat missile defenses defenses Depending on where you are and it's it's hard to be air-defense as well and so having a stealthy sub with the ability to kind of shoot this many new from any point and almost at any point in the world is probably a good thing to have if they have it. We should have essentially kind of I I. I definitely understand that in terms of the traditional deterrence theory. That's very standard. Right right like the realist. Argument of nuclear deterrence is like well. If you're going to have have the big bad weapons I need to have the big bad weapons too so that you can't control me and you can't dominate. But what does instead. Nobody had them. What if we had international world I WANNA WANNA get into a little bit later? Is You know we can talk about it now. But the trump administration's policy is really interesting when you look at trump's statements themselves he's been super were contradictory even on the campaign trail twenty sixteen. He's really contradictory and his views. A nuclear weapons in one breath will say that you know they're an existential threat humanity in there. You know one of the scariest things and you know he talks about. I think his uncle You know explaining nuclear weapons to him when he was younger and it's scaring the hell out of them seems genuinely frightened. Yeah in the same breath. He'll say but I think you know. Nuclear proliferation is Bob in the same breath. Jose will Japan should mean to get their nukes and South Korea. One point join so you know. It's kind of interesting because he seems to actually understand. Zach your perspective which I also share in the middle Yes these women's are terrifying and it would be great if we had none of them. I think that the realistic point of view. He probably has an and the one that I actually share. Is that the cats bag We're at the point where lots of countries have nuclear weapons. We could have international arms agreements that could restrict them. And and you know cut down the number we have like we did during the Cold War but right now it doesn't seem like that's where the world is is moving and so the argument there there is you know well then we should have to obviously the. US could be the way in moving. That direction is is the other argument to be clear. I wasn't advocating for unilateral and immediate disarmament. I thought I was saying was like these. Different newfangled nuclear technologies. That people are developing We don't need to be developing new ways to blow up the world and we could possibly limited committed to the things that we have right now in any event. We're GONNA talk about more and all of this after short break beer back. This episode is brought to you by the sinful delicious seven deadly sins America's favorites infantile full-bodied zinn produced in lovely Lodi California. It's dark intriguing and a real crowd pleaser. So last week We taped this add. JANAE opened a bottle in the studio. Alex you were not there you get a chance to taste some afterwards yes. I was so sad to miss it in the studio but my God how much I enjoyed it outside of it. I'm a big wine drinker and it was really really good Yes probably shouldn't have drunk it in the middle of the day but I recommend it at any time For people I mean it was it was velvety it. It was smooth really did a lot for me I I really. I mean immediately went out and bought a bottle for myself. If you're interested in learning more visit seven deadly winds dot com slash worldly to get this heated mystically seductive. Wine can buy it online or in some seats. You can even have a shift right to your house which is awesome. I.