"3 MINUTES AGO!" Tulsi Gabbard DESTROYS Tucker Carlson on JRE With Truth About Nuclear Weapons

this guy named Tucker Carlson which I don't know if you know who he is or not he's kind of a big deal a little bit about him yeah and and he's a guy that is another one of those guys part of the community that people like him a lot and he's also a guy that knows how to get under people's skin okay whether he does it intentionally or not he kind of knows how to piss people off he's under show with this other guy that you like a lot and you're friends with his name is Joe Rogan Joseph Rogan so they're on this podcast they're talking and Rob if you can pull up this clip there's this topic that comes up about nuclear you know I don't know if you saw this Japan go goad and play this clip go for it well you could say the same about the atomic bomb right yes you could and you could say that we have to develop it like Oppenheimer felt before the Nazis I love that how'd that work how' that work well I love by the way that people on my side I'll just say I'll just admit it on the right you know have spent the last 80 years defending dropping nuclear weapons on civilians like are you joking right that's just like primacia evil if you can't well if we hadn't done that then this that the other thing that was actually a great like no it's wrong to drop nuclear weapons on people and if you find yourself arguing that it's a good thing to drop nuclear weapons on people then you are evil like it's it's not a it's not a tough one right it's not a hard call for it's not a hard call for me so with that in mind like why would you want nuclear weapons it's like just a Mindless childish sort of intellectual exercise to justify like oh no it's really good because someone else how about no how about like spending all of your effort to prevent this from happening would you kill Baby Hitler you know famously right um so I don't know why we're sitting back and allowing this to happen if we really believe it will exting the human race or enslave the human race like how can that be good Tucker Carlson's view on nuclear weapons as expressed in the discussion reflects a strong moral stance against the use of such weapons particularly in the context of historical events like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War I Carlson challenges the conventional justifications for the use of nuclear weapons arguing that their deployment is inherently evil and cannot be morally defended he dismisses the arguments that posit nuclear weapons as a necessary evil or a lesser harm in the context of War suggesting instead that such reasoning is a form of intellectual and moral evasion by condemning the celebration or defense of nuclear warfare Carlson positions himself firmly against the notion that any ends could justify the catastrophic means that nuclear weapons represent his argument underscored a broader ethical critique of the normalization of extreme violence in the name of national security or geopolitical strategy is that the end of it Rob can you pull up this TW so that's that's his position right now want to hear your position you live in Hawaii you know all this other stuff so there's kind of history behind it so uh uh what what other reaction do you have to it Rob tell me which one you got cuz there's a a ton of them pick one of them just let me know which one you got we'll pull it up that was a great com for those of you haven't heard that that conversation yet it's it's fascinating they cover lot of ground they cover a lot of ground is so entertaining probably the best conversation of the Year those two being together I thought it was fascinating Rob maybe pull up the Tweet of Jeremy boring with Jeremy boring the the co-founder founder of uh uh DA wire uh he had the following to say about it he says people who deny the moon landing or suggest America's evil for the use of atomic weapons against Imperial Japan or who say that George Bush was behind 911 actually hate this country who maybe I am stupid for asking this who is Jeremy boring you being serious I'm being serious okay he's the CE of daily wire like Ben Shapiro daily Wire yeah that's who he is so best friends with Candace if you haven't so I've never met him I don't no by the way he's actually very smart guy we got on the podcast but you know there's a civil war going on a little bit right now where Tucker benao Ben Shiro is obviously very different position what's your position when it comes response here by the way what's the response are you showing that one okay uh Jeremy is in the entire premise of being a critical thinker to question think some of the best podcasters and influencers are those who question uh what no one else is questioning being anti-establishment is to question the establishment's motive by the way he responds to that Rob if you want to uh put the other one then he puts it is not critical thinking to say that America never landed on the moon or that George Bush orchestrated the 911 attacks it is a rejection of critical thinking and then I had one last response to him which was kind of an interesting one you want to play this one Rob I understand your point however I'm not a Christian because I broke bread with Jesus I've never met him face to face that requires a level of faith I'm willing to risk Tak taken but it also takes Faith to believe that we landed on the moon or someone's involvement in the 9/11 attacks having that level of unwavering faith in the US government is what I'm not willing to risk history does not favor Blind Faith in any government that was my position respons where where do you stand with this telsey gabbard's response underscores her deep concern about the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons aligning her views with those of historical figures like Jeff and Ronald Reagan who both understood and acted upon the catastrophic risks associated with nuclear Conflict by invoking these leaders gabard emphasizes the importance of prudent leadership that prioritizes deescalation and diplomacy over aggressive posturing she criticizes the current Administration for what she perceives as a reckless approach that has heightened the risk of nuclear war pointing to a lack of strategic foresight in handling international relations gabbard's call for reducing nuclear weapons proliferation reflects her belief that Global Security hinges not on the accumulation of destructive power but on collaborative efforts to prevent the outbreak of nuclear conflict her stance is a plea for a return to a more cautious negotiation driven foreign policy that prioritizes human survival over military dominance you know I I think of uh you know one of the famous speeches that President John F Kennedy made when he talked about his own experience of being confronted with the possibility of a nuclear war being launched and how he exercised the kind of leadership we should have in our country where even as people in his own cabinet uh were encouraging him to