Latest / UK Column Radio / Michael Palmer on All Nuclear Weapons being Fake | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

Michael Palmer on All Nuclear Weapons being Fake | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

0:30
Speaker 1: My name is. This is germ warfare, the battle of ideas.
0:34
Speaker 1: So the last time you were on with me, we
0:37
Speaker 1: chatted about Hiroshima, Nagasaki and why Japan couldn't have been nuked. That,
0:45
Speaker 1: by extension, leads one to ask the question do nuclear
0:50
Speaker 1: warheads or do nuclear bombs or do nuclear weapons even exist?
0:56
Speaker 2: Well?
0:56
Speaker 3: I suspect the same. I think the evidence is not
0:59
Speaker 3: quite as good, At least in my understanding. The evidence
1:04
Speaker 3: is not as comprehensive as it is in the case
1:09
Speaker 3: of the Japanese bombings. But this is simply due to
1:12
Speaker 3: the fact that these all these tests were carried out
1:16
Speaker 3: in secret, right, I mean, there was no large audience,
1:19
Speaker 3: There were no human victims, or at least not very many,
1:22
Speaker 3: and if there were any, then no comprehensive data on
1:25
Speaker 3: them have been released and so answer forth. So the
1:29
Speaker 3: question is what kind of positive proof is there that
1:33
Speaker 3: they indeed are nuclear weapons. One point to make is
1:38
Speaker 3: that they certainly have never been used in warfare. If
1:41
Speaker 3: we accept the conclusion that in Japan they were not used,
1:45
Speaker 3: then all there is are nuclear tested donations. I do
1:50
Speaker 3: believe that these test donations were actually real, at least
1:54
Speaker 3: many of them, or not necessarily all the footage. For example,
2:00
Speaker 3: I don't think that the footage of red flames and
2:05
Speaker 3: black smoke that go up in a mushroom cloud very plausible.
2:11
Speaker 3: They don't really fit the physical process of a neuctleated donation, right,
2:16
Speaker 3: I mean, black smoke is simply sood. Right, sould only
2:21
Speaker 3: arises from the incomplete combustion of carbon of some sort
2:26
Speaker 3: of explosive patrol or whatever. So the footage is not
2:31
Speaker 3: necessarily real. But what I do think Israel is the fallout.
2:34
Speaker 3: So nuclear fallout I think is real. You can detect
2:37
Speaker 3: it in all over the place, and it was indeed observed,
2:46
Speaker 3: particularly in the nineteen fifties. It came down in the
2:48
Speaker 3: nineteen fifties and in the nineteen sixties, so at least
2:52
Speaker 3: a good part of it predates the era of peaceful
2:56
Speaker 3: use of atomic energy for tricity generation. So I guess
3:02
Speaker 3: some sort of test donations were carried out. Whether the
3:08
Speaker 3: devices that were exploded in these tests were really suitable
3:13
Speaker 3: as nuclear weapons, there's a wholly different question if we
3:15
Speaker 3: don't have any proof positive for that. I would also
3:20
Speaker 3: like to briefly draw attention to the book by Arku
3:23
Speaker 3: Nakatani death object.
3:27
Speaker 2: That is right.
3:29
Speaker 3: So this guy, I think it's not his real name.
3:32
Speaker 3: I think he is writing under a pen name. But nevertheless,
3:35
Speaker 3: the claims to expertise as an applied mathematics professor are credible.
3:42
Speaker 3: From the style of his writing, I think there is
3:44
Speaker 3: enough technical explanation there that give the impression he knows
3:49
Speaker 3: what he's talking about. And he claims to have carried
3:53
Speaker 3: out simulations computer simulations of nuclear detonations of the devices
3:59
Speaker 3: of types that were allegedly used in Japan. Right, we
4:02
Speaker 3: have the uranium bomb in Hiroshima, the alleged one, and
4:06
Speaker 3: then the alleged plutonium bomb in Nagasaki, and he claims
4:11
Speaker 3: that his calculations gave the result that neither device could
4:16
Speaker 3: have worked. Unfortunately, he does not have any details, and
4:20
Speaker 3: I myself lacked the expertise to carry out such simulations.
4:24
Speaker 3: So it would be great if somebody that does have
4:29
Speaker 3: the expertise would actually try to reproduce that work. It
4:32
Speaker 3: should be possible for a person with a good background
4:39
Speaker 3: in theoretical physics nuclear physics, and so only these people
4:43
Speaker 3: should be able to do it. And I think it
4:45
Speaker 3: would be great to simply try to carry out these
4:50
Speaker 3: simulations again and then make the results public. What would
4:54
Speaker 3: be an excellent contribution to the debate. But failing that,
5:00
Speaker 3: but I think we can still say there is no
5:02
Speaker 3: proof positive that atomic weapons really work. And I guess
5:09
Speaker 3: that also leads us to current events. The Iran War, right,
5:14
Speaker 3: the war that is waged by the United States and
5:17
Speaker 3: Israel on Iran, which is justified with the supposed need
5:23
Speaker 3: for preventing Iran from acquiring the clear weapons. Now, one
5:27
Speaker 3: striking aspect of that is that both of the aggressors,
5:36
Speaker 3: the United States and Israel, claim to have nuclear weapons.
5:41
Speaker 3: Even in the case of Israel, it's only wink wink,
5:44
Speaker 3: not Nutch. But everybody is supposed to believe that Israel
5:48
Speaker 3: has nuclear weapons. I think that's the intended effect. And
5:53
Speaker 3: also apocalyptic threats have been uttered by the United States
5:59
Speaker 3: by Trump on Iran. He has said he plans to
6:03
Speaker 3: bomb Irana to the Stone Age if they don't comply
6:05
Speaker 3: with his demands. So that would essentially call for the
6:10
Speaker 3: use of nuclear weapons. Right, if you have trouble to
6:14
Speaker 3: inflict that sort of damage, the intended sort of damage
6:17
Speaker 3: using conventional weapons, why not simply use nukes? But he
6:22
Speaker 3: has not threatened the use of nukes, neither his Israel.
6:27
Speaker 3: And it is also remarkable that Iran does not seem
6:30
Speaker 3: to be at all afraid of such use of nuclear
6:33
Speaker 3: weapons against it, because they have defied the aggressors. They
6:38
Speaker 3: have struck hard, back struck back hard, and they have
6:43
Speaker 3: threatened to escalate further in case of any further attacks
6:47
Speaker 3: on Iran. So neither threats have been used, nor it
6:51
Speaker 3: has they seemed to be any fear on the side
6:54
Speaker 3: of the supposedly helpless victim. Because Iran is supposedly not
6:58
Speaker 3: able yet to via nuclear weapons, they are always two
7:02
Speaker 3: weeks away from it, right, They have been two weeks
7:04
Speaker 3: away from a nuclear weapon for several decades now, according
7:07
Speaker 3: to Benjamin Danyahu, which is also a laughable story in
7:11
Speaker 3: its own right.
7:12
Speaker 2: Communities, this isn't.
7:13
Speaker 3: Higher propaganda is clearly aimed at people without any kind
7:17
Speaker 3: of long term memory, otherwise they couldn't really interpret what's
7:21
Speaker 3: intended with it. Another point is that Iran itself, even
7:29
Speaker 3: so it is obviously under siege and has been threatened
7:33
Speaker 3: for a long time with istra Alian American aggression, has
7:39
Speaker 3: staunchly refused to actually initiate a nuclear weapons program. They
7:45
Speaker 3: have even gone so far. The previous leader, the elder
7:51
Speaker 3: Ayatollah Kamene, had even issued a religious vatvah right, so
7:57
Speaker 3: he had issued a religious ban on the creation of
8:01
Speaker 3: nuclear weapons, which is really quite interesting. So Iran has
8:05
Speaker 3: not pursued a nuclear weapons program, which is quite remarkable
8:09
Speaker 3: considering their obvious technological expertise. I mean, they have shown
8:17
Speaker 3: they can build hypersonic crockets, so I guess simply building
8:22
Speaker 3: a weapon that was already technically feasible supposedly some eighty
8:26
Speaker 3: years ago, that should be well within their reach.
8:29
Speaker 2: Okay.
