I officially kicked off the Project 38 campaign with a fundraiser held at the Quaker Friend's Meeting House in Albany, NY. It is the first step of a longer journey to extend the New START treaty.
We are naturally a semi intelligent creature with a fascination with food shelter reproduction and dominating our surroundings . Including other humans . I remember the words of the man regretting discovering nuclear weapons .
I don't mean to rain on your parade, Major Ritter; but is a nuclear arms race the one about which we should be most worried these days? Is START still fit for purpose?
Hasn't ripple technology from the early 1960s meant that modern nuclear weapons produce little, if any, radio activity - "only" a big blast and a lot of heat? But isn't precision the name of the game today?
Don't modern kinetic weapons of the kind now being deployed by the Russians have similar destructive power to destroy strategic targets precisely?
"little, if any, radioactivity" - this is a ridiculous exaggeration. It is true that today's nuclear bomb of the same power (same number of kilotons) will produce less radiation than the early bombs used in 1945: maybe three times less or even five times less. However, considering that the power of modern nuclear charges has increased by several orders of magnitude (megatons today instead of kilotons in 1945), the absolute amount of radioactivity released by a modern nuclear charge will be much greater than that from the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you probably heard what happened to the survivors of those two nuclear bombings.
Im just a simple infantry marine but couldn't they just retrofit all these old warheads with the modern tech best of both worlds not to mention mostly likely controlled by AI.the movie "war game" but not slow back and forth just instantly all because some asshole made a tweet.
Seems to me nuclear weapons still trump the non-nuclear ones like the Oreshnik. Ukraine seems to be a mutually agreeable sandbox to use non-nuclear weapons. What happens when Ukraine launches a serious non-nuclear missile strike against Moscow, supported by German weapons and technicians? Russia launches an Oreshnik strike against German facilities, and you're right back to NATO only having a nuclear option to respond effectively.
Nuclear weapons are still way more powerful than kinetic weapons like the Oreshnik. By the way, Russia has two versions of the Oreshnik: one is non-nuclear (it was used just once) and the other one is nuclear (it has never been used). Both versions can penetrate all known missile defense systems (like the Patriot or S-550).
I'm not sure nuclear weapons still trump the kinetic, unless your objective is to cause mass deaths and generate work/profits for construction companies. Are they strategic objectives under the law of war? And perhaps Tianjin 2015 is evidence that NATO does already have effective alternatives to nuclear?
Needless to say, I don't know - I'm just spitballing.
The logic of escalation is that once you get involved in an escalation cycle, you'll go to your most powerful weapons eventually unless there is a breaker. But, once you're involved in an escalation, the one to use the most powerful weapons first has the greatest survivability. So, any serious conflict between two nuclear powers has a very significant chance of going nuclear very quickly.
The logic still holds if one side has a non-nuclear weapon capable of destroying deep missile emplacements. There is a use-it-or-lose-it logic. The importance of the START process, to my mind, is not so much limiting nuclear warheads, since 1000 nuclear warheads is more than enough to completely destroy a country. The important aspect is the process of negotiation, inspection and agreement.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was defused once Kennedy and Khruschev were able to establish a direct line of communication and agreed to eliminate the most threatening installations on both sides.
The Military Industrial Complex has an interest in nullifying all arms limitations treaties. Once treaties are eliminated, more weapons will be built and paid for. Somehow, the dynamic has to be broken. Perhaps make it illegal for government contractors to lobby at all or to make political contributions.
Have you tried clicking on your icon in the top-right corner of the screen and next clicking on "Manage Subscription"? The process is quite transparent, Mr Cellophane :)
I got an idea let's make videos asking chat gpt if it considers social media posts from world leaders threatening tweet by tweet. Then attach that short video to the trailer for project 38.
Thank you for your work to make the world a less dangerous place. 🙏🏼
We are naturally a semi intelligent creature with a fascination with food shelter reproduction and dominating our surroundings . Including other humans . I remember the words of the man regretting discovering nuclear weapons .
I was very happy to hear that you got a (new) US Passport! Congratulations! Have a safe trip to Russia!
