Will Russia use nuclear weapons? | John Mearsheimer and Lex Fridman
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • John Mearsheimer: Isra...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Notion: notion.com
- ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com/lexpod to get 3 months free
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off
- Eight Sleep: www.eightsleep.com/lex to get special savings
- AG1: drinkag1.com/lex to get 1 month supply of fish oil
GUEST BIO:
John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Věda a technologie
Full podcast episode: czcams.com/video/r4wLXNydzeY/video.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: czcams.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power.
He left out the Budapest Memo. Ukraine gave up all its nuclear weapons for assured security assistance from the US, Russia, and UK. Russia wont use them in Ukraine because of that document
*There's nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause!*
'
Tick tock Lex...
Nailed it!
This was probably the best interview of all in this podcast. Pls bring him back in the future. This man is as sharp as Japanese katana.
He contradicts himself in the same interview but stupid fans are too stupid.
Actually katana were not sharper than any knife, probably even less sharp due to the lack of good steel in al Japan.
Professor Mearshiemer is someone you can hear all day and never get bore
True, the gentleman is brilliant!
So true the man speaks facts and he speaks it so u can understand, and I'm all here for it.
Agree first time watching him interview and I’m hooked. Very intellectual and knowledgeable.
The guy that predicted the ukrane war 10 years ago, censored in his own country, accused of being a apologist
Les and his terror complex is getting old.. if his palm sweat so bad, let Rogan do the interview MTFU.
These conversations are moot. Russian nuclear weapons doctrine is very specific in their use. There are only two scenarios in which Russia will use nuclear weapons, and this has been confirmed time and time again by Putin and the defense ministry: a) they are attacked with nukes first and will hence use them in retaliation; and b) there is a direct and imminent threat to the existence of the Russian governmental system as a whole. Russia isn't stupid. Using nukes offensively and indiscriminately will trigger a retaliation from NATO (if not with nukes then definitely full military retaliation); it will ostracize Russia within the global community, and it will kill all their global alliances, especially with China.
There is absolutely no reason or benefit for Russia to use nuclear weapons outside of the two points in their doctrine. Even if they wipe out their military opposition, they will become isolated and probably invaded and probably nuked in return. I also really don't think Russia wants to pop off a nuclear war and endanger the whole planet. Russia and Putin aren't anymore evil than the west. They have their own selfish interests just like every other global power. Russia is as likely to use nukes as the USA. Israel (more specifically Netanyahu's Likud thugs) is more likely to use nukes than Russia.
Saying Putin isn't anymore evil than the west is a clean way to your wipe the credibility. Yes, we are all serving our own self interests but his interests are purely internal and thus destructive to those outside. Our self interest involves the self interest of others hence why you can even point to 'the west' as a unified group in the first place.
Lex makes a great point about what would happen when that news traveled. People worldwide would panic extremely hard.
Sure, but isn't that the most obvious, basic point to make about a nuclear attack 😂
PLEASE stop overlapping clips.
This entire interview might be my fav YT interview of all time. Outstanding.
The professor is good at human behavior & pure simple logic.
He left out the Budapest Memo. Ukraine gave up all its nuclear weapons for assured security assistance from the US, Russia, and UK. Russia wont use them in Ukraine because of that document
I totally disagree when it comes to nukes, no nuclear power will accept their national parks being hit with nukes...
Yes, but it's logic, based on the premises of a multipolar world, and nation states being sovereign. The plannedemic has clearly demonstrated, those premises are completely false, as no nation state has challenged the one world order.
He previously described Putin as "too smart" to invade Ukraine. Cold Warrior game theory thinkers seem to get no shortage of passes when they decide to apply their study of history into theories that predict the future and screw up.
@@spankministerMersheimer is a Putin apologist
I think The Rock is the best. It’s on a small mountain, but still low enough to easily provision. It’s warm enough to live in all the time. It’s got a huge maze of tunnels that only the defenders know to potentially sneak in more food. It might even be possible to survive a dragon attack by hiding deep in the mines.