8:30
Speaker 3: Another point that undermines this entire idea that Iran must,
8:37
Speaker 3: by any means possible be prevented from enriching uranium to
8:42
Speaker 3: bomb grade, which means to something like eighty or ninety percent,
8:47
Speaker 3: is the circumstance that in the history of the world
8:52
Speaker 3: only one atomic bomb, only a single one actually was
8:58
Speaker 3: supposedly uranium bomber that was the one dropped on Hiroshima.
9:02
Speaker 3: If we are going along with the official story, where
9:06
Speaker 3: is the Nagasaki bomb for the plutonium bomb and the
9:10
Speaker 3: bomb supposed detonated Adalamo Gordo on July sixteenth, and the
9:15
Speaker 3: very first atomic bomb test is also said to have
9:18
Speaker 3: been a plutonium bomb. Now, plutonium is produced inside regular
9:23
Speaker 3: nuclear reactors. So the nuclear reactors are loaded with uranium
9:28
Speaker 3: that is only weekly enriched. That's the case in most
9:31
Speaker 3: common reactors, but there are even reactor designs in which
9:35
Speaker 3: there is no enriched fuel whatsoever. You simply use the
9:40
Speaker 3: unenriched natural uranium. The very first two actors built were
9:46
Speaker 3: actually off that type, right, the ones used by the
9:49
Speaker 3: constructed by Enrico Fermi at the University of Chicago during
9:52
Speaker 3: the early nineteen forties. They were used uranium. It was
9:56
Speaker 3: not enriched at all, but you could get the chin
9:58
Speaker 3: reaction to work. And apparently this kind of phenomenon even
10:05
Speaker 3: occurs on nature. So if you have sufficiently concentrated uranium
10:10
Speaker 3: simply in uranium ore, you actually can have a self sustaining,
10:14
Speaker 3: self sustaining fission reaction there so, and this fission reaction
10:19
Speaker 3: as a side product produces plutonium, and this plutonium can
10:23
Speaker 3: then be extracted from the fuel of the reactor after
10:29
Speaker 3: it has been undergoing the fission reaction for a time
10:32
Speaker 3: in this reactor, so uranium enrichment is not at all
10:36
Speaker 3: needed to produce plutonium and plutonium is supposedly sufficient to
10:40
Speaker 3: produce a bomb. It follows that preventing anybody from enriching
10:45
Speaker 3: uranium does not imply that he can no longer build
10:48
Speaker 3: a nuclear bomb. So this fixation on high degree enrichment
10:53
Speaker 3: of uranium makes no sense whatsoever. It is not a
10:56
Speaker 3: sufficient measure to preventing irun from enrich gen uranium to
11:00
Speaker 3: high degree would not suffice to ensure that it cannot
11:05
Speaker 3: build a nuclear bomb. So the entire story makes no
11:09
Speaker 3: sense from top to bottom. Right, the entire nuclear story
11:13
Speaker 3: that we are given as a justification for the serrounvois
11:17
Speaker 3: is just completely incoherent and implausible from top to bottom.
11:22
Speaker 3: So that's one important point to make about these current events.
11:26
Speaker 3: And it may also be interesting to contrast the use
11:31
Speaker 3: of nuclear bombs, which has not occurred during history so
11:36
Speaker 3: far in warfare, with the use of chemical weapons and
11:40
Speaker 3: biological weapons, which have occurred. Indeed, both of these weapons
11:44
Speaker 3: types were actually used chemical weapons quite extensively.
11:47
Speaker 1: Actually, if nuclear bombs do exist, how come they have
11:53
Speaker 1: never been used in eighty years? I mean, I was
11:57
Speaker 1: just looking quickly online and political threats of useless nuclear
12:04
Speaker 1: weapons or common in hundreds.
12:06
Speaker 3: Yes, indeed, I remember quite vividly that I was actually
12:10
Speaker 3: frightened when the Soviet Soviet Union collapsed, right the The
12:15
Speaker 3: story was propagated that now pure sorry poor nuclear engineers
12:25
Speaker 3: from the Soviet Union would be amenable to bribes and
12:29
Speaker 3: buy out in this kind of thing, and so now
12:32
Speaker 3: the nukes and the nuclear fuel from the Soviet Union,
12:35
Speaker 3: from the decaying Soviet Union would be spread all over,
12:38
Speaker 3: and all kinds of madmen with now in Central Asia
12:42
Speaker 3: and elsewhere or in Africa, could now cheaply acquire nuclear
12:45
Speaker 3: weapons and use them. So I thought, actually at the
12:48
Speaker 3: time that was indeed a very uncomfortable prospect. But it
12:52
Speaker 3: has not come to pass. It never happened. The Cuban
12:57
Speaker 3: missile crisis was also a really yes, I was really
13:02
Speaker 3: cliffing it, but somehow we always managed a happy ending.
13:06
Speaker 1: So that's always quite interesting. Well, listen to this, listen
13:11
Speaker 1: to this, Michael. So, yeah, we go. So in nineteen
13:12
Speaker 1: forty five we had threats to drop more until Japan surrendered.
13:18
Speaker 1: Nineteen forty eight, Truman threatened to use nuclear weapons. In
13:25
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty Truman threatened to use nuclear weapons in Korea
13:31
Speaker 1: in nineteen fifty three, Eisenhower threatened China in nineteen sixty
13:37
Speaker 1: two the Cuban Missile crisis in nineteen sixty ninety seventy two,
13:41
Speaker 1: Nixon was threatening North Vietnam nineteen seventy three or threats
13:48
Speaker 1: from Nixon to the to the Soviets Night ninety one,
13:53
Speaker 1: Bush used nuclear threats. Nineteen ninety five Clinton used nuclear
14:01
Speaker 1: threats against North Korea, and in two thousand and five,
14:05
Speaker 1: US contingency plans for nuclear strikes on Uran under changes.
14:10
Speaker 3: Right, and it just goes so we already had nuclear
14:15
Speaker 3: it wasn't. I didn't recall that that we already have
14:17
Speaker 3: had nuclear threats against Iran. So I mean, if Iran
14:20
Speaker 3: was convinced that nuclear weapons are a real threat, I mean,
14:24
Speaker 3: they would have every reason to build one themselves, right,
14:27
Speaker 3: and even business background. They don't. So I think this
14:32
Speaker 3: aatolic company. I think he knew some things that not
14:35
Speaker 3: many people know.
14:42
Speaker 1: Listen to this one. There were one hundred and thirty
14:45
Speaker 1: five threats of nuclear war coming via the media, just
14:52
Speaker 1: just in regards to Ukraine.
14:54
Speaker 3: Okay, right, yes, questionally is what's the purpose of these?
15:00
Speaker 3: I mean, I think they are clearly not designed and
15:02
Speaker 3: not no longer able to influence anybody with real knowledge
15:08
Speaker 3: of military affairs. They are completely ineffective. I mean, otherwise
15:11
Speaker 3: they wouldn't be so numerous. I mean, if nobody ever
15:14
Speaker 3: makes good on these threats, then obviously they are not
15:16
Speaker 3: designed to influence the other, the opposite party. So I
15:20
Speaker 3: think they are really this is psychological warfare. Really, I
15:24
Speaker 3: think this is this is really I think it's the
15:27
Speaker 3: word public at large. I think it was actually the
15:29
Speaker 3: case from the very beginning. I think the entire nuclear
15:34
Speaker 3: scare story was really to influence the masses. It was
15:38
Speaker 3: not so much to influence any government or something like that.
15:44
Speaker 1: But Michael, the counter argument is because I've asked this question,
15:48
Speaker 1: and the counter argument is, yes, but if nukes are used, yes,
15:52
Speaker 1: the world will.
15:53
Speaker 2: End, right, Okay, Well.
