Biden's Missile Move: Renewing Cold War Fears Amidst Ukraine Crisis?

Could the echoes of the Cuban Missile Crisis be resonating today, and are we on the brink of a modern nuclear showdown? Join me, Ryan Samuels, as I confront the grave realities of escalating nuclear tensions between the United States and Russia amidst the ongoing Ukraine conflict. President Biden's decision to supply Ukraine with intercontinental ballistic missiles has sparked intense debate and drawn alarming parallels with past crises. In this episode, we scrutinize President Putin's nuclear threats and question whether they are mere bluffs or indicative of a more aggressive Russian nuclear doctrine. We'll also address the political implications and the involvement of North Korean troops, all while critically evaluating the necessity of U.S. involvement.

With firsthand military experience, I bring a unique perspective to the discussion, contrasting the historical origins of Russia's nuclear arsenal with the advanced technology of the U.S. As we explore the terrifying potential of modern nuclear weapons, including the formidable Trident D5 missile, we underscore the concept of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent to conflict. Public awareness is crucial in these volatile times, and I encourage listeners to engage with platforms that foster open dialogue. Could a peaceful resolution be on the horizon with a change in U.S. leadership? Tune in to explore these pressing questions and consider the strategic implications for the future.

Chapters

• 0:29 Escalating Tensions in Ukraine
• 10:23 Nuclear Tensions Between US and Russia
• 24:59 Nuclear Weapons and Global Threats

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:29

Hey, Ryan. Hi, this is Sarah Palin.

Speaker 2: 0:31

Ryan Donald.

Speaker 1: 0:32

Trump Jr.

Speaker 2: 0:33

Hogs to win, see ya, hey everybody, I want y'all to check out a fellow Marine's ball.

Speaker 3: 0:37

Catch, my name is Ted Nugent and I got a call from my buddy, ryan F Samuels, and he wants me to tell you that he's a working hard, playing all-American son of a b--- who is celebrating God family country.

Speaker 2: 0:51

Welcome to the Ryan Samuuels show, one of the top political podcasts in the united states, where we have a healthy distrust for government and mainstream media. The ryan samuels show is a raw, unfiltered look at american politics. Follow on facebook, twitter, youtube, rumble and all podcast platforms. Here is your host, ryan samuels rumble and all podcast platforms here is your host, ryan samuels hello patriots, welcome to the show.

Speaker 1: 1:18

We got a great show here. Today we're going to talk about the recent update to the nuclear um situation going on in um in russia. So recently, the Biden administration has taken upon themselves and thought that it was warranted and necessary to go ahead and allow the Americans to give ICBMs to Ukraine and then allow Ukraine to use the ICBMs on Russia. So this is an unnecessary escalation of the conflict. Okay, essentially it can be, and it has been interpreted by Russia as the United States saying go ahead and attack them using our weapons on our behalf. The only difference between the United States attacking Russia and Ukraine attacking Russia with these missiles are the people who are pushing the button. And the other problem is the people that are pushing the button are doing so under orders from the United States. This is a massive escalation in the war that is completely unnecessary and completely idiotic and completely idiotic and it just creates a situation that's going to be in much more challenging for donald trump when he takes office on january 20th. Hopefully this situation does not get out of control. We're going to be here to watch it um thoroughly for until it is resolved. Hopefully donald trump will get the situation resolved, get the the agreement done between ukraine and russia and just move on from this. Have everybody stopped dying, have the threat of nuclear war going away. So it was 62 years ago. We had the cuban missile crisis, where russia had moved missiles into cuba which had the ability to strike the United States. Now Russia can hit the United States from Russia and America can hit Russia from the United States, and a nuclear war is a much easier thing to happen nowadays.

