Podcasts about mirv

We are thrilled to speak with Soya and Steve Freeman, aka Extrakd, who has created loads of diverse music over the years with the likes of Brain, Disk, Mirv, Ler, and Buckethead. We tread some of the history and releases from the 90s and 00s, but hone in on Mars Mechanics, which has a new album titled In Through The Drive Through. The record is primarily arranged and performed by Steve, Brain, and Mirv with guest turns from Skerik and Ler. Each Mars Mechanics release has its own musical theme; the latest has a 1970s Miles Davis foundation, and the outcome is a high-energy dose of unmistakable majesty. Plus, Steve tells us about some projects that have yet to be made public, and may hold the key to understanding the tornado of urine (details in episode). Tracks sampled in episode, in chronological order:Its Brain (Mars Mechanics)Technology Doctor (MIRV)Darkside Whiplash (El Stew)Surf Mission (El Stew)B-boy Showcase (El Stew)The John Rocker Redemption Clause (No Forcefield)Claudius The God (No Forcefield)9a (Mars Mechanics)Gonzography (Mars Mechanics)Don't Bite Contradiction Bomb (Gonervill)Find Mars Mechanics on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mars_mechanics/Mars Mechanics MusicYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXl_huq832S_MOC4OoCzgPwSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/3sZiGJ55DnYXBpoBwYTqKEApple: https://music.apple.com/us/artist/mars-mechanics/1468632210Mars Mechanics Merch: https://mdpe.shop/collections/marsmechanicsEl Stew - No Hesitation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y415bfxzoNcNo Forcefield - Lee's Oriental Massage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZqCqfViCugNo Forcefield - God is an Excuse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7-bbaQUS04Marsupial's Belly Flop Breaks - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4NQyZoYmj0PhonosycographDISK Live at Slim's - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAKc2PAOkxk&t=7sLom.

You got the job. Congratulations?Now what?Do you get out there and start making waves in your new gig, or sit back and take it in?What you need...is a plan, and this week's episode gives you the exact plan you need to succeed in any new engagement...Segment 01 – Get off of autopilot.Win with four specific, and helpful skills.Segment 02 – Your 4-step plan.Listen. Win. Recommend. Execute. Segment 03 – Network Better.Make an Influence Map. Learn about great coffee. Go to all that social stuff you hate.Segment 04 – Be known for something.How are you MIRV? What can you recommend? What's your internal "cause?" Are you a "connector?"

Job interviews are harder than they should be.And a big reason for that is that we don't step back and think about what it takes to succeed with a job interview. Instead...we hyper focus on individual questions, and try to think about what they mean.There is a better way, one that starts with not getting into the cattle call challenge for a job interview...and instead, building relationships beforehand. TO learn more about that, check out Episode 125, "How to look for a job."What can you do to ace a job interview? Try these...Segment 01 – Build a "personally moving" business case. You aren't a person applying for a job. You are a brand making a connection. Here's how to do that by driving outcomes for the business and influencing the individual.Segment 02 - Deliver smarter answers.To deliver a better answer, look to media and presentation training. It's about what triggers you'r audience, understanding what they're really asking and delivering a MIRV answer.Segment 03 - Try four secrets.How well are you using gathering time, asking questions, being genuinely curious and following up? These can set you apart.Segment 04 - Think of it as a performance.Bring your best self to the table and learn how to project confidence and break into the brain of the interviewer.

WE WERE THERE. The two-night stand for 2024 New Year's Eve dubbed Claypool Gold contained numerous surprises and delights to the senses as Les and Larry recruited numerous familiar faces to support them in performing a wide variety of tunes from the worlds of Holy Mackerel, Frog Brigade, and Primus. Limbomaniacs and Beanpole provided inspiring opening acts, making for two nights full of madness. We break it down with commentary on the set lists, lineups, our experiences, and Tim Soya (HE WAS THERE) drops in to share his perspective from behind the scenes. Were you there? How was your NYE? Hit us up on the socials!Get involvedInstagramFacebookEmailBurn your money 

[SEGMENT 2-1] Syria 1   The 2024 election was rigged. By God. And those Godless Democrats had no chance. After stealing the 2020 election, Democrats thought their trip would be smooth sailing. And while Republicans were devastated by the loss, we never lost faith. We knew that Democrats would over-reach, complete full of themselves. Imagine the delusion of a mandate, after you've cheated so brazenly that even your own people blushed when confronted with the truth. Republicans felt defeated, but we stayed the course. And with each passing day, Democrats set the next phase of destiny in place. Lies and coverups galore, they continued down their dark path.   "The Collapse of Syria: Another Regime Change Catastrophe Courtesy of Leftist Policy" Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the show—your front-row seat to the spectacle of leftist incompetence on the world stage. If you're looking for a good laugh that keeps you from crying, pull up a chair because Syria's collapse reads like a tragic comedy with a script penned by the usual suspects—Obama-era foreign policy geniuses and their meddling ilk. Let's dissect this mess together. A Hemingway-Esque Tragedy: Slowly, Then All at Once Hemingway once said, “How did you go bankrupt? Gradually, then suddenly.” The same could be said of Bashar al-Assad's regime. For years, the Syrian dictator ruled with an iron fist, supported by Russia and Iran. But cracks in the armor began to form in 2022 when Russia decided it had a new playground in Ukraine, and Iran got hit where it hurts by Israeli strikes targeting Hezbollah. When your backup singers walk off the stage, even the best frontman starts to falter. Fast forward to November 29: Aleppo fell, Assad's defenders stopped defending, and suddenly the guy who spent years painting himself as untouchable disappeared like a magician's assistant. Statues toppled, selfies flooded the dictator's palace, and the world collectively shrugged. It was like watching a rerun of every regime change debacle since the Cold War, with the same disastrous ending. Regime Change Roulette: America's Favorite Game Let's not act like this is a new plot twist. The U.S. has been dabbling in regime changes like it's our national pastime. Libya? We turned Gaddafi into a viral meme before brutally removing him from the stage. Egypt? We helped shuffle out one dictator only to end up with another. Haiti? A revolving door of leaders, none of whom seem to stick. Every time we play this game, the house—by which I mean the American taxpayer—loses big.  [SEGMENT 2-2] Syria 2   [X] SB – Jeffrey Sach on Morning Joe explaining how Obama created Syria problem Could escalate. US mistake that started 7 years ago with Obama. Assad must go. Brought in ISIS and Russia. Dig in deeper and deeper   Leftist foreign policies always come wrapped in the shiny packaging of “freedom” and “democracy,” but what do we really deliver? Chaos, power vacuums, and, inevitably, extremists stepping into the void. Syria's just the latest contestant in this twisted game show. Syria's Long Fall From Grace Syria wasn't always a headline for despair. It's a country with a rich history, stunning architecture, and some of the best food you'll ever taste. It could've been the Dubai of the Levant. Instead, thanks to decades of conflict and meddling, it's become a cautionary tale. While the world watched the fall of Aleppo and Damascus, one can't help but wonder—what could Syria have been if left alone? Obama's “red line” in 2013—remember that empty threat?—didn't just embolden Assad; it broadcasted to the world that American foreign policy under leftist leadership was all bark and no bite. It was the geopolitical equivalent of promising to ground your kid for breaking curfew, then letting them host a house party. The Left's Greatest Hits of Hypocrisy The left has a talent for blaming others while creating the very disasters they decry. Obama's foreign policy team, with their Ivy League degrees and zero street smarts, decided that Syria was a project worth meddling in. First, they funneled weapons into the region, most of which ended up in the hands of—wait for it—extremists. Then, they ignored the collateral damage, including millions of displaced Syrians now scattered across the globe. And while Obama was playing chess (or maybe checkers, let's be honest) in the Middle East, the American media was busy applauding him for doing… what, exactly? Turning a bad situation into a worse one? Meanwhile, Trump got crucified for keeping America first, focusing on domestic stability, and managing not to start another war.  [SEGMENT 2-3] Syria 3   A well-organized, highly motivated set of armed opponents took the city of Aleppo on November 29, and many of the regime's defenders abruptly stopped fighting. Assad vanished. The scenes that followed today in Damascus—the toppling of statues, the taking selfies of the dictator's palace—are the same ones that will unfold in Caracas, Tehran, or Moscow on the day the soldiers of those regimes lose their faith in the leadership, and the public loses their fear of those soldiers too.   What do you know about Syria? I'd be willing to be that most Americans couldn't point the country out on a map if you gave them 5 tries. The truth is we know what we've heard. Most of us never dig any further than the soundbite we hear in the mainstream media. We're too busy, for the most part. And frankly, we really can't be too concerned with happenings around the world when so much is happening in our backyards. For those of us will to dig a layer or two deeper, certainly, social media and the rise of Conservative media has helped us gain reach new strata of understanding about other countries. But for the most part, we remain ignorant of most of the world, a specifically in this case Syria. Sadly, what I just said of Syria is true about most subjects. We get our information in soundbites, and rarely dig deeper. And while Conservatives tend to be better than Leftists, we still fail in most part to understand things at more than a superficial level, particularly when it comes to other countries. We've been conditioned to think, “Our government knows best”, when it comes to geopolitical matters. We believe that our government acts in the best interests of America, period, full stop. This attitude was born of the idea that our government acts in good faith. Always. That's what we all want to believe about our country. We generally don't even question that notion. However, when you consider how our government treats its own citizens, perhaps we should take pause. Take the example of illegals who were allowed to invade America by Obama and Biden. Look at how Leftists treat illegals in America versus citizens of our country. Illegals are gifted with 5-star accommodations in some instances, thousands of dollars in food subsidies, and access to all services of citizens without paying a dime. How could one possibly rationalize what's happening with illegals over citizens using any sanity. So if Leftists are willing to flood America with illegals for power, what would make you think their intentions are good anywhere else in the world? At this point, you either agree with me or you're an idiot. I used to believe in the sanctity of our government. Even when we screwed up, I felt that while things might have gone awry, it was for, you ready…the greater good. After all, American stands up for countries all over the world. We fight for them, we send funds when they are in dire straits, and so on. I'm convinced that the American citizen is the best citizen of the world. But our government, when run by Leftists may very well be evil incarnate. I look back on regime changes around the world, and I feel very confident that our CIA is involved in most of them. The organization will use boogeymen like Russia and China to justify what it does. However, those are just strawmen. Because the CIA knows that America is in the business of war.  [SEGMENT 2-4] Syria 4   When I was younger, I didn't mind war. Looking back I know that I was groomed for war, conditioned for it. As a poor child growing up in the inner city, I was accustomed to war at the micro level. The “mean streets” is where I grew up. I grew up mean. Angry. Ready for war. I knew of the Vietnam conflict, and watched my uncles return from battle. One of them was broken by that conflict. The more I learned of Vietnam, the clearer that picture became. A useless war. A place for America to flex its military muscle, and try out some strategies for the next generation of arms. The Cold War is another I heard much about. We built a nuclear arsenal that cost billions and will never be used. MIRV missiles from the 50s and 60s are relics, likely being dismantled and sold for scrap. A new generation of nuclear missiles has been built, and like covid vaccines will end up dumped as well. We spend billions preparing for war. And while we have non-proliferation treaties regarding nuclear weapons, we still build them. Iran wants nukes, and we try to stop them. If they get them, what happens? Will they attack Israel, who also has nukes? It would be both countries' last move most likely. I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers. At best, I'm two layers out of ten deep on my geopolitical knowledge. But I have seen a pattern. War Games and the Business of Chaos Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-kevin-jackson-show--2896352/support.

