All Episodes
Previous Next
March 14, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
31:22
Secret Russian weapon could unleash TIDAL WAVE against East Coast cities
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, an article in a Russian tabloid publication quotes Russian military expert, a guy named Viktor Baranyev.
This guy's a retired colonel.
He was a spokesperson for the Ministry of Defense or Defense Ministry of Russia.
And he says that Russia is planting nuclear moles near the U.S. shoreline These moles are like nuclear bombs that dig into the ocean bed and that they remain dormant until they're activated with some kind of remote signal.
Now, is this guy telling the truth?
Is it nonsense?
Is it posturing?
It's been officially denied by the Kremlin.
They say this is not the case.
But that's also sometimes the way that they...
They intentionally release this information.
They have some low-level or retired former intelligence person leak the information, and then they officially deny it, but the information gets out there, which is perhaps what they wanted in the first place.
Nobody is analyzing this correctly.
That's why I'm recording this podcast.
And by the way, thank you for joining me.
If you want to hear more of my podcast, if you dare, go to healthrangerreport.com if you want to actually understand the world instead of living in some little delusional bubble like most people live in.
Granted, it's more comfortable in the bubble, you know, but if you want to really wake up to the real world, listen to my podcast.
But here's what everybody's missing on this.
Why would a nuclear nation bury a bunch of nuclear moles on the shoreline of a targeted nation, an enemy nation of theirs?
What would be the purpose of that?
Nobody gets it.
Nobody's talking about the real reason.
It's obvious to me.
I don't know why no one's talking about this.
I mean, at first you might think, well, that's silly.
Why would you detonate a bunch of nuclear bombs under the ocean?
You know, in the ocean floor...
Near the shore, it wouldn't do much damage.
That's what people think.
Because normally if you have an ICBM, right, you detonate a nuclear missile at elevation over a city.
You might detonate it at, I don't know, an altitude of, let's just say, 1,000 feet or 2,000 feet or 3,000 feet.
I don't know what the altitude is, but it's something above the city.
Because that's how you cause the maximum destruction, which of course is the whole point of a nuclear weapon.
So why would you bury a nuke In the ocean bed, under the ocean, and set it off there.
The answer that no one's talking about is that if you simultaneously detonate a string of these that are planted all along the shoreline, what do you create?
A massive tidal wave.
The nuke pushes the ocean.
You know, I mean, come on.
It's a nuke.
It creates a massive wave.
So what you could do if you weaponize enough of these, especially if you sequence them, you can sequence them Some are farther out from shore.
Some are closer into shore.
You can detonate the farthest one first.
And then just as the wave is passing over the closer one, you detonate that one.
You know, I mean, come on.
Waves move through the ocean, I think, at the speed of sound, roughly.
So you can do the math and you can create an amplitude amplification.
By timing the nukes as they're planted in the ocean bed at certain locations, and essentially you can create a massive tsunami wave that is a weaponized tsunami that destroys coastal cities.
Right?
It seems obvious.
Especially when you consider what are the coastal cities of the United States of America.
Well, gee!
You know, just go up and down the East Coast.
What do you got?
You know, you got...
New York City, Wall Street, Washington, D.C., roughly.
Not exactly on the coast, but close enough.
I mean, if you make a big enough wave, you can come and you can destroy Miami.
You can destroy, you know, even perhaps Boston.
You can destroy a lot of major hubs of power, but especially New York City.
That's an obvious target.
No one's talking about this.
I don't know why.
Maybe they just think it's not true.
But frankly, it's a pretty clever little weapon system if you think about it.
You come in with...
I mean, you wouldn't even have to bring a submarine in to do this.
You could put these nukes on their own underwater drones.
Basically a nuclear...
Mini-sub drone.
And it's got its own navigation system and it's got its own burrowing system and it just moves really slowly through the water and it goes to its targeted GPS coordinate.
And it just starts drilling into the ocean floor.
And maybe it buries itself about 10 feet under the sand.
And it's got a nuke in it.
But it leaves a little antenna sticking out of its tail end, let's say.
And it can still receive certain satellite signals through the ocean water because it's not that deep.
Let's say it's at a depth of, well, let's just estimate this.
You'd want to be able to move enough water to create a tidal wave, but not be at such a depth that you couldn't receive the satellite signal.
So let's say something less than 500 feet of depth.
You could plant these at maybe, I'm just guessing, 250 to 300 feet depth.
You could still get satellite signals through the water.
Or maybe there's other kinds of signals that could reach them.
