Speaker 1: Mails Channel nine first one of weather work. Gust tells
Speaker 1: us that we have well a little in the rain today,
Speaker 1: it'll be tapering off. We have partly Clyde skis all
Speaker 1: day going up to sixty eight overnight, a little forty
Speaker 1: seven with klouds bouty Tomorrow, isolated midday showers of possibility
Speaker 1: with a higher fifty five thirty four overnight cooling down
Speaker 1: files again Thursday with a rain snow possibility going up
Speaker 1: to forty degrees. Right now it's fifty six degrees. In
Speaker 1: time for a traffic update.
Speaker 2: Chuck Ingram from the UCL Tramfic Center. You one of
Speaker 2: the thirty eight million Americans impacted by diabetes. Get personalized
Speaker 2: education and treatment options from the experts at you see
Speaker 2: Help learn more at you see health dot com. Sethbound
Speaker 2: seventy one continues to run close to an extra half hour.
Speaker 2: Fields rdle down to Red Bank West. Two seventy five's
Speaker 2: ramped to northbound seventy one. Cruis are working with an accident.
Speaker 2: There's a new wreck inbound Columbia Parkway. Before you get
Speaker 2: to Fort Washington, Waite left lane block. Chuck ingramont fifty
Speaker 2: five krs. The talk station.
Speaker 1: Eight two day. It is that time of week where
Speaker 1: we do it. Daniel Davis Deep Dive. You can find
Speaker 1: his podcast online where we get your podcast. Daniel Davis,
Speaker 1: retired Lieutenant Colonel. It is always a pleasure to have
Speaker 1: you on the program, and I wish we had better
Speaker 1: news to talk about, but let's dive right on into it.
Speaker 1: The Russia Ukraine situation day one thousand and I look
Speaker 1: up and see that Vladimir Putin just signed a revised
Speaker 1: nuclear doctrine today saying that any attack on Russia supported
Speaker 1: by a country with nuclear power US could be grounds
Speaker 1: for a nuclear response. That's frightening stuff. Daniel Davis, welcome
Speaker 1: back to the fifty five KRC Morning Show. It's always
Speaker 1: a pleasure to having you on the show.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, thanks for having me back, and ordinarly i'd
Speaker 3: be a little more shueblint about being on your show.
Speaker 3: But goodness gracious, because what you just said is coupled
Speaker 3: with the reported first use of long range attackem's weapons
Speaker 3: inside Russia one thousand kilometers deep inside of Russia, and
Speaker 3: those things come in together on the one thousandth day
Speaker 3: of war, in my view, is the most dangerous place
Speaker 3: we've been since this thing began, because in essence, what
Speaker 3: we have done by Biden allowing this weapons to be
Speaker 3: used is to call Putin's bluff. And so now we
Speaker 3: have put Putin in a position, are you gonna make
Speaker 3: good on your previous threats that if long range weapons
Speaker 3: were used you would consider it a direct participation by
Speaker 3: the West and the war and take commensurate action. Or
Speaker 3: is he going to back down? Is he just going
Speaker 3: to make this statement about, you know, change nuclear doctrine
Speaker 3: and that's it, or is he going to actually do something.
Speaker 3: That's the position that we have put him in right now,
Speaker 3: and that's a bad, bad place to be and an
Speaker 3: incredibly irresponsible move on the president. I have been I
Speaker 3: have demurred for the most part, you know, when when
Speaker 3: Biden has done things over his nearly four years now
Speaker 3: in office. But this is the most egregious and unnecessary
Speaker 3: risk that he has taken to date.
Speaker 1: Well, and that was going to be the basis of
Speaker 1: my initial question to you before or Putant none of
Speaker 1: this announced, this new strategy or this new protocol. Why
Speaker 1: did Biden approve the use of these longer range missiles
Speaker 1: into the interior of Russia? Everybody knows that we're in
Speaker 1: control of them. Everybody's been paying attention to the issue
Speaker 1: knows they require American soldiers using to operate them. Because
Speaker 1: of the sophisticated nature of them, as well as the
Speaker 1: proprietary and I guess high level security clearance. You need
Speaker 1: to be able to connect with the resources that allow
Speaker 1: them to work and be accurate. All of it suggests
Speaker 1: you know, you think about advisors in Vietnam. Welcome to
Speaker 1: advisors in Ukraine. That's what we're doing. That's what we're there.
Speaker 1: And since they launched them, clearly we have to do
Speaker 1: so we have something to do with it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and you're specifically talking about military personnel. Yes, the
Speaker 3: USR and forces have to be participating.
Speaker 2: So I eat what.