Even if Kissinger wouldn't have initiated a nuclear escalation in the event of a Warsaw Pact victory in Europe (itself extremely unlikely), France would have. They have their own independent nuclear arsenal, and would use it if the alternative was to be invaded by Warsaw Pact. So the world would not have escaped a nuclear escalation scenario. And that's something that Kissinger should have known and prepared for.
Thats a very good point. Any country who possesses such weapons could use them if the conditions are right, naive too think otherwise.
I love when people like you many years removed have a better stretaegy and more insight than the people who are reacting in real time to what’s going on in the world lol its foolish
@@kylemutti2992 Kissinger never ever had to react in real-time to whatever. He's not a soldier on front line. He's not reacting to a street fight. Heck, he's not even a politician, he doesn't even have to make a statement, nor take any decision !
No, its role is to "theorize", to prepare in advance what would be the better decision *if* ....
So, all the time in the world to think a problem correctly.
Which is fine, the world needs people in such position. They have the means (time and information) to foresee far in advance, extrapolate from little nuance, and because their mind is somewhat tuned to this exercise, are generally unable to act decently in the face of immediate pressure.
But I guess that's way too much nuance for a troll. Your urge to throw a random disparaging thought to feel superior in the moment had an imperious priority. Thinking, after all, is limited to Kissinger & Co.
Mr Lex , there is so much valuable content in this interview, you could make a 3 day seminar of it. I had to watch several clips, videos multiple times to be able to absorb all the historie, topics and views of it. Also the energy and view difference between your obliged positive naivety and your guest surprised, doubtful (but pleased there is still hope) reaction is fantastic to see on the screen. I’m also pleased you brought a guest giving insights from a rather other side compared to your previous guests. Not easy for you to go ahead with your promise of giving platform to all sides (left, right, middle). You walk the talk, keep up with the great work. Ever tough bringing 2 opposing guest for 3 hours in an interview, you moderating? I think the outcome results in trough bromance between the opposites, or at least them getting closer.
Why people worry so much about a country with the GDP of South Korea? Been there several times, a lot of hard working people who just want to get along with everyone.
Understanding power dynamic is so important to have civil and mature negotiations, no matter who wins or loses. So many things could go wrong and escalate uncontrollably.
So it's better to normalize low yeald nukes in warfare than just an all out nuke war?
I don't see that as a better option.
Nobody said its "better" to nornalize lol
Lex saying "The fact we don't see aliens...". Hybrid John smiles in silence...
You could be wrong.
He was just sitting content for having an interesting conversation and listening to a good point.
There is no evidence of aliens in the known universe as of yet. Scientifically speaking.
@@what_comes_next_88 "scientifically speaking" are the words you choose to blindfold yourself. Do not confuse "science" with what the media wants to define as "science". Science means empirical evidence and transparency. When you have whistleblowers in Congress, air force pilots on JRE and army vets in prison for releasing videos you should automatically know there is an accountability issue, a transparency issue and a withholding of information issue. Saying "scientifically speaking" there is no evidence at this point is akin to saying "I don't even want to look at the evidence available as I'm not prepared to contemplate a world that is different from my acquired perception of it". "Scientifically speaking" we should have full access to all facilities mentioned by Bob Lazar, we should have all videos mentioned by Lt. Frazer, we should release all documents mentioned in Congress. "Scientifically speaking" we should not automatically dismiss any "alien mummy" popping out of South America, the shamanic oral traditions of every corner of the world and even religious accounts from India, the Middle East, Tibet, South Africa and other places. "Scientifically speaking" we should look into each claim and whenever we find someone witholding information we should ask "Why?", "Who is paying you?" and "show me your bank transactions".
Only then, "scientifically speaking", you'd have a chance to understand something about the real science, not the sterile watered down version they want you to believe in as if it was a religion of minimalism, conformism and economy of thought. What you call "science" is nothing more than the modern equivalent of puritanism.
