Latest / The Infographics Show Podcast / How Would the United States Fight a Nuclear War?

Transcript

How Would the United States Fight a Nuclear War? · The Infographics Show Podcast

• 0:10
  Speaker 1: You know, usually when we talk about a military or
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: presidential decision, there's this expectation of a very specific, like
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: Hollywood aesthetic.
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: Oh. Absolutely. You picture the Oval office.
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: Right, the Oval office, the resolute desk, and right there,
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: sitting in the middle of all that polished wood is
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: a big shiny red button under a glass case.
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you flip the glass, you press the button.
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: Boom exactly, the missiles fly. It's a great movie moment.
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: It's the ultimate cinematic trope. Really. I mean, it's binary,
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: it's simple, and it immediately communicates absolute power to the audience.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: Right, and it's clean in a weird, twisted way. It's
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: actually comforting. We as human beings, well, we like things
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: to be visible, to be categorized into a single, understandable
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: physical action.
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: You know, you want to know exactly where the danger
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: is exactly.
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: But when you strip away the pop culture and actually
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: step into the real world mechanics of global deterrence and
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: nuclear command control, that glass case just shatters instantly.
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: Oh, without a doubt.
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: We're looking at an operational landscape that is infinitely more complex, terrifying,
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: and frankly fascinating than anything Hollywood could dream up.
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: It is the absolute definition of a logistical and philosophical labyrinth.
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: I mean, you're talking about an architecture designed to end
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: the world, built entirely with the intention of making sure
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: it never actually happens.
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: It's a total paradox, and that paradox is exactly why
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: we are here. Welcome to Beyond Infographics. I am thrilled
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: you're joining us today.
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: It's great to be here.
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: Our mission on this show is simple. We move past
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: the surface level stats, you know, the simple pie charts,
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: the flashy news headlines, to deliver rich personal insights into
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: the complex mechanics that actually run our world.
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: The real gears turning behind the curtain right.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: And today we are tackling the ultimate existential framework. We're
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: exploring the realities of nuclear command and control, the intricate
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: policies of global deterrence, and how the international threat landscape
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: is rapidly transforming right before our eyes.
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: The stakes literally could not be higher.
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: The margin for error here is zero, literally zero, which,
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: by the way, is exactly why we do this show.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: To decode the zero margin global stakes for.
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: You, the listener, and if you're enjoying the breakdown, hitting
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: that five star button on your podcast app actually goes
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: a really long way in helping us keep doing it.
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: It really does please drop us those five stars. So
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: to your point about that Hollywood myth of the red button.
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: To understand how this global strategy works, we actually have
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: to start with a physical object that initiates.
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: It, all right, Because it's not a button anchored to
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: a desk, No.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: Not at all. It's a highly mobile, incredibly heavy piece
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: of luggage, the nuclear football, the famous football.
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: Precisely officially in military recircles, it's known as the Presidential Emergency.
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: SATCHEL, which is a much less catching name it really is.
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: But the concept in my historical research, it really started
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: to take shape late in the Eisenhower administration. It was
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: largely driven by a White House naval aid named Edward L.
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: Beach Junior. Okay, so nineteen fifties exactly, and then it
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: evolved significantly during John F. Kennedy's era, particularly right around
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: the time of the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban Missile crisis.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: Because before that, the president basically had to be in
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: a fixed location to order a strike, right like stuck
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: in a bunker somewhere.
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: That was the assumption. Yeah, the thought was that the
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: president would be safely in the White House situation room
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: or some underground bunker surrounded by generals in huge communication arrays.
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: But the technology changed.
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: Right the Cold War realities, specifically the speed of incoming
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: ballistic missiles made them realize the president might only have
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: a few minutes to respond.
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: Wow, just minutes? Yeah, well, traveling or on a golf
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: course or in a motorcade. They desperately needed a way
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: to command a massive nuclear response while completely untethered from
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: a fixed command center.
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: So it's not a button. It's a mobile communications and
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: decision making hub exactly. And it is an absolute beast
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: of a bag. Have you seen pictures of this thing?
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: I have? It looks exhausting to carry it does if
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: you read Bill Gully's memoir he was the director of
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: the White House Military Office back in the day. He
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: paints this incredibly vivid, almost absurd picture of the football.
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: What did he say about it?
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: Well, it's a forty five pound leather bag and it's
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: usually encased around a sturdy metal zero Haliburton frame to
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: keep it rigid.
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: Forty five pounds. Just imagine lugging that everywhere right and inside.
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: You don't find a keypad counting down with red led
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: lights like in a James Bond movie.
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: You find paperwork, Lots and lots of highly classified, incredibly
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: dense paperwork.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah, gully noted. There are four main components inside. First,
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: there's the black book. This is a roughly nine x
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: twelve inch binder about seventy five loose leaf pages printed
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: in black and red ink.
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: And that book outlines the retaliatory strike option.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: Right, we're talking major attack options, selective attack options, basically
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: a menu of apocalypse.
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: A horrifying menu, truly.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: Then there's another black book listing classified bunker locations across
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: the country where the president could be evacuated.
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: Okay, that makes sense.
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: Third, a Manila folder with emergency broadcast procedures to address
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: the nation. And finally, the most critical piece of the
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: whole puzzle, the biscuit.
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: Ah, yes, the biscuit.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: It sounds so harmless, it.
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: Does, but it's a three x five inch plastic card
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: containing the authentication codes. Without the biscuit, the rest of
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: the football is essentially just a very heavy, terrifying reading assignment.
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: Right, It's useless without the card. Now I have to
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: ask you about a rumor I've always heard about the name.
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: I actually spend some time trying to track down the
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: origin of this.
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: Oh about the football nickname?
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I've always heard that the term came from a
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: highly classified nuclear attack plan code name dropkick, right right,
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: because it's famously referenced in the movie Doctor Strange Love.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: Is there any historical truth to that? Like, you need
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: the football for the dropkick?
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: It's a fantastic pede of lore. I'll give it that,
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: but the reality is unfortunately much more mundane.
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: Really, that's a bummer.
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the term dropkick seems to have originated purely from
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: the cultural zeitgeist around Doctor Strangelove. The nickname football most
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: likely came from the early military aids who were tasked
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: with carrowing.
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: It. Just guys holding the bag.
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: Exactly, think about their job. They are on twenty four
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: hour rotations, constantly handing off this heavy, awkward leather bag
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: to the next guy, passing it along like a literal football.
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: Oh wow, And given the Kennedy families famous love for
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: touch football on the White House lawn, the nickname just
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: sort of stuck and became part of the vernacular.
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: Okay, that makes so much more sense than a secret
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: code name. It's just military guys making a joke about
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: carrying a.
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: Bag, precisely.
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: So let's unpack the mechanics here. Let's say the absolute
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: worst happens and the President decides to open that black book.
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: How does this three x five plastic biscuit actually come
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: into play?
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: So the biscuit is the key to authentication, which is
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: a vital distinction from authorization. What's the difference there, Well,
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: the football doesn't actually transmit a launch signal. It's not
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: a remote control. If the president gives a launch order,
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: they have to prove they are in fact the actual
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: commander in chief.
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: So they can't just call up and say, hey, it's
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: me launch the messiles exactly.
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: So, the military aid opens a secure line of communication
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: with the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon, specifically
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: the deputy Director of Operations.
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: Okay, so they're on the phone.
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: Right, and the military officer on the other end reads
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: a challenge code, usually two phonetic letters like alpha, bravo.
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: Oh, like a one time pad cryptographic system.