Wes, Eneasz, and David keep the rationalist community informed about what's going on outside of the rationalist communitySupport us on Substack!News discussed:Wes was right! Biden pardoned HunterEducation secretary getting TombstonedFBI investigating numerous bomb threats and swatting incidents targeting incoming administration nominees and appointeesTrump threatens 25% tariffs on Canada and MexicoTrump is already laying the groundwork to say “mission accomplished”Sinaloa Cartel announces it will kill anyone who makes - or uses as an adulterant - fentanyl for sale in the US.The Government is coming for the money appsBiden DoJ trying to force Google to sell Chrome browserHezbollah only ceased fire long enough to eat lunch and reload. Who could possibly have seen this coming.Ceasefire precipitated a reignition of the Syrian Civil WarAnd Assad fled to Russia.Russia struck Ukraine with multiple ICBM's… or maybe MRBM's with MIRV's… which did nothing.US gives permission for Ukraine to strike in Russia with long range misslesUS gives "non-persistent" anti-personnel mines to UkraineNetanyahu indicted by International Criminal CourtNinety-seven trucks lost and their drivers were forced at gunpoint to unload their aid after crossing into GazaUN has now paused aidGeorgia is now on day 4 of riots and govt resignationsAustralian Parliament bans social media for under-16sHead of Adani Group - Indian multinational conglomerate - and 7 others indicted in US court for bribes of Indian officials of over $250MSouth Korea opens a rooftop Starbucks with a bunch of those quarter-operated binoculars so people can gawk at North Korea.Happy News!orcas have been seen wearing salmon as hats!Australian man holding on to impenetrable rock for a decade finds out it's a metoriteWalmart rolls back DEI, will no longer discriminate based on race and sex!First new treatment in 50 years for asthma!New carbon capture method just droppedCanadian woman saves boy from drowning in ice waterA hiker has been found after being missing for 50 days in a park in British ColombiaTroop DeploymentsDavid - The Dragon's BankerEneasz - Lightcone, the folks running LessWrong.com and Lighthaven, are in fundraiser mode.Wes - Everything is non-binaryGot something to say? Come chat with us on the Bayesian Conspiracy Discord or email us at themindkillerpodcast@gmail.com. Say something smart and we'll mention you on the next show!Follow us!RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/themindkillerGoogle: https://play.google.com/music/listen#/ps/Iqs7r7t6cdxw465zdulvwikhekmPocket Casts: https://pca.st/vvcmifu6Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-mind-killerApple: Intro/outro music: On Sale by Golden Duck Orchestra This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit mindkiller.substack.com/subscribe

Russia launched an experimental, offensive missile into Ukraine, aimed at the PA Pivdenmash (former Yuzhmash) factory. This is a new world of missile combat, as this looks to be the first use of an IRBM (though not at IRBM ranges) and possibly MIRV (though conventional!) in combat.  Jeffrey and Aaron talk about Russia's new Oreshnik missile, what it is, its relationship to the RS-26 Rubezh IRBM/ICBM/treaty-skirting missile, the Typhon-Oreshnik European strike dyad, and the looming new Euromissile crisis.    Support us over at Patreon.com/acwpodcast!

In this episode of the IJGC podcast, Editor-in-Chief Dr. Pedro Ramirez is joined by Dr. Robert Coleman to discuss overall survival of SORAYA trial. Dr. Coleman completed his Obstetrics & Gynecology residency at Northwestern University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, and completed his fellowship at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in 1993. From 1993-1996, he served as Assistant Professor at Creighton University followed by service as Vice-Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center. Dr. Coleman joined as Faculty at MD Anderson Cancer center in 2004 and served as Professor and Executive Director for Cancer Network Research, holding the Ann Rife Cox Chair in Gynecology. In March 2020, he joined US Oncology Research (USOR) as Chief Scientific Officer and served briefly as Chief Medical Officer for Sarah Cannon Research Institute (SCRI). He currently serves as Chief Medical officer for Vaniam Group. Dr. Coleman has authored or coauthored over 750 scientific publications, including over 450 peer-reviewed articles, along with numerous book chapters, monographs, invited articles, and textbooks. He was the 2019 APGO-CREOG awardee for Excellence in Teaching. He serves as Vice President of GOG-Foundation, Inc. He served as President of SGO (2015-2016) and is the immediate Past-President of IGCS. He was recently inducted into MJH Life Sciences™ 2020 class of “Giants in Cancer Care®.”   Highlights: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV) is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate comprising an  FRα-binding antibody, cleavable linker, and maytansinoid DM4, a potent tubulin-targeting agent Early clinical data suggested efficacy in recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) prompting a larger trial to confirm both safety and efficacy in patients with PROC In this SORAYA trial MIRV demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumor activity in patients with FRα-high platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with an ORR: 32.4% and a median DOR: 6.9 months Remarkably the median OS was 15 months; 37% patients alive at 24 months Efficacy of MIRV was further evaluated with respect to when it was administered (as first treatment for PROC) and in patients receiving prior bevacizumab.  An ORR of 34.8% was documented in the formers, and 31.5% in the latter. The ocular toxicity was new for many treating physicians when the drug first became available. However with mitigating strategies as used in the study the events were predictable, low-grade, and rarely (n=1 patient) led to treatment discontinuation Now with MIRASOL confirming these data and demonstrating efficacy over standard of care for response, PFS, and unprecedently, OS, the agent is a staple of contemporary management.

EP157: Uniparty Gets Their War Funding, Tucker Carlson on Joe Rogan, Is Scheffler the next Tiger? Quick hits WWIII - https://news.yahoo.com/israel-planned-bigger-attack-iran-112102679.html  NYSE 24/7? - https://www.benzinga.com/markets/equities/24/04/38351608/new-york-stock-exchange-seeks-opinion-if-it-should-trade-247-like-bitcoin-ethereum-as-sec-examin NIH Redactions - https://sharylattkisson.com/2022/04/read-public-health-officials-flout-freedom-of-info-law/ P Diddler Prosecutor - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Williams_(lawyer) Johntay Porter banned for life - https://x.com/joepompliano/status/1780636219744887018?s=46&t=ye-2GyAK2iDh3yT1vKjfJg Sports - Scheffler wins again, 4/5 & 10/26; $16M over 44 days - https://www.skysports.com/golf/news/12232/13120804/rbc-heritage-scottie-scheffler-claims-fourth-pga-tour-win-in-five-starts-with-three-shot-victory-at-hilton-head OMG - Reauesting public support for investigating intelligence agencies; Kyle Seraphin - https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/04/21/james-okeefe-time-to-expose-the-intel-community-you-all-better-have-my-back-1454042/  Tucker - on Rogan: Amish, UFOs, Alex Jones, Nixon Coup, Pompeo - https://dailycaller.com/2024/04/19/carlson-tucker-joe-rogan-spiritual-beings-cults-politics/  Politics -  Massie, Gosar co-sponsor MTG's MTV, tell Speaker to resign - https://apnews.com/article/speaker-johnson-democrats-vacate-ukraine-e506951def3f78cf637274d230b89152  What happened? the House Rules Committee reported out a rule with Democratic votes in a majority Republican House, shattering House precedent -the House rule orchestrates separate votes on aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and another giant bill which includes the TikTok bill and REPO Act. Border security is not included. No amendments are allowed on the Israel title, limited amendments granted on the rest. if each title passes, they will all be fused into one package without a final vote (known as a MIRV). That package is then added as a House amendment to the Senate foreign aid bill (the two are effectively the same); in parliamentary speak, the House concurs in the Senate amendment with a House amendment. the concurrence is set up in order to send the House package over to the Senate as a "message," which allows the Dem majority in the Senate to expedite its passage (the first motion to proceed is privileged and approved at simple majority instead of requiring cloture to be invoked at 60 votes). TL;DR: Dems get what they want in the House, Dems get what they want in the Senate, all of which is awkward because it's orchestrated by the Republican Speaker ##   About the Sports, Clicks & Politics Podcast SCAPP is a weekly podcast with a Livestream every Monday at 12pm eastern.  Join hosts Shawn Hannon and Ben Hussong as they separate the latest news from the noise impacting New York State. The podcast has frequent guest interviews for additional perspectives in the worlds or sports, politics and beyond! Follow the show on social media Website: scappodcast.com Facebook: facebook.com/scappodcast Twitter: @SCAPPodcast Follow Shawn & Ben on social media Facebook: facebook.com/hannon44  Twitter: @hannon44 Facebook: facebook.com/ben.hussong.3 Twitter: @benhussong  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scapp/support

On March 11, the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization conducted the maiden test of its Agni-V MIRV (Multiple Independently Targetable Re-Entry Vehicle) missile. MIRV capability is a complex technology and there are only a handful of countries that have developed it.The test represents a breakthrough for India's missile program but it's also prompted warnings of a new arms race in the Indo-Pacific, a region already marked by sharpening geopolitical rivalries. To discuss India's missile program, its defense posture, and its emerging space policy, Milan is joined on the show this week by Ankit Panda. Ankit is the Stanton Senior Fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He's an expert on the Asia-Pacific region and his work encompasses nuclear strategy, arms control, missile defense, nonproliferation, and emerging technologies.Ankit and Milan discuss the significance of India's MIRV test and the new “missile age” in the Indo-Pacific. Plus, the two discuss the China-India-Pakistan triangle, the importance of India's 2019 anti-satellite test, and the future of India's space policy.Episode notes:1. Ankit Panda, Indo-Pacific Missile Arsenals: Avoiding Spirals and Mitigating Escalation Risks (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2023).2. “Southern Asia's Nuclear Future with Ashley J. Tellis,” Grand Tamasha, October 26, 2022.3. Ankit Panda, “The Indo-Pacific's new missile age demands Washington's attention,” Breaking Defense, November 16, 2023.4. Ankit Panda, “How India's breakthrough as an ‘elite space power' devalues discovery and innovation,” South China Morning Post, April 7, 2019.5. Alex Travelli, “The Surprising Striver in the World's Space Business,” New York Times, July 4, 2023.6. Toby Dalton et al., “Dimming Prospects for U.S.-Russia Nonproliferation Cooperation,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 14, 2024.

The Bharatvaarta Weekly is our reaction to the news headlines of the week that was. In this episode Roshan Cariappa, Nirav Kanodra and Abhishek Paul discuss the the latest news from the week and more!If you liked this episode, then don't forget to subscribe to our channel and share this content. You can stay updated with everything at Bharatvaarta by following us on social media: we're @bharatvaarta on Twitter, facebook.com/bharatvaarta.in on Facebook, and @bharatvaarta on Instagram). Topics:00:00 Introduction00:44 Electoral Bonds07:13 CAA Implementation13:42 Lok Sabha elections dates announced19:20 Resignation of Haryana CM ML Khattar21:47 DRDO's MIRV missile tests and Navy's fight against pirates

First, we talk to Indian Express' Deeptiman Tiwary about the data revealed regarding the electoral bonds, the major donors and the trends that were unveiled.Second, Indian Express' Amitabh Sinha joins us to talk about the latest addition to India's military arsenal, the Agni-5 missile and the MIRV technology that is a part of it. (11:28)Lastly, we talk about the Enforcement Directorate sending CM Kejriwal summons related to a new case. (19:18)Hosted by Niharika NandaWritten and Produced by Shashank Bhargava and Niharika NandaEdited and Mixed by Suresh Pawar 

Episode 174 of the #AskAbhijit show: Ask me interesting questions on the live chat, and I shall answer them.

Why is China Nervous - Indian Superpower _ Agni Mark V MIRV _ Maj_ Gen_ Rajiv Narayanan

From an ambitious fighter jet project to a landmark missile test, the last few days marked important milestones for the nation's defence. India test-launched the nuclear capable Agni-V missile in a ‘multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle', or MIRV, avatar. Just days before, the government gave the all-clear for the development of the AMCA, or Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft, a fifth-generation fighter jet that will feature cutting-edge technology. On this episode of In Our Defence, host Dev Goswami and Defence expert Shiv Aroor discuss these two projects and what they mean for the Indian Air force and the country's nuclear arsenal. The two also briefly discuss the unfortunate crash of the Tejas fighter jet, the first in its service history. Tune in! Produced by Anna Priyadarshini Sound mix by Sachin Dwivedi

The Agni-V MIRV missile, developed by DRDO, took its 1st flight on 11 March. In episode 1413 of #CutTheClutter, Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta traces the journey of missile development in India over the years and explains where nuclear deterrents figure in the picture.

