Scott Ritter Extra: Ask the Inspector

Ask the Inspector Ep. 182

Scott Ritter answers questions from the audience with host Jeff Norman most Friday nights at 5 PM PT/8 PM ET/1 AM GMT and most Tuesdays at noon PT/3PM ET/8PM GMT.

Submit your question in advance and donate to Waging Peace, Scott's campaign for nuclear disarmament, at https://ScottRitter.com.

Opening music by Ed Kliman https://texasmusicforge.com/, Brian Pothier https://www.facebook.com/pothierproductions and ShortBusMusic https://hearthis.at/shortbusmusic-6e/.

Duration:: 1h 5m
Broadcast on:: 06 Aug 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

[MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] To all units proceed to your post assignments, all units proceed to your post assignments. [MUSIC] >> Yeah baby, it's episode 182 of Ask the Inspector on August 6th, 2024. And Yelena has not removed the opening, which must mean either she's been hit by a sniper, or she lost her Internet service. Or it's some kind of work stoppage action. >> Work stoppage, I think she's on strike. >> I'm on strike. >> All right, anyway, America's long national nightmare has ended. I refer, of course, to the one week absence of Ask the Inspector, Scott is back. We did don't ask the inspector Friday night, Ryan and I, and I hope that we didn't tarnish the brand too much. Have you heard any, gotten any negative feedback about that? >> No, I just heard that it, I didn't know you called it don't ask the inspector, that's funny, I like that. >> Yeah, me too, that was Ryan's idea, and what better thing to title it than that? I got nothing but positive feedback from the event you had in New York over the weekend, organized by Randy Credico. And I see that you had quite a motley crew show up, some of the stars of the podcast world, and they wound up speaking. Was this kind of a spontaneous thing, or was it sort of set up that way from the beginning? >> You know, Randy kept calling me and saying, you know, so and so is going to be there. Remind if I, if they say words of interest, I say, I don't mind. Next thing I know, we had a list of like 20 people they were getting. I said, really, I do think we need to, to winnow this down. So, so he, he did winnow it down, but everybody was welcome. Great crew there, Margaret Kimberly, a fantastic, you know, social justice activist, a peace activist, Randy Credico, the, the, the, should be award-winning stand-up comedian who does his WBAI. What's he called WBAI? It is something on the fly? >> Oh, on the fly, WBAI, Randy Credico. Everybody should listen. It's Friday afternoon. And then Demetri Polionski, he's the deputy ambassador, Russian ambassador looking very casual, by the way. Hey, I signed his book. Thanks for showing up. And then there's this fat white guy in the middle there, who apparently sweats profusely, ruined his linen jacket. And then Dan Kovalik, a lawyer, you know, civil right activist, peace activist, all around good guy. Garland Nixon, the world-famous Garland Nixon, was there. And Danny Heifong. Also, Danny's tall. I mean, I, I'm going to invite him on the basketball team. He, he surprised me how tall he was. >> He's pretty young too, so he'll probably give you some energy if he knows if he can play basketball. Now, you mentioned Dan's, you mentioned Dan's qualification, so to speak, but isn't he also an academic? >> He's a professor too. Sorry, Dan. >> Yeah. Well, that's what happens when you've got some kind of hyphenate, a multi-hyphenate. >> Yeah, Dan, it's your fault. Pick, pick, look, just pick the top five qualifications, okay? I don't come at us with ten award-winning qualifications. Now, do you recognize, gentlemen, to my, to my left off of my bottle? >> Yeah, that's Stefan, isn't it? >> That's Stefan. He's wearing the knowledge of his power t-shirt, so he was there. He was a great crowd. >> Yeah, and it's a really nice photo because it shows the venue, which is pretty unique. That used to be a bank vault, I guess, huh? >> The Rockefeller bank vault. Now, it's called the bankers and butchers. It's a steakhouse, award-winning steakhouse. I would recommend anybody who's going through New York City to, to stop by and, and have a meal there. It's just a unique venue. It's, it's down in the basement. There's a couple ways to get, you'll see the, the sign of the bankers. But you can also get in off of the New Yorker Hotel. If you go in the lobby of the New Yorker Hotel and turn left, you can work your way down into the vault. But, apparently, it's where, you know, the Rockefellers kept their money, and now it's just a really cool place to have a steak. >> And as Randy said, maybe, or somebody said, maybe that's where Zelensky will be locked up? >> Randy was saying that, yes. >> I watched pretty much, I think, the entire event, including the audience Q&A, and as an event organizer, who's worked with you many times, I applaud Randy for being strict about enforcing no speeches from the audience, and they actually, for the most part, complied. It was a very good event, I thought. I thought it was very good. I, my, my only issues that, you know, I was, I was having one of those Lyme disease days. I don't know if I told you what it should be. And, and as a result, my body, my thermostat was just way off on cook, and I was down there, and it was hot enough as it was, it was sort of a hot, sticky day outside, then my thermostat just went, you're going to cook right now. So I'm just sitting there, just drinking, but old, I'm like, oh, my God, it was just disgusting person. Oh, that's me. But other than that, I thought it was a really good event. >> And the next one is on August 10th at Farmers and Shafts. This one will be a dinner, whereas Sunday's event was a brunch. >> Kiki in New York City is accusing me of blocking her in that photograph. I apologize, man. Don't blame me, blame the photographer. >> We'll send another photo, Kiki. I've been watching you in your comments, and I see some sort of a caricature or something other than a human. If you want to be seen, Kiki, give us the goods, and we'll show it. >> All right. Let's get to the questions from our beloved audience. We call this the lightning round because Scott answers every question in three minutes or less on Tuesdays. Please join us also Friday night for the loquacious version, starting at 8 p.m. Eastern time. Two hours of glory. Oh, God. Oh, God. There's a monkey wrench in the plan. Whenever I'm promoting a show and Scott holds up his hand, that means not so fast. You hand some W, not so fast. >> Well, Jeff, you have to admit I did give you a heads up on this one. We do have a guest coming on next week. We don't know exactly when. >> Hold on before you get to that. Oh, that. Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you were going to say you can't do Friday night. I thought that's what. >> No, no, no, no, no. Oh, okay. Then let me finish. And Friday night, 8 p.m. The loquacious version from 8 to 10 p.m., blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay. And next week, Scott is very eager to make an announcement. Go ahead. >> Go ahead, Jeff. You can do it better. I mean, you're a better announcer than me. >> I can't deprive you of the joy. I can see what it means to you. I would feel guilty for three months. >> I just want to point out, we have been doing, we've been, on September 28th, we have a Operation Dawn, and we've been talking about this, the same democracy, America, the world, through your vote in November. And a key aspect of Operation Dawn is getting presidential candidates to commit to a platform designed to promote peace and prevent nuclear war. And next week, we will have a presidential candidate on the show, Jill Stein. We will talk to her in depth about her position on peace, where she stands, probe into what's going on in nuclear war. And I think it's fantastic that we will have a presidential candidate on this show committing to a platform on how she plans to promote peace and prevent nuclear war. And it's precedent setting. As I told, Jill, I'm not allowed to endorse. But what I can do is provide a platform and be excited about the information that's placed on the platform. So I think Jill will be coming into a very friendly, receptive platform, where we are excited to hear her and hear what she has to say. And, you know, hopefully it's the beginning of a continuation of this. But so stay tuned. Next week, Jill Stein will be having- We are becoming real players in the political landscape. We had Dennis Kucinich a couple of months ago, and then Friday night on Don't Ask the Inspector. We had Congressional candidate Jose Vega. Look at you, Don't Ask the Inspector running away with the show. It may become more popular than Ask the Inspector. They may cancel me. I mean- Taserasura. Tasera. Jeff? Jeff's like, I'm still here. In any event, Jill will be our third candidate. So that's- Oh, sure. Diane's there. We've talked today. Oh, yes. Yes. It's been a while indeed. And we thought we talked about Diane Friday night as a matter of fact. Okay. So let's get to our first question. It's from Stephen Corker and in the Bronx. Why did Trump pull out of the INF treaty? Well, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987 between Reagan and Gorbachev, and which basically- It's a 13-year treaty in terms of the inspections. All the weapons were supposed to be destroyed within the first three years, and they were. And then you go into a 10-year period of monitoring through no-notice inspections. At the end of the 10-year period, you know, the treaties in effect, no side's supposed to have these weapons. And if you have a problem, you can go through what's called the Special Verification Commission, and they would get together and sort these things out. The United States entered the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty at a time when there was reciprocity with Russia, the concept of mutually beneficial treaties was acceptable. And then the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia came in, and the United States changed its posture on arms control. Arms control needed to solidify American superiority and strengthen and move America towards supremacy. Even a treaty wouldn't be accepted to the United States unless the United States gained some sort of advantage from this treaty, and we were negotiating from a position of strength. The other problem, though, is that it's a bilateral treaty, and the United States had to contend with China, researching China in the Pacific. China has intermediate-range missiles, nuclear-equipped. And the United States felt that it was at a strategic disadvantage in the Pacific, with China possessing weapons that the United States couldn't have. And the United States couldn't have them because of this treaty that had signed with Russia, who was now weak, and the United States felt we didn't need to have reciprocal relations. So we invented a problem. We accused the Russians of cheating. This goes back to the Obama administration when they basically took a test of a sea-launched cruise missile, which are permitted under the treaty, to ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. And they tested it on the ground, and we misconstrued that test. We looked at a series of tests that were done using this missile, and we said that the Russians had illegally tested a ground-launched cruise missile in violation of the treaty, and the Russians said that is not the case. And then we went so far as to name the system, I think the 9M729. And the Russians went way off base. That thing can't go very far. Oh, three minutes on board. Reclaiming my time, sir. Reclaiming my time. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. But look, it's important. It's an important topic. There's the question right there. Well, the Russians were also accused of illegally testing a intercontinental ballistic missile, which is a virus 26, that it could be an INF system. Basically, if the Russians tested with three warheads, it's an INF system. They tested with one warhead. It's an ICBM. We just manufactured case. All these problems could have been solved and should have been solved, but they weren't solved. The United States wanted out of the treaty. And even when Russia said, "Look, we'll put the system side by side. You can come and inspect them. We'll talk about what we need to do to convince you that this isn't an illegal system." The United States said, "No," and Donald Trump pulled out of the INF treaty. And the proof that this had been in the works for some time, this wasn't just, you know, the United States saying, "You've cheated and we have no choice." Within a week of pulling out, we tested our own ground-launched cruise missile using the Mark 41 Aegis-Assure system that we've installed in Romanian Poland. The Russians all along said that that was the violation of the INF treaty because it was a modular system that could incorporate ground-launched cruise missiles because that's what they did on the ship. And we said, "No, no. Don't worry. We made electronic modifications. It's not a big deal." A week later, we tested the system, just like Russia warned us about. So it was the United States that was cheating all along. The United States had no desire to comply with the treaty. So we got rid of the treaty. Russia, just so to put an end note on this, they said, "Even though the United States went through from the treaty, Russia had said we will not build INF systems so long as the United States doesn't deploy any of these intermediate-range missiles into Europe." Last September, we deployed two of them in support of a treaty, in support of an exercise, military exercise. And now we're getting ready to deploy more systems permanently into Europe in 2026. And so Russia said that they will begin building these systems and deploying these systems, and they will be equipped with nuclear weapons. So we're going right back to where we were in the early 1980s, a very dangerous situation. We're both the United States and NATO and Russia