take military action that he knew could spark a nuclear war with the Soviet Union he in instead chose to go behind their backs and conduct Direct negotiations with the Soviet Union to walk back from the brink because those two leaders recognized what Tucker was pointing out that nuclear war leads to one place the end of civilization the destruction of living things people Humanity uh on on this planet that is where nuclear war leads and so you know well while I and Tucker Carlson is a good friend we've got we've had a lot of amazing conversations I may say things a little differently but what he's talking about here really is how too many people celebrate the use of nuclear weapons and so carelessly both pundits on TV and people in Washington and those who make a lot of money from making these nuclear weapons very carelessly talk about a nuclear war being waged as though it can be won and that that is the real issue and Ronald Reagan famously said that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be waged I'm paraphrasing it slightly but that was his message and so you've got a Democrat president and a Republican president both who understood during that cold war the very very catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war being waged so we look at where we are today you've got the big strategic nuclear weapons that can take out entire cities or countries you've got the tactical nuclear weapons that they say Well they're smaller they can be mobilized they can be moved and they can be used in a very targeted way in discussing the reality of nuclear threats tulsey gabard highlights the tangible and immediate fears that accompany the possibility of nuclear conflict as exemplified by a missile scare in Hawaii this incident serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerable ability of ordinary citizens who are largely unprotected in the event of a nuclear attack gabbard uses this experience to critique the current approach to National Security which she argues places too much emphasis on the development and stockpiling of nuclear weapons rather than on preventing their use through diplomatic means her narrative underscores the disparity between the vast resources spent on nuclear arsenals and the lack of adequate civil defense measures suggesting that true security cannot be achieved through Armament alone instead gabbard advocates for a shift in Focus towards diplomacy and international cooperation emphasizing that the best way to protect Humanity from the horrors of nuclear war is to work tirelessly to ensure that such weapons are never used as though it's just another kind of mortar or bomb or missile that can be launched the reality is is remains true that was pointed out out by JFK and Ronald Reagan uh that our goal should be to make it so we are never at a point where the nuclear option uh is is being considered uh this is where diplomacy and Leadership is so necessary because under this Administration we are on the precipice of nuclear war we are facing the prospect of a nuclear catastrophe whether intentionally or unintentionally uh because conditions have created such an environment more so now than than any time certainly since the Cuban Missile Crisis uh this is a reality those in Washington have bunkers where they will be protected if not from the blast itself then the nuclear fallout and the nuclear winter that will will follow the rest of us don't have that luxury we saw this in Hawaii and we've talked about this before I think on your show about what happened when we had that missile scare in Hawaii when on a Saturday morning this alert went out saying missile inbound to Hawaii take shelter immediately this is not a drill growing up in Hawaii who who are the people closest to Hawaii that could reach us North Korea nuclear capable they have intercontinental ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads so for those minutes on that early Saturday morning it was just a question of how many minutes do we have until we are completely obliterated while that turned out to be a false alarm the reality of that threat was very real it was something that I had hoped would be a wakeup call for leaders across the country because what we saw was the message says take shelter immediately this is not a drill and for us in for for the people in Hawaii just like for those of us sitting here if if if our phones were to go off right this second with that message missile inbound right here take shelter immediately where do we go what do we do how many minutes do we have where is there a bomb shelter that will will protect us from the blast that will give us clean water to drink and air to breathe and food to sustain ourselves for the time that would allow us to survive this it doesn't exist so they they spend trillions of dollars investing in these nuclear weapons and growing them which which you know this is not like any other like it's not like okay how how many rounds do I have left in my magazine one of these one of these nuclear weapons today is already far more powerful many times more powerful than the nuclear weapons that were dropped in Nagasaki and Hiroshima um all it takes is one the serious consequences of what we Face are very real so what what do we do then we should work towards getting ourselves in a place where we are not on the brink of nuclear catastrophe we are reducing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world and working with leaders of other countries even those that we may not like or have adversarial interests to try to to get across uh what JFK was successful in doing and saying hey if we care about the existence of our own people and Humanity as as as a whole it is in all of our best interest to try to reduce this risk of nuclear war Tulsi gabbard's warning that the United States is on the brink of nuclear war underscores the urgent need for a diplomatic approach to prevent catastrophic consequences she highlights the devastating impact that nucle nuclear conflict would have on Humanity stressing that the only rational path forward is one that prioritizes nuclear nonproliferation and active engagement with world leaders to reduce the risk of such a disaster gabb's stance reflects a deep concern that current policies and international tensions are pushing the world closer to a nuclear confrontation which would have irreversible consequences for Global Security and Survival by advocating for diplomacy over militarism gabbard calls for a re-evaluation of strategies that prioritize the buildup of nuclear arsenals and instead suggests that International cooperation is the key to averting a potential catastrophy her position serves as a stark reminder that the stakes are too high to rely on aggressive posturing and that preventing nuclear war must be a central goal of US foreign policy thank you for taking the time to watch this video your support is the greatest motivation for me to continue creating better quality content See you in the next video