319 Comments

Exactly

Expand full comment

So they’re developing swarms of artificially intelligent weaponized drones?

Why??

Expand full comment

The root of the problem is? Ok I'll type it again. Leftism. Unfettered leftism is the problem. Cure leftism and common sense border control will manifest itself spontaneously. Additionally every other malady affecting the republic as well.

Expand full comment

“ Should China decide to move against Taiwan in some way, then we’ll have war with U.S. involvement in three separate regions.”

China is on the horns of a dilemma. Wait and hope for Biden to get reelected and have its way with Taiwan and risk Trump being elected or just invade Taiwan now.

Here’s how we solve; given up Ukraine (Ukraine accepts partition for peace - for now) and Putin restrains Iran and its thugs which clears up the Israel issue.

Ukraine resolved now allows focus on Taiwan and China backs off. China is timid with large decisions. They prefer to move slowly and incrementally. Not enough time to invade before November. Too much return to focus on Taiwan by US. Taiwan safe for now.

Expand full comment

Why is Bari interviewing the people who enable voyeuristic autogynephile pervert billionaires to spy on TERFs?

Expand full comment
founding

I think it may have been true and an honorable admired job to become a "bureaucrat". Serve your country when asked was noble. Now, sadly it is just a safe nameless and often completely useless job that is difficult to define and demonstrate your value to our country. Even worse no matter how poorly you do your job you cannot get fired. When is the last time you have ever heard of any of our millions of bureaucrats being actually fired. They never lose, they get "re-assigned". It is a a decaying society that slowly and quietly accepts mediocracy from its leaders. We have accepted a goal of equality of outcome as a good thing for our country. We have become vulnerable to the risks of choosing our doctors from a DEI pool instead of excellence first, Our pilots from a DEI list instead of the safety of the passengers first. I wonder if the Golden Gate bridge was designed and built by a high schooler who was just passed forward because it could have hurt his feelings to fail 11th grade. Most discouraging of all perhaps is our so called elite educators who should have the courage and to recognize that good intentions do not equal good outcomes. They have buried their collective heads in the safety of the faculty lounge and virtue signal each other to the detriment of the children who they should be honored to teach who will now become the leaders of the vast bureaucracy of mediocracy. Makes me frightened about my grandchildren and my exceptional country.

Expand full comment

I'm not sure that nostalgia for the best and the brightest building the F-35 fighter jet is well placed. It has been a shameful multi-billion boondoggle for over twenty years. Not much to be proud of.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-lockheed-martins-joint-strike-fighter/

Expand full comment

We have to leverage AI into the political sphere and as scary as that sounds, it may be the only way we can suppress the bureaucracy and get rid of corruption and incompetence. Human nature being what it is, replacing Team A with Team B will just lead to the same mess we are in now.,

Expand full comment

Interesting discussions. Also linking to this older The Red Line Podcast on rearming Europe: https://www.theredlinepodcast.com/post/episode-89-european-rearmament-are-we-preparing-for-the-wrong-war

Expand full comment

Nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are still the most potent means of defence for the Western Democracies as well as the most potent means of offence for totalitarian states.

Technology to proof countries counties from nuclear attack as well as technology to overcome such defensive technology has yet to be perfected - if it ever can be.

The reality of mutual assured destruction has prevented the nuclear armed states of the world from making use of them in the regional wars they become involved in.

The use of a nuclear weapon in any major conflict is seen as an event that would automatically result in a counterattack of the same nature by a defender or aggressor.

The United States, Red China and Russia all have significant nuclear arsenals - Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan have smaller arsenals and Iran is an aspirant.

The major powers have land, sea and air weapons with which could be used either defensively (retaliation for an attack) of offensively (first strike).

Anti-delivery systems have been developed but they are far from neutering the threat of the mass destruction that even the few weapons not intercepted would have on the cities they are primarily targeted at.

Given the role nuclear weapons play in preventing mass war, it would seem that more democratic countries would maintain nuclear arsenals but they rely on the deterrence provided by the US.

This is not the case.

Many democratic countries have been convinced, primarily by left leaning constituencies, that nuclear weapons are immoral and that world nuclear disarmament should be an objective.

Over time, however, nuclear disarmament treaties have languished and nuclear expansion has not been prevented.

The possibility that a nuclear war can be ‘won’ remains highly implausible but the possibility it can be triggered by any number of defensive or offensive scenarios remains as well.

There is always the idea that technological advances will enable a nuclear power to ‘get the drop’ on an opponent - the idea that one power can obliterate another and escape retaliation.

This possibility is greater if only the United States maintains nuclear weapons - single target would be more susceptible to such a development than would be multiple targets.