15:57
Speaker 3: I've heard it, yes, But I don't see why it
16:00
Speaker 3: should end, you know, I mean, obviously the numerous atomic
16:05
Speaker 3: bomb tests in the nineteen fifties and nineteen sixties didn't
16:08
Speaker 3: end the world. I've integraated some fall out all over,
16:11
Speaker 3: and you can estimate that they will probably collectively have
16:15
Speaker 3: induced and a certain number of cancer cases that otherwise
16:20
Speaker 3: wouldn't have occurred on leukemias. That is not unlikely but
16:24
Speaker 3: it's not word ending. I mean, if these things had
16:28
Speaker 3: been said off in the middle of a large city,
16:33
Speaker 3: and if indeed the word is destructive as they are
16:37
Speaker 3: claimed to be, then well this large city would probably
16:40
Speaker 3: have been destroyed. But I mean other cities have been destroyed,
16:43
Speaker 3: for example, the one city that was the most solidly
16:48
Speaker 3: destroyed in World War Two, and I think also the
16:52
Speaker 3: since I'm not aware of any similar similarly large bombing
16:58
Speaker 3: since was drased in in East Germany. Official history now
17:04
Speaker 3: tells us that there were twenty five thousand casualties, But
17:08
Speaker 3: if we look at the records of the German army
17:12
Speaker 3: and the city police of the time, they actually counted
17:16
Speaker 3: two hundred and fifty thousand that I don't see any
17:20
Speaker 3: sound basis for doubting those numbers, So I think that's
17:25
Speaker 3: the far more likely number. It's also much more in
17:27
Speaker 3: keeping with just simply the aspect of the city. I mean,
17:30
Speaker 3: it was really soloughly destroyed. He may have seen pictures.
17:33
Speaker 3: He probably have seen pictures. The official story that's nowadays
17:37
Speaker 3: pedaled says that when the train station, the central station
17:42
Speaker 3: of the city was destroyed during this bombing, all of
17:47
Speaker 3: three people were killed, and that facility. Does that sound credible?
17:50
Speaker 3: I mean the city was teeming with refugees, right, so
17:54
Speaker 3: the central station must have been crowded, and the bomb attacked.
17:59
Speaker 3: Their must have obviously have many more casualties than just
18:03
Speaker 3: these official number of three. So this is just not credible.
18:07
Speaker 3: These these modern stories are not credible.
18:12
Speaker 1: And I mean, yeah, Israel could ease exactly oneas.
18:18
Speaker 3: Is approaching similar dimensions, right, I mean it took it
18:21
Speaker 3: took them longer, But in principle yes, I mean both
18:25
Speaker 3: of these examples illustrate that you can do enormous amounts
18:28
Speaker 3: of damage with conventional weapons already. And then you have
18:32
Speaker 3: other killers that company warfare, such as plain old hunger, right,
18:39
Speaker 3: I mean, during World War Two, we have had a
18:42
Speaker 3: starvation in Iran. Iran at the time was divided between
18:47
Speaker 3: British and Russian occupation, and there was, for some not
18:52
Speaker 3: very compelling reason, there was a famine there. Okay, another
18:56
Speaker 3: famine occurred in the likewise British controlled Bengal nowadays Bangladesh.
19:02
Speaker 3: In both areas, I don't know the exact numbers, but
19:05
Speaker 3: in both cases several million people were killed simply due
19:09
Speaker 3: to starvation. Then you have epidemics right. I mean you
19:14
Speaker 3: have this particularly of concern in prison camps prisoner right,
19:21
Speaker 3: prisoner of war or refugee camps and so on. If
19:25
Speaker 3: hygiene breaks down, then you have enteric diseases that run rampant,
19:28
Speaker 3: and these can't kill many people. So war is always destructive.
19:36
Speaker 3: And if you translate this to modern conditions, right, I
19:40
Speaker 3: mean in modern times we have population densities in many
19:43
Speaker 3: parts of the world at five exceed anything that was
19:46
Speaker 3: there in some eighty years ago. Right, I mean eighty
19:48
Speaker 3: years ago the world population was less than a quartered
19:51
Speaker 3: than what it is today. And also agriculture, I mean
19:57
Speaker 3: this has become this has become possible due to the
20:01
Speaker 3: wides produce of chemical fertilizers, right. I mean this is
20:05
Speaker 3: they have really increased crop fields very substantially. Nowadays. Agriculture
20:11
Speaker 3: is dependent on the continuous supply of fertilizers agrochemicals. If
20:20
Speaker 3: that is over all a good thing or not is
20:22
Speaker 3: a separate question. But the crop yields using currently current
20:28
Speaker 3: technologies depend on the continuous supply of agrochemicals.
20:34
Speaker 2: If that supply.
20:35
Speaker 3: Should be disrupted due to a large scale war, I
20:37
Speaker 3: mean we even see concerns expressed now simply because the
20:40
Speaker 3: Strait of harm Mus is closed, and that apparently has
20:44
Speaker 3: cut off the supply lines for major share of the
20:49
Speaker 3: fertile world's fertilizer supply. Even that already raises the specter
20:55
Speaker 3: of starvation. Now, imagine a large scale wall, truly large
20:59
Speaker 3: scale wall that of all the great powers. Then you
21:02
Speaker 3: have essentially a complete breakdown of world trade that will
21:07
Speaker 3: create stavation on an enormous scale. And it's world easily
21:12
Speaker 3: eclipse anything that you might do with with nuclear weapons.
21:16
Speaker 1: If Israel were just protecting itself, then then it would
21:22
Speaker 1: happen at.
21:23
Speaker 3: Least, yes, it would at least threaten the use right yeah.
21:28
Speaker 1: I mean, Michael, the whole Arab world apparently wants to
21:31
Speaker 1: wipe out Israel so it can defend itself.
21:34
Speaker 3: Well well, I mean, I don't even think that the
21:38
Speaker 3: Arab world is truly dependents, truly help bent on wiping
21:42
Speaker 3: out Israel, at least not with means of physical annihilation.
21:47
Speaker 3: I think that the Arabic population would certainly like to
21:53
Speaker 3: get rid of Israel as a state and as a
21:59
Speaker 3: threat to them, right, I mean, Israel has been abusing
22:02
Speaker 3: its neighbors for for the longest time, and it's getting
22:05
Speaker 3: worse every year obviously, So I mean, it is clear
22:08
Speaker 3: that this situation can't endure. But I don't think that anybody.
22:14
Speaker 3: I haven't seen any evidence that any people among the
22:19
Speaker 3: Arab nations or the Iranians are similarly cruel in their
22:26
Speaker 3: treatment of their opponents as israel Is. I just don't
22:30
Speaker 3: see the comparison.
22:32
Speaker 1: I mean, and and Trump, of all people, would have
22:36
Speaker 1: by now shades.
22:39
Speaker 3: He has threatened to bomb around into the Stone Age,
22:43
Speaker 3: but apparently he wants to accomplish this with conventional weapons alone.
22:48
Speaker 3: But why, I mean, if you indeed want to utterly
22:51
Speaker 3: destroy a country, then why not use the most straightforward
22:55
Speaker 3: weapon for that for that purpose?
22:58
Speaker 1: If it is all justicle fear porn, what would be the.
23:04
Speaker 2: Perp It's a very good question.
23:08
Speaker 3: I think it is fairly easy to answer for the
23:12
Speaker 3: original nuclear bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because we have
23:17
Speaker 3: enough works of propaganda that spell it out for us, right.
23:23
Speaker 3: I mean, there is this one book which I found
23:26
Speaker 3: during my research, small pamphlet really, collection of essays by
23:31
Speaker 3: several luminaries, Einstein himself, Oppenheimer and you name them, we've
23:36
Speaker 3: got them. And the tenor of that book is what
23:40
Speaker 3: the title is one World or None on the true
23:43
Speaker 3: meaning of the atomic bombings or something like that in
23:46
Speaker 3: the subtitle, and so it is spelled out there very
23:52
Speaker 3: clearly that the threat of the atomic bombs is such
23:57
Speaker 3: that only a one word government will be able to
24:01
Speaker 3: save mankind from self destruction. So that is clearly spelled out.
24:06
Speaker 3: The idea is obviously to frighten the people of the
24:10
Speaker 3: world to such a degree that they will all be
24:13
Speaker 3: happily renouncing their national sovereignty and submit to a new, benevolent,
24:19
Speaker 3: one world government.
24:21
Speaker 2: That's the idea.