Speaker 1: 3:47

But before we begin, hit that like, share and subscribe button. Go to buymeacoffeecom. Backslash Ryan F Samuels. Donate to the show. Buy me a cup of coffee so that I can stay energetic and entertained, so that we can continue with these podcasts. Thank you for all the support. If you're not a subscriber on Facebook, subscribe. It's $1.99 a month. I make some cool little videos, some book reviews. Right now I'm going through the Harvard Classics. I'm reading Benjamin Franklin's autobiography Really interesting stuff. Journal of John Woolman we go over some awesome historical things that are going to give you the tools and the power to formulate strong arguments against the left.

Speaker 1: 4:35

Now here's an article from the Associated Press on Putin and Russia, and it's the Associated Press, so the article is titled Putin lowers this threshold for using his nuclear arsenal after Biden's arms decision for Ukraine. The Biden administration has this serious obsession with Ukraine as if it's Puerto Rico, as if it's one of the United States territories, and it doesn't make any sense. There is no tactical benefit for the United States to be involved in this war. Benefit for the United States to be involved in this war, whether Ukraine takes Russia or not, or Russia takes Ukraine, excuse me, it has zero effect on the United States. So why is the United States involved? Who knows? That's a great question. There are some rumors about some corruption going on between Hunter and Ukraine. We will see if Matt Gaetz gets in there and hopefully we can uncover some of this stuff.

Speaker 1: 5:32

So President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday formally lowered the threshold for Russia's use of its nuclear weapons, a move that follows US President Joe Biden's decision to let Ukraine strike targets inside of Russia territory with American-supplied long-range ballistic missiles. The new doctrine allows for a potential nuclear response by Moscow even to a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power nuclear power. Russia's defense ministry and Ukraine fired six US-made ATACM missiles early Tuesday at a military facility in Russia's region that borders Ukraine, adding that air defenses shot down five of them and damaged one more. Ukraine's military claimed the strike hit a russian ammunitions depot. While the doctrine envisions a possible nuclear response by russia to such a conventional strike, it is formulated broadly to to avoid a firm commitment to use nuclear weapons and keep putin's options open. Russia's foreign minister, sergei Lavrov, emphasized that the Ukrainian strike in Bryansk marked an escalation and urged the US and other Western allies to study modernized nuclear doctrine.

Speaker 1: 7:02

The notion that the United States says that this is OK is absolutely ludicrous. There's no basis for the United states to just send muscles, send missiles at russia. Is this exactly what they did? And they could try to twist it and turn it and say, oh well, no, we didn't do it. Russia did it. I mean ukraine did it. We didn't do that, you did do that, you told them to do it and you gave them the means to do it. If the long-range uh missiles are used from the territory of ukraine against the russian territory, it will mean that they are controlled by american military experts and we will view that as a qualitatively new phase of western war against russia and respond accordingly. Uh, lavrov said on the sidelines of the g20 meeting in brazil, without elaborating, the approval of the document demonstrates put Putin's readiness to tap his nuclear arsenal to force the West to back down as Moscow presses a slow-moving offensive in Ukraine as the war reached its thousandth day.

Speaker 1: 8:05

Why did the Biden administration do this? That's the first question. The second question is did Biden do this? That's the first question. The second question is did Biden do this? Did Biden even? Is he even that involved? He was suppressed from running again for reelection. His brain is tomato soup. He can barely form a sentence together. Who actually authorized this? And was it authorized by the president of the United States? That's a serious question.

Speaker 1: 8:36

Now, if it wasn't authorized by Joe Biden or it was just he was persuaded into signing this, why was it done? Is it done for the elites so that they can line their pockets with military money before Trump gets in there and nobody's making any money off of wars anymore? Or is it revenge for Trump winning and saying you know what? We're going to play checkers with human lives and sentence the death of thousands of people, maybe millions of nuclear war as an option just to make it more difficult for Donald Trump? Are they that petty? I would say that yes, they are that petty. I mean they've gone after people on the other side of the political aisle for crimes that didn't exist until they decided to persecute them.