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: That's exactly what it is. The President then looks at
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: the biscuit, which has a list of corresponding codes, finds
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: alpha Bravo and reads the correct phonetic response to verify
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: their identity.
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: So if the challenge is Alpha Brava, the President reads
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: whatever two letters are printed next to it.
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: Right, It's an airtight identity verification system.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: It's astonishing when you think about it, the literal state
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: of humanity resting on a three x five piece of
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: plastic that looks like a novelty credit card.
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: It is surreal.
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: And what's even more mind blowing to me looking at
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: this historical record are the sheer number of times we
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: have fumbled the football or more specifically, lost the biscuit.
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: Oh, the stories are terrifying.
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: The mishaps are incredible.
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: The human element is always the most unpredictable variable in
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: any technological system, especially when the stakes are this high.
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: Absolutely, I mean I was looking into this and Jimmy
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: Carter allegedly kept the biscuit in his jacket.
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: Pocket, just loose in his pocket.
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: Yes, and the story goes that the suit was accidentally
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: sent to the dry cleaner with the nuclear code still inside.
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: That is horrifying.
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: It gets worse. Think about Ronald Reagan to the nineteen
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: eighty one assassination attempt when he was rushed to the
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: George Washington University Hospital. The trauma team literally had to
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: cut his clothes off to save his life.
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: Right, because he was actively bleeding out.
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: Exactly in the absolute chaos of the emergency room, the
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: biscuit fell out of his clothes. It was later found
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: lying completely unsecured on the hospital floor.
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: Anyone could have just picked it up.
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: Yep. And to make matters worse, the Secret Service and
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: the FBI got into a massive jurisdictional dispute over Reagan's
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: bloody clothes as evidence.
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: Wait while the president was in surgery.
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: Yes, meaning the nuclear codes were essentially caught in the
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: middle of a domestic law enforcement squabble.
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: Wow, it just exposes a massive vulnerability in the whole design.
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: The system assumes a conscious, organized president right.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: Furthermore, the military aid carrying the actual forty five pound
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: football was left behind at the hotel because the presidential
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: motor cade sped off so fast to get to the hospital.
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: So the codes were on the floor and the communication
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: hub was at.
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: A hotel exactly, and it didn't stop in the eighties.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety nine, Bill Clinton left a NATO summit
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: meeting early and walked away completely forgetting his military aid.
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: He just left him there.
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: He just left the aid, had to walk back to
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: the White House carrying the football all by himself through
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: the streets of Washington, DC.
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: That is unbelievable.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: And then bringing it right up to recent history during
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: the January sixth Capitol breach, the backup football, which travels
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: with the vice president, came within one hundred feet of
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: the rioters as Mike Pence was being evacuated to the
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: underground loading docks.
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: Which highlights a fascinating and highly choreographed aspect of the
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: football the transition of power.
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: Oh right, because you mentioned the vice president has a
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: backup Yeah, there are.
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: Actually three footballs in existence at any given time.
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: Three. I thought there was just one.
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: Yep, three. One travels with the president, one with the
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: Vice President, and a spare is kept completely secure at
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: the White House.
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: Okay, And the choreography on inauguration day is just wild.
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: I was tracing how this works, and it's like a
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: synchronized ballet of doom.
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: It is a marvel of operational planning. At exactly noon
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: on inauguration Day, the outgoing president's authentication codes their specific piscuit.
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: They instantly deactivate.
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: So at eleven point five to nine they work, and
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: at twelve zero zero zero they are garbage.
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: Exactly simultaneously, the incoming president, who has already received a
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: comprehensive nuclear briefing in the days prior and has been
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: issued a brand new biscuit, sees their codes go live.
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: It's an instant flip.
• 11:27
  Speaker 2: Right, And we saw a completely unique, unprecedented variation of
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: this in twenty twenty one when the outgoing president did
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: not attend the inauguration.
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: Oh right, I hadn't thought of that. How did that work?
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: Well? The outgoing president kept his active football with him
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: down in Florida. Right at eleven point five to nine
• 11:44
  Speaker 2: point five nine am, those codes went dead. Meanwhile, the
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: incoming president's spare football in Washington, DC became the active
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: command hub at exactly noon.
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's stop and unpack this, because this brings up
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: a terrifying question. Sure, it sounds like the world's highest
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: stakes two factor authentication. The president has the password the biscuit,
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: but the military holds the actual hardware the missiles. Correct,
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: but does the president really have absolute unchecked power here?
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: If the military holds the hardware, can they just say no,
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: this is crazy, we aren't doing this.
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: That is the pivotal question of this entire architecture. It
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: moves us from the physical tools of the president directly
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: into the actual chain of command.
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: The journey from the bag to the silo.
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: Exactly how does an order travel from that leather bag
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: to an underground missile silo? And what are the legal
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: guard rails?
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: To answer your question directly, yes, the president has sole
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: authority to order a launch.
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: Wait hold on, meaning they don't have to ask Congress
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: for permission, even though the Constitution gives Congress the power
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: to declare war.
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: Correct, the president does not need to consult Congress at all.
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: That seems wild.
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: It is, But this is where the distinction between declaring
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: a state of war and the president's Article II powers
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: is mander in chief to repel sudden attacks gets highly concentrated.
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: They don't even need the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense.
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: The Secretary of Defense can't stop it.
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: No, the Secretary of Defense is part of the chain
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: of communication to verify the authenticity of the order, meaning
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: they confirm the order actually came from the president's biscuit.
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: But the Secretary cannot legally vedo the decision. That is
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: a staggering amount of power for one human being. What
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: if the President is genuinely impaired, drunk, hallucinating, having a
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: psychological break. We just trust the Secretary of Defense to
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: gently talk them down, but legally they can't stop them.
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: It is staggering, and it's vital to present this impartially
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: because there are two very distinct, highly debated schools of
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: thought here in my research.
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: Okay, what's the argument for keeping it this way?
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: On one side, proponents of the current system argue, this
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: sole authority is an absolute necessity for rapid.
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: Response because speed is everything.
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: Right, if the US is facing a massive incoming stef drike,
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: say hundreds of warheads screaming over the North Pole, the
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: system must allow for I launch. Under a tax scenario
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: where a decision is made and executed in.
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: Mere minutes, you don't have time for a debate exactly.
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: Any required consultation with Congress, or even a required legal
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: consensus among cabinet members would simply take too long. It
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: would render the deterrent entirely useless.
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: Okay, I see that logic, and the other side.
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: On the other side, critics worry deeply about exactly what
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: you just outlined, the risks of a single individual holding
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: this power without traditional democratic.
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: Checks and balances, because it's basically a monarchy in that
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: one specific instance.
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: Essentially, yes, they fear it leaves the world profoundly vulnerable
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: to a rash, miscalculated, or psychologically impaired decision.
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: But surely the military isn't just a blind machine. I mean,
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: generals and officers take an oath to the Constitution, not
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: to a king. They don't just blindly push buttons, do they?
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: You're exactly right, and that brings us to the Uniform
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: Code of Military Justice or the UCMJ.
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: Okay, the military law.
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: Yes, under the UCMJ, military personnel are required to obey
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: lawful orders, but crucially, they are also legally required to
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: refuse unlawful orders.
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: Okay, so what makes a nuclear strike unlawful?
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: It falls under the international principles of Justin Bellow, the
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: Laws of armed conflict. Any military attack must meet certain
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: strict criteria, primarily proportionality and distinction.
