B (4:03)

Thank you for having me again. I know it's not an easy or actually not the most fun conversation talking about nuclear weapons, but I think you put it really beautifully that we are living at a time of so much progress and just so much opportunity and hope for humanity and a better future. And at the same time, here we are on this gorgeous, beautiful planet with wars erupting, with countries in conflict, of overtly covertly tensions all over the place. It's really not a good time. And on top of all of this is really this technology that in some sense we've been building for now, 80 years, and technology that throughout that time has quite literally threatened to destroy the planet. I don't mean that the planet itself would disappear. The planet would still be there. Whether or not it would be livable is a really big question mark. And certainly I think that a nuclear war on this planet would actually most certainly destroy human civilization. Whether all humans are wiped out is a question. Whether all life is wiped out is a question. But human civilization is going to be gone. And so what is that picture? That picture starts with an understanding that currently in the world we have 12 and a half thousand nuclear warheads in possession of nine different countries. Including the United States. United States and Russia have the most nuclear weapons. Actually, Russia has a little bit more than the United States. They're both at about five, five and a half thousand nuclear warheads each. So the rest of the states that have them, the other seven, much smaller number in the mostly low hundreds, with China up to about 500 today. And each of these nuclear warheads is, most of them are far more powerful than the bombs that were used on attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So In July of 1945, the United States had three nuclear warheads. It used one of them in what's called a test, the Trinity test, in the deserts of New Mexico, actually had devastating consequences for a local population. I'll set that aside for the moment. And then it used to in attacks on Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And in those attacks, on the order of 200,000 people died between the two,

A (7:10)

the two cities, which just to put in context, that is a time when there's only three nuclear warheads.

B (7:15)

Three nuclear warheads that exist in possession of one country.

A (7:19)

And that resulted in fundamentally changing the polarity of the world. It affected the global power structure and resulted in the casualties of 200,000.

B (7:29)

Absolutely. And the humanitarian catastrophe that unfolded in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just really unimaginable. I mean, these were human beings that were vaporized, right? So by the epicenter, both of these bombs were air bursts. So they were exploded about 500 meters above the ground. So they form a fireball, and then that energy dissipated. When we talk about this fireball, the fireball basically has the temperature of the sun. It's like creating a miniature sun on Earth. And so people were quite literally people, buildings, you know, quite literally vaporized. So just turn, kind of like your, your, you know, water on the stove disappears, right? And, and, and then obviously, as you moved further and further, farther and farther from the epicenter, then you would have people with third degree burns. You would have destruction from, from just the blast, the destruction from the energy that goes into the blast. And then on top of all of this, you also have radiation. And again, this is just one single bomb. Hiroshima bomb was the equivalent of 15 kilotons of TNT. So that's 15,000 tons of a chemical explosive. So that's how we sort of understand how powerful these bombs are. My telling you, how much uranium or plutonium is in a nuclear bomb wouldn't, wouldn't give you that sense of the, the just how powerful they are. But again, today we have nuclear weapons in these arsenals that are dozens, if not Hundreds of times more powerful than those early bombs. And there's a total of 12 and a half thousand of them. And we know that, that if something like a nuclear war were to occur, and let's even just for a moment take India and Pakistan, both of which have about 150 nuclear warheads and estimated on average to be 100 kilotons. So that's about seven Hiroshima bombs equivalent. If those two countries were to use their entire arsenals in a nuclear war, it's estimated 130 million people would die just from the attacks. We also know from Hiroshima and Nagasaki that basically the day of, or just in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, a certain number of people died. And then within months, the number of casualties basically doubled from the impacts of radiation. So if you have this 130 million, you know, the day off, that's like people who are vaporized or blown apart, et cetera, and then, and then you would have casualties from radiation as well. But that's not where the impact of nuclear war ends. In fact, last year when there was a. It was, it was just three or four days, a conflict between India and Pakistan. And I think there was, There were some comments on the Internet. Why would we. Why do we need to worry about, you know, let them do whatever they want? Well, it turns out that if they go to a nuclear war that's going to impact the entire planet. How is it going to impact the entire planet? There are two major effects. One is nuclear winter. That is the fact that if these bombs are used in attacks on cities and there are widespread fires as a result of the explosions, those fires would produce so much soot that would go into the atmosphere and then block incoming sunlight, reduce temperatures on the planet and reduce them to such a degree, the food would begin to, to food growing would. Would begin to fail. Agriculture would begin to fail. And within two years, it's estimated that actually more than 2 billion people would die from starvation around the planet. That's just India, Pakistan, nuclear war.

A (12:21)

Not even including the chain of proxy alliances that these nations.

B (12:25)

Not including, not just, they call it in these scenarios, limited regional nuclear war. Right. So India and Pakistan do their thing. Nobody else gets involved. And of course, we actually don't even think that's what would happen. But just to illustrate how serious this is, and then there's another level where the US and Russia would essentially use one third of their current arsenals each, and that would end up with 360 million immediate deaths, followed by over 5 billion people dying of starvation. That's really the end. And these are estimates. Could be much worse, could be, maybe it could even be better. But this is at the level of a collapse of human civilization. This something else nuclear weapons can do that doesn't even require you to explode the bombs on cities and kill women and children and so on. It's called electromagnetic pulse. It's when you explode a nuclear warhead high above the atmosphere, about 100 miles up into away from surface, and you explore. You explode the nuclear warhead and it basically sends out this radiation that then interacts with particles in the atmosphere and creates something called the electromagnetic pulse, which ends up shutting down electricity in entire regions. It's estimated. And we've known this since the 50s, we've known this for a long time. It's estimated that you need just three such weapons to shut down electricity over the entire United States. And that's not a blackout, that's not like, oh, we lost electricity and it's coming back in three days or five days or seven days. It's not coming back. That's electricity that is not coming back. You don't even have to kill us all, we'll just kill each other. Right? Like, can you imagine, can you imagine this society without electricity? Where's the food going to come from?

A (14:51)

Logistics, supply chains, global banking, everything, Everything collapses.

B (14:55)

Right? Where's your money? If there's no electricity, you don't have any money. I mean, it's almost too much to even try to figure out. But that's the kind of thing that nuclear weapons can do. And why they're so dangerous and why they really represent this, as you so eloquently put it at the beginning, this existential threat that's looming over all of humanity. And that's been doing that for 80 years.

A (15:28)

Yeah, I mean, again, I just in exercise and kind of like prepping for speaking with you, I put myself in the shoes of trying to really feel what it would be like to be in a city where a nuclear bomb went off 10 miles away. I was 20 miles away from the blast zone and it's really horrifying. I even found a little bit of a write up that kind of can paint that picture really vividly. And I implore the audience just to imagine whatever city you're in, whatever place you're in. Imagine you see this light and it's beyond. It's not the sun, it's like beyond brightness. It's nothing you've ever comprehended before. If you're in the blast zone, you're immediately eviscerated you don't even know that it happened by the time you're dead. And as a quote, I think maybe you mentioned last time we spoke that the living would envy the dead is sort of how people, I think, around Hiroshima described the fallout.

B (16:21)

That quote specifically comes from Nikita Khrushchev, who was a Soviet leader and who negotiated with President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and they also negotiated the Limited Test Ban treaty and so on. But it's that recognition that this is just. This is not something we want to even think about. I actually admire you. I. I'd love to hear the description that. That you offered to read. I. I admire you for thinking in this way. I think about nuclear weapons all the time, and I really. I just kind of refuse to think about what would happen. You know, there are novels, there are films, there are other things. And for me, it's. I somehow have this feeling that what I really want to spend my kind of intellectual and emotional energy on is what can I do to prevent this from ever happening?

A (17:23)

Of course, I think you're maybe more aware than the average person of just how horrific this may be.

B (17:28)

Yeah, no, no, absolutely.

A (17:29)

That's how I felt like even thinking about it. Absolute. I've read descriptions that if you held your hand up, you might see your bones through your hand. That there's literally like a radiation effect, that if you're somehow outside the blast zone, you're going to see your bones inside your own hand.

B (17:46)

I know.

A (17:47)

And from that moment, then all of a sudden, the heat, and you wouldn't even hear it at first. You just see this bright light. You would probably feel the heat. And it's like you mentioned the hotter than the sun, which think, like, think you've burned your hand on a stovetop. Incomprehensible. Like, the air immediately, like, would thicken. Yes, it would. It says here it literally would almost feel solid. The exposed skin would, like, respond immediately. Yeah, you. Like the air around you would ignite potentially. Like, literally the oxygen would have a chemical reaction. If you're breathing in the air, your lungs might eviscerate from just the oxygen around you, basically. What would even happen with the oxygen in presence of that high heat?

B (18:39)

Yeah. So this is actually a really interesting question because back before the very first test that was conducted In July of 1945, the scientists were actually worried that all the nitrogen in the atmosphere could ignite and that there was a one in a million chance that they would actually destroy the entire planet.

A (19:04)

Just with one test.