24:22
Speaker 3: So but I mean it didn't come to pass, right,
24:27
Speaker 3: It did not come to pass, And I think the
24:29
Speaker 3: main reason for that is that Starting would not go
24:32
Speaker 3: along with it. I think the United Nations, or the
24:36
Speaker 3: people behind the United Nations, which was basically the Americans.
24:41
Speaker 3: I think they tried to persuade Starting to go along,
24:44
Speaker 3: but he just simply wouldn't. He would not give up
24:47
Speaker 3: his own hold on power on the Soviet Union. And
24:52
Speaker 3: so therefore the world government at the time came to nothing.
24:56
Speaker 3: I think that many other scarce since, for example, climate
25:00
Speaker 3: change and COVID and this kind of saying. Right, if
25:02
Speaker 3: you listen to the official propaganda. The tenor is always
25:07
Speaker 3: that nation states cannot cope with these threats, so therefore
25:11
Speaker 3: we need to remove the exercise of power from the
25:16
Speaker 3: nation states and we have to centralize power. It is
25:19
Speaker 3: sometimes it is in these days, typically done in a
25:24
Speaker 3: more subcutaneous way. It is not so blatantly and over
25:28
Speaker 3: as in the case of the nuclear threat, but it
25:31
Speaker 3: is apparently what they have adopted is a more step
25:35
Speaker 3: boy strategy to transfer power step by step while still
25:41
Speaker 3: leaving the vestiges of national governments in place, similar to
25:45
Speaker 3: the European Union for example, right when you still have
25:48
Speaker 3: national governments in the European Union, but if you look
25:51
Speaker 3: who is through the making the decisions in Europe, you
25:54
Speaker 3: will find out the national governments have very little influence
25:58
Speaker 3: left and the true truly important decisions they are all
26:03
Speaker 3: handed down from Brussels, which is obviously a very undemocratic institution.
26:10
Speaker 3: So I think that is the approach. That's also read.
26:12
Speaker 3: The intent is to apply this the world over to
26:16
Speaker 3: other national governments also, and I think that agenda such
26:20
Speaker 3: as climate change and covid I used to push this
26:24
Speaker 3: political agenda. Now the nuclear weapons, it is interesting to
26:31
Speaker 3: see that even though the Soviet Union under Stalin did
26:35
Speaker 3: not submit to the political scheme behind the American pretense
26:41
Speaker 3: of having nuclear weapons, they joined that pretense. They styled
26:45
Speaker 3: themselves the second nuclear power. So why would they do that?
26:49
Speaker 3: I think that they had a choice to make between
26:55
Speaker 3: challenging the American narrative or using it to their own advantage.
26:59
Speaker 3: They could around, they could use their supposed nuclear weapons
27:05
Speaker 3: to scare the Western public to deter it from contemplating
27:12
Speaker 3: attack on the Soviet Union. And I mean it was
27:17
Speaker 3: difficult for the for the American government to counter that
27:21
Speaker 3: because it would have required undermining their own their own
27:26
Speaker 3: propaganda it So I think that, Yeah, I think that
27:32
Speaker 3: other powers, that powers that remained independent of US domination
27:38
Speaker 3: simply took the story and run with it and used
27:41
Speaker 3: it for their own ends. So I think that the
27:44
Speaker 3: use of nuclear scare propaganda is more diversified now than
27:51
Speaker 3: it was in the beginning.
27:53
Speaker 1: A counter argument that that has often used is well,
27:57
Speaker 1: why has no political power that knows the tree?
28:00
Speaker 2: Yes?
28:01
Speaker 3: But I mean you can apply this to many things,
28:03
Speaker 3: to many questions, right, I mean, why has nobody challenged
28:08
Speaker 3: the story of the moon landings?
28:09
Speaker 2: For example? Why has no.
28:15
Speaker 1: I think Putin. I think Peutin.
28:20
Speaker 4: To the he said, he said that the Russian program
28:24
Speaker 4: will will send will send the rocket to the American
28:29
Speaker 4: landing site and show that.
28:32
Speaker 2: Actually, I think the Chinese.
28:34
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm not sure what the truth is about
28:36
Speaker 3: the Chinese lunar program, but they claim to have sent
28:40
Speaker 3: some unmanned spacecraft there and to obtain some chemical analysis
28:46
Speaker 3: of the of the soil, and the results were apparently
28:49
Speaker 3: very different from what the Americans had departed. So I
28:53
Speaker 3: think they're putting a slow squeeze. So I think they're
28:57
Speaker 3: putting a slow squeeze on the Americans. I think the
29:00
Speaker 3: use this as this threat of detonating the story of
29:07
Speaker 3: the moon landings. They use it as a threat against
29:09
Speaker 3: the as a lever against the United States.
29:12
Speaker 1: There are obviously a lot of nuances. Yeah, because you
29:16
Speaker 1: have nuclear power, for example, right had you had the
29:20
Speaker 1: Fukushima meltdown, you had Chernobyl.
29:24
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I mean nuclear power stations are real
29:26
Speaker 3: saying yes, I'm pretty convinced of that. And there I
29:30
Speaker 3: find it. Actually it's a very interesting technology. I mean,
29:32
Speaker 3: it has as risk obviously as many technologies do. But
29:36
Speaker 3: I always found it really quite interesting and fascinating, and
29:40
Speaker 3: it reached maturity I would say in the nineteen seventies.
29:44
Speaker 3: And I mean there are actually quite a few interesting
29:48
Speaker 3: reactive variants. For example, the thorium technology, right, I mean,
29:51
Speaker 3: thorium is in more abundant supply than is uranium. You
29:55
Speaker 3: have about three times more thorium on the world than
29:58
Speaker 3: you have uranium. And on top of that, thorium reactors
30:04
Speaker 3: produced less difficult to handle nuclear waste than uranium reactors. Still, okay,
30:11
Speaker 3: so it's actually is promising technology. Germany had in it
30:17
Speaker 3: was started sometime in the middle of the seventies I think,
30:21
Speaker 3: I don't recall it exact year. Now they had built
30:24
Speaker 3: a thorium reactor on a scale of three hundred megabot's output,
30:32
Speaker 3: so that's about one quarter of a regular sized uranium
30:35
Speaker 3: nuclear power station. So it was a prototype, not full scale,
30:41
Speaker 3: but certainly large scale enough to make some meaningful observations.
30:46
Speaker 3: And that thing actually runs successfully for a couple of
30:49
Speaker 3: years and then it was shut down. And it has
30:51
Speaker 3: several other promising reactor designs. The fast breeders built by
30:58
Speaker 3: Germany and then also bys They were also not permitted
31:01
Speaker 3: to go online, so I think actually nuclear power was
31:05
Speaker 3: deliberately smothered because it would have created energy abundant and
31:11
Speaker 3: energy independence, right. I mean, Japan and Germany could have
31:15
Speaker 3: managed to become defuncto energy independent, and so therefore the
31:23
Speaker 3: supply of fossil fuels to them could no longer have
31:28
Speaker 3: been used as for political leverage. And I think that
31:31
Speaker 3: was a key reason. And I mean on top of that,
31:33
Speaker 3: I think we have actually going on in the world
31:36
Speaker 3: right now in a gender of artificial scarcity, right, I
31:40
Speaker 3: think climate change is used as one of the reasons
31:42
Speaker 3: to justify that, and nuclear power had to be smothered
31:47
Speaker 3: because it really produce abundant, cheap electrical energy, huge amounts
31:55
Speaker 3: of it, and this cannot be permitted. If you want
31:59
Speaker 3: to keep resources scarce, just limit limit wells, the wells
32:07
Speaker 3: of the people in order to keep everybody busy and
32:10
Speaker 3: concerned about their own future and fortunes, and this kind
32:15
Speaker 3: of thing you cannot you cannot permit this kind of
32:19
Speaker 3: technology to to to exist. And yeah, okay, okay, so
32:29
Speaker 3: you alluded to Chernobyl and Fukushima. There was also even
32:35
Speaker 3: earlier three Mile Islands in Pennsylvania.
32:38
Speaker 1: I think it is, but I mean nothing happened there.