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: Distinction meaning you have to distinguish between military targets and
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: innocent civilians, and proportionality meaning you can't use a sledgehammer
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: to crack a nut. You can't nuke a city because
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: they shot down a surveillance drone precisely.
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: And this isn't just a theoretical debate they have in
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: law school. General John Heighten, when he was commander of
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: US Strategic Command, famously testified to Congress on this exact issue.
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: What did he say?
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: He stated plainly that he would advise the President against
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: an unlawful nuclear strike order, and if the President pressed
• 15:57
  Speaker 2: the issue, Heightened testified, he would refuse to execute it.
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: He would literally say no to the president.
• 16:02
  Speaker 2: He would, he said, he would opt instead to find
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: a proportional, legal, conventional alternative to present to the commander
• 16:10
  Speaker 2: in chief.
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: Okay, but wait, if the president opens the black book,
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: those are pre planned options. Didn't you say earlier that
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: those are basically a menu of apocalypse that the military
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: already created. Yes, I did so. If the military created them,
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: aren't they already legal?
• 16:23
  Speaker 2: That is the catch. The preset war plans currently developed
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: under what's known as O Plan eighty ten are exhaustively
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: pre vetted by armies of military lawyers at Stratcom because
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: they have already been scrubbed for legality. Proportionality and distinction
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: in various hypothetical scenarios. Any order pulled directly from that
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: book is presumptively a lawful order.
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: The assumption is that the lawyers have already given it
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: the green light years ago exactly, which brings up a
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: chilling piece of history that perfectly encapsulates this nightmare. It's
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: the story of Major Herold Herring.
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: Ah, Yes, Major Herring. It's a profound case study and
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: the tension of this entire system.
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: It really is. So it's nineteen seventy five. Major Herring
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: is an Air Force missileer. He's one of the guys
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: sitting in the underground bunker behind a multi ton blast door,
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: just waiting to turn the key.
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: A tremendous amount of pressure on those officers.
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: Right, and during his training, he asks a simple, incredibly
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: logical question. He asks, how can I know that an
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: order I received to launch my missiles came from a
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: sane president?
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: A completely rational, deeply human.
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: Question, totally rational. He just wanted to know what the
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: safeguard was. But the military's response, they didn't explain it
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: to her.
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: They do.
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: They discharged him, They fired him just for asking the question.
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: Because the entire system of deterrence relies on absolute, unquestioning
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: reliability at the operator level.
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: The system breaks down if there's hesitation exactly if.
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: The operators in the silos are debating the president's psychological
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: state or the geopolitical nuances of the order, the deterrent fails.
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: The adversary has to know that if the order is given,
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: the keys will turn without.
• 18:02
  Speaker 2: Question, exactly right. The system is intentionally designed to remove
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: hesitation at the silo level. However, there is a mechanical
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: guard rail in place at that level, known as the
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: two person rule.
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: Right the classic movie trope where two people have to
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: turn their keys at the exact same time. Is that
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: actually how it works in real life.
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: It is a very real, highly engineered process. Once the verified,
• 18:24
  Speaker 2: authenticated order reaches the launch facility, two operators must independently
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: verify the message format and the cryptographic.
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: Codes, so they both have to agree the message is
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: real yes.
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: Then they must turn their launch keys simultaneously within a
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: very narrow time window, and the consoles in the launch
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: control center are physically spaced far enough apart, usually about
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: twelve feet, that one person cannot physically reach both keys
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: at the same time.
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: Oh, that's brilliant. It prevents a single rogue operator from
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: starting World War III because they had a bad day exactly.
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: Furthermore, the weapons themselves are safeguarded by permissive action links
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: or pls.
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: I've heard the acronym pls before. What exactly is a
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: pl How does it actually stop a launch?
• 19:07
  Speaker 2: This is a fascinating piece of Cold War engineering. Back
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: in the early sixties, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: completely horrified to discover that US nuclear weapons station in
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: Europe were essentially guarded by standard issue padlocks.
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: You're joking.
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: Padlocks, just regular padlocks. Anyone with bolt cutters could technically
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: access the weapon. So they develop pls.
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: Okay, so what are they?
• 19:30
  Speaker 2: These are highly advanced cryptographic locks embedded deeply within the
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: weapons firing system. They physically prevent a nuclear detonation unless
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: the correct authorization code is inputed, so.
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: Even if you steal the bomb, you can't blow it
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: up right.
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: Modern category fpls use complex split knowledge cryptography, meaning no
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: single person has the full code, and if you try
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: to bypass the pl by physically tampering with the warhead,
• 19:56
  Speaker 2: it will deliberately disable its own firing components, It essentially
• 19:59
  Speaker 2: brick itself exactly bricks the weapon.
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: Okay, here's where this gets really interesting and frankly a
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: bit logically inconsistent to me. How So, we have this
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: massive technological architecture pls, two person rules, satellites, all designed
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: to execute an order in maybe ten to fifteen minutes,
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: very fast, right, But we also have the UCMJA saying
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: orders must be strictly lawful and proportionate. So isn't there
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: an inherent, almost impossible conflict between the extreme speed required
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: to launch under attack and the time needed to deliberately
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: debate if an order is truly lawful or proportionate.
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: That is the central paradox of nuclear command and control.
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: You are asking human beings to make the most consequential, legal, ethical,
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: and strategic decisions in human history in the time it
• 20:43
  Speaker 2: takes to brew a pot of coffee. It's insane. So
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: if the system is primed for this kind of immediate execution,
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: what is the underlying philosophy that dictates when we would
• 20:54
  Speaker 2: actually use it. We have the machine, but what is
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: the strategy driving the machine.
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: That takes us out of the physical hardware and into
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: the realm of declaratory policy and strategy. But before we
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: dive into the strategy that governs the apocalypse, I want
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: to gently remind you, the listener, that if you are
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: finding these strategic insects valuable, be sure to drop us
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: a five star rating.
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: Yes, please do.
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: We are pulling back the curtain on things that usually
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: stay buried in dense white papers, and your support helps
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: us keep doing that.
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: Yes, five stars on your app of choice. Okay, so
• 21:26
  Speaker 2: let's talk strategy. I know administrations frequently review and update
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: their nuclear policies.
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: They do. Every recent administration has conducted one. I spend
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: considerable time analyzing the twenty twenty two Nuclear Posture Review
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: or the MPR, which the Biden administration released alongside the
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: National Defense Strategy and the Missile Defense Review.
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: Okay, so what did you find in there? What's absolutely
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: fascinating here is the sheer continuity. Despite wildly shifting geopolitical
• 21:52
  Speaker 2: wins and highly polarized domestic politics, the twenty twenty two
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: NPR maintains decades of established bipartisan US.
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: Policy, So they didn't really change the rule book.
• 22:02
  Speaker 2: Not fundamentally. It clearly emphasizes that the United States would
• 22:06
  Speaker 2: only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: to defend the vital interests of the US or its
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: allies and partners.
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: But didn't they deeply debate changing the rules on when
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: we would strike first. I remember a lot of noise
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: about that leading up to the release of the MPR.
• 22:22
  Speaker 2: They did. There was significant anticipation in the defense community
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: around whether the US would adopt a no first use
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: policy commonly called NFU.
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: Meaning we promised publicly and officially never to be the
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: first ones to launch a nuclear weapon in a conflict.
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: We will only use them in retaliation exactly.
• 22:39
  Speaker 2: Or Similarly, there was debate over a sole purpose policy,
• 22:42
  Speaker 2: which would state that the only purpose of our nuclear
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: arsenal is to deter or respond to a nuclear attack,
• 22:48
  Speaker 2: explicitly taking other types of attacks off the table.