B (19:05)

Just with one test. And they Went ahead and did it anyway. So that's the, I think the, it's really so much of this is about the specific scenarios. What's the bomb, how many are you using, how you know, where is it going, and so on and so forth. I think think it's the primary effect I really worry about is you create this fireball, right? It might be a mile across and that's. You created a miniature sun on Earth, vaporizes everything. And then you kind of go in these concentric circles farther and farther and farther out. It's the, those fires, you know, how far they're going to go. I mean really far. But also really depends on how this all plays out where. I think a lot of the times we're imagining one nuclear weapon attacking New York City. Russia has intercontinental ballistic missiles that can carry 10 warheads. Why not one in Brooklyn, one in Staten island, two in Manhattan, Queens, whatever, the Bronx. Like you could, you, you and you could create these miniature suns everywhere. Now imagine how those miniature suns are going to actually combine, right? What's going to happen in between, even if they're sort of separated, right? So there's a lot of that fire, the soot. I was talking about nuclear winter earlier, other things that would be radioactive isotopes, you know, really contaminating the environment for hundreds and even thousands of years. But then you also have this destruction of the ozone layer, a kind of nitric oxide type compounds that are produced that destroy the ozone layer. And, and then that ends up in like the, the scenario of the U.S. russia, nuclear war. 70% of the ozone layer is destroyed, right? So I think last time you asked me about people building bunkers in New Zealand, I mean, good luck. Even if New Zealand is sort of still hospitable to food growing and maybe the radioactive isotopes haven't contaminated everything and you come out of your bunker and the ozone layer is 70% destroyed. And that's not just about the fact that you're going to get skin cancer. Fine, you cover yourself. It's going to destroy the plants too. The food is not going to grow. Also the food also can't with is benefits from the ozone layer protecting us from UV radiation. So it's just, it's such unimaginable destruction in so many different ways. Which is what makes these weapons so different really than anything else we have. You know, I myself kind of general approach to these things is to talk about peace, to talk about diplomacy, to talk about. And all of it is horrible. Don't get me wrong. The, you know, people Dying and being injured daily by the thousands in Ukraine. What we all have seen, you know, happening in Gaza. There are other wars.

A (22:41)

Yes, Sudan.

B (22:42)

You're talking about Sudan. Exactly. But, and all of it really just in, in so many ways so devastating that we as humans could come so far in so many ways that we can, you know, write, you know, beautiful literature and compose, you know, beautiful symphonies and do. And, and, and have the ability to have this conversation and then people can listen to it from any part of the world. I mean, so many am. About us as humans and the wars currently going on just in my, you know, for me, just really break my heart. But the, but the nuclear war threat is something like. It's on a different scale.

A (23:33)

Right.

B (23:33)

Even compared to the immense suffering that's still taking place in so many parts of the world. It's just. I cannot imagine. I recently gave a. It's like an interview, but almost like a lecture mixture with another scientist named Stephen Starr. And Stephen, at the end of our presentation said something like, don't national or political goals would be worth destroying, you know, all life on Earth. Like, like, couldn't we just agree with that one statement? Wouldn't it be so simple to agree with that one statement? And then once you take that statement and say, yeah, you're right, there's nothing that could justify destroying life on Earth, then we have to kind of, you know, dial back and figure out what do we need to do to make sure this never happens. And, you know, to me, the answer is clear. We have to eliminate these weapons because as long as they exist, they will represent this enormous, enormous existential threat. And of course, if we go from having 12 and a half thousand to having a thousand, that would be much better, right? It will clearly be better. So how about we just agree we need to keep reducing them, and then, you know, we can also talk about what it would mean to. To eliminate them.

A (25:00)

Right? Yeah. I mean, we've done it before, right? I mean, we. At what you said in the 60s there were.

B (25:06)

In 1986 was the height, the maximum number. It reached 70,000 nuclear warheads. So we've basically eliminated more than 80% of that arsenal. We just really now. But what's so dangerous about where we are now is just how bad the relations are between different nuclear powers, between countries in general. The sidelining, and I refer to it as emasculation of the United nations isn't helping. We need far more cooperation and far more just respect for international law. Because if we disregard having agreements, having a UN Charter Having state sovereignties, having, you know, once all of that goes away, we're back in the, you know, Middle Ages, right, where anything goes. And. But now we're not just in the Middle Ages with, you know, swords and lands. Exactly, exactly. We're now in the Middle Ages with nuclear weapons. And really, the. The consequences could be not just. It's even hard to find the right word, you know, Catastrophic. Devastating. Yeah.

A (26:41)

It's.

B (26:41)

It's annihilation. It's. We. We just don't even have the right language to think about what that would actually ultimately mean.

A (26:49)

I think, again, I don't want to harp so much on, like, the. The visceral picture of what it would be like to witness, but Chris, is. Would you mind just pulling up a picture of one of the nuclear bomb tests or just a video perhaps? Because I just think, like, maybe for someone that's their first exposure to what a nuclear weapon is. Again, it's. It's one of these things, like when people talk about, like, billions of dollars, like, it's almost difficult to fathom billions, like, oh, like a millionaire and like a billionaire, like, they're close. It's. It's so.

B (27:16)

So different.

A (27:17)

So different. And so I think people think like, oh, I've seen, you know, war footage on, you know, the Internet of, you know, Ukraine or, you know, in Palestine, whatever. It. This type of nuclear attack is fundamentally different categories of difference.

B (27:32)

Absolutely. And I think we talked about this last time I described the energy yield difference between something like a chemical explosive attack, like the Oklahoma City bomb, that was the equivalent of two and a half tons of tnt. And then you go to the Hiroshima bomb, which was 15 kilotons of TNT. So that's 6,000 times more powerful than the attack on Oklahoma city, which killed 168 people, destroyed the federal building, destroyed buildings and destroyed and damaged buildings in a 16 block radius. So a huge amount at the time, I think it was something like $600 million worth of damage. That's 1995. That's more than 30 years ago. And then you go to Hiroshima, 6,000 times more energy. And then you go to something like the Bravo Bomb. Maybe if you just look up the Bravo test. The Brava bomb was the US the largest hydrogen bomb the US ever tested in the Marshall Islands. It was 15 megatons. So I think a thousand Hiroshima bomb equivalents. So that's 6 million times more energy than the Oklahoma City bombing.

A (28:58)

These are compounding scales that the human brain has a difficult time with these compounding numbers.

B (29:04)

Absolutely, absolutely. Absolutely. And it's, you know, that mushroom cloud was 60 miles wide. It was 25 miles high. I mean it's an absolute monstrosity. Imagine that kind of an area just covered by the mushroom cloud. Maybe this is. Yeah.

A (29:23)

So this is from Vegas PBS just showing the size of this. And this is 1954.

B (29:29)

1954, March 1st of 1954. Bikini Atoll. It vaporized an entire island in the atoll.

A (29:38)

I mean the, like it's, it feels sci fi.

B (29:44)

Absolutely, absolutely.

A (29:46)

And not to mention the light and the heat and then the shock wave, this massive wall of pressure.

B (29:52)

Exactly. I keep talking about the energy and it's also what happens to that energy. And so some of that energy goes into exactly 50% goes into this shock wave, the blast. 35% of the energy goes into heat and then the rest goes into radiation. Either the initial radiation, which is both neutrons and gamma rays, or radiation fallout, sort of the energy that ends up being produced from the radioactive isotopes that are produced from the explosion itself. So it's just a, it's an enormous amount of energy. And then everything that happens with that energy is just absolutely, unimaginably dangerous. And then we have these long term effects of, as we keep talking about ozone layer destruction or nuclear winter or, or something like again, if you're really in it to have a nuclear war, maybe you're attacking all these cities and so on. Maybe you're also doing the explosion 100 miles above the surface and actually destroying the electrical grid in the country. One of the interesting things is that our, the U.S. government has protected the Nuclear Command and control centers from an attack by an emp, by this electromagnetic pulse, but not the rest of our electricity grid. Right. And that's also one of the things where it's like, the good news is we could protect the, the electrical grid. The bad news is we haven't done it. And you know, with Congress and funding and this and that, I mean it seems like a, like a real no brainer. Clearly they're concerned because they did protect the nuclear command and control from, from such a possibility.

A (32:06)

