Ready, get ready for it May twenty five, allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, and this is the Ocelli effect. Now we're working on a brand new platform when it comes to communication with guests and all that good stuff, and hopefully sound is all good. I guess we'll find out later. I know the sound will be okay, but will it be as as it was and as it has been for the past I don't know decade that I had Skype in the mix. We'll
find out pretty soon. Anyway, working on teams. I have one of my familiar guests though, and glad that he sorted it out, because a lot of people have had problems with the transition. But anyway, do you want to hear about this? Nah, Let's talk about something else, and let's get into the thing that seems to be on everybody's mind everywhere. Wars, rumors of wars. People are at war, there's a tariff war. Nobody's even talking about the war
on drugs. But people keep talking about the possibility of a civil war in the United States. What about the war in Gaza? What about the war you know Israel? Is it? This? Is it that? How about the ceasefire, the war? Is it a war? Actually? Special military operation going on in Ukraine? What about the removal of the foreign enemies and all that good stuff. Wait a minute, that's deportation nation. That's more of a domestic thing. No, no, no,
hold on. Plenty of wars to go around, plenty of rumors of wars, And just when you thought maybe you understood all of what was happening, here comes cashmir once again. Who do I have with me? Larry Hancock, who is the author on a great many books, by the way, that occupy a large bit of space on my shelf, but I recommend them all. Who knows which book we're gonna have to refer to tonight. Maybe we'll have to talk a little shadow warfare. Perhaps we're gonna have to
talk a little surprise attack. Maybe we're talking creating chaos. I don't know. Stay tuned because it's wars and rumors of wars with Larry Hancock. Go to larrydsh Hancock dot com and check out his blog and check out what he's thinking about, what he's written about. I obviously want you to get his latest book, which is The Oswald Puzzle. But guess what we're not talking Kennedy assassination tonight, Larry, How you doing, I'm.
Doing okay, Chuck. And I've got to say from your your synopsis there, chaos kind of leaps to the fray. Hell yeah, that's that's where we all are.
And I saved it for last because I'm sorry, we're gonna have to talk about Putin, who plays a prominent role in the book creating chaos. But uh, but what we're gonna have to talk about the realistic situation, right, I mean, we we've had the supposed Seaspire, We've had the actions going on, and then the amping up of what action going on in Ukraine, attacks in cities where it wasn't before. Seems like Seaspire actually meant redirect your fire. And did anybody take a pause? Maybe they did? Oh,
by the way, what's happening in Gaza? Like I said, I can't even keep track of it all at this point. But then India and Pakistan, two nuclear powered nations staring down the barrel at one another as they actually do on a daily basis. Kashmir a continuous problem as far as I don't know the past since I've been alive. Maybe longer, I mean, and isn't it apropos because after all, Pakistan came into existence about the same time that Israel did,
about a two year difference. I think, what was it forty seven and forty five or somewhere in there, in the late nineteen forties, both Pakistan and Israel became nation states, right if I got my history correct. But anyway, pay no attention to that. Let's get back to the hot wars, the Cold Wars, and the lukewarm of what's happening. And people are talking about it like we're about to go into World War three or turn to a civil war here at home, one the other or both, and we
also have a tire of war happening. Larry, how do we snap this all into context and get I don't know, rational about it and avoid hyperbole? What do you think?
Yeah, I think one of the things it does come back to terminology to a large extent, and you can really get carried away if you don't, if you're not rugorous about that. I mean, we can look back at the so called world wars and bottom line, world war means exactly what it says. It means a participant or a group of participants fighting in you know, venues all around the globe. Now, did world wars happen? Are they a new thing? Did they start with World War One? No?
They did not. You know, the American Revolution happened to have occurred during a world war between two empires, French and British. You know, the the creation of global empires really laid the foundation to be, you know, to fight around the globe. You know where there it was four territories in India and chinamantegration. French fought for territories and basically imperial rights in India and China throughout the South
Seas in Latin America. So we we literally had world wars, but you had to have global reach, you know, your your combatant had to have global reach. And that when the empires went away, that that sort of faded out until we we we enter the state of alliances and packs and whether it was you know, the alliance that
brought about World War One. So that's global warfare. Global warfare means just that you've got parties, whether it's an empire fighting another empire or an alliance fighting another alliance, all the way around the globe. That's not what we're seeing right now, and quite frankly not what we're likely to see. What we're seeing are wars around the globe. I'm mad around the globe by different parties for different purposes,
you know. And one of the reasons why you're probably not going to see the world war thing again is because of atomic weapons, because you know, moving to that scale of warfare amps up things. So I think the first is a definition of terms chuck, and that's the to separate world war from world wars well.
And it is difficult because the nuclear armed nations is an issue at all times. Right there are people that are desperately afraid of or leary of, say Iran becoming an armed nation with nuclear weapons. At the same time we have India and Pakistan. They're both nuclear armed nations as far as I know, I mean, I know, they don't have the largest arsenals or whatever, at least last time I checked. But then again, is anybody checking on that?
And they are constantly at odds with one another over this region called Kashmir, which now we have new action there, or at least that's what they're reporting to us in the news, and it is a huge population in India. Oh, by the way, there's also a rather large contingent of economic warfare have on the planet. So you know, there's
different things going on here. Right. There's the and like I say, the tariff war there that Trump has launched, but also there's been economic warfare for a long time forever, really, right, I mean, so the struggles are there. There are imperial entities out there. They're not quite as prevalent as they once were, it seems like. But there's multiple fronts all over the place. I mean the US right now, Yeah, go ahead.