32:41
Speaker 1: It was just a scare, yes, but I mean it
32:44
Speaker 1: was it was sabotage. Apparently it was just just a scare. Yes,
32:49
Speaker 1: something more than that happened in in Chernobyl. But there
32:53
Speaker 1: are Russian nuclear engineers that are convinced that this was
32:58
Speaker 1: also sabotage, and I think they have worked out the
33:01
Speaker 1: technical details what was used there, apparently some that's really
33:06
Speaker 1: beyond my pay grade, but some sort of nuclear fuel
33:11
Speaker 1: elements that were not intended for this kind of reactor
33:15
Speaker 1: but rather for something completely different. I think even was
33:18
Speaker 1: for nuclear submarines to use that in this reactor, and
33:21
Speaker 1: this would actually then cause a catastrophic reaction to certain
33:26
Speaker 1: regulatory influencers. So the insertion of the wrong kind of
33:31
Speaker 1: nuclear fuel element set the stage for the detonation of
33:35
Speaker 1: the Nobyl, And I think the purpose was a twofold one.
33:40
Speaker 2: One was to.
33:43
Speaker 3: Discredit nuclear energy, make people scared of nuclear energy, and
33:48
Speaker 3: the other thing was obviously to to sort of blow
33:51
Speaker 3: up the Sovit Union, if you will, right, So that
33:55
Speaker 3: was part of it, And Fukushima is also rumored have
34:00
Speaker 3: been sabotaged, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the
34:04
Speaker 3: details on that. So I'm not going to elaborate on that.
34:08
Speaker 1: Before South Africa became a democracy in No. Ninety four,
34:15
Speaker 1: it dismantled its nuclear program quote unquote. But what's interesting
34:22
Speaker 1: about that is no independent verification ever happened. Everything was
34:27
Speaker 1: dismantled and they destroyed I think something like twelve thousand
34:30
Speaker 1: documents before anybody could have a look. And what I
34:37
Speaker 1: presume was going on was simply enrichment, like you were
34:41
Speaker 1: talking about earlier.
34:43
Speaker 3: Yes, the question is forward purpose. I mean, against whom
34:53
Speaker 3: would South Africa have felt the need to use nuclear
34:56
Speaker 3: weapons if.
34:57
Speaker 1: Nuclear enrichment is going on, it doesn't I mean something
35:01
Speaker 1: is going on.
35:04
Speaker 3: Well, I mean I don't know what the Iranians. I mean,
35:10
Speaker 3: they claim to have enriched something through to sixty percent
35:14
Speaker 3: or something like that. I'm not even sure what that
35:17
Speaker 3: really is about why they would need that sort of stuff.
35:19
Speaker 3: I mean, you don't really need it for any kind
35:22
Speaker 3: of peaceful use of nuclear energy, right, I mean in
35:25
Speaker 3: a nuclear reactor of the most common designs, you have
35:29
Speaker 3: something like three percent enrichment. Right, So the easy natural
35:34
Speaker 3: uranium has zero point seven percent of the fissile isotope
35:39
Speaker 3: uranium two thirty five Most of the rest is uranium
35:42
Speaker 3: two thirty eight, and that's sufficient. So with three percent roundabout,
35:50
Speaker 3: you can run just about any kind of regular nuclear reactor.
35:54
Speaker 2: Right.
35:55
Speaker 3: Some reactor designs require even lower degrees of enrichment, or
35:59
Speaker 3: now enrichment at all, And so I'm not exactly sure
36:04
Speaker 3: what Iran intends to do with these sixty percent. Allegedly
36:09
Speaker 3: there are some sort of medical uses, so I guess
36:12
Speaker 3: that would be quite indirect. So you wouldn't use the
36:15
Speaker 3: uranium on people, but instead you would use this highly
36:18
Speaker 3: energy uranium in some sort of nuclear chemistry processes that
36:23
Speaker 3: then result in some sort of other isotopes that can
36:28
Speaker 3: be used for medical applications. I'm not familiar enough with
36:33
Speaker 3: that nuclear chemistry, honestly, I already can't judge whether there
36:36
Speaker 3: is any such viable use. Maybe so, but I mean
36:46
Speaker 3: the enrichment technology is such, I mean low grade enrichment
36:50
Speaker 3: that is certainly plausible that he is an activity you
36:53
Speaker 3: would expect anybody to carry out that wants to build
36:58
Speaker 3: nuclear power stations.
37:00
Speaker 1: If nuclear power can be created, can nuclear bombs by
37:08
Speaker 1: extension not be created?
37:10
Speaker 3: Well, I think if I understand it correctly, I understand
37:15
Speaker 3: the fundamental difficulty that exists with nuclear bombs. Correctly, it
37:20
Speaker 3: is that the critical mass blows itself up prematurely. Okay,
37:27
Speaker 3: so a chain reaction will only occur, right. So what
37:32
Speaker 3: happens in a chain reaction is the first atom splits
37:36
Speaker 3: and releases a number of neutrons, and these neutrons are
37:38
Speaker 3: taken up by other atoms atom nuclei, which then split
37:43
Speaker 3: in turn.
37:43
Speaker 2: Okay, So on average, for.
37:48
Speaker 3: If you want this chain reaction to sustain itself, each
37:53
Speaker 3: fission event of nucleus must give rise to at least
37:57
Speaker 3: one new fission event in the next generation. In the
38:03
Speaker 3: nuclear reactor, you simply want to keep it at that
38:06
Speaker 3: steady state. You don't want the reaction to escalate. You
38:10
Speaker 3: don't want the reaction to die down. You want to
38:13
Speaker 3: control the reactor in such a way that, on average,
38:16
Speaker 3: one nucleus that fisicient induces the fission of other nuclears
38:20
Speaker 3: and this can then go on potentially and definitely.
38:24
Speaker 2: So there is no.
38:27
Speaker 3: Right the entire process does not involve any kind of
38:31
Speaker 3: escalating reaction. So therefore that's possible and stable. In the
38:35
Speaker 3: nuclear bomb. What you want is you want to have
38:39
Speaker 3: an escalating reaction, right That exponentially grows. In each generation,
38:43
Speaker 3: you have more nuclei being fissient than the previous one,
38:47
Speaker 3: and now that releases an increasing amount of energy, and
38:52
Speaker 3: that will threaten to blow apart the critical mass, and
38:58
Speaker 3: then this will terminate reaction. So it's sort of self defeating,
39:02
Speaker 3: the nuket chain reaction, that's sort of self defeating under
39:04
Speaker 3: these circumstances. And I think that is probably the fundamental
39:09
Speaker 3: question that this argue Nakatani was addressing. This can only
39:14
Speaker 3: be prevented if the chain reaction builds so fast that,
39:19
Speaker 3: simply due to inersia, the unfiicient atoms cannot be blown apart.
39:26
Speaker 3: So it is such a sudden process that it can
39:30
Speaker 3: envelope the entire critical mass at one time, immediately before
39:36
Speaker 3: it has enough time to blow apart. So the question
39:39
Speaker 3: really is the fundamental question really is what is the
39:42
Speaker 3: maximum speed of growth of a chain reaction? Okay, that
39:48
Speaker 3: is the thing, the fundamental question, And this question does
39:51
Speaker 3: not arise in a nuclear reactor. So there afore nuclear reactors,
39:55
Speaker 3: which species a steady state process, they are feasible, whereas
39:59
Speaker 3: nuclear bombs might be inefficient. Now, if that is so,
40:04
Speaker 3: the question then arises what actually happened in those nuclear
40:07
Speaker 3: bomb tests that were carried out later on. I mean,
40:10
Speaker 3: we have all this fallout, So that means that these
40:13
Speaker 3: chain reactions were indeed, they had indeed progressed to such
40:20
Speaker 3: a stage that they produced these fairly large amounts of
40:24
Speaker 3: fission products and so on. So how was that engineered?
40:30
Speaker 3: My approach, what I would attempt to do if I
40:33
Speaker 3: were asked to fake a nuclear test, it would be
40:37
Speaker 3: to build a very strong container containment, and inside that
40:43
Speaker 3: containment I would simply place a regular nuclear reaction. I
40:46
Speaker 3: probably wouldn't nuclear actor, I wouldn't bother with high enrichment
40:49
Speaker 3: and so on. I would just use low grade, just
40:51
Speaker 3: a regular reactor fuel.