We do see aliens 👽
STOP THE WAR
John is so damn sharp and just makes sense.
Wow that was a great episode
Every time lex has a thought the nuclear weapon emoji face goes off
Very nice dialogue 👍
It’s not if, but when.
Nukes make great powers less likely to go to war? What about Gas, Germs, Rays, Rats, Cats or Bats?
What were nukes made for
What's more terrifying...the disclosure of an alien presence or what these two are talking about?
This was a great interview
I mean there is only one country so far that has actually used a atomic weapon on people that were mostly civilians btw not once but twice, but they seem to deflect from that and dont want you to talk about it lol
What point are you trying to make?
@alexandremaximov3885 the point is the US seems so worried about other countries using them when they are the only country that has in a war killing thousands of civilians in the process seems pretty hypocritical, no? But I know anything the US does is justified and ok, though, right? The point seemed pretty obvious to me
@@liquidragonfu5546 Oh I know the US is plenty hypocritical. Me being Russian automatically means I'm obligated to hate them :P
But let's try using your argument, so you can see where I'm coming from.
The so-called targets of those nukes have themselves slaughtered tens of millions of Chinese civilians. By your logic, that means the Japanese are not allowed to protest what gets done to their civilians since they've done plenty right?
Do you see the flaw with this?
The problem with your point is that you're insinuating that they should just be fine with everyone having and using nukes however they wish.
These aren't toys, they're world-ending weapons. I believe it is good to restrict the number of countries that have access to nukes and protest their usage in war.
The US does have a problem of doing BS things, and then whining about others who start doing the same. I agree with you there. They should be called out by the international community when it happens. But I think when it comes to nukes, they're right to be worried about who and how they might be used.
@OigySmoigy you seem to be grasping at Straw to try and say I'm wrong about idk something.....just seems to be proving my point lol idk you are not making alot of sense
I know where you are coming from, but keep in mind that people used to say something similar about Iran. Namely, that the US downed a civilian Iranian plane killing all on board, how irresponsible and evil of the US to do that. Then in 2020 Iran did the same... they shot down a civilian plane killing everyone on board.
My point is... your argument will have no validity the day when Russia or other nuclear armed state uses its nukes against civilians. And that's not something very unlikely to happen.
"Will Russia use nuclear weapons?"
That is a very stupid question. Yes, they will under the right circumstances.
Just as the good old USA did on Japan. Isn't it funny how America is so concerned about any Nation using Nukes when they are the only Nation in the history of the world that has used Nukes?
The other difference is that Jason was going on a land grab through the pacific going as far south as bombing Darwin in Australia. A-holes like that Japanese emperor, Hitler and now Putin need to be stopped.
US didn't need to use nukes on Japan. They admitted it.
Plus Japan didn't surrender because of the nukes but rather because the Red Army was going to invade Japan and they were terrrified.
@@timmy-wj2hc so 6 days after the second nuke they surrendered. Quite a coincidence.
Obviously Lex is asking the question in the context of Ukraine and potential circumstances that may occur. What he’s doing is asking an expert to weigh those potential circumstances to determine what may tip the scales. Pretending like this is a stupid question can only hold up as a semantic strategy where others’ words are used against them in a literal and rigid manner ignores common speech and communication patterns. Or, to be brief, take the stick out yo ass.
@@OigySmoigy Russia has the worlds largest nuclear arsenal. No one is going to fire at them or invade them. That’s why this isn’t about NATO, this is about him wanting puppet regimes instead of successful democracies in his area. Effectively a new USSR.
Didn’t Israel put nuclear bombs on planes at the start of the 1973 war when they thought they might get overrun by Egyptian and Syrian forces?
Prob that’s how they descalated the Egyptians
Israel behaves with the Palestinians the same way the Germans did with the Jews in 1939
Every nuclear power has inits doctrine a provision for using nukes in a scenario of imminent threat to said country's existence.
