The Possibility of Russia Using Nuclear Weapons


1 year ago



Francis Foster

2 appearances

Francis Foster is a host of the podcast and YouTube program "TRIGGERnometry."

Konstantin Kisin

2 appearances

Konstantin Kisin is a host of the podcast and YouTube program "TRIGGERnometry."


Write a comment...


We are going to invent forms of weapons using the artificial intelligence way before we invent something that is capable of the type of intelligence you're talking about. I think you're right. So you think you're going to use that to blow everybody up? And the opportunities to destroy ourselves are going to be so multiple because the world is getting so much more complicated all the time. The number of things that can go wrong is much bigger than in the past. Five thousand years ago there was no technology that could have destroyed the planet. Now there is. And that is going to continue. Our ability to destroy the planet is only going to get greater. It's going to take a smaller mistake to destroy the planet as technology gets more sophisticated. So you feel it's just human nature that if we have control of artificial intelligence the first thing it's going to do is devise weapons of insane destruction. No, no, no. We are going to devise the weapons using artificial intelligence before there is any overarching artificial intelligence that could take care of us. Do you see what I'm saying? So you're saying the kind of artificial intelligence that's already available, not like general artificial intelligence, which is what they think of as like a sentient being. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean like stuff that we can do to more, like YouTube algorithms or whatever. I don't think we disagree. So you're saying that this artificial intelligence that's in place right now that they already use for a lot of things is going to be used and make weapons and it's going to be too overwhelming. We're going to use them on each other. We're going to blow each other up. And if we don't, artificial general intelligence is what I'm talking about. Oh, if we don't destroy ourselves. I'm just convinced we are. That's all. We may. You're right. We've dropped bombs. I mean, whenever anybody talks about anything that anyone's done anywhere in the world, when they talk about horrific things, I always say, dude, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that is insane. That was a completely untargeted city in the sense that like there's not like there's an army there and they're shooting at us. No, they just nuked cities. The kind of death and destruction that must have happened on those days to be a person who's an innocent person living on this regime in this city. I know that the consequences for something that you've done nothing to, all you've done is live your life. All you've done is work in a market. All you've done is do whatever, you've been a farmer and then your entire world is obliterated instantaneously by an atom bomb for the first time in human history and it's happened to your fucking city. Yeah. Well, you know what? In terms of the bombings, Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't really that big a deal. In comparison to the fire bombings. In comparison to what the Germans were doing in the Soviet Union. I understand, but there's a thing about the instantaneous nature of those bombs that was uniquely terrifying, which is why we haven't used them. Yes, agreed. Do you have a fear that Putin would use one? A nuclear weapon? Yes. So, when I was on Question Time, that program of Francis, they asked me this question and they said, if pushed, would he use them? My understanding of the word pushed is if he feels that his life is in danger. That's what I mean by pushed. I think in that situation, he would use them. However, that does not mean that they would end up being used. He may press the button, but the signal might not get to the destination. Do you see what I'm saying? Yes. There is a team of ... It's not just a button that releases nuclear weapons, there's a bunch of people in between. If some of those people think that they have a chance of survival, that this is a personal thing against the leader, what is their rationale for pressing that button down the line? How terrifying is that? Because the answer is death. It's against you people. But the answer is death. If you're in that situation, your family, your kids is going to burn to ashes or die in a radioactive wasteland. Yes. Why would you push that button if you felt there was any chance of survival at all? That is one of the biggest fucking sources of anxiety for people, is the idea that we're living in this conflict that we have zero control over that might lead to a global thermonuclear war. At any moment in time, the wrong buttons might get pressed and the wrong people might get mad, the wrong military decisions might get made and someone just tries to fucking do something wild. We didn't really think that that was a possibility until this Ukraine invasion. I think the Ukraine invasion opened up a lot of people's eyes because there's so many people from Ukraine that have relatives in Russia and vice versa. It's not like you might be at war with your own people, people that you are literally related to. That's what's crazy. I have family on both sides. It's wild. The idea is wild and the idea that the country has such extraordinary control over the narrative of what the people know about and hear about. 80% of Russians get their news from TV and the message is very consistent and very clear. We're about to be attacked. NATO is about to destroy us. Ukraine's full of Nazis and all of this stuff. Completely baseless. But if you feed people that line long enough, that's what they're going to believe. How do you think this plays out? I think anyone who attempts to predict this is bullshitting. You can't predict things like this. Right now, the situation is Russia is inching forward. Both sides are losing a lot. I think the Russian strategy is to wait until winter. That's what I'm being told. To hold out until winter and by winter they think they can persuade the Germans to essentially sabotage the Western efforts to stop them. I think that's their plan. How that goes, how do we know? We can't predict that. In the meantime, it also depends on what's happening on the ground. It depends on what Russia is going to do. It depends on what the Western powers do in terms of providing weapons and ammunition and all of that. We've got no idea at all. It's so wild. When you hear the government bragging about how much money they're sending over to Ukraine to help fight the Russians, it's like maybe you should shut the fuck up or I'll talk. Maybe that one you might want to keep under your hat. You mean in terms of talking about it publicly? I mean, I'm joking, but I'm saying the idea that we're essentially paying for this war. Are we at war? No. At what point in time do you become at war with Russia? You're not paying for this war. You're supporting a country that's defending itself. I agree. