By | November 11, 2022

Goodness likely waiting on China to make Their move on Taiwan my assessment is That's likely to happen in the spring we Had the deputy Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division conducting Military exercise just a few miles from Ukrainian border this is one of the most Disturbing developments that I've seen More than anything else that is the Trigger for a Russian nuclear escalation This month will be the turning point of The war we've been Crossing Russia's red Lines for the past eight months it's Just a matter of time before they Respond with a massive attack and I Think it's going to end very badly for Us effectively right now we would lose a Nuclear war is what you're saying we Would absolutely lose indigen the war With Russia or China there's no question In my mind about that Foreign Folks Canadian prepper here today on the Channel we have back again deputy Director of national operations of the EMP task force and Homeland Security Former U.S Army Headquarters staff Officer and a published National Security strategist and Military Historian and it's safe to say a Russia And nuclear weapons expert the last time We spoke with David Pine it was the day After Nordstrom was attacked and a lot Has transpired since then but the basis

Of our talk today is an article that you Just wrote on your sub stack which I Would encourage people to go and check Out I'll post a link to that in the Description below but what is your Assessment of what's going on with the War well I mean uh you know short-term Ukraine has the momentum uh they've been Taking back uh additional territory from Russia which which Russia recently Annexed back in late September and That's uh that's exactly what we don't Want to have happen because that kind of Situation where Ukraine is taking back Russia next territory is pretty much What some Russian leaders have warned Could Result in a Russian nuclear escalation I Think we've discussed it in the previous Your previous show I assessed that Probably the the most likely Russian Nuclear attack we would see in Ukraine Would likely be some kind of low low Yield nuclear air burst over Kiev that Wouldn't necessarily kill very many People at all but it would essentially Be a supreme B attack which would you Know take out all Communications and and Essentially make key ungovernable from a Ukrainian government perspective uh for Potentially forcing the Ukrainian Government and Military headquarters to To relocate to a western Ukrainian City In terms of the the likelihood uh I

Agree with Rebecca Koffler who's a Retired senior Dia agent who wrote a Great book titled Putin's Playbook on His plan to defeat the US and her Assessment correct is about 30 risk of Russian nuclear escalation before that Occurs she she stated that most likely We would see Um you know some kind of massive Cyber Attack uh or minimally a Space Warfare Attack which uh Russia took down you Know U.S and NATO satellites even just Just uh you know that kind of uh Cyber Attack or uh and ASAP attack against our Satellites our GPS and early warning Satellites would blind us you know would Would make our ability ability to Coordinate uh military responses or even Detect incoming attacks uh you know Almost non-existent and so I think That'd be uh Um probably the first move we would see One of my uh the folks I work with Bob Mcinty is uh who works as uh our Utah EMP task force director has assessed That uh in the war games that he he uh Served in the U.S Air Force as a nuclear War planner he said all of the Air Force War games when he served U.S satellites Were down within six hours of the war so I think it could likely even be even Shorter than that since uh it's been a While since he he left the Air Force so You think and I'll try to play a little

Bit of The Devil's Advocate because I Know there's probably people who are Very supportive of the Ukrainian war Effort but um you are saying that there Would be a targeting of NATO Intel information infrastructure prior To any sort of use of tactical weapons So you feel that the attack would be or At least the person you quoted the Attack would be on NATO as opposed to Ukraine that we would see that Escalatory ladder that step take place Before that That's uh so that's essentially Russia Russian Doctrine is to escalate uh Through a series of runs they have uh Escalation dominance in a number of Fields including cyber you know Space Warfare EMP and nuclear warfare Obviously strategic nuclear is the last Run of the escalation ladder and Tactical Nuclear as the second to last So in a in a general war with NATO That's how they would fight they would They would use cyber first uh then Perhaps escalate to EMP and then move to Tactical Nuclear Um it's obviously a little different Situation where we have uh you know this Proxy war that NATO is fighting against Russia and Ukraine Um and the reason that uh a space Warfare attack on uh us and NATO Satellites would be more likely is

