C (5:27)

People and is it gone now? Does it ever come back? Any sort of pre show jitters?

B (5:34)

I think I have physiological arousal that is sort of akin to anxiety before an event, but I just perceive it as energy now. I mean, this is kind of just a reframing of anxiety that is available to anyone. You can notice that anxiety is fairly indistinguishable physiologically from excitement and apart from your thoughts about it, about the thoughts you're using to frame it. And you can just kind of grab the reins of your mind and reframe it. You can just decide to think about the fact that you actually just care how this event goes. You want to do a good job. In this case, people paid for tickets, they took a night out of their lives to come and see me. I care that they have a good time or find it valuable. So if I feel any energy that's like anxiety, it really feels that I actually just care, you know, and that I'm. That I, you know, I have a stake in this. But no, it's really, it's. The experience has been flipped for me. It's really. It's pretty nice to have flipped it that way.

C (6:39)

I used to, before I'd go on stage, I would imagine that I had just gotten off stage and was very disappointed in my performance. And now I get a chance to go back up there. And how would I do that now?

B (6:51)

That's a nice reframing. Yeah, that's a very. I mean, that could apply to many situations. Yeah, right.

C (6:58)

So whatever. It was now a manager. So if it didn't work out, it didn't work out too well for me. All right. I saw that there's a movie on Netflix directed by Katherine Bigelow and written by Noah Oppenheim. And I mentioned the writer here specifically because he has credited the Making Sense podcast with the title of the film. So, of course, I had to watch it and scared the shit out of me. How about you?

B (7:19)

Oh, I thought it was very effective. It was like the world's most effective psa. Right. It's just very. I mean, it's a film, you know, with great actors, but it really plays like a PSA because it is just exposing how morally insane and psychologically implausible our nuclear status quo is. Right. I mean, just. It. Just for people who haven't seen it, I'm not giving anything away. It depicts an America that is now on the receiving end of a single missile. Incoming missile, presumed to be a nuclear first strike, the source of which can't be identified because I think the satellite that would track that was jammed. And now we've got, whatever, 20 minutes to decide whether to return fire. And so our doctrine is to launch if there's incoming missile. Especially in the case where you have more than one incoming missile and there's this prospect of having our launch capacity destroyed by a first strike. If we see a bunch of missiles coming our way, the doctrine suggests that there's some version of our retaliating before anything has landed, before we know absolutely for certain that this isn't some kind of radar error, et cetera. So. But when you actually look at how this unfolds psychologically and socially among all the participants, and this is not the first document to depict this, but in film form, this is the. The only one I know that's done it this effectively and has shown all these beats. It just. It's completely insane. Right? I mean, this is something that has. You can read about this at greater length in Eric Schlosser's book Command and Control, which shows our whole continuity of government plan and how we've trained for it. And there are these scenes in that book that there's similar moments in this film that show just how impractical and sometimes morally unconscionable the expected behavior is. So the drilled behavior is certain. Key people need to be spirited away before the missiles hit. They need to be taken to some underground lair where they can ensure the continuity of government and in Dr. Strangelove style, repopulate the earth. And so one of these drills, like an army helicopter, lands on the soccer field to grab, I think it was the secretary of state or someone like that who's at his daughter's soccer game. And he's expected to leave at that moment without his. His family to go underground, you know, to. To continue the American project in the face of a presumed Nuclear attack. And he's like, what, are you kidding? I'm not getting out of that helicopter. Right. I'm not leaving my family here to die. Right. And he knew it was a drill, but it was just like, this is the plan. And it's insane. Right. And what's especially insane is the doctrine that has to be. That falls under the judgment of one person, the President of the United States, who has to decide, with the clock ticking in mere minutes, in some cases like six minutes, whether or not to annihilate tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people as perhaps his last act on Earth. Right. And ushering in the extreme case usher in a nuclear winter that more or less destroys everyone. Right. And so who's going to do that? Who's going to think it's sane to do that? How is our deterrence against our enemies predicated on their assumption that our President will do that? The whole thing is bonkers. And anyway, the film gives you a glimpse of how bonkers it is.

C (10:51)

Yeah, the film is really well done, and I encourage everyone to go check it out because it really is, as you said, a great psa. But I just wanted to stay here for a second on. You've talked about this before. I mean, you know, the mutually assured destruction mad concept does seem insane. I mean, you know, if the President, whoever he or she is at that time fires back, you know, you said they'll go down as, you know, potentially the. One of the greatest killers of humankind in history.

B (11:19)

Well, not even potentially. I mean, just emphatically so. In addition to whoever sent the incoming missiles in the first place. Yeah.

C (11:26)

Right. And so if they don't do anything and we lose 200 million Americans, but yet they spare the rest of the world, perhaps that's the better position.