I was going to say that again. You talk venues. You know, one is weapons oriented hot war combat. But in terms of actually world war quite frankly, we are now in a world war economically, right, and the United States started it. You know, there's just no doubt about that because we have engaged with it in the nations around the globe. This is not it is US basically moving to economic warfare. Whether you like it, where you don't like it, you could classify that truly as a
world war. It's not just US engaged with China, just US engaged with Canada. It's basically US engaged with everyone who trades with US, So in that sense, I would amp that one up to say, oh, yeah, okay, this one really is a world economic war.
Right, So world economic war is a given, and we do have hot shooting events going on in various places, but it's not on as many fronts or between large alliances and empires like it was in the previous quote world wars, right. I mean, I'm asking these questions. I'm not trying to press you on it. I'm literally looking at this going, well, how do we classify this because there's a lot of shooting going on. You know, again, I mentioned Gaza, I definitely mentioned in Ukraine. I definitely
want to mention Yemen and the various other places. I mean, there's a lot of places that the news doesn't touch too where we find out later well, you know, for the past two years there's been this going on and that going on, you know, and it just suddenly comes up the moment, say a few US troops get killed in in action when they had not been killed in
the previous eighteen months of conflict. You know, stuff like that goes on as well, and there's a couple of disruptions where some governments have been overthrown, even in the past few months. Nobody's paying attention because we're arguing about the price of eggs and things in the US. But that's still happening too, right, Yeah.
And there's I mean, and it makes the news for one day and then it goes away. There's as much fighting going on in North Africa, and it's at an amazing level. And fighting that's going on with jet combat aircraft, advanced military weaponry. You know, that is going on between nations on the African continent, which actually in some sense
scaled up. It's not at the level of Ukraine and Russia, but certainly at the moment it would be far greater than the exchanges that India and Pakistan are having in terms of fatalities, certainly in terms of collateral damage civilian deaths. But because those nations don't have the visibility in the media, you know, you just periodically hear about that. So it's a fair statement to say that military combat is going
on around the globe. It's just a matter of but it's one party against together again, that's the point I was trying to make. Yeah, they may be supported, this is it feels a lot more like the fifties and sixties where there were you know, you could look at the Congo, you could look at Angola, you could look at Latin America, and you would find revolutions and combat
going on all around the place. This we had kind of drifted away from that at the end of the last century, and in the first part of the century, you know, there was a period of it just wasn't at this same level, It wasn't at this this widespread, and now it's back again, which almost kind of leads you to like, have we recycled back to where we were at the height of the Cold War, which was never really cold other than the fact that you didn't have nuclear exchange.
Well, and there it is, right, why do people even care about Indian Pakistan clashing with each other over this area called Kashmir. It's got a long history. But the truth is, I think they didn't care so much until what was it ninete in the mid nineties, I guess, or late nineties, when all of a sudden there was sort of an announcement that hey, India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, and then it became wait a minute,
they're constantly escalating hostilities between one another. Could it be that a smaller circumstance that is not a global one could be turned into one if people start to engage with nuclear weapons. And isn't that a worry because we hear about it all the time. We heard about it over Ukraine, We've heard about it. Well, we don't hear about it over Gaza, because in Gaza they're throwing rocks at the IDF and they're clearly outgunned there. But you know,
what are you going to do? You're not looking at nuclear escalation, but everywhere else where somebody has the bomb. We got a problem here. I mean, even though Israel is a nuclear armed nation as well, we're not worried that someone else might engage with them in that just yet. Oh wait a minute, that's why they're worried about Iran. And there we go. Right, it's the potential versus the actual possibility of escalation in something that's really a limited engagement, and right.
Limited nuclear warfare makes the difference. I think that's that that takes us back to mutual assured destruction. You know, when both the United States and the USSR had twenty thousand megaton class weapons, you know, insanity is right on
the horizon it's it's self destruction. When when Pakistan and India, or Iran in Israel or somebody might say, well we can Putin is saying weekly, I mean literally, Putin is saying over and over again, it's Oria's senior political people that we could use one or two nukes on Ukraine and settle all of this. You know, it's just at some point they're going to force us to do that.
You know, that's that's not mutual. It's your destruction. That that's where temptation sets in, you know, And and what's to stop that? Who Nobody has stepped up and said, well, right now, nobody is stepping up and say if you do that, you're done because we will respond. We can't trust you. You're too much of a threat. You know. So there are now people in position of using a
limited number of smaller yield nuclear weapons. It's tempting to do it because if you do it, you just immediately won you know, like we've got like you know, Israel is going to say, we've just got to settle this nonsense. Now is the time to use them where front before Iran gets them in quantity. Uh, you know, temptation sets in at a level now that's way beyond, way below mutual assurured destruction. That's the most worrisome thing.
And what's funny is I'm reminded very much of a lecture I once attended. Believe it or not, Robert McNamara was at NYU and was giving a lecture on matt mutually a short destructive deterrent, you know, the concept of it and how it was going to play out in
the very near future. And what's funny to me is I'm seeing what McNamara actually was giving lectures on what we're looking at today in a weird way, like he was very much prognosticating about the circumstance we find ourselves in currently where we're getting close to a time when I think there will be limited nuclear engagements and then knows where that'll go, because the larger nations will look at it and say, now, do we contain this or
do we get involved? Do we just let them radiate their part of the planet, or you know, there are various options that come up here for the nations with the larger arsenal arsenals, let's say, right, and that becomes a whole other topic that thankfully we have not actually faced that scenario yet.