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: Like biological weapons.
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: Right. Ultimately, the twenty twenty two NPR explicitly rejected adopting
• 22:57
  Speaker 2: both of those policies.
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: Wow, so we absolutely reserve the right to strike first.
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: Yes, we do. And again, examining this impartially, you see
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: a sharp, deeply philosophical divide in the policy world.
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: Tell me about the two sides.
• 23:09
  Speaker 2: Well, Disarmament advocates heavily criticize the twenty twenty two NPR
• 23:13
  Speaker 2: for this decision. They argue that failing to adopt no
• 23:17
  Speaker 2: first use misses a crucial historical opportunity to de escalate
• 23:21
  Speaker 2: global tensions.
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: Because it keeps everyone on itge right.
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: Their perspective is that keeping a first strike option open
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: fuels paranoia, encourages adversaries to keep their own weapons on
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: hair trigger alert, and vastly increases the risk of a
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: miscalculated nuclear war. They feel it's a step backward from
• 23:38
  Speaker 2: global arms reduction goals.
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: Wait, let me play devil's advocate here, because I understand
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: the disarmament side, but ambiguity sounds like a match near
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: a powder cake, not a shield.
• 23:47
  Speaker 2: It can be seen that way.
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: If China or Rush it doesn't know exactly where our
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: red line is, aren't they more likely to miscalculate? Why
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: not just be perfectly clear and say we will only
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: use these if you use them.
• 23:57
  Speaker 2: It's a very valid challenge, and it's the core of
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: the n F you debate, But the deterrence realists look
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: at it through a completely different lens, specifically the lens
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: of extended deterrence.
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: Extended deterrence meaning protecting our friends.
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: Yes, they commend the NPR for recognizing the harsh, messy
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: realities of the modern threat environment. Their argument is that
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: US allies, think of South Korea, Japan, or NATO members
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: who do not have their own nuclear weapons are highly
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: vulnerable to devastating non nuclear strategic attack.
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: Oh, I sink, we're.
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: Talking about massive conventional invasions, devastating cyber attacks that cripple
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: a nation's power grid, or the use of engineered biological weapons.
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: Ah. So if we say we will never use nukes first,
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: we are basically telling an adversary they can use biological
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: weapons on an ally and they won't get nuked in return.
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: Precisely, Therefore, the deterrece realists argue that the deliberate ambiguity
• 24:51
  Speaker 2: of the US keeping a nuclear first use option on
• 24:54
  Speaker 2: the table is absolutely necessary. It deters adversaries from launching
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: catastrophic non nuclear war against our allies.
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: The fear of the unknown is what restrains the adversary.
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: It's like, okay, it's like owning a state of the
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: art security system but refusing to put up a sign
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: in your yard that says we will only activate this
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: if you shoot first.
• 25:13
  Speaker 2: That's a great way to think about it.
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: By keeping the exact trigger ambiguous, you force the intruder
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: to second guess every single move they might make, whether
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: they are breaking in with a gun, a knife, or
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: just a crowbar. They don't know what will trigger the
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: ultimate alarm, so they just don't blink in at all.
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: That's a highly accurate analogy. The ambiguity itself is the
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: structural pillar of the deterrent.
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: Okay, so let's walk down the darkest possible path. The
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: intruder breaks in anyway, the terrence fails, the ambiguity didn't work,
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: the threshold is crossed, and the president gives the authenticated order.
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: A terrible scenario.
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: What exactly are we aiming at when those silo doors open?
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: What is the philosophy behind the crosshairs?
• 25:53
  Speaker 2: The evolution of targeting theory is a dark, macabre, but
• 25:57
  Speaker 2: absolutely essential subject to understand. Historically, during the early to
• 26:01
  Speaker 2: mid Cold War, the prevailing theory was something called counter value.
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: Counter value that sounds very clinical and sanitized, what does
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: it actually mean? In reality?
• 26:15
  Speaker 2: It means targeting what the adversary values most in terms
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: of population and industry. So cities in brutally plain terms, Yes,
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: it means targeting cities and civilian populations. It was the
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: fundamental concept of assured massive retaliation.
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: Like mutually assured destruction.
• 26:34
  Speaker 2: Exactly. The strategic logic was that the threat of losing
• 26:37
  Speaker 2: your major population centers, your cultural hubs, your workforce, that
• 26:42
  Speaker 2: was the ultimate undeniable deterrent.
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: Because no one wants their country turned into ash.
• 26:47
  Speaker 2: Right. However, counter value targeting is largely considered obsolete and
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: lacking credibility.
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: Today because it's a massive war crime.
• 26:53
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Under modern international humanitarian law, intentionally targeting civilian populations
• 27:00
  Speaker 2: violates the core principle of distinction we.
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: Talked about earlier, right just in Bello.
• 27:04
  Speaker 2: Furthermore, there is a globally recognized nuclear taboo that has
• 27:07
  Speaker 2: solidified over the decades since nineteen forty five. Threatening to
• 27:11
  Speaker 2: vaporize millions of innocent civilians is not only legally fraught,
• 27:14
  Speaker 2: but politically and morally abhorrent.
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: The rest of the world would completely turn against you.
• 27:19
  Speaker 2: They would, And from a pure strategic standpoint, if an
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: adversary believes the US President would be too morally constrained
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: to actually carry out in order to destroy a city,
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: then the threat isn't credible.
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: And if the threat is incredible, it's not a deterrent.
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: Exactly, you've lost the psychological edge.
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: So if we aren't aiming at cities, we move to
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: the alternative, which I've heard called counterforce.
• 27:42
  Speaker 2: Yes, counterforce targeting shifts the crosshairs away from civilian populations
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: and directly onto the adversary's military and nuclear assets.
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: So you shoot at their guns, not their people.
• 27:54
  Speaker 2: Right, You target their missile silos, their commanding control bunkers,
• 27:57
  Speaker 2: their submarine pens, their bomber bases. The goal is to
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: destroy their ability to wage war against you.
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: That sounds significantly more ethical, relatively speaking, but from an
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: engineering perspective, it also sounds infinitely harder to pull off.
• 28:12
  Speaker 2: It is exponentially harder. It requires immense, highly precise technological capability.
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: Because you have to be perfectly accurate.
• 28:19
  Speaker 2: Exactly, you aren't just dropping a massive gravity bomb on
• 28:22
  Speaker 2: a sprawling city where being off by a mile doesn't
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: really matter. You are trying to hit a reinforced concrete
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: silo no bigger than a house from half a world away,
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: flying through the atmosphere at mock twenty. Furthermore, adversaries know
• 28:36
  Speaker 2: this is our strategy. So they adapt. They build what
• 28:40
  Speaker 2: the military calls hard and deeply buried targets or hdbts.
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: What are we talking about there, We.
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: Are talking about command bunkers tunneled hundreds of feet deep
• 28:50
  Speaker 2: inside solid granite mountains.
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: You can't just blow those up with a standard air.
• 28:54
  Speaker 2: Burd No, you can't. Destroying those targets requires specialized high
• 28:58
  Speaker 2: yield earth penetrating weapons, weapons designed to crash through the
• 29:02
  Speaker 2: rock and detonate underground to create a localized seismic shockwave.
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: Like an artificial earthquake, to crush the bunker. Exactly.
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: But even straight counter force has evolved into something much
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: more nuanced now, right, It's not just about hitting every
• 29:15
  Speaker 2: single tank and silo anymore.
