You may go to the second part of our discussion that you prepared >> speaking of freedom >> [laughter] >> and academic integrity.
0:09Uh, I um when I was I had quite an experience on my trip from uh Germany on the airplane because um the airplanes uh now have uh reasonably good um internet support.
0:30And you can get uh into And so I'm sitting there and the first thing I get is an article that was just published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that uh if if I want to be it was so inaccurate that it wasn't even wrong. I mean, [laughter] it was just completely without merit.
0:54And uh course a day later I'll show you I'll show you this in some slides.
1:00Uh, I so a day later I get the I I get an email explaining to me how the Bulletin is this expert source of expert scientific information.
1:15And give them money. You should give them money and and because they are real expertise and they are informing our society about the critical national security issues that we should all be concerned about.
1:27So it's it's quite an interesting um uh set of of issues that have come up. Let me uh Why don't you you just show the slide number one?
1:39Okay, so there serious errors of misinformation in this uh Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article about uh a false alert that occurred in 1995 in Russia. It was an alert I'll discuss it in some detail depending on how much we have.
1:58And um uh the article said nothing correct about the about this false alarm, nothing. And it provided no information about what the false alarm was. Instead, it had all kinds of discussions about how this false alarm occurred when uh when Chechnya what when the Russians were losing uh a war uh in in Chechnya, uh how the the Russian economic downturn, all of these things that had nothing at all to do with this false alarm were somehow rolled into this article as somehow being associated with the uh with the false alarm. It was just amazing.
2:44It was a totally amazing fabrication of irrelevant things that may have occurred at the same time, but had nothing to do with the false alarm. It was just remarkable.
2:58Now, in in all fairness, I want to take a moment to point out that this article was written by two very young, very junior people.
3:10Uh I won't talk much about them, but uh I'm a little concerned, quite honestly, because uh they did such a bad job.
3:22I I feel bad for them because these people are young scholars, and they you could argue they should have known better, but my first question is, since I'm an educator, is how did their supervisors, or the people they deal with, let them do this?
3:42What was the role? I mean, one of them's from Princeton.
3:46Uh she's a >> They're they're working for some sort of NGOs. That's why [laughter] did.
3:51>> Well, maybe, Maybe, but the one of them is from Princeton, the Science and Global Security program there, which uh uh I um uh if you look at my uh um my Google uh profile it falsely states that I was uh thrown out of the program there. In fact, I resigned from the program after the program did something that was uh unethical scholar unethical scholarly thing I could I could talk about. And so, I resigned in protest even though I was 30 years uh on the board of this uh of this program. So, uh it wasn't as presented in my I I I don't have to spend all my time uh correcting these false statements that get into
4:37uh you know uh uh get into, you know, Wikipedia, [clears throat] you know, it's really it's really disturbing.
4:45But, anyway, um uh this article was was simply ridiculous. And um let's go to slide two.
4:57So, the article was erroneous. It was published on April 13.
5:02The next slide uh shows you uh what I received on April 14, the day uh the day um after.
5:13Dear Ted, in a world facing escalating nuclear risk, accelerating climate disruption, and rapidly advancing technology, having access to clear and credible information has never been more essential.
5:27The Bulletin is known for authoritative science-based journalism, and our online and in-person programming complements our coverage to unpack complex urgent issues. Yet, this article is totally like I said, it's not even wrong.
5:45It doesn't even come close to being wrong.
5:49But we're not done yet.
5:52Uh to power this work and advance meaningful solutions, we need an all hands on deck effort. You can help strengthen this movement. So this is what I get a day after I get this article that is totally misleading, filled with uh false information. Let's go uh to slide four.
6:15Here's Here's just the beginning of the article as mocked up.
6:19Uh the article has this lavish photograph, which you see below.
6:26The photograph, this is the first thing you see in the article, the photograph says the rocket it's talking about this rocket, which was which caused this false alert.