Speaker 1: 9:24

Okay, asked Tuesday if a Ukrainian attack with long-range US missiles could potentially trigger a nuclear response, kremlin spokesman Dmitryri peskov answered affirmatively, pointing to the doctrine's provision that holds the door open for for it after conventional strike that raises critical threats for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of russia and its ally, belarus. Commenting on whether the updated doctrine doctrine was deliberately issued to follow Biden's decision, peskov said the document was published in a timely manner and that Putin instructed the government to update it earlier this year so that it is in line with the current situation. So, yes, they did this. Putin said go ahead, we're going to do this and we're going to give ourselves the option to use nuclear weapons. Uh, should this happen. And then you know, post date it to previous previously for this attack. So is.

Speaker 1: 10:23

Is putin bluffing? I do not know. Um, putin does not want to be seen as weak. I think he will follow through on on his promises if his demands are not met. Now we did see when he was talking about invading Ukraine if the US, if they intended to go into NATO, that that was a red line. Putin said that he was going to invade Ukraine if they tried to go into NATO. Everybody thought he was bluffing. He was not bluffing, he invaded Ukraine. This is a public statement. This is an actual policy that gives Putin the legal authority to fucking nuke people. You know this is not a game, this is not a joke. So the Biden administration needs to do something to stop this freaking madness.

Speaker 1: 11:12

Putin first announced changes in the nuclear doctrine in September when he chaired a meeting discussing the proposed visions. He has previously warned the US and other NATO allies that allowing Ukraine to use Western-supplied long-range weapons to hit Russian territory would mean that Russia and NATO are at war. Washington has permitted Ukraine to use the long-range weapons on targets inside of Russia after declaring that the thousands of North Korean troops were deployed in the Russian region for a curse, to fight an incursion by Kiev's forces. So, as we know, north Korean forces were deployed to Russia to assist in fighting Ukraine. Quote I'm unfortunately not surprised by the comments the Kremlin has made around the publication of this new, revised document, said US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller, adding that since the war began, russia has sought to coerce and intimidate both Ukraine and other countries around the world through irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and behavior.

Speaker 1: 12:14

Is it irresponsible? I don't, and I'm not saying that I don't think it's irresponsible. I'm not saying that I side with Russia. I am saying that it was irresponsible for the United States to cross this line, knowing that this would escalate the war, this line, knowing that this would escalate the war. Now, in the article he, he added that washington has not seen any reason to address our own nuclear posture. But we will continue to call on russia to stop uh bellicose and irresponsible rhetoric. Yada, yada, yada.

Speaker 1: 12:48

A us national security council official, who was not authorized to comment publicly and requested anonymity, underscored that the arrival of thousands of north korean soldiers took part in combat operations against ukraine was a major escalation by moscow. That demanded a response. British prime minister uh, kier starmer denounced the irresponsible rhetoric coming from. This is just propaganda. They're calling it irresponsible rhetoric and russia just just trying to flex and say you know, back off, or this is what's going to happen. We're now on way day 1000 of the conflict, that's, a thousand days of russian aggression, thousand days of sacrifices in ukraine. He said. The g20 summit in brazil uh, we have stood with ukraine from the start. I have doubled down in my clear message that we need to ensure, ensure Ukraine has what is needed for as long as needed to win the war against Putin. We can go on and on and on.

Speaker 1: 13:41

However, the spirit of the article is simple what the heck are you doing launching intercontinental ballistic missiles against Ukraine when we know that Russia has nukes? Man, and that is the premise of them having nukes. That's why they have nukes. Do you know where they got their nukes? They got them from us. They had spies inside the Manhattan Project when we were developing um fat man and little boy uh. And which were the? The atomic bombs dropped on uh, hiroshima and nagasaki? And they gained their technology from us is how they got it? That's how they got it. We developed it. They stole it from us. They have it now and that's what's been causing so many issues with Russia, and the ability to kind of bully Russia and keep Russia in line is going to be is going to be very challenging because they are a nuclear power. Here is Sky News talking about the capabilities of Russia's nukes and the United States' nukes.