Speaker 3: Putin said turns out to be accurate. And listen, you
Speaker 3: asked the reason why why would Biden do this? The
Speaker 3: sensible claim in both the Wall Street Journal and the
Speaker 3: Washington Post when this news broke that the permission had
Speaker 3: been given, The unnamed senior Administration officials said, it's because
Speaker 3: of North Korea. It's because they have ten thousand troops there,
Speaker 3: and this is to send a signal to Pyongyang not
Speaker 3: to Moscow, except now then these missiles were not fired
Speaker 3: around the Coursk area, where the alleged by the way,
Speaker 3: still not have been independently confirmed. They're actually there, but
Speaker 3: a thousand kilometers in the Bryonsk area e nowhere close
Speaker 3: to where the North Korean troops allegedly are, So that
Speaker 3: puts to the lie the claim that that's the reason
Speaker 3: they're being used. So we have some real difficult questions
Speaker 3: to answer here, and I really hope that the media
Speaker 3: puts President Biden's feet to the fire on this and says, hey,
Speaker 3: what are you trying to do because there is no
Speaker 3: and I mean zero military utility and using a handful
Speaker 3: of long range weapons at this point, nearly three years
Speaker 3: into the war, on the one thousandth day, it's not
Speaker 3: going to make any difference. And by the way, Secretary
Speaker 3: of State Austin on sixth of September expressly stated that
Speaker 3: it's not going to make a difference in the war.
Speaker 3: It won't change anything on the front lines. We don't
Speaker 3: have enough missiles. UK and France don't have enough missiles
Speaker 3: to have a sustained engagement that it would be required
Speaker 3: for long range missiles, you can't do with a few
Speaker 3: one offs. As you saw, most of them got shot down,
Speaker 3: if not all of them, And now here we are
Speaker 3: at a possible red line crossing.
Speaker 1: I just I find it hard that we see that
Speaker 1: we're staring over the brink of this moment in history
Speaker 1: and it does not look good now. The troops and
Speaker 1: I'm not going to defend North Korea in any way,
Speaker 1: shape or form. I'm not going to defend Russia in
Speaker 1: their active assault on Ukraine. And they intact them and
Speaker 1: they invaded them, and I understand all that, but there's
Speaker 1: nothing illegal necessarily unless in fact, the North Koreans have
Speaker 1: been on the front lines that are literally fighting the
Speaker 1: I think there's a big question mark swirling about that.
Speaker 1: Maybe you can answer that. But if there's a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of North Korean somewhere in Russia, what's the big
Speaker 1: deal unless they actively engage in war. So you're shooting
Speaker 1: into the interior of Russia in order to perhaps go
Speaker 1: after a target that doesn't have any military use or purpose.
Speaker 1: Could possibly if they started engaging in combat. But you're
Speaker 1: talking about a finite amount of missiles with a limited
Speaker 1: impact in terms of their destructive power, most of which
Speaker 1: is you pointed out got shot down. This seems to
Speaker 1: be an absolutely pointless gesture what it is.
Speaker 3: And I think I've said on some of the previous
Speaker 3: episodes that we've been on together that the Russians a
Speaker 3: long time ago, when the high Mar systems came in,
Speaker 3: because they have a very similar guidance system etc. They're
Speaker 3: electronic warfare, had basically rendered them meaningless. You hardly ever
Speaker 3: hear about a high Mar strike anymore. So that we
Speaker 3: don't give a missiles, it's that they don't hit the target.
Speaker 3: And the same with the attacks we gave permission on
Speaker 3: a limited basis for that near the front some number
Speaker 3: of months ago. You don't hardly ever hear anything about
Speaker 3: Attackum's missiles because Russia has figured out how to deflect
Speaker 3: or shoot down most of them. So then the question
Speaker 3: is why in God's name then, with something that has
Speaker 3: very limited even tactical utility, would you want to allow
Speaker 3: something to be fired at a strategic depth. And this
Speaker 3: was fired by the way, at a base where missiles
Speaker 3: were a missile depot warehouse. It had nothing to do
Speaker 3: with North Korea at all, not even allegedly. It was
Speaker 3: a missile depot in Russia and they were trying to
Speaker 3: take that out. That's according to the Ukrainian military that
Speaker 3: released that this morning. So then you get back to
Speaker 3: the again your very pointy question, what is the point here?
Speaker 3: What are you trying to accomplish? Because there is nothing
Speaker 3: of value militarily that you can gain by this, but
Speaker 3: there is enormous potential for escalation because Russia would respond
Speaker 3: against us, which is what they've claimed. That's why I'm saying,
Speaker 3: I'm so worried because we have put putin in a place.