6:36The rocket uh carried instruments about 200 mi, 320 km into the atmosphere. That's not correct at all.
6:45It's It's simply wrong. This rocket was on a a very high trajectory. It went up to almost 1,400 km high.
6:54Went to It was a very distortedly high that that's the relevant piece of information about this trajectory.
7:03Because the Russians had never seen a rocket launch from this particular location that went so high.
7:11So what caused the alert was the fact that the rocket went so high relative to anything they had seen earlier.
7:17It had nothing to do with it traveling laterally by 200 uh uh 200 mi. I mean, it's it's totally uh misleading.
7:27Uh so, if we go to slide four, you'll just see it slightly blown up.
7:33And slightly five five, I'm sorry.
7:36So, all right. So, this is an article by the bulletin. Now, let me let me re-summarize the claims.
7:45You go to the bulletin, give them money, in fact, uh uh Oh, incidentally, I should I was told that I shouldn't write for the I I I'm not acceptable as a writer for the bulletin a few years ago, so I stopped writing for them. I would have stopped anyway because of these articles.
8:03Um so, but but I'm you're told give them money because, you know, they these are the guys who are holding the truth.
8:11And and they're scientists, they're experts.
8:15And because they're scientists and experts, they're giving you information that helps you be a responsible citizen, citizen of the world and the United States.
8:26And and yet nothing in this article is correct about what caused this alert.
8:33They're talking about weird things like um uh I I I had some notes here to what I wrote to myself. It's so It's so weird I can't even recall all the details. They talk about the They show a complete misunderstanding of satellite early warning systems.
8:52They um they talk about um things about um um constraints on on on providing uh launch launch information about some of your about your missiles because of what they call queuing that the satellites would would you There's no way the satellites would use queuing. The satellites are designed to survey the whole Earth.
9:20You don't need You're not cued. Uh if someone tells you there's going to be a launch and you have a satellite that can look at the whole Earth like the United States has, you see it. You see the launch. You don't need to be cued to it. You just see the launch because you're surveying the whole Earth.
9:36It's ridiculous. Why would queuing be an issue to you? It's just everything is fabricated showing a complete absence of understanding the most basic facts about how early warning systems function and then using these misstated facts to come up with proposals which are totally ridiculous.
9:58>> [laughter] >> So so this is really uh But all right, so this is an article Remember now Good. This is a good slide. Uh Remember now this this um this is a journal. It has an editor whose name is uh John uh Meklin.
10:18The editor decides what's published.
10:22The editor has a responsibility to determine whether or not an article is accurate, you know, even even a newspaper article goes through some level of of review.
10:34You know, if you at least you try to get a date right and you know And so I just out of curiosity I did a Google search. I just said to myself what if I were going to write an article about this um and I knew nothing about it.
10:51So I asked the question of Google, what was the cause of the Russian false alert in 1995?
10:59Well, I won't go through the details here, but basically the Google search gives all of the right answers.
11:08In other words, if you looked up the Google uh if you did just did a Google search you would have gotten information that was reasonably accurate. There's some minor details that are not quite But I'm an expert in this. I've spent years working on this particular problem.
11:25Uh you you you get also um references to articles. You see the note on the right you see Norwegian rocket incident Wikipedia, the Wikipedia article is very comprehensive.
11:39Um Uh you get a uh a union of concerned scientists article.
11:44You get an article that I co-authored uh from over it must be 25 years ago uh False alarm nuclear danger by Jeff Ford and Pavel Podvig and Theodore Postol. You know, it was a uh All you have to do is read these articles and you'd know everything you needed to know.
12:06You know, at a reasonably competent level about how this false alarm occurred.
12:12You you got nothing.
12:14You if you listen if you believed anything this article from the bulletin was saying, you would have gotten you you would have no idea what you were talking about and you'd be wrong in things that you talked about and proposed.