Anyway, the point is that the Russians could easily design a system like this and they could burrow the nuclear moles into the ocean bed.
And then they could just...
They wouldn't even have to send a submarine in to do it.
These are like self-drilling nuclear moles.
They bury themselves in the sand.
And they just sit there and wait.
Maybe they have batteries on board that last 50 years or little small nuclear power generators, just enough, just like a radioactive decay of some element generates power.
Maybe it lasts 200 years.
Who knows?
And then they just have a signal, remote signal, just detonate it whenever they get the signal.
You think it's not possible?
Ho ho ho!
Are you kidding me?
That was possible in the 1970s.
I mean, America landed a Viking lander on Mars with a mass-spec instrument on it to look for evidence of microbial life on Mars, and it found it, by the way.
That's been covered up.
I covered that in another podcast.
Yeah, NASA found life on Mars in 1976, I believe.
But you haven't heard about it because they buried it.
But anyway, the point is, at least the public knows we sent a lander to Mars in the 1970s, right?
I hope you realize that's true.
And so, if you can send a lander to Mars, a rover...
You know, a simple robot system.
You can certainly build an underwater nuclear mole that drills itself into the sand.
They probably had these things decades ago.
Basically a very simple system.
Now, once you understand that Russia probably does have these...
Whether or not they've been deployed on the U.S. coast is another matter, but there's probably no question that they do have them.
A couple of questions would immediately come to the mind of any intelligent person.
Number one, could you detect these things and unbury them?
Could you get them out?
Well, detection is a complex matter.
If they are nuclear devices, they would have some kind of radioactive decay that could theoretically be detectable.
But due to the inverse square rule of distance from the radioactive source, they might be very, very hard to detect unless you're extremely close to them.
And since you don't know where they are buried, and since the ocean floor is a big place...
How are you going to find them?
It's probably a daunting task.
What are you going to do?
Run around all the coastal ocean floor beds with radiation detectors?
I've never heard of any program like that.
I don't think anything like that is running.
I don't think that America even has that.
I mean, I don't know.
I don't have top secret clearance, you know, thank goodness.
But I've never heard of anything like that.
And then the second question is, does America have the same kind of technology and have they already deployed moles against other countries?
When you think about what are some of the other countries that have coastal cities that could be extremely vulnerable to And you might think, well, perhaps China, obviously Japan, Tokyo would be relatively vulnerable.
Might be some countries in Southeast Asia, you know, Hong Kong, obviously, would be another one.
Think, just look around the world, you know, London, right?
United Kingdom.
How hard would it be?
I'm not talking about America putting one in there, but let's say an enemy of Western Europe, maybe Russia, maybe communist China.
For all we know, maybe North Korea's got this technology since they can't seem to launch missiles that don't fall into the ocean.
Maybe their expertise is underwater drones and missiles.
Who knows?
Maybe some rogue nations have already planted some of these things, or maybe America has already planted some of these things at coastal locations all around the world.
You ever thought about that?
Maybe everybody's got their finger on the button, and everybody's got a bunch of nukes on all the coastal cities, or near all the coastal cities everywhere around the world, and it just comes down to all the nuclear submarine commanders who've got their fingers on the buttons.
And if one of them presses it, you know, Kim Jong-un goes a little nuts, and one day he's like, ah, let's party down, and he presses the button.
And, you know, boom, boom, there goes L.A. Like a massive tidal wave inundates Los Angeles.
Because, right, it's a coastal city.
It's right there on the ocean.
Boom!
L.A. gets hit with a 500-foot tidal wave, let's say.
Which wouldn't slow down the union workers at the L.A. port, by the way, since they usually don't do any work anyway.
But, okay, I'm joking, but it would destroy the city.
And then, in retaliation, a bunch of U.S. nuclear subcommanders, they hit the button.
Boom, boom, boom.
There goes, you know, sets one off against North Korea or China.
Who knows?
It's just like a chain reaction.
You think it's not possible?
You might be right.
I don't know.
I don't have an underwater submarine.
I haven't...
I haven't searched the coastal regions for buried nuclear moles, have you?
Have you?
I mean, how can we know?
I mean, this Russian guy says, he says that they've got these.
What's his name again?
Viktor Branyev, a retired colonel.
Branyev, he says it's all in there.
He says they're already in place.
Why would he say such a thing?
Maybe it's BS. I hope it is.
But maybe it's not.
Maybe these things exist all over the world and they could all be initiated all at once.