In this episode of The President's Daily Brief:   We discuss the intensification of hostilities in the Red Sea, with the U.S. and allies responding to drone attacks, signaling a potential shift toward a military response to the Houthi rebels.   We cover North Korea's latest provocation, as they test the waters with a new missile launch, escalating tensions in the region.   We delve into Russia's strategic moves, as they bolster their nuclear capabilities by deploying a new intercontinental ballistic missile with MIRV technology.   In the Back of the Brief, we address a concerning trend: a recent poll indicating a rise in anti-Jewish sentiments among young Americans amid ongoing debates about antisemitism on college campuses.   Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of The President's Daily Brief.   Email: PDB@TheFirstTV.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Real News Live presents; "Tell the Truth Wednesday" with host Mike Bara and psychic-medium Jennifer Fallaw-Doering! The latest news, current events and more plus free psychic readings!

The hilarious Ryan Mirvis joins Adam Ray for a new episode of the About Last Night Podcast. Ryan and Adam talk about some of their favorite celebrities they have met while performing comedy, Coachella vs. Burning Man, their favorite animal to impersonate and finding trouble as a teenager in The Mall of America. Originally from Minnesota, "Mirv" has been performing stand up comedy for over a decade and has been featured at comedy clubs and colleges across the country. Since moving to Los Angeles he has been featured on many television shows, movies, commercials, music videos, and sketches. Follow Ryan @RyanMirvis Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bonnaroo 2008 saw Les Claypool assemble a one-off lineup to perform a bevy of his solo tracks around a couple of setlist surprises. Sam Bass, Pualo Baldi, and MIRV joined Les to delight and bewilder the assembled masses in a show that stands out among all of the performances billed to Les Claypool. Frankie guides us through the highlights and gives backstory to the circumstances of the show. Playlist of the show with videoToasterland recording Get involved:InstagramTwitterEmailBurn your money

An autobiographical narration about Les Claypool's decision to purpose a career in music, El Sobrante Fortnight stands out among the goofball tracks on Holy Mackerel for its control, groove, and arrhythmic narration, and of course, MIRV.We get into the details of the lyrics to better understand Les's approach here, and that leads to discussions of oysters and chicken strips. Why not. Get involved:InstagramTwitterEmailBurn your money

Another Holy Mack track, another heavy! This time, Bruce Swenson joins us to discuss Cohibas Esplenditos and its unabashed star, Mirv Haggard. Bruce crewed for MIRV for many years, and met Soya on the Holy Mack tour. Great stories abound as we hear about the recording of this track, reveal the identities of the subjects of this tune and relive some moments from the Holy Mack tour. Plus. Frankie learns about cigars!Get involved:InstagramTwitterEmailBurn your money

What Calling Kyle begins, Rancor continues: madcap adventures in home-studio recording with Les Claypool. Soya relives some Mackerel tour moments via the live cuts of this track, which introduced Brain as the new Primus drummer, and everyone had time to show off their wackiness. Do it up!Get involved:InstagramTwitterEmailBurn your money