12:29It's it's that striking. So, if you want to see um how how striking this is, in the next slide, I just show you the Wikipedia incident you know, that it goes on for quite a ways, but you can see a an image of the rocket that was launched. You can see a map with none of which are in this article from the bulletin uh showing you the launch point uh and you know, and if you you read this and you took it seriously, you would know you you would know infinitely more than the authors of the article know.
13:08Cuz it's clear they don't understand all of these basic facts of information.
13:13They didn't even check Wikipedia.
13:16You know, and Now, to to emphasize this further, if we go to the next slide, this is from the Wikipedia article. I won't go through this, but this shows you articles you could look up that talk about this this false alert.
13:36And uh why would you write an article and show no knowledge, not even a basic knowledge of how satellites function when the issue has to do with early warning satellites?
13:49I And and publish an article and how would the editor of the journal Mr. Meckling uh who claims to be an expert himself.
14:00Incidentally, he he's not my favorite person, so I'll use my own language. He's he's technically illiterate.
14:09He his word is worthless.
14:12You know, I dealt with him as an editor.
14:13He would tell you one thing and do another.
14:16Uh he would try to mislead you when he was editing an article.
14:20I mean, this is not I've never dealt with an editor who did this before. This guy's unique.
14:26And then he publishes this article uh which was clearly not not even a child could have checked fact-checked this article and found it was just nonsense.
14:42A child.
14:44You get you get a a bright high school student who knows how to use um you know, chat GPT or something and you would know that this article was nonsense.
14:56This is the Bulletin of Atomic uh Scientists.
15:00It's telling you um uh what the um that it's an expert organization. It's touting itself as a scientific uh national security source of of of wisdom.
15:18And it's publishing total nonsense, total nonsense.
15:23You go to slide nine, it's just an image from another article that I had written about this 10 years ago.
15:29But slide 10 gives you some points that I want to make.
15:34First of all, what is the problem and how can it be solved at the bulletin? The bulletin has a long history.
15:41I was writing for the bulletin over 40 years ago.
15:45At that time, there were serious people involved in overseeing the bulletin.
15:50Now, it's a social club.
15:52It's a social club of people who are telling themselves they're good people, you know, they're they know better than you and I.
16:01And they're going to tell us how to manage the world and and do good things to keep the world from being destroyed by nuclear war or climate change, another issue I'll mention briefly.
16:14So, point number one is this article is only one example of articles that are routinely published by the bulletin where the scientific accuracy and its contents are in error or completely without merit. This is only one article.
16:29I could come up with zillions of articles.
16:33And I'm going to talk I'm going to try to talk to the board of the bulletin. So, I'm saying this publicly.
16:39If I don't talk to the board of the bulletin, it's not because I'm not I'm not willing to.
16:46It's because they're not willing to talk to me.
16:49I'm a scientist of some repute and I think I can just tell them things that they should want to know.
16:56So, I'm planning to talk to the board.
16:58We'll see if that happens. You can ask me about it sometime in the future.
17:03All right, the bulletin, I know for a fact that the bulletin has no process for reviewing articles, none.
17:10Now, any journal that purports to be a scientific journal has an extensive review process.
17:18And the reason you do that is even if you're an expert, you want another expert. You I've always in in door In fact, the reason I was told uh to go that they will not that the editor, Mr. Macklin, will never doesn't want me to deal with you doesn't want to deal with me ever again was because I was insisting that he get an article he didn't want to publish reviewed.
17:48Then it turned out he lied to me.
17:50Incidentally, I've all the emails, so anybody who wants them.
17:54Um he lied to me about the review process because he didn't get reviewers.
18:00And then he tried to claim that the review process was secret.
18:06Now, this is such a joke, it's hard to The review process the the the identity of the referee is generally kept from the author for obvious reasons.
18:20But you don't you don't keep the review secret. The review has to be In In fact, I resigned from the Princeton group because I found out that they had reviewed my they had used a a slanderous letter against me that was secretly sent to them against me and this the article I was uh trying to publish.
