President Trump's new Nuclear Posture Review is expected to call for new "low-yield" nuclear weapons and an expansion of the scenarios in which the US may use a nuclear "first strike." Is this a good idea? We discuss in today's Liberty Report...
President Trump's new Nuclear Posture Review is expected to call for new "low-yield" nuclear weapons and an expansion of the scenarios in which the US may use a nuclear "first strike." Is this a good idea? We discuss in today's Liberty Report...
President Trump's new Nuclear Posture Review is expected to call for new "low-yield" nuclear weapons and an expansion of the scenarios in which the US may use a nuclear "first strike." Is this a good idea? We discuss in today's Liberty Report...
Obviously, this is not our regular program because we've had an ice storm here in Lake Jackson and in Houston.
So we're going to do this just by audio, but we wanted to keep you up to date on the issues that we have been concerned about.
Daniel is with me here.
And Daniel, good to have you with us today.
Put another log on the fire, Dr. Paul.
There you go.
Winter is here.
Winter is here in Texas.
And it looks like there's some people trying to promote a different type of winter, you know, with nuclear weapons.
And we want to talk about this because the nuclear weapons have been around for a long time.
There's been a lot of them made.
Fortunately, only two have been actually used.
And there's only been one country that ever used nuclear weapons.
And unfortunately, we have that as something we have to bear with.
But there's a change in policy plan.
Next month, there's a plan to come out with a nuclear posture review by the administration.
And they want to review the whole thing.
We've had hints about this.
Matter of fact, I think Obama was the one that instituted changes in the nuclear program.
And it wasn't to get rid of them all.
It was to upgrade them.
And that's a big deal.
It isn't like a couple million dollars.
It's not like a couple billion dollars to upgrade our nukes.
It's a $1.2 trillion that they have planned to spend.
And some people say, well, Trump's doing all this.
Well, Trump's participating right now.
But it really started, the upgrading started with Obama.
Even though all presidents have more or less supported always leaving on the table the first strike.
You know, nothing is off the table.
You hear that so often.
But of course, we take a position where that's overkill, overuse, and that we have to do some other things.
And there's reason to challenge this whole business of upgrading.
And not only that, Daniel, he wants to build new ones, which are more dangerous.
Not bigger, but more dangerous.
Yeah, and then the two supposedly changes in the 2018 nuclear posture review, which as you say is due out next month, it will do two things that are different than before.
Develop new, quote, low-yield nuclear warheads for particularly the use in the Trident missiles.
And it also is expected to change the circumstances where the U.S. will use nuclear weapons.
And there are three changes that are reported to be made in that.
First of all, we will use them to respond to a mass casualty non-nuke attack.
Before this, we would not use nukes when nukes were not used before.
The other would be respond to attack on critical infrastructure.
And the third would be a respond to an attack on nuclear command and control sites.
So those are the three major changes expected to our nuclear policy next month.
You know, the presidents have generally been very supportive of a tough, tough foreign policy stand.
And it hasn't been any different between the Republicans or the Democrats.
And they have always said that a first strike should be on the table.
But right now, they're literally changing the rules of engagement.
The use of these are going to be more inviting because they're going to be smaller.
It's not going to be an all-out war type of thing.
And I think that makes it much more dangerous.
It's not like we don't have a lot of ability to defend ourselves militarily.
You know, nobody's going to invade us and nobody dare attack us because we already have enough nuclear weapons.
You know, we still today have 7,200 nuclear weapons, and the Russians have over 7,000 as well.
So it's not like we lack weapons, but we lack the sanity, I think, at times, and why we're doing this.
But I think the presidents have been conditioned for two reasons to talk tough.
One is the people want to hear it.
People don't want us a wimp for a president.
They want somebody who's tough and ready to stand up, and if anybody messes with us, so that really fits the bill for Trump.
But also, part of the reason they feel this way, they put this into the context of patriotism.
If you're not for that, you're not a good patriot.
But at the same time, I think some of this occurs because of the propaganda.
And the propaganda comes from the deep state.
It comes from our media.
And it's not just conservatives versus liberals because when it comes to support of war, you know, it's not only now with the Wall Street Journal, especially they've always been, but then you have the New York Times and Washington Post.
They all support this kind of stuff.
So this is why it's a tough sale on our part.
And also the reason why if we don't wake up, this is going to be very destructive and dangerous in our foreign policy, but very destructive on spending money.
Where are we going to get $1.2 trillion to waste on bombs?
So it's a lousy investment from my viewpoint.
And you know, there's an old saying, I think it's definitely true in this case.
The Pentagon is always planning for the last war, the previous war.
And this is the case.
The stated reason to develop these so-called low-yield nuclear weapons is to deter Russia from using tactical nukes in Eastern Europe, as if Russia is just chomping at the bit to drop a few tactical nukes.
But the whole logic is faulty because it assumes that Russia would use low-yield nukes in Europe, thinking that the U.S. would not respond with conventional nuclear weapons.
The whole idea is off.
But the whole thing is to send a message to Russia, North Korea, and China.