It was a tremendous honor & pleasure to interview Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer Prize winning author of The Making of the Atomic BombWe discuss* similarities between AI progress & Manhattan Project (developing a powerful, unprecedented, & potentially apocalyptic technology within an uncertain arms-race situation)* visiting starving former Soviet scientists during fall of Soviet Union* whether Oppenheimer was a spy, & consulting on the Nolan movie* living through WW2 as a child* odds of nuclear war in Ukraine, Taiwan, Pakistan, & North Korea* how the US pulled of such a massive secret wartime scientific & industrial projectWatch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here. Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Timestamps(0:00:00) - Oppenheimer movie(0:06:22) - Was the bomb inevitable?(0:29:10) - Firebombing vs nuclear vs hydrogen bombs(0:49:44) - Stalin & the Soviet program(1:08:24) - Deterrence, disarmament, North Korea, Taiwan(1:33:12) - Oppenheimer as lab director(1:53:40) - AI progress vs Manhattan Project(1:59:50) - Living through WW2(2:16:45) - Secrecy(2:26:34) - Wisdom & warTranscript(0:00:00) - Oppenheimer movieDwarkesh Patel 0:00:51Today I have the great honor of interviewing Richard Rhodes, who is the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and most recently, the author of Energy, A Human History. I'm really excited about this one. Let's jump in at a current event, which is the fact that there's a new movie about Oppenheimer coming out, which I understand you've been consulted about. What did you think of the trailer? What are your impressions? Richard Rhodes 0:01:22They've really done a good job of things like the Trinity test device, which was the sphere covered with cables of various kinds. I had watched Peaky Blinders, where the actor who's playing Oppenheimer also appeared, and he looked so much like Oppenheimer to start with. Oppenheimer was about six feet tall, he was rail thin, not simply in terms of weight, but in terms of structure. Someone said he could sit in a children's high chair comfortably. But he never weighed more than about 140 pounds and that quality is there in the actor. So who knows? It all depends on how the director decided to tell the story. There are so many aspects of the story that you could never possibly squeeze them into one 2-hour movie. I think that we're waiting for the multi-part series that would really tell a lot more of the story, if not the whole story. But it looks exciting. We'll see. There have been some terrible depictions of Oppenheimer, there've been some terrible depictions of the bomb program. And maybe they'll get this one right. Dwarkesh Patel 0:02:42Yeah, hopefully. It is always great when you get an actor who resembles their role so well. For example, Bryan Cranston who played LBJ, and they have the same physical characteristics of the beady eyes, the big ears. Since we're talking about Oppenheimer, I had one question about him. I understand that there's evidence that's come out that he wasn't directly a communist spy. But is there any possibility that he was leaking information to the Soviets or in some way helping the Soviet program? He was a communist sympathizer, right? Richard Rhodes 0:03:15He had been during the 1930s. But less for the theory than for the practical business of helping Jews escape from Nazi Germany. One of the loves of his life, Jean Tatlock, was also busy working on extracting Jews from Europe during the 30. She was a member of the Communist Party and she, I think, encouraged him to come to meetings. But I don't think there's any possibility whatsoever that he shared information. In fact, he said he read Marx on a train trip between Berkeley and Washington one time and thought it was a bunch of hooey, just ridiculous. He was a very smart man, and he read the book with an eye to its logic, and he didn't think there was much there. He really didn't know anything about human beings and their struggles. He was born into considerable wealth. There were impressionist paintings all over his family apartments in New York City. His father had made a great deal of money cornering the markets on uniform linings for military uniforms during and before the First World War so there was a lot of wealth. I think his income during the war years and before was somewhere around $100,000 a month. And that's a lot of money in the 1930s. So he just lived in his head for most of his early years until he got to Berkeley and discovered that prime students of his were living on cans of god-awful cat food, because they couldn't afford anything else. And once he understood that there was great suffering in the world, he jumped in on it, as he always did when he became interested in something. So all of those things come together. His brother Frank was a member of the party, as was Frank's wife. I think the whole question of Oppenheimer lying to the security people during the Second World War about who approached him and who was trying to get him to sign on to some espionage was primarily an effort to cover up his brother's involvement. Not that his brothers gave away any secrets, I don't think they did. But if the army's security had really understood Frank Oppenheimer's involvement, he probably would have been shipped off to the Aleutians or some other distant place for the duration of the war. And Oppenheimer quite correctly wanted Frank around. He was someone he trusted.(0:06:22) - Was the bomb inevitable?Dwarkesh Patel 0:06:22Let's start talking about The Making of the Bomb. One question I have is — if World War II doesn't happen, is there any possibility that the bomb just never gets developed? Nobody bothers.Richard Rhodes 0:06:34That's really a good question and I've wondered over the years. But the more I look at the sequence of events, the more I think it would have been essentially inevitable, though perhaps not such an accelerated program. The bomb was pushed so hard during the Second World War because we thought the Germans had already started working on one. Nuclear fission had been discovered in Nazi Germany, in Berlin, in 1938, nine months before the beginning of the Second World War in Europe. Technological surveillance was not available during the war. The only way you could find out something was to send in a spy or have a mole or something human. And we didn't have that. So we didn't know where the Germans were, but we knew that the basic physics reaction that could lead to a bomb had been discovered there a year or more before anybody else in the West got started thinking about it. There was that most of all to push the urgency. In your hypothetical there would not have been that urgency. However, as soon as good physicists thought about the reaction that leads to nuclear fission — where a slow room temperature neutron, very little energy, bumps into the nucleus of a uranium-235 atom it would lead to a massive response. Isidore Rabi, one of the great physicists of this era, said it would have been like the moon struck the earth. The reaction was, as physicists say, fiercely exothermic. It puts out a lot more energy than you have to use to get it started. Once they did the numbers on that, and once they figured out how much uranium you would need to have in one place to make a bomb or to make fission get going, and once they were sure that there would be a chain reaction, meaning a couple of neutrons would come out of the reaction from one atom, and those two or three would go on and bump into other Uranium atoms, which would then fission them, and you'd get a geometric exponential. You'd get 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and off of there. For most of our bombs today the initial fission, in 80 generations, leads to a city-busting explosion. And then they had to figure out how much material they would need, and that's something the Germans never really figured out, fortunately for the rest of us. They were still working on the idea that somehow a reactor would be what you would build. When Niels Bohr, the great Danish physicist, escaped from Denmark in 1943 and came to England and then United States, he brought with him a rough sketch that Werner Heisenberg, the leading scientist in the German program, had handed him in the course of trying to find out what Bohr knew about what America was doing. And he showed it to the guys at Los Alamos and Hans Bethe, one of the great Nobel laureate physicists in the group, said — “Are the Germans trying to throw a reactor down on us?” You can make a reactor blow up, we saw that at Chernobyl, but it's not a nuclear explosion on the scale that we're talking about with the bomb. So when a couple of these emigres Jewish physicists from Nazi Germany were whiling away their time in England after they escaped, because they were still technically enemy aliens and therefore could not be introduced to top secret discussions, one of them asked the other — “How much would we need of pure uranium-235, this rare isotope of uranium that chain reacts? How much would we need to make a bomb?” And they did the numbers and they came up with one pound, which was startling to them. Of course, it is more than that. It's about 125 pounds, but that's just a softball. That's not that much material. And then they did the numbers about what it would cost to build a factory to pull this one rare isotope of uranium out of the natural metal, which has several isotopes mixed together. And they figured it wouldn't cost more than it would cost to build a battleship, which is not that much money for a country at war. Certainly the British had plenty of battleships at that point in time. So they put all this together and they wrote a report which they handed through their superior physicists at Manchester University where they were based, who quickly realized how important this was. The United States lagged behind because we were not yet at war, but the British were. London was being bombed in the blitz. So they saw the urgency, first of all, of eating Germany to the punch, second of all of the possibility of building a bomb. In this report, these two scientists wrote that no physical structure came to their minds which could offer protection against a bomb of such ferocious explosive power. This report was from 1940 long before the Manhattan Project even got started. They said in this report, the only way we could think of to protect you against a bomb would be to have a bomb of similar destructive force that could be threatened for use if the other side attacked you. That's deterrence. That's a concept that was developed even before the war began in the United States. You put all those pieces together and you have a situation where you have to build a bomb because whoever builds the first bomb theoretically could prevent you from building more or prevent another country from building any and could dominate the world. And the notion of Adolf Hitler dominating the world, the Third Reich with nuclear weapons, was horrifying. Put all that together and the answer is every country that had the technological infrastructure to even remotely have the possibility of building everything you'd have to build to get the material for a bomb started work on thinking about it as soon as nuclear fusion was announced to the world. France, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the United States, even Japan. So I think the bomb would have been developed but maybe not so quickly. Dwarkesh Patel 0:14:10In the book you talk that for some reason the Germans thought that the critical mass was something like 10 tons, they had done some miscalculation.Richard Rhodes 0:14:18A reactor. Dwarkesh Patel 0:14:19You also have some interesting stories in the book about how different countries found out the Americans were working on the bomb. For example, the Russians saw that all the top physicists, chemists, and metallurgists were no longer publishing. They had just gone offline and so they figured that something must be going on. I'm not sure if you're aware that while the subject of the Making of the Atomic Bomb in and of itself is incredibly fascinating, this book has become a cult classic in AI. Are you familiar with this? Richard Rhodes 0:14:52No. Dwarkesh Patel 0:14:53The people who are working on AI right now are huge fans of yours. They're the ones who initially recommended the book to me because the way they see the progress in the field reminded them of this book. Because you start off with these initial scientific hints. With deep learning, for example, here's something that can teach itself any function is similar to Szilárd noticing the nuclear chain reaction. In AI there's these scaling laws that say that if you make the model this much bigger, it gets much better at reasoning, at predicting text, and so on. And then you can extrapolate this curve. And you can see we get two more orders of magnitude, and we get to something that looks like human level intelligence. Anyway, a lot of the people who are working in AI have become huge fans of your book because of this reason. They see a lot of analogies in the next few years. They must be at page 400 in their minds of where the Manhattan Project was.Richard Rhodes 0:15:55We must later on talk about unintended consequences. I find the subject absolutely fascinating. I think my next book might be called Unintended Consequences. Dwarkesh Patel 0:16:10You mentioned that a big reason why many of the scientists wanted to work on the bomb, especially the Jewish emigres, was because they're worried about Hitler getting it first. As you mentioned at some point, 1943, 1944, it was becoming obvious that Hitler, the Nazis were not close to the bomb. And I believe that almost none of the scientists quit after they found out that the Nazis weren't close. So why didn't more of them say — “Oh, I guess we were wrong. The Nazis aren't going to get it. We don't need to be working on it.”?Richard Rhodes 0:16:45There was only one who did that, Joseph Rotblat. In May of 1945 when he heard that Germany had been defeated, he packed up and left. General Groves, the imperious Army Corps of Engineers General who ran the entire Manhattan Project, was really upset. He was afraid he'd spill the beans. So he threatened to have him arrested and put in jail. But Rotblat was quite determined not to stay any longer. He was not interested in building bombs to aggrandize the national power of the United States of America, which is perfectly understandable. But why was no one else? Let me tell it in terms of Victor Weisskopf. He was an Austrian theoretical physicist, who, like the others, escaped when the Nazis took over Germany and then Austria and ended up at Los Alamos. Weisskopf wrote later — “There we were in Los Alamos in the midst of the darkest part of our science.” They were working on a weapon of mass destruction, that's pretty dark. He said “Before it had almost seemed like a spiritual quest.” And it's really interesting how different physics was considered before and after the Second World War. Before the war, one of the physicists in America named Louis Alvarez told me when he got his PhD in physics at Berkeley in 1937 and went to cocktail parties, people would ask, “What's your degree in?” He would tell them “Chemistry.” I said, “Louis, why?” He said, “because I don't really have to explain what physics was.” That's how little known this kind of science was at that time. There were only about 1,000 physicists in the whole world in 1900. By the mid-30s, there were a lot more, of course. There'd been a lot of nuclear physics and other kinds of physics done by them. But it was still arcane. And they didn't feel as if they were doing anything mean or dirty or warlike at all. They were just doing pure science. Then nuclear fission came along. It was publicized worldwide. People who've been born since after the Second World War don't realize that it was not a secret at first. The news was published first in a German chemistry journal, Die Naturwissenschaften, and then in the British journal Nature and then in American journals. And there were headlines in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and all over the world. People had been reading about and thinking about how to get energy out of the atomic nucleus for a long time. It was clear there was a lot there. All you had to do was get a piece of radium and see that it glowed in the dark. This chunk of material just sat there, you didn't plug it into a wall. And if you held it in your hand, it would burn you. So where did that energy come from? The physicists realized it all came from the nucleus of the atom, which is a very small part of the whole thing. The nucleus is 1/100,000th the diameter of the whole atom. Someone in England described it as about the size of a fly in a cathedral. All of the energy that's involved in chemical reactions, comes from the electron cloud that's around the nucleus. But  it was clear that the nucleus was the center of powerful forces. But the question was, how do you get them out? The only way that the nucleus had been studied up to 1938 was by bombarding it with protons, which have the same electric charge as the nucleus, positive charge, which means they were repelled by it. So you had to accelerate them to high speeds with various versions of the big machines that we've all become aware of since then. The cyclotron most obviously built in the 30s, but there were others as well. And even then, at best, you could chip a little piece off. You could change an atom one step up or one step down the periodic table. This was the classic transmutation of medieval alchemy sure but it wasn't much, you didn't get much out. So everyone came to think of the nucleus of the atom like a little rock that you really had to hammer hard to get anything to happen with it because it was so small and dense. That's why nuclear fission, with this slow neutron drifting and then the whole thing just goes bang, was so startling to everybody. So startling that when it happened, most of the physicists who would later work on the bomb and others as well, realized that they had missed the reaction that was something they could have staged on a lab bench with the equipment on the shelf. Didn't have to invent anything new. And Louis Alvarez again, this physicist at Berkeley, he said — “I was getting my hair cut. When I read the newspaper, I pulled off the robe and half with my hair cut, ran to my lab, pulled some equipment off the shelf, set it up and there it was.” So he said, “I discovered nuclear fission, but it was two days too late.” And that happened all over. People were just hitting themselves on the head and saying, well, Niels Bohr said, “What fools we've all been.” So this is a good example of how in science, if your model you're working with is wrong it doesn't lead you down the right path. There was only one physicist who really was thinking the right way about the uranium atom and that was Niels Bohr. He wondered, sometime during the 30s, why uranium was the last natural element in the periodic table? What is different about the others that would come later? He visualized the nucleus as a liquid drop. I always like to visualize it as a water-filled balloon. It's wobbly, it's not very stable. The protons in the nucleus are held together by something called the strong force, but they still have the repellent positive electric charge that's trying to push them apart when you get enough of them into a nucleus. It's almost a standoff between the strong force and all the electrical charge. So it is like a wobbly balloon of water. And then you see why a neutron just falling into the nucleus would make it wobble around even more and in one of its configurations, it might take a dumbbell shape. And then you'd have basically two charged atoms just barely connected, trying to push each other apart. And often enough, they went the whole way. When they did that, these two new elements, half the weight of uranium, way down the periodic table, would reconfigure themselves into two separate nuclei. And in doing so, they would release some energy. And that was the energy that came out of the reaction and there was a lot of energy. So Bohr thought about the model in the right way. The chemists who actually discovered nuclear fusion didn't know what they were gonna get. They were just bombarding a solution of uranium nitrate with neutrons thinking, well, maybe we can make a new element, maybe a first man-made element will come out of our work. So when they analyzed the solution after they bombarded it, they found elements halfway down the periodic table. They shouldn't have been there. And they were totally baffled. What is this doing here? Do we contaminate our solution? No. They had been working with a physicist named Lisa Meitner who was a theoretical physicist, an Austrian Jew. She had gotten out of Nazi Germany not long before. But they were still in correspondence with her. So they wrote her a letter. I held that letter in my hand when I visited Berlin and I was in tears. You don't hold history of that scale in your hands very often. And it said in German — “We found this strange reaction in our solution. What are these elements doing there that don't belong there?” And she went for a walk in a little village in Western Sweden with her nephew, Otto Frisch, who was also a nuclear physicist. And they thought about it for a while and they remembered Bohr's model, the wobbly water-filled balloon. And they suddenly saw what could happen. And that's where the news came from, the physics news as opposed to the chemistry news from the guys in Germany that was published in all the Western journals and all the