Impeachment Looms Over Trump After the Pentagon’s Leaked Nuclear Plans. Joe Kent on What Comes Next.

The Tucker Carlson Show

The episode explores escalating global tensions, focusing on the potential for nuclear war amid recent Pentagon discussions about tactical n

Key takeaways

• Russia has revised its nuclear doctrine, signaling a shift toward potential offensive use of nuclear weapons.
• The U.S. Pentagon has discussed using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran, including in written slide decks.

Main topics

• Nuclear war risk
• Pentagon's nuclear planning discussions

Notable quotes

There's something about catastrophe that's very difficult for the human brain to process.

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a warning that global tensions are nearing a breaking point, particularly due to nuclear

Transcript preview

Speaker 3 (0:04) There's something about catastrophe that's very difficult for the human brain to process. Something terrible happens, and most people refuse to acknowledge it as it begins. Talk to anybody who's seen a shooting, for example, and they'll tell you, most of them will tell you if you interview them, I thought it was fireworks or a car backfiring. Most people perceive a house fire in the first moments as burning toast. Again, there's something about... people that pushes away evidence of disaster. And so with that in mind, how would the average person assess the risk of nuclear war, which to state the obvious, or what used to be obvious, is the worst possible thing. And nuclear war ends inevitably in the destruction of all human life on the planet. So there's nothing worse than nuclear war. Ask your average American, are we close to nuclear war? And... Haven't seen polling on it, but 9 out of 10 would almost certainly say, well, no, of course not, because it's just not imaginable. and let's hope it remains unimaginable. But the evidence is mounting that some people are imagining it, and therefore we are moving much closer to it. What's the evidence? Well, it's all around us. And it's only our unwillingness, our native hesitancy to add it all up that prevents us from seeing that. But here are a couple facts that might be worth considering if you're trying to assess, are we actually close to a nuclear war? Russia has revised its nuclear doctrine. Nuclear doctrine. is exactly what it sounds like. It's the rules that a country sets for itself about when and under what circumstances it will use nuclear weapons. Most countries that possess nuclear weapons, not all, but most, have what's called a no-first-use policy, meaning they pledge to the world, but also to themselves, we will not be the first to press the button. We will use nuclear weapons in defense only. Notably, the United States and Israel do not have a no-first-use policy. They have reserved the right to use nuclear weapons offensively if they so desire. But until very recently, no one imagined that the United States or Israel or any country would ever launch nuclear weapons unless nuclear weapons have been launched against them. And that's why for over 80 years, nuclear weapons have basically preserved the peace. Horrifying as they are, or perhaps because they are so horrifying, we haven't had a global war. since 1945. Because the idea is nobody would win. Mutually assured destruction is the phrase that people often used for this. And so it's a big change when states start to think about using nuclear weapons in the same way that you would use, say, artillery or bombs or missiles. Speaker 3 (2:52) That has never been considered before. But now, clearly, it is under consideration by a couple or maybe several different countries, and those would include Russia, the United States, and Israel. Again, how do we know that? Well, Russia has revised its nuclear doctrine. The United States is now in the process of revising its nuclear doctrine. As for Israel, well, the government of Israel and successive governments of Israel have over... more than 50 years at various points, threatened the use of offensive nuclear weapons. So we sort of know that Israel is capable of that, at least if you take them at their word. But the United States is a country most Americans never imagined would seriously consider lobbing nukes into another country unless it was attacked first. But it is a fact that that is now under consideration. And not just under consideration, it has been proposed in writing within the Pentagon. Reports in the last two weeks indicate that during meetings within the Pentagon about how to respond to Iran in that current war, the possibility, the option has been floated of using what are called tactical nuclear weapons, which are just nuclear weapons detonated at a higher altitude or at a lower strength, but they're still nuclear weapons. Speaker 3 (4:16) that discussions about their use have taken place in the Pentagon. And we're here to confirm that that is absolutely true. And not only have there been discussions about the use of nuclear weapons, tactical nukes against, say, Karg Island or Pickaxe Mountain or various spots within Iran, those discussions have included slide decks, which is to say somebody wrote down on a computer screen, hey, maybe we should use nuclear weapons in this war, this war of choice, this war that we started for objectives that have nothing to do with America's national security or national interest. Now, you would think at that point, the meeting would stop, and the person in charge of the meeting would say, who wrote that? Who's suggesting that? Who actually put on a screen in letters in English the idea that we would use nuclear weapons? Speaker 3 (5:10) in the Persian Gulf. And the person running the meeting would find out that he would call the president. And then legal proceedings, criminal proceedings, would begin against the person who wrote that down. Because anyone who suggests the use, the voluntary use, the offensive use of nuclear weapons is putting at risk the life of every person on the planet. And that would include your children and grandchildren and you. That person is by definition a lunatic, a dangerous lunatic. who should not only be removed from any decision-making authority, but probably should go to jail. Like, immediately. Especially in a country that routinely puts people in jail for, I don't know, tax evasion. The guy