have intermediate-range missiles equipped with nuclear warheads and puts us right on the precipice of a nuclear arm again. Okay. Let's take a phone call, an international phone call. Hello. You are on with our favorite weapons inspector. Hi, Jeff. Thank you for accepting my call. My name is Jay, and I'm from Amsterdam. Hello. Hi, Jeff, can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you. And Scott can hear you too. What's your question? Yeah. So Scott, with all the jamming going on in the Middle East, specifically GPS jamming, how the hell is an Iranian ballistic missile still able to find its way to accurately hit this target in Israel? I always thought, "I'll talk to you in the next few years." No, it's a good question. I only can speculate because I haven't inspected Iranian missile systems, so I'm not aware. But there are things that can be done. For instance, you can use inertial guidance. The Russians and the Americans were very good at inertial guidance in the days before GPS, and inertial guidance uses gyroscopes and accelerometers. The missile takes off in the gyroscope and the accelerometer detect deviations from the ideal course of where it needs to go, and the idea is to guide it in. If you have good inertial guidance systems, you can get a circular error of probability of 50 to 100 meters, they're really good, maybe a little bit bigger. But then what you can do is on the terminal phase, you can use sort of like the equivalent of facial recognition software where you have a radar map or a photo map of the facility in the memory, and the system as it comes in starts scanning, looking for a match, and then it locks in on that match and will come in, and there's no need at that point in time since that's all internal. There's no need for GPS, and a lot of systems use a blend of that. They'll incorporate GPS with inertial at the attack of systems, the high-bar system, use a blend of GPS and inertial guidance along with some sort of terminal guide phase. So I believe the Iranian missiles incorporate this technology or other technologies that are designed to allow their missiles to operate in an environment where the satellite connectivity would be jammed. Next question is from Abu Abdullah allegedly in Jerusalem, Palestine. Due to the psychological and anxiety-provoking pressure that the axis of resistance is putting on Israel, do you think that Israel might launch a preemptive strategic nuclear strike on Iran instead of waiting for the retaliation? It's a good question. It's one that many people have asked recently. If Israel launches a preemptive strike against Iran, I believe that it will be a strike that's designed to interrupt Iran's ability to launch ballistic missiles against Israel and it won't incorporate nuclear weapons. That defeats the purpose of the preemptive strike is to nullify Iran's ability to strike. Israel has said that if Iran strikes civilian targets, that Israel will strike Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Here's where you get the nuclear aspect of targeting because at least two of Iran's nuclear facilities are underground. One of them, fear those, there's no conventional weapon that will be able to take it out. If you're going to take out the fear dose enrichment site, you will have to use a nuclear bunker-busting weapon. Israel has said that they will take out these facilities if Iran strikes civilian targets. A preemptive strike is designed to prevent Iran from being able to take out the civilian targets. I don't think a preemptive strike would incorporate nuclear weapons, but I do believe that a Israeli retaliation against a massive Iranian strike that takes out Haifa does significant damage in Tel Aviv, et cetera, will incorporate low yield nuclear weapons, but nuclear weapons nonetheless. Now, the genie is out of the bottle and I think the world comes to an end at that point in time. Yay, there we are, but I don't think the preemptive strike would use nuclear weapons. That would be their retaliatory strike designed to take out the nuclear sites. And then the question is what the United States does in this regard? Are we going to sit back and let this happen? This is insanity, literal insanity. Yet Miller, the spokesperson, the State Department up there, somebody asked the question, "What is Iran allowed to defend itself? Didn't Israel attack Iran? Can Iran defend itself?" That's an unhelpful question, an unhelpful question because, of course, Iran has a right to retaliate, but the United States doesn't recognize that right. We literally want a situation where Israel can go in and assassinate a high-level Hamas leadership for yours in Tehran and get away with literal murder. The Iranians have made a decision that that's not the case, and just 22 seconds predicting Zionists using tactical news in southern Lebanon, not likely at all, not initially. I mean, look, if Israel is engaged in a war that they're losing, it looks like they're facing existential extermination, all bets are off, but initially no, I don't think so. Well, speaking of unhelpful questions, here's one from Phil in London. Yes, that Phil, I'm just kidding, there's nothing wrong with this question. Who are the forces for good in your society and where can they be found? Can you be specific? Do they also exist within the inner agency? Do you have strong allies? We just saw a photo of the strong allies. This is a good, I was a volunteer firefighter in my community for over a decade. There's no more ultimate force of good than that. It captures everything that's best about America, the spirit of volunteerism, the spirit of community, the spirit of self-sacrifice. And it's a spirit that is captured throughout American communities across this great land we call the United States of America. Every community has people who give a damn about their community and volunteer and pour themselves into caring for others, people who need their help. That's what makes America one of the greatest places in the world to live because of the communities that we have, because of the citizens we have. So hell yeah, there's forces of good in America. And Phil, come to America and open your goddamn eyes. I'm swearing. I can't do that. Open your eyes and you'll see them. People are blinded by the government, blinded by the big brush decisions made by government. They forget that underneath the government, there's a people that populate this land who do a lot of good things, very good things. The interagency isn't designed to be bad. It just becomes bad because there's no checks and balances to it. It becomes this perpetual machine that's corrupted by money. We would have an interagency no matter what, but it would be nice if we didn't have a military industrial complex dictating the nature of this interagency. An interagency is just a permanent civil service, an elected group of people that continue to execute the decisions of government, regardless of who the president is, and you need that. But the problem is when the interagency