Even worse, what if they exist and they've already been buried into the sand in different coastal regions all around the world, and the CIA has already hacked into those control systems, or the NSA has hacked into the control systems, and they want to set off a false flag attack somewhere, like they want to start World War III. Maybe the Pentagon, maybe there's some rogue element of the Pentagon that wants to start World War III. Gosh, they need more weapons contracts, you know, over at Raytheon or something.
You know, they need to boost up the stock price a little bit.
Better get some more missiles ordered.
How do you do that?
You create demand.
How do you do that?
You press the little red button.
Boom!
Coastal region goes up somewhere around the world.
World War III, it's on.
Contract money is rolling into Raytheon, let's say, just as an example.
Or, I don't know who all the weapons companies are, but, you know, weapons manufacturers as a generic sense.
You think it's not possible?
I don't know.
I hope you're right.
But what if these things do exist?
What if they are already buried into the coastal regions?
A lot of you who are living in New York, listening to this, you're like, huh.
We never really thought about, you know, weaponized nukes under the harbor here.
Because, I don't know if you've ever noticed when you're flying into JFK Airport, but Manhattan is not that high elevation.
The whole thing can be taken out by one wave, basically.
One, you know, large tidal wave.
Manhattan is not, it's not, you know, what's the elevation of Manhattan Island?
I don't know, like two feet or something?
It's pretty much right there on the water.
You know, Long Island?
I mean, you look around, look at the geography of New York, and a lot of the East Coast is not very, you know, it's not high ground, man.
If this is real, if this ever gets detonated, you probably don't want to be hanging out on Main Street there or whatever, Wall Street or K Street or whatever.
You don't want to be in that zone if this ever goes up.
Not to mention the radioactive elements that would be falling out.
I mean, you know, the nukes creating all the cesium-137 and the iodine-131 and who knows what other elements, different uranium and perhaps plutonium.
You don't want to be dealing with all that, right?
First there's a tidal wave, and then there's a radiological wave.
If you're not drowned, you know, you're fried.
That's why they're called weapons of mass destruction.
That's what they do.
So, I don't know.
What risk assessment should you assign to this scenario?
In my mind, I don't know.
I'd put it at less than 1%.
But if not 0%, I think that in terms of risk assessment, there's a far higher risk that financial collapse is going to rip apart society as we know it today.
That's a near certainty.
We just don't know when.
There are other risks that are probably much greater than this nuclear moles all along the coastline risk, including the risk of a solar flare.
That would take out the national power grid and thrust us back centuries in terms of loss of technology.
You know, NASA has estimated that risk to be about 12% every decade.
So roughly a little over 1% per year is the risk of a massive solar flare wiping out the power grid.
That's a pretty big risk, actually.
If you think about it, the entire U.S. economy...
Can be wiped out and the chance is about 1% every year.
That's an unacceptably high risk, if you ask me.
So I would put this Russian mole nuke scenario risk at maybe about the same, about maybe 1% per year.
Which again, sounds small, but if you think about it over a lifetime, it's not necessarily small.
Okay, maybe it's not even 1%, maybe it's half a percent per year.
But then again, you've got a lot of crazy people with their fingers on the buttons all over the world.
And you've got Kim Jong-un over there in North Korea who's trying to nuke everybody and just bragging about it.
He throws maps up.
He posts like a Facebook video with maps and trajectories right into Chicago and Detroit and Washington.
This is his target map.
I mean, he openly talks about it.
And now many people think he can hit Hawaii with weapons, or he can certainly hit U.S. military bases in Japan with nuclear missiles.
You know, the last missile that he launched actually did achieve an altitude of 160 miles?
That's pretty much, you know, Earth orbit right there, if he's got the velocity.
I don't know what the velocity was, but he's got the altitude to achieve Earth orbit, if he could put enough thrust behind it.
That's certainly, he's got the range to make it into American military bases in Japan.
No question about it.
He probably can send one into Seattle pretty soon.
I don't know if you've ever looked at the geography of what's closest to North Korea's launch bases, but Seattle is right there.
It's one of the closest major U.S. cities.
Also another coastal city, right?
So Seattle has sort of a double jeopardy situation.
You could have the tidal wave from the mole nukes in the ocean bed, or you could just get hit by Kim Jong-un and his crazy ICBM. And I don't know, is there any technology to shoot those things down?
I don't think so.
I don't think there is.
Have you ever heard of that?
I mean, we can shoot down Scud missiles with the Patriot missile system.