Yeah. I think the ugly underside of MAD was the fact that it did work. It worked for a couple of decades, and then it almost didn't work because that someone had the bright idea or the fear, call it an idea, call it fear, whatever, that if you could execute decapitation strikes and literally break the chain of command, take out the leadership, you could eliminate MAD because you did away with the you know, the controls that would launch your counter strike, and there you could get away
with it. Basically, you could cheat. If we can, if we can decapitate the adversary, we're clear, it's clean, there's going to be no matrixchange, and we won. They will be you know, remove the leadership and you're done. And the Soviets were extremely scared of that. In the nineteen eighties we found we found out a couple of times, uh and later in the nineties the first time they
were scared when they learned about our stealth capability. And this we only learned after the fact because we saw found internal Soviet documents saying that they thought the whole point of our F one seventeen stealth fighter bombers was decapitation. We could get in, take out their leadership, take out their command and control system, and we're done. And they they actually almost went to preemption and A four with a preemptive strike, thinking we were preparing to do that
later on. They even looked at the possibility that we were going to use the space shovel for that sort of thing.
And that was during a weird time when they were actually extremely preoccupied with the concept of Star Wars, which Reagan was talking about, and they thought we had gone further ahead in that program than we actually had, and they thought about preemptive strikes in order to deal with it.
What's funny is in the late nineties, I don't know if you ever saw this movie, but I always find it interesting when Hollywood expresses some of these things and sort of puts them out there in a long movie form to sort of demonstrate certain things that are in the zeitgeist at the moment. And in nineteen ninety nine a movie called Deterrence was released. Do you ever see it?
That one doesn't ring a bell it?
Kevin Pollock plays the President of the United States, So there you go. That's exclusive way to look it. Up, because I'm pretty sure that's the only time he ever did that. But Kevin Pollock places president of the United States and ends up looking an American city because there was an accidental destruction of a Soviet or Russian city right by American nuclear weapons, and the only way to deter a full on nuclear exchange was for the president
to turn around and sacrifice one of our cities. So we knoked one of our own major population areas to counter to balance the fact that there had been an accidental strike, which was another worry in various governments throughout the eighties, nineties and into the early two thousands, the concept of the accidental strike. You know, if you take people out of the loop and this and that there might be issues or you know, so on and so forth, what happens if pa drill goes live and things like this?
Right, Yeah, that that actually that theme I'm looking at right up my bookshelf here, and that that was the scenario in a movie and a novel called fail Safe Too from the early sixties. That uh, the literally the president had to accept the destruction, and that one has not only had to had to accept the destruction of the American city where his wife happened to be at the time on a political campaign tour. But uh yeah,
that's a that's a that's a scenario. And you know, not that all these scenarios have not been exploded by people thinking about them. But what the concerning thing right now? That's why I use the word temptation. You know, it's pretty clear that Israel is tempted to resolve its whole Iranian problem by decapitation with It's pretty clear that that
would be a temptation for both India and Pakistan. It's certainly right now a temptation for Putin because he keeps threatening to eliminate the political political leadership in giv Right. I mean, the temptation that you can get away free and solve all your problems and not bear any pain for it is probably the most worrisome thing going right now. I mean, this is no longer mad, that's it's it's a temptation to use your weapons to solve all your
problems and it's done. There's no more stress, no more tension. You do it all at once.
And in the aftermath of that, right, theoretically, the trouble then becomes what are the other nations going to do about it? Then what can they possibly accomplish? Are they going to now decapitate you know the Russian government in response? Is that something? Well, nobody thinks that that would happen in response to the literal like say, if Kiev was nuked, right, would somebody turn around and nuke Moscow? You know, in order to balance out the sheet so to speak? Right?
Probably not, and that calculation might come into play. Look, I can solve my problems and then I whether the fallout, sorry to use the expression politically, you know, on the world stage, what would that do? That would likely isolate putin, That would likely, you know, create a circumstance where you have a pariah nation temporarily, but at the end of the day.
Then what that was the problem that the alliances were supposed to solve. I mean, you can look at the downside of the alliances, which led to World War One, but you can look at the f side of the alliances because they were developed just to address that particular problem. If Ukraine were NATO, this would not be a problem, would not be an option. There's no alliance that extends to Israel. There's no alliance that extends to Iran. There's
no alliance that extends really to India and Pakistan. I mean, they have partners who supply them weaponry, but China is not going to step in to support Pakistan. Russia is not going to check you know. That's drifting away from these alliances. In one way, you can say, oh, well, this is good. Things are much better now than when we had NATO and SETO, and they never accomplished anything anyway.
But then when you think about it a little bit longer, it's like, well, maybe they did accomplish something, because when they were in existence, we didn't. Nothing that bad really happened.
Well, it created a systemic understanding of restraint, right, and also protection both of them simultane right, So there was protection for the lesser nations so that they wouldn't be decapitated, and there was restraint on the side of the larger, the bigger boogeyman who had the weaponry because there would
be serious consequences. I mean literally, I think people don't quite appreciate the idea that if you attack one nat donation, it is supposed to be taken as an attack on all and if that's the case, I mean, sorry, that's like street level gang mentality. You know, you attack one of us, you've attacked all of us, so we will behave and respond as if you attacked all of us. That's the kind of thing that makes most people step
back and not want to take the extreme measures. So but without those alliances or the unaligned nations that have their own centers of power, but also many partnerships on many different levels, what does this mean? It makes it much more difficult to navigate, right, it.
Does, and it sort of like makes you step back and think a little bit. It's sort of like, oh, well, we did all of those things during the quote unquote Cold War. We had, we had alliances, we had you know, we made the rules very clear. You even had a United Nations that would send in peacekeepers, and at one point there was this idealistic thought that you know, peacekeepers were backed up by a larger force and so on. You know, nobody's talked about peacekeepers anymore for like this decade,
for the last decade. So there are all sorts of these things that occurred during the Cold War that we now go, well, we didn't need any of that, We don't. We can give all of that up and nobody seems to stop and thought about the fact that it actually worked. There was no nuclear warfare, there was no globe. It's like, oh, well, we're like, are we smarter now? Are we brighter now? Are we less combative? Are we less political? Did we suddenly get better so that we didn't need all of
those safeguards? I don't think so.