B (11:33)

Yeah. I just don't see how the expectation of retaliation is at all credible or plausible. I think it's important. I mean, mutually assured destruction is predicated on the bluff and the acceptance of that bluff that we will respond. But I don't think it is compatible with anyone's sanity to think that we really will respond. I mean, I just. I think it's morally insane to think that, okay, we're going to all die here, basically, we're going to be reduced to, you know, radioactive ruins and, you know, whoever's left alive is going to be like the people on the perimeter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki moments after the blast. Because now, I mean, this is not what House of Dynamite depicts. But again, that was just a single missile. But in the True nuclear first strike concern against, you know, with Russia or now China. It really is a picture of, okay, we've got all these ICBMs incoming, there's nothing we're going to be able to do to stop them till we get some magical golden dome technology which presumably we're now working on. But even there, there are reasons to believe that that's not something we're going to be able to rely on. But in the current case, we know we can't knock these missiles down. And if hundreds are coming in and they're all aimed at major cities and population centers, we're all going to die. So what exactly is achieved by now killing hundreds of millions of people on the other side of the world? Well, exactly nothing. The only thing that could have been achieved was the credible threat of doing that. That would have stopped the incoming missiles in the first place. But that hasn't happened. Right. For whatever reason, our deterrence has fail and now the missiles are incoming. I just, honestly I just don't see anyone in that position deciding to kill hundreds of millions of people. It just seems it doesn't serve any purpose at that moment. The purpose that was served was the bluff that was called and now, now the bluff was no longer operative.

C (13:35)

Yeah, that makes sense to me. And related to that, it seems that Trump wants to resume nuclear testing because apparently Russia is doing it. And I guess, well, we have to as well. I think that's almost a direct quote.

B (13:47)

Yeah, I don't know what that means. I mean, I don't know what testing actually means. If we're talking about above ground tests where you see the gigantic muscle.

C (13:57)

No, I think it's below ground. I think they're wanting to do.

B (13:59)

Right. Well, maybe there's ways of testing parts of weapons. Clearly we can't have an arsenal that is decades old and we don't know whether or not it works. Right. So there's got to be some way of maintaining our credible deterrence. Again, rumors about the status of our technology are fairly alarming. I mean, the kinds of computers that are governing the launch of ICBMs, etc. I mean, this is not modern equipment as far as I know. And so all on floppy disks. I mean, I guess there's a, there's an irony that it's probably less hackable as a result of being so antiquated too. So there may be a layer of safety built into its obsolescence as well. But I mean, still, it's just the idea that we can just sit on all this Tech year after year and not reinvest in it doesn't seem tenable to me. But clearly the world has to figure out how to walk back from this particular brink and denuclearize. I mean, I don't see how the end game is for us to just keep this world rigged to explode the way it is. I mean, the thing that's so scary above and beyond the malicious use of these weapons, the thing that's truly terrifying is the possibility of an inadvertent use of these weapons or a launch based on misinformation or cyber attack. I mean, there have been so many accidents and near accidents and it's just we're continuing to roll these invisible dice and eventually if we roll them enough, they're going to come up to our peril. Yeah. So I think it's worth continually to revisit this topic. I mean, that's what's so valuable about this film is that it's gotten people talking about nuclear weapons. We have a generation of people that have more or less forgotten that this was a thing. One review of this movie was completely insane. That it seemed to suggest it was kind of an anti American libtard document that just made it seem like the nuclear status quo was somehow a bad thing. Well, it is quite obviously a bad thing. It's just the idea that, that we're in some ideal circumstance here, having brought the world to this capacity of mutual annihilation. It's bonkers. I mean, the only argument in its favor is that a world of true mutually assured destruction with only two superpowers, which is a world we're now quickly losing that deterrence, nuclear deterrence, or the specter of a war escalating, a commercial war escalating into a nuclear one may have mitigated the risk of conventional war between superpowers. And that may in fact be true. I mean, maybe we would have fought a war with Russia in the absence of nuclear weapons already, but I mean, we're just seeing the unraveling of the status quo and the urge toward proliferation. The game theory of all of this just looks awful.

C (16:50)

What are your thoughts about the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Charles Murray and other people right of center suddenly finding Jesus after considering themselves atheists or secular and, and moving into Christianity while claiming it as the bedrock of Western values?

B (17:04)

Hmm. Well, I've avoided commenting on this specifically in many contexts, and I think your.

C (17:09)

Substack fans know this, which is why they've asked this again and again.

B (17:12)

Well, I mean, so first I never want to say anything about Ayaan that is derogatory. I mean.

A (17:19)

If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe@samharris.org Once.

B (17:25)

You do, you'll get access to all.

A (17:27)

Full length episodes of the Making Sense Podcast. The Making Sense Podcast is ad free and relies entirely on listener support, and you can subscribe now@samharris.org.