It actually makes far more sense for all NATO countries to maintain nuclear arsenals so that deterrence is enhanced - nuclear armed totalitarians would have a much less chance of using a technological advance in delivery to dispose of multiple nuclear forces maintained by the Western Democracies.

Technology certainly does have its place in both defence and offence - it can be protective and it can give aggressors advantages as well.

The Western Democracies have been served well by the technological development of nuclear arms.

The concept of mutual destruction has enabled them to avoid a cataclysmic war and technology may develop yet more destructive weapons that will make global conflict even more unthinkable.

Expand full comment

This podcast reminded me of William Lendrum "Billy" Mitchell's confrontation of the Army and Navy leadership after WWI over the obsolescence of battleships due to the technological pivot to air power.

History doesn't repeat but sometimes rhymes. I agree that our gravest threat is our internal leader incompetence. I worry that the speed and lethality of modern warfare exceeds our ability to OODA Loop our way out of a well executed surprise assault against our essential infrastructures.

Expand full comment

Our security agencies have become suckholes of government sanctioned corruption. These bright young minds will find their innovation and vigilance used for nefarious purposes against their fellow American citizens, not to deter foreign threats. Think of how many bad actors have been welcomed and subsidized in our country through our wide open border. I wish them luck.

Expand full comment

Didn't I first see this interview on NeoCon Monthly Digest?

One of the money quotes came early: "But a lot of Americans had a serious wake-up call after October 7, when a country with a high-tech security fortress was overwhelmed by terrorists on motorcycles and trucks and paragliders." Two things: 1) A terrorist attack in Israel did not--repeat, did not--cause any wake-up or new paranoia among Americans. Not even in the same league as the panic after 9/11. Not even close. What country with a high-tech security fortress was "overwhelmed" by terrorists? Israel got hit by a terrorist attack, same as numerous terrorist attacks against numerous countries, none of which were "overwhelmed." Really? Israel was overwhelmed? That will be surprise news to the nearly 40,000 dead civilians in Gaza.

And neither is America under threat from any other country. We have a shit-ton of nuclear weapons. We are under no real threat. And neither is Israel. It can suffer terror, just like many, many other nations, but Israel is under absolutely no existential threat, from Iran or anyone. Why? THEY HAVE NUKES. One you have nukes, you're safe from being invaded by America. Ask Kim Jong Un, Muammar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein if nukes help keep you from being invaded and fucked with by America.

So we are under no real threat, and neither is Israel. Bari nailed it right away when she said the threat is to Pax Americana. But it's not the Pax Americana you learned about in school, the nice, mostly peaceful (except for Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Israel--and that's just the ones that the US was heavily involved in, with a cumulative 5-10 million civilians killed, and another 20 million displaced). The "Pax Americana," translated as the American Peace, is a ridiculous, fake concept to allow American corporations, especially those involved in defense, security, surveillance, etc. to run roughshod over the planet in the name of maintaining peace and spreading democracy.

Is it any secret that the interviewees, all part of the Military Industrial Complex, think there are great threats to the US from Russia, Iran, and China? You'll get the same bullshit answers from the CEOs of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

Expecting people who profit mightily from war and conflict to rationally discuss security is as retarded as expecting the CEOs of Coke and Pepsi to start lauding the glory of drinking tap water. If you want high-integrity opinions on threats to America, get them from people who don't have a huge financial interest in the question.

I get it. Bari and others are upset about Israel being attacked. Most of the world is upset about it. But most of the world doesn't think that the answer is more killing, more bombs, more fancy weapon shit coming from Silicon Valley or anywhere else.

Expand full comment

What an inspiring conversation. How do we get these ideas out there for everyone to see?

Expand full comment

Interesting that Mexico border issues pop to the top of the comments. I love the words many of you use, all good stuff and thoughtful. From my chair, in Texas, and being in my sixties, I have a fairly common sense view of the border (north as well). We are talking about the US citizens here, not Mexico or Canada, nor Mexicans or Canadians.

I feel we need to close the southern border 100% first, and see what happens next. Build a 1200 mile wall, man all limited thru points and (re)establish protocols for entry into the US. (Canada needs attention, but to a lesser degree). IT is patently unfair what this admin is doing to US citizens the past 3 years, and we will be paying for that dearly for years to come. Before Biden we did better with Trump, but still had issues. Same with Obama etc.

I feel the US needs to take care of US citizens first and foremost. Once we have that nutted (tbd), then we begin to expand our opportunities for other nations to enter, with our preferences clearly in position A. all the handwringing about veggies and auto parts etc can be put on hold, we need to stop the flow of illegals into our country now, as I agree they are tearing the US apart, and Biden's group is leading the charge, for what end I don't really know, but it does not feel good at all.

rich

Expand full comment

Again, that's how Trump negotiates. He gets results.

Expand full comment