No, I don't think so either. And that's the amazing thing here is as much as you could say, look, the UN is like kind of a worthless organization, what do they actually do? Let me tell you something real quick an anecdote anyway, And this is not just for you, Larry, obviously, but the point is I knew people who worked for the UN and were present in what they used to call Yugoslavia right during a very rough time there. And you know when they drove a truck and wore outfits
that denoted them as UN personnel. Okay, not even peacekeepers, just people that were there to do jobs on behalf of the UN, even military elements that were perfectly willing to kill women, children, burn down villages, commit war crime, they would not point a gun at somebody in a UN truck because they didn't want the backlash from that because they had a fear of that. Even in a war torn almost chaotic, I mean genocides going in multiple directions war zone, nobody wanted to point a gun at
the un guys. Right, That's something I heard from guys who drove trucks, who were just bringing supplies from place to place. They got paid pretty well to do it because they were non combatants. They were unarmed in Yugoslavia. Okay, not exactly something that somebody does, you know, safely usually at that time, right, But they did it because they knew they had the invisible armor of no one is going to want to shoot at us, no one is going to want to kill us or blow up our truck.
So we feel confident we can drive through a war zone. Okay, why do I bring that up? Because those types of alliances that created that sort of circumstance I don't think exists anymore. What are your thoughts on that.
I don't think certainly they fragmented. The alliance exists, and I think that the point is the alliances can exist, and we're seeing I mean, we're seeing NATO reform itself. There's no doubt about that. NATO is rebuilding itself largely without the US, and NATO has the potential for becoming the sort of military force that can, you know, can conduct massive retaliation, because what you're really talking about, Chuck, is the armor that you're talking about is if we
shoot at that truck, there will be massive retaliations. In all honesty, you got to be you got to be forthright about it because the people, especially in the Balkans and that sort of thing, as you said, were motivated by a lot of different things, including religious fanaticism. And the only way you really stop that is you let them know that it's not worth the effort, right, It's not worth the cost. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.
But we gave that away with the UN. We gave that away with the UN when the structure that was inventioned post World War two evaporated. You know, when when everybody when when people can veto military action, then you
just gave it away. Nobody ever dreamed that the United States would not have the United Nations would not have overwhelming military capability to put down the sorts of things that occurring now, Like, okay, we're not going to talk to both sides we're just going to squash both sides. And literally that was the assumption the UN don't stop.
The UN would be imagined almost like a bouncer coming into any brawl and would say, you know what, I'm gonna sit you on this side of the bar. I'm gonna sit you on that side of the bar. And one thing we're gonna do is put a stop to what's happening here.
Just yeah, just stop. That's it.
Stop.
We're not we have no interest in this except stopping it. And it's it's funny. We're now back in the mode where you can hear the US President talk about uh Pakistan and India and it's make a statement about well we just we just stope they stop soon, and it's like, wait a minute, that is not the reality of human nature that you know, people that start a fight don't
just never necessarily stop with good sense and restraint. Would be nice to think about that, but uh so that's that's a long way from and I think part of it, quite frankly, is the people that form the u N. The people at the end of war were too We're very realistic about power and combat, and you know, they knew they had seen it and they were really really motivated to stop it. And uh, we're distant in time from that now, it's that part, that part faded out.
So now that's why the UN really no longer. It's amazing when you think of the fact that I grew up hearing about UN peacekeeping missions that were at least nominally effective for periods of time, and that that's not even proposed anymore.
Well, no, And I wonder how much of that is based on the change of attitude regarding the United States alone, and how much of that is based on the fact that we now have fragmented alliances as opposed to these massive groups that came to get in the past. See those massive groups, some people would say that was the cause of the global wars. Right, that was the cause of the global wars because there were these massive sides
and you could draw a huge line, you know. I mean, at one point, I remember reading about an account and history where the Pope, because you know, the Pope has been in the news lately, the Pope literally drew a line to divide the world between Portugal and Spain, right, right, drew a line on a global map to say this is yours. And this is yours. I know that's hard to imagine, but at one time the empires of each
were large enough that that consideration was serious. My point is that there's no longer an empire large enough to make that consideration worthy. There's no longer alliances large enough to make that consideration worthy. So now it's become increasingly more complex, and it is everything is on a smaller scale, but it's made the action really come to life on
a wider scale. How much of this is like the United States's faults or the current uh, you know, the current administration's fault or the past few administration's faults regarding the US, or is this just condition of the planet. This is how things have gone. This is human nature evolving or devolving, depending on how you want to look at it. What are your thoughts on that?
I think too. I mean the fact that you started out with wars and rumors of wars, that's human nature. Yes, I mean that you cannot pick a spot in history where that was not true. It was just a matter of where it was and how big it was. And you know that that's that's just the nature of the beast. If you if you want to go into that. That
leads me back to my cultural anthropology. But uh so that part, the part that really is interesting is how much that is that has been traded for political influence. Let's let's get back at the UN as an example of that. As we were just talking, when the UN was formed, the thought was, as you described it, it's just it's there is a force to stop wars. No good guy, bad guy, just stop it, okay, because we've just been through all that. We don't want to see
it again. So we need something that just when they start, we stop them with whatever resource we have. And that was Korea, I mean quite frankly as an example of that. But in Korea, the only reason that even worked in Korea is because when the vote was taken at the UN, the Soviet ambassador was protesting by not being around to take the vote, and the vote happened. That's now we've moved into the point where you know, it would have almost been impossible to think of the US vetoing a
resolution this aimed at even criticizing military action. But we have seen that in the last few months in regard to Israel and Gaza in Palace.
You know that.
