Peter Kuznick
speaker
151 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Jan 2025
last heard Jan 2025
Peter Kuznick’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
And then he opposed the development of hydrogen bomb.
But you're making an important point, though, that we are in many ways dependent on Putin's restraint at this point.
Because today he just made a statement that the U.S. keeps crossing all of Russia's red lines. And if they keep doing this, this is going to explode. I mean, Biden for a long time refused to give permission to Ukraine to use the attack on missiles. And he said that it would be too provocative and could possibly lead to a much broader war between the United States and Russia.
And he refused to do it. But like he did with every other weapon system, he finally caved in. And so Ukraine has struck Russia several times now with these ATAK-M missiles inside of Russia, the long-range army missiles. And then you got the British stormtrooper, storm shadow missiles. You got the French missiles, the scout missiles. The German ones haven't been used yet.
And in response to that, Russia changed this nuclear doctrine and said that they lowered it and said that if Russia is attacked by a country with the support of a nuclear power, then they're going to consider that an attack by both countries meaning the United States and Ukraine, and both countries become legitimate targets for all of Russia's weapons, meaning nuclear weapons.
And so far, then how did Russia respond? With the Ureshnik missile, this brand new hypersonic medium range missile. And it was devastating because it goes at 10 times the speed of sound, and it's a hypersonic missile, and they can't be shot down. And they've used it once so far, but there's some warnings that they could take out Kyiv, or at least the leadership there.
They could hit the base in Poland, wherever they want.
They are so much more advanced. In fact, Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his speech in Prague- For existing, yeah. In 2009, calling for nuclear abolition, he's the one who put into process the policy of modernizing America's nuclear arsenal. It was a trade-off with the Senator Kyle from Arizona in order to get them to support the New START Treaty.
And so what is modernizing the delivery systems and the weapons mean? Making them more efficient and more lethal. And then Trump doubled down on that in his nuclear posture review in 2018. And so Obama said, we're going to spend a trillion dollars over 30 years to modernize. Now it's closer to 2 trillion and we're doing it. But not only is the United States modernizing,
All nine nuclear powers are modernizing their arsenals. And for the first time, you know, at the peak of the Cold War, in 1986, we had about 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world. We got it down to now 12,000, but for the first time, we're increasing the arsenals. You know, we've been trying to get rid of these hellish weapons since they were first started. And initially...
Even Eisenhower supported giving them to the UN and letting the UN destroy them. And Eisenhower also was the only president who's openly critical of the US dropping the atomic bombs in 1945. What did he say?
He said, when Stimson briefed him at Potsdam that the United States was about to use the atomic bomb, Eisenhower wrote on a couple of occasions, he said, I got more and more depressed just listening to him, but I didn't volunteer anything because my war in Europe was over. Then he asked me what I thought. And I told them I was against it for two reasons.
Number one, the Japanese were already defeated and trying to surrender and we didn't need to use it. And number two, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon. The U.S. had eight five-star admirals and generals in 1945. Seven of the eight are officially on the record saying the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both.
And the eighth was Marshall, who said that the Soviet invasion alone would likely leverage the Japanese into surrender by itself. So they all knew that the atomic bombs were necessary. Truman knew it as well as anybody. When he had lunch with Stalin at Potsdam on July 17th, he goes back and writes in his journal, said Stalin will be in the Jap War by August 15th. Finny Japs when that occurs.
He writes home to his wife Bess the next day, saying the Russians are coming in, we'll end the war a year sooner now. Think of all the kids who won't be killed. He knew it. He refers to the intercepted telegram on July 18th as the telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace. They knew that the Japanese were defeated. And if there had been an invasion, what was the estimate of casualties?
The original one from Marshall. With the original one, they were talking only like 20,000. And then the highest one for the original that Nola gave that we could find was 46,000 Americans would be lost. But in his memoir, Truman says, I was told by Marshall that we could lose a half million American boys in an invasion. That's a myth. But that's just what kids are taught in schools.
And then Bush brought it up too. H.W. Bush said millions. We could lose millions. Yes. It's hard to calculate.
That's going to be increasing now.
I don't have any evidence that they weren't. Okay. So, but I mean, I've heard speculation about that. Yes. But I don't know that there are any out there.
But everybody I know in Russia, everybody I talk to there says they wanted, they wish we could have friendlier relations with the United States and Russia. They all feel that way. You know who fears nuclear weapons, nuclear bombs? Trump. Trump said recently- I read, he says, we have never been closer to World War III than we are today under Joe Biden.
Showing 61–80 of 151 · page 4 of 8
← Previous
Next →