18:46And that they had never told me about the letter and never informed me about them using it for their review. I said, "If you're going to do this, you are violating the principles of of of refereeing." This article contained amazing statements about me. For example, uh I was a Holocaust denier. I actually got a hold of this letter.
19:10A Holocaust denier, so So, um so this piece of garbage who wrote the and they looked at it, they treated this letter as if it was serious.
19:20Keep in mind that I was on the board of editors.
19:23Uh I wasn't I mean, it has to be separated in this case cuz I was publishing in the same journal. I was on the board of editors for 30 years.
19:33The three editors who were involved in this case were all former students of mine.
19:41Now, let me tell you, Nima, I never get a letter telling me that Nima is a you know, a holo you know, whatever. I don't care what it tells me.
19:51If I ever get a letter that's sent being circulated behind your back, I promise you that you will be the first person to receive a copy of it.
20:01You know, that's not appropriate. It's not appropriate to keep slander uh behind a person's back secret.
20:10You know, if someone's writing secret letters behind your back, I don't care what if it's true, you you you you have a right to know about it.
20:20>> Yeah.
20:20>> So, uh you know, this is kind of outrageous behavior I've been subjected to by the Bulletin and actually the Princeton group, too.
20:28It and of course this one of the authors is from Princeton, so from the Princeton group. So, um anyway, let's go back to slide 10.
20:40All right. Um Let me make a point here. I've also done a lot of work on climate change. I haven't talked about it. You know, that's another discussion.
20:50But I know quite a bit about climate the the the scientific foundations of climate change.
20:57I can tell you that the articles on climate change in the Bulletin are almost always nonsense or outright misinformation.
21:08Okay? And I was I I have tried to make that point to Mr. Meckling uh you know, because I was trying to say to him, "Why don't you get a referee referees involved?" You you you're worried about climate change?
21:20Fine.
21:22Have some people who know something about the science reviewing articles that you publish instead of publishing any piece of garbage by somebody who has a concern that's based on their ignorance. They they write these The articles are typically a concern that's based on the ignorance of the individual writing it.
21:41You know, "Oh, I don't understand why the weather is what it is today. It must be climate change." You know?
21:47It's incredible.
21:49So so this bulletin is telling you as you would see from the letter I showed you, they're telling you about nuclear safety and nuclear war and climate change and none of it is backed up by any form of academic expertise uh reviewing these articles. They're just what what Mr. Meckling decides he wants to publish without oversight from any other parts of the bulletin.
22:17So this this deals with the bulletin as a science advisory committee.
22:22I don't know what they do. They don't do anything.
22:25I wrote the science advisory committee a few years ago before they threw me out and I said, "You know you're not publishing accurate information on climate change. Here's some articles that you ought to be aware of." I sent them articles. These are refereed scientific journal articles.
22:44And I got a letter back, "Well uh I got a letter back from the guy who was then the chair, this guy Bob Rosner, who's distinguished professor of public policy at University of Chicago. He's distinguished. I can't find any articles by this guy on public policy. None.
23:02But he's a distinguished and he writes back, "Well, I talked to some of my friends and they don't agree."
23:07Well, I'm a scientist. You're supposed to be a scientist. What do you mean your friends? What What do they not agree with? What do they That So, that's the science advisory committee.
23:19So, they do have some people They do have some potential uh scholars some scholars who have potential to be reviewers, but if you're going to review an article that's not inside your field of activity, you have to do some work.
23:37You have the training, you know, if you're a a well uh trained scientist, you can you know, a lot of the things I've talked about >> [clears throat] >> uh you know, over the few years I've been doing things on the web, are things I learned about.
23:53I'm a well-trained scientist. I can go and look something up. I can very quickly understand it because I have all the technical foundation to understand something that would take a person without the training a long time to understand.
24:05And it's good for me, frankly, cuz it broadens my understanding of all kinds of issues that I should know about, although, you know, we all have limits on our time and energy.