Yeah. Hey, we're going to take a break really quick because I need to talk to the fellows. All right, if you're a woman, you can skip forward. I don't really care. But guys, I want to talk about one of the most probably demoralizing things that can ever happen to you. All right? You're in the bathroom, you're brushing your teeth, you look up in the mirror and suddenly you realize my forehead looks bigger than it did Before. Well, the thing with that is that men don't go bald overnight. Right, Christos? Anyway, it's sneaky, okay? It's like, all right, well, the lighting here is a little weird. And then you're like, I just, I just, you know, took a shower. So of course, you know, I mean, or maybe my barber just actually pushed it back. And then one day, day, someone tags you in a photo and you're like, what is going on? And the worst part is that most guys don't know what actually works. I mean, there's a million oils and, you know, all sorts of things like potions on the Internet basically that are going to claim to help you out. But the reality is there are doctor trusted ingredients that have been trusted for decades. I mean, truly, they've been studied for years. And that's why a lot of guys are using hymns. All right, HIMS makes it incredibly simple to get personalized hair loss treatment online. You don't have to go to the doctor, you don't have to take off work, you don't have to drive across town, you don't have to sit in a waiting room thinking like, oh, everyone knows why I'm here. You know what I mean? Through hims, you get access to prescription hair loss treatments with ingredients that actually work, like finasteride, minoxidil, the actual stuff that's going to actually help your hair loss. These are clinically studied ingredients that can stop further hair loss and even regrow hair and as little to three to six months. So it's amazing. And the best part is that it's 100% online. You literally just go to the website, do like a little consultation, you explain your situation and a licensed medical provider reviews it. And then if you qualify, they send you treatments directly to your door. No hidden fees, no surprise cost. It's not going to cost you an arm and a leg. You get real treatment designed around your goals. So for simple online access to personalized and affordable care for hair loss, weight loss and more, visit hims.comcamp that's hims h I m s.com camp c a m p For your free online, visit hims.com camp Featured products include compound drug products which the FDA does not approve or verify for safety, effectiveness or quality. Prescription required. See website for full details, restrictions and important safety information. Individual results may vary based on studies of topical and oral minoxidil and finasteride. Let's get back to the show. What's up, guys? We're gonna take a break real quick because I Gotta ask you a question. Are you the type of person that just wakes up in the morning and immediately, like, hits your vape or gets a coffee or throws in a pouch because you just want to feel anything at all? Like, you just throughout the day, you're like, okay, coffee pouch. Coffee pouch. Vape. Coffee pouch. I mean, to be honest with you, that was me. Like, I was just going from cold brew to pouch to cold brew to pouch all day, and my heart felt like it was gonna explode. Like, I was just, like, felt strung out like all day, truly. I was like, just kind of anxious and I didn't even know why. And I was trying to, like, eat clean and I was lifting weights. Meanwhile, I was also chemically nuking my nervous system. And that's why I started these Ultra pouches. I'll be honest with you, I found these on my own. And then I reached out to the company. I was like, hey, I would love to work with you guys because I love what you guys do. Ultra is amazing because it's nicotine free and caffeine free and it still gives you that focus and energy. It's really the best. Like, I'm like, okay, there's no nicotine or caffeine. I was like, well, what is it? Well, basically they partnered with neuroscientists to put together a blend of like, nootropics and adaptogens to actually help you focus and get energized and kind of, you know, help with that oral fixation. No Diddy without, like the jittery crash. So it's got like L theanine, infinity PX alpha, GPC, vitamins B6 and B12. And I'll be honest, they taste great, they make you feel great. And I don't know if it's just me or what, but, like, I truly feel like I'm more locked in when I'm taking them and there's no crash. And the craziest thing is that, you know, sometimes I'll still use nicotine. It just helps me cut back and I feel way better now. Caffeine and nicotine are going to wreck your resting heart rate. It's going to make you feel anxious if you're taking them all the time. And on top of that, it's going to destroy your sleep. So that was my biggest issues. I felt cracked out, I felt anxious, and I wasn't sleeping that good. But ever since I've been taking Ultra, I'm still getting that same little kick. I'm getting that thing to do throughout the day. And I just feel better in general. Ultra is absolutely amazing. And if you're interested in checking them out, out, I have great news. You're going to go to takeultra.com that's t-a k e ultra.com and you're going to use the promo code camp and you're going to get 15 off when you use that code. That's takeultra.com and use a code camp for 15 off. And when you check out, they're going to ask where you heard about Ultra. Just please tell them that we sent you over at Camp Cat. It really helps us out a lot. Thank you guys so much. Feel better, sleep better, get less anxious, but stay locked up. Now let's get back to the show. I mean, we're trying to visualize that society post some type of nuclear war. And again, there is no society. The world is just fundamentally different. We've reverted to a quasi village state where there's probably small communes of people trying to scrape together food and water. Much of the water is contaminated. There's radiation effects that are causing sickness and illness across anyone that's unlucky enough to survive. And people have, I've even just read online, people have kind of pointed out that, oh, like this nuclear winter idea is a theory. This is theoretical. We don't know if this would happen. It might not. And to me, I'm like, that doesn't really change anything for me.

B (37:23)

You're absolutely right.

A (37:25)

Let's say, okay, nuclear winter is completely bunk and we have 100 nuclear warheads go off around the world still.

B (37:32)

We're talking about probably more likely thousands of nuclear warheads go off in the world.

A (37:37)

Yeah, we're talking about hundreds of millions of people dying from the blast, from the outside impact zones, from the radiation, from the water supply being poisoned. I mean, to me that doesn't change it at all really because again, the question ultimately to me is should 10 people, maybe we say 50 people, if we count their courtiers and their people on their staff, 100 maybe, should they be in charge of and have the capability to kill hundreds of millions of people?

B (38:11)

We need to get you into the nuclear disarmament movement to make all of these points. Just a couple of thoughts. One is currently there's a UN mandated study of the effects of nuclear war. A group of scientists. I'm actually not. I'm sort of adjacent to this effort because I'm on a scientific advisory group to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This is a separate group that was just established in the last few months and the last time the UN had such a study of what would the effects of nuclear war be on the planet beyond humanity was like the late 1980s. Everybody, in some sense, I wouldn't say everybody, but most people fell asleep, including, you know, organizations and so on, after the end of the Cold War, Right? So now we've, at least some people have woken up to the reality of this, of this. And so there is such an effort to understand the consequences of nuclear war in today's world. Because, of course, compared to the 1980s, obviously the weapons are different and all of that, but it's more so that we do live on a different planet. The way in which we. The connections between different societies, the globalization, the way in which we. You know, you walk into your grocery store here in Brooklyn and you buy, know, beef from New Zealand or something. I don't know if you buy beef, but whatever. Right, so what would that look like? Right, what would it look like? And that's definitely now being considered in a very serious way on the nuclear war. Is just a theory. First, I have to say one really significant thing, which is when people dismiss the word theory. Now, in everyday language, maybe you and I would have a conversation. Well, I have a theory that if I do this, you know, then this will happen. That is not the meaning of the word in science. A scientific theory is something that we have been really, you know, thinking about, considering, looking at for a long period of time, typically. But it is something that describes a wide range of phenomena and for which there is experimental evidence to support it. So I would even say at this point whether I would call. So, for example, quantum mechanics is a theory.

A (41:04)

Gravity.

B (41:06)

Exactly. Einstein's formulation of gravity is called general relativity. That's another theory. Quantum mechanics is why my phone works and your phone works and your iPad and all kinds of things, right? So you can call it just a theory, but it basically is responsible for so much of our technological development. So same thing with people dismissing evolution by natural selection. It's just a theory. If there had been a biologist since 1859, when Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection, if there had been a biologist who was able to disprove what Darwin first proposed, they'd be like the most famous scientist in the world, right? Because they would have supplanted something that was so fundamental to everything we understand in biology. So the. The idea that something's just a theory kind of just in general, needs to go on nuclear winter. What I will say is that in 1980 scientists had figured out what happened to the dinosaurs or to the large dinosaurs, non bird dinosaurs, 66 million years ago. How come they all, you know, disappeared? And there had been efforts to try and understand this, and basically a series of discoveries, desperate discoveries, all led to this initially hypothesis, I would now call it a theory that an asteroid hit the Earth near what is today Yucatan Peninsula. Changed. Initially, it's all very hot, but then you get this impact, you know, the fires in the soot and you block incoming sunlight. And so the planet becomes inhospitable to life. The large dinosaurs just have no food. They die out. Turns out that was a good thing for us because the small mammals that could burrow underground, that could hibernate, that could survive very little food, they ended up. And at some point, the conditions on the planet vastly improved. The planet was back to its kind of normal climate cycle. And those mammals, over millions and millions of years, evolved. The last common ancestors we have with chimps and bonobos lived about 7 million years ago. And since then, we've split from them and went on our own way in our own path to evolution. Okay, so 1960, 6 million years ago, asteroid wipes out the dinosaurs. The scientists discovered different pieces of evidence that pointed to this and then thought something like the iridium layer. The iridium came. It's a very heavy element that would only be present in the core of the Earth. It doesn't exist on the surface. And so why did you have this layer at just the right time and not just in one place, deposited globally, so iridium. And then there were glass ferrules that they found. And then they found a crater in the Yucatan near the Yucatan peninsula, you know, 200 kilometers across, I think. Crater just all fits, everything fits. For this is why the dinosaurs disappeared. And the scientists, some of the scientists involved in this work began to wonder whether there was something that could happen today. Now, these kinds of very large asteroid impacts are thought to occur once every hundred million years. So chances that we have one, you

A (45:19)

know, another 30 million years.

B (45:20)

Yeah, yeah, exactly. Chances are very, very, very small.

A (45:23)

I can live with that.

B (45:24)

Right? We can live with that. Another existential threat would be a super volcano. We also don't think that that's gonna happen in our lifetimes or in the coming hundreds or even thousand.

A (45:36)

You spoke about 1816, that year without summer.

B (45:38)

Yes, yes. And that's Mount Tambora. That's a relatively small volcanic eruption that did change the climatic conditions for several years. But in 1816, a year without a summer, it snowed in New York City in July. And this actually impacted. People really starved around the planet because the food growth was very much reduced. So in thinking through these other threats, natural threats, scientists basically realized that a nuclear war, and at the time, this was 1980, we probably had 50 or 60,000 nuclear warheads at that time. The peak ended up in 1986, as we said, at 70,000. And so they just realized, hey, if we had a nuclear war in world, which you used a lot of these nuclear warheads. And it's very important for people to recognize that when we talk about something like the nuclear testing. So in the Marshall Islands, they would do these tests, you know, vaporize an island, right? But then there was not, you know, it's just like ocean around. So they weren't creating massive fires, right? They were choosing these sites of where to do the tests very deliberately not to create massive fires. If you're doing this in the context of a war and you're actually attacking, right, you're attacking military installations, you're attacking cities, there are lots of things that will burn in those cities, including human beings. And so that's the amount of soot that is produced. And that's what they realized in the early 1980s. Wrote a paper, a group of geologists got together, and then they got actually Carl Sagan to be interested in this. And Carl Sagan was on that original paper in Science magazine of proposing nuclear winter as something that could occur as a result of nuclear war. Sagan went on until his death, I think he died sometime in the late 1990s. Really was a kind of spokesperson for this idea and very much a proponent of science as a means of progress and very much a spokesman for peace and for disarmament and against nuclear weapons. But from the very beginning, they were being attacked. A lot of this was attacked at the time. Soviet Union, of course, was a communist regime. This was disregarded as communist propaganda. You'll still see some of that when I talk about it. And people write comments to interviews or podcasts or whatever. This is communist propaganda. And the government really has been trying very, very hard to set this research aside and to pretend like this is not the, you know, this is not real. The truth is that the close. The more research we've done, the. The more we think that this is. This is real. There have been. There has been a tremendous amount of progress in climate modeling because the goal was to understand global warming and so that those climate models have improved over the decades. This is now four plus decades since the initial discoveries. On top of it the scientists have been able, for example, to compare within their models, to compare things like wildfires in Canada and so on, and to say this is what we observe and does it fit with our models. Now, of course, to your original point, maybe it's just, maybe nuclear winter is just all wrong, right? And life will continue to flourish on the planet, really, after hundreds of millions of people die and potentially we have no electricity. Like, if that doesn't bother you enough and you feel that discrediting nuclear winter is like the way to, you know, keep justifying nuclear weapons, then yeah, go ahead.