Because you know the US has done so much To provoke Russia to attack us and they Haven't done so yet you know it's been One of the most surprising things coming From my standpoint is that Putin has Shown uh tremendous patients and you Know he's he uh has not been provoked Into uh responding with uh you know his Uh Russia's massive cyber EMP and Nuclear capabilities I I was predicting Uh for for some months that Russia would Would stage a massive Cyber attack Against us in response to Um you know what what we've actually Admitted are cyber offensive attacks Against uh Russia itself yeah I mean It's safe to say that there's a bit of An economic war going on as well and I Think there's some 40 chess being played There with respect to you know the Dissolution of NATO you know if Russia Can cause infighting amongst NATO you Could say that that's a success in of Itself If you can kill your enemy from the Inside out so to speak but what about People who might say You know people who are of the belief That the ukrainians have the right to Fight for their country and take back The annex territories even though it Might lead to nuclear escalation how do We reconcile those two things well I Mean we have the tremendous uh cognitive

Dissonance uh certainly at the at the Level you know the in the Pentagon and In the byte Administration in which they Somehow assess that we can you know wage This Sunday declared war against uh Russia proxy or uh in Ukraine uh give Them essentially you know we have Hundreds of troops uh Special Operations Troops in Ukraine that are essentially Training them on the on U.S heavy weapon Systems High Mars and whatnot and then Helping them decide which Russian Targets to destroy and you know that's Essentially been admitted multiple times You know whether it's uh you know in Terms of the uh the Russian Flagship That was Black Sea Flagship that we Helped them destroy and various other Targets it's or even just taking out Russian generals and we've taken out Over a dozen Russian general officers uh You know essentially giving Ukraine the Actionable intelligence and then and They pulled the trigger and so Essentially the U.S is in many ways I Would argue uh essentially a belligerent In the conflict and uh I mean this is Just you know Russia hasn't responded Yet in kind but I can guarantee you they Have they have plans to do so Um there's a lot of you know you know Questions in terms of why have it why Haven't they done more why are they Engaged on massive cyber attacks against

Us I mean certainly we we did see an 800 Percent increase in Russian cyber Attacks on the US and the first day of The invasion but I I tend to think that Uh you know Putin is likely thinking uh Kind of waiting on China to to make Their move on Taiwan uh certainly they Had uh a lot you know a lot of meetings Uh to coordinate their plans Um in terms of when China is planning Currently planning on uh attacking and Block Heating and invading Taiwan my Assessment is that's likely to happen uh In the spring but uh there's a lot of People that believe that China is Actually unhappy with Russia's Invasion Ukraine and uh in fact there's evidence That uh Chinese president XI actually uh Told Putin that he wanted to to see uh Russia escalate the war in Ukraine and And conduct this uh you know No Limits Full mobilization uh Russia has so far Mobilized about uh you know 381 000 uh Troops it remains to be seen whether They're act they'll actually fall Through with the mobilization of uh over A million men as some Russian sources Were proclaiming but whether they do or Not uh will determine I think whether They decide to use nuclear weapons Because if we don't agree to negotiate a Peace agreement uh with with Russia or Kind of pressure Ukraine to do the same Then I think Russia will have no choice

Other than either you know mobilizing uh Over a million men to uh occupy and Perhaps Annex most of you if not all of Ukraine or else to use nuclear weapons Or uh possibly cyber EMP weapons that They could use to win the war within a Week Yeah we're going to talk a bit more About all of those the specific weapons That they might use because there's a Lot of flippancy around you know what The Russian capabilities are with that I Think there's a lot of people who brush It off as if it's no big deal because They watch videos of you know uh the Russians making errors on the Battlefield today and they they presume That they extrapolate that to their Strategic forces and you're going to Talk today about why you know that may Be very misguided because they do Allocate a significant amount of their Military budgets to working on their Strategic forces and their research and Development in that maybe first what About this idea that Russia is running Out of weapons what do you make of that Because that's been something ongoing Narrative since the beginning of this Thing oh Russia is going to run out of Weapons any day now what is your Assessment of that because we know you Know they're using a lot of the Loitering Munitions now are they just