gets tied into the military industrial complex and congressional money in that whole cycle. Do I have allies? Can Jeff put up the photo? Yeah, America is one of the guys. These people you see here with the exception of the ambassador who's a Russian, who's a hell of a good guy by the way, proud to have him as American if he wanted to be. We have really good people, a lot of really good people. The majority of Americans are great people. We just have to find a way to harness their goodness to hold into a check the excesses of power on the part of those whom we elect to govern us. We haven't figured that out yet. We're going through a very difficult time right now in the United States, a very dangerous time in the United States. For foreigners to sit there just snipe at us, that's why I get a little pissed off because you don't know what you're talking about. You literally don't know what you're talking about. You want to see good? Come with me right in Engine 22. I'll get you on board. You better be ready to suit up, go down the basement, and rescue a family of four down there. Get the sacrifice of your life for them, get the hell out of my community, get the hell out of my life, get the hell out of my country. America is about self-sacrificing citizens. That's what we've always been about. That's what we are about and that's what we'll always be about. All righty then. Still from London, always manages to rile you up somehow. He wouldn't be Phil otherwise. Let's take another call, Scott. Hey, you're on with our favorite weapons inspector. What's on your mind? Hey, how you doing gentlemen? Good. And last week, Mr. Scott, I asked you if the Netanyahu speech, I don't know if you remember me, will make him actually attack Lebanon or Iran. You told me you didn't think so, he just needed apolitical, you know, show off in front of the Israeli people. And actually a couple of days after that, he did the assassination. Do you still think he's not really trying to run to the front? Also, I don't know if he just hears the news. I'm not just choose yet he has seen more as their political leader. There's a little luck within 50 minutes or half an hour ago. What do you think of that? One more thing. I do really think that America has a great place with the great people and it is the greatest country on earth, despite whatever anybody says about it. I lived outside and I lived in the United States. It's not in my life, it's still without doubt, the greatest people on earth with the greatest country on earth. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're American. We're American. No, it's good. I mean, somebody else hit me up with that, they said, you know, you said that Netanyahu came, wrapped himself with the flag, it was going back for political, and I feel very strongly about that. He had a meeting with Joe Biden and the American leadership where he, Netanyahu, made a full court press for major military action in Gaza and against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The United States told them under no certain circumstances, are we going to support that? I think this was a compromise solution. I think what Netanyahu did is he does what Israel does best. He assassinated people. Israel has been doing that for some time very successfully, so they kill a lot of Hezbollah commanders, and they kill a lot of Hamas people, and they kill a lot of Iranians. Remember, they were popping off Iranian nuclear scientists in downtown Tehran with great efficiency. And so what Netanyahu did is took a gamble and said, I'm going to kill two people and bring pain to these organizations, and it'll help defuse the political pressure I have inside Israel for going into a full-scale involvement. But the problem with desperate men when they do desperate actions is that they don't often think through the consequences of their actions, and both Hezbollah and Iran have put red lines out there that Israel violated. The attack in Beirut is a red line set by Hamas Rallah, the attack in Tehran is a red line set by the Islamic Republic, and I don't think Israel respected the reality that neither one of these nations would be inclined just to let that slide or to do a repeat of April. That was Israel's gamble, that, okay, they did this, now there will be retaliation, but that retaliation can be managed, the escalation can be managed. We have yet to see. I mean, Netanyahu has been proven wrong yet, Iran hasn't launched a retaliation, there's a lot of diplomatic pressure on Iran right now not to overreact, not to create a cycle of violence that spins out of control. I'm wrong, I'm always wrong, apparently, but, okay, I mean, I'm sorry, I'm wrong. But the point is, you know, we don't know if Netanyahu's gamble paid off or not, because we don't know what the response will be, is Hamas Rallah ready to go all in, is Iran ready to go all in, is this the existential moment of their existence where if they don't take action, it's all over. We'll see, I have a feeling that there will be a response, but that response will have some sort of safety valve attached to it, because I don't get the feeling that either Iran or Hezbollah is ready to go all in, because they're winning, and there's no reason to gamble everything while you're winning. Here's a question from one of our regulars, we haven't heard from him in a while, I guess it to him, plastic patty in Ireland, control of Odessa appears crucial to control of the Black Sea. Can you explain why Russia has not made a move on Odessa to date? Well, you mean, made a move to, I assume you mean to make, make a move to occupy Odessa to absorb it into Russia, because they're not at that stage of the game right now. I would encourage patty and everybody else just to understand that Russia is in, is results based, not calendar based. They have two primary objectives in this conflict, which is demilitarization, that's the total destruction of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and denotsification, that is the purging from Ukraine of the Banderist elements, Nazi elements, so the far right-wing, ultra-nationalism of Ukraine, and that can only be achieved by the military and political defeat of Ukraine as it's currently configured. Russia's made a decision that the methodology that best supports the accomplishment of these two tasks is a war of attrition. That means rather than going out and grabbing land, they're going to grind down the Ukrainian army, and then in the process of grinding down the Ukrainian army, eventually it will lead to collapse and that will allow Russia to take the territory that it is designated for being taken. Right now, Russia has publicly said that we will own all of Keroson, all of Zaparija, all of Donetsk and all of Lugansk, and that's the direction we're going. They've made some move into the Kharkov area, which suggests that maybe Kharkov is on the plate, but Putin hasn't said that, he hasn't said that we are going to take, as he did say, though, that he put a peace offering on the