A (50:30)

That's how I feel. I'm like, okay, maybe, you know, 10 billion or, you know, 5 billion people don't die. Maybe it's only a couple hundred million. I'm like, still, I just don't know if a small select group of people that don't care about the individual interests of humans on Earth should be in charge of that type of power.

B (50:46)

And really, Mark, it's a little worse than that. Because what you're saying is the nine heads of state of the countries that have nuclear weapons and so on, if just one of them starts to chain, our understanding is that one nuclear weapon will begin the chain reaction. Of course, what actually happens in the nuclear weapon and lead to a full blown nuclear war. And so it's not even that nine of them get to decide the future of not just 8 billion currently alive, but future generations as well. It's one, one person, one of them makes a deliberate decision to go within the attack. And when you have conflict and wars between nuclear powers or nuclear powers are indirectly involved, of course this is a possibility, this deliberate attack is a possibility. And again, some people will dismiss. No one's crazy enough. Well, if you trust all of them, then good luck to all of us. But that's not even all. It could end up happening because of a mistake. It could end up happening because you think you're under attack and you do decide, decide to attack. Or it could be an accident. We've had so many close calls. And I just, in many ways, some real, you know, experts on understanding risk and understanding what's happened and how close we've gone, many of them quite simply say, we've just been lucky. It's not even, you know, that we've been smart or the nuclear deterrence works. We've really been lucky. And the more time that passes, the more we learn about these incidents in which, you know, something really, really could have gone wrong in the past.

A (52:49)

Yeah, I mean, if during this conversation we both had guns pointed at each other. You know, I don't think you would pull it. You don't think I would pull it. But it still would make me very uncomfortable to have a loaded gun pointing at me. And maybe you knew that if you pulled it, I would also pull it and we would both go, so you won't do it.

B (53:05)

But.

A (53:05)

But still, what if neither of us had a gun pointed at each other? Disney wants to know, are you ready? Yes. For Marvel Studios, the New Avengers now streaming on Disney.

B (53:19)

Let's do this.

A (53:20)

One of the best Marvel movies of all time is now streaming on Disney.

B (53:24)

Hey, you weren't listening to me.

A (53:26)

I said thunderbolts, the New Avengers is now streaming on Disney.

B (53:30)

Needs the new Avengers. That's cool, man.

A (53:34)

Marvel Studios Thunderbolts, the New Avengers, rated PG 13. Now streaming on. You guessed it, Disney.

B (53:40)

I know, I know. Daniel Ellsberg. So this is. You probably know the name Dan was the person who released the pentagon Papers in 1970, which led to. Basically led eventually to the end of the Vietnam War. The Pentagon Papers really revealed that the US Government was aware that it was not winning in Vietnam and that it was open, it was lying to the American people about how that war was going and what the prospects for winning that war were. Dan Ellsberg ended up after that. He. He ended up basically standing trial. And then it was. It ended up being a mistrial because the. The prosecution had. This was during Nixon had, I believe they broke into his doctor's office, his psychiatrist's office, and as a result, the judge dismissed all charges and he ended up spending. He passed away in 2023. I want to say he ended up spending the rest of his life really talking, protesting and talking about nuclear weapons and so on. And he said that all these governments that have nuclear weapons actually use nuclear weapons every single day. And he said they use them like a robber uses a gun when they point it to your head. Exactly. To your point. Right. Like the robber doesn't have to pull a trigger. Right. To be using a gun. Right. And telling you, give me the money. Whether you're a store clerk or whatever, they just have to point it at your head. And that's what we have been doing in some sense. The US has been doing that for 80 years. And the other countries that acquired nuclear weapons afterwards have been doing it for. For less time, but nevertheless, they've been doing it. And. And the question is, what kind of a planet can we really have if our. Even if we for a moment assume that this notion of nuclear deterrence works, right? I'm pointing a gun at you, you're pointing one at me. You know that if I, you know, if you shoot, I'll shoot, so. So we just both stay restrained. Even if that works, what kind of a relationship do we have as human beings? Right. If that's the basis for the relationship between different countries, I think we're really in trouble, right? One, because it could fail, and if it fails, it's catastrophic. And two, because it quite simply cannot be the kind of cooperation that we need to address climate change, that we need to address pandemics, that we need to address AI. I know you want to talk about AI. We have some real challenges on this planet. Planet. It's a beautiful planet. It's got. And we as humanity have done so much and have so much potential to do more, but we also do have challenges. And imagine that you and your neighbor, right, were constantly pointing a gun at each other and yet at the same time needed to fix something. I don't know, in the hallway or whatever in the front yard, backyard. It's just like, how are you gonna do that if your entire relationship is based on I'm gonna annihilate you or. And it's not even a gun at each other's head, it's like a bomb in each other's, you know, homes. Right. Like I'm gonna destroy your entire home.

A (57:48)

Yeah.

B (57:49)

And I have this button I can use to destroy your home. How much can you get done if that's the basis of your relationship? I think that's the other. That's the other piece. And then the third piece is how much money we spend on these weapons, right?

A (58:07)

Yeah. And maintaining and developing and maintaining.

B (58:09)

And now modernizing. And now there are new, you know, new intercontinental ballistic missiles and new submarines and submarine launched missiles and new types of bombs and warheads. And could you pet production, I mean, is just unimaginable.

A (58:29)

Could you steel man the argument for nuclear deterrence or mutually assured destruction, as people put it? Because I think, you know, there are probably many people justifiably saying, like, there's been two nuclear bombs that have gone off, you know, against a nation with civilians. And in 80 years, that's basically all there's been. And, you know, that's pretty good. So maybe it is working and maybe it does actually make the planet safer. Could you steel man what that argument is?

B (58:56)

So that's an argument, that's basically the basis for all of this, the justification for the possession of nuclear weapons. And what it does is it ignores Two kind of fundamental truths. One fundamental truth is that nuclear deterrence could fail. And if it fails, it is so catastrophic. Are you really sure that this is worth it? Right. What's your plan B? How are you going to actually deal with it failing? The other piece that it ignores is what I alluded to earlier. All of these incidents, whether it was really stupid accidents like a US And a Soviet submarine both carrying nuclear warheads, you know, colliding planes. Carrying nuclear warheads. Colliding planes, dropping nuclear warheads in South Carolina and North Carolina. One time I was talking about this and somebody wrote, she's wrong. We didn't drop a nuclear warhead in, in North Carolina. We dropped it in South Carolina. Turns out we dropped it in both Carolinas.

A (60:17)

You know, poor Carolinas.

B (60:19)

I know, exactly.

A (60:20)

That seems personal at that point.

B (60:21)

Yeah, yeah.

A (60:22)

That might have been a scientist with like an ex wife or something.

B (60:25)

I mean, the number of. It's dozens of incidents. And we're just talking about the US like the declassified materials from the United States in 1983. Two really major incidents. One is called Abel Archer. It was a NATO exercise where NATO had decided they wanted to kind of up the notch in terms of how realistic it would be. So for the first time, they involved, I think, heads of state. And there was some other kind of improvements to how the exercise plays out. Meanwhile, the Soviets are thinking it's a. They're preparing for nuclear war. They're literally loading nuclear warheads onto their bombers and ready to send them out. And luckily, somehow, you know, the, the back channels worked and, and we didn't. They didn't go into nuclear war. That same year, there was a detection by the Soviets again of basically there was an alignment between satellites and clouds that in the Russian detection system appeared like five incoming missiles heading for Russia. And this one, Captain Stanislav Petrov.

A (61:52)

Stanislav Petrov, yeah.

B (61:53)

Yeah. Stanislav Petrov is there. He ends up seeing this, and instead of passing it to his superiors, he decides to just keep watching it. He sort of reasons that, you know, if the US Were attacking the Soviet Union probably wouldn't start with five missiles. It would probably start with a whole lot more. And he just basically doesn't end up doing anything. And sure enough, they, they realize that this was a false alarm. Later on, the. Those detection systems were adjusted for this alignment of clouds and satellites and so on. But, you know, a real moment where a different person, we keep saying it's lucky. Maybe it's just that he was really smart and just did the right thing. Maybe a different person had been there and said, we're under attack. And they. They then attacked the United States. The United States sees that it's being attacked, they retaliate and retaliate, and we're all gone. I was actually alive in 1983. I know you were not. But, you know, it's not like ancient, ancient history. And we don't even know about things that have happened in the last X number of years because those are not declassified. Some of these things we only know because of the declassifications that have taken place since then. And then, of course, it was on the screen as well. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the really famous one. There was a kind of combination of diplomacy, diplomatic efforts happening between Kennedy and Khrushchev, but also behind the scenes. The nuclear warheads were already in Cuba, and there was a Soviet submarine that was deep underwater and was actually experiencing a kind of. It's not a. A, an actual attack, but they call them depth charges, where it's sort of like. Like you think you're under attack, but you're not really under attack. And. And in that sub, that submarine was carrying nuclear warheads. There were three officers on board. Two of them wanted to launch the warhead because they thought nuclear war had already started. So they. And one of them, another Russian named Vasily Arkhipov, said, no, let's not launch. And that was in the midst of Kennedy and Khrushchev trying to negotiate how to get out of this crisis.

