Podcasts about Cuban Missile Crisis

The world is on the brink of nuclear war. How can the Soviet Union and the USA prevent it? Hosts Nina Khrushcheva and Max Kennedy, relatives of the superpower leaders President John F Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev, tell the personal and political history of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Together Nina and Max explore what drove JFK and Khrushchev during the darkest days of October 1962. And when the crisis moves beyond their control as a U-2 spy plane is shot down over Cuba, how do they avoid global catastrophe?Released from 1st December. Follow or subscribe so you never miss an episode.

Socialist Mamdani Wins NYC | Democrats Sweep East Coast | Is a New Missile Crisis Looming?The Left's dominance continues — at least for now. In this episode, Dr. Jerome Corsi breaks down the shocking but predictable results of this week's elections:Socialist Zohran Mamdani wins the NYC mayor's race, while Democrats secure control in New Jersey and Virginia.But is this a victory… or the next stage in the Democrats' long-term decline?Dr. Corsi examines how these results fit into the broader Leftist strategy to transform America — through open borders, extreme spending, globalist dependency, and the erosion of individual liberty.Still, despite the headlines, the national mood may not be changing at all. Are these outcomes simply regional inevitabilities, or signs of deeper trouble for Democrats in 2026?Meanwhile, on the world stage, history threatens to repeat itself.63 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, a new global missile crisis is emerging — as military posturing and nuclear brinkmanship return to the headlines. Are we once again standing at the edge of catastrophe?Dr. Corsi connects the dots between America's internal political chaos and the rising global instability — and what it all means for our future.

In his remarks to the IIEA, Thant Myint-U reflects upon the future of world peace and the United Nations. Through the lens of his new book Peacemaker: U Thant, the United Nations, and the Untold Story of the 1960's, Thant Myint-U explores safeguarding global peace, preventing great power war, and reimagine the United Nations. In his book, Thant Myint-U tracks the history of U-Thant, the first UN Secretary-General of colour, who became the Cold War era's preeminent ambassador of peace, and played a crucial role in preventing conflict such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. His remarks will reflect not only upon the events of the 1960's, but the lessons which U-Thant's tenure may offer us now during a moment of escalating global tensions. About the Speaker: Dr Thant Myint-U is an award-winning author, historian, and international public servant. He has written five books, most recently Peacemaker: U Thant and the Forgotten Quest for a Just World (forthcoming September 2025). He was educated at Harvard and Cambridge Universities and taught history for several years as a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. He has also served on three United Nations peacekeeping operations (Cambodia 1992-3 and the former Yugoslavia 1994-6) and from 2000-2007 at the UN Secretariat in New York. From 2011-2021, he helped lead reform efforts in Myanmar, including as a presidential adviser, the Founding Chairman of the Yangon Heritage Trust, and the Chairman of U Thant House. He currently lives in Cambridge and is an Honorary Fellow of Trinity College.

Robert S. McNamara, who was Secretary of Defense during JFK and LBJ’s administrations, and one of the chief architects of the Vietnam war, made a shocking confession in his 1995 memoir. He said “We were wrong, terribly wrong.” McNamara believed this as early as 1965, that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. Yet, instead of urging U.S. forces to exit, he continued to preside over the war as President Lyndon B. Johnson’s principal wartime advisor. It would be eight more years until the United States officially withdrew from Vietnam. By then, 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese had lost their lives. Why did McNamara fight so hard to escalate a war that he’d soon realize was beyond winning? Why was he so loyal to LBJ, whom he’d later describe as “crude, mean, vindictive, scheming, and untruthful”? While these questions are personal, the answers are vital to our understanding of the Vietnam War and American foreign policy at large. Today’s guest is Philip Taubman, author of “McNamara Wat War: A New History.” We look at McNamara’s early life and how he epitomized the 20th-century technocratic 'whiz kid' through his Harvard-honed data analysis skills, which he applied to optimize the firebombing of Tokyo during WWII and later revolutionized Ford Motor Company as president, using statistical efficiency to drive innovation. His technocratic approach shaped U.S. strategy during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam War, where he relied on data-driven decision-making, though with mixed results, notably escalating Vietnam based on flawed metrics like body counts. We look at how ultimately, McNamara’s war was not only in Vietnam. He was also at war with himself—riven by melancholy, guilt, zealous loyalty, and a profound inability to admit his flawed thinking about Vietnam before it was too late.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Many people think that the closest the world ever came to nuclear war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  To be sure, that was a very tenuous point in history.  However, there is a good argument to be made that the closest the world has come to nuclear war actually took place in 1969. The reason most people are unaware of what happened is that it had nothing to do with the United States.  It was two other nuclear powers who almost went to war. Learn more about the 1969 Sino-Soviet Border Conflict, how it changed the course of the Cold War, and almost led to nuclear disaster on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. Sponsors Quince Go to quince.com/daily for 365-day returns, plus free shipping on your order! Mint Mobile Get your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com/eed Stash Go to get.stash.com/EVERYTHING to see how you can receive $25 towards your first stock purchase. Newspaper.com Go to Newspapers.com to get a gift subscription for the family historian in your life! Subscribe to the podcast!  https://everything-everywhere.com/everything-everywhere-daily-podcast/ -------------------------------- Executive Producer: Charles Daniel Associate Producers: Austin Oetken & Cameron Kieffer   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingeverywheredaily Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/  Disce aliquid novi cotidie Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Historian and grandson of third secretary-general of the United Nations U Thant, Thant Myint-U, discusses Peacemaker: U Thant and the Forgotten Quest for a Just World—how the UN once brokered real ceasefires (Cuban Missile Crisis, India-Pakistan 1965), why its stature faded, what decolonization changed, and Myanmar's present. A reminder that boring, grown-up diplomacy can beat laser eyes every time. Plus: the case against franchise-ified superhero "universes." Produced by Corey Wara Production Coordinator Ashley Khan Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠GIST INSTAGRAM⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow The Gist List at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pesca⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠

3pm: I Was Thinking: The Most Interesting Man in the World // This Day in History: 1962 - JFK’s address on Cuban Missile Crisis shocks the nation // “Butt breathing” might soon be a real medical treatment