24:15And uh at the same time, I'm able to translate this stuff into solid, understandable, technical discussions that the public can absorb and thereby help the public make more informed decisions for themselves.
24:33In other words, my objective is to help people understand enough of the basic accurate facts that they can then decide for themselves what the different policy alternatives could what policy alternatives could make sense. I'm not here to tell you what to think.
24:52That's my position. I'm here to help you understand the issues and you're it's your job as a citizen of the world and of of of your country to think it through and decide what you believe given your values and the values you think your country should be emphasizing how you're going to deal with a given set of problems. That's that's what I'm what I try to do.
25:18So anyway um that's the situation with the article.
25:24Uh do I have um a few minutes to talk on >> Yeah. Yeah. We have Yeah.
25:31>> Okay. So so let's uh take a jump and talk about what this event actually was because uh it is a very interesting event.
25:41Um >> [clears throat] >> Let's jump to slide 29.
25:53Okay. This is the Russian experience of false alert of January 25.
25:58If we go to the next slide anybody who had put real energy into understanding this alert which turned out which I did would have asked the question why didn't the dog bark?
26:12>> [laughter] >> This sounds like uh what happened is uh is um the um is a rocket Let's go to slide 31.
26:26A rocket was launched. This was a four-stage rocket.
26:30I uh won't um uh spend a lot of time talking about this rocket.
26:36But if we go to slide 35 we would see uh this is the powered flight profile of the rocket.
26:48And basically what happened is if you look at the um uh the um above 50 km so you look at the point the set of points above 50 km out to maybe 100 km altitude what happened is you had a third a third rocket stage. The first two rocket stages burnt out below 50 km.
27:13Bear in mind this is a scientific rocket.
27:16So the guys who have build a rocket they're they're scrounging for pieces of rocket motors so they can put something up to high altitudes for an an ionospheric experiment uh at a cost that they can afford cuz they they don't they can't pick up the phone like Lockheed does and say build me this rocket stage.
27:40So they took they scrounged a couple of um stages from old surface-to-air missiles just to boost the thing up and then they had a real rockets a NASA rocket stage to propel uh the um uh the payload uh between roughly 52 or 53 km up to an altitude of roughly uh maybe uh um uh 100 km before a fourth stage uh began uh began burning. Well, it turns out that if you go to slide 36 if you look at the burnout events uh associated with a Trident II or a Trident I ballistic missile there are events I won't go into details that you can see on a radar a long-range early warning radar that you uh uh would not see
28:39um uh you you you you you would see you you could recognize but you could not tell in you can't see in detail. So, for example, you see the rocket motor burning you can because the rocket motor plume has a radar reflection.
28:57When the rocket motor turns off, all of a sudden the plume disappears. You can still see the rocket.
29:02You can't see you see a blob of, you know, a point of light is the rocket.
29:08But, you know that the rocket plume was was burning to a certain altitude and then it turns off.
29:15Well, this is does that look like a rock How do I classify this rocket? Well, maybe it maybe it's a Trident II.
29:22Because when I see this thing I I don't see the lower stages because the curvature of the earth stops me from seeing them.
29:29But, but I see this upper stage and it turns off at an altitude that's associated with a Trident II, you know, first stage burn.
29:39Oh, if this is an early warning radar, this is not a good thing. I mean, I'm I'm not exactly, um, uh, happy seeing this event.
29:52So, if I go to slide, um, 37, this shows you the full trajectory of this rocket.
30:02The little red curve you see at below is just the, uh, is one of the lower stages, which I see in the radar with the radar.
30:11Now, the radar, uh, is look unfortunately I don't have, uh, Let's go to s- s- uh, Let's go to slide 40.
30:29Slide 40 shows the fan of the particular radar that detected the income the the launch.
30:35So, what the radar saw was a rocket motor that turned off.