table back in June, I believe, and he said this is the best deal you're ever going to get, and this deal gave Odessa and Kharkov to Ukraine if they stopped the war now and entered into certain agreements that solidified Russia's ownership of new Russia and Crimea made Ukraine neutral and perpetuity and denotsified. It doesn't appear that Ukraine has taken that offer, and so now, Putin has said, going forward, we will ensure that the Russian people of Ukraine never again have to toil under the rule of non-Russians, and that sort of tells me that because of what you said, because you have to understand that as long as Ukraine has Odessa, that Russia will never be secure in Sevastopol, and the Black Sea will never be secure for Russia. The Black Sea is a Russian to see, and Russia wants to keep it that way, which means Odessa will probably have to be Russian, but the time for that isn't yet. First, let them accomplish the task of demilitarization. When the Ukrainian army collapses, that's probably the best time to take Odessa. This question is from Tim in the USA. I'm not sure we can really pin down who or where he is, but that's something. We were close to a possible civil war in America, and now there is a civil war or more like a race war in the UK. How did this chaos/terrorism start? We're looking at two totally different problem sets here, so you can't compare and you can't say that what happened in America is what's happened in the United Kingdom. I think the United Kingdom is very much an immigration-based problem with deep-seated racist racial tensions, religious divides, cultural incompatibility. You have immigrants that don't want to be absorbed into British society, but instead want to create their own Sharia, law-driven communities, which is incompatible with the rule of law in England. I think you're seeing this problem come to a head. It's facilitated by the economic problems that came with Brexit. Brexit is also part parcel of a reawakening of the white ethnicity of the United Kingdom and the resentment that exists towards non-white immigrants, a big racial problem. In the United States, there's a racial element, but it's different because by and large, the immigrant communities seek to integrate, want to become part of America. America is more welcoming. As we absorb people, we don't say you have to be exactly like it was back here. We absorb and we assume some of the cultural aspects of the people we absorb. America adjusts, and so we're not as divided in terms of ethnicity, religion, etc. We've got white pockets, and we've got black pockets, and there are problems. But by and large, America is fairly homogeneous. We do all right. We have an immigration problem, but that's not what's going to bring about this. Bring about the civil war is ideologically based issues that come down to values, some fundamental issues on family values, issues of abortion, issues of gun rights, issues of how government, you know, governs your life. We have become a nation where we stop talking to each other. We stop dialoguing, and instead we've broken into two distinct halves, and we're not talking. Now it's a zero-sum game, democracy is supposed to be about reaching compromises, learning to live with one another, maybe trying to have a better idea of the next election you'll succeed. Neither side trusts each other if you win, you're accused of cheating. And if the other side wins, then that's seen as an automatic loss for the other side. So, you know, I don't think we're at the point of a civil war yet. There could have been some triggers if Trump had taken a bullet to turn into pink mist. That could have caused a lot of problems, but I don't think where where England is right now, where the United Kingdom is right now. Well, do you see what's going on in the UK as like the sort of violence that sometimes flares up during the summer and then fades away, or do you see it as a precursor to a more long-term problem that's destined to worsen? I don't see this as the United Kingdom's long-hot summer. We have that in America. We have racial problems in America. I'm not pretending that we don't. And a lot of these racial problems are, you know, in the urban city. So we oftentimes see urban environments explode when a cop murders a black guy, puts his knee on their neck or shoots them or, you know, whatever. The frustration comes up, but it burns out, and eventually, because it's in the collective interest to calm things down and move forward, we're able to get past it and move forward. I think what's happened in England is far different. I think this is deep-seated racism and deep-seated resentment. They don't have summer in the UK. Deep-seated resentment towards the immigrant populations, and I don't think it's going to be cheered by the calendar. I think it's going to be cheered by violence. And I think the United Kingdom's in for a lot of problems. And I think that violence is brewing in many places in Europe today, too, the resentment in Europe towards immigrants. Europe is far more racist than they're willing to admit. You have a political elite that talks about this, that the other thing. The French hate the non-white French. The Germans hate the non-white Germans. The Poles hate anybody who's not Polish. That's just the reality of Europe. Europe is a white continent, and they're rediscovering their whiteness. They are deeply resentful of these non-Christian, non-white people coming in and not wanting to be like them, but to basically take Africa and move it into Europe, to take the Middle East and move it into Europe. And that's the difference, because in the United States, by and large, that's not the case. In the United States, people come and they get absorbed into this American melting pot. I used that term "melting pot" to you. That's a Jewish term. You've got damn Zionist pieces, shit. You're using a Jewish term. I'm using bad language. I apologize. But I grew up using the term "melting pot." That's what we use. Or we call it the "stoo." Irish stew. You just throw all the pieces in there. I think melting pot is used much more broadly than to read. Well, this is what I'm allowed to say. If you're somebody who's wants to throw Zionism on the face on that, get the hell out of my life, to be honest. I have no need for you. I understand there's a lot of people out right now who are angry at Zionism. I'm one of them. But I'm not going to allow this to turn into anti-Semitism, or anti-Jewish, or whatever. You want to come up and defect that the guy that first used the term "melting pot" was a Jew who had Zionist leanings. Feel free to do that. Stay the hell out of my life. There are plenty of idioms that people use and they're not even necessarily aware of the origin. It's just the way people talk. Yeah, but I'm just saying that I use that term and immediately I'm attacked. You're using the Zionist term, you've given into the Zionist, you are a Zionist die. I'm going to die eventually, guys, maybe sooner rather than later, but your wish will