40:54
Speaker 2: And then.
40:56
Speaker 3: I have inserty control rots which keep the keep the
41:00
Speaker 3: nuclear reaction in check. I seal the containment and then
41:04
Speaker 3: remotely withdraw those control rats, and then this should actually
41:08
Speaker 3: simply cause a similar process as in the reactor in Chernobyl. Right,
41:13
Speaker 3: So the chain reaction builds, heat is released, and so
41:16
Speaker 3: on and so forth. Now this can continue inside this
41:21
Speaker 3: strong containment until that containment bursts, So the progress of
41:27
Speaker 3: the chain or the extent of the chain reaction would
41:31
Speaker 3: in effect be limited by the strength of the containment.
41:35
Speaker 3: So that means it should be possible to fake a
41:39
Speaker 3: nuclear reactor or reaction inside a deep mind shaft, which
41:43
Speaker 3: is exactly, by coincidence, what the North Koreans are supposed
41:48
Speaker 3: to have done. They have set off some sort of
41:50
Speaker 3: nuclear detonation inside a deep mind shaft. But obviously this
41:58
Speaker 3: is not a practical thing. You cannot load a mind
42:01
Speaker 3: shaft onto an airplane and on the territory of your
42:05
Speaker 3: of your opponent.
42:06
Speaker 2: Right.
42:07
Speaker 3: So, but the games, the rules of the game seem
42:10
Speaker 3: to be that you first set off some kind of
42:14
Speaker 3: nuclear device, then quite separate from that, you launch a rocket,
42:21
Speaker 3: and then you claim, now it's a nuclear power.
42:24
Speaker 2: Right.
42:25
Speaker 3: Disposition is you can take that nuclear detonation device, put
42:28
Speaker 3: it on that rocket, and then simply deliver that rocket
42:32
Speaker 3: to your enemy. But that, so far as I know,
42:35
Speaker 3: has never been demonstrated or verified by any independent observer.
42:40
Speaker 1: I had a look online quickly, and it turns out
42:43
Speaker 1: that there are a few reasons. Okay, so so it
42:47
Speaker 1: says your civilian power this is the biggest one, but
42:49
Speaker 1: it says you're the most mundane. Yeah, use, nuclear actors
42:54
Speaker 1: need uranium in rich to just three to five percent. Okay,
42:58
Speaker 1: you two three five. Then it says medical isotopes, research reactors,
43:03
Speaker 1: some using uranium enriched up to ninety percent, produce radioactive
43:06
Speaker 1: isotopes used in cancer diagnosis.
43:08
Speaker 2: And treat conta right, okay, Yes.
43:11
Speaker 1: And it says you're, you know, roughly forty million medical
43:14
Speaker 1: procedures worldwide occur annually. Naval propulsion, Yes, and it says, yeah,
43:22
Speaker 1: this is where it gets interesting. US, UK, Russia, and
43:24
Speaker 1: India all used highly enriched uranium to ninety percent enriched
43:27
Speaker 1: to power nuclear, submarine and aircraft carriers.
43:30
Speaker 3: That actually makes sense. It's a good point because I mean,
43:34
Speaker 3: only the only the uranium two thirty five will actually
43:37
Speaker 3: be producing energy, right, And you're simply it's probably just
43:41
Speaker 3: simply for reducing the weight, just a weight, Yes, just
43:44
Speaker 3: for a weight reduction. Okay, it's interesting.
43:46
Speaker 1: Yes, And it says, y're there are approximately two hundred
43:49
Speaker 1: and ninety metric tons of highly enriched uranium sitting in
43:54
Speaker 1: global naval inventories right now, enough material for over eleven
43:59
Speaker 1: thousand and nuclear weapons of sure. Okay, yes, okay, but
44:03
Speaker 1: it counts okay, but I mean that would also give
44:06
Speaker 1: us a reason that I mean a plausible reason for
44:08
Speaker 1: you around to produce highly enriched uranium. If they're meant
44:11
Speaker 1: to build a nuclear submarine, then they would have a
44:15
Speaker 1: good enough reason to to enrich uranium to high degree. Yes,
44:19
Speaker 1: another reason okay, to enrich uranium the depleted uranium. For
44:24
Speaker 1: every ton of enriched uranium produced, roughly seven tons of
44:27
Speaker 1: depleted uranium or leftovers waist. And the US Department of
44:31
Speaker 1: Energy alone is four hundred and seventy thousand tons of
44:33
Speaker 1: it in storage. And so what do you do with it? Yes,
44:36
Speaker 1: it says, yeah, well it turns out quite a lot.
44:37
Speaker 1: You make armor piercing shells, tank armor plating, aircraft counterweights,
44:42
Speaker 1: and ballast radiation shielding.
44:45
Speaker 2: Okay, radiation shielding okay.
44:47
Speaker 1: And then and then yes, yes, the final one that
44:50
Speaker 1: says your geopolitical.
44:51
Speaker 3: Leverage, but not for the depleted uranium, right.
44:58
Speaker 1: With reged geranium. So yeah, so yeah, real world examples.
45:03
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia threatened to match it runs enrichment capability in
45:07
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, specifically to gain leverage over the White House
45:11
Speaker 1: and negotiations for a defense treaty. North Korea used its
45:14
Speaker 1: plutonium production program as a bargaining chip to extract energy
45:18
Speaker 1: assistance from the US, and it runs it runs entire
45:22
Speaker 1: enrichment program functions as political leverage. The threat of quote
45:26
Speaker 1: unquote going nuclear is the cord, not the weapon itself.
45:30
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not so sure I buy that.
45:32
Speaker 1: I mean that, well, I'm just reading understand.
45:35
Speaker 3: Understand, Yes, but I mean it seems to conflict with
45:38
Speaker 3: the foot by issued by Carmany. Right, So I mean,
45:44
Speaker 3: if he explicitly says we're not going to build nuclear weapons,
45:47
Speaker 3: then I mean, indeed, they might be using it as leverage.
45:51
Speaker 3: But I suspect they have indeed some sort of sound
45:55
Speaker 3: technical reason for producing society enriched stuff.
45:59
Speaker 1: Someone could be listening to this right now and saying, well,
46:02
Speaker 1: you guys are doing mental gymnastics. It could simply be
46:05
Speaker 1: the case that there are nuclear weapons that they just
46:08
Speaker 1: haven't been used.
46:09
Speaker 3: Yes, and I will believe that as soon as they
46:11
Speaker 3: are used, but not before.
46:19
Speaker 1: It's a very subtle distinction to be made. Yeah, because
46:23
Speaker 1: people get confused between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Yes,
46:28
Speaker 1: and the two don't necessarily have to coexist. You can
46:33
Speaker 1: have nuclear energy without nuclear weapons.
46:35
Speaker 2: That's true.
46:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's correct, and I think that is precise in
46:37
Speaker 1: the situation. Yes, of course, some people argue that nuclear
46:41
Speaker 1: energy doesn't exist.
46:42
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, okay, yes I have ferds An argument too,
46:52
Speaker 3: But what would be the appeal of that hoax? And
46:57
Speaker 3: I mean, why would countries such as friends? It's built,
47:00
Speaker 3: it's just these huge numbers of nuclear reactors. To what
47:04
Speaker 3: purpose if it if it just simply didn't work at all.
47:08
Speaker 1: There's a nuclear reactor about an hour an hour's drive
47:13
Speaker 1: from where I live, and I've visited it, and it
47:18
Speaker 1: is extremely neat. It has wildlife around it. There's no
47:23
Speaker 1: pollution that I can see. It's extremely well run, and
47:29
Speaker 1: it's against it's against the ocean. The only downside I
47:34
Speaker 1: believe is that the water in the in its immediate
47:36
Speaker 1: environment is slightly warmer.
47:38
Speaker 2: Yes, but because of the right exactly.
47:40
Speaker 1: Scale of the ocean, it doesn't matter that much because
47:43
Speaker 1: it cools down.
47:43
Speaker 2: Again that it's correct. Yeah, Yeah, we have a here.