who suggests ending life on this planet probably should face some kind of sanction. And the rest of us should join in in saying, that's not acceptable. And again, anyone who suggests that is dangerous, is a crazy person, is in fact a criminal. Because that's true. People who suggest killing every human being are criminals. But nobody said that, in part because the president of the United States has repeatedly suggested using nuclear weapons in the war against Iran. Now, if you were to pose this question to the White House press office, they would say the president has never suggested using nukes. But of course, that's not true. Because in statement after statement posted on the Internet, on True Social, the president has threatened the total destruction of Iran, of the civilization itself. And of course, you can't achieve that with any conventional weapon. There's only one way to achieve that, the total destruction of a civilization, and that's with nuclear weapons. And so openly, in public, for the world to see, the president has threatened, the U.S. president has threatened the use of nuclear weapons in this war. And so we should consider that a real possibility. But of course we don't because we can't metabolize something that horrible. So in recent weeks, we've been hearing that the situation in Russia, not in Iran, but in the war ongoing against Russia, has deteriorated to the point that the Russians are considering using nuclear weapons. And so we've done everything we could by calling people to find out, is that true? Speaker 3 (7:28) And it's hard to know exactly if that's true. But here's the way to think about it. So the war in Russia, despite getting almost no attention in American media, is not only ongoing, but it's accelerating. That's the first thing to know. And it's accelerating because NATO, the United States, and the Western European powers are... hitting targets, including civilian targets and energy targets, deep within mainland Russia. And that would include a school, killing people on beaches with drones, hitting the Kremlin itself multiple times in drone attacks. So that's becoming more intense. Public opinion in Russia clearly is moving in a more bellicose direction. There are elections underway in Russia right now. which end September 20th, the Duma elections, the lawmakers' elections. And it's very clear that more and more Russians, and it's hard to quantify this precisely, but are surprised and dismayed that their government is allowing attacks, not by Ukraine, but by Ukraine's sponsors, NATO and the United States. against Russia. And it's not destroying the Russian economy. We haven't been able to do that. But it is hurting the Russian economy. And of course, it is a threat to ordinary Russians. People are getting killed on beaches by drone attacks paid for by the United States or NATO. And if those attacks are being targeted with coordinates given to the Ukrainians by the CIA, and that's exactly what's happening, then your average Russian is beginning to wonder, why aren't we doing anything about this? And so there is mounting pressure on the leadership of that country, Vladimir Putin, who, despite American and Western propaganda, is not an absolute totalitarian dictator, which is to say he can't make any decision he wants. He is subject. to the opinions, influenced by the opinions of all kinds of different power centers within that country, including public opinion. So the point is, pressure is mounting on Putin to do something to stop these attacks on Russia. And of course, the people mounting the attacks, paying for them, it's not the Ukrainians. By the way, there is no real Ukraine anymore. Its population has been decimated in this war. The big decisions were made by outside powers. Ukraine has no sovereignty, unfortunately for Ukraine. But the people who are making the decisions, and that would include... The CIA in the United States, the NSA in the United States, the heads of state of Great Britain and France and Germany and... basically the rest of the West, those people clearly understand that we're moving toward some sort of more open conflict with Russia. And that's kind of the point. Push Russia to do something radical against the West, blow up Kiev, for example, the Ukrainian capital, hit Poland, maybe even lob some kind of weapon into Western Europe. And at that point, you get what they've wanted since day one, which is an open war with Russia that they expect that they'll win somehow, which of course they won't. But the delusion that Western powers can control Russia by force is longstanding. I mean, many leaders have fallen to that delusion. Napoleon himself in 1812 famously invaded Russia, got all the way to Moscow, occupied Moscow for a month. in 1812 and then retreated and destroyed the entire French army. Hundreds of thousands of French soldiers died on the march back to Paris. But totally undeterred, crazed with hubris, Napoleon continued to pick other wars. And in less than three years, he was defeated finally, famously, in a fight with the Brits at Waterloo and died at 51 in exile. And France was never again, to this day, a global power. So he destroyed France and the French empire. because he thought that he can control Russia through force. And of course, you know, 130 years later. almost within living memory, the German government under Adolf Hitler did exactly the same thing in Operation Barbarossa and marched all the way to Moscow once again and was once again totally destroyed. So there's something about Russia and the idea that outside powers can conquer it, take its resources or something, prevent it from becoming a global power, that is very alluring to Western leaders. But there is zero track record of success. Now, once again, within living memory of the last attempt, which was the German attempt in 1941 to do the same thing, European and American leaders have decided that, no, this time it will be different and we will control Russia through force. But of course, that's not going to happen. It will not work. And it could lead to nuclear war. So in any case, we have been talking to as many people as we can about this. And one of them we interviewed yesterday from Moscow, Lena Tseletsky, who is the leader of a political party in Russia, a sophisticated, very knowledgeable person, very well connected within Russia. And to ask him how... close