newspapers. And everybody had been talking about, for years, what you could do if you had that kind of energy. A glass of this material would drive the Queen Mary back and forth from New York to London 20 times and so forth, your automobile could run for months. People were thinking about what would be possible if you had that much available energy. And of course, people had thought about reactors. Robert Oppenheimer was a professor at Berkeley and within a week of the news reaching Berkeley, one of his students told me that he had a drawing on the blackboard, a rather bad drawing of both a reactor and a bomb. So again, because the energy was so great, the physics was pretty obvious. Whether it would actually happen depended on some other things like could you make it chain react? But fundamentally, the idea was all there at the very beginning and everybody jumped on it. Dwarkesh Patel 0:27:54The book is actually the best history of World War II I've ever read. It's about the atomic bomb, but it's interspersed with the events that are happening in World War II, which motivate the creation of the bomb or the release of it, why it had to be dropped on Japan given the Japanese response. The first third is about the scientific roots of the physics and it's also the best book I've read about the history of science in the early 20th century and the organization of it. There's some really interesting stuff in there. For example, there was a passage where you talk about how there's a real master apprentice model in early science where if you wanted to learn to do this kind of experimentation, you will go to Amsterdam where the master of it is residing. It's much more individual focused. Richard Rhodes 0:28:58Yeah, the whole European model of graduate study, which is basically the wandering scholar. You could go wherever you wanted to and sign up with whoever was willing to have you sign up. (0:29:10) - Firebombing vs nuclear vs hydrogen bombsDwarkesh Patel 0:29:10But the question I wanted to ask regarding the history you made of World War II in general is — there's one way you can think about the atom bomb which is that it is completely different from any sort of weaponry that has been developed before it. Another way you can think of it is there's a spectrum where on one end you have the thermonuclear bomb, in the middle you have the atom bomb, and on this end you have the firebombing of cities like Hamburg and Dresden and Tokyo. Do you think of these as completely different categories or does it seem like an escalating gradient to you? Richard Rhodes 0:29:47I think until you get to the hydrogen bomb, it's really an escalating gradient. The hydrogen bomb can be made arbitrarily large. The biggest one ever tested was 56 megatons of TNT equivalent. The Soviet tested that. That had a fireball more than five miles in diameter, just the fireball. So that's really an order of magnitude change. But the other one's no and in fact, I think one of the real problems, this has not been much discussed and it should be, when American officials went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the war, one of them said later — “I got on a plane in Tokyo. We flew down the long green archipelago of the Japanese home island. When I left Tokyo, it was all gray broken roof tiles from the fire bombing and the other bombings. And then all this greenery. And then when we flew over Hiroshima, it was just gray broken roof tiles again.” So the scale of the bombing with one bomb, in the case of Hiroshima, was not that different from the scale of the fire bombings that had preceded it with tens of thousands of bombs. The difference was it was just one plane. In fact, the people in Hiroshima didn't even bother to go into their bomb shelters because one plane had always just been a weather plane. Coming over to check the weather before the bombers took off. So they didn't see any reason to hide or protect themselves, which was one of the reasons so many people were killed. The guys at Los Alamos had planned on the Japanese being in their bomb shelters. They did everything they could think of to make the bomb as much like ordinary bombing as they could. And for example, it was exploded high enough above ground, roughly 1,800 yards, so that the fireball that would form from this really very small nuclear weapon — by modern standards — 15 kilotons of TNT equivalent, wouldn't touch the ground and stir up dirt and irradiate it and cause massive radioactive fallout. It never did that. They weren't sure there would be any fallout. They thought the plutonium and the bomb over Nagasaki now would just kind of turn into a gas and blow away. That's not exactly what happened. But people don't seem to realize, and it's never been emphasized enough, these first bombs, like all nuclear weapons, were firebombs. Their job was to start mass fires, just exactly like all the six-pound incendiaries that had been destroying every major city in Japan by then. Every major city above 50,000 population had already been burned out. The only reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were around to be atomic bombed is because they'd been set aside from the target list, because General Groves wanted to know what the damage effects would be. The bomb that was tested in the desert didn't tell you anything. It killed a lot of rabbits, knocked down a lot of cactus, melted some sand, but you couldn't see its effect on buildings and on people. So the bomb was deliberately intended to be as much not like poison gas, for example, because we didn't want the reputation for being like people in the war in Europe during the First World War, where people were killing each other with horrible gasses. We just wanted people to think this was another bombing. So in that sense, it was. Of course, there was radioactivity. And of course, some people were killed by it. But they calculated that the people who would be killed by the irradiation, the neutron radiation from the original fireball, would be close enough to the epicenter of the explosion that they would be killed by the blast or the flash of light, which was 10,000 degrees. The world's worst sunburn. You've seen stories of people walking around with their skin hanging off their arms. I've had sunburns almost that bad, but not over my whole body, obviously, where the skin actually peeled blisters and peels off. That was a sunburn from a 10,000 degree artificial sun. Dwarkesh Patel 0:34:29So that's not the heat, that's just the light? Richard Rhodes 0:34:32Radiant light, radiant heat. 10,000 degrees. But the blast itself only extended out a certain distance, it was fire. And all the nuclear weapons that have ever been designed are basically firebombs. That's important because the military in the United States after the war was not able to figure out how to calculate the effects of this weapon in a reliable way that matched their previous experience. They would only calculate the blast effects of a nuclear weapon when they figured their targets. That's why we had what came to be called overkill. We wanted redundancy, of course, but 60 nuclear weapons on Moscow was way beyond what would be necessary to destroy even that big a city because they were only calculating the blast. But in fact, if you exploded a 300 kiloton nuclear warhead over the Pentagon at 3,000 feet, it would blast all the way out to the capital, which isn't all that far. But if you counted the fire, it would start a mass-fire and then it would reach all the way out to the Beltway and burn everything between the epicenter of the weapon and the Beltway. All organic matter would be totally burned out, leaving nothing but mineral matter, basically. Dwarkesh Patel 0:36:08I want to emphasize two things you said because they really hit me in reading the book and I'm not sure if the audience has fully integrated them. The first is, in the book, the military planners and Groves, they talk about needing to use the bomb sooner rather than later, because they were running out of cities in Japan where there are enough buildings left that it would be worth bombing in the first place, which is insane. An entire country is almost already destroyed from fire bombing alone. And the second thing about the category difference between thermonuclear and atomic bombs. Daniel Ellsberg, the nuclear planner who wrote the Doomsday machine, he talks about, people don't understand that the atom bomb that resulted in the pictures we see of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that is simply the detonator of a modern nuclear bomb, which is an insane thing to think about. So for example, 10 and 15 kilotons is the Hiroshima Nagasaki and the Tsar Bomba, which was 50 megatons. So more than 1,000 times as much. And that wasn't even as big as they could make it. They kept the uranium tamper off, because they didn't want to destroy all of Siberia. So you could get more than 10,000 times as powerful. Richard Rhodes 0:37:31When Edward Teller, co-inventor of the hydrogen bomb and one of the dark forces in the story, was consulting with our military, just for his own sake, he sat down and calculated, how big could you make a hydrogen bomb? He came up with 1,000 megatons. And then he looked at the effects. 1,000 megatons would be a fireball 10 miles in diameter. And the atmosphere is only 10 miles deep. He figured that it would just be a waste of energy, because it would all blow out into space. Some of it would go laterally, of course, but most of it would just go out into space. So a bomb more than 100 megatons would just be totally a waste of time. Of course, a 100 megatons bomb is also a total waste, because there's no target on Earth big enough to justify that from a military point of view. Robert Oppenheimer, when he had his security clearance questioned and then lifted when he was being punished for having resisted the development of the hydrogen bomb, was asked by the interrogator at this security hearing — “Well, Dr. Oppenheimer, if you'd had a hydrogen bomb for Hiroshima, wouldn't you have used it?” And Oppenheimer said, “No.” The interrogator asked, “Why is that?” He said because the target was too small. I hope that scene is in the film, I'm sure it will be. So after the war, when our bomb planners and some of our scientists went into Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just about as soon as the surrender was signed, what they were interested in was the scale of destruction, of course. And those two cities didn't look that different from the other cities that had been firebombed with small incendiaries and ordinary high explosives. They went home to Washington, the policy makers, with the thought that — “Oh, these bombs are not so destructive after all.” They had been touted as city busters, basically, and they weren't. They didn't completely burn out cities. They were not certainly more destructive than the firebombing campaign, when everything of more than 50,000 population had already been destroyed. That, in turn, influenced the judgment about what we needed to do vis-a-vis the Soviet Union when the Soviets got the bomb in 1949. There was a general sense that, when you could fight a war with nuclear weapons, deterrence or not, you would need quite a few of them to do it right. And the Air Force, once it realized that it could aggrandize its own share of the federal budget by cornering the market and delivering nuclear weapons, very quickly decided that they would only look at the blast effect and not the fire effect. It's like tying one hand behind your back. Most of it was a fire effect. So that's where they came up with numbers like we need 60 of these to take out Moscow. And what the Air Force figured out by the late 1940s is that the more targets, the more bombs. The more bombs, the more planes. The more planes, the biggest share of the budget. So by the mid 1950s, the Air Force commanded 47% of the federal defense budget. And the other branches of services, which had not gone nuclear by then, woke up and said, we'd better find some use for these weapons in our branches of service. So the Army discovered that it needed nuclear weapons, tactical weapons for field use, fired out of cannons. There was even one that was fired out of a shoulder mounted rifle. There was a satchel charge that two men could carry, weighed about 150 pounds, that could be used to dig a ditch so that Soviet tanks couldn't cross into Germany. And of course the Navy by then had been working hard with General Rickover on building a nuclear submarine that could carry ballistic missiles underwater in total security. No way anybody could trace those submarines once they were quiet enough. And a nuclear reactor is very quiet. It just sits there with neutrons running around, making heat. So the other services jumped in and this famous triad, we must have these three different kinds of nuclear weapons, baloney. We would be perfectly safe if we only had our nuclear submarines. And only one or two of those. One nuclear submarine can take out all of Europe or all of the Soviet Union.Dwarkesh Patel 0:42:50Because it has multiple nukes on it? Richard Rhodes 0:42:53Because they have 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles with MIRV warheads, at least three per missile. Dwarkesh Patel 0:43:02Wow. I had a former guest, Richard Hanania, who has a book about foreign policy where he points out that our model of thinking about why countries do the things they do, especially in foreign affairs, is wrong because we think of them as individual rational actors, when in fact it's these competing factions within the government. And in fact, you see this especially in the case of Japan in World War II, there was a great book of Japan leading up to World War II, where they talk about how a branch of the Japanese military, I forget which, needed more oil to continue their campaign in Manchuria so they forced these other branches to escalate. But it's so interesting that the reason we have so many nukes is that the different branches are competing for funding. Richard Rhodes 0:43:50Douhet, the theorist of air power, had been in the trenches in the First World War. Somebody (John Masefield) called the trenches of the First World War, the long grave already dug, because millions of men were killed and the trenches never moved, a foot this way, a foot that way, all this horror. And Douhet came up with the idea that if you could fly over the battlefield to the homeland of the enemy and destroy his capacity to make war, then the people of that country, he theorized, would rise up in rebellion and throw out their leaders and sue for peace. And this became the dream of all the Air Forces of the world, but particularly ours. Until around 1943, it was called the US Army Air Force. The dream of every officer in the Air Force was to get out from under the Army, not just be something that delivers ground support or air support to the Army as it advances, but a power that could actually win wars. And the missing piece had always been the scale of the weaponry they carried. So when the bomb came along, you can see why Curtis LeMay, who ran the strategic air command during the prime years of that force, was pushing for bigger and bigger bombs. Because if a plane got shot down, but the one behind it had a hydrogen bomb, then it would be just almost as effective as the two planes together. So they wanted big bombs. And they went after Oppenheimer because he thought that was a terrible way to go, that there was really no military use for these huge weapons. Furthermore, the United States had more cities than Russia did, than the Soviet Union did. And we were making ourselves a better target by introducing a weapon that could destroy a whole state. I used to live in Connecticut and I saw a map that showed the air pollution that blew up from New York City to Boston. And I thought, well, now if that was fallout, we'd be dead up here in green, lovely Connecticut. That was the scale that it was going to be with these big new weapons. So on the one hand, you had some of the important leaders in the government thinking that these weapons were not the war-winning weapons that the Air Force wanted them and realized they could be. And on the other hand, you had the Air Force cornering the market on nuclear solutions to battles. All because some guy in a trench in World War I was sufficiently horrified and sufficiently theoretical about what was possible with air power. Remember, they were still flying biplanes. When H.G. Wells wrote his novel, The World Set Free in 1913, predicting an atomic war that would lead to world government, he had Air Forces delivering atomic bombs, but he forgot to update his planes. The guys in the back seat, the bombardiers, were sitting in a biplane, open cockpit. And when the pilots had dropped the bomb, they would reach down and pick up H.G. Wells' idea of an atomic bomb and throw it over the side. Which is kind of what was happening in Washington after the war. And it led us to a terribly misleading and unfortunate perspective on how many weapons we needed, which in turn fermented the arms race with the Soviets and just chased off. In the Soviet Union, they had a practical perspective on factories. Every factory was supposed to produce 120% of its target every year. That was considered good Soviet realism. And they did that with their nuclear war weapons. So by the height of the Cold War, they had 75,000 nuclear weapons, and nobody had heard yet of nuclear winter. So if both sides had set off this string of mass traps that we had in our arsenals, it would have been the end of the human world without question. Dwarkesh Patel 0:48:27It raises an interesting question, if the military planners thought that the conventional nuclear weapon was like the fire bombing, would it have been the case that if there wasn't a thermonuclear weapon, that there actually would have been a nuclear war by now because people wouldn't have been thinking of it as this hard red line? Richard Rhodes 0:48:47I don't think so because we're talking about one bomb versus 400, and one plane versus 400 planes and thousands of bombs. That scale was clear. Deterrence was the more important business. Everyone seemed to understand even the spies that the Soviets had connected up to were wholesaling information back to the Soviet Union. There's this comic moment when Truman is sitting with Joseph Stalin at Potsdam, and he tells Stalin, we have a powerful new weapon. And that's as much as he's ready to say about it. And Stalin licks at him and says, “Good, I hope you put it to good use with the Japanese.” Stalin knows exactly what he's talking about. He's seen the design of the fat man type Nagasaki plutonium bomb. He has held it in his hands because they had spies all over the place. (0:49:44) - Stalin & the Soviet programDwarkesh Patel 0:49:44How much longer would it have taken the Soviets to develop the bomb if they didn't have any spies? Richard Rhodes 0:49:49Probably not any longer. Dwarkesh Patel 0:49:51Really? Richard Rhodes 0:49:51When the Soviet Union collapsed in the winter of ‘92, I ran over there as quickly as I could get over there. In this limbo between forming a new kind of government and some of the countries pulling out and becoming independent and so forth, their nuclear scientists, the ones who'd worked on their bombs were free to talk. And I found that out through Yelena Bonner, Andrei Sakharov's widow, who was connected to people I knew. And she said, yeah, come on over. Her secretary, Sasha, who was a geologist about 35 years old became my guide around the country. We went to various apartments. They were retired guys from the bomb program and were living on, as far as I could tell, sac-and-potatoes and some salt. They had government pensions and the money was worth a salt, all of a sudden. I was buying photographs from them, partly because I needed the photographs and partly because 20 bucks was two months' income at that point. So it was easy for me and it helped them. They had first class physicists in the Soviet Union, they do in Russian today. They told me that by 1947, they had a design for a bomb that they said was half the weight and twice the yield of the Fat Man bomb. The Fat Man bomb was the plutonium implosion, right? And it weighed about 9,000 pounds. They had a much smaller and much more deliverable bomb with a yield of about 44 kilotons. Dwarkesh Patel 0:51:41Why was Soviet physics so good?Richard Rhodes 0:51:49The Russian mind? I don't know. They learned all their technology from the French in the 19th century, which is why there's so many French words in Russian. So they got good teachers, the French are superb technicians, they aren't so good at building things, but they're very good at designing things. There's something about Russia, I don't know if it's the language or the education. They do have good education, they did. But I remember asking them when they were working, I said — On the hydrogen bomb, you didn't have any computers yet. We only had really early primitive computers to do the complicated calculations of the hydrodynamics of that explosion. I said, “What did you do?” They said, “Oh, we just used nuclear. We just used theoretical physics.” Which is what we did at Los Alamos. We had guys come in who really knew their math and they would sit there and work it out by hand. And women with old Marchant calculators running numbers. So basically they were just good scientists and they had this new design. Kurchatov who ran the program took Lavrentiy Beria, who ran the NKVD who was put in charge of the program and said — “Look, we can build you a better bomb. You really wanna waste the time to make that much more