All my comments about Oppenheimer was deleted. This is American Democracy and Free of Speech.
@@Man-u-flexNot really. Egypt had a bunch of Russian ballistic missiles with unknown warheads aimed at Israel. Kissinger was wrote about the whole situation.
Lex Fridman, I want to meet you. How can we arrange a meeting?
Every side has a General Jack Ripper, Mr. Mearsheimer
It's unbelievable how people sit in a chair and talk so lightly about "manipulating" risk which can blow us into oblivion.. It's so annoying that some people have this kind of power
*There's nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause.*
Though this is a frightening subject to discuss, Mearsheimer is a pleasure to listen too.
Maybe leaders need to watch The day after and Threads again.
what if they do the same thing about sending nuclear bombs.
Just one little nuke in the middle of nowhere... "just a little demonstration of power"... hopefully the world wouldn't overracte that that. lol
The perfect way to end this discussion - humans versus aliens! Very convincing! No theoretical basis at all . . . but why not?
yes
Al Haig 2 minute warning in the Baltic sea
It is only terrifying if you value your life. Most people do not. Now THAT is terrifying to me.
thank goodness Russia does not need to use nuclear weapons because it has enough alternatives. But Russia has a trip wire automated response set up where it will not be caught with nuclear weapons on its soil. One goes they all go. This is according to Scott Ritter.
Death hand
Short answer….nope.
Putin would have went left when the pipeline, "spontaneously combusted."
Wow!
What for? Dont forget what country actually used it already...
I agree Lex,the use of a nuke would set a terrifying precedent,initially I thought the mere fact of sending the stingers and javellins that sent Russian soldiers home in body bags might prompt use of nukes. Surprisingly not and the lethality of weapons to Ukraine has increased gradually. There is this opinion that the US and Europe should send even more but we all know that an outright defeat of Russia would trigger the policy of "the survival of the Russian state "doctrine advocating the use of nukes. All the talk of wanting Ukraine to win is a smokescreen,stalemate is the preferred course of the West because we can't take the risk of a Russian loss scenario. Feel bad for the brave Ukranian people and the effort and lost lives,but the consequences of a Russian collapse are too horrifying to contemplate. The hidden Western strategy is to bleed Putin of conventional military power and have a negotiated settlement.
“Better red than dead” - Brilliant 😂
nicr k20a swapped lotus
The discussion on the possible use of nuclear weapons seems to me very relevant. The problem is that western media and many people in western countries do not understand the logic behind and they believe that Russia would not use nuclear weapons.
Putin is smart enough not to use them
It's an overblown conversation by the same people who keep telling us that while being the incompetent Russia is still about to take over Europe after Ukraine.
Ukraine has less dead children in 2 years of war than Gaza had in the first month and unlike Baghdad that had it's water supply bombed in the first few days of the invasion Kyiv still has running water, it doesn't seem to me that the Russians would do these things then decide to drop nukes on their border in a country that contains many of their own people.
In the 50 years they've had nukes they've never saw fit to use them, in fact the only country that has used them (on defenseless civilian populations) is that bastion of liberty and freedom the USA
@@TrueDaturaMindNzNo
I dont they they would unless someone joins in
Not true, nukes ended the Japanese conflict and they will likely end this conflict. Western people live in a fairytale and think that the US and the EU are Gods that control what people can and can’t do in a war. Putin does not think like they do. He knows that if he nukes Ukraine then no other nation will do anything significant due to the fact that they aren't directly participating in this war, and if they did than it would be suicide. No one in the West ever thought a group of Islamic terrorist would blow up the WTC in 2001 but look what happened@@TrueDaturaMindNz
Why doesn't MAD apply to Iran and North Korea????
What do you mean? Elaborate it, because a question like this and it seems you´re a internet bot. Iran is not a nuclear power (yet) and North Korea only has, till now, relativelly limited nuclear capabilities to strike an enemy like the US.