30:41Couldn't see anything else at the at an altitude that could have been a uh uh you know uh a Trident uh ballistic missile. Now, why why would why would this cause an alert?
30:56Well, the reason it could cause an alert is if we go to slide 44, my concern would be that at the apogee, if this were a Trident missile, uh I would be detonating a nuclear weapon.
31:17And the nuclear weapon would cause um uh an ionized layer in the ionosphere. It goes I and the radar would be blinded. It would be as if I took a metal a metallized blanket and threw it over the the radar.
31:34So, now the radar can't see beyond the this layer of um ionized air um uh at at high altitudes.
31:44So, the net result is um is I I'm I'm I'm basically blind.
31:52So, if we go um to slide um I'm sorry here.
32:05If if we go to slide um uh 55, the the radar is looking out and there's a layer of ionized air. You see it at 50 km. You see a slightly flat but curved um hatched area. That shows you the area the volume of sky that the nuclear detonation has ionized and beyond that uh region of sky the radar cannot see. The radar is blocked.
32:47And so if I go to the next slide this means that the radar cannot see uh ballistic missiles that are coming in from the North Atlantic. So the purpose of detonating a nuclear weapon at high altitude and close would be to blind the radar so it cannot see the developing attack that it would otherwise see because it could see it could see longer range before the nuclear detonation occurred.
33:20Now this is a crazy attack. I want to be very clear. This but it's an attack that both the United States and the Russians have worried about.
33:28The only reason you know this is a very esoteric thing. You ask how the hell do I know about it? Well it's cuz I studied nuclear war.
33:35I studied nuclear war inside the Pentagon and I did my own calculations cuz I wanted to understand what I was doing and uh so I had a So when I saw this I knew immediately that the Russian response was due to the the danger of this unknown rocket being part of a precursor nuclear attack on Russia.
34:02That's what the system was responding to. I gave a talk at a Stanford seminar uh sometime after I had begun to analyze this and in the audience was a colonel general retired who had been commander of the Moscow uh early warning center.
34:23Lovely man. I got to know him quite well.
34:26And he says, "Ted, you figured it out."
34:29>> [laughter] >> He says, "This is exactly what we were worried about when we were in uh >> [laughter] >> you know so now the natural question that I asked is well why let's go back to slide 56 why didn't the Russian early warning satellites see the launch of these submarine launch ballistic missiles in the North Atlantic and the answer turned out after enormous amounts of work that the Russian satellites are unable to look directly down at the earth there's this technical discussion about why that's the case that I could we can't do it here for now but I mean if some people are enough interested you
35:15know it could be a a subject for further elaboration cuz it's a very interesting problem but the Russians had not solved the problem of looking down at the earth which United States had solved incidentally they still have not solved this problem which is a great surprise to me so the Russians have no satellite system that could tell them that they're under attack from the North Atlantic the warning of of attack from the North Atlantic they have is from their radars so tampering with those radars like the Ukrainians tried to do in Armavir it was a radar looking south in that case into the Indian Ocean
35:59attacking those radars or tampering with it could precipitate a a high level of alert in the Russian warning system because the Russians would say why is this happening who's doing it I don't know that that drone is American that damaged caused the radar down or if it's Ukrainian or if you know this is how I got into this this strange internet business that I'm now in because what happened is I wrote a I was so disturbed when the Ukrainians attacked this radar uh in this Russian early warning radar that I started writing people like Jeffrey Sachs to try to get them uh to alert the appropriate cuz I knew
36:44Sachs has contacts at the White House and I knew I knew from my earlier experience with the American intelligence community that people in the White House did not know anything about their own world early warning system and did not understand the limitations in the Russian early warning system. I was involved This is a whole interesting story there where I discovered this I went I was asked by the Clinton administration to review what what the Americans knew about the Russian early warning system because the Clinton administration was in thinking about early warning cooperation with the Russians.
37:22And when I reviewed the Cold War documents, I was stunned to find out that the American intelligence system did not know that the Russian early warning satellite system could not look down at the surface of the earth and see launches.