We used to think that it's all the Soviets. The Soviets will stop the UN from taking any reasonable action. It's no longer just the Soviets. Pretty much anybody on the Security Council can do it, and most recently it's been the US. Why we're doing it is just would appear just to be pure politics, but it's certainly not in line with the ideals that were involved in founding the UN. And I think this reaches into almost all the combat we're talking about. It's no longer we're no
longer taking the position. The US is certainly not taking the position that we're just against wars.
Stop it.
You know, if somebody attacks somebody else automatically, they should stop. Is it? Is it even saying to think that we now do not acknowledge that Russia attacked Ukraine and we can't say that in the House of Representatives or in Congress, or the President can't say it. I mean, how political can that be? We can't even acknowledge the facts of life. And in regard to warfare.
Yes, they invaded, well they didn't really start it because actually, yeah, I know that that is a mind bender for sure, But how much of that is caused by us, and how much of it are we being influenced by it at this point. The idea that you know, at one time, like you said, we might have been interested in being the world's policeman, right, that whole thing. Everybody got really angry, angry with that after a few decades. You know, we're not supposed to be the world's policeman. We shouldn't be
involved in everybody else's problems. This is not our issue. We need to stay out of it. Going to an almost isolationist but not really but almost isolationists when it comes to, you know, the idea of engagement in a military sense, but you know, engaged in every other way across the planet, like you said, totally at war with
the entire world at this point economically. But when it comes to you know, military actions, say, look, you know what we're going to kind of just stick to our own business here and stay out of it because this isn't really us. And besides, you know, Putin had to do what he had to do, and that's not necessarily who started it at doesn't matter, you know, And I know I'm being mocking here, but I mean, what am I supposed to do? With this, we're not the world's police.
I get it, And yeah, even I was aggravated with that. Why are we off on adventures and other parts of the world when we're not tending to our own problems at home? I get that sentiment. But at the same time, are these things not going to come back taunt us later that we didn't decide to play bouncers sometimes? You know, Uh, it's.
Sort of it's sort of like insurance. Well, I mean, first off, when we're talking about the level of you know, uh, combat, and the globe is much smaller than it used to be. You know, nobody is safe from any other power. Given the the advent of the types of missiles, the type of I mean not just nukes, forget it like that. You you could conduct decapitation these days with long range strike missiles. Uh, and it doesn't even have to be nuclear.
So the thought that you're that you can fool yourself by saying, oh, we can ignore the threat from the rest of the world, it's just silliness. If even the president with this new gold Dome system is it's like, Okay, we have to protect ourselves from anybody from anything at any time, and we're going to spend an unlimited amount of money on that. We're tripling our defense budget. You know that that does not say to me, America first,
you know, we can isolate ourselves in the world. You know, maybe maybe we're only isolating ourselves because we were making ourselves so militarily, but that clearly that this you're not isolated from the world. If you have to talk about a gold dome defense system.
Well that's it was one of the most intelligent, you know, attempts that Zelensky made to try and speak during that you know, really weird White House meeting where you know, Trump saying you don't have many cards. I've got all the cards all that's going on, and Zelensky looked at him and said, you know, those oceans you think protect you like they used to, that doesn't quite work that way anymore. He tried to make that point. It got drowned in the rest of what was going on there.
But I think people miss that, and I'm sorry, I mean, I'm not necessarily a fan of Zelensky's, but that was one of the most intelligent statements that he tried to make during that circumstance.
Whether you like it or not, there is a global economy because there are global resources, whether there are mineral I'll escape from the fact that there is a global economy. You can't do everything inside any one nation anymore. That's just the reality our technology in terms of communication, transportation, that sort of stuff. Global security issue, you know, you exist. So I'm not saying I'm a globalist, But the point is you have to acknowledge that there is no more isolationism.
Even though that sounds lovely and wonderful, I'm not going back to, you know, eighteen ninety, it's just not going to happen.
Well. So, and as you said, the world is a smaller place than it once was as well. I mean, just logistically, you can now be hit by something rather quickly, like you said, not just nuclear weapons, but I mean there are various ways that you know, again, those oceans, Yeah, they provide a little bit of an obstacle, but not as much as they once did. When it comes to, you know, somebody deciding they wanted to strike let's just
say the continental US. It's a lot more doable nowadays than it was a few decades ago.
And they don't even have to strike the continental US. The bottom line is if you look at the technological infrastructure, I could I could do an e MP surge and bring the nation to its knees without you even knowing who is guilty. Right, that's that. All I've got to do is set off the right weapon at the right place.
There's just so many points of attack. I mean, the fact the fact that we are now in the process of essentially doing away with our cyber defense system is amazing and agonizing because we're just exposed on so many other levels. But without going into that, trying to go back to a point that you made in the beginning, Chuck, I think what shifted over time is we do I
blame it on the United States? No, I don't. But what you have to acknowledge is the United States for decades took the position from a political standpoint that we were against war, we're against combat, where against conflict, and the State Department would take that position universally, and that was the official American position at the same time that
we were conducting political warfare and deniable military warfare. I mean, there's so many occasions we've discussed that I document in on my books that the State Department was saying one thing, and the CIA was doing something one hundred and eight degrees opposed to that, and the President was very aware of both of them. Right, yeah, you can't play that game. You screw yourself up. I mean, if you play that
game gets it gets inside your own head. And to some extent, I think that's what happened to the US. We played that game for so long, and it's to some extent we still try to play it that you lose. It's a foundational problem. That's a new term I really like, is foundational. It's sort of like, no, at least when you came out of World War Two, you had one state of position. I'm against warfare, you know, but if
I'm against warfare, I can't cultivate warfare. As soon as we started doing that, we did ourselves in and I think that's led us to where we are now, where it's almost like we're trying to revert to saying I don't want to be involved in any of this. Right, it's better that I isolate myself and you can't accuse me of anything. I just it's not my problem. You guys can all kill yourself and it's not my problem. And that way I don't have to take a position in life. Is very simple.