A (64:40)

Yeah, it's just again, I'm finally now, at this point in my life, maybe having children has helped. I'm just realizing just the threat is not like a regular bomb. It's not like a gun. It's. Imagine, okay, no more nuclear weapons. But we put a massive explosive device in the center of the Earth. And literally, if you push a button, the Earth will crack apart and everything will eviscerate and will all float into space and gravity will cease to exist, and every person dies. And you give 10 countries. Russia, India, Pakistan, France, America, China. You give all them them the button. Is that a world we want to live in? Is that really the situation? And then I also consider, like, okay, let's say you have four teenage boys, and they're all in your house, and they're all fighting all the time. And you say, okay, here's my solution. All of you are going to have an explosive bomb put into your backpacks, and you all can control each other's bomb. And if you guys fight each other, then this person can Just explode you at any point, point. As a parent, would you ever want your children to have this type of technology to kill each other if they have a disagreement? Would you really think, like, oh, that'll keep my family safer if they all have a bomb in their backpack? Because like you mentioned, you could accidentally push the button. You could be looking for your pencil and accidentally hit the detonator and kill your brother. And I don't know, maybe it's because of. You know, I grew up with a Catholic worldview. I'm like, is this what God wants for humanity? Like, I know there's many people out there listening that might be secular and I respect that, but. But imagine there is a God. Is this what God would want for humanity? Like, if you don't want this for your children, is this what God wants for his creation? To me it's like, I just don't understand, like the. I don't understand the argument of like, yeah, if everyone has it, we're safer. To me it just breeds, you know, discoordination and a lack of, you know, compliance and, you know, real good faith cooperation. And furthermore, it also just opens up potential honest mistakes that lead to the destruction of humanity. So either situation isn't great. And there is a third option which again, I get myself wrapped up in the realpolitik of humanity. And I'm like, yeah, human beings fight. And violence has existed for as long as humans have existed. And we are going to continue to battle each other and there's going to continue to be conflicts. So it just sort of is what it is. And it's a little reluctant and it's a little sort of like, you know, aloof, like, eh, it exists. But I do try to imagine a world where we say, this cannot exist. We have to, all of us. And we come up with some type of global treaty that's somehow reinforced by some type of institution or some type of, you know, united force, which again, I understand these things result in bureaucracy and, you know, unfair advantages, et cetera. But what if that world is real? Like, what if that world could actually exist? And to me, it's just a decision that humans can make.

B (67:44)

Yeah.

A (67:45)

And it feels maybe a little crazy for people to think like, no, humans have always fought, we've always fought each other. There's always gonna be violence. But to me, I'm like, this type of violence, this type of technology is just too egregious for any person to have. What's up guys? We're gonna take a break really quick. Cause I want to talk. Talk to the gentlemen that listen to this program. So if you're a woman, you can skip forward. That's fine. Now, I want to talk to you guys, because I don't know if this is happening to you, but I'm at, like, my late 20s, you know, about to turn 30 next year, and I'm starting to feel it. You know, I go to the gym, and I'm doing the same workouts that I've done for years, and somehow gravity is stronger. Like, literally, I'm doing the same chess work, and I'm like, this is harder than it was five years ago. And then it starts happening other places. Like, I'm feeling more tired, and. And my workouts are slower, and my motivation is, like, a little less. And I'm. I'm like, oh, it's probably because I had a kid, right? That's probably why I'm just tired. Then I asked my other friends that are also 30, and they're like, no, no, this is just a thing. It turns out a lot of men start losing testosterone around the age of 30, roughly, like, 1% every year after that. And no one ever tells you that you're supposed to just wake up one day and realize, like, oh, my body's not running the same program that it's been going on for the last 30 years of my life. And that's why I started taking Mars Men. Mars Men is awesome. And I genuinely take this. Okay? And what I learned is, actually, it's really interesting. Your body still produces testosterone, obviously, okay? There's a protein called SHBG that can basically lock it up so your body doesn't really use it. It's like, you basically have all the money in your bank, but, like, you're. You lost your credit card, okay? And Mars Men is designed to basically free up that locked in testosterone so your body can actually access it and you can start feeling better, more motivated, and have more energy. Energy. It's awesome because there's no injections, no crazy synthetic stuff. It's not gonna, you know, mess up fertility, all right? It's just natural ingredients that are designed to support energy, strength, and focus, to be honest with you. Here's what's in it, okay? It's tongat ali shilajit, vitamin D, zinc, boron. All right? These are just regular vitamins and supplements that help with testosterone production naturally in your body. You can just go buy them. You don't even. You don't. Don't. You don't even need this. You could just go buy the these ingredients. But the thing with Mars Men that makes it so nice is that they've already done the work to put everything in the proper dose, all in one container. All the ingredients that you need to support your healthy testosterone levels are all in this bottle right here. It's not like, you know, caffeine where you spike and crash, all right? It's more like your body's just used to feeling how it's always felt running the way that it always has. Your workouts feel stronger, your recovery feels better and your energy is just way more consistent. Piston thousands of guys are already seeing the same thing that I'm seeing, which is that, you know, I have higher energy. 91 of users actually have higher energy levels. It's made in the USA, third party tested and they're even giving you a 90 day money back guarantee. So literally there's no risk in trying it. And for a limited time, our listeners are going to get 50 off for life plus free shipping and three gifts@mangotomars.com you guys heard that, right? This is like an insane value. Mengotomars.com 50% off, 3 free gifts when you check out and you're going to get a 90 day money back guarantee that it's unbelievable. You're getting half off and if you don't like it, you just, they just give you your money back. And when you check out, they're going to ask where you heard about Mars Men. Please tell them you heard about them from me and the good people over here at Camp Gagnon. Now let's get back to the show.

B (71:05)

Mark, I really couldn't agree more. I mean you absolutely dead on. Just a couple of comments. One is two actually pieces of good news. One piece of good news is that it really is a political decision. So I also actually am concerned about global warming, climate change. Really what's happening is the globe is warming because we're emitting greenhouse gases.

A (71:37)

Also doing nuclear bomb testing also.

B (71:40)

Well, no, it's.

A (71:42)

You don't think that contributes? I don't know. I have no idea.

B (71:44)

Yeah, I mean, first of all, it was a while ago. The warming is currently. We've actually understood for a very long time that greenhouse gases make our planet livable. If it weren't for CO2, our planet would be be much, much colder. It would actually be minus 15 degrees Celsius. It's probably, I don't know, minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

A (72:10)

So what today feels like, right?

B (72:12)