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I've heard they have a new approach they do.
• 29:19
  Speaker 2: The modern sophisticated approach is often referred to as tailored targeting.
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: Tailored targeting like a bespoke suit of destruction.
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: That's well, that's one way to put it. It is
• 29:29
  Speaker 2: a highly refined, deeply psychological concept. Instead of a one
• 29:33
  Speaker 2: size fits all retaliation of hitting cities or hitting silos,
• 29:36
  Speaker 2: tailored targeting focuses on holding at risk what that specific adversaries,
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: leadership values most So.
• 29:43
  Speaker 1: You literally have to get inside the minds of their
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: leadership exactly.
• 29:47
  Speaker 2: It requires a profound, granular intelligence understanding of a specific
• 29:52
  Speaker 2: adversaries decision making process, and their power structure.
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: Give me an example of how that works.
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: You have to ask what does an authority tarian dictator
• 30:00
  Speaker 2: value more than anything else. Is it their elite military guard,
• 30:05
  Speaker 2: is it their personal fortified command bunkers. Is it the
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: specific industrial base that funds their regime's internal security apparatus.
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: So you don't care about their regular army. You hit
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: what keeps them in power.
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: You tailor the target package to threaten the specific pillars
• 30:21
  Speaker 2: that keep that specific leadership in power. It's highly customized.
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: Okay, but I have a major issue with this theory.
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: Let's say you figure out what the dictator values, but
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: if that adversary deliberately hides their most valued military assets
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: beneath civilian populations, which we know happens constantly in modern
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: asymmetrical warfare, doesn't tailor targeting just become counter value by proxy.
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: It's a very dark gray area.
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: How do you separate the two When an elite command
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: bunker is deliberately built beneath a civilian hospital, or right
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: in the middle of a dense urban center in a
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: capital city.
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: You've just hit on one of the most agonizing, unsolvable
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: complexities of my mind, conflict. If an adversary deliberately uses
• 31:02
  Speaker 2: human shields, the legal and ethical calculus becomes incredibly.
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: Fraud So what does the military do.
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: The military still attempts to adhere to proportionality. They weigh
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: the direct military advantage of destroying the bunker against the
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: anticipated civilian collateral damage.
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: But with a nuke, that math is terrible.
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: It is the brutal reality of a nuclear detonation, even
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: a low yield one, means the collateral damage from blast waves,
• 31:25
  Speaker 2: thermal radiation, and fallout would be catastrophic. In those scenarios,
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: the pristine theoretical line between counter force and counter value
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: blurs heavily in practice.
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: And these targeting theories, as complex and fraud as they are,
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: they don't exist in a vacuum. They aren't just academic exercises.
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: The real world is shifting under our feet right now, dramatically,
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: so looking at the geopolitical data, it's clear we are
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: currently undergoing the most dramatic shift in nuclear dynamics since
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: the early days of the Cold War.
• 31:55
  Speaker 2: We are entering completely uncharted strategic territory. For decades, the
• 32:01
  Speaker 2: global nuclear architecture was essentially a bipolar.
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: Stand off US and Russia.
• 32:05
  Speaker 2: Right, it was a giant, terrifying seesaw between the United
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: States and the Soviet Union and later Russia, two players
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: balancing each other out.
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: But now we have a massive third player. We have
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: to talk about China.
• 32:17
  Speaker 2: We must. The expansion of China's nuclear arsenal is quite
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: frankly staggering. It is a fundamental alteration of the global
• 32:24
  Speaker 2: balance of power.
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: I was looking at the recent projections and they are breathtaking. Historically,
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: China maintained what they called a minimum.
• 32:30
  Speaker 2: Turn right, a very small force.
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: They kept a relatively small number of weapons, just enough
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: to ensure they could retaliate if they were attacked. But
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: recent satellite imagery and intelligence reveals a rapid, unprecedented nuclear
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: build up.
• 32:45
  Speaker 2: They are moving incredibly fast.
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: They are building massive new silo fields in the western deserts,
• 32:51
  Speaker 1: expanding their ballistic missile submarine fleets, and developing advanced bomber capabilities.
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: They are sprinting to achieve a full, highly capable, survivable nuclear.
• 33:02
  Speaker 2: Triad and then numbers are shocking, right.
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: The projection suggest they will possess at least one thousand
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: deliverable nuclear warheads by the end of this decade, or
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: certainly into the twenty thirties.
• 33:13
  Speaker 2: It is a breath taking breakout. Meanwhile, Russia remains what
• 33:16
  Speaker 2: the defense community calls the pacing threat.
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: Right. They aren't just fading into the background because China
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: is building.
• 33:21
  Speaker 2: Up, not at all. Russia continues to possess the most
• 33:24
  Speaker 2: diverse and capable nuclear arsenal on the planet, heavily modernized.
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: Over the last decade, and their doctrine is very aggressive
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: right now.
• 33:31
  Speaker 2: Yes, what's particularly concerning about Russia's current posture is their
• 33:35
  Speaker 2: deep integration of nuclear rhetoric into their conventional operations. We've
• 33:39
  Speaker 2: seen this starkly in Ukraine.
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: The constant threats exactly.
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: Russian leadership uses veiled and sometimes explicit nuclear threats as
• 33:48
  Speaker 2: a strategic shield. They rattle the nuclear saber to deter
• 33:52
  Speaker 2: Western intervention and limit NATO support while they conduct a
• 33:55
  Speaker 2: conventional war. It's an aggressive strategy of escalate to disc late.
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: So we have an aggressively expanding China building a triad
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: from scratch and a highly capable rhetorically aggressive Russia leveraging
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: their arsenal for conventional games, which creates.
• 34:11
  Speaker 2: The ultimate strategic nightmare, the two peer dilemma.
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: The two peer dilemma.
• 34:16
  Speaker 2: Right, if we connect this to the bigger picture, for
• 34:18
  Speaker 2: the first time in its history, US nuclear strategy must
• 34:21
  Speaker 2: account for two major, fully capable, nuclear armed peers simultaneously.
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: That completely breaks the old Cold War math, doesn't it
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: seesaw doesn't work with three people.
• 34:31
  Speaker 2: It strains the underlying logic of deterrence to its absolute limits.
• 34:35
  Speaker 2: Critics of the twenty twenty two MPR argue that the
• 34:38
  Speaker 2: review takes a somewhat business as usual approach to this new.
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: Reality, meaning they aren't adapting fast enough.
• 34:45
  Speaker 2: That's a criticism. They argue it fails to adequately detail
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: a concrete force structure solution, meaning exactly how many weapons, submarines,
• 34:54
  Speaker 2: and bombers we actually need to deter a simultaneous two peer.
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: Threat, because what happens if they team up?
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: Exactly what happens if Russia and China were to actively
• 35:03
  Speaker 2: cooperate or coordinate in a global crisis. How do we
• 35:06
  Speaker 2: divide our deterrence?
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: And we have to remember the sheer destructive power we
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: were talking about here, Because warhead is a sterile word.
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: It sounds like a piece of machinery.
• 35:15
  Speaker 2: It obscures what it actually does.
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: Right. The yield reality of these weapons makes the World
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: War two bombs look incredibly small, almost primitive. It's easy
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: to lose perspective, but these figures just stop you in
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: your tracks.
• 35:27
  Speaker 2: The leap in technology is terrifying.
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: It is The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which devastated an
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: entire city, flattened infrastructure for miles, and changed the course
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: of human history, had a yield of about sixteen kilotons.
• 35:40
  Speaker 2: Sixteen kilotons.