uranium and plutonium?” And Beria said, “Comrade, I want the American bomb. Give me the American bomb or you and all your families will be camp dust.” I talked to one of the leading scientists in the group and he said, we valued our lives, we valued our families. So we gave them a copy of the plutonium implosion bomb. Dwarkesh Patel 0:53:37Now that you explain this, when the Soviet Union fell, why didn't North Korea, Iran or another country, send a few people to the fallen Soviet Union to recruit a few of the scientists to start their own program? Or buy off their stockpiles or something. Or did they?Richard Rhodes 0:53:59There was some effort by countries in the Middle East to get all the enriched uranium, which they wouldn't sell them. These were responsible scientists. They told me — we worked on the bomb because you had it and we didn't want there to be a monopoly on the part of any country in the world. So patriotically, even though Stalin was in charge of our country, he was a monster. We felt that it was our responsibility to work on these things, even Sakharov. There was a great rush at the end of the Second World War to get hold of German scientists. And about an equal number were grabbed by the Soviets. All of the leading German scientists, like Heisenberg and Hans and others, went west as fast as they could. They didn't want to be captured by the Soviets. But there were some who were. And they helped them work. People have the idea that Los Alamos was where the bomb happened. And it's true that at Los Alamos, we had the team that designed, developed, and built the first actual weapons. But the truth is, the important material for weapons is the uranium or plutonium. One of the scientists in the Manhattan Project told me years later, you can make a pretty high-level nuclear explosion just by taking two subcritical pieces of uranium, putting one on the floor and dropping the other by hand from a height of about six feet. If that's true, then all this business about secret designs and so forth is hogwash. What you really need for a weapon is the critical mass of highly enriched uranium, 90% of uranium-235. If you've got that, there are lots of different ways to make the bomb. We had two totally different ways that we used. The gun on the one hand for uranium, and then because plutonium was so reactive that if you fired up the barrel of a cannon at 3,000 feet per second, it would still melt down before the two pieces made it up. So for that reason, they had to invent an entirely new technology, which was an amazing piece of work. From the Soviet point of view, and I think this is something people don't know either, but it puts the Russian experience into a better context. All the way back in the 30s, since the beginning of the Soviet Union after the First World War, they had been sending over espionage agents connected up to Americans who were willing to work for them to collect industrial technology. They didn't have it when they began their country. It was very much an agricultural country. And in that regard, people still talk about all those damn spies stealing our secrets, we did the same thing with the British back in colonial days. We didn't know how to make a canal that wouldn't drain out through the soil. The British had a certain kind of clay that they would line their canals with, and there were canals all over England, even in the 18th century, that were impervious to the flow of water. And we brought a British engineer at great expense to teach us how to make the lining for the canals that opened up the Middle West and then the West. So they were doing the same thing. And one of those spies was a guy named Harry Gold, who was working all the time for them. He gave them some of the basic technology of Kodak filmmaking, for example. Harry Gold was the connection between David Greenglass and one of the American spies at Los Alamos and the Soviet Union. So it was not different. The model was — never give us something that someone dreamed of that hasn't been tested and you know works. So it would actually be blueprints for factories, not just a patent. And therefore when Beria after the war said, give us the bomb, he meant give me the American bomb because we know that works. I don't trust you guys. Who knows what you'll do. You're probably too stupid anyway. He was that kind of man. So for all of those reasons, they built the second bomb they tested was twice the yield and half the way to the first bomb. In other words, it was their new design. And so it was ours because the technology was something that we knew during the war, but it was too theoretical still to use. You just had to put the core and have a little air gap between the core and the explosives so that the blast wave would have a chance to accelerate through an open gap. And Alvarez couldn't tell me what it was but he said, you can get a lot more destructive force with a hammer if you hit something with it, rather than if you put the head on the hammer and push. And it took me several years before I figured out what he meant. I finally understood he was talking about what's called levitation.Dwarkesh Patel 0:59:41On the topic that the major difficulty in developing a bomb is either the refinement of uranium into U-235 or its transmutation into plutonium, I was actually talking to a physicist in preparation for this conversation. He explained the same thing that if you get two subcritical masses of uranium together, you wouldn't have the full bomb because it would start to tear itself apart without the tamper, but you would still have more than one megaton.Richard Rhodes 1:00:12It would be a few kilotons. Alvarez's model would be a few kilotons, but that's a lot. Dwarkesh Patel 1:00:20Yeah, sorry I meant kiloton. He claimed that one of the reasons why we talk so much about Los Alamos is that at the time the government didn't want other countries to know that if you refine uranium, you've got it. So they were like, oh, we did all this fancy physics work in Los Alamos that you're not gonna get to, so don't even worry about it. I don't know what you make of that theory. That basically it was sort of a way to convince people that Los Alamos was important. Richard Rhodes 1:00:49I think all the physics had been checked out by a lot of different countries by then. It was pretty clear to everybody what you needed to do to get to a bomb. That there was a fast fusion reaction, not a slow fusion reaction, like a reactor. They'd worked that out. So I don't think that's really the problem. But to this day, no one ever talks about the fact that the real problem isn't the design of the weapon. You could make one with wooden boxes if you wanted to. The problem is getting the material. And that's good because it's damned hard to make that stuff. And it's something you can protect. Dwarkesh Patel 1:01:30We also have gotten very lucky, if lucky is the word you want to use. I think you mentioned this in the book at some point, but the laws of physics could have been such that unrefined uranium ore was enough to build a nuclear weapon, right? In some sense, we got lucky that it takes a nation-state level actor to really refine and produce the raw substance. Richard Rhodes 1:01:56Yeah, I was thinking about that this morning on the way over. And all the uranium in the world would already have destroyed itself. Most people have never heard of the living reactors that developed on their own in a bed of uranium ore in Africa about two billion years ago, right? When there was more U-235 in a mass of uranium ore than there is today, because it decays like all radioactive elements. And the French discovered it when they were mining the ore and found this bed that had a totally different set of nuclear characteristics. They were like, what happened? But there were natural reactors in Gabon once upon a time. And they started up because some water, a moderator to make the neutrons slow down, washed its way down through a bed of much more highly enriched uranium ore than we still have today. Maybe 5-10% instead of 3.5 or 1.5, whatever it is now. And they ran for about 100,000 years and then shut themselves down because they had accumulated enough fusion products that the U-235 had been used up. Interestingly, this material never migrated out of the bed of ore. People today who are anti-nuclear say, well, what are we gonna do about the waste? Where are we gonna put all that waste? It's silly. Dwarkesh Patel 1:03:35Shove it in a hole. Richard Rhodes 1:03:36Yeah, basically. That's exactly what we're planning to do. Holes that are deep enough and in beds of material that will hold them long enough for everything to decay back to the original ore. It's not a big problem except politically because nobody wants it in their backyard.Dwarkesh Patel 1:03:53On the topic of the Soviets, one question I had while reading the book was — we negotiated with Stalin at Yalta and we surrendered a large part of Eastern Europe to him under his sphere of influence. And obviously we saw 50 years of immiseration there as a result. Given the fact that only we had the bomb, would it have been possible that we could have just knocked out the Soviet Union or at least prevented so much of the world from succumbing to communism in the aftermath of World War II? Is that a possibility? Richard Rhodes 1:04:30When we say we had the bomb, we had a few partly assembled handmade bombs. It took almost as long to assemble one as the battery life of the batteries that would drive the original charge that would set off the explosion. It was a big bluff. You know, when they closed Berlin in 1948 and we had to supply Berlin by air with coal and food for a whole winter, we moved some B-29s to England. The B-29 being the bomber that had carried the bombs. They were not outfitted for nuclear weapons. They didn't have the same kind of bomb-based structure. The weapons that were dropped in Japan had a single hook that held the entire bomb. So when the bay opened and the hook was released, the thing dropped. And that's very different from dropping whole rows of small bombs that you've seen in the photographs and the film footage. So it was a big bluff on our part. We took some time after the war inevitably to pull everything together. Here was a brand new technology. Here was a brand new weapon. Who was gonna be in charge of it? The military wanted control, Truman wasn't about to give the military control. He'd been an artillery officer in the First World War. He used to say — “No, damn artillery captain is gonna start World War III when I'm president.” I grew up in the same town he lived in so I know his accent. Independence, Missouri. Used to see him at his front steps taking pictures with tourists while he was still president. He used to step out on the porch and let the tourists take photographs. About a half a block from my Methodist church where I went to church. It was interesting. Interestingly, his wife was considered much more socially acceptable than he was. She was from an old family in independence, Missouri. And he was some farmer from way out in Grandview, Missouri, South of Kansas City. Values. Anyway, at the end of the war, there was a great rush from the Soviet side of what was already a zone. There was a Soviet zone, a French zone, British zone and an American zone. Germany was divided up into those zones to grab what's left of the uranium ore that the Germans had stockpiled. And there was evidence that there was a number of barrels of the stuff in a warehouse somewhere in the middle of all of this. And there's a very funny story about how the Russians ran in and grabbed off one site full of uranium ore, this yellow black stuff in what were basically wine barrels. And we at the same night, just before the wall came down between the zones, were running in from the other side, grabbing some other ore and then taking it back to our side. But there was also a good deal of requisitioning of German scientists. And the ones who had gotten away early came West, but there were others who didn't and ended up helping the Soviets. And they were told, look, you help us build the reactors and the uranium separation systems that we need. And we'll let you go home and back to your family, which they did. Early 50s by then, the German scientists who had helped the Russians went home. And I think our people stayed here and brought their families over, I don't know. (1:08:24) - Deterrence, disarmament, North Korea, TaiwanDwarkesh Patel 1:08:24Was there an opportunity after the end of World War II, before the Soviets developed the bomb, for the US to do something where either it somehow enforced a monopoly on having the bomb, or if that wasn't possible, make some sort of credible gesture that, we're eliminating this knowledge, you guys don't work on this, we're all just gonna step back from this. Richard Rhodes 1:08:50We tried both before the war. General Groves, who had the mistaken impression that there was a limited amount of high-grade uranium ore in the world, put together a company that tried to corner the market on all the available supply. For some reason, he didn't realize that a country the size of the Soviet Union is going to have some uranium ore somewhere. And of course it did, in Kazakhstan, rich uranium ore, enough for all the bombs they wanted to build. But he didn't know that, and I frankly don't know why he didn't know that, but I guess uranium's use before the Second World War was basically as a glazing agent for pottery, that famous yellow pottery and orange pottery that people owned in the 1930s, those colors came from uranium, and they're sufficiently radioactive, even to this day, that if you wave a Geiger counter over them, you get some clicks. In fact, there have been places where they've gone in with masks and suits on, grabbed the Mexican pottery and taken it out in a lead-lined case. People have been so worried about it but that was the only use for uranium, to make a particular kind of glass. So once it became clear that there was another use for uranium, a much more important one, Groves tried to corner the world market, and he thought he had. So that was one effort to limit what the Soviet Union could do. Another was to negotiate some kind of agreement between the parties. That was something that really never got off the ground, because the German Secretary of State was an old Southern politician and he didn't trust the Soviets. He went to the first meeting, in Geneva in ‘45 after the war was over, and strutted around and said, well, I got the bomb in my pocket, so let's sit down and talk here. And the Soviet basically said, screw you. We don't care. We're not worried about your bomb. Go home. So that didn't work. Then there was the effort to get the United Nations to start to develop some program of international control. And the program was proposed originally by a committee put together by our State Department that included Robert Oppenheimer, rightly so, because the other members of the committee were industrialists, engineers, government officials, people with various kinds of expertise around the very complicated problems of technology and the science and, of course, the politics, the diplomacy. In a couple of weeks, Oppenheimer taught them the basics of the nuclear physics involved and what he knew about bomb design, which was everything, actually, since he'd run Los Alamos. He was a scientist during the war. And they came up with a plan. People have scoffed ever since at what came to be called the Acheson-Lilienthal plan named after the State Department people. But it's the only plan I think anyone has ever devised that makes real sense as to how you could have international control without a world government. Every country would be open to inspection by any agency that was set up. And the inspections would not be at the convenience of the country. But whenever the inspectors felt they needed to inspect. So what Oppenheimer called an open world. And if you had that, and then if each country then developed its own nuclear industries, nuclear power, medical uses, whatever, then if one country tried clandestinely to begin to build bombs, you would know about it at the time of the next inspection. And then you could try diplomacy. If that didn't work, you could try conventional war. If that wasn't sufficient, then you could start building your bombs too. And at the end of this sequence, which would be long enough, assuming that there were no bombs existing in the world, and the ore was stored in a warehouse somewhere, six months maybe, maybe a year, it would be time for everyone to scale up to deterrence with weapons rather than deterrence without weapons, with only the knowledge. That to me is the answer to the whole thing. And it might have worked. But there were two big problems. One, no country is going to allow a monopoly on a nuclear weapon, at least no major power. So the Russians were not willing to sign on from the beginning. They just couldn't. How could they? We would not have. Two, Sherman assigned a kind of a loudmouth, a wise old Wall Street guy to present this program to the United Nations. And he sat down with Oppenheimer after he and his people had studied and said, where's your army? Somebody starts working on a bomb over there. You've got to go in and take that out, don't you? He said, what would happen if one country started building a bomb? Oppenheimer said, well, that would be an act of war. Meaning then the other countries could begin to escalate as they needed to to protect themselves against one power, trying to overwhelm the rest. Well, Bernard Baruch was the name of the man. He didn't get it. So when he presented his revised version of the Acheson–Lilienthal Plan, which was called the Baruch Plan to the United Nations, he included his army. And he insisted that the United States would not give up its nuclear monopoly until everyone else had signed on. So of course, who's going to sign on to that deal? Dwarkesh Patel 1:15:24I feel he has a point in the sense that — World War II took five years or more. If we find that the Soviets are starting to develop a bomb, it's not like within the six months or a year or whatever, it would take them to start refining the ore. And to the point we found out that they've been refining ore to when we start a war and engage in it, and doing all the diplomacy. By that point, they might already have the bomb. And so we're behind because we dismantled our weapons. We are only starting to develop our weapons once we've exhausted these other avenues. Richard Rhodes 1:16:00Not to develop. Presumably we would have developed. And everybody would have developed anyway. Another way to think of this is as delayed delivery times. Takes about 30 minutes to get an ICBM from Central Missouri to Moscow. That's the time window for doing anything other than starting a nuclear war. So take the warhead off those missiles and move it down the road 10 miles. So then it takes three hours. You've got to put the warhead back on the missiles. If the other side is willing to do this too. And you both can watch and see. We require openness. A word Bohr introduced to this whole thing. In order to make this happen, you can't have secrets. And of course, as time passed on, we developed elaborate surveillance from space, surveillance from planes, and so forth. It would not have worked in 1946 for sure. The surveillance wasn't there. But that system is in place today. The International Atomic Energy Agency has detected systems in air, in space, underwater. They can detect 50 pounds of dynamite exploded in England from Australia with the systems that we have in place. It's technical rather than human resources. But it's there. So it's theoretically possible today to get started on such a program. Except, of course, now, in like 1950, the world is awash in nuclear weapons. Despite the reductions that have occurred since the end of the Cold War, there's still 30,000-40,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Way too many. Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:01Yeah. That's really interesting. What percentage of warheads do you think are accounted for by this organization? If there's 30,000 warheads, what percentage are accounted for? Richard Rhodes 1:18:12All.Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:12Oh. Really?  North Korea doesn't have secrets? Richard Rhodes 1:18:13They're allowed to inspect anywhere without having to ask the government for permission. Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:18But presumably not North Korea or something, right? Richard Rhodes 1:18:21North Korea is an exception. But we keep pretty good track of North Korea needless to say. Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:27Are you surprised with how successful non-proliferation has been? The number of countries with nuclear weapons has not gone up for decades. Given the fact, as you were talking about earlier, it's simply a matter of refining or transmuting uranium. Is it surprising that there aren't more countries that have it?Richard Rhodes 1:18:42That's really an interesting part. Again, a part of the story that most people have never really heard. In the 50s, before the development and signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was 1968 and it took effect in 1970, a lot of countries that you would never have imagined were working on nuclear weapons. Sweden, Norway, Japan, South Korea. They had the technology. They just didn't have the materials. It was kind of dicey about what you should do. But I interviewed some of the Swedish scientists who worked on their bomb and they said, well, we were just talking about making some tactical