Speaker 3: 14:55

President Putin has amended Russia's nuclear doctrine today to imply that if American weapons are used against Russian territory, which they now have been, that means that he is potentially in a nuclear confrontation with the United States. So what does that all mean? Well, the Russians have got a lot of nuclear weapons, 5,500 nuclear warheads, and that's about. It's more than the Americans have got, but they've got several thousand as well. What's more important is what are they?

Speaker 1: 15:22

Yes, russia has more nukes than we do. Okay. However, our technology is seriously more advanced. I have firsthand experience with United States nuclear weapons. When I was in the military I worked with nuclear weapons. I have firsthand experience with United States nuclear weapons. When I was in the military I worked with nuclear weapons. I did security for nuclear weapons. I know our nuclear weapon arsenal on the naval side of it and we'll go into that a little bit further. They do have more nukes, but they don't have the quality of nukes that we do, and we're going to get into that a little bit more.

Speaker 3: 15:55

Deployed on. The Russians have got them deployed about 1,700 of them, and again that's about only about 200 more than the United States. And they have them on a triad of land-based ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic missile firing submarines and aircraft that can launch cruise missiles or whatever with nuclear warheads.

Speaker 1: 16:15

Now, the biggest threat to the United States being nuked is not the intercontinental ballistic missiles. Although they are there, if they launch, they don't take very long to get here. I'll tell you that. I think it's like 25 minutes, or 15 minutes, whatever it is, from Russia to here. Yeah, when a nuclear missile is launched, it doesn't stay in earth, it goes out of earth, out of the atmosphere, over to the other side of the world. Uh, typically it would go over the north side of the earth and land in russia, and same thing if it was coming back, vice versa.

Speaker 1: 16:50

The biggest threat is the subs. Okay, the russian submarine fleet is real. They carry nuclear weapons and they have been previously caught off the coast of the united states. All right, the biggest and most probable area that they will be would be off of the east coast of the united states. Now we have a sub hunter plane called the, called the P-8, which, out of Jacksonville, nas Jacks or even up in the northern Navy areas, they're constantly sweeping the coast and they're hunting Russian subs. They're constantly hunting Russian subs, whether this is going on or not, a fleet of submarines that carry nuclear warheads, trident D5s that are continuously and habitually out in the ocean for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They're ready to launch a nuke and we can drop a nuke anywhere within minutes in the world, at any given time.

Speaker 1: 17:49

Russia can too, and that's the biggest threat is the submarine. If they launch a nuke from Russia, we will know immediately the United States intelligence agencies, we will know that one of their ICBMs have been watched. We're watching their nuclear weapons via satellite, via the spy network. We're going to know the second it's launched and we're going to have defense measures, intake in place to take it down. When it's launched from a submarine, it's not going to take 20 minutes, it's going to take 5, 10 seconds. It's going to be very quick. If they're sitting off the coast of Florida and they decide to bomb Charlotte, north Carolina, it's not going to take forever. It's going to be very quick. If they're sitting off the coast of Florida and they decide to bomb Charlotte, north Carolina, it's not going to take forever, it's going to be very quick and our response time is going to be a lot less. That's why we have the P-8 sub-hunters out there.

Speaker 3: 18:44

About 1,700 deployed and again the United States is only about 150 behind that. Both sides have so many nuclear weapons they could destroy each other several times over. Yes, the land-based ICBMs are the most interesting and the most potent and if we look at where they are and we're looking at Russia here but remember this is always a mirror image the Americans have got everything more or less the same as Russia. Their ICBM bases are in Russia and those ICBMs would fly, if necessary, to America. Now they won't go over the United Kingdom because if this was a globe, they would go over the North Pole, as indeed American weapons from north bases in northern America would go over Canada, over the North Pole into Russia Takes about 20 minutes and that's the time that one side would have to react to the other.