This Day in Legal History: US Naval Blockade of CubaOn October 22, 1962, President John F. Kennedy delivered a televised address announcing that the United States would impose a naval “quarantine” on Cuba. This action followed the discovery of Soviet nuclear missile installations on the island, just 90 miles from U.S. shores. The announcement marked the beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a 13-day standoff that brought the world closer to nuclear war than ever before. In his address, Kennedy framed the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba as a direct threat to American national security and international peace. He warned that any nuclear missile launched from Cuba would be considered an attack by the Soviet Union, prompting a full retaliatory response.The legal foundation for the blockade, while not formally declared an act of war, was justified under the collective security framework of the Organization of American States (OAS). The U.S. sought and received OAS backing to frame the blockade as a multilateral action rather than a unilateral act of aggression. Over the next six days, the world watched as U.S. Navy ships encircled the island, intercepting Soviet vessels bound for Cuba. Behind the scenes, intense diplomatic negotiations unfolded between the White House and the Kremlin.Ultimately, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev agreed to dismantle the missile sites in exchange for a U.S. public pledge not to invade Cuba and a secret agreement to remove American missiles from Turkey. The crisis ended without military conflict, but it exposed the fragility of Cold War-era deterrence. The blockade, while effective, raised unresolved legal questions about executive war powers, international law, and the role of regional organizations in legitimizing force. It also led directly to the establishment of the “hotline” between Washington and Moscow and spurred negotiations for the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.President Donald Trump responded to reports that he is seeking $230 million from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for legal costs tied to federal investigations, stating he is not personally involved in the request but would donate any awarded money to charity. The New York Times reported that Trump is pursuing compensation, alleging the investigations against him were politically motivated. Trump claimed he has not been in direct contact with his lawyers about the matter but believes the DOJ owes him for what he called unfair treatment related to election interference investigations.Trump has filed two administrative claims—typically a precursor to a lawsuit. One challenges the FBI and special counsel's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The other concerns the FBI's 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago residence, during which classified documents were seized, and accuses the DOJ of malicious prosecution and privacy violations.The filings mark a notable reversal, as Trump now leads the federal government that previously investigated him. A DOJ spokesperson stated that any potential conflicts in reviewing the claims would be handled according to ethics guidance from career officials.Trump says Justice Department owes him money, vows to donate any payout to charity | ReutersThe state of Arizona has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. House of Representatives over the delay in swearing in Democrat Adelita Grijalva, who won a special election to replace her late father, Representative Raul Grijalva. Although Speaker Mike Johnson has said she will be sworn in when the House reconvenes, he has not called lawmakers back to Washington, citing the ongoing government shutdown and the Senate's failure to pass a resolution.Arizona Attorney General Kristin Mayes argues in the suit that the delay violates the Constitution by preventing a duly elected representative, who meets all legal qualifications, from assuming office. The state is asking a judge to recognize Grijalva as a House member upon taking the oath, even allowing someone other than Johnson to administer it if necessary.Speaker Johnson dismissed the lawsuit as “absurd,” insisting the House controls its own procedures and accusing Mayes of seeking publicity. With three vacancies, the current House makeup is 219 Republicans to 213 Democrats. Once sworn in, Grijalva would slightly narrow that margin to 219-214.Arizona contends the delay is politically motivated, aimed at stopping Grijalva from supporting a petition that would force a vote on a bill requiring the release of all unclassified documents related to Jeffrey Epstein from the Trump administration. Grijalva herself has accused Johnson of silencing her district to protect political allies and obstruct justice for Epstein survivors.Arizona sues US House over delay in swearing in Democrat Grijalva | ReutersApple has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a lower court ruling that restricts its ability to collect commissions on certain app purchases. The request follows a contempt finding by District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who ruled in April that Apple had violated her previous 2021 order by continuing to impose indirect restrictions on alternative payment systems for app developers. That earlier order came out of a lawsuit filed by Fortnite creator Epic Games, which sought to loosen Apple's control over in-app transactions.In the appeals hearing, Apple's attorney argued that the district judge went too far by expanding the original injunction, and insisted that Apple deserves to be compensated for developers' access to its ecosystem. Apple claims it followed the original court order but maintains it has a right to impose a fair commission, including on external purchases. After Apple removed prior restrictions, it introduced a new 27% fee on purchases made outside its App Store if the user clicked a link within the app—prompting Epic to argue that Apple is still undermining the court's intent.Judge Smith of the appellate panel expressed concern about the potential financial impact of the new injunction, suggesting the stakes run into billions of dollars. Epic's attorney countered that Apple shouldn't get another chance to justify its commission practices after allegedly misleading the lower court. The district judge also referred Apple and an executive to federal prosecutors for a potential criminal contempt investigation.A decision from the appeals court is expected in the coming months, and the case could reach the U.S. Supreme Court if further appealed.Apple asks US appeals court to lift app store restrictions in Epic Games case | ReutersSEC Chairman Paul Atkins is advancing a fast-track strategy to implement deregulatory changes without going through the full rulemaking process, which often takes a year or more and is vulnerable to legal challenges. Appointed under President Trump, Atkins is using policy statements, guidance memos, and interpretations of existing law to relax corporate disclosure rules, restrict shareholder proposals, and expand companies' ability to divert investor fraud claims into mandatory arbitration.For instance, the SEC recently issued guidance allowing companies to include arbitration clauses in their filings—avoiding formal rulemaking while significantly altering investor rights. Similarly, Atkins has encouraged companies to reject environmental and social shareholder proposals under Delaware law, without a formal vote by SEC commissioners. Critics, including Democratic Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw, argue this approach sidesteps transparency and due process.While Atkins plans to propose new rules on shareholder resolutions and corporate disclosures by April 2026, current changes are being made through interpretations and enforcement discretion. This comes amid a government shutdown that has furloughed most of the SEC's staff, further limiting the agency's capacity to pursue traditional rulemaking.Atkins has also voiced support for eliminating quarterly reporting and scaling back executive compensation disclosures. However, even if rules are adopted, their durability is uncertain. Previous SEC rules—such as Biden-era climate disclosures and Gensler-era hedge fund regulations—have faced legal reversals. Experts note that rules with bipartisan support and grounded in market efficiency are more likely to survive than politically motivated ones.SEC Chief Fast Tracks Agenda, Averting Slog Through Rule Changes This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Chuck Heinz and Jamie Lent talk about Oklahoma State football this weekend, the Cuban Missile crisis, coaching vs coaching, what game are you worried about most for Tech football, and Chuck talks Tennis.

One could argue the hey day of the United Nations was in the 1960's, when U Thant was the Secretary General, and working to appease both sides in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now his grandson, historian Thant Myint-U, has written a book about his grandfather, and what the current U.N. is lacking in leadership.

On October 22 1962, President John F. Kennedy announced that Soviet missiles has been discovered in Cuba. Over the following days, the fate of the Americas was on the line.In this episode, Don is joined once again by Renata Keller to explore the causes and events of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to discuss what might have happened had the situation not been resolved.Renata's new book 'The Fate of the Americas: The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Hemispheric Cold War' shows how this was not just a Soviet-US event. She explores how leaders and citizens throughout South America, the area at most risk from nuclear missiles, impacted on the events of October 1962.Edited by Aidan Lonergan. Produced by Sophie Gee. Senior Producer was Charlotte Long.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  You can take part in our listener survey here.All music from Epidemic Sounds.American History Hit is a History Hit podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Dustin and Renata explain their goal for the audiodocumentary: to teach listeners about the Cuban context of the Cuban Missile Crisis. They speak with Lars Schoultz, Lillian Guerra, William LeoGrande, Carlos Alzugaray, Lorraine Bayard de Volo, Michael Bustamante, and Michelle Chase about the deep history of Cuba's struggles for sovereignty that formed the backdrop of theCuban Revolution and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In this episode, Dustin and Renata explain their goal for the audiodocumentary: to teach listeners about the Cuban context of the Cuban Missile Crisis. They speak with Lars Schoultz, Lillian Guerra, William LeoGrande, Carlos Alzugaray, Lorraine Bayard de Volo, Michael Bustamante, and Michelle Chase about the deep history of Cuba's struggles for sovereignty that formed the backdrop of theCuban Revolution and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

What it means that the Department of War just revoked the press credentials for more than 100 media outlets. Why the China trade crisis is a self-imposed Cuban Missile Crisis that could nuke the global economy (China has predictable control of critical minerals). Trump's covert action authorization against Venezuela is part of Monroe Doctrine 2.0. Why the criminal charges against Ashley Tellis signal a more perilous age for foreign policy analysts. And what Gaza ceasefire does and does not mean. And why everyone but Matt looks forward to pumpkin-spice latte season. Subscribe to the Un-Diplomatic Newsletter: https://www.un-diplomatic.com/ Watch Un-Diplomatic Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@un-diplomaticpodcast Catch Un-Diplomatic on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/undiplomaticpodcast Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the individuals and not of any institutions.

For 13 days beginning on October 16, 1962 the world teetered on total nuclear destruction. Today, Dr. Renata Keller joins in to talk about the Cuban Missile Crisis, how it is depicted in the film 13 Days, and how the events played out in Latin America. This is a deep dive into arguably the most consequential two weeks in world history.About our guest:Dr. Renata Keller specializes in Latin American and Cold War history. Her second book, The Fate of the Americas: The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Hemispheric Cold War (UNC Press, 2025), uncovers how people and governments across the Americas caused, participated in, and were affected by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Her first book, Mexico's Cold War: Cuba, the United States, and the Legacy of the Mexican Revolution (Cambridge, 2015), explored how the Cuban Revolution transformed Mexico's domestic politics and international relations. It was awarded SECOLAS's Alfred B. Thomas Book Prize and honorable mentions for RMCLAS's Thomas McGann and Michael C. Meyer Prizes.She received her B.A. in History and Spanish from Arizona State University and her Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin. She taught international relations at Boston University for five years before joining the History Department at the University of Nevada in 2017. She has published journal articles in The Journal of Latin American Studies, The Journal of Cold War Studies, The Journal of Cold War History, The Latin American Research Review, Diplomatic History, Contexto Internacional, and Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos, as well as popular articles in History Today and The Washington Post. Her research has received funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Fulbright Foundation, the Social Science Research Council, the Philanthropic Educational Organization, the Kluge Center at the U.S. Library of Congress, the American Philosophical Society, and other institutions. She is co-editor of InterConnections: The Global Twentieth Century, a new book series at UNC Press that is home to innovative global, international, and transregional histories of the long twentieth century.She is also a dedicated educator. She teaches classes on modern Latin American history, Cuban history, the global Cold War, and drugs and security in the Americas. She also enjoys training the next generation of thinkers, historians, and history teachers in my classes on historical research and writing, historiography, historiography of the Americas, and her graduate research seminar on twentieth-century history.