@@DaviSouza-ru3ui come on it is clear already. why does mutual assured destruction not apply to all? if they get the bomb why are they going to use it because they will get wiped out in response!
How does it not? Hamas by proxy is an asset of Iran. Israel isn't attacking Iran, but they are prosecuting a proxy war vs them.
Means of delivery. They lack reliable means of getting warheads to North America. The furthest a North Korean ballistic missle test has been made wouldn't take one to Pearl Harbor. Iran only has regional ballistic missles. Backpack nukes may or may not be possible, I've heard arguments both ways from nuclear physists, but assuming they exist the reliability of delivery would still be a crap shoot.
Summation: MAD requires two technologies. The warheads and critically ICBMs. The idea of MAD was conceived over a decade post Hiroshima when missile technologies in Russia and North America meant shooting down the bombers no longer saved civilization.
That’s a great point that the Professor mentioned Russia could get away with using a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine since Ukraine doesn’t have any to retaliate with and of course we wouldn’t ever use any because that would escalate the situation into a full blown nuclear war but at the same time Russia would be hesitant about using one in Ukraine not knowing what our response would be because nobody wants a nuclear Armageddon.
May I point out to you that since Finland and Sweden have joined NATO, significantly increasing Russia's frontage to NATO, Russia's response has been rather mute. This suggests that there are other factors behind Russia's invasion of Ukraine than a pure NATO treat.
They are now saying if they use hypersonic weapoms. There is no radiation. .They are more environmentally Friendly's.
Well the bright side of nuclear weapons IS that there wont be no wars after their use
Put us out of our misery already.
Why would Russia use nuclear weapons on its own border lol
It would look so bad considering the Budapest Memo explicitly provides protection to Ukraine in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons in the 90's.
@@far-middle And who actually should provide protection to Ukraine?
Putin said first place getting nuked is the UK.
📍9:01
It never appeared as if Russia was losing.
russia Is losing. they wanted to conquer Kiev in 2 days
@@cellardoor9882 Winning less quickly than initially intended is still winning.
@@labordayweekend right. but what doea winning mean to russia? conquering the ukraine as thes envisiones? never going to happen
Winning to Russia is controlling the Donbas and securing access to Crimea from the north, which they've already done. The only objective that they haven't achieved is taking Odessa. They never wanted Kiev.
I was alone again in the unquiet darkness
Adult in the room says, stop the fighting, draw some lines - response: no, response: *launches nukes* - would be powerful, destructive, inhumane, but the kids would also shut up.
Hmm, there are always millions of experts that will look back on things that happened and provide elaborate and twisting reasons as to why these things happened. Though none of them will ever be able to predict the future course of events. Thus, as pleasent as it is to listen to them, their models of reality are useless. This is not how the world works.
There was no way that Soviets wouldn’t instantly respond with a nuke if nukes would fly towards USSR
I hope so. All this greed in the world it’s inevitable
Nato to remind ( on letter head, unsigned) the age old orthodoxy of a porportionate tactical nuclear response to a tactical nuclear strike by russia. Note in writing that that position is not particularly led by led by US Uk .
Don't discuss this further except at UN in an attempt to gain agreement to a 90% proportionate response.
Thanks for being quiet when he talks.
... asks _the man in black_ .
From the observation that aliens do not exist, I would not infer that they destroyed themselves in war, but rather that they never existed in the first place.
Like you say it's emotion, no one using their actual brain would fire a nuclear weapon??
Americans have done it in 1945 whith what brain exactly?
I'll move to Australia in case of mad world
Mad Max
We don't see Aliens BECAUSE they look at us and probably saying that where absolutely creasy species.
Well we can't stop being creasy because the aliens won't tell us what it means
They are the angels and demons. We saw the fighting thousands of years ago and we began to do the same thing. We we’re manipulated by the demons and still are. 👹👽🛸👁
Every time I listen to Lex, I am embarrassed by how little he adds to the conversation. He just rambles like someone trying to be deep, but failing.
