Alyson and Breht Answer Your Questions
Jun 6, 2026 · 3 hr 13 min · 16 segments
Alyson and Breht spend three hours answering your questions about politics, theory, socialist stragey and much more! Watch the video version on Youtube HERE…
Jun 6, 2026 · 3 hr 13 min · 16 segments
Alyson and Breht spend three hours answering your questions about politics, theory, socialist stragey and much more! Watch the video version on Youtube HERE…
Could you please discuss the plausibility of the US, out of frustration and desperation to maintain hegemony in West Asia, actually launching some type of nuclear strike against Iran? Not only how plausible that may be, but also what could be potential reactions by the Global South, uh, specifically by Russia, China, and the DPRK.
I know it's a big question, but your dialectical analysis on the subject would be appreciated." Thank you for the question, Allison.
Um, so I think, one, I, I don't really feel, like, super good at predicting international events anymore, given the state of the world and how unstable things are.
But I do think I generally am sympathetic to deterrence theory and the idea that nuclear mutually assured destruction generally prevents states from acting, uh, aggressively with nuclear weapons.
Now, the United States has broken a lot of other conventions that international relations theory tends to rely on within the last couple years, so obviously I don't think that's any guarantee.
But I do kind of still feel like a nuclear taboo exists and is somewhat meaningful in a way that would likely prevent the US from doing that.
In terms of what the response is, I mean, that's where we find out whether or not, uh, that taboo is based on anything, right? My honest read, though, is that I don't think third-party countries would necessarily respond directly to US aggression against Iran if they were to, say, use, like, a tactical nuke.
But one thing that I think is worthwhile considering in the u- context of nukes is that if we were to ever use anything other than, like, a plane-based tactical nuke, uh, that would require missile launches that would go over the airspace of other countries, which creates a really high risk of miscalculation and then response there.
So for all those reasons, though, I kind of think that mutually assured destruction probably does just check back against the use of that.
I also think the US has pretty horrifying conventional weaponry that it is willing to use and doesn't need to use nuclear weapons in order to do some of, you know, what its goals might be in terms of just total destruction.
I think it would be really unprecedented in the modern era for any state to use it, and I think any state would immediately become more or less a pariah state.
Could you please discuss the plausibility of the US, out of frustration and desperation to maintain hegemony in West Asia, actually launching some type of nuclear strike against Iran? Not only how plausible that may be, but also what could be potential reactions by the Global South, uh, specifically by Russia, China, and the DPRK.
I know it's a big question, but your dialectical analysis on the subject would be appreciated." Thank you for the question, Allison.
Um, so I think, one, I, I don't really feel, like, super good at predicting international events anymore, given the state of the world and how unstable things are.
But I do think I generally am sympathetic to deterrence theory and the idea that nuclear mutually assured destruction generally prevents states from acting, uh, aggressively with nuclear weapons.
Now, the United States has broken a lot of other conventions that international relations theory tends to rely on within the last couple years, so obviously I don't think that's any guarantee.
But I do kind of still feel like a nuclear taboo exists and is somewhat meaningful in a way that would likely prevent the US from doing that.
In terms of what the response is, I mean, that's where we find out whether or not, uh, that taboo is based on anything, right? My honest read, though, is that I don't think third-party countries would necessarily respond directly to US aggression against Iran if they were to, say, use, like, a tactical nuke.
But one thing that I think is worthwhile considering in the u- context of nukes is that if we were to ever use anything other than, like, a plane-based tactical nuke, uh, that would require missile launches that would go over the airspace of other countries, which creates a really high risk of miscalculation and then response there.
So for all those reasons, though, I kind of think that mutually assured destruction probably does just check back against the use of that.
I also think the US has pretty horrifying conventional weaponry that it is willing to use and doesn't need to use nuclear weapons in order to do some of, you know, what its goals might be in terms of just total destruction.
I think it would be really unprecedented in the modern era for any state to use it, and I think any state would immediately become more or less a pariah state.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