Utilizing those because they're more Effective or is because they're running Out of stuff Well I think that we need to understand Uh here in the west that 80 of what we Hear uh from you know our liberal Mainstream media sources are likely 80 Percent uh you know disinformation from Ukraine uh War propaganda you know Obviously uh both the US and Canada are Led by fervently anti-russian Pro-ukrainian leaders I'm Pro Ukraine I'm you know I'm anti-russian but I Think that we I think it's important That we you know try to find uh a peace Agreement negotiate a peace agreement And and uh kind of end the conflict with With Russia so I don't think that Russia Is uh uh running out of weapons I think We've really underestimated that the Number of missiles uh in rockets that They they have uh they have tremendous Uh amounts of of short range and and uh Medium range uh ballistic and cruise Missiles Um I do I do think that Putin has made a Tremendous number of mistakes in Fighting the war or primarily in terms Of you know making it a special military Operation we previously discussed that Uh he's forced Uh Russian forces to Fight outnumbered on the battlefield by Ukrainian forces by about three to one Um this mobilization order will will

Certainly change that there's so many Things that he could have done Um even GPS Jammers Uh Russian GPS Jammers haven't been used utilized Enough but primarily in terms of taking Out Ukrainian satellites and Communications and and power and at the Beginning of the war Um there were all these three and four Star generals here on Fox news that that Stated their estimates that uh you know Key would fall within three days and Ukraine would fall within uh within Three weeks it was all conditioned upon The Russian use of uh you know massive Uh cyber capabilities which are ISS uh Them to be in the best the best in the World they've obviously focused a lot on Hitting uh Ukrainian critical Infrastructure I think by some reports Over half of critical infrastructure has Been destroyed or disabled according to Ukrainian government sources so I think We'll see a a lot more of that to kind Of Um you know make life difficult for the Ukrainian population without actually Targeting them for death or destruction Uh Russia's been quite good about that In terms of you know trying to limit Ukrainian civilian casualties uh perhaps In the hopes that you know eventually They'll come around and uh and try to You know get rid of zelinski which is

Unlikely but certainly I would say that Zielinski has been a terrible leader for Ukraine and uh his per se policies that Could very well lead to its destruction I agree Um so with respect to in your article You talked about and I don't think I Don't know if this is your theory but That the Russians had been positioning Iskander short-range ballistic missiles Around the kirstan area right now we Know we know that there's a big battle Coming there which by some people's Accounts is going to be like the Stalingrad moment for this conflict the Turning Point potentially in either Direction Is that true that they've deployed these Short-range ballistic missiles to cure Some that potentially have a nuclear Capability Yeah from the outset of the conflict They've deployed nuclear-capable systems So I mean we have to understand that Unlike the US which is pretty much Eliminated most of our uh non-strategic Or tactical nuclear capabilities Uh Russian nuclear capabilities uh in the Tactical area are vast you know they Have about 5 000 non-strategic nuclear Weapons and they're deployed mostly in Missiles but it also in terms of nuclear Capable artillery uh the 2s4 and 2s7 8-inch artillery system

203 millimeter artillery system and then The 240 millimeter mortar those are Self-propelled uh but uh have nuclear Capabilities and then as you mentioned It is scanner and various other uh dual Use nuclear capabilities such as the Kinsal and uh and other weapons so they They've had a capability in Ukraine Almost from the odds of the war so it's Hard to to assess that uh their Deployment of you know dual capable Um nuclear short-range ballistic Missiles uh is a definitive uh signal That they're about to uh engage in a Nuclear escalation Ukraine but it Certainly is a sign that they're they're Uh keeping their options open it may may Also be met as as kind of signaling to To Ukraine in the west that they're very Serious about uh potentially using Nuclear weapons and uh the bite Administration is uh has uh reportedly Uh actually admitted to uh you know Talking to top Russian defense Ministry And and National Security officials to Try to dissuade them from using Russian Nuclear weapons because we did receive Reports that uh top Russian military Leaders were actually discussing nuclear Employment options against Ukraine what Do you think the outcome of this Kirsten Situation is going to be because there's There's all kinds of narratives as to What's going on with the the bridge and

