Will Russia use nuclear weapons? | John Mearsheimer and Lex Fridman 

He left out the Budapest Memo. Ukraine gave up all its nuclear weapons for assured security assistance from the US, Russia, and UK. Russia wont use them in Ukraine because of that document

*There's nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause!*

'

Tick tock Lex...

Nailed it!

He contradicts himself in the same interview but stupid fans are too stupid.

Actually katana were not sharper than any knife, probably even less sharp due to the lack of good steel in al Japan.

True, the gentleman is brilliant!

So true the man speaks facts and he speaks it so u can understand, and I'm all here for it.

Agree first time watching him interview and I’m hooked. Very intellectual and knowledgeable.

The guy that predicted the ukrane war 10 years ago, censored in his own country, accused of being a apologist

Les and his terror complex is getting old.. if his palm sweat so bad, let Rogan do the interview MTFU.

Sure, but isn't that the most obvious, basic point to make about a nuclear attack 😂

Saying Putin isn't anymore evil than the west is a clean way to your wipe the credibility. Yes, we are all serving our own self interests but his interests are purely internal and thus destructive to those outside. Our self interest involves the self interest of others hence why you can even point to 'the west' as a unified group in the first place.

He left out the Budapest Memo. Ukraine gave up all its nuclear weapons for assured security assistance from the US, Russia, and UK. Russia wont use them in Ukraine because of that document

I totally disagree when it comes to nukes, no nuclear power will accept their national parks being hit with nukes...

Yes, but it's logic, based on the premises of a multipolar world, and nation states being sovereign. The plannedemic has clearly demonstrated, those premises are completely false, as no nation state has challenged the one world order.

He previously described Putin as "too smart" to invade Ukraine. Cold Warrior game theory thinkers seem to get no shortage of passes when they decide to apply their study of history into theories that predict the future and screw up.

​@@spankministerMersheimer is a Putin apologist

Thats a very good point. Any country who possesses such weapons could use them if the conditions are right, naive too think otherwise.

I love when people like you many years removed have a better stretaegy and more insight than the people who are reacting in real time to what’s going on in the world lol its foolish

@@kylemutti2992 Kissinger never ever had to react in real-time to whatever. He's not a soldier on front line. He's not reacting to a street fight. Heck, he's not even a politician, he doesn't even have to make a statement, nor take any decision ! No, its role is to "theorize", to prepare in advance what would be the better decision *if* .... So, all the time in the world to think a problem correctly. Which is fine, the world needs people in such position. They have the means (time and information) to foresee far in advance, extrapolate from little nuance, and because their mind is somewhat tuned to this exercise, are generally unable to act decently in the face of immediate pressure. But I guess that's way too much nuance for a troll. Your urge to throw a random disparaging thought to feel superior in the moment had an imperious priority. Thinking, after all, is limited to Kissinger & Co.

Nobody said its "better" to nornalize lol

Why people worry so much about a country with the GDP of South Korea? Been there several times, a lot of hard working people who just want to get along with everyone.

You could be wrong. He was just sitting content for having an interesting conversation and listening to a good point. There is no evidence of aliens in the known universe as of yet. Scientifically speaking.

@@what_comes_next_88 "scientifically speaking" are the words you choose to blindfold yourself. Do not confuse "science" with what the media wants to define as "science". Science means empirical evidence and transparency. When you have whistleblowers in Congress, air force pilots on JRE and army vets in prison for releasing videos you should automatically know there is an accountability issue, a transparency issue and a withholding of information issue. Saying "scientifically speaking" there is no evidence at this point is akin to saying "I don't even want to look at the evidence available as I'm not prepared to contemplate a world that is different from my acquired perception of it". "Scientifically speaking" we should have full access to all facilities mentioned by Bob Lazar, we should have all videos mentioned by Lt. Frazer, we should release all documents mentioned in Congress. "Scientifically speaking" we should not automatically dismiss any "alien mummy" popping out of South America, the shamanic oral traditions of every corner of the world and even religious accounts from India, the Middle East, Tibet, South Africa and other places. "Scientifically speaking" we should look into each claim and whenever we find someone witholding information we should ask "Why?", "Who is paying you?" and "show me your bank transactions". Only then, "scientifically speaking", you'd have a chance to understand something about the real science, not the sterile watered down version they want you to believe in as if it was a religion of minimalism, conformism and economy of thought. What you call "science" is nothing more than the modern equivalent of puritanism.

We do see aliens 👽

What point are you trying to make?