Track 4 of the Holy Mackerel record showcases Mirv's surf guitar prowess, and this tune became a live favorite of the Holy Mack crew on the 1996 tour; deservedly so, and letting Mirv run wild is always a good thing. We jog Soya's memory and get some nuggets about the drum sound, Mirv's approach, and Frankie has some massive live cuts. Get involved:InstagramTwitterEmailBurn your money

Join in the fun as Jason brainstorms and structures his latest keynote session "Misconnected."Segment 01 -- OverviewWe have more tools to connect than ever before...and are doing a worse job at it. Here's why and how we Misconnect.Segment 02 -- Curiosity Why and how to use curiosity to your advantage.Segment 03 -- EngagementDon't be boring! Get out there and find ways to be MIRV.Segment 04 -- VulnerabilityCan you share your screw ups and fears? They go a long way to making the difference when you connect.

For the track Highball With The Devil, we needed a heavy, and Soya delivered with the legendary Adam Gates, who contributed backing vocals to the tune. Adam talks about the track itself, a bit about Precipitation, and the recording/sound philosophy of the Holy Mackerel record. Plus, we wind up Soya and Adam, then let'em go with some tour stories. Check out the Primus Tracks Patreon for the extended cut (and video) of the episode - over 30 extra minutes with Adam!Get involved:InstagramTwitterEmail

Track 2 of Les Claypool & The Holy Mackerel Presents Highball With The Devil is the first two title tracks. For this one, Les brought in Jay Lane on drums, and Joe Gore & MIRV for guitar parts. It's one of the more complete tunes on the record, and reflects the spirited approach to this DIY project. Matt Hunter and Soya join to discuss the instrumentation and the mostly obtuse lyrics, plus live cuts from different eras, as this one spans many bands. Get involved:InstagramTwitterEmailBurn your money

We return to the Prawn Song Records catalogue to discuss MIRV's Cosmodrome, recorded in 1993 at Les Claypool's house for release on his own record label. This record deserves a deep dive give nthat Les produces and performs all over the record, and that Marc "MIRV" Haggard is such an important figure in the Primus/Les world. The band MIRV has opened for Primus numerous times, and Marc has performend with numerous iterations of Les side projects. MIRV scholar Anthony Garcia joins us to sample the album and pick out its narrative elements, as well as its eclectic musicality. MIRV truly puts on a variety show throughout!Get involved:InstagramTwitterEmailBurn your money

After its inception to self-release Suck On This in 1989, Prawn Song Records went dormant until 1993, when Les Claypool revived the label to provide opportunities for his friends to cut records, and perhaps enhance their careers. We examine most of the releases from the period when Prawn Song had a distribution deal with Mammoth Records - the same deal nullified by Les's attempt to publish the Beanpole record. Discogs links to releases discussed:Alphabet Soup - Layin' Low in the CutEskimo - The Further Adventures of Der ShrimpkinCharlie Hunter Trio (1993)MIRV - CosmodromeShrimp Cocktail - A Prawn Song AppetizerAs monetioned in this episode, Porch and Laundry will get their own elongated dsicussions at a later date. https://www.patreon.com/primustrackshttps://www.instagram.com/primustrackshttps://www.twitter.com/primustracksprimustrackspod@gmail.com

We're going around the store with a staff mash-up as Door Guy Luke Schwartz is joined by Mirv (bar), Morgan (server) and Anthony (security) to talk all things Store. CHECK OUT THE DOOR GUYS EVERY WEDNESDAY NIGHT @ "UP NEXT" IN THE COMEDY STORE BELLY ROOM!

With Maud Chisselbone, the hag that resided in the Cauldron Caves defeated, the party looks to collect on the spoils of their labor. Mirabella continues to search for her search for Sylver, or Mirv, or Assara Nosro, or whatever name the famed performer goes by today. Hefrum seals the deal to have Redwin released. Bosera gets her book, and Ahme comes into the possession of a strange book linked to her god. We'll see you at the end, as we all gaze at the lights... DM - Rob Kristoffersen Keep up with of his projects here. Mirabella Whitemoon - Jennifer Taylor Jen can be found streaming on her Twitch channel. Ahme - Desdymona Howard Check out the Desdymona's art here. Bosera Splitfiish- Kris Rusho Hefrumlir Warbraids - Paul (The TechnoFunkBoy) Paul regularly streams on Twitch. Follow us on Twitter and Instagram at @Rolling_Realms

Uppföljning/uppvärmning Skruvjakt DMZ retro-rapporten? Jocke lämnade precis sista sidan med text (BBS-sidan). Tidningen trycks den 13:e december Springboard - dokumentären - finns nu på Youtube Fredrik använder sina stora brusätarlurar igen, köper reservdel till sina Airpods Bear rekommenderas som en Markdowneditor för den som inte vill göra det Fredrik gör Licensen på Nova går ut om tre dygn. Fredrik kommer inte att köpa Vinegar uppdateras med stöd för 4K Modern för Wikipedia HomeKit vs julbelysningen Fronter till dina Ikea-högtalare Jockes BBS har problem. Måste byta dator… igen… och telia verkar fimpa analoga nätet år 2022. Ämnen iMac 27” ihopmonterad. Typ Jocke blir prepper Film och TV West Wing finns nu på svensk streamingtjänst No time to die - äntligen har alla sett. 4/5BMÅ Länkar IKEA reservdelar DMZ Retro Springboard på Youtube App: the human story Jezper Bear Tipset om Bear Nova Hypercritical MKBHD testar Fairphone Gunnar på Twitter Modern for Wikipedia Wikipanion Egna fronter till IKEAs tavelhögtalare Plipbox Nikom Jockes limmade dator West Wing på IMDB West Wing på Via Play No time to die Scorched tanks MIRV Fullständig avsnittsinformation finns här: https://www.bjoremanmelin.se/podcast/avsnitt-286-airpodsambassador.html.