The dam and the evacuation and whether Or not the Russians are trying to bait The ukrainians into a fight that they Can't win And do you think that this is going to Be a pivotal moment what do you think The outcome is going to be and do you Think A potential nuclear weapon could be Deployed here well it's what's really Interesting is that uh you know Putin Has ordered the evacuation the civilian Evacuation of Pearson City Um which is almost you know kind of on a Fairly Northern reaches of Russian-controlled territory in kirison Oblast on the uh the north side of the Uh tadipa River and uh you know it's Been a lot of discussion that Russia Might be preparing in general a general Evacuation of all the the territory uh North of the river uh I have read uh Sources that say uh he created is saying That that it's a trap that Russia is Setting for them that somehow they're Um it's unclear to me whether that's the Case or not but I think that this month Will be the turning point of the war That will shift the momentum back uh to The Russians uh because Um I think that Ukrainian forces are Running out you know they're running low On troops uh at the same time the Russian forces are being reinforced by

Uh you know hundreds of thousands of Newly mobilized reservists and uh as Well we know that the November rains uh Occur Um you know kind of mid to late late Month so within a couple weeks two to Three weeks we'll see uh a lot of uh Rain will create muddy conditions that Will favor the defender and they'll Bring a halt to the Ukrainian defensive So I'm a little uh I'm not uh Of the belief that I I don't think Ukraine will will capture a lot more Territory this month And what do you think the utilities of These high Mars because the Russians or The Americans are saying that the Ukrainians haven't lost one high Mars System they've shot down many of the Missiles the Russians have but they Haven't been able to take out one high Mar systems now those same sources claim That the Russians haven't shot down any High Mars either which we almost know For a fact is untrue Because of course as many bridges and Critical assets that are still there Which could have been blown up a long Time ago with these highmar systems but How effective do you think these are and Are they changing the the game for Ukraine because You know it seems like they're they must Be doing something and if they're doing

If they're as good as they say they are Then why aren't they deploying more of These things well we've only provided The ukrainians with the limited number Of hymar systems and we haven't provided The long range versions Um the ones that we we provided I think Have perhaps a range of 45 to 50 miles So it's a pretty good range but not Really you know a long range enough for Example to hit self-estopal uh from Ukrainian territory or any Um major Russian targets such as the Birch Bridge they are making a Difference particularly in terms of like Counter battery fire and uh you know When when uh in terms of attacking Russian Artillery which Um certainly previous in the Introduction of the high Mars uh and Continuing to today Russia have has a Very major Um advantage over the ukrainians in Terms of artillery systems and Rocket Systems which they've used devastating Effect uh you know maximize a lot of Ukrainian casualties during during this Stage of the conflict so if they are Effective and I'm not sure if you Believe that they haven't lost any of These systems I mean if they've only Provided what like 16 or something I Think somewhere between 16 and 24 and if They're still using them then the shoot

And Scoot strategy must be working and If that's the case then why wouldn't They just double the order and uh you Know because it would appear then that The That's a testament to the American Technological Superiority over Russians in that Respect anyways so why wouldn't they be Deploying more of these things like I Don't understand if it's so effective Why aren't they using more well I think The reports uh that you're referring to Um are false I I think that certainly The Russians have shot down a lot of our A lot of the Ukrainian High Mars Artillery salvos rocket salvos Um and likely destroyed and a few uh Heimers systems as well I don't know uh What the what the exact estimates are in Terms of uh you know High murse losses Um it certainly you find this is is Talking about uh you know another 50 Billion uh as we as he faces the Likelihood of losing control of Congress Uh from uh from Democrat control Um in in tonight's elections or today's Elections Um he's talking about you know during The lame duck Congressional session Um you know passing additional 50 Billion before the Republicans take Control and so that very that package uh You know I haven't seen a breakdown of