Yeah, but that doesn't take into account the fact that even if other people decide to, you know, go to war with each other, there will be resonant effects because we are interconnected with me seemingly everything on the planet. Guess what, There's going to be effects. Even if two nations decide to, you know, get into a squabble now and one decapitate the other, eliminates the other, absolutely wipes the other off the planet, there's going to be consequences
for us one way or another. So there's no way we're going to be unaffected at this point.
So so here, it's not like we have Thomas Jefferson's agricultural economy as the backbone of our nation anymore. That was good times, but no more.
There was a time when we could be in isolationist nation, but now I think that's kind of an impossibility. So look, here's the thing that we've danced around for forty five minutes, And now I'm going to go to the hard question here, which is there is the temptation and there is again the hyperbole out there of we need to be worried about this coming, we need to be worried about that coming.
What in your estimation, though, are the real dangers that are coming up on us quickly, probably faster than most people realize. I mean, I'm not as worried about, you know what, if Iran has nukes, I'm not as worried about that as I am about some other things that seem to be escalating and could easily wind up out of control in a hurry and cause once again lots of unintended and unforeseen consequences for us here and the
rest of the planet one way or another. Do you have any thoughts about what is predictable that could be problems coming in the very near future from what's going on right now?
Yeah, I absolutely do. I think there are two or three. Most dangerous thing that it couldccur right now is a leader who is in power in a nation, who has control over their atomic weaponry or weapons of mass destruction, that doesn't matter what you call it, that decides that the only way to solve their own personal political problem that they've gotten themselves into is to is to take the quick and easy route and to use weapons of
mass destruction for decapitation. As I am, terrifically concerned that a Putin might do that, that he might just go ahead and you know, like he has no exits, right. These are people that have involved themselves in a situation where there is no other exit strategy, so suddenly they do something appallingly stupid stupid. Iz concerns me. Putin is in that position now. Is the Israeli premiere in that position? Could be getting close? Is the Indian president in that position?
It depends on what Pakistan's decides to do next. You know, as far as China not in that position unless their economy really goes south. But I'm concerned about individuals who put themselves into a position to do something stupid and there are no checks and balances.
I think the Chinese have a much longer fuse on something like that occurring, because they have a much greater amount of time that they could wait it out, even with the economic warfare. If they begin to really lose on a massive scale, they'll actually suck it up for a while. I think, yeah, they will.
Put Putin is Putin is my major fear at the moment. If I had to like add bad dreams, it would be Putin.
See and I've seen suppositions out there from some people that you know have discussed this, you know, in political science circles that you know. This is why no one has actually pushed Putin to the wall on this situation in Ukraine, because if he feels as though he could be facing the removal of his control over Russia, that could be the impetus for him deciding well, then I
might as well just go nuclear. You're going to try and take me out, well, you might get me, but I'm gonna take a whole lot of you with me. And I mean that's I've really oversimplified what they've said in these scenarios they drew out. But I mean, is that the kind of thing you're thinking of?
Is okay, that's the kind of thing. I'm also very concerned. I'm not a very big fan in general of the concept of false flags because I don't think they've People talk about it a lot, but false flags never work for one thing, everybody knows what's going on. But it's kind of like Hitler when he decided to go into Poland and those sorts of things like staging false flag attacks on German territories and border posts and that sort
of thing. Everybody knows what's going on, right, okay, but that gives him an eternal internal political excuse to do what he's going to do. Anyway, I am concerned, since false flags are not unknown to the Soviet Union, that Putin might indeed stage a false flag event uh like this week in Moscow, uh, to essentially give him the cause to go and do what he wants to do,
which is take out Keev. And and he sees that as you can even see that in the negotiations that are going on, he doesn't really see u Kin as problem. He sees the political leadership in keV as this problem, and he really wants them to go away, uh, which is what he was trying to bargain with the US. Get Zelenski to resign and all my problems are done, and well we got a deal. You can see what he wants. So if false flags are are a concern for me right at the moment, the same the same
could be said. I I might have thought that for Israel, but I don't really any longer. I just I really see it as an issue as you said, if Putin's and Putin is economically getting his back to the wall, if the trade wars the World War. Trade wars are not good for US. They're not good for Putin either, especially with what Opek is doing enterprise of oil.
Right.
And this is problematic because you know, one would think, and because of the things I study, I think to myself, why would he not simply use assassination as the tool here? You know, because decapitating the government there, well, if he thinks that will solve his problems, I mean, that would
be a lot cleaner than say, nukin Kiev. But then again, if you have a false flag attack, let's just say, theoretically where Ukraine, does, you know, launch an attack against Moscow try to take out Putin, Well, then he's got to respond, he's got to retaliate. And I got to tell you, I worry about that there. But I also worry about it because Trump's about to have a parade here,
you know. And look, I'm not saying that the US would definitely do something like that, but then again, I wouldn't put it past a lot of the people that have worked in the intelligence agencies in the past.
Uh.
And just because the heads have changed doesn't mean you know, the people that really do the work there have changed. All that much. But anyway, that would be a huge worry, wouldn't it.
I think at this point in time, I'm worried about people who do something to create chaos because there are a lot of groups, most of the terrorist actors where they're they're religious or cultural or whatever, they really like chaos and they don't really care. That's one reason I'm I would be more concerned in the US of them just kind of like I want to radicalize the situation.