@alexandremaximov3885 the point is the US seems so worried about other countries using them when they are the only country that has in a war killing thousands of civilians in the process seems pretty hypocritical, no? But I know anything the US does is justified and ok, though, right? The point seemed pretty obvious to me

​@@liquidragonfu5546 Oh I know the US is plenty hypocritical. Me being Russian automatically means I'm obligated to hate them :P But let's try using your argument, so you can see where I'm coming from. The so-called targets of those nukes have themselves slaughtered tens of millions of Chinese civilians. By your logic, that means the Japanese are not allowed to protest what gets done to their civilians since they've done plenty right? Do you see the flaw with this? The problem with your point is that you're insinuating that they should just be fine with everyone having and using nukes however they wish. These aren't toys, they're world-ending weapons. I believe it is good to restrict the number of countries that have access to nukes and protest their usage in war. The US does have a problem of doing BS things, and then whining about others who start doing the same. I agree with you there. They should be called out by the international community when it happens. But I think when it comes to nukes, they're right to be worried about who and how they might be used.

@OigySmoigy you seem to be grasping at Straw to try and say I'm wrong about idk something.....just seems to be proving my point lol idk you are not making alot of sense

I know where you are coming from, but keep in mind that people used to say something similar about Iran. Namely, that the US downed a civilian Iranian plane killing all on board, how irresponsible and evil of the US to do that. Then in 2020 Iran did the same... they shot down a civilian plane killing everyone on board. My point is... your argument will have no validity the day when Russia or other nuclear armed state uses its nukes against civilians. And that's not something very unlikely to happen.

Prob that’s how they descalated the Egyptians

Israel behaves with the Palestinians the same way the Germans did with the Jews in 1939

Every nuclear power has inits doctrine a provision for using nukes in a scenario of imminent threat to said country's existence.

All my comments about Oppenheimer was deleted. This is American Democracy and Free of Speech.

@@Man-u-flexNot really. Egypt had a bunch of Russian ballistic missiles with unknown warheads aimed at Israel. Kissinger was wrote about the whole situation.

The other difference is that Jason was going on a land grab through the pacific going as far south as bombing Darwin in Australia. A-holes like that Japanese emperor, Hitler and now Putin need to be stopped.

US didn't need to use nukes on Japan. They admitted it. Plus Japan didn't surrender because of the nukes but rather because the Red Army was going to invade Japan and they were terrrified.

@@timmy-wj2hc so 6 days after the second nuke they surrendered. Quite a coincidence.

Obviously Lex is asking the question in the context of Ukraine and potential circumstances that may occur. What he’s doing is asking an expert to weigh those potential circumstances to determine what may tip the scales. Pretending like this is a stupid question can only hold up as a semantic strategy where others’ words are used against them in a literal and rigid manner ignores common speech and communication patterns. Or, to be brief, take the stick out yo ass.

@@OigySmoigy Russia has the worlds largest nuclear arsenal. No one is going to fire at them or invade them. That’s why this isn’t about NATO, this is about him wanting puppet regimes instead of successful democracies in his area. Effectively a new USSR.

Death hand

Putin is smart enough not to use them

It's an overblown conversation by the same people who keep telling us that while being the incompetent Russia is still about to take over Europe after Ukraine. Ukraine has less dead children in 2 years of war than Gaza had in the first month and unlike Baghdad that had it's water supply bombed in the first few days of the invasion Kyiv still has running water, it doesn't seem to me that the Russians would do these things then decide to drop nukes on their border in a country that contains many of their own people. In the 50 years they've had nukes they've never saw fit to use them, in fact the only country that has used them (on defenseless civilian populations) is that bastion of liberty and freedom the USA

​@@TrueDaturaMindNzNo

I dont they they would unless someone joins in

Not true, nukes ended the Japanese conflict and they will likely end this conflict. Western people live in a fairytale and think that the US and the EU are Gods that control what people can and can’t do in a war. Putin does not think like they do. He knows that if he nukes Ukraine then no other nation will do anything significant due to the fact that they aren't directly participating in this war, and if they did than it would be suicide. No one in the West ever thought a group of Islamic terrorist would blow up the WTC in 2001 but look what happened@@TrueDaturaMindNz

What do you mean? Elaborate it, because a question like this and it seems you´re a internet bot. Iran is not a nuclear power (yet) and North Korea only has, till now, relativelly limited nuclear capabilities to strike an enemy like the US.

@@DaviSouza-ru3ui come on it is clear already. why does mutual assured destruction not apply to all? if they get the bomb why are they going to use it because they will get wiped out in response!

How does it not? Hamas by proxy is an asset of Iran. Israel isn't attacking Iran, but they are prosecuting a proxy war vs them.

Means of delivery. They lack reliable means of getting warheads to North America. The furthest a North Korean ballistic missle test has been made wouldn't take one to Pearl Harbor. Iran only has regional ballistic missles. Backpack nukes may or may not be possible, I've heard arguments both ways from nuclear physists, but assuming they exist the reliability of delivery would still be a crap shoot. Summation: MAD requires two technologies. The warheads and critically ICBMs. The idea of MAD was conceived over a decade post Hiroshima when missile technologies in Russia and North America meant shooting down the bombers no longer saved civilization.

russia Is losing. they wanted to conquer Kiev in 2 days

@@cellardoor9882 Winning less quickly than initially intended is still winning.