What the package would include uh Typically it's included about uh 50 of Our age Ukraine 70 billion thus far has Has been economic and then the other Half has been military uh but I would I Would think that given uh the massive uh Size of that a package that um we would Likely double our high Mars Um uh weapon systems deliveries Um in the next few months do you think Assuming it passes yeah I probably Should save this question for later but Do you I personally question whether or Not a change in the Congressional Outcomes will lead to any significant Foreign policy change you may differ in Your perspective but there's a lot of People who think that it's just going to Be more of the same what do you think About that so I think Republicans in Recent polls there's been anywhere from 52 to 48 or let's see 52 to 45 basically About half of Republicans polled say They want they want a peaceful end to The war as soon as possible they don't Want you know they don't want to Continue the military aid if it's going To prolong war and then the other half Could pretty much say you know the media Conservatives that say that uh they want To continue military aid and definitely Essentially at least for the time being To help Ukraine recapture lost territory So

Um in terms of congressional Republicans Um certainly up to now we've seen Um you know Congress uh on the Republican side dominated by folks like Like McConnell and Lindsey Graham that Are really gung-ho about uh you know Fighting Russian Ukraine uh but then you Know uh House minority leader Kevin McCarthy recently stated that there's Not going to be any blank check for Ukraine anymore in terms of military aid So I would I would assume that uh Republicans would continue to support a Limited amount out of military aid but But a growing number of Republicans Especially in the house are gonna uh are Gonna oppose it so um I think I think What we'll see is kind of a gradual wind Down of a military assistance Ukraine Over the course of the next uh the first Six months of next year Yeah I don't know if I am so convinced Of that just because I feel as though we're we're but one Event away from You know the the situation coming back Into the news and then all of a sudden It becoming a national security issue And You know uh There'll be a lot of pressure on people Then to to support more funding but I Guess we'll see how it plays out Um getting back to the ground in Ukraine

We have the 101st Airborne Uh who's deployed on a apparent combat Deployment along the I believe they're In Romania close to the Ukraine border If I'm not mistaken what is your Interpretation of what they're going to Be used for why are they there You know this this is one of the most Disturbing developments that I've seen In the last five six weeks is that we Had the deputy Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division which hasn't Been deployed to Europe for uh you know Since the end of World War II conducting Exercises you know joint military Exercises just a few miles from the Premium border and stating and openly Stating that uh the mission is is not a Training Mission but it's a combat Deployment you know where they're ready To to go in uh with hours notice uh to Uh uh you know enter Western Ukraine and That's and essentially what's uh what What's been said as as their mission Would likely be uh kind of a blocking Mission which uh they would perhaps uh Take a position in Odessa which uh you Know run the Russians uh certainly Expressed interest in capturing in order To cut uh you prayed off from the Black Sea which they've learned you know Mostly done thus far especially with Their their blockade but you know There's been the brain deal which has

Gone back and forth that has allowed for A significant lesson of the blockade but That's a very disturbing development Because it um even if we were to enter You know send troops in Ukraine on kind Of a quote you know he said he used the Words combat deployment it wasn't like We're just going to be there to help Make sure the supplies arrive in a Non-combat role he set a combat Deployment so essentially what that Means is you know we would be entering The war on Ukraine's side with the Direct U.S military intervention and That really is more than anything else That that is kind of the trigger for uh You know for Russia nuclear escalation Um and and obviously the same thing Would happen in the event of you know if We were to buy more to make uh to make Good on us is threats to defend Taiwan Militarily in which he stated four times Uh basically providing strategic Clarity That won't go into war with with China Over Taiwan Um you know these are creating two you Know two different uh simultaneous Conflicts in which uh either either one Uh you know could could bring us into it Uh you know a nuclear EMP war with with Russia and China combine and then North Korea as well because in my assessment Uh the terms of the sign of Russian Alliance are essentially you know if

Either one either party finds itself in Direct conflict with the with the US the Other party will enter the war uh Directly uh you know and engage in Attacks on uh U.S military bases and Perhaps the U.S Homeland itself Yeah it's um it's difficult to see Whether or not the like what the Russian Response would be because We've we've heard them use the term like Red line many times before with respect To the Crimean bridge And with respect to you know attacking Critical infrastructure like nordstream So they've attacked Nordstrom they've Attacked uh the the bridge and by they I Mean obviously you know there's no Official uh uh agreement upon who has Done that yet but I think we all know Who did or at least we know that it was Perhaps not the Russians we'll see Um but they haven't seemingly Escalated at least not towards NATO Directly they've intensified their Strikes on Ukrainian critical Infrastructure but they haven't crossed That line yet so a part of me wonders if This Airborne Division uh slow creeps Into Odessa say on a peacekeeping mission you Know wood would a Russia immediately Respond or you know would there be uh I Guess My curiosity lies in where are the