I want to make it more chaotic because I'm it's such a minority that it's to my advantage when things are chaotic, and at this point in time in the US at least, that would be my primary concern, is that that any terrorist group might see it as opportunity to add chaos to the system. You know that. It's there's two different things we're facing. We're facing the warfare like we've been talking about, and we're facing escalating chaos. Obviously,
the trade war is facilitating chaos. It's almost like two separate things that are occurring in parallel tracks, and both are dangerous.
I mean, I've wondered aloud, and I'll say this even though I haven't said it. On my show. Yet I have wondered aloud, not on the air, but about the possibility of the return of a time of political assassinations, because therein will lie a whole lot of chaos if that occurs, if there is literal decapitation, because okay, you know, this person who is actually a backer of the enemy state has actually executed our great leader. And that could
occur in a lot of places. That could happen in India, that could happen in Pakistan, that could happen in Israel. You know, in various places. Chaos could be loosed by something like that. You know, if a Palestinian assassinated a high level is Raeli official, you have a whole new circumstance there, same thing, Ukraine, Russia, same thing. You know, think about it. There are many circumstances where that would be exactly a perfect ignition point for a new level
of chaos to be to emerge. Yeah, yeah, absolutely, And.
The way things are, let's face it, here's the why would that even be more dangerous now than it was, say in nineteen sixty three? Okay, why would it be more dangerous? Because we have AI and we have the Internet, and I guarantee you if the President of the United States can suddenly be send out a message from the White House showing himself as the pope in a very realistic picture. The opportunity exists after any event that you're
talking about, to take control of the narrative. I mean, it was difficult for the government to take control of the narrative in the nineteen sixties when there were political assassinations. Now it would be almost impossible to take care of the control of the narrative with the tools that are available. I mean you would see on the internet immediately real life, real people, real voices, real time characters carrying out that assassination.
It's totally fake, right, and nobody would be able to tell the difference.
No, you could have instantaneous, prepackaged propaganda ready to roll even before the event occurs, and then just stage the event, or maybe not even stage the event, just simply broadcasted, so to speak, and within moments the whole world would have seen it. So this is different from the sixties. It took time to broadcast. It took time for them to warm up the camera at CBS, you know, it took time for them to get out the name Lee Harby Oswald. When Kennedy fell in Dallas, it was kind
of instantaneous for its time period. But imagine that today. There's no way that anybody could ever get ahead of or change that narrative if that was the desire of the powers that be to push it forward. So there we and.
It can be inserted from any one point one server, one server in the right place. It's kind of like the tactical response to you know, an airplane. Someone's why do tactical teams manage to eliminate terrorists and recapture an aircraft because they have thirty seconds they knew what was
going to happen, and the bad guys didn't. Okay, in the case of what we're talking about, the bad guys carry out this incident and they have five minutes to take the narrative right, and they're way ahead of the national media that the national media can never even catch up with their news feeds. You know that if it's done with a sophisticated fashion, it'll be going out over the wire services. It will be you know. It's so, why do I feel better or worse after this discussion? Chuck?
It's like, Okay, am I going to sleep tonight or not.
Well, there you go. I mean, but at the end of the day, I mean, well, look, this is an interesting time in which we live, right and it is a fairly dangerous time. But I don't think it's dangerous for the reasons that most people are talking about. And I think that, you know, a relative amount of context needs to be placed upon this. You know, we need to get real about it. Are we about to go after each other's throats? You know? And is there going to be a new civil war? And all people are
still talking about that. I'm surprised they're not exhausted. But there are many other dangers out there, and I think, you know, I think I don't know what's going to happen next. You know, I'm very much not feeling as though I know where the road is going. But but you know what, do you see anything that we're not going to be able to avoid that's kind of upcoming, that's just going to happen and we already know about it, or do you think it's still very unpredictable all of what's in front of us.
I think, if if if the people in power really thought about the same discussion, we just had and thought about the fact that what saves you in all these situations is the pause button. Not react. Kind of like email, what's the classic thing, Do not respond to the email as soon as you read it. Just don't do that like count ten, count to ten before you say something to somebody. You know, there's a pause that appears to be what Pakistan is doing right now, for example, not
a knee jerk reaction. And I think that would be if we could, if we could get everybody to take a pledge that says, don't just react, because that's the state that we're in. You've got to avoid reacting. And I think that's really the answer to most of these things. Don't respond. You've got to acknowledge the fact that you're never going to have the information that you need. The information that you're getting is not You got to hold off. And so I think the solution a lot of this
is just if I had a gigantic pause button. It's like, okay, press it. Just think about it for a minute. You know, I think that's the only solution, because it is. It is a dangerous situation. But it is interesting in me that that Pakistan did and it you know, which is kind of different, did not respond immediately. It's it's kind of interesting to me that even some of the things that we're seeing in Ukraine, it's that there's a there's
a delay in the system. You know, Ukraine did not decide to go after Moscow, you know, after some of the catastrophic Russian strikes on civilian targets. You know, you you would almost be drawn revenge eye for an eye. You attacked my hospitals, you attack my schools, I'm going after yours. And they've refrained from that. Urine. Ukraine has
weapons now that they're not using. Russia actually is not showing the same kind of restraint, but it could have gotten a lot worse, a lot more quickly if they had not showed that kind of restraint.
Right, So the hope for us all is that reactionary reactionary, you know, actions are restrained. That's the thing, not to just simply react, but actually show a little restraint and think better of it. You know, again, like you said with the email, or you know, when somebody strikes you emotionally in a discussion, don't just respond to the emotion, because if you do a lot of times it's going to be well, you know, I didn't think before I spoke there you're going to wind up with some regret.
And unfortunately, sometimes there's no way to avoid regret, but there are ways to minimize it anyhow, Larry, I hope I didn't make it feel too bad. I'm glad you sat and did this exercise with me because I needed somebody to go through it with me and to just kind of take a pause and look at what's happening, because there's a lot going on, and again, I'm kind of exhausted from the hyperbole every time a new event emerges.