Doctor Max Jacobson, whom the Secret Service under President John F. Kennedy code-named “Dr. Feelgood,” developed a unique “energy formula” that altered the paths of some of the twentieth century's most iconic figures, including President and Jackie Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, Frank Sinatra, and Elvis. JFK received his first injection (a special mix of “vitamins and hormones,” according to Jacobson) just before his first debate with Vice President Richard Nixon. The shot into JFK's throat not only cured his laryngitis, but also diminished the pain in his back, allowed him to stand up straighter, and invigorated the tired candidate. Kennedy demolished Nixon in that first debate and turned a tide of skepticism about Kennedy into an audience that appreciated his energy and crispness. What JFK didn't know then was that the injections were actually powerful doses of a combination of highly addictive liquid methamphetamine and steroids.Author and researcher Rick Lertzman and New York Times bestselling author Bill Birnes reveal heretofore unpublished material about the mysterious Dr. Feelgood. Through well-researched prose and interviews with celebrities including George Clooney, Jerry Lewis, Yogi Berra, and Sid Caesar, the authors reveal Jacobson's vast influence on events such as the assassination of JFK, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy-Khrushchev Vienna Summit, the murder of Marilyn Monroe, the filming of the C. B. DeMille classic The Ten Commandments, and the work of many of the great artists of that era. Jacobson destroyed the lives of several famous patients in the entertainment industry and accidentally killed his own wife, Nina, with an overdose of his formula.https://amzn.to/4okPHoVBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

From banging his shoe at the UN to launching Sputnik into space, Nikita Khrushchev was bold, unpredictable, and unforgettable.

In the early 1960s, the United Nations was regarded as Humankind's best hope for ending war. A peaceful world seemed possible. In Peacemaker, Thant Myint-U shows the forgotten role played by his grandfather, Secretary-General U Thant, in many of the pivotal confrontations of the twentieth century: from the Congo to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the 1967 Arab-Israel War to Vietnam. U Thant's tireless efforts gave voice to the newly decolonised world as he championed racial equality, environmental protection, and a fairer international economy, all while racing to prevent a third world war.