I know, but, but on average across the globe that would be like a frozen Earth, Right. So greenhouse gases are great. The problem is that in the last 150 years, and in particular in the last several decades, we have been increasing those greenhouse gases very rapidly. And that that is resulting in increased temperatures on the globe which are then having these other side effects of, you know, sea level rise, you know, fires, all kinds of impacts and really impacting life on the planet, impacting us humans, we primarily live near coastlines and so on, but impacting other life on the planet as well. So the global warming problem is real. The solution to global warming is non trivial. There are several routes we could go and many of them are promising and so on, but politically some of them are really difficult. Even if we agree to have, for example, solar energy, the kind of technical things of how you distribute that energy, how you store it, battery storage, all of that, some of that is non trivial. The thing about nuclear weapons and that being a political decision, is that once the political decision is made to eliminate them, the eliminating them isn't actually that difficult. So that's the really good news, because we already said if there were 70,000 of them in 1986 and today there are 12 and a half thousand, that means we were able to eliminate them. Some of that was actually used to fuel nuclear power plants, and some of it is just the dismantlement. And then you still have the waste problem and so on. But much better to have a waste problem from nuclear weapon material than to have them blowing up, right? So the one piece of good news is it is a political problem and humans can solve political problems again. And it's something we created and something we're able to dismantle. The other piece of good news is that we do have a treaty, actually. It's called the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This is something that diplomats have been working on for many years. So that said, that Treaty currently has 99 states, UN member states, states that are either party to the treaty. That means they've gone through the kind of process of ratifying the treaty. That means their national legislation typically did something or they have signed the treaty. So more than half of the UN member states. Are the nine that possess nuclear weapons part of the treaty? No, they're not. And the big question is how to get them to that table. So, so from my perspective, the US really has an absolutely fundamental role to play in all of this. We were the first to develop nuclear weapons. We're the only country to ever use them on cities full of women and children. And we wrote the playbook for the Nuclear testing era. We were in the Marshall Islands six months after the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, asking the people of Bikini island to move so that we could test nuclear weapons in their islands. I mean, just really, really devastating history. But that's our legacy. That's what we, the United States, have done. And then everybody else, in some sense you could say, follow suit except for the use of nuclear weapons in time of war. And so my view is that the United States really has a role to play in leading the world. Now, how do you lead the world? I love your example of what parents would do with rowdy teenagers and so on. To me, leading the world is always and must always be about setting an example. If you're a parent who's on their phone all the time and you tell that same teenager not to be on their phone all the time, it's not going to happen. Right? Like, how do you as a country lead on having a world that is free of the nuclear threat, which I would argue is most acute for the United States, I imagine a world free of nuclear weapons in which the United States is actually much safer because we've got the oceans, we've got the geographies on our side, we've got the conventional military. As critical as I may be of the spending and everything associated with that, this really could be an incredibly safe country. And in fact, with nuclear weapons, we're incredibly vulnerable. And we're vulnerable to a very small and relatively poor country called North Korea because they now have about 50 warheads and they have intercontinental ballistic missiles that are estimated to be able to reach any part of the United States. So it's forget all the morality and ethics and responsibility. Forget all of that for a moment and just say that actually we'd be better off in a world free of nuclear weapons. So that's what we're going to do. Pursue. And then you have to put yourself into what does that leadership look like? How do you lead by example? How do you show respect for other states, for other countries? How do you show respect for international law? I don't think we're doing a very good job, especially at this time. But we really in some sense haven't done a good job on that in a long time. The US really has this now 80 year history since the end of the Cold War, of playing this role of world policemen and being involved in all kinds of conflicts and all kinds of wars. I mean, there are estimates out there that of its entire history, 250 years, the US has not been involved in wars. For. For less than 20 years of that. Right. So that's not a good kind of backdrop, but we could change. And part of the way where changes have happened in the past is by one, having a general public that's aware and two, having a general public that gets really engaged on these things. Things. When it comes specifically to nuclear weapons, there really were two periods of progress, is how I would put it. One was the 1960s, which gave us the Partial Test Ban Treaty. That's what basically halted all the atmospheric tests. So all of this fallout that went all around the planet. Right. Was halted. It was primarily US and Soviet Union tests that were the largest. The UK also stopped testing in the atmosphere as a result of this treaty. This was in 1963. And there was a tremendous amount of public engagement on this at the time. From the Nevada Test Site, there was fallout that had reached basically all corners, essentially going from Nevada, going east. So just because of how the winds are in the United States, very little of it went west of the Nevada Test Site, most of it east of the Nevada Test Site. And there was this effort to actually document, speaking of your young child, to document strontium 90 in baby teeth. And this started out at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. It was actually a group of mothers who became very concerned that their babies were drinking milk which contained strontium 90s. Strontium 90s, a radioactive isotope. It's similar to calcium. So it ends up in the milk and then it gets incorporated into. Into baby teeth. And they were doing these analysis and finding Strontium 90. Mother's parents were sending. When, you know, the tooth fairy visited a child, they would send these in little, you know, packets. They would send the baby teeth labeled with the date of birth. And they actually found a kind of correlation between when a child was born with respect to the atmospheric testing that was taking place and how much strontium 90 they were finding in their teeth. Just unimaginable. But in any case, that ends up being a kind of real public engagement effort that also convinces Kennedy to pursue the Partial Test Ban Treaty. And then that takes place in 1963. And then by 1968, we also had the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty. Then the 70s were very turbulent, Vietnam, all kinds of other things happening. And then by, in 1980, Ronald Reagan comes back or wins the election and he's, you know, going full on, you know, cold Warrior nuclear weapons and so on. And in 1983, Reagan watches the film the day after. You should watch it sometimes. I actually watched it not that long ago. I didn't think it was very good, but apparently in 1983, this really made a strong impact on people. 100 million people watched it. It was a TV movie. The 100 million people watched, including Reagan, made a big impact on him and he decided he wanted to do something about nuclear weapons prior to that. A million people walked in Central park in June of 1982 against the nuclear arms race. So you have this, and then by 86, Reagan and Gorbachev are in Reykjavik and they're actually discussing eliminating nuclear arsenals, which sadly didn't happen because they ended up disagreeing over the missile defense system that Reagan had hoped to build, called Star Wars. Nowadays, actually, Trump wants to build the Golden Dome. It's just as doomed as Star wars was back in the 80s and just not a good use of money. And it's really only going to actually fuel a nuclear arms race rather than constrain it. But in any case, back to my original point, we need people to understand what's at stake and we need them to engage and we need to make, we also need to make progress on these more fundamental issues of war and peace. Because as long as these countries are in such either open or indirect conflicts, they're not necessarily going to be sitting down discussing, let's eliminate all nuclear weapons. But that is quite simply what has to happen so that, you know, my children, who are older, but your son, so that they can have a future. We need them to have a future. And I also, you know, you don't have to have children to think that this is really important. I mean, the ultimate survival of humanity has somehow got to be something that people actually not just become aware of, but actually are ready to do something about.

A (86:01)

I mean, in the current state of the world, geopolitically speaking, you had a recent conflict with India and Pakistan that we mentioned, both nuclear powers, and that could have become a calamity and thank goodness it didn't. And maybe partially, perhaps to Trump's credit, but also a lot of global cooperation that stopped, but now we have of a war with Iran that seems to be brewing. And between the America, Israeli, Iran kind of triad, all of these countries seem to have some version of nuclear power. I mean, obviously we don't have full transparency on what that looks like. But that conflict in particular is that of supreme concern for you right now.

B (86:44)

That conflict is very, very concerning. So of course, last year we had the 12 day war between Israel and Iran with involvement by the United States. Of course, the United States has nuclear weapons and has had Them, as we keep saying for 80 years. Israel also has a nuclear arsenal of about 90 nuclear warheads. It is thought that they had their first operational nuclear weapon by 1960, 1967. And it's. And Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Iran has had nuclear power for decades. At one point they probably were pursuing nuclear weapons development and then they, in the early 2000s seem to have stopped. When JCPOA was, this is the Iran agreement on their nuclear program with the United States, European Union and so on that Trump walked away from. When that agreement was in force. Iran was enriching their uranium only up to 3.5%. That was the limit. And that puts their, that essentially put their ability to build a nuclear weapon probably to, you know, 10 to 15 years away. Trump comes into power, tears the JCPOA, and prior to this conflict, Iran was enriching uranium up to, to 60%. Now you don't need 60% for nuclear power, but it's also probably not. You could make a nuclear weapon with 60%. It wouldn't be a very good one. Typically you'd go to something like 90. So 60% enriching to 60% on their part was a little provocative. At the same time, it is sort of ironic, right, that the United States, the country that first developed nuclear weapons, used them and so on. Right. Is telling Iran you can't have a nuclear weapon. It is also ironic, especially ironic, for Israel to tell Iran you can't have a nuclear weapon because they have a non declared arsenal. They're not a party to what's called the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, npt. In fact, the, I'm sure some people will say, well, you know, of course the United States can tell Iran they can't have a nuclear weapon because both are party to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. And that some of that is. I would say that that's, I would even concede that point. Yes, the United States is a party to the NPT as a nuclear weapons state. Iran is a party to the NPT as a non nuclear weapons state. So in some sense they both agreed to that arrangement. At the same time, the United States actually isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing under that treaty, which is eventual disarmament. That treaty has been enforced for more than 55 years. And the US as well as the other four states recognized as nuclear weapons states haven't been fulfilling their end of the bargain, which is not just nuclear, but eventually total incomplete disarmament. That's an article in the treaty called Article 6 on disarmament and so the irony here is specifically these two countries telling Iran you can't have a nuclear weapon. Another irony in that particular, how that crisis played out with the use of force, with bombings and so on, is that you probably could have achieved more by renegotiating another deal with Iran rather than attacking Iran. And I think it really fundamentally speaks to this problem of the. And it's in some sense how the general conversation has, has changed right away from talking about disarmament as something that all countries need to do versus talking about non proliferation. Well, we can't allow, you know, North Korea to have nuclear weapons. Well, they do now. Or we can't allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. As if it's. Nuclear weapons are only bad if they're in. And this is frequently kind of used, you know, know, bad hands. Right? Like we can't let nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands. There is a quote by a UN Secretary General, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, who said something like, there are no right hands for the wrong weapons. And that's really what I subscribe to, this notion that we need disarmament. And at some level, like if there's a nuclear war and, and civilization is destroyed and, you know, small groups of people survive and live under who knows what kind of circumstances, would it really matter who started it? Would it really matter why they started it?

A (92:27)

It's different than like the gun argument because people will say like, oh, a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. And whether you subscribe to that philosophy or not, I can understand the point. Like if I'm on the train with my wife and some crazy guy is attacking us, pointing a gun at us, and someone shoots that guy, I'm not going to be that mad about it. You know, like, of course it's a tragedy, but at the same time my life was in danger and now it's not. So it's okay. But a good guy with a nuke doesn't stop a bad guy with a nuke because the nuclear bombs still go off and then it still results in, you know, some type of global claim.

B (92:59)

Yeah, we were talking earlier just about what that world would look like. And there's a really, I think, very deep quote by Einstein, who I think this was from 1946. He said something like, I know not with what weapons World War three will be fought, right? Because like, who knows what we're gonna, you know, discover. But I know that World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones. So just this idea that we're just immediately gonna go back to who knows what phase of human existence, but human civil civilization, what we've built. And it's incredible how actually how short human civilization is in the span of existence of our species on the planet, estimated at about 250,000 years for Homo sapiens. And then 10,000 years, being generous of agriculture, maybe 30,000 years of cave paintings, 10,000 years of agriculture, and just several thousand years of organized societies and what we would really refer to as civilization. And here we are, 80 years into the nuclear age, we're going to destroy all of that. And the 250,000 years of our species is in the context of probably about. About close to 4 billion years of existence of life on the planet. Again, these are incomprehensible numbers. You. And I can't really imagine what it means that life has existed on the planet for 4 billion years.

A (94:49)

Yeah, sometimes it's a fun experiment that I like to think about because I love ancient civilizations and ancient technology, like, oh, how did they build the pyramids? Stuff like that. I find it very fun. But I like to imagine, what if. What if human beings existed 2 billion years ago, and what if we developed similar type of societies and we developed nuclear weapons and we destroyed it all? It's possible. And that the entirety of that existence of humanity's first stint just got washed away by the sands of time and ice ages and meteors, and we sort of restarted. And now it's just kind of ironic, I imagine, from the perspective of an alien that's watching or Earth and has the totality of human existence. They're like, oh, they're on the nuclear part again. Like, they failed this four times before they. They built great societies and then they destroyed it all with these nuclear weapons and they had to restart, and then they restart again and that. Again, whether or not this is true, probably not. But it's just a fun experiment to kind of think, like, from an outside perspective. Yeah, they might be looking at us going, what are you guys doing?