Speaker 3: 19:29

And if we think about the ranges of these things, if we assume Moscow is a starting point which it isn't because these bases are elsewhere, but if you just think of it, the range is about 6,000 miles. It can reach the big long range. Weapons can reach everywhere. And if we're talking about ballistic missile submarines, it could be in the Norwegian Sea, it could be in Bering Sea, might even be in the Atlantic, within Bering Sea might even be in the Atlantic, so potentially, russia and America can reach each other, the whole continent, anywhere at any time more or less in the world. That's what they've got Now. The point about all of this is that this is the way it was in the mid-1970s and it hasn't changed. Technically, it hasn't changed for 50 years. They've modernized their forces, but they're still basically structured in this way. What has changed is that the arms control regime that built up in the 1960s was quite powerful. That regime has been whittled away and is almost now non-existent, and so it's way different than it was in the 70s.

Speaker 1: 20:31

I know that. Okay, I'm not going to get into grave detail on it, even though the majority of the stuff that I know uh is is declassified. So there there's a thing called the start treaty, um, which sunsetted, where we would inspect russia's nuclear facilities, make sure that they were in line with ours, and we would inspect those. I was directly involved in those inspections. I was part of it. I was literally, literally there with the Americans and the Russians back when I was in the military and the Marines, so we know their capabilities inside now.

Speaker 4: 21:03

We do.

Speaker 1: 21:04

I knew it as a low-level, non-commissioned officer, so the highest levels know it as well, and probably a little bit more. But the Russians know it too right, so the Russians know it too. It is, it's so. It's a serious situation and you know, in the end Russia is going to be destroyed. But they do have the capability to take out. Essentially, with 5500 nuclear weapons you could take out the entire world. Times that by two Our arsenal could take out the entire world. Serious they are. This is at the uh. This is at. This is lavrov, um, from rio de janeiro, um, talking about the, the update to the nuclear treaty we are strongly in favor of doing everything not to allow nuclear war to happen.

Speaker 4: 22:00

it was us who first, during the Soviet Union times, suggested to the United States and President Gorbachev and President Reagan made a joint statement that nuclear war can never be won and never must be started. The same statement we reconfirmed in January 2021 in the format of P5. All P5 confirmed this. When the Ukrainian war against Russia by the West started, quite a number of politicians in the West were assuming, or assuming, that there might be a nuclear element in this war. Liz Truss, who was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, when she was asked whether she would be ready to press the red button, she said yes, this is Prime Minister's obligation and duty.

Speaker 4: 23:04

People in Germany, the chief of staff of the German army, was quoted as saying that Russia must understand that NATO is a nuclear alliance. In France, macron and his officials repeatedly were mentioning this and, of course, many other European politicians. We never started this conversation and the update of the military doctrine does not add anything which the West wouldn't know and does not add anything which would be different. And does not add anything which would be different let me put it this way from the American doctrinal documents on what to do with nuclear weapons. First and foremost, a weapon to constrain any prevent, to prevent any nuclear war.

Speaker 1: 24:11

And this has been the position since the Soviet Union, right, where they acquired a nuclear weapon so that the United States could not use it on them like they did. Japan Kind of makes sense. So now they're saying well, we have a nuke, if you nuke us, we're going to nuke you back. And the united states is like, oh man, no more nukes. Um, but that's besides the point. Nobody wants a nuclear war.

Speaker 1: 24:35

The, the ramifications, and are just between the, the gamma rays and the alpha rays, and just the nuclear winter that will prevail. Uh, that that will come through is absolutely insane. And the, the bombs that were dropped on, uh, hiroshima and nagasaki might as well be firecrackers compared to what we have today. You know, one nuclear weapon has multiple warheads, right? So if you launch, like a trident D5, it goes up into the atmosphere, it runs off of the constellations and it is so accurate it could hit a Coke can from, you know, 6,000 miles away. That's a real statistic, statistic. But well, it goes up into the atmosphere and then it launches 10 or 12 or 14 nuclear warheads from that, so they can hit multiple cities with one missile. We have 5500 of them, right, they're not all trident d5s or whatever, but the the amount of weapons that we have can literally take over the entire world, and all it takes is for one nuclear missile to be launched. That's it.