Scud missiles are like throwing rocks.
It's like caveman ballistics.
It's old, old technology.
Pretty easy to shoot those down.
Even the Patriot missile system doesn't work most of the time.
It misses like 80% of the time.
But can you shoot down an ICBM from North Korea?
I don't think so.
Are you, I mean, are you aware of any, is there any anti-ICBM missile defense network in Washington State that can just launch, or is there some kind of satellite system that can, like, laser beam the ICBMs and destroy them?
I don't think so.
I know Reagan was working on that, you know, Star Wars and all that, but does it really exist?
I don't think it does.
I think the only way to stop North Korea is to basically bomb the crap out of them first.
Which, depending on how things go, might not be such a bad idea if you just bomb the government of North Korea.
Obviously, you don't want to kill civilians.
You want to set them free.
You just want to take out the crazy, you know, what do you call that guy?
He's totally insane.
He executes people with anti-aircraft weapons, like 88mm anti-aircraft guns that used to be used by the Nazis.
I guess he got his hands on a couple of them and he uses them for executions now.
Fire an 88mm diameter shell at a human being.
You know what that does?
Basically, the person vanishes.
It's just obliterated.
Just vapor.
That's it.
I guess he gets his jollies off on that kind of stuff.
So that's the guy who's going to point missiles at Seattle or Honolulu or Japan, for that matter.
So anyway, I mean, look, I'm going to wrap this up, but There's a lot of crazy weapon systems out there.
There's a lot of crazy MFs out there who have their fingers on a lot of buttons.
There's a lot of psychos in charge all over the world, man.
These crazy communists and haters of humanity and haters of liberty.
Who are running nukes and running nukes subs and running drones and running all kinds of crazy, you know, satellites.
China's got satellite systems that can probably do some major damage.
I mean, China's got Earth-based systems that can destroy satellites in orbit.
Did you know that?
They've got Earth-based laser systems.
They just...
They know the orbits of all the satellites.
It's not a mystery.
You can find them too.
Just go to the NASA webpage for the satellites, man.
And China knows the orbits of all the U.S. military satellites.
You think they don't have a plan to just laser those satellites into failure?
Of course they do!
I mean, come on!
And if that doesn't work, all they gotta do, China can just launch a rocket up there to the right orbital altitude and then just detonate it and just create a massive field of high-velocity orbital space junk that basically operates as a massive orbital shotgun that just rips every satellite out of the sky.
And, of course, pollutes the crap out of that orbital path for the next thousand years.
But, hey, who's counting when you're a crazy communist?
You know, they're worried about power today.
There's nothing these people won't do.
They're insane.
They're insane.
Yeah, and they will destroy coastal cities.
They'll nuke the oceans.
They will blow up shrapnel in orbit.
They will laser the crap out of satellites.
They will do anything, man.
They'll launch ICBMs into Seattle if they can get away with it.
These are crazy people.
They'll do anything.
So, I don't know.
So, okay, I promised myself I would always try to put a little solution at the end of all these.
Okay, so what's the solution?
Well, solution number one, don't live in a target city.
Hopefully that should be obvious.
If you're still living in New York, you're living in Seattle, you're living in Los Angeles or even D.C. for that matter, You might want to relocate.
You might want to think about this.
Russia is not going to waste its nukes on, I don't know, San Antonio, Texas, or Tupelo, Mississippi, for that matter.
I mean, there are places all over the country that, in the eyes of the enemy, aren't even worth wasting a nuke on.
You know, Greeley, Colorado or whatever.
Idaho.
You know, great place.
Great place to hole up with some patriots and not worth the Russians wasting a nuke on in their point of view.
Now, Montana is a different deal.
There's a lot of strategic, you know, military bases and missile launch sites in Montana.
So Montana is on the target list, by the way.
Well, certain parts of it.
Mostly western Montana.
And, of course, well come to think of it, you know, certain cities in Colorado are too.
But nevertheless, you get my point.
If you're in a place that's not a valuable target to the enemy, then they're not going to, you know, they're not going to nuke your city.
Or if you're not on the coast, you can't be hit by a tidal wave, obviously.
So if you think that these burrowing mole nukes are actually real, and they might be for all we know then maybe you don't want to live on the coast or maybe you do want to live on the coast and just take the risk Because it's kind of nice.
Maybe you have an oceanfront view, and you're like, ah, screw it.
You know, if they nuke the ocean, we're all screwed anyway.
I'm just going to stand here and eat that tidal wave.
Okay.