I think the real thing is to send a message to the people making the new nuclear weapons that business is booming.
Business is booming.
And, you know, but there is probably a sentiment that they feel good about, and that is being tough.
And they come across as always threatening, you know, like a bully would threaten a weaker person.
And I see that we as a country have been bullying the world, whether it's financial, whether it's sanctions, it's whether, you know, spreading American greatness, this sort of thing.
But I've always believed from an individual basis that people who do all the shouting and the threatening are the weakest people.
They do it from weakness because they're insecure with what they're doing.
And it serves themselves a purpose as well as, of course, satisfying the people that want to hear this.
But when an entire people or a nation might feel insecure enough, no matter how strong they are, just think of the strength we have.
And we come across like, uh-oh, we better be prepared.
7,000 nuclear bombs are not enough.
We need fancy ones.
We need to rebuild them.
But as we've said so many times, there's always money involved for all the money, and you might know exactly how these things come about.
Well, that's true.
And, you know, the final draft of the nuclear posture review is expected to remove the assurances that the U.S. has made in the past to non-nuclear states that the U.S. will not use nukes against them.
So think about that for a minute.
If that won't spark a new nuclear arms race, I don't know what will.
If you figure, hey, I'm no longer safe staying away from nukes.
The U.S. might use them anyway.
I better get some big ones and get them quick.
I think our foreign policy is very destructive in that it gives tremendous incentive for others to have them, especially those countries now.
It's very much prevalent that the countries that we threaten, we get them to remove their nuclear weapons, and then we end up getting rid of them and they lose out.
No wonder countries like North Korea act in a certain way.
One person that has spoken out on this, and he's been speaking out from some personal experience, and that's Daniel Ellsberg.
And it's quite a bit different from the time when he worked for the Rand Corporation, was in the Pentagon until he finally made a big shift and released the Pentagon papers to prove that the whole fiasco in Vietnam was based on lies.
So he's a credible person, and he thinks this whole thing, he's done a dissertation on this called the doomsday machine, and looking at the great danger.
And some people might say, well, he's overstating the case.
But right now, people need to hear about the danger.
You know, right now, I think it's underestimated about the great danger of this escalation and why this can't help anybody.
I do not think for one minute that this helps move in the direction of peace.
This is a very dangerous thing to do, not only from our foreign policy standpoint, but also from the financial standpoint.
You know, and it's very often based on maintaining our empire.
How much do we have to spend?
And right now, this is what we do.
It's maintaining the empire.
And the way I see what things are coming now, especially when I look at the dollar, there's something saying that there's some cracks in the empire, and the cracks will be financial.
And maybe it will bring us to our senses about pursuing programs like this.
Absolutely.
And a couple of final thoughts for me.
I think the whole idea of calling something a low-yield nuke makes it sound more attractive, more usable is the idea, whereas we would always think that the use of nuclear weapons was unthinkable.
Now this psychologically gives you the idea that they're usable.
But let's not forget the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are technically low-yield weapons in our current technology.
So we're not talking about a nice cute little nuke that blows up a couple of tanks.
And the final thought, final, final thought is, you know, the U.S. talks a lot about the rule of law and how other nations have to follow this.
But following this, developing new kinds of nuclear weapons would put the U.S. in further violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, in which we agreed to get rid of nuclear weapons, not develop new ones.
And also Article 6 of the UN Treaty.
We're not that keen on the UN.
I understand that.
But we're yelling at every other country, you better follow the UN.
And when it comes to our own behavior, there you go, the hypocrisy again.
Well, there are either eight or nine countries that have nukes.
You know, I question on how efficient and how ready the nukes are for North Korea, but say they have, that means nine countries.
But the rhetoric is getting tougher.
Just the other day, the rhetoric between Pakistan and India.
And I think it's the rhetoric that can be contagious, too.
And then just think the other day of that little mistake that they made in Hawaii.
Oh, the nukes are coming.
The nukes are coming and hiding in sewers and things like that.
And they got so misled.
But it means it should call attention to the fact that a misuse of the actual weapon could come about too.
You know, maybe they'll actually send one.
Oh, I pushed the wrong button.
You know, this sort of thing.
So, I think our goal here at the Liberty Report is mainly to call attention to as many people as we can reach to say that this is not necessary.
This foreign policy is not good for America.
It's the kind of thing that we should challenge.
And if the American people decided that this is foolish and wasteful and dangerous, Congress would change.
Call Attention to Waste00:00:43
It took a long time for the American people to wake up and say, enough is enough.
And finally, we said, let's quit killing and quit Americans being killed in the 1960s with Vietnam.
So it's time for us to say, enough is enough.
The military-industrial complex, they have way too much, they make too much, they have too much control.
And there's articles out now about how solidified the neocons have become in the new administration.
That's scary, too, because they endorse this type of a foreign policy.
I would like to thank all our listeners for tuning in today and apologize for the weather.
Not that I have any control over the weather, but we did want to visit with you today, even though we did not have our usual visual program.