Stop listening to him then, I Like Lex, I Like John ❤❤
@@lucyyl.5454 he has interesting guests, but he needs to get some sleep and try less hard to be cool.
Lex adds nothing to discussion other than his irritation. Better he shut up n let the expert speak.
@@lucyyl.5454shut up
Fr hes rly ignorant
Nuclear will be used the question is where and on whom
Maybe someday but not right now I don’t believe anyone is crazy enough
SHORT ANSWER: NO
At the close, Lex is referring to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox....and as John said a bit earlier ...it should scare the bejezus out of everyone. Mistakes have happened many times before..en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
He’s not tea talking about Russia using a Nuke, he’s talking about Israel using Nukes against all the Muslim countries that don’t have any Nukes.
Correction......Will America and NATO force Russia to use nuclear weapons.
SPAM 💜💜💜💜💜 my DAD’s favorite.😂😂😂😂😂
If NATO didn't go to Russia's border the Russians would have gone to NATO's border. These countries wanted to be apart of NATO and for good reason.
Russia? Err. What about Israel?
Mad world? It’s bonkers.
"manipulation of risk"
I love how corporate buzzwords make their way into ending the world. All these politicians and warmongers are clowns.
The memo
If I was President, Mearsheimer would be my Chief Advisor.
If you had listened to his advice, you would have found yourself in the same position that Putin found himself in.
For those wondering... Yes.. He said he would so yes.. He will.. Ur all welcome
The US would not use nuclear weapons to retaliate? yeah right!, remember what happened in Japan, the US never needed to use them but did anyway.
What about nuclear attack by proxy? For instance, North Korea threatens South Korea while in a security pact with Russia to surrender without a fight? It’s illogical to think that any nuclear power is going to support South Korea if Russia guarantees nuclear retaliation.
Hunh?
What is a "security pact" with anybody "to surrender without a fight"?
@@TheDavidlloydjones A security pact with Russia that guarantees North Korean integrity. Similar to NATO, but it’s members are nut jobs armed with nukes.
Your question is nonsense. Why would Russia meddle itself in a fight between North Korea (a nuclear state) and South Korea (a non-nuclear state, until now)?
@@DaviSouza-ru3ui It’s not about meddling, it’s about the power of a nuclear arsenal being put to use by a proxy to expand Russia’s influence. We’ve always assumed that MAD prevents the use of nuclear weapons between the nuclear powers, but that comfort disappears with the threat by a proxy protected by the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
What are you babbling about? Your message makes zero sense
Why always Russia and not usa!!!!!????
It’s both neither side trusts each other
Lex looks like a polite James bond
007.1 Goldfinger release candidate
Bond, Khabib Bond
Nope, just a _man in black_ .
Solution to the Fermi paradox right in front of our face: our radio bubbles haven't expanded long enough to detect each other. If we're 20,000 light years away and have been producing radio waves for a combined 1,000 years, they haven't reached each other yet
150 years, not 1000
@@valdisgerasymiak1403 the 1000 is a hypothetical combination of ours, which is more like 100 actually, and another 900 from the aliens
@@valdisgerasymiak1403 that's why I said "combined"
Not just that, if you're 100 lightyears away, a species with our current technology would need an antenna roughly the same square area of New York just to discern our signals from background noise. Oh, and I mean the state, not the city.
Humanity is hidden, they are always watching
They don’t need to. Russia is beating NATO and a coalition of 40 countries in ukraine without it
3 16 24 🎉🎉🎉
☢️
Dude putin himself said he would
Depends - I would have someone independent like you/or a deal maker with what is a logical path forward. I would present it with a list on how it benefits him and be prepared to illustrate/prove it. Of course Zelensky has to agree.
Basically, let’s let him have a chance at being inside the friend circle and let’s see if we can get his cute gentlemanly shrewd businessman cool guy best version on the global stage.