47:46
Speaker 3: It's also in a similar distance Bruce power Station on
47:50
Speaker 3: Lake Huron. Also I've visited it, and yes, it also
47:55
Speaker 3: gives a similar impression. I mean, of course, the meantera
47:57
Speaker 3: is not a large amount of me in. There is
47:59
Speaker 3: no no smoke. This kind of thing, so compared to
48:03
Speaker 3: burning coal for energy, generator generation. I think it is
48:07
Speaker 3: much easier to keep things clean.
48:12
Speaker 1: Yet it has such a strong anti yes lobby.
48:15
Speaker 3: Yeah right, But I mean this is I mean, I
48:19
Speaker 3: think the well, I mean, one reason is that indeed
48:28
Speaker 3: people have difficulty keeping it separate from nuclear weapons. I
48:34
Speaker 3: think if the nuclear weapons are so streateening, and I
48:37
Speaker 3: mean you have the events in the past, and you
48:39
Speaker 3: have Fukushima and Chernobyl and this kind of thing to
48:43
Speaker 3: point to as but for example, you have Fukushima, which
48:46
Speaker 3: was also against the ocean, right, I think I'm not
48:49
Speaker 3: sure that the will probably also be some subtle difference
48:52
Speaker 3: in the reactor design. But I mean, aside from the
48:58
Speaker 3: disasters which we have every even to us to suspect
49:01
Speaker 3: of having been engineered, there are no real major disasters
49:06
Speaker 3: that have occurred with the with the with nuclear power stations.
49:10
Speaker 3: And I think the process was well understood, has been
49:13
Speaker 3: well understood for many decades. It is simply I mean
49:15
Speaker 3: just I mean, there are lots of airplanes flying around
49:18
Speaker 3: towards the globe right every day, and very few actually
49:21
Speaker 3: come down, come crashing down. So if we put our
49:26
Speaker 3: minds to it, we can make even complex technologies safe, right,
49:31
Speaker 3: We can build redundant safety systems and so on and
49:33
Speaker 3: so forth, and if they are competently monitored and maintained.
49:37
Speaker 3: In this kind of thing, I mean, it's essentially a
49:40
Speaker 3: very predictable process. It's a very well understood process, right,
49:43
Speaker 3: I mean, fundamentally what goes on in the nuclear reactor
49:49
Speaker 3: is very well understood, and so therefore it can be
49:52
Speaker 3: controlled quite well.
49:53
Speaker 2: I think the.
49:56
Speaker 3: Most relevant question really is what to do you in
50:01
Speaker 3: the long term with the heavy at heavy isotopes generated
50:10
Speaker 3: as a side product line. I mean, you have neutron
50:12
Speaker 3: capture of by uranium two thirty eight, and this can
50:15
Speaker 3: build up to fairly large heavy atomic nucleari and then
50:20
Speaker 3: they have a fairly long lived radioactivity and you somehow
50:23
Speaker 3: have to dispose of those. So where can you can
50:26
Speaker 3: you stare them safely dispose of them safely in the
50:30
Speaker 3: long term? I think that is the main question.
50:34
Speaker 1: Well, the whole nuclear narrative is riddled with propaganda.
50:40
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely, yes, but.
50:44
Speaker 1: You can't talk about it in normal company without somebody
50:49
Speaker 1: getting upset about it.
50:50
Speaker 3: Yes, that's correct, Yeah, but I mean that's the same
50:52
Speaker 3: that it's characteristic also when you cannot you cannot in
50:55
Speaker 3: polite society challenge climate change without running into the same problem,
51:00
Speaker 3: while you cannot challenge COVID without running into the same problem.
51:03
Speaker 3: I think, I mean, all these narratives are implanted for it.
51:08
Speaker 3: I think they are really pushed hard, and people are
51:11
Speaker 3: I mean the engineering right, the psychological warfare against the people.
51:21
Speaker 3: I think that would be that is one of the
51:23
Speaker 3: most important topics to understand, really, and I think these
51:26
Speaker 3: are all examples of that desire, all applications.
51:30
Speaker 1: So in other words, the Cold War never ended.
51:35
Speaker 3: That's a good question. I mean, it seems it shifted, right,
51:42
Speaker 3: I think that. I mean the collapse of the Selvice
51:46
Speaker 3: Union I think was real and there for a time.
51:49
Speaker 3: I think that the people who pull the strings in
51:53
Speaker 3: the United States and in Western Europe, they also more
51:57
Speaker 3: or less pull the strings in Russia. But I think
51:59
Speaker 3: they lost control again. So I think we have a
52:01
Speaker 3: renewed Cold War, or even a slow burning hot war
52:06
Speaker 3: in Ukraine between West and East. And I think that
52:19
Speaker 3: the alliance between between Russia and China and Iran and
52:22
Speaker 3: several other countries is real and is gaining gaining ground
52:27
Speaker 3: in that confrontation with the West. So yes, So I
52:31
Speaker 3: don't subscribe to the view held by several of my
52:36
Speaker 3: friends who believe that behind the scenes, all the governments
52:40
Speaker 3: are one big, happy family, are controlled by one big
52:44
Speaker 3: power group, and that there is no real geopolitical confrontation
52:48
Speaker 3: at all. This is all the theater. I don't subscribe
52:51
Speaker 3: to that view, this narrative of the ultimate weapon, Yes,
52:57
Speaker 3: which is what a nuclear bomb is. It's the ultimate
53:00
Speaker 3: and that's why it's never been used. Yes, and if
53:03
Speaker 3: it gets used, well then it's onmageddon.
53:06
Speaker 2: Yes, right, so well you could.
53:13
Speaker 3: I mean, if these things were real, you could probably
53:16
Speaker 3: use them to create some kind of harmageddon, but it's
53:19
Speaker 3: far from the only way of doing so. For example,
53:24
Speaker 3: since the nineteen thirties, we have had very potent nerve gasses, right,
53:28
Speaker 3: I mean, there were several variants of it. The earliest
53:31
Speaker 3: ones were taboon and Serene, which were designed in Germany.
53:34
Speaker 3: So on I think also was invented there, but I'm
53:37
Speaker 3: not positive. These are all very potent poisons that are
53:43
Speaker 3: lethal in doses of sometimes less than one willigram, and
53:49
Speaker 3: even the older ones are lethal that doses between one
53:51
Speaker 3: and ten willigram. They are easily taken up by inhalation
53:56
Speaker 3: and by skin contact, and they are not that hard
53:59
Speaker 3: as sinties on a large scale.
54:02
Speaker 2: Novic choc novic chock.
54:04
Speaker 3: That was used used in this murder case in Britain,
54:08
Speaker 3: Great Britain, right, you remember that maybe the Russian expat
54:11
Speaker 3: that was killed there. So these weapons have been used,
54:20
Speaker 3: have been not used, but have been produced on a
54:25
Speaker 3: large scale. They were producing a large scale even in
54:28
Speaker 3: Second World War Germany. They were not used in that war,
54:33
Speaker 3: but most of it was incinerated after the war, and
54:37
Speaker 3: this incineration facility kept going for several decades. So this
54:42
Speaker 3: was this scale on which this stuff had been stockpiled.
54:45
Speaker 3: If you were simply would simply drop this kind of
54:49
Speaker 3: stuff from airplanes or maybe in Germany's case and World
54:52
Speaker 3: War two, you would have loaded onto V one and
54:55
Speaker 3: we two rockets and send it over to London and
54:57
Speaker 3: something like that. I think you could easily have I
55:00
Speaker 3: have attained mass murder on a scale exceeding that that
55:07
Speaker 3: was attained for example in Indesten or something like that, right,
55:11
Speaker 3: I mean obviously as the biggest city, so he would
55:13
Speaker 3: have had more casualties and it would have been could
55:17
Speaker 3: have been done in a more efficient way if you like,
55:21
Speaker 3: then using conventional bombing. So it is not the case
55:25
Speaker 3: that nuclear weapons are the only weapons of mass destruction
55:29
Speaker 3: that could be used in order to create an armageddon.
