25th Amendment, now!

[Texasgal]

I have never been a fan of Tucker Carlson, but what is coming out of the woodwork from what DJT has been saying about an atomic war, should make the alarm bells ring from coast to coast. There’s no reason left in that 80 years old head. Put in Vance, Rubio or whoever. Can’t be worse than this!

 

[ResidentAlien]

I have never been a fan of Tucker Carlson, but what is coming out of the woodwork from what DJT has been saying about an atomic war, should make the alarm bells ring from coast to coast. There’s no reason left in that 80 years old head. Put in Vance, Rubio or whoever. Can’t be worse than this!

What is he saying about atomic war? Do you have a link?

 

[Texasgal]

What is he saying about atomic war? Do you have a link?

Hit up one of Tucker Carlson’s links

 

[Texasgal]

Point is dead men walking makes the calls as of now. Not only here, but in the other powerful countries as well

 

[ResidentAlien]

Hit up one of Tucker Carlson’s links

It would help the thread to know exactly what you're talking about. Since you posted about it I figured you'd know where to find it without going on a hunting expedition. If you don't want to post a link, that's cool.

 

[Texasgal]

Here is one:

https://www.google.com/goto?url=CAESjAEB6zswFRKt0Cwy2pK4s_h9-IJoba4kS6vwH2T6pc7wlaSdgKkNOFm68KAAG9GoUvMelHIAzlQt2VKCb-n81-bKyUWP1Y3eOiCMHnb12gPCvjJv8KC9iKBjeGju-BBpgv_lASz5pgw0vDJvdd3C__2WX_LDJrl8GulHa0xehe1Q65J5rBVQShUPDE5wTg

 

[ResidentAlien]

Here is one:

https://www.google.com/goto?url=CAESjAEB6zswFRKt0Cwy2pK4s_h9-IJoba4kS6vwH2T6pc7wlaSdgKkNOFm68KAAG9GoUvMelHIAzlQt2VKCb-n81-bKyUWP1Y3eOiCMHnb12gPCvjJv8KC9iKBjeGju-BBpgv_lASz5pgw0vDJvdd3C__2WX_LDJrl8GulHa0xehe1Q65J5rBVQShUPDE5wTg

Thank you. He was talking about Donald threatening to wipe out the entire Iranian civilization in one night. Donald doesn't mention nuclear weapons specifically, but I don't know how you'd wipe out an entire civilization in one night any other way. Someone who would make threats like this, even if he doesn't do it, is a threat. Next time he might actually do it.

I think Tucker may have not understood exactly what Donald said. Tuck kept saying Donald threatened to wipe out "all humanity." I know know if Donald ever said that; I've never heard him say that.

 

[ZNP]

Thank you. He was talking about Donald threatening to wipe out the entire Iranian civilization in one night. Donald doesn't mention nuclear weapons specifically, but I don't know how you'd wipe out an entire civilization in one night any other way. Someone who would make threats like this, even if he doesn't do it, is a threat. Next time he might actually do it.

I think Tucker may have not understood exactly what Donald said. Tuck kept saying Donald threatened to wipe out "all humanity." I know know if Donald ever said that; I've never heard him say that.

Estimates are as high as 90% of Americans would die if the entire electric grid went down. An EMP can do that. Attacking a select 9 substations out of hundreds could bring down the power grid as well.

Interestingly, China makes many of our substations so one theory is that China would manufacture substations to replace the ones they intend to take out. It can take as long as 2.5 years to get a replacement substation built and installed. So if they have them prepared ahead of time, then take out the 9 to 18 substations they have targeted, wait 90 days for most people to die, and then they can come in as "Peace Keepers", install the substations to get the power back up.

A 90-day nationwide power outage in the United States would trigger a catastrophic cascading collapse of society's critical infrastructure. Because the modern world relies on electricity for nearly every basic human need, an extended blackout would transition the country from a temporary emergency into a severe humanitarian crisis.
Government and defense studies (such as the Heritage Foundation's grid reports and data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) outline the specific timeline of what would happen: [1, 2]

Days 1–3: The Immediate Shock

• The First 72 Hours: Experts refer to this as the "make-or-break" window. Society functions normally on localized momentum for about 24 to 48 hours. [1]
• Water Shutoffs: Most municipal water systems rely on electric pumps. Within a day or two, water stops flowing from taps, and water treatment facilities shut down, leading to immediate shortages of drinkable water. [1]
• Perishable Food Loss: Residential and commercial refrigeration fails entirely, leading to the rapid spoilage of the nation's fresh and frozen food supply. [1]
• Transportation & Fuel Gridlock: Traffic lights blink out, causing immediate gridlock in major cities. Gas stations cannot pump fuel without electricity, trapping people where they are once their individual gas tanks empty. [1]