B (95:50)

I'm guessing that we would have evidence, some kind of evidence of that in the geologic record. But it is really interesting to think about and, you know, astrobiologists think a lot about, you know, our. So we live in the universe that has a hundred billion galaxies, and our galaxy has about 100 billion stars in it, meaning. And it's a fairly typical galaxy, so 100 billion galaxies, each of which, let's say, on average, might have 100 billion stars in it. That's one followed by 22 zeros of the number of stars. When I was first in college and even in graduate school, we sort of didn't know whether the solar system was special in terms of having planets. And now we've discovered on the order of thousands of exoplanets. It seems that nearly every star has planetary companions. Exactly how many doesn't matter. But even if you call it on average 1 to 10, right, it's again, even just one per star means one followed by 22 zeros planets in the universe. So surely there's life somewhere else. The question is, how far are they from us in order for us to actually meet at this day and age?

A (97:19)

What's up, people? We're going to take a break really quick because I want to tell you about a sponsor we have that I'm so stoked about. Yes, it's Chubby's. If you never heard of Chubby's, I've been wearing these since legit, like late high school. Yeah, I'm so stoked. I started this podcast because I wanted to deep dive on crazy stuff in history and just, you know, know random wormholes that I got into on the Internet. And now I'm working with a brand that I've literally worn for 10 years because Chubby's one of those brands that you put on and you go, oh, this is comfortable. They're like the OG Like, I'm going to the beach, I'm chilling on the boat, I'm walking through soho in the summertime shorts. I mean, they are the best. Their stuff is super breathable. I mean, the stretch is like og they're like one of the first ones to start that. And I mean, you can actually move, you can sit like you can exist without, without just being absolutely swamped. And they don't just do shorts. They got everything. I mean, they got polos, they got sweaters, they got anything you can imagine. And it's all that, that wrinkle resistant, quick drying, antimicrobial greatness that basically makes all their stuff, you know, the most. Basically the mix between, like, I'm the most comfortable I've ever been. I could go to sleep right now. But also, I'm a functioning adult. That looks amazing while I'm at work. And great news, this is the 15 year anniversary and they're bringing back back the originals. These are literally the shorts that started the entire thing. Same iconic fit, the same inseam options, and that same energy. Like, yo, I'm just gonna pull up and, you know, crack a brew on a Friday. That type of vibe. So whether you are weekending, weekday in, going to the beach, barbecue, or just living your life, Chubby's has you covered. So for a limited time, Chubby's is giving the listeners of this program 20 off with the code K camp. If you go to Chubbyshorts.com that is 20 off your order with the code camp C A m p@chubbyshorts.com. i mean, if you guys trust anything I ever say, Chubby's is fantastic. The shorts are truly amazing. And you're getting 20 off. What are you waiting for? Go check them out now. Let's get back to the show.

B (99:17)

There's a galaxy that is two and a half million light years away from us. It's called the Andromeda Galaxy. If we had telescopes that were powerful enough that we could zoom onto Andromeda, zoom onto some planet, some star in the galaxy and some planet orbiting that star, and we see whoever is there or whatever is happening there, we would see that planet as it was two and a half million years ago because the light that our telescope is receiving from there has been traveling to us for two and a half million years. And same for them, if they look onto the planet, they see some, you know, ancestors of humans from 2 1/2 million years ago walking in Africa, like literally walking upright in Africa. Homo erectus was about two and a half million years ago. And they would have no idea that you and I are having this conversation. Right? Just impossible. That's just plain simple.

A (100:31)

Maybe they have YouTube, I don't know. They might, I don't know. If it gets there that fast, we'll

B (100:35)

see again, all of it. The speed of light is the ultimate speed limit. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. So when we, when we're separated by such vast distances in space, we're also separated in time. And as your biologists talk a lot about. So like, could we meet some other civilization or have evidence? And they always included in their kind of considerations is the idea that these very advanced most civilizations ultimately always self destruct. And so that's a little bit of a problem.

A (101:19)

Maybe foreshadowing.

B (101:21)

It's a little bit of a problem.

A (101:22)

This is going to be outside of your scope because you are an esteemed academic at a prestigious university. But are you familiar with the sort of UFO discourse around nuclear weapon testing?

B (101:35)

Oh, you're gonna ask me something that I should have been looking at.

A (101:40)

I know we're getting into. No, no, you probably shouldn't be because you're doing legitimate like, you know, trying to save the world work. So I don't want you to be going off into alien territory. But it's a, it's an interesting kind of thing because I speak with a lot of people that have either, you know, they claim to experience UFOs or they've witnessed them, or they do, you know, research on classified, you know, government documents, things like that. And, and I find it fascinating, but many of them will talk about the amount of sightings of these types of craft around nuclear testing. Now some people say like, oh, that's probably other military craft because these are around sensitive military sites. Maybe it's espionage from foreign countries that are spying on our military nuclear testing. But there is a theory within the UFO community that these are, are some type of entities from a distant galaxy that using some type of quantum entanglement are able to move through space and time faster than the universal speed limit, et cetera. And they are witnessing humanity creating these weapons to destroy themselves. And it's interesting because they're gonna save us. Well, they're gonna maybe just watch. And I've heard many theories from different people and now we're in sci fi land and I think part of this has even been picked up in like Star Trek. But like if there are other life forms out there and maybe they're similar to us in some way, they might be, again this is, their theory might be looking at Earth and saying are we able to cooperate with them when they have weapons like this and are we able to interface and communicate with them? Because what if they tried to attack us with these weapons that would be dangerous to us on a different star system or in a different galaxy, et cetera, et cetera. And it's just interesting that there's, it seems like some type of citing inference or correlation with nuclear testing and a lot of the modern UFO discourse exists around these, you know, the age of nuclearization. I find it fascinating. I know this is going to be off roading for you.

B (103:41)

I just don't know enough to sort of really offer a kind of pushback on this. My senses, no way. You know, and so, so that's just, you know, kind of a, the, the opening statement there. I was under the impression that I saw some headlines, but again I didn't really look into this, that actually the government was trying to mislead people into thinking that there were UFOs to kind of steer them away from actually figuring

A (104:17)

out what the government was doing.

B (104:19)

I think whether it's nuclear testing or

A (104:22)

Project Stargate, I think was like a psyop done by the government, basically say, like, oh, there's UFOs, look at this.

B (104:29)

So, so, you know, and you have to kind of wonder, I think just more generally about the way in which our society, especially in more recent years, has been so divided on so many issues. While the issues of the economy are really so difficult for so many people. I think the stock market may be going up, but that's certainly not helping most Americans. And I think these war and peace issues are really, really serious in. And it's quite simply not something that we seem to be. Maybe there was a lot of public discourse around Gaza. Certainly that one has attracted a lot of attention for good reason, but at the same time just generally interrogating what our government is doing in terms of not just, just nuclear weapons, which I see as a kind of pinnacle of this militarization, but just in general. There's a relatively new book by Ben Freeman and William Hartung called the Trillion Dollar War Machine, and it details that. And this is our, we both pay taxes, I'm sure this is our taxpayers money, a trillion dollars going into what's called defense spending, but it's really war spending. And the book is, I mean, at some level I kind of knew all of this, but just to see it documented in such detail about kind of the way in which all of the different players are all on the same page, whether it be Congress, whether it be arms manufacturers, think tanks, universities, nuclear Hollywood, you name it. Like everyone's in the same, you know, the famous military industrial complex, like it's so much bigger than just military and industry. Like everyone's in on it. And then there's like so much about kind of the way in which the money is wasted and projects are constantly delayed and then they still don't deliver what they're supposed to deliver. And they even put our troops in harm's way, like all of it. And again, it's a trillion dollars. And we don't have discussions, right? Like we fight about so many things that are kind of, you know, and I don't mean to imply that they're all unimportant, but we, we fight a lot about sort of cultural issues and that seems to take up all the oxygen. And then it comes to something really fundamental about like how a huge percentage, 60% of our discretionary spending from our taxes, how that gets used, and on nothing less than life and death, plus the, you know, possibility of ultimate destruction of the planet. Right. And we just don't have that as like this Constant debate, constant discussion, which I think it really somehow needs to become. I know it's not fun. I know it's more fun to be like, oh, you know, Trump did this or that, and he's great, or he's not great, but we somehow need to get back to where our awareness is ultimately. And fundamentally, I really think that American people are really good people. That's just been my own experience. I've been living in this country now for over 30 years. I came here when I was 17 as a foreign exchange student. I wanted to come. It was a dream for me to study at the US Universities. It was, but it went beyond that. It was also a dream to come to what I saw growing up as the country of freedom and respect for the individual and democracy. Right. The first world's democracy. And here we are, like, you know, 30 years later. I made it all worse.

A (109:11)

It's kind of your fault. It sounds like it started right when you came.