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,Artificial intelligence may prove to be one of the most transformative technologies in history, but like any tool, its immense power for good comes with a unique array of risks, both large and small.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I chat with Miles Brundage about extracting the most out of AI's potential while mitigating harms. We discuss the evolving expectations for AI development and how to reconcile with the technology's most daunting challenges.Brundage is an AI policy researcher. He is a non-resident fellow at the Institute for Progress, and formerly held a number of senior roles at OpenAI. He is also the author of his own Substack.In This Episode* Setting expectations (1:18)* Maximizing the benefits (7:21)* Recognizing the risks (13:23)* Pacing true progress (19:04)* Considering national security (21:39)* Grounds for optimism and pessimism (27:15)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Setting expectations (1:18)It seems to me like there are multiple vibe shifts happening at different cadences and in different directions.Pethokoukis: Earlier this year I was moderating a discussion between an economist here at AEI and a CEO of a leading AI company, and when I asked each of them how AI might impact our lives, our economists said, ‘Well, I could imagine, for instance, a doctor's productivity increasing because AI could accurately and deeply translate and transcribe an appointment with a patient in a way that's far better than what's currently available.” So that was his scenario. And then I asked the same question of the AI company CEO, who said, by contrast, “Well, I think within a decade, all human death will be optional thanks to AI-driven medical advances.” On that rather broad spectrum — more efficient doctor appointments and immortality — how do you see the potential of this technology?Brundage: It's a good question. I don't think those are necessarily mutually exclusive. I think, in general, AI can both augment productivity and substitute for human labor, and the ratio of those things is kind of hard to predict and might be very policy dependent and social-norm dependent. What I will say is that, in general, it seems to me like the pace of progress is very fast and so both augmentation and substitutions seem to be picking up steam.It's kind of interesting watching the debate between AI researchers and economists, and I have a colleague who has said that the AI researchers sometimes underestimate the practical challenges in deployment at scale. Conversely, the economists sometimes underestimate just how quickly the technology is advancing. I think there's maybe some happy middle to be found, or perhaps one of the more extreme perspectives is true. But personally, I am not an economist, I can't really speak to all of the details of substitution, and augmentation, and all the policy variables here, but what I will say is that at least the technical potential for very significant amounts of augmentation of human labor, as well as substitution for human labor, seem pretty likely on even well less than 10 years — but certainly within 10 years things will change a lot.It seems to me that the vibe has shifted a bit. When I talk to people from the Bay Area and I give them the Washington or Wall Street economist view, to them I sound unbelievably gloomy and cautious. But it seems the vibe has shifted, at least recently, to where a lot of people think that major advancements like superintelligence are further out than they previously thought — like we should be viewing AI as an important technology, but more like what we've seen before with the Internet and the PC.It's hard for me to comment. It seems to me like there are multiple vibe shifts happening at different cadences and in different directions. It seems like several years ago there was more of a consensus that what people today would call AGI was decades away or more, and it does seem like that kind of timeframe has shifted closer to the present. There there's still debate between the “next few years” crowd versus the “more like 10 years” crowd. But that is a much narrower range than we saw several years ago when there was a wider range of expert opinions. People who used to be seen as on one end of the spectrum, for example, Gary Marcus and François Chollet who were seen as kind of the skeptics of AI progress, even they now are saying, “Oh, it's like maybe 10 years or so, maybe five years for very high levels of capability.” So I think there's been some compression in that respect. That's one thing that's going on.There's also a way in which people are starting to think less abstractly and more concretely about the applications of AI and seeing it less as this kind of mysterious thing that might happen suddenly and thinking of it more as incremental, more as something that requires some work to apply in various parts of the economy that there's some friction associated with.Both of these aren't inconsistent, they're just kind of different vibe shifts that are happening. So getting back to the question of is this just a normal technology, I would say that, at the very least, it does seem faster in some respects than some other technological changes that we've seen. So I think ChatGPT's adoption going from zero to double-digit percentages of use across many professions in the US and in a matter of high number of months, low number of years, is quite stark.Would you be surprised if, five years from now, we viewed AI as something much more important than just another incremental technological advance, something far more transformative than technologies that have come before?No, I wouldn't be surprised by that at all. If I understand your question correctly, my baseline expectation is that it will be seen as one of the most important technologies ever. I'm not sure that there's a standard consensus on how to rate the internet versus electricity, et cetera, but it does seem to me like it's of the same caliber of electricity in the sense of essentially converting one kind of energy into various kinds of useful economic work. Similarly, AI is converting various types of electricity into cognitive work, and I think that's a huge deal.Maximizing the benefits (7:21)There's also a lot of value being left on the table in terms of finding new ways to exploit the upsides and accelerate particularly beneficial applications.However you want to define society or the aspect of society that you focus on — government businesses, individuals — are we collectively doing what we need to do to fully exploit the upsides of this technology over the next half-decade to decade, as well as minimizing potential downsides?I think we are not, and this is something that I sometimes find frustrating about the way that the debate plays out is that there's sometimes this zero-sum mentality of doomers versus boomers — a term that Karen Hao uses — and this idea that there's this inherent tension between mitigating the risks and maximizing the benefits, and there are some tensions, but I don't think that we are on the Pareto frontier, so to speak, of those issues.Right now, I think there's a lot of value being left on the table in terms of fairly low-cost risk mitigations. There's also a lot of value being left on the table in terms of finding new ways to exploit the upsides and accelerate particularly beneficial applications. I'll give just one example, because I write a lot about the risk, but I also am very interested in maximizing the upside. So I'll just give one example: Protecting critical infrastructure and improving the cybersecurity of various parts of critical infrastructure in the US. Hospitals, for example, get attacked with ransomware all the time, and this causes real harm to patients because machines get bricked, essentially, and they have one or two people on the IT team, and they're kind of overwhelmed by these, not even always that sophisticated, but perhaps more-sophisticated hackers. That's a huge problem. It matters for national security in addition to patients' lives, and it matters for national security in the sense that this is something that China and Russia and others could hold at risk in the context of a war. They could threaten this critical infrastructure as part of a bargaining strategy.And I don't think that there's that much interest in helping hospitals have a better automated cybersecurity engineer helper among the Big Tech companies — because there aren't that many hospital administrators. . . I'm not sure if it would meet the technical definition of market failure, but it's at least a national security failure in that it's a kind of fragmented market. There's a water plant here, a hospital administrator there.I recently put out a report with the Institute for Progress arguing that philanthropists and government could put some additional gasoline in the tank of cybersecurity by incentivizing innovation that specifically helps these under-resourced defenders more so than the usual customers of cybersecurity companies like Fortune 500 companies.I'm confident that companies and entrepreneurs will figure out how to extract value from AI and create new products and new services, barring any regulatory slowdowns. But since you mentioned low-hanging fruit, what are some examples of that?I would say that transparency is one of the areas where a lot of AI policy experts seem to be in pretty strong agreement. Obviously there is still some debate and disagreement about the details of what should be required, but just to give you some illustration, it is typical for the leading AI companies, sometimes called frontier AI companies, to put out some kind of documentation about the safety steps that they've taken. It's typical for them to say, here's our safety strategy and here's some evidence that we're following this strategy. This includes things like assessing whether their systems can be used for cyber-attacks, and assessing whether they could be used to create biological weapons, or assessing the extent to which they make up facts and make mistakes, but state them very confidently in a way that could pose risks to users of the technology.That tends to be totally voluntary, and there started to be some momentum as a result of various voluntary commitments that were made in recent years, but as the technology gets more high-stakes, and there's more cutthroat competition, and there's maybe more lawsuits where companies might be tempted to retreat a bit in terms of the information that they share, I think that things could kind of backslide, and at the very least not advance as far as I would like from the perspective of making sure that there's sharing of lessons learned from one company to another, as well as making sure that investors and users of the technology can make informed decisions about, okay, do I purchase the services of OpenAI, or Google, or Anthropic, and making these informed decisions, making informed capital investment seems to require transparency to some degree.This is something that is actively being debated in a few contexts. For example, in California there's a bill that has that and a few other things called SB-53. But in general, we're at a bit of a fork in the road in terms of both how certain regulations will be implemented such as in the EU. Is it going to become actually an adaptive, nimble approach to risk mitigation or is it going to become a compliance checklist that just kind of makes big four accounting firms richer? So there are questions then there are just “does the law pass or not?” kind of questions here.Recognizing the risks (13:23). . . I'm sure there'll be some things that we look back on and say it's not ideal, but in my opinion, it's better to do something that is as informed as we can do, because it does seem like there are these kind of market failures and incentive problems that are going to arise if we do nothing . . .In my probably overly simplistic way of looking at it, I think of two buckets and you have issues like, are these things biased? Are they giving misinformation? Are they interacting with young people in a way that's bad for their mental health? And I feel like we have a lot of rules and we have a huge legal system for liability that can probably handle those.Then, in the other bucket, are what may, for the moment, be science-fictional kinds of existential risks, whether it's machines taking over or just being able to give humans the ability to do very bad things in a way we couldn't before. Within that second bucket, I think, it sort of needs to be flexible. Right now, I'm pretty happy with voluntary standards, and market discipline, and maybe the government creating some benchmarks, but I can imagine the technology advancing to where the voluntary aspect seems less viable and there might need to be actual mandates about transparency, or testing, or red teaming, or whatever you want to call it.I think that's a reasonable distinction, in the sense that there are risks at different scales, there are some that are kind of these large-scale catastrophic risks and might have lower likelihood but higher magnitude of impact. And then there are things that are, I would say, literally happening millions of times a day like ChatGPT making up citations to articles that don't exist, or Claud saying that it fixed your code but actually it didn't fix the code and the user's too lazy to notice, and so forth.So there are these different kinds of risks. I personally don't make a super strong distinction between them in terms of different time horizons, precisely because I think things are going so quickly. I think science fiction is becoming science fact very much sooner than many people expected. But in any case, I think that similar logic around, let's make sure that there's transparency even if we don't know exactly what the right risk thresholds are, and we want to allow a fair degree of flexibility and what measures companies take.It seems good that they share what they're doing and, in my opinion, ideally go another step further and allow third parties to audit their practices and make sure that if they say, “Well, we did a rigorous test for hallucination or something like that,” that that's actually true. And so that's what I would like to see for both what you might call the mundane and the more science fiction risks. But again, I think it's kind of hard to say how things will play out, and different people have different perspectives on these things. I happen to be on the more aggressive end of the spectrumI am worried about the spread of the apocalyptic, high-risk AI narrative that we heard so much about when ChatGPT first rolled out. That seems to have quieted, but I worry about it ramping up again and stifling innovation in an attempt to reduce risk.These are very fair concerns, and I will say that there are lots of bills and laws out there that have, in fact, slowed down innovation and certain contexts. The EU, I think, has gone too far in some areas around social media platforms. I do think at least some of the state bills that have been floated would lead to a lot of red tape and burdens to small businesses. I personally think this is avoidable.There are going to be mistakes. I don't want to be misleading about how high quality policymakers' understanding of some of these issues are. There will be mistakes, even in cases where, for example, in California there was a kind of blue ribbon commission of AI experts producing a report over several months, and then that directly informing legislation, and a lot of industry back and forth and negotiation over the details. I would say that's probably the high water mark, SB-53, of fairly stakeholder/expert-informed legislation. Even there, I'm sure there'll be some things that we look back on and say it's not ideal, but in my opinion, it's better to do something that is as informed as we can do, because it does seem like there are these kind of market failures and incentive problems that are going to arise if we do nothing, such as companies retrenching and holding back information that makes it hard for the field as a whole to tackle these issues.I'll just make one more point, which is adapting to the compliance capability of different companies: How rich are they? How expensive are the models they're training, I think is a key factor in the legislation that I tend to be more sympathetic to. So just to make a contrast, there's a bill in Colorado that was kind of one size fits all, regulate all the kind of algorithms, and that, I think, is very burdensome to small businesses. I think something like SB-53 where it says, okay, if you can afford to train an AI system for a $100 million, you can probably afford to put out a dozen pages about your safety and security practices.Pacing true progress (19:04). . . some people . . . kind of wanted to say, “Well, things are slowing down.” But in my opinion, if you look at more objective measures of progress . . . there's quite rapid progress happening still.Hopefully Grok did not create this tweet of yours, but if it did, well, there we go. You won't have to answer it, but I just want to understand what you meant by it: “A lot of AI safety people really, really want to find evidence that we have a lot of time for AGI.” What does that mean?What I was trying to get at is that — and I guess this is not necessarily just AI safety people, but I sometimes kind of try to poke at people in my social network who I'm often on the same side of, but also try to be a friendly critic to, and that includes people who are working on AI safety. I think there's a common tendency to kind of grasp at what I would consider straws when reading papers and interpreting product launches in a way that kind of suggests, well, we've hit a wall, AI is slowing down, this was a flop, who cares?I'm doing my kind of maybe uncharitable psychoanalysis. What I was getting at is that I think one reason why some people might be tempted to do that is that it makes things seem easier and less scary: “Well, we don't have to worry about really powerful AI enabled cyber-attacks for another five years, or biological weapons for another two years, or whatever.” Maybe, maybe not.I think the specific example that sparked that was GPT-5 where there were a lot of people who, in my opinion, were reading the tea leaves in a particular way and missing important parts of the context. For example, at GPT-5 wasn't a much larger or more expensive-to-train model than GPT-4, which may be surprising by the name. And I think OpenAI did kind of screw up the naming and gave people the wrong impression, but from my perspective, there was nothing particularly surprising, but to some people it was kind of a flop that they kind of wanted to say, “Well, things are slowing down.” But in my opinion, if you look at more objective measures of progress like scores on math, and coding, and the reduction in the rate of hallucinations, and solving chemistry and biology problems, and designing new chips, and so forth, there's quite rapid progress happening still.Considering national security (21:39)I want to avoid a scenario like the Cuban Missile Crisis or ways in which that could have been much worse than the actual Cuban Missile Crisis happening as a result of AI and AGI.I'm not sure if you're familiar with some of the work being done by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who's been doing a lot of work on national security and AI, and his work, it doesn't use the word AGI, but it talks about AI certainly smart enough to be able to have certain capabilities which our national security establishment should be aware of, should be planning, and those capabilities, I think to most people, would seem sort of science fictional: being able to launch incredibly sophisticated cyber-attacks, or be able to improve itself, or be able to create some other sort of capabilities. And from that, I'm like, whether or not you think that's possible, to me, the odds of that being possible are not zero, and if they're not zero, some bit of the bandwidth of the Pentagon should be thinking about that. I mean, is that sensible?Yeah, it's totally sensible. I'm not going to argue with you there. In fact, I've done some collaboration with the Rand Corporation, which has a pretty heavy investment in what they call the geopolitics of AGI and kind of studying what are the scenarios, including AI and AGI being used to produce “wonder weapons” and super-weapons of some kind.Basically, I think this is super important and in fact, I have a paper coming out that was in collaboration with some folks there pretty soon. I won't spoil all the details, but if you search “Miles Brundage US China,” you'll see some things that I've discussed there. And basically my perspective is we need to strike a balance between competing vigorously on the commercial side with countries like China and Russia on AI — more so China, Russia is less of a threat on the commercial side, at least — and also making sure that we're fielding national security applications of AI in a responsible way, but also recognizing that there are these ways in which things could spiral out of control in a scenario with totally unbridled competition. I want to avoid a scenario like the Cuban Missile Crisis or ways in which that could have been much worse than the actual Cuban Missile Crisis happening as a result of AI and AGI.If you think that, again, the odds are not zero that a technology which is fast-evolving, that we have no previous experience with because it's fast-evolving, could create the kinds of doomsday scenarios that there's new books out about, people are talking about. And so if you think, okay, not a zero percent chance that could happen, but it is kind of a zero percent chance that we're going to stop AI, smash the GPUs, as someone who cares about policy, are you just hoping for the best, or are the kinds of things we've already talked about — transparency, testing, maybe that testing becoming mandatory at some point — is that enough?It's hard to say what's enough, and I agree that . . . I don't know if I give it zero, maybe if there's some major pandemic caused by AI and then Xi Jinping and Trump get together and say, okay, this is getting out of control, maybe things could change. But yeah, it does seem like continued investment and a large-scale deployment of AI is the most likely scenario.Generally, the way that I see this playing out is that there are kind of three pillars of a solution. There's kind of some degree of safety and security standards. Maybe we won't agree on everything, but we should at least be able to agree that you don't want to lose control of your AI system, you don't want it to get stolen, you don't want a $10 billion AI system to be stolen by a $10 million-scale hacking effort. So I think there are sensible standards you can come up with around safety and security. I think you can have evidence produced or required that companies are following these things. That includes transparency.It also includes, I would say, third-party auditing where there's kind of third parties checking the claims and making sure that these standards are being followed, and then you need some incentives to actually participate in this regime and follow it. And I think the incentives part is tricky, particularly at an international scale. What incentive does China have to play ball other than obviously they don't want to have their AI kill them or overthrow their government or whatever? So where exactly are the interests aligned or not? Is there some kind of system of export control policies or sanctions or something that would drive compliance or is there some other approach? I think that's the tricky part, but to me, those are kind of the rough outlines of a solution. Maybe that's enough, but I think right now it's not even really clear what the rough rules of the road are, who's playing by the rules, and we're relying a lot on goodwill and voluntary reporting. I think we could do better, but is that enough? That's harder to say.Grounds for optimism and pessimism (27:15). . . it seems to me like there is at least some room for learning from experience . . . So in that sense, I'm more optimistic. . . I would say, in another respect, I'm maybe more pessimistic in that I am seeing value being left on the table.Did your experience at OpenAI make you more or make you more optimistic or worried that, when we look back 10 years from now, that AI will have, overall on net, made the world a better place?I am sorry to not give you a simpler answer here, and maybe think I should sit on this one and come up with a kind of clearer, more optimistic or more pessimistic answer, but I'll give you kind of two updates in different directions, and I think they're not totally inconsistent.I would say that I have gotten more optimistic about the solvability of the problem in the following sense. I think that things were very fuzzy five, 10 years ago, and when I joined OpenAI almost seven years now ago now, there was a lot of concern that it could kind of come about suddenly — that one day you don't have AI, the next day you have AGI, and then on the third day you have artificial superintelligence and so forth.But we don't live to see the fourth day.Exactly, and so it seems more gradual to me now, and I think that is a good thing. It also means that — and this is where I differ from some of the more extreme voices in terms of shutting it all down — it seems to me like there is at least some room for learning from experience, iterating, kind of taking the lessons from GPT-5 and translating them into GPT-6, rather than it being something that we have to get 100 percent right on the first shot and there being no room for error. So in that sense, I'm more optimistic.I would say, in another respect, I'm maybe more pessimistic in that I am seeing value being left on the table. It seems to me like, as I said, we're not on the Pareto frontier. It seems like there are pretty straightforward things that could be done for a very small fraction of, say, the US federal budget, or very small fraction of billionaires' personal philanthropy or whatever. That in my opinion, would dramatically reduce the likelihood of an AI-enabled pandemic or various other issues, and would dramatically increase the benefits of AI.It's been a bit sad to continuously see those opportunities being neglected. I hope that as AI becomes more of a salient issue to more people and people start to appreciate, okay, this is a real thing, the benefits are real, the risks are real, that there will be more of a kind of efficient policy market and people take those opportunities, but right now it seems pretty inefficient to me. That's where my pessimism comes from. It's not that it's unsolvable, it's just, okay, from a political economy and kind of public-choice perspective, are the policymakers going to make the right decisions?On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Her Service: the Cold War dives into the 44-year history of the Cold War, a tense standoff between two global superpowers. Host Jonathan Kaupanger uses a mix of historical facts, unconventional analogies, and humor to describe this era as a "white-knuckled staring contest." The episode, featuring military historian and retired U.S. Army Colonel Christine Cook, shines a spotlight on the often-overlooked but vital contributions of American women veterans. Cook discusses the careers of Generals Mary Clarke and Elizabeth P. Hoisington, trailblazers who challenged gender norms and carved out new roles for women in the military. Additionally, the podcast explores the stories of intelligence heroes like Juanita Moody, a key figure in averting the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the women of the top-secret Venona project, who were crucial to exposing Soviet spies. Ultimately, the episode reveals how these women's quiet bravery and intellectual prowess were instrumental in shaping the course of the Cold War and securing a safer future.