Russians going to first engage NATO Directly is it going to be an attack on Critical infrastructure is it going to Be I mean what what do you think does Look like you said that it might be Cyber attacks and it might be Um attacking a satellite system do you Think that there's a potential for Attacks on critical infrastructure In NATO I do yeah I think I think uh Currently I think the nuclear EMP threat On the USC Canada or Quite limited Um you know but in terms of cyber I Think this uh risks of Russian Cyber Attack on the US are fairly High you Know uh it could really come at any Moment the more provocations we we do Against uh Russia in terms of the U.S And NATO uh the more likely and and you Know that is going to occur in the near Term so Um I do think that's likely I and as I Mentioned I think that the first Russian Move against NATO wouldn't be a direct Military strike I think it would be uh To take out our satellites in space uh To Blind us and essentially make us Unable to coordinate our attacks uh any Affected military response against Russia blinding us to you know attacks Uh On the U.S and NATO uh that are kinetic Strikes uh as well as make it difficult

For us to even assess you know what They're doing in Ukraine itself so Um yeah that would that would be the Most likely move but you raise a good Point you know because Um you know if if uh We were to send one of the first uh Airborne Division on the peacekeeping Mission which there was no you know Total direct uh you know military Mission to fight fight Russia then you Know it's conceivable that uh uh Putin Might delay delay a direct military Response but the whole issue is you know And and this is I was asked this Question early in the war you know what Is what is Russia's red line and the Answer uh you know obviously was when NATO membership for Ukraine number one And number two direct military lethal Military assistance to Ukraine so we We've been Crossing Russia's red lines For the past eight months eight and a Half months Uh ever since the War Began and we've Been Crossing more and more of them and It's just a matter of time before they Respond with uh you know a a massive Comprehensive uh you know Cyber attack Uh against the US and Canada and NATO Countries that could have the potential To destroy our country so Um you know there's not enough serious Thinking that has been put into use by

U.S and NATO leaders as the potential Ramifications you know the serious Destructive ramifications of of our Policy of continuing to you know to Provoke Russia and to you know to fight This proxy war uh against Russia and Ukraine and I think it's going to end Very badly for US unless we abandon it Very quickly with uh you know supporting My my ceasefire proposal yeah we'll talk About that in just a minute Um you said that Russia has 2500 Advanced sub kiloton nukes designed to Create little Fallout ruling out any Effect on their own country so I think a Lot of people they get the idea that if They ever use the tech one of the Deterrents from using a tactical nuke Would be the blowback effects but Apparently with these low-yield tactical Nukes they function just like a large Conventional bomb a very large Conventional bomb and the thus this they Might be enticed to use it for this Reason should this Ukrainian offensive Actually gain Steam Uh do you maybe you could talk a little Bit about uh maybe we can go into the Types of weapons that might be employed And how a nuclear how the nuclear Escalation might unfold so Maybe you can explain to people a bit About these these tactical nukes that Russia has and what their capabilities

Are and what the reality of that Situation is yeah so Russia has a total Of about five thousand uh non-strategic Nuclear weapons or tactical nuclear Weapons which have are these Advanced Battlefield weapons that have yields Between uh 0.1 and one kiloton so in Other words one hundred to one thousand Uh tons of TNT equivalent and as you Mentioned Peter pry brought to our Attention Um before his uh his unfortunate passing He uh he stated that uh you know all These 2500 Battlefield nuclear weapons Are um you know produce zero Fallout They're extremely Advanced they produce No Fallout whatsoever and so Um you know it's very that's unheard of For a nuclear ground burst uh every Other you know every quote-unquote Conventional nuclear weapon produces Nuclear fallout and so with these Weapons essentially Um you know and admittedly they're They're designed to you know to to fight NATO and so it's unclear whether they Would be used I guess Ukrainian force is In a tactical role I think they're they Would more likely be uh you know the Russians would use use them in a Strategic role you know for EMP type Attacks which would you know essentially Take out entire cities and you know in Terms of communications and power and