are we to some kind of conflict? Most Americans are not paying attention. The American administration is totally distracted by the war with Iran. Do you think that we are moving toward some kind of nuclear conflict? Now, unfortunately, that interview is, it's not possible to air most of it because it got screwed up by a translator. But we're going to show you one clip. So in this, Slutsky says, look. We don't plan to use nuclear weapons unless and until some other power, some Western power, sends nuclear weapons to Ukraine. Here Speaker 2 (13:33) he is. If tactical nuclear weapons supplied by Zelensky's patrons are used against us, perhaps we will ultimately have to consider the possibility of taking asymmetric steps. But so far this has not happened, and I very much hope, I repeat, I very much hope it will not happen. Speaker 3 (13:58) NATO sending nukes to Ukraine? Is there a crazier idea? Well, no, because of course, this war began in the first place because Russia didn't want other people's nuclear weapons on its Western border, its border with Ukraine. And it was the threat of that, the threat of Ukraine joining NATO, provoked by the Biden administration and administrations before Biden, including the Bush administration. It was that threat that pushed the Russians into invading Eastern Ukraine. And The war, now more than four years old, is the result. And the deaths of hundreds of thousands, hundreds and hundreds of thousands, total unknown, but clearly the depopulation of Ukraine was the result. The total destruction of the nation of Ukraine was the result. And that was predictable. It was knowable. But less than five years later, we can say that if you push Russia hard enough, And if you threaten to put nuclear weapons on its border, you will get a maximalist response, of course, as you would from any power. You tried to do that too. So the question is, are the European powers, is the United States crazy enough to do something like that? Speaker 3 (15:15) Well, of course. So the two things to know, and we're going to speak to Joe Ken about this in just a minute, but the two things to know as you try to assess where is this all going, is one, the United States, despite claims to the contrary, is in charge of the war against Russia. It's not a war to liberate Ukraine. No one in the West wants to liberate Ukraine, of course. The United States sponsored a coup in Ukraine in 2014 to make certain that we could control its governance. So there's no interest at the policymaking level in any Western country in allowing an autonomous, sovereign Ukraine. We don't want that. We've never allowed it. So ignore those claims. This is not about liberating Ukraine. This is a war against Russia. And its purpose is to separate Russia from Ukraine, because as Zbigniew Brzezinski famously said. If you combine Russia and Ukraine, you have a superpower. The resources of Ukraine, the manufacturing capacity of Russia, the size of Russia, you have, by definition, a superpower. So if you want to prevent Russia from becoming a superpower, you have to divide Russia from Ukraine. Of course, it's not as simple as saying so, but that has always been the object. And there are probably other motives here, complicated, historic motives for what we're doing, ugly motives. motives that have to do very much with the reimposition of Christianity on Russia by Vladimir Putin over the last 26 years. But whatever the motive, you should know that the United States is now waging a war against Russia. That's just a fact. And there's a lot of pretending that, oh, no, we're not. We can't control the Europeans. But that's a lie. And we know it's a lie because a couple of days ago, John Ratcliffe, who's the director of central intelligence, who runs the CIA, flew into Moscow on an American military plane. And we don't know exactly what the conversation was between Ratcliffe and his counterparts in Russia. But we do know, because the CIA has told us out loud, that before he left, before the plane took off from, I think, Latvia, John Ratcliffe called the Ukrainians and told them to stop any offensive action against Russia for the time that he was there. He halted the Ukrainian offensive. While he was in Moscow. Well, the person who can stop the fighting is in charge, of course, by definition. And so in doing that, John Ratcliffe showed the rest of us who's actually running the war against Russia. And it's him. It's the Central Intelligence Agency and the Trump administration. The Trump administration is waging a war against Russia. And it's important to say that out loud in the United States because most people don't know it here. But in the rest of the world and certainly within Russia, everybody knows it. So once you start waging a war against the country with the world's largest nuclear arsenal, there are risks involved, of course. And the main risk to you, if you're an American, is you don't even know what's happening. And so it's impossible to protest against it, to protest against the risk that is being imposed on you, the risk of the total destruction of your country and the world, the death of your children. That's exactly what they're risking. So that's the first thing to know. The second thing to know is that powers, nations, like people, become much more dangerous when they become weaker. Speaker 3 (18:37) The world has very little to fear from a legitimately strong country. A strong country simply wants to preserve the status quo, its own interests, its trade routes. It doesn't want to be threatened by other countries, but it doesn't seek, say, territorial expansion. Because why would you take the risk? When you're strong, when things are going well, why would you want to change them? The risk always comes from the weaker party, the party that is cornered like an animal or a short man in a bar fight. That's the dangerous opponent, is the opponent who feels that his options are running out, that he has no choice. And that is exactly why there are conversations now in the Pentagon about using offensive nuclear weapons against Iran, a non-nuclear-armed power. A strong country would never have that discussion because a strong country would, for example, use its Navy, its trillion-dollar Navy, to, I don't know, open the Strait of Hormuz and restore balance to global energy markets. That's the point of having a Navy. But we have