Speaker 1: 25:52

If Russia launches one nuke, we're going to hit them with everything that we have. Nato is going to hit them with everything that they have, and they're going to nuke the entire place and turn it into glass. That's the only way to go. Once one nuke the entire place and turn it into glass. That's, that's the the only way to go. Once one new, once one nuke is launched, there is no stopping it. It is called mutually assured destruction, and the that doctrine has been in place and has stopped nuclear war, but all it. I mean it doesn't really take much to launch one missile. It doesn't. They practice it every day on both sides, whether it's an icbm or whether it's a submarine or whether it's a plane, it doesn't matter.

Speaker 1: 26:36

Russia and the united states are practicing launching missiles at each other literally every single day, and when they're practicing it, they don't know if it's real or not too. So that's something you have to understand. So when, when they're doing nuclear launches, they don't know if it's a real launch or a fake launch there's no distinction. They get a code, they put the code in, they launch. They launched a nuke. They have no idea whether or not they actually launched a nuke. They're hundreds of miles from the missile in cases. They can't hear it, they can't see it, they can't smell it. They're underground, they're isolated from sounds, news, nothing. Can't even have phones. When you're around nuclear weapons can't even really have internet. If you have internet, it's highly monitored and highly controlled. Um, but they practice it every day. So there's just somebody going yep, this is the procedure. Boom, boom, boom. I did it. They have no idea if they nuke somebody or not, no clue this is how we handle this situation right, that's exactly what we were just talking about.

Speaker 1: 27:44

But the, the nuclear threat is very real and, uh, this step by the biden administration is astounding. It's astounding that they would do this now. Um, what, what? What is the next step? I mean, I really just don't know. I, I don't know, I don't know where this is gonna go, and we're gonna see just what happens when donald trump gets into office. Hopefully, uh, putin will just wait, says this, so that we can stop, uh, the nonsense until until until Trump gets into office.

Speaker 1: 28:31

Here is we're gonna watch this. This. This is a video of a, a Trident, to being launched. This is from a submarine. The subs are the biggest threat. Understand that the subs are biggest threat.

Speaker 1: 28:50

Okay, so one thing you need to notice as it's coming out of the water, it never gets wet. So inside the missile silo it releases a, a bubble around it and as it comes out, it stays completely bone dry. And then you see, as it's up and out of the water, boom, the lights are on, flames on. It goes up into the atmosphere, it releases multiple warheads and they all go to separate targets. That's one missile, one one. You can take out all of russia with one, all the major cities in russia with one multiple sites that would take out all of Russia with one all the major cities in Russia with one multiple sites that would take out miles and miles and miles of ground. It's real, it's scary and I hope that the world does not end that way, although almost with this administration and their absolute incompetence, it seems like it is completely just inevitable.

Speaker 1: 29:49

Thank you for tuning in. Don't forget to hit that like, share and subscribe button. To subscribe on facebook it's $1.99 a month. On twitter, it's two dollars. Subscribe on youtube I keep getting kicked off of youtube, banned, whatever, but if you're watching on youtube, I'm just going to keep putting videos on there. I'm not going to censor myself. It's something I'm not going to do. If they kick me off, they kick me off. It is what it is. Rumble, rumble, rumble. Get on rumble, stay on rumble. That is the free speech platform, where I can say whatever I want to say without any fear of repercussion. Thanks for tuning in and I will see you next time of repercussion.

Speaker 2: 30:28

Thanks for tuning in and I will see you next time. Thanks for tuning in to the Ryan Samuel show. Don't forget to like, share and subscribe.