Rich Oligarchs are boring, square and only have friends because they’re scary and rich.
Maybe host The Russia Party🎉🍸🕺🏾💃🏻 to celebrate new - We really do like Vladimir 🥰
But if you make him feel trapped or are insulting him (aside from often do😊) or some way he perceives that - I mean he has to have CPTSD. Yes, we will all get a ride on the hellbound hay ride with Roman candles
Mmm, my banana kush came out great! Happy Thanksgiving 🦃
Hmmm,let’s see…it already happened.Happy thanksgiving from the future.
No, they won't. There is no point in nuking land you are trying to conquer. Stupid question. If they tried to nuke anybody else, their whole country would be glass in a couple of hours.
Yes, they would. It is hard for you to accept this, but they are mostly isolated from the civilized world. They have nothing to lose and keep returning to their old grievances with the West. For Putin, losing it is existential. The fact that Russia has terminated the last agreements about testing nuclear weapons is a sobering reality. Anything can happen, and we need to be prepared for any scenario.
Mearsheimer plays an interesting escalation game here, but the reality is that if only one nuke gets used the likely escalation scenario will end the same: global thermonuclear war. The movie WarGames figured this out long ago: the only winning move is not to play. But perhaps even that statement is naive, which makes me sad.
Why do you think so? The other nuclear armed nation might think: "oh, they launched theirs just for the sake of causing fear, they aren't serious about launching it at us, therefore let's not play their game". In such scenario there wouldn't be a massive response from the other nations to the launching of a single nuke by one of them.
@@User-jr7vfare you sure with social media you can calm the masses if you are a leader of country ??? The Opposition in your own country will presure you and fed the tension "better we use nuclear to our enemy before they used them on us" i imagine this scenario is very likely and i dont know how you control that
ehhh I don't think we can say either way. A movie doesn't mean jack shit. It's a thought experiment at best.
In reality I think whoever is involved would try to stop the threat rather than throw all their chips in the instant they have the option to do so.
If Russia went nuclear - there has to be a response. Even if they do it in a rural area - you cannot normalize the use of nuclear weapons in a modern conflict for any purpose. Its a slippery slope to catastrophe. It is important for the US to make that clear to Russia to prevent them from even trying that desperate move - to undermine the logic John explicitly refers to, believing you can treat Ukraine as a situation where the doctrine of mutually assured destruction does not apply. So to be quite frank - John is just wrong, and is defeated by his own logic. The US not responding in kind prevents a nuclear exchange - but putting a full military response on the table tells the Russians, there is no way to use nuclear weapons in a limited sense. And to some degree its worked because they have done so - saying it will be Russia triggering the great power war. I am not saying there is any happy ending - the world is basically over. But does John actually think condoning a Russian nuclear attack in that scenario is the preferred approach?
Love the conversation gentlemen. I'll continue to watch. MAGA
Lex has been smoking to much ganja with Rogan. His brain is liquidizing
And what about the story of the Russian sub that was ordered to launch a nuke during the cold war and they didn’t obey the order!
The head of the KGB directorate that was in charge of the weapons overruled the standing order. He was on the sub.
Why was he on the sub? Most likely to overrule the standing order, should things go wrong. (In this case, US ships were attacking the sub, and their orders were to fire a torpedo at any attacker - a nuclear torpedo, to ensure the ship was destroyed.) if Khrushchev had been less attentive to the risks, then it’s likely that Kennedy’s orders would have been ignored by the US military per use of nuclear weapons and it would have rapidly escalated beyond anyone’s control.
A Hollywood story regarding disobeying a military order from the highest commander to send a nuke from a so called submarine. Pure story for O'Conner to play when he was alive.
The Russians wouldn’t use a Nuke. The Iranians on the other hand…they might do something stupid.
Or the Americans, they have form after all
😂😅 Russia will not use nuke unless nato attack mainland Russia, thats for sure. Putin isnt that stupid enough
Y not usa did why can’t they