As world leaders gather for the 80th UN General Assembly, we're digging into the past to illuminate the present. What UN reforms are needed? Historian Thant Myint-U talks about how the UN became sidetracked from genuine multilateralism, where it should focus, and why the selection of the next secretary-general in 2026 is crucial. Guest: Thant Myint-U, historian and author of “Peacemaker: U Thant and the Forgotten Quest for a Just World.” ____ Got a question or feedback? Email podcast@thenewhumanitarian.org or post on social media using the hashtag #RethinkingHumanitarianism. ____ SHOW NOTES Peacemaker: U Thant and the Forgotten Quest for a Just World. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror UN 80 UN General Assembly High-level Week 2025

Without a doubt the closest the planet has come to nuclear war occurred between October 16th-28th 1962. The Cold War was at its peak. Brought there by the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion about 18 months earlier by "Cuban Exiles", with pretty obvious support from the United States. With nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey and Italy the U.S. had a huge advantage over the Soviet Union if it ever came to the first strike in an atomic conflict. Cuba and the Soviet Union decided nuclear strike parody was fair and thus began the process of moving nuclear capable missiles into Cuba and within 100 miles of Florida. Constant surveillance of Cuba by the United States discovered nuclear launch sites being constructed putting John F. Kennedy into a situation with razor thin margins for error. For 13 days the world stood on the brink, with JFK and Nikita Khrushchev playing a game of chess with nuclear annihilation as the stakes. So many things should have gone wrong, so what ended up going right? Join us this week as we get Historically High on The Cuban Missile Crisis. Support the show

Eric revisits X-Men: First Class, the sharp, stylish prequel that redefined the X-Men without Wolverine at the center. Set during the Cuban Missile Crisis, this 2011 film explores the fragile brotherhood between Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, the tragedy of Darwin, Mystique's choice, and Kevin Bacon's underrated turn as Sebastian Shaw. Why does this film still hold up over a decade later? And what lessons should Marvel Studios take as mutants prepare to join the MCU? Plus: updates on Marvel Maniac itself, including the Apple Podcasts victory and what's next for the show.