Speaker 3: You don't want to put a caged bait in a
Speaker 3: position to either have to fight or flight. Yeah, because
Speaker 3: it's likely he's gonna fight.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he does seem to be a bit of a
Speaker 1: loose canyon that canon, Daniel Davis. Now, as to my
Speaker 1: understanding also is that Russia recently entered into a mutual
Speaker 1: defense treaty with North Korea, so if one gets attacked,
Speaker 1: the other will run to its defense. Are we in
Speaker 1: that moment in time as well? Did I read that correctly?
Speaker 3: That is correct, that they've been They had a number
Speaker 3: of agreements had already been signed in the military sphere,
Speaker 3: especially with coordination and equipment, had been coming over and
Speaker 3: and you know, my belief, my speculation, because I don't
Speaker 3: have any hard facts to back this up with, but
Speaker 3: I suspect that North Korea probably said, hey, let me
Speaker 3: send some of my troops over there to get some
Speaker 3: combat experience or be trained by your combat experience guys,
Speaker 3: so that I can bring the back train to trainer
Speaker 3: kind of thing and make my whole force better based
Speaker 3: on modern combat techniques. That makes some sense, because it
Speaker 3: doesn't make any sense that Russia, you know, is a
Speaker 3: sign of weakness, which so many in the West want
Speaker 3: to characterize this, claiming, oh, we'll see they don't have
Speaker 3: enough troops. No, right, they have enough troops. There is
Speaker 3: no shortage of troops in Russia. In fact, that number
Speaker 3: continues to grow. So this might be something that Kim
Speaker 3: Jong un wanted in exchange for all these rockets and
Speaker 3: ammunition that they've been sending to Russia, not that Putin
Speaker 3: needs them. So yeah, if that's what they're trying to do,
Speaker 3: then then that's that's the situation.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: And it could be for North Korea, not for Russia's benefits.
Speaker 1: Well, merely, I believe it is for North Korea's benefit
Speaker 1: and ultimately that comes back to North Korea and South Korea,
Speaker 1: which obviously have had their problems of their own since
Speaker 1: the end of that or the well, whatever that conflict was,
Speaker 1: whatever we call that conflict, the Korean War, I think
Speaker 1: we loosely refer to it as although there was no declaration,
Speaker 1: all right, I don't want to have to move away
Speaker 1: from from Russia. I saw that the Swedes announced to
Speaker 1: their citizen reay to prepare for nuclear war, not as
Speaker 1: a very unsettling thing. And also that that that inner
Speaker 1: cable that was severed just the other day as well,
Speaker 1: obviously a revelation of it to me how easy it
Speaker 1: is to accomplish such a devastating something, to have such
Speaker 1: a devastating impact, which really amounts to taking a pair
Speaker 1: of plyers and cutting a cable. I know it's more
Speaker 1: complicated than that that just happened the other day with
Speaker 1: one of these undersea internet cables. That could happen on
Speaker 1: a broader scale and be unbelievably complicating from a global perspective.
Speaker 3: It could. That's been one of the concerns that many
Speaker 3: people have been voicing for the last couple of years,
Speaker 3: actually that if things got bad enough, Russia has the capacity,
Speaker 3: you know, as a state with you know, submarines that
Speaker 3: they can take out in innerity anything that they want
Speaker 3: to anywhere and would have a crippling effect economically on
Speaker 3: the on the West, certainly the United States, but the
Speaker 3: West in general. And by the way, just as a
Speaker 3: point here, I saw I was perusing the headlines in
Speaker 3: the Russian media just before coming on here, and it
Speaker 3: said that there is a large scale use of expanded
Speaker 3: nuclear shelters being built throughout Russia and there's this big
Speaker 3: push on for that. So they are concerned about that
Speaker 3: and are taking actions as well on the Russian side. Well,
Speaker 3: I wish I could walk away from this conversation feel
Speaker 3: a little more comfortable by global affairs Daniel Davis, But
Speaker 3: today I don't think I am, And sadly we're out
Speaker 3: of time. I wanted to get to Israel and what's
Speaker 3: going on there. We can save that for another day,
Speaker 3: and hopefully that day will be next Tuesday when we
Speaker 3: do another edition of The Deep Dive with Daniel Davis. Daniel,
Speaker 3: it's been a real pleasure, as it always has been,
Speaker 3: to get your knowledge and your expertise on things military,
Speaker 3: and we'll do it again next Tuesday.
Speaker 1: My friend always a pleasure of my friend. Thank you
Speaker 1: as it is for me. It's eight forty one folks.
Speaker 1: If you have carec the talk stations. Stick around. Our
Speaker 1: legal expert Steve Gooden returns to the program to talk
Speaker 1: about again Pennsylvania in related matters. So I hope you
Speaker 1: can stick a