I don't mean to rain on your parade, Major Ritter; but is a nuclear arms race the one about which we should be most worried these days? Is START still fit for purpose?
Hasn't ripple technology from the early 1960s meant that modern nuclear weapons produce little, if any, radio activity - "only" a big blast and a lot of heat? But isn't precision the name of the game today?
Don't modern kinetic weapons of the kind now being deployed by the Russians have similar destructive power to destroy strategic targets precisely?
And what about the USAF's 20ft x 1ft tungsten "rods from God" or "hypervelocity rod bundles" (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tianjin+explosion)?
RT is telling us to forget nukes:
https://swentr.site/russia/621105-forget-nukes-russias-deterrence/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
https://gizadeathstar.com/2025/07/russias-hypersonic-missiles-are-kinetic-weapons/
"little, if any, radioactivity" - this is a ridiculous exaggeration. It is true that today's nuclear bomb of the same power (same number of kilotons) will produce less radiation than the early bombs used in 1945: maybe three times less or even five times less. However, considering that the power of modern nuclear charges has increased by several orders of magnitude (megatons today instead of kilotons in 1945), the absolute amount of radioactivity released by a modern nuclear charge will be much greater than that from the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you probably heard what happened to the survivors of those two nuclear bombings.
Thanks for the clarification.
Im just a simple infantry marine but couldn't they just retrofit all these old warheads with the modern tech best of both worlds not to mention mostly likely controlled by AI.the movie "war game" but not slow back and forth just instantly all because some asshole made a tweet.
I don't think you could retrofit an old warhead with a metal rod the size of a telegraph pole. That dog won't hunt!
No doubt AI is involved though, yes.
Seems to me nuclear weapons still trump the non-nuclear ones like the Oreshnik. Ukraine seems to be a mutually agreeable sandbox to use non-nuclear weapons. What happens when Ukraine launches a serious non-nuclear missile strike against Moscow, supported by German weapons and technicians? Russia launches an Oreshnik strike against German facilities, and you're right back to NATO only having a nuclear option to respond effectively.
Nuclear weapons are still way more powerful than kinetic weapons like the Oreshnik. By the way, Russia has two versions of the Oreshnik: one is non-nuclear (it was used just once) and the other one is nuclear (it has never been used). Both versions can penetrate all known missile defense systems (like the Patriot or S-550).
I'm not sure nuclear weapons still trump the kinetic, unless your objective is to cause mass deaths and generate work/profits for construction companies. Are they strategic objectives under the law of war? And perhaps Tianjin 2015 is evidence that NATO does already have effective alternatives to nuclear?
Needless to say, I don't know - I'm just spitballing.
The logic of escalation is that once you get involved in an escalation cycle, you'll go to your most powerful weapons eventually unless there is a breaker. But, once you're involved in an escalation, the one to use the most powerful weapons first has the greatest survivability. So, any serious conflict between two nuclear powers has a very significant chance of going nuclear very quickly.
The logic still holds if one side has a non-nuclear weapon capable of destroying deep missile emplacements. There is a use-it-or-lose-it logic. The importance of the START process, to my mind, is not so much limiting nuclear warheads, since 1000 nuclear warheads is more than enough to completely destroy a country. The important aspect is the process of negotiation, inspection and agreement.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was defused once Kennedy and Khruschev were able to establish a direct line of communication and agreed to eliminate the most threatening installations on both sides.
The Military Industrial Complex has an interest in nullifying all arms limitations treaties. Once treaties are eliminated, more weapons will be built and paid for. Somehow, the dynamic has to be broken. Perhaps make it illegal for government contractors to lobby at all or to make political contributions.
Your logic is 100% accurate!
It's a big can of worms, isn't it?!
I do not seem to unsubscribe to Ritter Extra. Why is that,?
Why is there not a single I unsubscribe click available or ANY way to unsubscribe?
Have you tried clicking on your icon in the top-right corner of the screen and next clicking on "Manage Subscription"? The process is quite transparent, Mr Cellophane :)
I got an idea let's make videos asking chat gpt if it considers social media posts from world leaders threatening tweet by tweet. Then attach that short video to the trailer for project 38.
I'm with ya Top let's give a reality check to the world! -Semper Fi