How to bring peace to Gaza and Ukraine? Maybe the United Nations can help. Or, sadly, maybe not. But there really was a time, in the second half of the 20th century, when the United Nations could help bring peace to supposedly insoluble wars. The U.N.'s glory days were in the Sixties when it was run by a former Burmese school teacher called U Thant. His incredible story is told by his grandson, the Cambridge University historian Thant Myint-U, in a new book appropriately called Peacemaker. Thant Myint-U reminds us of a halcyon time when the UN Secretary-General could summon presidents at will, mediate between nuclear superpowers, and command respect from Castro to Kennedy. Today's forgotten history reveals how U Thant's intervention during the Cuban Missile Crisis helped prevent nuclear war—a role not-so-surprisingly airbrushed from most American and Soviet accounts. Yes, even in the glory years of the Sixties, the bureaucratized U.N. was far from perfect. But under a dedicated peacemaker like U-Thant it could help bring ceasefires to seemingly endless wars. Like in Ukraine and Gaza. 1. U Thant's crucial role in preventing nuclear war has been erased from history During the Cuban Missile Crisis, U Thant provided the face-saving framework that allowed both Khrushchev and Kennedy to step back from the brink. He articulated the missiles-for-no-invasion deal, gave Khrushchev a neutral party to respond to instead of American ultimatums, and bought Kennedy time against his hawkish advisors. Yet this intervention barely appears in American or Soviet accounts.2. The UN's decline stems from lost enthusiasm on both sides The UN's marginalization wasn't inevitable. It resulted from America's disillusionment after Vietnam-era challenges to its power, combined with a new generation of Third World leaders less interested in the global stage than their predecessors like Nehru, Nasser, and Nkrumah. Both superpowers and smaller nations stopped investing in the institution.3. Decolonization needed the UN's framework to succeed Without the UN providing a structure where newly independent nations had equal status and a voice, decolonization might have resulted in continued informal empire or Commonwealth arrangements. The UN gave these countries both legitimacy and a platform to resist neo-colonial pressures.4. The next Secretary-General selection could determine the UN's survival With the current term ending in 2025, the choice of the next leader—requiring agreement between Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping—may be the UN's last chance for relevance. Without strong leadership focused on the UN's core peacemaking function, the institution may not survive.5. The UN worked best when it rejected Cold War binary thinking The non-aligned movement wasn't passive neutrality but active rejection of a world divided into camps. Leaders like U Thant succeeded by creating space for all parties to negotiate without choosing sides, offering an alternative to the superpower confrontation that risked nuclear war.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Get Your SUPER-SUPPLIMENTS HERE: https://vni.life/wam Use Code WAM15 & Save 15%! Life changing formulas you can't find anywhere else! HELP SUPPORT US AS WE DOCUMENT HISTORY HERE: https://gogetfunding.com/help-keep-wam-alive/# GET NON-MRNA FREEZE DRIED MEAT HERE: https://wambeef.com/ Use code WAMBEEF to save 20%! GET HEIRLOOM SEEDS & NON GMO SURVIVAL FOOD HERE: https://heavensharvest.com/ USE Code WAM to save 5% plus free shipping! Josh Sigurdson reports on the calls by the Trump Administration to strike Mexico with military drones and missiles in order to hit the cartels which were largely armed and funded by the US government in the first place. This puts millions of innocent Mexicans in danger and would also cause mass migration. As Bolivian President Luis Arce claimed recently, the United States is masking their attempt to control Latin America with a drug war. Trump recently ordered the Pentagon to deploy three warships against Latin American drug cartels along the South American coast, including outside of Venezuela. There are many claiming he might target Maduro directly with military strikes. Meanwhile, as the DEA announces a joint program with Mexico to go after cartels, Claudia Sheinbaum, the Mexican President claims there is no such program. The Trump Administration is also drawing up plans to attack Mexico, calling for drone airstrikes against cartels which would cause chaos up north as well as within Mexico. This was planned long ago. The CIA armed and funded groups that Trump is targeting would only lead to further chaos along the border while endangering millions of innocent, family oriented and largely conservative Mexicans. We've seen the same tactics used in the Middle East for years. As we've warned of for years at WAM, the US government will frame Mexico for "working with" Russia, China and/or Iran in an attempt to bring war to the land border and perpetuate warfare. With military parades in Monterrey with Chinese and Russian troops as well as the US government claiming cartels are being run by Iran, the false but dangerous narrative is growing in scope. People should not believe it. It is the new Cuban Missile Crisis. All part of an attempt to bring order out of chaos and bring in a new technocratic order. Stay tuned for more from WAM! GET YOUR WAV WATCH HERE: https://buy.wavwatch.com/WAM Use Code WAM to save $100 and purchase amazing healing frequency technology! Get local, healthy, pasture raised meat delivered to your door here: https://wildpastures.com/promos/save-20-for-life/bonus15?oid=6&affid=321 USE THE LINK & get 20% off for life and $15 off your first box! DITCH YOUR DOCTOR! https://www.livelongerformula.com/wam Get a natural health practitioner and work with Christian Yordanov! Mention WAM and get a FREE masterclass! You will ALSO get a FREE metabolic function assessment! GET YOUR APRICOT SEEDS at the life-saving Richardson Nutritional Center HERE: https://rncstore.com/r?id=bg8qc1 Use code JOSH to save money! BUY GOLD HERE: https://firstnationalbullion.com/schedule-consult/ Avoid CBDCs! SIGN UP FOR HOMESTEADING COURSES NOW: https://freedomfarmers.com/link/17150/ Get Prepared & Start The Move Towards Real Independence With Curtis Stone's Courses! GET ORGANIC CHAGA MUSHROOMS HERE: https://alaskachaga.com/wam Use code WAM to save money! See shop for a wide range of products! GET AMAZING MEAT STICKS HERE: https://4db671-1e.myshopify.com/discount/WAM?rfsn=8425577.918561&utm_source=refersion&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=8425577.918561 USE CODE WAM TO SAVE MONEY! GET YOUR FREEDOM KELLY KETTLE KIT HERE: https://patriotprepared.com/shop/freedom-kettle/ Use Code WAM and enjoy many solutions for the outdoors in the face of the impending reset! PayPal: ancientwonderstelevision@gmail.com FIND OUR CoinTree page here: https://cointr.ee/joshsigurdson PURCHASE MERECHANDISE HERE: https://world-alternative-media.creator-spring.com/ JOIN US on SubscribeStar here: https://www.subscribestar.com/world-alternative-media For subscriber only content! Pledge here! Just a dollar a month can help us alive! https://www.patreon.com/user?u=2652072&ty=h&u=2652072 BITCOIN ADDRESS: 18d1WEnYYhBRgZVbeyLr6UfiJhrQygcgNU World Alternative Media 2025

The world watches as President Trump meets with Russian President Vladmir Putin in a high stakes summit in Alaska to discuss the future of the Ukraine War. Michael Savage speaks with Jeff Rovin, a renowned novelist behind some of the top selling Tom Clancy novels. Savage and Rovin speculate on how the war will come to an end. They discuss Rovin's 2017 novel 'The Dark Zone,' which eerily predicted the invasion of Ukraine. The conversation delves into historical comparisons, including Vladimir Putin's desire to reassemble the Soviet Union and the impacts of political moves, as seen in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Additionally, the discussion touches on misinformation, the difficulty of separating propaganda from reality, and the influence of media narratives. They also reflect on the societal and psychological effects of continuous global crises, including the parallels with past fears during the Cold War era.