B (109:14)

It's all my fault. Here we are, you know, and where is the state of that democracy? How are decisions being made? How are we being represented both in Congress and in the executive branch? A lot of. And I will just completely set aside any political opinion of what Trump does or specifically what he does. A lot of what he has done is by executive order. That's not quite, quite how democracy is supposed to work. And even when Congress does get. Does pass legislation and so on, a lot of times it's not the legislation that the American people are interested in. There's overwhelming support in this country, for example, for universal healthcare. Do we have legislation on this? I don't think so. Is President Trump doing an executive order to put this forward? I don't think so. So I think it's a little bit, in some sense, I talk about the nuclear issue partly because not many people are talking about it or not talking about it enough, but I also see it as a kind of pinnacle in so many ways. And if we can really find a way to solve that issue, then so many other things could be within reach. And if we can kind of revive that notion of engagement in the political process, not just by voting once every year, two years or four years. Right. And not just by arguing on social media, like, can we somehow find a way to get behind an issue and not even see it as political or partisan. Right. Can it not? You know, my big dream on nuclear disarmament is that it starts to be seen as the ultimate pro life issue. Right. Because what else could be more pro life than not wanting the life on the planet to be destroyed in a matter of minutes. We didn't even talk about this this time, right? In a matter of minutes. Like, how, how could we be in that situation? And who really wants to sit with me and tell me that a world without nuclear weapons wouldn't be a better world? I'd be super interested in having that discussion with someone who really disagrees, who thinks that what I'm saying just doesn't make any sense and we must have nuclear weapons in perpetuity. Well, then we're going to blow ourselves up eventually.

A (112:10)

Be a good discussion. I would listen.

B (112:12)

It would be a good discussion.

A (112:13)

I think a bunch of points that you mentioned, I think ring true. I mean, one, nuclearization is extremely profitable. And I think keeping the world on the edge of their seats, that at any moment we could all be eviscerated, I think does put a ton of money into this sort of vague military industrial complex. We've talked about that. I think a lot of people do profit from, from this heightened sense of anxiety and constantly being at each other. I think it is a profitable industry and that a world of more harmony and peace is probably less profitable. And I think that our current profit motives probably lead us to these positions in a lot of places. And to the political point, I mean, I do see it as a nonpartisan issue that it's not like, oh, I don't want this president or this president, I don't want any president, I don't want any head of state anywhere to be able to eviscerate humanity, humanity. And I think to your point, the executive order thing, I'm less concerned with what Trump is going to do tomorrow, yada, yada. And I think, again, it's frivolous in the grand scheme of humanity's demise. But I do think the executive order position does create a really scary paradigm where maybe it's not Trump that'll do it, because we'll look at Obama that did executive orders and Trump did more. And then what if there's someone three presidents from now that truly is a tyrant, truly is some type of demagogue that wants to utilize the precedent that's been made in the past to then do something catastrophic? And I think that is, to me, like, the biggest looming threat is kind of the precedent that these kind of orders make. And yeah, at times I feel hopeless because I'm like, what can I do? Like, what can I really do? Right? Like, I'm just, I'm a comedian. I have no sway, no influence. But I guess I'm curious what you think. To me, the thing that I lean on that makes me feel better to this hope conversation that we had is I hope for a better world. I hope that humanity is intelligent enough, that it's conscious enough to want to preserve itself. And I hope that the people in charge don't want to rule over ashes and that they want to have thriving societies and that they love humanity as much as I do and that they would want it to persist. And there's a part of me that also hopes that there is a God that is in some way divinely guiding these things. And again, that is just a hope that I have. And in terms of what I can do, I can spread awareness and discuss it with people and have it in my mind when I'm considering elections and things like that. And I don't know, this is maybe trite, but to me, the thing that gives me solace is just tending to my garden. This is kind of a stoic idea, but Mother Teresa says, if you want to change the world, love your family. And if every person on Earth just loved their family, I do think that the ripple of that. Think of Putin or Kim Jong Un or Trump, if they love their family so much, then maybe they would think twice about using these types of weapons, and maybe they would really consider disarmament. Because if you love your family and you love your grandkids, you don't want them to live in a world where this is a threat after you're gone. So I don't know. What do you think about the hope issue?

B (115:23)

Yeah, so I want to address the hope issue. I just want to make a point about something you said earlier. I totally agree with everything you said on the profit motive. I have to think that those people also have children and grandchildren, and if not children and grandchildren, that they also think. Think that humanity. That it's not just about whatever profit they're making at this very moment. Right. But that it really should be about the future and ensuring a future for humanity. I think in many cases, I think people have. It's the buying of the nuclear deterrence argument. I think that's been most detrimental to disarmament. The notion that nuclear weapons keep us safe. That disregards, you know, the, what if it fails? Right. What if nuclear deterrence fails? And that disregards these examples of actually, we really got lucky and so on. So I think it's convincing people like that. I think, think they sleep at night because they think that actually what I'm doing is a good thing, because it Keeps the United States safe rather than recognizing that this is, as you described so beautifully, this thread that looms over all of us. I talk a lot about, you know what, because people ask me what they can do, and I think, think, you know, in your case, you're doing more than plenty, certainly by raising this to your viewers and listeners and having them be aware of really where we are and just why this is such an important issue. So I thank you for that. I think in general, for people, it's knowledge I really do think is power. It's all about, about learn, learn, learn. Because when you learn and the more you learn, and I can tell you I've been interested in this question for about 15 years, for some of that time, not as intensely as I am now, the last since August of 2022 when I became president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. That just really gave me a new kind of sense and level of responsibility and also opportunity used to talk to people and to be in places like the UN and so on. That has really raised the stakes for this for me. But I can't tell you, over this entire time, like, I still learn new things about nuclear weapons every single day. Like, quite literally, whether it's the history, whether it's the science, whether it's someone mentioning some policy that I hadn't read about or. Or details of a treaty or whatever it might be. So it's just, I mean, I think that it's one of the most exciting things about being a human being is this ability to learn in the world is such an interesting place and there's so many things to learn. And I don't care if you like learning about history or music or whatever, just be passionate and learn. So when it comes to nuclear weapons, people just need to know and learn more. So learn, learn, learn. There are lots of resources out there. My own organization, the Nuclear Age Peace foundation, we recently released the Learning Hub, that has a lot of resources. But there are other organizations and places to go and read and books to read and so on. Doomsday Machine by Dan Ellsberg, Andy Jacobson's Nuclear War, a scenario people have in the Reddit. There are even recent films. Well, there's the Day after, which they can watch great movie that You Love from 1983. There was recently on Netflix, a House of Dynamite, which kind of has a very similar storyline to Annie's book. But nevertheless, it's absolutely worth, worth people's time. It's on Netflix. They can watch it. It really kind of puts into perspective this Idea that this could happen in a matter of minutes. And it kind of plays that, you know, it's a 19 minute timeframe, plays that from different perspectives and what happens to people in different places and situations and so on. So it's learning another thing. We gotta get that democracy back. So how do we get a democracy back? We let our elected officials know that this is an issue important to us. People can write to their representatives, people can talk to them about it. People can write to President Donald Trump, praise him for his past statements on the necessity of denuclearization. Just say, president Trump, I'm so happy to hear these words, words from a US President. We haven't heard these words.

A (120:43)

I am happy to hear it, to be honest.

B (120:45)

Exactly, absolutely. And, and, and, and praise him. You may not agree with him on everything or you may not agree with him on many things. It, or maybe you like everything he does. I don't care. Tell him the denuclearization is a great idea. How about we wrap up some of these wars first and then we work on how now the US and Russia, the first step has to be the US and Russia coming down from their 5,000 plus nuclear warheads when everybody else has a couple hundred, for example. They're not going to come down until US and Russia make some progress. So letting people in charge know that this, once you understand that this is important to you, I think is really important. One of the key issues, another issue is that people, you know, they're often local initiatives. There are cities in this country that, you know, have back in the 80s, in 1982, if you look at photos from the Central park rally, again, a million people in Central park can't, you know, hard to even imagine, you know, with these banners, carrying banners, Vermont Towns for a Nuclear Free, you know, world. Like there were just, there was engagement in many, many, many levels. Local, kind of, you know, town, city, you know, state government efforts, as well as organizations working on these issues, religious, you know, groups and movements. And there's, there's just a lot that we could do. In some sense, organizing in this day and age would be even easier than it it was in, you know, early 1980s. And. But what we really need for that is for people's awareness to go way up. We really need people to understand what's at stake, that this is the future of all future human generations. We're not just talking about our children and grandchildren, we're talking about no one after that. And we need to make sure that humanity can outlast the nuclear age and that we can and in some sense put the genie back in the bottle.

A (123:24)

Well, Ivana, thank you so much. I know that I told you that this would be a shorter episode, but I think I lied. We had a wonderful conversation. I really appreciate you being here and just. Yeah. Using this platform to share your message. Truly, I'm inspired by your love for humanity, and I wish more people had that perspective. I think humanity is worth fighting for.

B (123:45)

Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you for giving me the opportunity. And it's really such a pleasure to talk to you.

A (123:53)

Thank you so much. And if there's anyone watching at home, if there's anything that I missed or if there's. If you have a legitimate kind of pushback to this idea of disarmament, I would love to know what you think. Drop a comment. I'll read most of them. Be civil. Be nice to each other. Right. We're all human beings. And, yeah, maybe if someone has a thoughtful response, we can go through it at a different time and read what the arguments are.

B (124:18)

I would love that. That would be actually my favorite. I mean, this is what I, you know, when I'm not advocating for nuclear disarmament, I teach college students. So I love the back and forth. So I'd be totally down for that.

A (124:34)

As I think Aquinas, maybe he says that the truth doesn't fear interrogation. So if you have a good argument, I would love to know what it is. Just, again, be civil, be thoughtful, and, you know, throw a source in there. If someone said it better than you, you can just link to that. I'll check it out. But thank you guys so much for tuning in. Thank you, Ivana, for being here. And let's do it again.

B (124:52)

Thank you for having me. Absolutely.