37:38That's important because an American president in a crisis could think well, the Russians are doing this. They must know that we know. Why are they you know, they must know we're attacking them. Let's we we need to do something.
37:52You know, th- this could literally lead to a misunderstanding that could you could result in massive nuclear use weapon use of nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia.
38:03This is a serious intelligence shortfall.
38:07And when I discovered this, I was working with a bunch of Russians and I said to myself, this is too serious to not tell the Russians that I have figured this out.
38:19So, I went to Moscow. I didn't know if I was going to be arrested. I'll be honest with you because this was not exactly This was this was a secret that was one of the most closely guarded secrets in Russia. It had to be. I know how we would have dealt with it. Americans how we would have dealt with this. We were keeping When we first launched our early warning satellites, it was even it was not even we didn't even acknowledge that we were trying to do this.
38:44It was secret. The fact that we were trying to do it was secret.
38:47And um I went to Russia and I gave a talk.
38:52And sitting in the audience, God bless him, was uh uh was Anatoly Savin.
39:01He's He's dead now and so I can use his I wouldn't normally.
39:05And Anatoly was the chief designer of the Russian early warning satellite system.
39:12>> [laughter] >> Now, I was sitting there giving this talk to a group of people in an organization called Kometa. Kometa is a giant uh organi- you know, government-run and owned uh organization, which is the equivalent of Lockheed uh um Raytheon uh everyone else combined but owned by the government, which is the right way to do it. You don't want these guys deciding what's good for your national security like we do.
39:48Um So, he's head of this thing. He's a He's a been decorated multiple times for his work during the Great Patriotic War and otherwise.
39:59Uh he's a serious communist. I mean, he and I we had a very good relationship. For some reason, he just took a liking to me.
40:09And um so, I would joke with him about it, you know, we you know, serious man, though.
40:15And and and uh he's sitting there and he says, you know, Ted um you got the surveillance areas in in your analysis, the shape is wrong.
40:26The shape is wrong. Well, what he told me is how the scanning system worked.
40:32Because I knew there were two possible shapes for the areas that I believed they were looking at, which were very limited. Wasn't a global system.
40:41So, he Now, no there's no question none at all that Sagan knew exactly what he was doing.
40:49He was telling me, you're right.
40:53And the reason he was telling me, you're right, is he understood that what I was trying to do was start a cooperative program.
41:02I was going to the Americans and saying, this is not good for American security as well as Russian security.
41:11If the Russians accidentally attack us because they think they're under attack, the United States is destroyed just as well as Russia.
41:20So, it's in the American national security interest to um try to help the Russians solve this problem.
41:29And I've been working on this problem 25 years and getting nowhere.
41:32So, so this is an issue. So, when I see this bulletin article, you know, and they're telling everybody they're such experts. They've already told me, you know, yeah yeah you're forbidden. You're you're you're dirt. We don't want to talk to you again. We don't want you dirtying up our club.
41:51Um I felt that, you know, it's it's important that people be alerted to this. And I hope if you have audience members who read the bulletin, and I suspect you do, cuz you have a pretty highly informed crowd, they should write letters about this uh this um uh this uh uh this particular uh discussion we're now having.
42:16They should write letters to the Bulletin and demand that they do a proper job or cease and desist. Just close down and be, you know, don't falsely represent yourself as an organization that's giving people accurate information.
42:32You are not doing it.
42:33You are lying.
42:35You are misrepresenting yourself as experts on matters that you have no knowledge of.
42:40And that is immoral.
42:42It's also dangerous.
42:44If I tell you I know that that bridge is okay, but in fact the bridge is not and it's going to fall down, I am immoral telling you to go ahead and use the bridge. And that's what these people are doing.
42:57This is immorality on a massive scale.
43:00And the Bulletin needs to correct its act.
43:03That's my bottom line for this discussion.
Read the essay version →