The Lockheed U-2 spy plane on its 70th anniversary, Boeing workers strike the St. Louis plant, the NTSB hearing on the DCA mid-air collision, and Injuries due to air turbulence. Also, Micah and Capt. Dana meet up and record the conversation, and news about this year's Cranky Dorkfest. Aviation News U-2 Just Set New Records On The 70th Anniversary Of Its First Flight Lockheed proposed the U-2 Dragon Lady spy plane in 1953, it was approved in 1954, and its first test flight took place in 1955, seventy years ago. According to ATC radio traffic, the U-2 just set several records, including an “endurance record for category and class for aircraft.” During the Cold War era, the U-2 flew over the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, and Cuba. Gary Powers was shot down in a CIA U-2 by a surface-to-air missile over the Soviet Union in 1960. Major Rudolf Anderson Jr. was shot down in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. U-2 Dragon Lady, courtesy Lockheed Martin. ‘Double Trouble' Boeing F-47 NGAD Problems the Air Force Never Saw Coming The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) recommended that members accept Boeing's four-year contract offer for the St. Louis plant. Instead, union membership voted to authorize a strike, potentially disrupting the production of Boeing aircraft. IAM District 837 Members in St. Louis Reject Latest Boeing Offer, Strike for Fair Contract Approximately 3,200 highly-skilled IAM Union members at Boeing facilities in St. Louis voted to reject a modified four-year labor agreement with Boeing. This vote follows members' rejection of Boeing's earlier proposal on Sunday, July 27. See also: Boeing Strike Begins Monday After Negotiations Fail and More than 3,000 Boeing defense workers go on strike after rejecting contract. FAA planning more helicopter route changes after fatal collision At a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)  investigative hearing, the FAA said additional changes will be made to a key helicopter route near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. This follows restrictions imposed in March and June. At the hearing, NTSB officials expressed concerns about the FAA failing to turn over documents in a timely manner, inaction by the agency after earlier reports of close calls, and a "disconnect" between controllers and FAA leaders. Turbulent SLC flight passengers likely entitled to up to $250k for damages, aviation attorney says “An aviation attorney says passengers on the Delta flight could be entitled to $250K in compensation.” The turbulence was encountered on a Delta Airbus A330-900 flying from Salt Lake City to Amsterdam. The plane diverted to Minneapolis, and 25 passengers and crew members were hospitalized. Dinner With Dana Captain Dana, an A320 family pilot, visited with Micah and talked about flying, his background, and how he traveled to Maine. Captain Dana and our Main(e) Man Micah. Mentioned NTSB News Talk - Reagan National Midair NTSB Hearing Day 1: Army Black Hawk & Regional Jet Crash Testimony Reagan National Midair NTSB Hearing Day 2: Army Black Hawk & CRJ-700 Testimony It is Time to RSVP for Cranky Dorkfest (Yes, You Need to RSVP This Year) Sustainable Skies World Summit 2026: Save the Date! - 17–18 March 2026, Farnborough International Exhibition & Conference Centre, UK. Hosts this Episode Max Flight, our Main(e) Man Micah, Rob Mark, and David Vanderhoof.

MOSCOW VS DC NUCLEAR BRINKSMANSHIP & ITS UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS:  8/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis. 1962

MOSCOW VS DC NUCLEAR BRINKSMANSHIP & ITS UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS:  1/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis. 1962

MOSCOW VS DC NUCLEAR BRINKSMANSHIP & ITS UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS: 2/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis.

MOSCOW VS DC NUCLEAR BRINKSMANSHIP & ITS UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS:  3/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis.

MOSCOW VS DC NUCLEAR BRINKSMANSHIP & ITS UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS:  4/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis. 1962

MOSCOW VS DC NUCLEAR BRINKSMANSHIP & ITS UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS: 5/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis.

MOSCOW VS DC NUCLEAR BRINKSMANSHIP & ITS UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS: 6/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis.

MOSCOW VS DC NUCLEAR BRINKSMANSHIP & ITS UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS:  78:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis.

Dive into the extraordinary life of Harald Malmgren, a 27-year-old “whiz kid” who played a pivotal role in averting nuclear disaster during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Tasked by President JFK and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to outmaneuver General Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay, Malmgren bought critical time for diplomacy. His remarkable career didn't stop there—he advised Presidents LBJ, Nixon, and Ford, built relationships with global leaders like Vladimir Putin and every Japanese Prime Minister since the 1970s, and worked alongside luminaries like Howard Baker, George Shultz, and Nobel Prize winners Tom Schelling and Sir John Hicks. With unparalleled Q Clearances, Malmgren was entrusted with secrets few others could access.In this gripping episode, we uncover Malmgren's revelations about UFOs and extraterrestrial phenomena:His handling of mysterious UAP material from the 1962 Bluegill Triple Prime nuclear test, handed to him by Atomic Energy Commission director Lawrence Preston Gise.Briefings from CIA's Richard Bissell, the architect of Area 51, on “otherworld technologies” and historic crash retrievals, including the 1933 Magenta crash in Italy.Classified intelligence on antigravity research involving Tesla and Thomas Townsend Brown.A chilling deathbed confession to his daughter Pippa about UFO crash survivors, including footage of a surviving extraterrestrial from Roswell.Malmgren's belief that JFK's knowledge of UFOs, rooted in his Naval Intelligence days, and his push for Soviet collaboration on space and denuclearization may have contributed to his assassination.His rare mention of the secretive “Majestic” group, an elite circle overseeing the UFO issue, which tracked him from a young age.Harald Malmgren was a hero who saved the world from catastrophe and navigated a shadowy realm of secrets. His untold story, filled with courage and conviction, challenges world leaders to pause and reflect on the dangers of global brinkmanship. Tune in to explore the legacy of a man who walked among giants—and perhaps beings from beyond.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/total-disclosure-ufos-coverups-conspiracy--5975113/support.

Welcome to a new type of episode I'm calling Cold War Short Stories — a collection of stories from our listeners and social media followers. These are fascinating Cold War tales that may not fill a full episode, but are far too good to leave untold. So keep them coming! Your Cold War memories, or those of a loved one, are part of history. Share them with us! If you have a story to share, whether in text or audio form, you can send it to me at ian "at" coldwarconversations.com. In this first edition, we've got a brilliant mix: a memory from the Cuban Missile Crisis, a chance encounter with a Cold War legend, a 13-year-old's unexpected flight behind the Iron Curtain, some poignant family reflections from the Korean War, and a visitor's eerie timing as they arrived in Ukraine just as the Chernobyl disaster was unfolding. Links. Robin Stock's web site https://theextraordinarylivesofordinarypeople0.wordpress.com/cuba-rockets-and-me/ Russell Phillips web site https://russellphillips.uk/ Article about Russell's story  https://coldwarconversations.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Saga-June-2000.pdf Episode extras ⁠https://coldwarconversations.com/episode413⁠ The fight to preserve Cold War history continues and via a simple monthly donation, you will give me the ammunition to continue to preserve Cold War history. You'll become part of our community, get ad-free episodes, and get a sought-after CWC coaster as a thank you and you'll bask in the warm glow of knowing you are helping to preserve Cold War history. Just go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If a monthly contribution is not your cup of tea, we welcome one-off donations via the same link. Find the ideal gift for the Cold War enthusiast in your life! Just go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://coldwarconversations.com/store/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow us on BlueSky ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bsky.app/profile/coldwarpod.bsky.social⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow us on Threads ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.threads.net/@coldwarconversations⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow us on Twitter ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/ColdWarPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Facebook ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldwarpod/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/coldwarconversations/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Youtube ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://youtube.com/@ColdWarConversations⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Love history? Join Intohistory ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://intohistory.com/coldwarpod⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last Resort Beyond Last Resort: The JFK Assassination, The Need to Protect West Berlin, and Why a Second Invasion of Cuba Never HappenedJohn F. Kennedy was an embattled president. He was consistently at odds with the Joint Chiefs, the CIA, the radical-right, and Fascist groups in America and Western Europe, who considered him too weak to contain the spread of communism. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, the animosity for the young President grew as JFK cracked down on right-wing Cuban exile groups in America by preventing them from running sabotage raids against the Cuban mainland. Confusion reigned, for at the same time, Robert Kennedy was putting together a coalition of left-wing Cuban exiles to launch a second invasion of Cuba at the end of 1963. Meanwhile, a right-wing Cuban exile group operating independently of the Kennedys was looking to assassinate JFK, which they believed would be a catalyst to compel the United States to invade Cuba with its military in retaliation. The plan could have worked because of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was a Marxist and Castro supporter who had defected to the Soviet Union in 1959, had renounced his citizenship, and had revealed military secrets to the Russians. He allegedly tried to shoot right-wing General Edwin Walker, was a member of the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and in the summer of 1963, he was arrested in New Orleans for handing out pro-Castro literature in public. He traveled to Mexico City and tried to reach Havana two months before the JFK assassination. He wrote a letter to the Russian Embassy in Washington D.C. upon his return, saying he used an alias while he was in Mexico. He was measured as 5'-9" tall during his autopsy, which was two inches shorter than when he left the Marines four years before. All this made him the perfect patsy to be used to justify a second invasion of Cuba. So, why didn't the United States invade Cuba after the JFK assassination when they had the opportunity to do so once and for all? The answer to that question is West Berlin, the gateway to Western Europe and a city President Kennedy was determined to protect at all costs, even if it meant sacrificing Cuba to the Communists. And a second invasion of Cuba placed Berlin in jeopardy, so it could not be allowed to happen. Another group came together in the spring of 1963, made up of CIA right-wing Cold War veterans like Allen Dulles, James Angleton, Henry Hecksher, William Harvey, and Tracy Barnes. These men had fought the Nazis during World War but came to consider them the lesser of two evils compared to the Soviet Union when the war was over. And they were hell-bent on keeping communism out of Europe by any means possible. For over a decade leading up to JFK's Presidency, they had collaborated with ex-Nazis, European Monarchists, and French military Fascists in the war against communism to keep Europe safe. So, it was not surprising that they all came together once again to assassinate President Kennedy – not to justify an invasion of Cuba but to prevent that from occurring. They knew that if a second invasion of Cuba were to happen, the Soviets would take West Berlin, which would almost certainly have led to World War III. So, as a Last Resort Beyond Last Resort, this group inevitably concluded that the only choice they had was to remove JFK from power before it was too late. And mixed up in the middle of it all was Lee Harvey Oswald.https://amzn.to/452QKmkBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Send us a textIn this episode we explore Operation Pedro Pan, the clandestine operation of the U.S. Government, the Catholic Church and Pan American World Airways to relocate over 14,000 children out of Cuba to the United States between 1960 and 1962. Our guest for this episode is Pan Am veteran Yvonne Conde who wrote the book Operation Pedro Pan: The Untold Exodus of 14,048 Cuban Children. She will share many personal insights on being one of the many children that were sent away by their parents for a better future in America in the early 1960s. Yvonne will also share her stories of working for Pan Am during her 18 years in the air as a flight attendant. Her father, Pedro Conde, worked for Pan American in Havana from the 1940s to the early 1960s. Yvonne is a freelance writer based in New York City and has written for Latina Magazine, Crain's, Smithsonian, and Hispanic Business Magazine and has been featured on the NewHour with Jim Lehrer and National Public Radio. Operation Pedro Pan facilitated the migration of Cuban children to the United States as a response to the Cuban Revolution and the subsequent fear among Cuban families that their parental rights would be revoked and their children would be indoctrinated into communism.Under the operation, more than 14,000 Cuban children, primarily between the ages of 6 and 18, were sent to the U.S. without their parents. The children were placed in foster homes, orphanages, and other institutions, with the intention of reuniting them with their families later. The operation ended during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 that put the United States and the Soviet Union on the brink of nuclear war. Support the show Visit Us for more Pan Am History! Support the Podcast! Donate to the Museum! Visit The Hangar online store for Pan Am gear! Become a Member! Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter!A very special thanks to Mr. Adam Aron, Chairman and CEO of AMC and president of the Pan Am Historical Foundation and Pan Am Brands for their continued and unwavering support!