That's your call.
Nothing wrong with that.
But most people don't even live on the coast.
I mean, like, right there on the coast.
They don't have an ocean view.
They're close enough to have all the damage from it, but not close enough to be able to enjoy, like, the sunrise...
Off the Atlantic or something.
So you're getting all the risk of it, but none of the benefits of it.
So you might want to just rethink your whole strategy of where you're living or, I don't know, do your own little personal risk assessment.
What do you think the risk is?
I think it's something less than 1% per year for the nuke scenario, but there are other scenarios that I think are much higher.
For example, if you're wondering...
Chinese hackers taking over the control systems of US nuclear power plants and causing them to go into, you know, meltdowns.
What's the risk of that?
I think that's probably greater than 1% per year at the moment.
What about the risk of an EMP attack?
How about a high-altitude nuclear missile from North Korea being detonated over North America?
Or let's say they manage to get it all the way to the Seattle area, and they can set off an EMP that just takes out the power grid in Seattle and Oregon, and maybe eastern Washington, maybe eastern Oregon.
Maybe they can get into Idaho if they're powerful enough.
I don't know.
Maybe all the way to Montana, Wyoming.
I don't know.
I'd have to look at the physics of it.
But the point is, maybe they get that there.
That's a risk.
That's something they could pull off probably pretty soon.
Are you ready for that?
If you live in Seattle, are you ready for life without electricity?
Living in a national emergency scenario?
Most people aren't.
Because you know Starbucks won't be running when the power is out.
That should be a bumper sticker in Seattle.
No power grid means no coffee.
Sorry to tell you.
There's a lot of folks in Portland who aren't ready.
A lot of folks in Seattle who aren't ready.
A lot of folks up there in Canada right across the border who aren't ready.
Because they've never thought about this stuff.
So start thinking about it.
Not trying to freak you out, actually.
That's why I'm trying to give you an honest risk assessment.
Some of these are less than 1% per year, but there's a lot of different risks, and you should do your own assessment, see what you believe, prepare in the way that you think is appropriate.
For me personally, I'm in Texas.
I'm like, whatever.
I mean, Whatever goes down, I want to be in Texas.
Because Texas is going to take care of itself.
I'm out in the country in Texas.
I can take care of myself.
You know, I can help support the community.
I can help support the Republic of Texas if it comes to that.
You know, Texas is going to be fine.
Trust me on that point.
Texans are self-reliant, very independent people.
Except for the ones in Austin, who are mostly Californians anyway.
But real Texans are independent people, and that's why I'm in Texas.
It's like, hey, the power grid goes down in Texas.
People just basically, you know, take a break, turn on the camp stove and cook up, you know, a cup of joe, sit back and wait for things to happen.
You know, lock and load, double check your hollow points, make sure everything's good, and then just chill.
Texans don't freak out in an emergency.
They're already ready for everything.
Like the real Texans.
They don't freak out.
So anyway, whatever.
I hope you're safe wherever you are.
I hope you, you know, look, a lot of this is kind of a little bit tongue-in-cheek, you know.
But the truth is that there are legitimate risks.
Some are big, some are small.
I hope that you take an honest look at what risks might be affecting you based on your geography and your lifestyle, your location, your special needs.
If you have medical needs and so on, I want you to be safe, and that's really why I do these podcasts.
I want you to be safe.
I want you to make it through what's coming.
But I also want you to be eyes wide open so you're aware of what's actually being said out there, what are the possible risks, and that you've thought through these scenarios.
God willing, if we're all fortunate, none of us will live through any kind of a nuclear war.
But I'm not betting on that.
I think the risk of a nuclear bomb or attack is Going off somewhere around the world in the next five years is very high.
I think it's like 80%.
Just off the top of my head.
I think it's a very high risk.
That somewhere, some nuke is going to be used against somebody.
That's a pretty high number, I think, based on the chaos of our world today.
I mean, it could happen against North Korea, for example.
We could bomb North Korea to stop them from...
You know, nuking everybody else.
It could be a preemptive nuke against North Korea.
But I think, I just want you to be safe.
I want you to think about all these things and be as realistic as you can with your risk assessment and preparedness.
So thank you for listening.
This is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, healthrangerreport.com.
Click subscribe to stay plugged in to the Health Ranger Report.
www.healthrangerstore.com Everything we sell is non-GMO, and it's all completely free of chemical sweeteners, artificial colors, hydrogenated oils, and other toxic ingredients that you want to avoid.
▲
Export Selection