@@labordayweekend right. but what doea winning mean to russia? conquering the ukraine as thes envisiones? never going to happen

Winning to Russia is controlling the Donbas and securing access to Crimea from the north, which they've already done. The only objective that they haven't achieved is taking Odessa. They never wanted Kiev.

Put us out of our misery already.

It would look so bad considering the Budapest Memo explicitly provides protection to Ukraine in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons in the 90's.

@@far-middle And who actually should provide protection to Ukraine?

Putin said first place getting nuked is the UK.

Mad Max

Stop listening to him then, I Like Lex, I Like John ❤❤

@@lucyyl.5454 he has interesting guests, but he needs to get some sleep and try less hard to be cool.

Lex adds nothing to discussion other than his irritation. Better he shut up n let the expert speak.

@@lucyyl.5454shut up

Fr hes rly ignorant

Well we can't stop being creasy because the aliens won't tell us what it means

They are the angels and demons. We saw the fighting thousands of years ago and we began to do the same thing. We we’re manipulated by the demons and still are. 👹👽🛸👁

Maybe someday but not right now I don’t believe anyone is crazy enough

007.1 Goldfinger release candidate

Bond, Khabib Bond

Nope, just a _man in black_ .

Americans have done it in 1945 whith what brain exactly?

If you had listened to his advice, you would have found yourself in the same position that Putin found himself in.

It’s both neither side trusts each other

☢️

Hunh? What is a "security pact" with anybody "to surrender without a fight"?

@@TheDavidlloydjones A security pact with Russia that guarantees North Korean integrity. Similar to NATO, but it’s members are nut jobs armed with nukes.

Your question is nonsense. Why would Russia meddle itself in a fight between North Korea (a nuclear state) and South Korea (a non-nuclear state, until now)?

@@DaviSouza-ru3ui It’s not about meddling, it’s about the power of a nuclear arsenal being put to use by a proxy to expand Russia’s influence. We’ve always assumed that MAD prevents the use of nuclear weapons between the nuclear powers, but that comfort disappears with the threat by a proxy protected by the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.

What are you babbling about? Your message makes zero sense

Yes, they would. It is hard for you to accept this, but they are mostly isolated from the civilized world. They have nothing to lose and keep returning to their old grievances with the West. For Putin, losing it is existential. The fact that Russia has terminated the last agreements about testing nuclear weapons is a sobering reality. Anything can happen, and we need to be prepared for any scenario.

150 years, not 1000

@@valdisgerasymiak1403 the 1000 is a hypothetical combination of ours, which is more like 100 actually, and another 900 from the aliens

@@valdisgerasymiak1403 that's why I said "combined"

Not just that, if you're 100 lightyears away, a species with our current technology would need an antenna roughly the same square area of New York just to discern our signals from background noise. Oh, and I mean the state, not the city.

Humanity is hidden, they are always watching

@OigySmoigy did you read my comment?... moreover it makes sense to use a nuclear weapon against a country far away and not your neighbour's since it will hurt your country as well ... if the previous argument didn't make sense to you.

@@user-dx2yu3fe8nno, Putin won't use nukes because there is no justification for it. In the same way he has been reluctant until very recently, to call his military operation a 'war'. And in any case, he has not formally declared war on you. Why? Because he can't justify going to war against Ukraine over the reasons he gave to his people. As simple as that.

yeah ofc, Russia is using conventional weapons against civilians, no need for the nuclear option. And no, the 1945 bombings are not the same thing as the lunacy we are experiencing today my little Kremlin bot.

Or the Americans, they have form after all

The head of the KGB directorate that was in charge of the weapons overruled the standing order. He was on the sub. Why was he on the sub? Most likely to overrule the standing order, should things go wrong. (In this case, US ships were attacking the sub, and their orders were to fire a torpedo at any attacker - a nuclear torpedo, to ensure the ship was destroyed.) if Khrushchev had been less attentive to the risks, then it’s likely that Kennedy’s orders would have been ignored by the US military per use of nuclear weapons and it would have rapidly escalated beyond anyone’s control.

A Hollywood story regarding disobeying a military order from the highest commander to send a nuke from a so called submarine. Pure story for O'Conner to play when he was alive.

Why do you think so? The other nuclear armed nation might think: "oh, they launched theirs just for the sake of causing fear, they aren't serious about launching it at us, therefore let's not play their game". In such scenario there wouldn't be a massive response from the other nations to the launching of a single nuke by one of them.

​@@User-jr7vfare you sure with social media you can calm the masses if you are a leader of country ??? The Opposition in your own country will presure you and fed the tension "better we use nuclear to our enemy before they used them on us" i imagine this scenario is very likely and i dont know how you control that

ehhh I don't think we can say either way. A movie doesn't mean jack shit. It's a thought experiment at best. In reality I think whoever is involved would try to stop the threat rather than throw all their chips in the instant they have the option to do so.