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: Today, a modern US submarine launched ballistic missile like the
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: Trident the second can carry multiple independent warheads. Just one
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: of those warheads, like the W seventy six, yields around
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: one hundred kilotons.
• 35:53
  Speaker 2: Almost seven times the size of Hiroshima, and.
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: The land based ICBMs in the silos, or the heavier
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: submarine warheads like the Double eight those can yield upwards
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: of four hundred and seventy five kilotons.
• 36:04
  Speaker 2: It's hard to even picture that.
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: One single warhead is roughly thirty times more powerful than
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: the weapon that destroyed Eroshima. And one missile can carry
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: several of them.
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: It is an almost incomprehensible level of destructive energy, capable
• 36:16
  Speaker 2: of vaporizing steel and concrete, instantly multiplied by thousands of
• 36:20
  Speaker 2: warheads across the globe.
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: So what does this all mean for the two peer dilemma?
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: If we are facing two massive peers who might cooperate
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: and we have these massive yields, do we have to
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: match their combined numbers weapon for weapon?
• 36:33
  Speaker 2: That is the debate.
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: This seems like a vital question. If Russia has fifteen
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: hundred deployed warheads and China builds up to one thousand,
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: does the US need twenty five hundred to maintain deterrence
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: or does the logic of deterrence have a ceiling?
• 36:47
  Speaker 2: What do you mean by a ceiling?
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: Well, at a certain point, doesn't the ability to destroy
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: an adversary five times over deter them just as well
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: as the ability to destroy them ten times over?
• 36:57
  Speaker 2: That is the multi trillion dollar question, the absolute center
• 37:01
  Speaker 2: of current strategic debates. Some analysts argue, exactly what you
• 37:05
  Speaker 2: just proposed, deterrence has a ceiling.
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: So we don't need to match them, right, They argue.
• 37:09
  Speaker 2: For sufficiency, once you possess a secure, survivable second strike
• 37:14
  Speaker 2: capability that can inflict unacceptable civilization ending damage on both
• 37:18
  Speaker 2: Russia and China. Building more weapons is strategically redundant.
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: It's just wasting money at that point.
• 37:24
  Speaker 2: That's their argument. You don't need mathematical parity in numbers
• 37:27
  Speaker 2: to deter an adversary. You just need the undeniable capacity
• 37:31
  Speaker 2: to ruin their country, which.
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: Makes logical sense. Why build more if the world has
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: already ended? But I assume there's fierce pushback against that.
• 37:39
  Speaker 2: There is massive pushback. The other camp argues that numbers
• 37:43
  Speaker 2: do matter profoundly, especially for extended deterrence and allied assurance.
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: Going back to our allies again.
• 37:50
  Speaker 2: Always, if our allies in Asia or Europe see that
• 37:53
  Speaker 2: the US is vastly outnumbered by a combined Sino Russian force,
• 37:57
  Speaker 2: they might lose faith in the credibility of the U
• 37:59
  Speaker 2: s U nuclear umbrella.
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: And if they lose faith, they build their own nukes.
• 38:03
  Speaker 2: Exactly, they might seek to develop their own nuclear weapons
• 38:06
  Speaker 2: to protect themselves, leading to massive, destabilizing global proliferation.
• 38:11
  Speaker 1: Which is everyone's worst nightmare right.
• 38:13
  Speaker 2: Furthermore, if your strategy relies on counterforce targeting, meaning you
• 38:17
  Speaker 2: have to hit their military assets. You inherently need a
• 38:20
  Speaker 2: sufficient number of warheads to cover all of their rapidly
• 38:23
  Speaker 2: expanding targets.
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: Oh, because every new silo they build is a new
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: target you have to hit.
• 38:27
  Speaker 2: Exactly, if China builds three hundred new silos, you need
• 38:31
  Speaker 2: three hundred new warheads to hold them at risk.
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: It's a terrifying numbers game, a relentless mathematical treadmill, and
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: with more players, more targets, and infinitely more destructive power
• 38:42
  Speaker 1: on the board, the margin for air is essentially vanished
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: to zero.
• 38:45
  Speaker 2: Which brings us back to the systems managing all of this.
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: Right, which makes me wonder about the actual mechanics of
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: starting this process. How do we actually know an attack
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: is coming in the first place, And more importantly, how
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: do we prevent a false alarm like a slock of
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: geese on a radar screen or a computer glitch in
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: a server from ending the world.
• 39:05
  Speaker 2: That brings us to the technological frontier of early warning
• 39:09
  Speaker 2: and command infrastructure.
• 39:10
  Speaker 1: Right because the president can't make a decision, they can't
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: open the black book if they don't have perfectly accurate instantaneous.
• 39:17
  Speaker 2: Data exactly, the US relies on an incredibly complex layered
• 39:21
  Speaker 2: infrastructure of warning to ensure that data is accurate. A
• 39:25
  Speaker 2: critical first line component of this is the space based
• 39:28
  Speaker 2: Infrared system or.
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: SBIs space based infrared system. What does that look like?
• 39:33
  Speaker 2: These are highly advanced satellites sitting in geosynchronous orbit, equipped
• 39:37
  Speaker 2: with phenomenally sensitive infrared sensors.
• 39:39
  Speaker 1: So they are looking for heat.
• 39:41
  Speaker 2: Yes, they are designed to detect the intense heat signatures
• 39:44
  Speaker 2: the literal launch plumes of rocket motors. The moment a
• 39:47
  Speaker 2: ballistic missile leaves the launch pad anywhere on the surface.
• 39:50
  Speaker 1: Of the Earth, like a giant thermal camera in.
• 39:52
  Speaker 2: Space, exactly against the cold background of space, a massive
• 39:57
  Speaker 2: ICBM booster rocket lights up like a beacon, so.
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: The satellite see the heat flare. And then what happens?
• 40:04
  Speaker 2: That data is instantly relayed down to ground stations and
• 40:07
  Speaker 2: central command centers, primarily.
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: NORAD, the guys inside the mountain.
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: Rightch Iron Mountain, though operations have expanded. But here's the
• 40:14
  Speaker 2: critical vulnerability. What if a ground command center is destroyed
• 40:18
  Speaker 2: in a preemptive first strike, or what if the communication
• 40:22
  Speaker 2: lines are severed by a massive cyber attack or an
• 40:24
  Speaker 2: electromagnetic pulse.
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: Then the president is blind.
• 40:27
  Speaker 2: Which is unacceptable. The system has to have impenetrable redundancies,
• 40:32
  Speaker 2: and one of the most fascinating redundancies in the entire
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: US arsenal is.
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: Tecomo to como. That stands for take charge and move
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: out right. I always thought that sounded like something out
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: of an action movie.
• 40:42
  Speaker 2: It really does, but it's a very real, incredibly demanding mission.
• 40:46
  Speaker 2: TACAMO refers to a fleet of highly specialized airborne command
• 40:50
  Speaker 2: post aircraft, specifically the E six B Mercury, which is
• 40:54
  Speaker 2: essentially a heavily modified Boeing seven oh seven, just a.
• 40:58
  Speaker 1: Big commercial airliner modified of the apocalypse basically.
• 41:01
  Speaker 2: And these planes are constantly in the air or on
• 41:04
  Speaker 2: alert two hundred and forty seven three hundred and sixty
• 41:07
  Speaker 2: five days a year.
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: What makes them so special? Why not just use a
• 41:10
  Speaker 1: normal radio to talk to the subs.