55:33
Speaker 3: These nerve gases were either way used, for example, by
55:37
Speaker 3: Saddam Hussein both in his war on Iran and also
55:41
Speaker 3: apparently against some Kurdish revels in his own domain. So
55:46
Speaker 3: these weapons were used, but they were not used for
55:48
Speaker 3: armageddon purposes. So and I just as you can use
55:51
Speaker 3: chemical weapons on an apocalyptic scale or on a more
55:56
Speaker 3: limited scale, I think you could do the same with
55:58
Speaker 3: nuclear weapons. He would not be forced to use nuclear
56:01
Speaker 3: weapons to create i'ma get on, But if you are
56:03
Speaker 3: so inclined, you probably could. We I know for certain
56:07
Speaker 3: that you could do it with chemical weapons. We have those,
56:11
Speaker 3: and they were used so far only on a limited scale.
56:15
Speaker 1: But then I wonder how do they count them if
56:18
Speaker 1: they don't exist? The U S has five thousand and
56:22
Speaker 1: whatever number. Yes, how do they arrive at that number?
56:24
Speaker 1: Is that just a thumbsuckle or is there some kind
56:27
Speaker 1: of metric that they use?
56:28
Speaker 3: Yeah, I suspect it's just theater. I think indeed some
56:38
Speaker 3: suck it is a good a good description. Yeah, I
56:41
Speaker 3: suspect that's what it is, and.
56:45
Speaker 1: Which is why we don't know how many Israel has
56:47
Speaker 1: a wink wink.
56:49
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, I think I've seen a number of something
56:52
Speaker 3: like three hundred or so, I'm not sure.
56:57
Speaker 1: Assuming that more and more people reject the idea of
57:02
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons, what are the broader implications.
57:12
Speaker 3: Well, the most important implication might be that they would
57:17
Speaker 3: also start questioning other narratives that they are being fed
57:21
Speaker 3: to scare them and to manipulate them. I think that
57:24
Speaker 3: would be That would be my hope in that case.
57:28
Speaker 3: As I said, I think the reality of weapons of
57:31
Speaker 3: mass destruction, I don't question that.
57:34
Speaker 2: Because I do believe that.
57:38
Speaker 3: These chemical weapons are real, and I also believe that
57:41
Speaker 3: some biological weapons are real.
57:42
Speaker 1: Right.
57:43
Speaker 3: There was, for example, a very extensive biological weapons program
57:47
Speaker 3: in the Soviet Union, which is quite well sorry, quite
57:54
Speaker 3: well described in can Alibig's book bio Hazard, Sorry several
57:59
Speaker 3: decades old. It's a very interesting book. Then we have
58:03
Speaker 3: the Japanese biological weapons program from World War Two, which
58:09
Speaker 3: was after the war taking over and further developed by
58:12
Speaker 3: the United States. We have the experimental the experiments carried
58:17
Speaker 3: out by the Japanese on captive Chinese in World War Two.
58:21
Speaker 3: We have evidence of American biological weapons use against North
58:29
Speaker 3: Korea in China in the Korean War, and these I
58:36
Speaker 3: think the Soviets who they took it to another level.
58:39
Speaker 3: They had gigantic manufacturing plans for amtraks, even for plague,
58:48
Speaker 3: so they figured out the way right. Antraks are actually
58:50
Speaker 3: naturally quite easy to work with them to adapt to
58:54
Speaker 3: biological weapons because the germs formed so called spores, and
58:58
Speaker 3: those are very stable. So you can load those sportes
59:02
Speaker 3: onto war heads and you can just simply forget about
59:04
Speaker 3: them and they will be just fine and working as
59:07
Speaker 3: if they were fresh a couple of decades down the road.
59:10
Speaker 3: That's more difficult with plague basillai, but the Soviets apparently
59:15
Speaker 3: figured out a way to make those to adapt those
59:18
Speaker 3: two similar delivery systems. Also, even though I suspect they
59:23
Speaker 3: probably were not stable, they didn't have the same degree
59:27
Speaker 3: of long term stability as would have the hand tracks weapons.
59:31
Speaker 2: So am trucks in.
59:33
Speaker 3: A way, would be the most suitable, the most straightforward
59:39
Speaker 3: biological weapon if you are really after mass casualties. Obviously,
59:45
Speaker 3: from a military point of view, it's not as useful
59:49
Speaker 3: because I mean the effect is not as immediate. I mean,
59:56
Speaker 3: these chemical weapons which I mentioned, they have an immediate
59:58
Speaker 3: effect right within minutes, the victims are dead, whereas in
1:00:04
Speaker 3: with these biological weapons handtracks, it would take a couple
1:00:06
Speaker 3: of days for the victims to actually succumb, and so
1:00:11
Speaker 3: you don't have an immediate effect. But I mean, of course,
1:00:14
Speaker 3: if you're simply after destroying civilian populations and that would work,
1:00:19
Speaker 3: that work work would work well. You are, then, however,
1:00:22
Speaker 3: left with a landscape that is polluted in the long term, right,
1:00:28
Speaker 3: these antrak spores, they're very hardy. They will simply survive
1:00:31
Speaker 3: in the environment for a good time. With these aforementioned
1:00:36
Speaker 3: chemical weapons, that would be less of a problem because
1:00:40
Speaker 3: they are not as stable, so they would spontaneously decay.
1:00:44
Speaker 3: These chemicals would spontaneously decay in the environment. I don't
1:00:48
Speaker 3: know the exact half life, but I would think they
1:00:50
Speaker 3: would not in any somewhat wet environment, they would not
1:00:53
Speaker 3: last longer than a couple of days.
1:00:57
Speaker 1: For anybody who's listening, you covered that topic extensively in
1:01:02
Speaker 1: our previous discussion, which is why we didn't really go
1:01:05
Speaker 1: into any detail on it.
1:01:07
Speaker 2: That's correct.
1:01:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you've argued as well as others have argued
1:01:12
Speaker 1: that Japan was not nuked.
1:01:15
Speaker 3: Yes, so that's right. So we had fire bombing. But
1:01:18
Speaker 3: I think that the the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
1:01:22
Speaker 3: they were dressed up right in order to give the
1:01:24
Speaker 3: impression of nuclear bombings. I think the I mean very
1:01:27
Speaker 3: many eyewitnesssari reports is flash that they saw, right, very
1:01:32
Speaker 3: bright flash in the sky. Now what's interesting about it
1:01:35
Speaker 3: flash is that it did not blind them permanently. Right,
1:01:39
Speaker 3: we have from later nuclear bomb tests in America. We
1:01:44
Speaker 3: have reports in the medical literature of soldiers who looked
1:01:48
Speaker 3: at these detonations from a distance of several miles and
1:01:52
Speaker 3: they had permanent burns and scars on their readiness. And
1:01:57
Speaker 3: there's no single such case from either of the two
1:02:00
Speaker 3: Japanese cities. That's just one example. I mean there's lots
1:02:04
Speaker 3: of evidence along similar lines, medical evidence and physical evidence
1:02:09
Speaker 3: that clearly rules out the idea that nuclear bombs were
1:02:14
Speaker 3: detonated there. So I've written it about it at length.
1:02:19
Speaker 3: So I guess people familiar with your work they can
1:02:24
Speaker 3: hunt down that book from your website.
1:02:26
Speaker 1: I guess Hiroshima revisited.
1:02:29
Speaker 3: It's correct, Yeah, and together with my name, it will
1:02:32
Speaker 3: probably come up if you simply search it on the
1:02:34
Speaker 3: weap year. I mean, most people simply won't consider the
1:02:39
Speaker 3: evidence they may have. They their mind made up, and
1:02:45
Speaker 3: so therefore they won't consider the evidence. Therefore they remain
1:02:48
Speaker 3: convinced that it's a crazy idea. It all comes down
1:02:52
Speaker 3: to opening your mind, suspending this belief for long enough
1:02:56
Speaker 3: to have at least a invest let's say ten or
1:03:00
Speaker 3: thirty minutes to look into the evidence. That will be
1:03:05
Speaker 3: enough I think to persuade you that you should take
1:03:10
Speaker 3: a thorough look at it. If you are not willing
1:03:14
Speaker 3: to do that, well okay, then it's unsurprising that you
1:03:19
Speaker 3: won't change your mind.
1:03:21
Speaker 1: Michael Palmer, thank you for joining me in the Trenchers.
1:03:24
Speaker 3: Thank you, Jeremy. I enjoy the conversation.