come true. But in the meantime, I'm going to push back against that. I think America, one of the things that makes America great is the fact that we absorb. I don't know if a lot of people realize when we were formed as a nation, if they had done a poll, the majority of the people spoke German at the time of the revolution in English, and a lot of Germans out there, but we chose English, but for a while there, the German Anglo-Saxon definition of what is America, defined America, when the Irish came in, they weren't well received. I don't know. I wasn't alive back then, but it was bad to be Irish back in the day. You weren't welcomed in America. You were treated poorly. Then the Italians came, same thing, and then all the Eastern Europeans and the non Anglo-Saxon, non-Germanic people came in, and America had to adjust. We had little Italy's, little Ireland's, we had all this, and you know what? Look what's happened now. We embraced the Irish, we embraced the Italians, we embraced the Chinese who came over, and we're embracing Latinos, the Mexicans, and the Hispanic community. It's part of America. That's why I love this country, it's because we are everybody. We're a melting pot, stick it in your ear. Next question comes from Enbriva in Maryland. There are reports of Hezbollah moving their military assets and personnel out of Beirut. The reporting now says that they are moving to more secure areas. My belief is that they are showing the world that Israel has no strategic purpose in attacking Beirut. My bet is they will. What are your thoughts on these movements? This is a political party, and they're also a resistance movement that's been preparing to fight Israel for some time now. I'm not saying that they don't have military resources in Beirut. I would be surprised if they maintained strategic military resources in Beirut because that's not where they need to be, they need to be outside of Beirut in a more secure area. Just think about what you're saying for a second. They're moving their resources out of Beirut elsewhere. That's detectable. Clearly somebody detected it because we're talking about it. In this day and age, if I detect it, I have technology. The Israelis have technology, America has technology to continue to detect it, and to follow it to where it's going, and now that becomes a target. I just don't think that Hezbollah is that amateurish. There might be some movement of support units, some command functions that might have existed inside Beirut because of the proximity with the political arm. They might be moving some of the political arm outside of Beirut. But I don't think Hezbollah was, again, I also don't think Hezbollah is in the business of turning Beirut into a legitimate military target. I believe that the majority of their, the vast majority of their military resources are stored outside of Beirut in more defensible locations. The last thing Hezbollah would want to do is turn Beirut into a legitimate target and incur the wrath of the Lebanese people when Israel bombed it. It turned out that Hezbollah in fact militarized entire civilian neighborhoods. So I think that this story is a little bit overblown, but that's just reading the tea leaves. I just don't see Hezbollah putting strategic resources inside Beirut, only to have to move them in a time of conflict when everybody's looking for them, obviously detected to move in it, and now it opens it up for destruction. I can guarantee that if Hezbollah is moving long-range precision-guided missiles out of Beirut and it got detected, they're going to be destroyed before they get to where they're going. I guarantee, which tells me that that's not what's happening. So I take the story of the grain of salt. Okay. Next question comes from not that person, but Leon in New Jersey, does Victor Orban's peace campaign have a chance? Yeah, because it's not Victor Orban's peace campaign. It's a peace campaign that's embraced by other players, people who are there are stakeholders. These stakeholders include Russia, China, India. So it definitely has a chance. There will be peace eventually, and the peace will be dictated by Russia. With the support of China, the concept of a Zelensky peace plan is absurd. It's not going to happen. It doesn't exist. The concept of Ukraine being able to get some sort of leverage over Russia, where it comes to a negotiating table with chips in their hand, is Ukraine has lost this war, is loses war, will loses war, so has the West, and eventually, you shut it down. That implies that you had a vote. Really think about what you're saying. The EU shut it down. Really how did the EU shut it down? When Victor Orban met with Vladimir Putin, where was the EU? When Victor Orban flew to China and met with Xi Jinping, where was the EU? They weren't there. Why? Because they don't matter. They don't count. You can't shut down that what you're not part of. I'm shutting down Congress. I'm shutting it down. How did that work out for me? No one cares. I don't have that power. EU can't shut it down. Orban didn't ask the EU's permission. He wasn't there representing the EU. He was there in a role that had an EU function attached to it, but basically, he was promoting and uses a conduit to communicate a piece of the EU-H European damn right they do. They hate Europe the way it's supposed to be, they're trying to reshape into something that it's never going to be. No, Orban is a tool that communicates. He's a vector. In that case, I say he has a chance. But again, this is a conflict that's not going to end because of some sort of peace plan or peace negotiation. It's going to end because Russia defeats Ukraine and defeats NATO and defeats the collective West. Here's a voicemail message from Kathleen in Ohio. Hi. My name is Kathleen and I am calling or contacting you from Dayton, Ohio. I want to know because of, we know that Israel has nuclear weapons, refused to sign the nonproliferation treaty and has essentially threatened Iran at times. We know that Israel will not open up to inspections either. We know Iran signed the nonproliferation treaty, opened up to inspections. And after the Iran deal was crushed, that they had signed, began to enrich uranium up to a greater level. So what are the chances do you think that Israel will drag the U.S. into an over war with Iran as well as what are the possibilities of Israel using nuclear weapons? Thank you. That's a very good question. First of all, I think the first part of your question, what is the possibility of Israel dragging the United States into over where we're already in it, but we're going to only play a defensive role. We're not going to participate in offensive actions against Iran, at least not in the way this conflict is currently configured. We blame Israel for much of what has happened. We don't say that, but our actions speak louder than our words. And when we tell Israel that, you know, if you want to attack Iran, you're on your own, we're not going to be there for you. We mean that, which increases