• 41:12
  Speaker 2: Because normal radio waves don't travel well through water at all,
• 41:16
  Speaker 2: and the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad is
• 41:18
  Speaker 2: the submarine fleet hiding deep in the oceans.
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: You could just call them on a cell phone.
• 41:22
  Speaker 2: No, if ground communications fail, Tacomo aircraft have a specific mission.
• 41:28
  Speaker 2: They use trailing wire antennas to communicate securely with submerged
• 41:32
  Speaker 2: ballistic missile submarines and land based silos.
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: Ensuring the president can always transmit a launch shorder even
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: in the midst of a nuclear war.
• 41:39
  Speaker 2: Exactly now.
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: I read about these trailing wires, and the physics of
• 41:42
  Speaker 1: it is wild. They literally unspool a wire out the
• 41:45
  Speaker 1: back of the plane that is miles long.
• 41:47
  Speaker 2: Right, Yes, the primary wire is over five miles long,
• 41:50
  Speaker 2: five miles. They use very low frequency or VLF radio waves.
• 41:55
  Speaker 2: VLF waves have massive wavelengths, meaning they can bounce between
• 41:58
  Speaker 2: the ionosphere and the Earth's surface to travel.
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: Globally, and they can go under water.
• 42:03
  Speaker 2: Crucially, yes, they can pierce the surface of the ocean
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: to reach submarines without the subs having to surface and
• 42:08
  Speaker 2: expose themselves. But to transmit VLF effectively, the antenna has
• 42:13
  Speaker 2: to be perfectly vertical.
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: Wait, how do you keep a five mile wire vertical
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: behind an airplane flying at hundreds of miles an hour?
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: Wouldn't it just trail behind it like a tail?
• 42:22
  Speaker 2: Yes, normally it would. So the pilots have to perform
• 42:26
  Speaker 2: a continuous, incredibly steep tight banking maneuver, basically flying in
• 42:31
  Speaker 2: a continuous tight circle at near stall speed that sounds dangerous.
• 42:35
  Speaker 2: It is physically exhausting. They do this so that gravity
• 42:38
  Speaker 2: pulls the five mile wire straight down toward the ocean,
• 42:41
  Speaker 2: keeping it vertical, and they do this for hours on end.
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: It is an incredible technological and physical safety net, it is, but.
• 42:49
  Speaker 1: The factor that scares me the most in all of
• 42:51
  Speaker 1: my reading on this is time. We have this incredible tech,
• 42:54
  Speaker 1: satellites and five mile wires, but the human element is
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: squeezed into an impossibly tiny window, the thirty minute window.
• 43:01
  Speaker 2: The physical timeline is utterly unforgiving. Oh so well, if
• 43:05
  Speaker 2: a land based intercontinental ballistic missile and ICBM is launched
• 43:10
  Speaker 2: from deep within Russia toward the United States, its flight
• 43:14
  Speaker 2: time on a ballistic trajectory over the North Pole is
• 43:17
  Speaker 2: roughly thirty minutes.
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: Thirty minutes. That's a sitcom episode, that's a daily commute.
• 43:23
  Speaker 2: It's nothing, And that's not thirty minutes for the president
• 43:26
  Speaker 2: to sit and ponder their legacy.
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: Right, because detection takes time exactly.
• 43:31
  Speaker 2: The first few minutes of that window are consumed by
• 43:33
  Speaker 2: the SBR satellites detecting the launch bloom. The next several
• 43:37
  Speaker 2: minutes involve the military validating that the launch is.
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: Real, making sure it's not a glitch.
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: Right, They have to correlate the infrared data with ground
• 43:45
  Speaker 2: based early warning radars, assess its trajectory, and confirm it
• 43:49
  Speaker 2: is a definite threat to the homeland.
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: So how much time does the president actually get?
• 43:52
  Speaker 2: By the time the president is located, briefed on the
• 43:55
  Speaker 2: incoming threat, and presented with the football, they might have
• 43:58
  Speaker 2: less than ten or fifteen minut to review the dense
• 44:01
  Speaker 2: black book, select a retaliatory option, authenticate their identity with
• 44:05
  Speaker 2: the biscuit, and have the military transmit the order.
• 44:08
  Speaker 1: It's just staggering in human pressure. You're asking one person
• 44:13
  Speaker 1: to end the world before their coffee gets cold.
• 44:15
  Speaker 2: It is an incredible burden.
• 44:17
  Speaker 1: But wait, didn't you mention earlier that the twenty twenty
• 44:19
  Speaker 1: two NPR says we don't have to make that decision
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: in fifteen minutes. How is that possible if the missiles
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: are going to hit.
• 44:24
  Speaker 2: In thirty This is perhaps the most crucial stabilizing factor
• 44:27
  Speaker 2: in all of US policy. The NPR assures that US
• 44:30
  Speaker 2: nuclear forces, specifically those submarines hidden in the oceans and
• 44:34
  Speaker 2: the disperse bombers, are survivable enough to ride out an
• 44:38
  Speaker 2: initial strike.
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: Ah, So even if our land based silos are completely
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: wiped out, the subs are still out there, hiding in
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: the dark, ready to strike back.
• 44:47
  Speaker 2: Exactly because the US knows it has an assured second
• 44:50
  Speaker 2: strike capability that will definitively survive a massive surprise attack,
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: the President is not legally or strategically forced into a panicked,
• 44:58
  Speaker 2: use it or lose it scenario, so they don't have
• 45:00
  Speaker 2: to guess. They do not have to launch on warning
• 45:03
  Speaker 2: based purely on early radar data. If they want to,
• 45:06
  Speaker 2: they can wait for absolute, undeniable confirmation of a nuclear
• 45:09
  Speaker 2: detonation on US soil before retaliating.
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: This drastically reduces the catastrophic risk of starting a global
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: nuclear war over a radar glitch, a rogue satellite sensor,
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: or a system error.
• 45:21
  Speaker 2: It's a massive pressure relief valve.
• 45:23
  Speaker 1: Okay, that is a massive relief. But as technology advances,
• 45:27
  Speaker 1: that thirty minute window isn't getting any longer. In fact,
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: it's shrinking rapidly.
• 45:31
  Speaker 2: You're referring to the new delivery systems.
• 45:33
  Speaker 1: Right. I was looking into the development of hypersonic weapons.
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: These vehicles don't fly in a predictable, high arcing ballistic
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: trajectory over the pole.
• 45:41
  Speaker 2: Do they No, they don't. They fly at lower atmospheric trajectories.
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: And they maneuver unpredictably at speeds exceeding mock five. They
• 45:48
  Speaker 1: can evade traditional early warning radars until they are incredibly
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: close to their targets.
• 45:53
  Speaker 2: Which is terrifying for command and control.
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: It completely compresses that decision window from thirty minutes down
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: to maybe fifteen or even ten minutes from detection to impact, and.
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: That extreme compression of time creates intense psychological and operational
• 46:08
  Speaker 2: pressure on decision makers. When time is compressed, the risk
• 46:11
  Speaker 2: of miscalculation skyrockets.
• 46:14
  Speaker 1: And it's not just the delivery systems getting faster, it's
• 46:17
  Speaker 1: the entire information landscape getting murkier. We are fully living
• 46:21
  Speaker 1: in the era of artificial intelligence.
• 46:23
  Speaker 2: Now AI factor is huge.
• 46:25
  Speaker 1: We have AI generated deep fakes that look and sound
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: completely indistinguishable from reality. What happens in an escalating geopolitical
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: crisis if a deep fake video circulates on social media
• 46:37
  Speaker 1: showing a foreign leader declaring a preemptive nuclear launch, or.