Weeks 1–4: Systemic Failure

• Supply Chain Collapse: Supermarket shelves empty within 72 hours and cannot be restocked. Without computers and automated logistics systems, regional distribution centers cannot manage or track inventory.
• Communication Blackout: Cell towers and internet routers feature backup batteries that typically last only a few hours to a couple of days. By the end of week one, the country would be in a near-total communication blackout, with only solar- or hand-cranked ham radios functional.
• Healthcare Emergencies: Hospital backup generators generally carry enough diesel fuel to run for 24 to 72 hours. Once that fuel is exhausted, hospitals are forced to ration care. Critical prescription medications like insulin, which require refrigeration, rapidly spoil nationwide. [1]

Months 1–3: Extreme Societal Stress

• Economic Halt: The digital economy ceases to exist. Credit cards, digital banking, ATMs, and electronic payrolls vanish. Society reverts to a cash, barter, or asset-based economy until cash itself loses value due to a lack of goods to buy.
• Law Enforcement & Civil Unrest: Emergency services (911) become unreachable. Police and fire departments, depleted by fuel shortages and communication failures, are unable to respond to widespread fires, looting, or civil unrest.
• Sanitation & Disease: Without running water or working waste management facilities, human waste and uncollected garbage accumulate rapidly. This creates highly unsanitary conditions, risking the outbreak of historical waterborne diseases like cholera and typhoid. [1]

Why Recovery Takes So Long
If a blackout is truly nationwide, fixing it takes months—or years—rather than days due to two major technical hurdles:

1. The "Black Start" Problem: Reboots are incredibly complex. Power plants require electricity to start up. When the entire grid is dead, engineers must use specialized "black start" generators to slowly bring individual plants online and gradually stitch the regional grids back together in a highly synchronized process. [1]
2. The Transformer Bottleneck: According to a report by the New York Times Magazine, if a blackout is caused by a coordinated attack or severe space weather that destroys massive high-voltage substation transformers, replacement is a massive obstacle. The average U.S. wait time for a large power transformer is 128 weeks (nearly 2.5 years) due to backlogs and a lack of domestic manufacturing. Without power, the domestic factories that could build them cannot operate.

 

[ZNP]

I have never been a fan of Tucker Carlson, but what is coming out of the woodwork from what DJT has been saying about an atomic war, should make the alarm bells ring from coast to coast. There’s no reason left in that 80 years old head. Put in Vance, Rubio or whoever. Can’t be worse than this!

I just came back from a scripture blitz in Detroit. 200 people preaching the gospel and distributing bibles, my group passed out approximately 100 bibles for each person each day. We got a much better reception than in previous years. One brother who is 90 said this was the best reception he had seen in his 30+ years of doing this. So the silver lining to imminent nuclear war and Armageddon is people are more receptive to the gospel.

 

[ZNP]

I think the thing to understand is that we cannot prevent a catastrophic failure in which the entire electric grid is brought down. There are over 55,000 electric substations in the US, mostly protected by a chain link fence. You can't just take out any 9 and think that will crash the grid. Now of those 55,000 only about 30 are considered "Highly critical". These are the substations at the "super hubs". If you take out 9 of them, properly chosen, you bring down the whole grid nationwide.

I suspect those 30 are much harder to get to than the others. However terrorists can still bring them down even if they don't attack directly by attacking the flow of electricity creating surges that would trigger a breaker to flip.

Also, in warfare you always cannibalize things to keep other things working. I suspect if you took out a critical substation the US would cannibalize less critical ones.

My point is I don't think the plan is a frontal assault on 9 super hubs, rather I think teams of 3 could take out hundreds if not thousands of the smaller substations that are not guarded. This will also cause a collapse of the grid and make it that much harder for the US to cannibalize other substations to keep the power flowing.

Here is the scary thing, US military bases in the US rely 99% on the domestic grid. There are up to 450 active military bases in the US. My guess is that bringing their power down would be the main target in an initial assault and would require about 1500 men to be in place in the US. Taking out the substations to create blackouts would serve two purposes, it could crash the whole grid and at the same time the substations the military would try to fix first would be destroyed and unrepairable.

 

[JohnDB]

I have never been a fan of Tucker Carlson, but what is coming out of the woodwork from what DJT has been saying about an atomic war, should make the alarm bells ring from coast to coast. There’s no reason left in that 80 years old head. Put in Vance, Rubio or whoever. Can’t be worse than this!

Ummmm

You do know that this is classic bot bait right?

IOW a person paid to start online drama and arguing....but is kinda ignorant of social norms like an AI is ignorant.

It doesn't work....but whatever floats your boat.

 

[Texasgal]

I think the thing to understand is that we cannot prevent a catastrophic failure in which the entire electric grid is brought down. There are over 55,000 electric substations in the US, mostly protected by a chain link fence. You can't just take out any 9 and think that will crash the grid. Now of those 55,000 only about 30 are considered "Highly critical". These are the substations at the "super hubs". If you take out 9 of them, properly chosen, you bring down the whole grid nationwide.