the -- we're hoping that Israel will say, oh, well, since big brothers are not going to be there with us, we're not going to do it. But Israel may just say, well, we've got the big toy, the nuclear weapon, and my concern is if Iran launches a major attack against Israel, that results in heavy civilian casualties in Haifa, Tel Aviv, or elsewhere, that Israel will follow through on its promise to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In order to do that, at least on one of the targets, to fear those underground enrichment facilities, they're going to have to use a nuclear bunker buster. So they will use a nuclear weapon. And that genies out of the bottle at that point in time, and, you know, I think this doesn't stop until Israel is destroyed with an Islamic bomb. Who delivers that Islamic bomb is another question altogether, but there will be an Islamic bomb. Islam will not tolerate Israel using a nuclear weapon against an Islamic country, even Iran. So I hope the United States can communicate this. What I'm hoping is that we recognize the danger that we're in. That's one of the reasons why I'm excited to talk with Jill Stein, because she's very worried about this aspect in Israel's nuclear weapons. You know, when the past Israel hasn't signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or agreed to any inspections, but I think we are looking at a situation right now where Israel is faced with a real threat to its existential survival, and that Israel cannot continue to exist the way that it is currently configured, and that at some point in time for Israel to be reabsorbed into the family of nations, they're going to have to have a conversation about their nuclear weapons, especially at this time where it's on the table. Everybody's concerned about the potentiose. We can't allow the scenario to play out over time. If Israel avoids using nuclear weapons, then we have to take those nuclear weapons away from Israel. And I think that should be a goal of the United States and the international community going forward. I've got 25 seconds. What do I think about a similar being the head of Hamas? It's logical. And that's bad for Israel. Israel imprisoned this man for many, many years. He knows Israel. He knows how Israel is. He's the mastermind of October 7th. And I think Israel will have met their match in terms of similar session Mumbai. What happens when an ABM successfully intercepts a nuclear tipped ballistic or cruise missile? Does the missile become a dud or does the nuclear charge detonate? A good question. It depends on who built the nuclear device and what safety mechanisms are contained in the device. Are there follow-on safeties that get activated on the way down or is the bomb ready to blow up the moment it launches? Nobody wants that. I understand that if I have a nuclear weapon on top of my missile and I launch and I have one of those malfunctions, which happen all the time, the missile spins out of control and I've got a 150 kilotone warhead on top and it hits and goes boom. So there's safeties built in and how those workers classified and frankly speaking, I don't understand, but there's safeties built into it. If you hit it, now let's say that the warhead becomes active on its reentry phase once it's been released to the target and then it gets hit. It depends on the warhead design. If the warhead design is compromised, what you'll probably get is a fizzle, meaning that the weapon will go off, but for instance if it's an implosion device, unless all the explosive charges go off at once and you perfectly compress the core so that it then goes critical and blows up. If you blow up one or two of these things, you get an incomplete, you get a fizzle. You don't get the critical mass, you don't get, it just fizzles. So you get a little puff and it's going to put a lot of contamination out there, but it's not going to be the big 150 kilotone warhead. Same thing with the gun design, if you come in and damage the gun design, you're not going to get the efficiency of operation, peanut design, you take out the neutron generating materials and you're going to get a fizzle, it's not going to function. It also depends what your ABM is tipped with. Back in the day, we were using nuclear weapons against nuclear weapons, so you fry them. The bottom line though is that you're probably not going to get a full-scale nuclear detonation with modern nuclear weapons, given the safeties that are built into it. But even if you did, if a weapon had been unsafe, ready for operation, the damage that would be done to the warhead is such that you'll probably get a fizzle as opposed to an actual full-scale explosion. Double agent in the UK, Israel's stock market is up 50% since the start of the war. Isn't there economy collapsing? Can you please look into that? Okay, I'll look into that. America's stock markets was doing quite well too, were $35 trillion in debt. You can buy any result you want. So I'd be careful using the stock market as an example of economic health. You pour enough money into a given industry, you prop it up, and it does okay. I think you have to look at other economic factors when you talk about Israel's economy. Look at the portfolio, non-functioning bankrupt. Look at Haifa, not functioning the way it needs to function. Look at the unemployment level, look at the productivity level. I wouldn't base my analysis of the health of the Israeli economy based upon the performance of the Israeli stock market in the time of the war. There's a lot of defense stocks that could be heavily weighted in favor of defense stocks that are receiving a lot of investment because of America pouring taxpayer dollars into certain projects. I think it's a true indicator of the real state of Israel's economic health. I'll look into it. Okay, next question is from SW in Oregon. We've seen a series of setbacks for Russia, solidarity in the West, the degradation of air defense, forced withdrawals from naval and air power, and the estimates that within a year Russia will run out of troops, equipment, and the treasury. What should Russia's priorities be to adapt to these challenges and avoid defeat? Here SW, you take some of this, man, that's good shit, you've spoken. Are you high? I know you. This is Tantan. Yep. You're crazy, dude. Solidarity in the West. Feel free to expand on that. Setbacks. I mean, so Russia withdrew their fleet from Sevastopol and redeployed elsewhere. That's what happens in time of war. God, come here. Meditate, Scott. I would just say that before you ask a question of this nature, unless your job is to be provocative, which I sometimes think that is your job, you should probably do a little bit more research into the sources you use and how you come up with your conclusion because you're wrong across the board. Russia's winning this conflict. How long have they been saying Russia's going to run out of tanks? General Christopher Kavoli, who I think knows a lot more about this than you do, SW, he says when this war ends