Internet and uh you know make them uh Unusable or you know degrade uh Ukrainian military's ability to defend Those cities uh potentially enabling the Russians to capture them Um but uh yeah they could be used this Could certainly be used by Russian Forces in a tactical uh mode in which uh They're used against to destroy entire Ukrainian units regiments brigades Perhaps Um and battalions Um to uh essentially you know blow holes Through the Ukrainian lines destroy Their strong points and then enable Russian forces to you know skirt around The you know the the devastated areas uh With with minimal risk of uh you know Radioactive exposure Yeah that's you know that's going to be News to a lot of people who have no idea That those things exist And uh we it's safe to say we have no Equivalent in our Arsenal we don't so we Have uh the only tactical nuclear Weapons we currently have are the the B-61 uh nuclear gravity bombs that were Designed uh in 63 and were first Produced in 1963 so their ancient Obviously we've um we have some that are Upgraded uh we recently upgraded a Number of our Um b61 gravity bombs in in uh the five NATO countries where they're stationed

To uh kind of what what's called dial Yield where they uh you know they have a Yield perhaps between let's say 20 and 100 kilotons typically tactical nuclear Weapons are uh 50 kilotons and below so Perhaps it's 20 10 to 10 to 15. Um but uh you know our our uh nuclear Spectacular nuclear weapons are are Really primitive you know I mean they're They're not mounted on Hypersonic Missiles like the many of the Russian Tactical nuclear weapons are and uh we Do have between 8 and 32 Um Trident two based uh tactical nuclear Weapons uh with a yield of only five Kilotons I think that was a really Foolish move of the part of the Trump Administration to uh downgrade uh you Know replace a number of our strategic Warheads on our Trident II missiles with Uh tactical nuclear weapons but those Were essentially the only tactical Nuclear weapons we would have in a war With China uh because all of our 150 to 200 b61 gravity bombs are located in Europe obviously they could be Redeployed but uh I see no contingency Plans to do so at this point And the Peter pry had estimated that And and you probably have a similar take That if there was uh all-out nuclear Exchange that ensued and a lot of people Have misconceptions about the mutually Assured destruction hypothesis and

Nuclear winter that only three percent Would actually die from the Direct Effects of nuclear exchange but 90 Percent would perish from second and Third order effects can you maybe Explain that a bit for people yeah so uh You know first of all the 90 Estimate is uh was a high end of the Congressional EAP task forces estimate Of Um how many Americans would die Following a a comprehensive EMP first Strike in the United States Homeland so Um it could be 50 but uh I think it Would likely be at the 70 to 90 percent End of uh of the of the casualties you Know estimates Um but um yeah that's absolutely correct Uh Dr pry I believe that nuclear wars Were survivable in the sense that you Know enemy you know Russian Chinese Nuclear weapons are not aimed against U.S cities as many uh many U.S leaders And citizens mistakingly believe they're Aimed at our nuclear and strategic Forces you know to for example or ICBM Uh fields and uh and for uh you know Northern states uh would be the primary Targets of those uh of the nuclear uh Missile attack Uh there's also about 12 about a dozen Uh nuclear storage facilities on U.S Military bases uh then there's three Strategic nuclear bomber bases uh and uh

And plus that there's uh two nuclear Submarine bases at Kings Bay Georgia and Bank or Washington so those would be the Primary targets obviously the first Target uh the most important Target Would be Washington DC so in the event Of a even the most limited nuclear Attack from Russia China Washington DC Would be the first to be destroyed yeah The Russians in particular have uh the Capability to destroy Um you know DC with perhaps as little as Three to five minutes warning and it Wasn't just a it was just a few months Ago that I was on a call with uh former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney in which he reported that a Russian nuclear submarine had been cited In Chesapeake Bay and that's something We we haven't seen since the Cold War Uh so they have the capability but to Just you know infiltrate uh nuclear Missile submarines in Chesapeake Bay Where they could you know just nearly 100 miles perhaps from from the capitol That's insane and we know that in the Most recent uh nuclear posture review That uh the dod released they had Altered their nuclear Doctrine can you Maybe talk a little bit about the Significance of that I don't I wouldn't say that we've really Altered our nuclear Doctrine there was There was uh you know kind of a