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it. What I'm saying is- I'm not saying they should. I'm not saying I don't have an opinion about it. It's for American taxpayers to decide that, right? It's not American soldiers, but it is American money. You're funding the war. Again, I'm not saying I'm against this, but I'm saying at what point would someone who knows we're funding that consider us at war with them? They already consider us at war with them. But I mean enough that an attack would be warranted, like that someone would do something. If the United States is so vulnerable. If someone just attacked our power grids, there's a lot of vulnerability in the United States, right? If they just did that and shut the power down for six months, I mean how effective would we be at almost anything? The whole world is vulnerable at this point in time with nuclear weapons, but we're all particularly vulnerable. If there's some sort of an engagement going on like that where we're funding and maybe people believe we should, maybe we should. I don't know. What they're doing is they're funding this war. They're helping Ukraine fund this war, at least. I'm not against this. Your concern is the blowback from Russia. I'm not even concerned. I'm just saying, not just blowback from Russia, blowback from any country where we would do this. How much money do you put in before they go, oh, you're at war with us? I see what you're saying. I mean, if you think about all the different times we've done this all throughout history to aid armies and fund them and give them weapons, at what point in time would someone who opposes those people feel like we're at war with them? I see what you're saying. In Russia, the narrative is that we've been at war with the West this entire time. The entire time? Yeah, well, this is a defensive action. Because of NATO. Because we are ... This is the Russian version, you understand? I'm not saying I believe this. I'm saying the argument, not the perception of the Russian people, the argument that is being made, is that we are ... It's siege mentality. That's what people there think. From their perspective, they already feel that we're at war and have done from the beginning. Now, if you're talking about kinetic war, then I think the only way that becomes an issue is if the United States gets directly ... Or NATO gets directly militarily involved. You start shooting down Russian planes or shooting Russian tanks. But apart from that, I don't see it, because you talk about vulnerability. America is the least vulnerable country in the world. You're the world superpower. But even the world superpower is still vulnerable. Oh, of course. I understand what you're saying. I think what's terrifying to all of us is that we didn't expect this and we don't know where it's going. It's happening to this place that used to historically be connected as the Soviet Union. It's fascinating to me. But here's the thing. People are terrified in the UK. People are terrified in the UK because we've bought into this idea that the West has eliminated war with a few pockets of things going on. But we're safe and we don't have to concern ourselves with that about having another country, being aggressive and invading and whatever else. So we've bought into that and we felt really safe, so safe that we've eliminated it from our minds. And this has been an incredibly sharp wake up call. This has been a slap to the face around the West. And what it's saying is, you ain't as safe as you think you are. And the world doesn't change. There will always be war. Have you read anything by Thomas Sowell? Yes. Have you read A Conflict of Visions? No. He talks about- Mostly what I've seen is Sowell just watched him speak. Yeah. Brilliant. Brilliant. He talks about two visions of the world, right? What he calls the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. And the constrained vision says that human beings are flawed, human beings have certain predispositions, human beings aren't rational, human beings behave the way they behave. And the best way to understand how they are likely to behave in the future is to look at how they behave now and how they've always behaved, right? And the unconstrained vision is essentially progressivism. It's the belief that this can be changed fundamentally, right? Is the belief that if you do enough social engineering, you're going to get to a position where people are going to stop being the way that they are and we're going to build new people, a new man. This is what people said in the Soviet Union, homo sevetikos, right? A new type of human being can be created. And we view the world now through that vision, through the progressive vision, the idea that there would never be war, the idea that people would never want to attack us, the idea that when I went to university to study politics, the thing that was doing the rounds at the time was they called it the golden archer's theory of international conflict, which was that no two countries with McDonald's had ever gone to war. Right? That's hilarious. That's hilarious. And the idea was everyone's too fat to ... No. The idea was- The corporately involved. They would prevent that. There's so much trade going on that it just doesn't make sense for countries to attack each other. Right. Right? And that is a belief that human beings are rational, right? You believe that people will always act in their own self-interest as they understand them. Right. But they don't. People act because they want status. People act because they want power. People act because they're scared. People act for all sorts of irrational reasons that don't necessarily correspond to the reality. And I think we also have to take into consideration that when you're talking about Russia, when you're talking about the population, they're not as exposed to information, to the free flow of information as we are in America. There's a lot of people that might have these notions in their head based on what they've seen on television. They might buy a hook, line, and sinker. And there might be good people. They're just duped. Well, most people in Russia are good. Most people in every country are good. In every country. Have you ever traveled to a country where most of the people were assholes? New York. New York is a bit like that. They're a little celebratory in their assholes. Yeah, they are. They call it a New York attitude. I'm from New York. They love it. They love it.