and it will end, regardless of who wins, you're going to be dealing with a very large, well-equipped Russian army. How do you have a large, well-equipped Russian army if they're running out of everything and losing? When the commander of NATO ground forces says the Russian army's going to be large, well-equipped and they're going to be pissed off, come on, man, do better. Ask better questions. That's why I call him the self-appointed contrarian, SW, aka Tonton, Martin in Estonia. How much of Russia's success in Ukraine can be given to the fact that Ukrainians are fighting in hostile, pro-Russian territory? It doesn't hurt to have a sympathetic population. In Kearson and Zoperizia, much of the pro-Ukrainian population fled, and so they're not there right now. So you have a population that wants the Russians there, by and large, then it helps. But Russia's winning because they have superior military power. Russia's winning because they have perfected the attrition algorithm better than the Ukrainians have. They're killing more Ukrainians than the Ukrainians you're killing in Russia. When you get to the front lines, literally, there's no population. The populations are in the rear areas. They still get impacted by artillery strikes, et cetera, but they're removed from the front line fighting. This war is being won on the front lines, and then in the deep rear with industry, pouring in, replacing. There's not being won in the peripheral communities where you could have pro-Russian or anti-Russian sentiment. It doesn't hurt to have a pro-Russian population, but that's not what's winning this war. Which is winning this war because of a superior approach to attrition warfare. Next question is from Mia in Kentucky. According to democracy now and other media outlets, it has been stated that there have been a 1900 Russian attacks on Ukraine medical facilities and 11,000 civilians killed, not to mention child abductions. Do you think these figures are valid? It's very difficult for me to make an assessment of that nature because I don't know the sources that are being drawn upon. What defines a medical facility? Plus the implication there is that Russia's targeting medical facilities. What if in, let's say, the city of Bach-Mute, there were, what is a medical facility? A pharmacy, a clinic, a hospital, a doctor's office? What's it say in the city of Bach-Mute? There were 400 pharmacies, doctor's office, clinics, et cetera, handful of hospitals. Now you're fighting a battle for this city where every building becomes a hard point that has to be fought hand-to-hand and as a result, the city is destroyed. You destroy all the medical facilities. Now you just added there. The people die. You can throw those casualties in there. The way that questions phrased is it sounds like Russia went to warm Bach-Mute to destroy medical facilities and kill civilians. That's not what's happening here. I can't question the numbers because I don't know the sources, but I can challenge the political weight of the way that is framed. Russia's not targeting medical facilities. Russia's not targeting civilians. Are medical facilities being destroyed? Yes. Are civilians being killed? Absolutely. But you say 11,000 civilians. In World War II, the death rate between civilians and combatants was one to one. So we're talking 700,000 dead Ukrainians, we're talking over 100,000 dead Russians, 800,000. You're talking 11,000 Ukrainian dead civilians. Guys, that tells you Russia's not in the business of killing Ukrainian civilians. Then when you realize that many of these Ukrainian civilians are killed because the Ukrainian army digs in next to Ukrainian housing and violations of war that the Ukrainian army uses the Ukrainian population as a human shield. The blame for many, if not most, of the civilian deaths then falls on Ukrainian shoulders, not Russian soldiers. I'm glad you asked me, but I think the way that the sources that you relied upon framed at democracy now, et cetera, they're trying to drive you to a conclusion that Russia's targeted medical facilities and trying to create civilian casualties, it's just not the case. All right, that will do it for this week's installment of the lightning round version of Ask the Inspector. Please join us Friday night at 8 p.m. Eastern time for two hours of glorious high class world class, high class world class. Maybe last week, but not this week, I'm back. I got to learn my own catch phrases. It's world class geopolitical analysis on all these same channels. You can also watch on our website, which is scottritter.com. And then Saturday night, Scott will be in Poughkeepsie at farmers and chefs restaurant. You can get the info also at scottritter.com or go straight to the restaurant's website. They'll be doing a book signing and also they'll be dinner included, which is a very nice event. If you're nowhere near Poughkeepsie, you can get a copy of Scott's autograph book on our website, again, that's scottritter.com. Thanks to you, Lana, for her backstage work. Thanks to our beloved audience. And Scott is giving me the finger again. Yes, sir. This finger is a good finger. It's just... Because I care about our audience so much, and I'm reading the comments, you know, free Matt Gates. I don't know who you are. I don't know. But are you seriously accusing Ukraine of using human shields? Are you seriously asking that question, Matt? Because the fact that you asked that question tells me you don't know a damn thing about Ukraine, about this conflict. What I would advise you to do, Matt, is go to scottritter.com and buy the book covering Ukraine. It's a book based upon interviews I've given to Anya Kay about the conflict in Ukraine, and we'll discuss this issue. But don't come into this feed and ask questions like that if you haven't even taken the time to do the answer. Because if you had taken the time, you would know that it's not just Scott Ritter reporting this. It's human rights watch. It's the Washington Post. This is the New York Times. The entire world knows for a fact that Ukraine uses the Ukrainian civilians as human shields. You know who knows it? You're creating civilians who have to live in a townhouse next to a Ukrainian military position that's been put right next to them in violation of the laws of war. So Matt, Gates, and everybody else out there do yourselves a favor. Do your research before you ask the questions. Otherwise, I think you're just coming here and trying to stir up trouble, and I'm not really in the mood. I didn't use any bad language, so I was pretty good. No, you didn't. We're still flirting with the PG rating, I think, or PG-13 maybe. So on that happy note, see you on Friday night at 8 p.m. Thanks again to you, Lane. And thanks to our beloved audience, Scott is back from vacation, fired up as usual. It's like you're going to join us next week. And we don't know exactly which day, but we'll be announcing it. Yeah. Okay. Take care, everybody. [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [BLANK_AUDIO]