Controversy within the by Administration To whether uh we should move to a sole Use nuclear doctor and the Soleus Nuclear Doctrine would mean and we would Only use nuclear weapons if if uh our Enemies used nuclear weapons against one Of the U.S or its allies uh so that that Was rejected so what we have is we There's actually two competing nuclear U.S nuclear doctrines that are official One is uh one is uh PDD 60 which Replaces launch on warning which what I Uh refer to as launch on impacts and That essentially says that the US would Not launch extinct the weapons until we Have had absorbed the first nuclear Impact so we wouldn't absorb an entire Nuclear's First Strike but once we Detected a nuclear detonation a ground a Ground verse Um or perhaps an air burst that was um You know above a city very close to to a City that destroyed the city uh you know We would only then would we would we Launch back in terms of our overall Nuclear posture we we haven't really We've all always uh we've never had a no First use nuclear posture so essentially Uh in terms of Um you know a nuclear Doctrine uh Relating to the use of tactical nuclear Weapons uh we've never had a nuclear Doctor that says we can't we can't use Nukes in response to a conventional

Attack on on the U.S or its allies Okay so there isn't much difference now Than before No I wouldn't say there is Um but uh you know one thing that Um they did do Um to the detriment of U.S national Security is they uh they abolished uh They canceled two uh important nuclear Programs one of those was the b83 Nuclear bomb which is Dr Peter price Stated is the only Um it's the only nuclear bomb we have in Our Arsenal which can be used to destroy Potentially even destroy uh the Russia Russia's uh you know nuclear underground Cities nuclear command centers at Yamantown and kozvinsky Mountain uh Which are you know the size of uh the uh The DC Beltway uh they can house uh Thirty thousand uh people each Um because uh you know this is our Largest Warhead we it was the only Megaton uh uh yield size Warhead that we Have in our Arsenal and so they're Getting rid of that they're also getting Rid of our uh what's called The Slick of M which is the the sea launch cruise Missile nuclear uh program which was Essentially uh you know reinstituting The nuclear tomahawks Um on our on our our Navy ships and that That was an important program because it Um you know provided us with you know

Uh that a much greater deterrence value Because currently the US Navy only has 14 nuclear capable ships or you know Ships where uh nuclear missiles are are Mounted and two of those are in retrofit They're all nuclear missile submarines And only four deployed at any time Um You know with two in the Pacific and two In the Atlantic and that doesn't provide A huge deterrent value certainly not to The use of tactical nuclear weapons the Problem we have is that the most likely Um situation which we would have for a Anatomy nuclear escalation would be Tactical nuclear weapons and we're very Weak in terms of our capabilities to Respond to that Um for me the key is you know pursuing a More offensive diplomatic strategy to Prevent a nuclear war in the first place But we have so many leaders that seem to Think we can fight and win conventional Wars against Russia and China uh without Much threat of of nuclear escalation That that mentality is completely false Um and as you alluded to Um U.S leaders and and most of our Citizens believe that Um you know even if one nuclear weapon Was used uh it would automatically lead To a full nuclear exchange which would Destroy the world and none of that's True

Um you know as as uh as I noted in my Article Um you know uh a Russian tactical Nuclear weapon might only irradiate a Few square miles and kill hundreds not Not thousands of of ukrainians or uh or Europeans and so Um it's not automatically going to lead To to a full-scale uh you know nuclear Exchange unless of course we use nuclear Weapons in response directly against Russia Russian forces the orders have Already been given uh by President Xi Jinping to his military to prepare to Attack and invade and reconquer Taiwan With by the end of next year I think It's really important for every American Every Canadian to prepare their families The best way to support this channel is To support Yourself by gearing up at where you'll Find high quality survival gear at the Best prices No Junk and no gimmicks use Discount code prepping gear for 10 off Don't forget the Strong Survive but the Prepared Thrive stay