What is our media doing reacting? You know, and they're rationally making a lot of statements and really they could be provoking actions that would not be anything but regrettable, you know. And I watched the dialogue that went on between Pakistan and India and I found that interesting as well. You know, consider what you're doing before you escalate. This
seem to be exchanged between both sides publicly. I found that really interesting because normally that's not the way these guys behave and that's not that's why Kashmir has been what it's been. And for those of you that are unaware. Yeah, Kashmir has been around, not for centuries. The problem that you know, Trump said it's for centuries can't possibly have been for centuries, considering that Pakistan was only created in the nineteen forties. But this conflict has gone on pretty
much since Pakistan became a thing. You know, read your history, don't just take the statements of the current leaders as gospel as per usual, and try not to be reactionary in your own lives. What can I say? Always take a step back before even trying to analyze these things. That's my suggestion. Anyway, Larry, you can tie a bow on it any which way you want, But I advise people to go to your site, take a look at
your blog. Of course you're covering some of these things you've been talking about a great many interesting pieces of history, and some current events here and there too. Between the JFK assassination, the RFK release of files. I'm sure there's gonna be some news on some UAP stuff coming soon, right.
Oh yeah, absolutely so.
Look, disclosures happening, and things are changing in the world. And Larry Handcock. Once again, if you don't own all of Larry's books, always a good time to go get one. I highly recommend the Oswald Puzzle, which there'll be a link in the show notes to it, even though none of this discussion had anything to do with that outside of the one mention of nineteen sixty three and how the narrative came out that day, but there you go. That was more about the media, not about the assassination,
and definitely not about Oswald. But anyway, an excellent book nonetheless, of course your co author David Boylan, and we'll be looking forward to seeing what we can do as far as the presentation goes at Lancer this year, where you're gonna present virtually and also help us run the Facebook group. Right, absolutely, yeah, looking forward to that. And also Larry and I are having discussions about a couple of things behind the scenes too.
By the way, great suggestion about that guy from Australia, and I've been able to seek to speak with him just for you and I to know. His last name is Abbott, and I'm hoping that he's going to do a presentation at Lancer this year in person, guys, So and Larry and I will talk about that more when we get closer to November. Okay, but In the meantime, Larry,
go ahead and tie a bow on it. Like I said, larrydshancock dot Com is also a link in the show notes to Larry's sight and blog and everything, and I'm gonna drop a few key links in the Ocelli chat room too. But what would you say in closing, Larry.
I think I would say in closing is this is not newlevel of danger. This level of threat, this level of warfare is nothing new. It is more or less the human condition. And if you're a historian, you see that it's no more or less dangerous. I mean I grew up in the nineteen fifties and nineteen sixties with the constant threat and expectation of global nuclear warfare. I mean you go back to the first forecast of global nuclear warfare was for nineteen fifty two, and then it
was for nineteen fifty four, and then it was. So this level of risk and danger is not you and there are answers for it. And the reason it didn't happen then is because there are answers, there are control systems, there are mutual fears, if nothing else. So people, really, I'm not saying it's not a dangerous time. I'm not saying it's I'm sort of saying is it's certainly not the first dangerous time, don't think it is, and kind of look for some of the solutions that have worked before.
I really wish that there are solutions, and we need to kind of get back and get real, just like we got after World War Two, and say all right, let's let's let's step back. Let's just accept the fact that we are at each other's throats all the time, and what are we going to do about it? Doing something's important?
And a generation later, look, nuclear fears were still there. I mean, you know, no offense, Larry, but you're more like my father's generation. So quite honestly, a generation later in the eighties, we were quite concerned about the idea of nuclear warfare as well. Of course, a lot of it was sort of a push forward by that TV movie The Day After and all of that, and it was the time of Reagan and many discussions about the arms race, et cetera, et cetera. We didn't have the
Cuban missile crisis, but we had the anxiety. Nonetheless, a whole generation later, just saying it's not the same thing but yet it happened again and we did survive it. That's the ultimate note here, right.
We've avoided it before, we can avoid it again. You just have to face up to it.
There you go, and that's the perfect way to end this one. Larry Hancock was my guest for this hour, and I hope you guys got a lot out of it. I know I did, And thank you Larry for patience.
That I'm going Oh.
Chili dot com the dot com radio net.
In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not.
Earn from it. It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks Larryhancock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical form.
The use expressed like caller schools There anyone else alloudens to get on the air who's only comedy not necessarily reflected us y dot com or jo Chilly and we are not responsible. We're getting stupidity which might ensued.
Will you go ahead call it about the JFA assassination.
Right, Well, what do you want to know? Tondy Baker's wild claim?
Oswald girlfriends he knew?
Ruby and Barrie answer weapons? Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon.
But Okaysal Bilby and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Come on now has a real effort on the DAFA assassination.
Book into claim. Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence in the case to get at well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith Barry Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at k I A s jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects
the many, many fantastic claims. Judith Veryry Baker, in her own words, thank you for all the great information revelation through conversation.
The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the times and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state. Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the island arn't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World War, and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
up against. For more information, the War State dot com Nuclear Holocaust.
You know what uranium is, right?
Think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots of you.
Know what uranium is right?
Bad things things are done with uranium, including some bad things nuclear holocaust. You know what uranium is right? I wait, Nuclear Holocaust, nuclear holocaust.
You know what uranium is, right?
They think called nuclear.
Weapons and other things like lots of you know what uranium is?
Right?
Things things are done with uranium, including some bad things Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holo Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear revelation.
Through conversation here shell you.
Do you like history, real history that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before that will open your eyes to events that led up to this Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in nation
Conversage