• 46:41
  Speaker 2: Worse, what if AI is integrated into our own early
• 46:44
  Speaker 2: warning systems to speed up detection and data fusion. But
• 46:47
  Speaker 2: the AI hallucinates a threat that isn't there.
• 46:50
  Speaker 1: Exactly a machine hallucinating the end of the world.
• 46:52
  Speaker 2: This raises an incredibly important existential question about the future
• 46:56
  Speaker 2: of command and control. How do we integrate twenty first
• 46:59
  Speaker 2: century software with twentieth century apocalyptic hardware.
• 47:03
  Speaker 1: It sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
• 47:05
  Speaker 2: However, I want to provide a vital piece of insight
• 47:07
  Speaker 2: from current policy that should offer some reassurance against that
• 47:10
  Speaker 2: specific nightmare scenario.
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: Please do, because a deep fake starting World War three
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: keeps me up at night.
• 47:16
  Speaker 2: While AI is heavily and necessarily used for data integration,
• 47:20
  Speaker 2: analyzing vast amounts of intelligence and processing early warning sensor
• 47:24
  Speaker 2: data much faster than a human could.
• 47:26
  Speaker 1: Right, the computers have to crunch the numbers.
• 47:28
  Speaker 2: US policy draws a very hard, non negotiable line. The
• 47:33
  Speaker 2: US strictly requires a human in the loop for any
• 47:36
  Speaker 2: nuclear employment decision.
• 47:38
  Speaker 1: So an AI cannot legally or physically turn the key,
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: no matter how fast it thinks. No.
• 47:43
  Speaker 2: The US has publicly committed and is actively pushing for
• 47:46
  Speaker 2: international agreements with other nuclear arm states to do the
• 47:49
  Speaker 2: exact same, to never hand the final launch authority over
• 47:53
  Speaker 2: to an autonomous system or an artificial intelligence network that
• 47:56
  Speaker 2: is huge. A human being with all our inherent flaws,
• 48:00
  Speaker 2: but also our profound capacity for moral reasoning, context and intuition,
• 48:05
  Speaker 2: must always make the final conscious decision to use nuclear weapons.
• 48:08
  Speaker 1: That is somewhat comforting. It's the ultimate policy firewall against
• 48:12
  Speaker 1: a literal terminator style scenario where the machine deicized humanity
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: is a threat to itself.
• 48:16
  Speaker 2: It's the last line of defense.
• 48:18
  Speaker 1: And listen, if you the listener, are as fascinated by
• 48:21
  Speaker 1: how this cutting edge technology intersects with the very survival
• 48:24
  Speaker 1: of our globe, please take a moment to rate the
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: show five stars. They do. It helps us bring these massive,
• 48:29
  Speaker 1: world altering concepts right to your headphones.
• 48:32
  Speaker 2: It is a profound intersection of technology, psychology, law, and policy.
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: We really appreciate the support it really is. And as
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: we wrap up this exploration, I find myself just reflecting
• 48:42
  Speaker 1: on the sheer, undeniable gravity of everything we've discussed today.
• 48:46
  Speaker 2: It's heavy material.
• 48:47
  Speaker 1: We started with the simple cinematic image of a red
• 48:50
  Speaker 1: button on a desk, and we uncovered a reality that
• 48:54
  Speaker 1: is vastly more complex and demanding. We are talking about
• 48:57
  Speaker 1: a forty five pound leather bag carried by a shadow
• 49:00
  Speaker 1: like military aid through hotel lobbies and emergency rooms.
• 49:04
  Speaker 2: We covered a lot of ground.
• 49:05
  Speaker 1: We really did. We're talking about the legal intricacies of
• 49:08
  Speaker 1: the UCMJ, the incredible moral responsibility placed on the shoulders
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: of underground silo operators like Major Herring, and a sprawling
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: multipolar geopolitical chess match involving thousands of megatons of destructive power.
• 49:22
  Speaker 2: It is a vast, complex and terrifying machine built right
• 49:26
  Speaker 2: on the edge of human capability.
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: But the core takeaway, the fundamental reason this entire architecture exists,
• 49:32
  Speaker 1: from the pay all cryptography to the trailing wires of
• 49:36
  Speaker 1: the Essex B Mercury, is the concept of deterrence.
• 49:40
  Speaker 2: De Terrence is everything.
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: The ultimate goal of building these weapons, writing these dense
• 49:45
  Speaker 1: posture reviews, and practicing these transitions of power is ensuring
• 49:49
  Speaker 1: that the system works so perfectly and so credibly that
• 49:53
  Speaker 1: it never actually has to be used.
• 49:54
  Speaker 2: The machine exists solely to prevent its own operation.
• 49:57
  Speaker 1: That's a beautiful way to say it.
• 49:59
  Speaker 2: That is dense, paradoxical hope of nuclear deterrence. But I
• 50:03
  Speaker 2: want to leave you with a final, perhaps chilling concept
• 50:06
  Speaker 2: to ponder as we step away from this topic.
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's hear it.
• 50:09
  Speaker 2: We talked about the nuclear taboo earlier, the global norm
• 50:12
  Speaker 2: against using these weapons.
• 50:14
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 50:14
  Speaker 2: That taboo has held unbroken since nineteen forty five, But
• 50:17
  Speaker 2: we have to recognize that it has been largely sustained
• 50:20
  Speaker 2: by the visceral, deeply human fear of total annihilation.
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: Because the people in charge remember how scary.
• 50:25
  Speaker 2: It was exactly it was built and maintained by generations
• 50:29
  Speaker 2: of leaders who lived through the acute anxieties of the
• 50:32
  Speaker 2: Cold War, leaders who understood in their bones the reality
• 50:37
  Speaker 2: of the weapons they controlled because they actually watched atmospheric
• 50:41
  Speaker 2: tests light.
• 50:42
  Speaker 1: Up the sky they saw with their own eyes.
• 50:44
  Speaker 2: But today we are handing this terrifying, perfected architecture over
• 50:49
  Speaker 2: to a completely new generation of leaders.
• 50:52
  Speaker 1: Leaders who have only read about it in history books.
• 50:54
  Speaker 2: Right, we are operating in a multipolar world with an
• 50:57
  Speaker 2: expanding China and a volatile Russia, managing hypersonic speeds and
• 51:01
  Speaker 2: eventually integrating these systems with lightning fast artificial intelligence data processing.
• 51:07
  Speaker 1: World is just moving so much faster.
• 51:08
  Speaker 2: Now, so we have to ask ourselves, will the taboo
• 51:11
  Speaker 2: hold against the friction of this modern multipolar, high speed world.
• 51:16
  Speaker 2: Or are we relying on a twentieth century fear to
• 51:18
  Speaker 2: protect us from twenty first century weapons?
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: Wow, that brings us right back to the beginning. We
• 51:23
  Speaker 1: don't have a clean, binary red button under a glass case.
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: We have a murky, fast moving, high stakes reality, and
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: that glass case is looking more fragile every single day.
• 51:32
  Speaker 2: It certainly is.
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us for this edition of Beyond Infographics.
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: We hope we've given you a lot to think about
• 51:39
  Speaker 1: and a deeper understanding of the invisible structures that keep
• 51:42
  Speaker 1: the world turning.
• 51:44
  Speaker 2: Thanks for listening.
• 51:45
  Speaker 1: Remember to rate us five stars, subscribe, and above all,
• 51:49
  Speaker 1: stay curious. We'll see you next time.