Come join Christina, Mirv and myself talking over both of their awakenings what lessons they learned and also some serious spiritual downloads!! Check them out on Instagram: Christina @awakenyourgoddess @awakenyourgoddessstudio MIRV @happierwithhypnosis --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Glide or die, baby.  The North Koreans, on a real cavalcade of missile debuts reminiscent of 2017, have tested what they claim to be a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV). Which means they are just checking off their list of goals, leaving a nuclear powered submarine, a MIRV, and a solid propellant ICBM as the main untested-but-announced capabilities.... While it isn't 100% clear that they actually tested an HGV, the team dissects what it might have been, if a DPRK HGV is realistic, and why HGVs and other missile-defense-defeating technologies fit the DPRK's national strategy perfectly.  Oh, and FOBS makes an appearance, almost entirely to give Scott nightmares.  Support us over at Patreon.com/acwpodcast!

Former Primus/Les manager David Lefkowitz will tell us, over the course of multiple talks, his recollections and perspectives on Primus during his tenure as manager from the late 80s to the mid 00s. Get your notebooks ready, because he's about to drop all kinds of names and stories on us.

Carla Freestep, aka Lupin, joins the podcast to share some stories from the road as the de facto photographer for some Frog Brigade and Primus tours. She shares the challenges of photographing in low light, getting Herb to look like an action hero, and some of her favorite people to capture. Find her work at wildlupin.com and order a print, ya ingrates!

The unthinkable has happened. What started as Soya, Josh, and Frankie with lespecial drummer Rory turned into a goofball hangout with a retelling of the Grapevine story (and many more!) with Adam Gates and Les Claypool. ADAM GATES AND LES CLAYPOOL. Listen. Savor. Enjoy. We couldn't be happier to share this with you. Thank you, Soya!

Bryan Kehoe is a force of nature, and brings his magnanimity to Primus Tracks. Kehoe discusses the earliest days of the Bay Area thrash and alt scenes, his time with M.I.R.V. and Kehoe International, and naturally, his run with Duo De Twang. Enjoy out conversation with this unstoppable man!

Another week, another Trump administration initiative to hasten the decoupling from China. As with MIRV warheads, the theory seems to be that the next administration can't shoot them all down.  Brian Egan lays out this week's initiative, which lifts from obscurity a DoD list of Chinese military companies and excludes them from U.S. capital markets. Our interview is with Frank Cilluffo and Mark Montgomery. Mark is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and senior advisor to the congressionally mandated Cyberspace Solarium Commission. Previously, he served as policy director for the Senate Armed Services Committee under Sen. John S. McCain—and before that served for 32 years in the U.S. Navy as a nuclear trained surface warfare officer, retiring as a rear admiral in 2017. Frank is director of Auburn University's McCrary Institute for Cyber and Critical Infrastructure Security. He also chaired the Homeland Security Advisory Council's subcommittee on economic security. We talk about the unexpected rise of the industrial supply chain as a national security issue. Both Frank and Mark were moving forces in two separate reports highlighting the issue, as was I. So, if we seem suspiciously agreed on important issues, it's because we are. Still, as an introduction to one of the surprise hot issues of the year, it's not to be missed. After our interview of a Justice Department official on how to read Schrems II narrowly, it was only a matter of time. Charles Helleputte reviews the EDPB's effort to give more authoritative and less comfortable advice to U.S. companies that want to keep relying on the standard contractual clauses. Still, the Justice Department take on the topic manages to squeak through without a direct hit from the privacy bureaucrats.  Still, the EDPB (and the EDPS even more) makes clear that anyone following the DOJ's lead is in for an uphill fight. For those who want more of Charles's thinking on the topic, see this short piece. Zoom has been allowed to settle a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proceeding for deceptive conduct (claiming that its crypto was end to end when it wasn't, and more). Mark MacCarthy gives us details. I rant about the FTC's failure to ask any serious national security questions about a company that deserves some. Brian brings us up to speed on TikTok.  Only one of the Trump administration penalties remains unenjoined. My $50 bet with Nick Weaver that CFIUS will overcome judicial skepticism that IEEPA could not is hanging by a thread. Casey Stengel makes a brief appearance to explain how TikTok might win. Brian also reminds us that export control policymaking is even slower and less functional on the other side of the Atlantic, as Europe tries, mostly ineffectively, to adopt stricter limits on exports of surveillance tech. Mark and I admire the new Aussie critical-infrastructure cybersecurity initiative, mostly for its clarity if not for its political appeal. Charles explains and I decry the enthusiasm of European courts for telling Americans what they can say and read on line. Apparently, we aren't allowed to use Facebook to call politicians “fascists”; but don't worry about our liability. So, in retrospect, how did we do in policing all the new cyber-ish threats to the 2020 election?  Brian gives the government credit for preventing foreign interference. I question the whole narrative of foreign interference (other than the hack and dump operation against the DNC) in 2016 and 2020, noting how conveniently it serves Democratic messaging (Hillary only lost because of the Russians! Ignore Trump's corruption allegations because it's more Russian interference!). Mark and I wonder what Silicon Valley thinks it's accomplishing with its extended bans on political advertising after the election.  They're going to find out it's almost always election season somewhere (see, e.g., Georgia). DHS's CISA produced a detailed rumor control site that may have corrected one too many of the President's tweets.  Chris Krebs, familiar to Cyberlaw Podcast listeners, may be on the chopping block. That would be a shame for DHS and CISA; for Chris it's probably a badge of honor. Frank Cilluffo and Mark Montgomery weigh in with praise for Chris as well. And more. Download the 338th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Renowned photographer Jay Blakesberg gives us a tour behind the scenes and the lens via his book, To Defy the Laws of Tradition: A Photographic Archive of Primus & Les Claypool - Jay dishes on the stories behind some of the photo sessions therein, and provides insight into the creative and collaborative processes with Les Claypool. Bonus: The book is marked down from $110 to $65 from now until the end of September 2020! Help Jay get his garage space back! Listen to the pod for details, or find us on IG @primustracks. Jay is @jayblakesberg and @retroblakesberg

The bastards are back, and they've brought their friends. Josh and Frankie provide info on the eight (!) guest musicians on this track, which wraps up our outing on the Seas of Cheese, as well as how such a convention of great minds came about.

Can’t seem to make sense of what’s happening inside you? All this time food is the only thing you can ever find solace in. You think you are a failure, other times you hear yourself that you are not good enough, at times you see the world like there is nothing good left for you. An ever-recurring feeling of desolation you can’t grapple with is gripping you. Now, what’s left for you to hope for? Let’s face it, you are not alone in this. You are one of the many who suffers the same fate. But you know what will differentiate you from the rest of them? That’s you taking action and them not doing anything. In January 2019, Mirvat Katib left corporate to pursue the unknown as a health and life coach and transform her life. It’s a cliche and she knows. And even though she was working on herself she also started to help people along the way that are struggling just like her. Today she lost 30lbs in less than 6 months without starving herself. And she is now a Certified Health and Life Coach. In this episode, learn about her journey to finding a healthy lifestyle that has given her insight into the many challenges one encounters enabling her to bring a high level of empathy, respect, and understanding towards those who are experiencing the same fate as hers. Reflect on her struggle of keeping it together while going through depression, finally acknowledging it and ultimately taking the bold step to break free from it. She is now a transformed person, but life always has a way of giving us surprises that always test us; learn about the growth mindset she imbibes that will have you always facing positivity amidst it all. To say that she has it all easy now is a misconception, for what she has now is a profound awareness and understanding of what truly makes her happy, obstacles, and challenges notwithstanding.  “I've never felt or looked as healthy as I do now. Even when playing sports and building muscle. I think of my lifestyle as self-care, which has led me to stop thinking that I have to, rather, I want to. The lesson here is to learn to listen to your body with love and to make choices that align with maintaining a healthy home for your body. Before changing what you eat, change your mindset and the rest will come.” - Mirvat Katib What you will learn from this episode: 02:46 - Sharing her story of ‘From fit to fat to fab’ 07:53 - Fixed mindset versus a growth mindset 10:57 - Just letting your emotions flow, letting them go, observing them, and feeling them 13:54 - Really, it all starts with a mindset 16:16 - Keeping a happy relationship with fitness 18:57 - You must learn something from your negative experience 21:56 - How she works a lot with feeling the energy of the person to shift the energy of where they are and how they are and how and where they want to be 23:19 - Overcoming her being an introvert and breaking free from her comfort zone 26:19 - It’s how you look at the world and how you see things that spell the difference 28:21 - Believe in yourself and do things for yourself and not for anybody else 30:45 - Benefits of challenging her mind and body 32:27 - What challenging herself taught her 34:39 - Acknowledge that you mess up, don’t ignore it 39:17 - Done is better than perfect 47:18 - Why you need to put yourself first and not others Connect With MIrvat Katib: mirvatkatib.com Facebook Instagram Connect With Leslie Thornton: WeighLossAlbany.com E: Leslie@LeslieMThornton.com Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Josh and Frankie discuss You Can't Kill Michael Malloy, an interlude with a rich history, and The Toys Go Winding Down, another stellar Frizzle Fry track. Frankie brings the history of Michael Malloy and Josh has an insane theory about the lyrics to Toys. Also: live medleys - hot or not? https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/primus-tracks/id1507997770https://www.instagram.com/primustracks/

This week on the podcast, the infamous Shota drops in to share some "ghost" stories, we try our best not to talk about dicks so much, we get a taste of sexual misconduct in a drive-through, and we check in to see what the almighty MIRV is up to. Goodnight Mark, I love you... Recorded 10-27-18. Buy our Merch: http://rdbl.co/2IS9IzC Buy stuff on Amazon: http://amzn.to/2yYKFoK Get some meat: http://butcherbox.go2cloud.org/SH3F Get a VPN: http://bit.ly/2krjezf/ijgwpodcast.com/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/itjustgetsworse/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/itjustgetsworse/support

Ryan Mirvis (@RyanMirvis) is the festival queen. There's nobody who personifies good times at music festivals like Mirv. He met me at the Comedy Store the day after Mitzi's memorial to break down all his theories about having a blast at festivals. That means drugs. That means sex. That means music music music. And that means drugs. Also drugs. If you're on the fence about going to a festival near you this year, this podcast should throw you over the top.

Esto es HistoCast. No es Esparta pero casi. Nos agachamos y cubrimos ante el HistoCast de amenaza de guerra nuclear que tenemos por delante con @abriperez, Rodri, @vuckaner, @DeividNagan y @goyix_salduero.Secciones Historia: - Teoría, Proyecto Manhattan y 2ª Guerra Mundial - 04:19 - Robo soviético y disuasión nuclear - 32:42 - Diseminación de la tecnología - 54:00 - Tratados de no proliferación - 1:19:30 - Efectos, tipos de bombas y escudo antimisiles - 1:25:05 - Usos y que hacer en caso de ataque - 1:56:53

HEY IDIOTS!This was a good one! This week, we BURN. I sat down with my friend Ryan Mirvis (AKA Mirv). He's a Team Leader and a Party Starter. He filled me in about the whole Burning Man culture and, honestly, I kind of want to go. He's so enthusiastic about the Burner life that it really painted a picture for those of us who have never been. We laughed a lot and we had some really sentimental, emotional moments. Mirv is the shit and you will love him! Burn on, my friends!Follow Ryan on TwitterFollow Ryan on InstagramCheck out Burning Man!Join the Ignorance is #Blessed Patreon for hot bonus content and fun gifts from me on the road!Join the FACEBOOK GROUP and get in the conversation!! Let the group know your favorite part of the episode!!Follow the podcast on Twitter!Follow the podcast on Instagram!Follow me on Twitter!Follow me on Instagram!Follow my Facebook page!Subscribe, rate, and review Ignorance is #Blessed on the podcast app!Cover photo by Yoko HaraokaSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/ignorance-is-blessed1719/donations