How did the first Asian UN Secretary General prevent multiple Armeggedons in the 1960s? What is the mystery surrounding his predecessor's death? How did the Global South shape the UN in a post-colonial landscape? What does the future of the UN look like in these uncertain times? In this special bonus episode we have made public for all, William and Anita are joined by Thant Myint-U, author of Peacekeeper: U Thant, The United Nations and the Untold Story of the 1960s, to discuss how his grandfather left an indelible mark on geopolitics yet has been forgotten by many.  If you want to hear the entire episode and all other bonuses, as well as receive early access to miniseries, ad-free listening, early access to live show tickets, book discounts, our exclusive newsletter, and access to our members' chatroom on Discord, then head to empirepoduk.com to sign up to Empire Club today! For more Goalhanger Podcasts, head to www.goalhanger.com. ----------------- Email: empire@goalhanger.com Instagram: @empirepoduk Blue Sky: @empirepoduk X: @empirepoduk Assistant Producer: Becki Hills Producer: Anouska Lewis Senior Producer: Callum Hill Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Join Jim and Greg for the Wednesday edition of the 3 Martini Lunch where they bemoan the lack of 'serious people' in prominent positions. Those people include Terri Moran whose savage X post cost him his job at ABC, DNI director Tulsi Gabbard, who seems tired of being in the background, and Tennessee Rep. Mark Green who has the audacity to resign his position for an alleged business venture in Guyana. First, they laugh over Terry Moran's vitriolic X post, claiming Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and President Trump to be 'world class haters' and find nourishment by "eating their hate." Quite possibly the result of an evening of booze, this post could have been explained away with a simple apology, but Moran refuses to recant. Jim wonders if ABC is grateful for a reason to oust a boring reporter that costs them half a million dollars a year. Next, they dissect Tulsi Gabbard's dramatic YouTube warning about nuclear war. Gabbard insists we're closer than ever to nuclear annihilation, apparently forgetting the Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis. Jim is skeptical, especially considering the recent war in Ukraine and Russia where nuclear weapons have not yet been used. He also says that Gabbard has a direct link to speak with the president about such concerns, so speaking out publicly suggests she is bored of working behind the scenes. Last, they are aghast at the resignation of Tennessee Rep. Mark Green for the sake of a private sector opportunity. Greg is enraged by any public official who would leave office for any reason other than health and family reasons or scandal. Green leaving for an elusive business venture in Guyana of all places has both Jim and Greg immensely irritated. Please visit our great sponsors:Talk it out with Betterhelp. Our listeners get 10% off their first month at https://BetterHelp.com/3MLRight now, with zero commitment, try OCI for free.  Go to https://Oracle.com/MARTINIIt's free, online, and easy to start—no strings attached. Enroll in Understanding Capitalism with Hillsdale College. Visit https://hillsdale.edu/Martini

The first man in space arrives in Cuba for a special visit. A passenger liner from the Soviet Union docks in Havana. But it's not carrying tourists. Out in the countryside a massive yet mysterious construction project begins. Stranger-than-fiction plans are put in motion as the CIA tries everything to assassinate Fidel. And as Khrushchev and Castro take the most daring of gambles, the whole world holds its breath… A Noiser podcast production. Narrated by Paul McGann. Featuring Alvaro Alba, Mervyn Bain, Carlos Eire, Peter Kornbluh, Alex von Tunzelmann, Ileana Yarza. This is Part 6 of 10. Written by Edward White | Produced by Ed Baranski and Edward White | Exec produced by Joel Duddell | Sound supervisor: Tom Pink | Sound design & audio editing by George Tapp, Matthew Peaty | Assembly editing by Dorry Macaulay, Anisha Deva | Compositions by Oliver Baines, Dorry Macaulay, Tom Pink | Mix & mastering: Cian Ryan-Morgan | Recording engineer: Joseph McGann. Get every episode of Real Dictators a week early with Noiser+. You'll also get ad-free listening, bonus material and early access to shows across the Noiser podcast network. Click the subscription banner at the top of the feed to get started. Or go to noiser.com/subscriptions Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

UKRAINE ESCALATES, RUSSIA COUNTER ESCALATES, NO KNOWN BOUNDARIES: 7/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis. 1958 SAC

UKRAINE ESCALATES, RUSSIA COUNTER ESCALATES, NO KNOWN BOUNDARIES: 1/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis. .MARCH 1, 1955 ATMOSPHERIC TEST NEVADA

UKRAINE ESCALATES, RUSSIA COUNTER ESCALATES, NO KNOWN BOUNDARIES: 2/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis. 1953 

UKRAINE ESCALATES, RUSSIA COUNTER ESCALATES, NO KNOWN BOUNDARIES: 3/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis. SUMMER 1940

UKRAINE ESCALATES, RUSSIA COUNTER ESCALATES, NO KNOWN BOUNDARIES: 4/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis. 1958

UKRAINE ESCALATES, RUSSIA COUNTER ESCALATES, NO KNOWN BOUNDARIES: 5/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis. 1954 PUERTO RICO B-36 STRATEGIC BOMBER

UKRAINE ESCALATES, RUSSIA COUNTER ESCALATES, NO KNOWN BOUNDARIES: 6/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis. 1956 ENEWETAK ATOLL 13.7 KT

UKRAINE ESCALATES, RUSSIA COUNTER ESCALATES, NO KNOWN BOUNDARIES: 8/8:  Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Serhii Plokhy  https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Folly-History-Missile-Crisis/dp/0393540812/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, today's world leaders are abandoning disarmament treaties, building up their nuclear arsenals, and exchanging threats of nuclear strikes. To survive this new atomic age, we must relearn the lessons of the most dangerous moment of the Cold War: the Cuban missile crisis. 1957 PLUMBBOB.