I suspect those 30 are much harder to get to than the others. However terrorists can still bring them down even if they don't attack directly by attacking the flow of electricity creating surges that would trigger a breaker to flip.

Also, in warfare you always cannibalize things to keep other things working. I suspect if you took out a critical substation the US would cannibalize less critical ones.

My point is I don't think the plan is a frontal assault on 9 super hubs, rather I think teams of 3 could take out hundreds if not thousands of the smaller substations that are not guarded. This will also cause a collapse of the grid and make it that much harder for the US to cannibalize other substations to keep the power flowing.

Here is the scary thing, US military bases in the US rely 99% on the domestic grid. There are up to 450 active military bases in the US. My guess is that bringing their power down would be the main target in an initial assault and would require about 1500 men to be in place in the US. Taking out the substations to create blackouts would serve two purposes, it could crash the whole grid and at the same time the substations the military would try to fix first would be destroyed and unrepairable.

I’m retired, but that’s not how it works. It would a strategical disaster to rely on the scenario you are describing.

 

[ZNP]

I’m retired, but that’s not how it works. It would a strategical disaster to rely on the scenario you are describing.

I suspect that terrorists are looking for a strategic disaster.

I think we have had plenty of evidence that individual substations are not well defended. There were cases of people shooting them with guns and disabling them. There is also plenty of evidence that the US is concerned about a cyber attack on these facilities. Many of our substations were manufactured by China.

I doubt small radical groups could cause something like this. But if you had 1500 trained military operatives inside the country dispersed to 450 sites, I think that would be a lot harder to stop. Even if you stop 150 of them, taking out 300 substations would be devastating. I could be wrong but it seems like a little TNT or C4 and bolt cutters would be all it would take.

 

[Squigglylines]

Power grid,nuke, chemical weapon,biological what's the difference when it comes to wiping out a whole population of people the weapon one chooses is not the problem. What the rest of the world will do to the nation that uses any weapon of mass destruction to lay waste both non combatants and combatants is the problem.

 

[HeIsHere]

DT gripped by nihilism and powerlessness "we all die anyway."

 

[Lightbeamrider]

I’m retired, but that’s not how it works.

Then you must know Trump saved you a bunch of money on Social Security cuts and the Dems were against that. IOWs, they want you to pay more in taxes regardless of your take-home. But you go ahead pay more in taxes by voting Democrat so they can line their pockets in fraud schemes.

It would a strategical disaster to rely on the scenario you are describing.

What is being described is a legit concern. Better dealt with before than after the fact.

 

[ZNP]

Power grid,nuke, chemical weapon,biological what's the difference when it comes to wiping out a whole population of people the weapon one chooses is not the problem. What the rest of the world will do to the nation that uses any weapon of mass destruction to lay waste both non combatants and combatants is the problem.

Exactly! That is why they have not done it yet, both sides are trying to provoke the other into doing something so heinous it would justify an equally heinous response.

 

[ZNP]

What is being described is a legit concern. Better dealt with before than after the fact.

I suspect they have put EMP shields on the 30 super hubs and likely on many, many more of the substations. I also suspect the 30 super hubs are in hardened bunkers with significantly more protection. That is why I think the logical approach for terrorists is to hit the easier targets with C4, or dynamite, or even just shoot them. Localized blackouts make it much easier for terrorists to operate. If you have 1500 soldiers trained to do this and they hit at the same time it would create mass confusion at the time of an attack.

 

[Squigglylines]

Exactly! That is why they have not done it yet, both sides are trying to provoke the other into doing something so heinous it would justify an equally heinous response.

I think it's like most when their put in a corner they spout off a bunch of hot air. If not and he's serious about any of it then there's a lot of other politicians and military leaders who need to weigh out the consequence of using any weapon of MD against a nation that does not have the ability yet. In the end I think it's going to be more like they lured him into the trap of believing they were making a nuke when they never intended to in the first place. The big threat against a foe who has a nuke is that they can nuke you back. If you totally believe a foe is trying to build a nuke you will spend hundreds of billions to trillions to keep them from it and as it seems to the point of bankruptcy. How much money and lives all depends on how long it takes to spot the trap your walking into at this point because the longer it goes on the more it cost. They stopped at 60% enrichment because of the cost of maintaining it and the risk of getting nuked themselves and went after the bank accounts of Israel and the US. After years of embargoes it taught them how much it really hurts and their reversing it on the US and Israel by making us spend all our money on a bluff.

 

[ZNP]

I think it's like most when their put in a corner they spout off a bunch of hot air. If not and he's serious about any of it then there's a lot of other politicians and military leaders who need to weigh out the consequence of using any weapon of MD against a nation that does not have the ability yet. In the end I think it's going to be more like they lured him into the trap of believing they were making a nuke when they never intended to in the first place. The big threat against a foe who has a nuke is that they can nuke you back. If you totally believe a foe is trying to build a nuke you will spend hundreds of billions to trillions to keep them from it and as it seems to the point of bankruptcy. How much money and lives all depends on how long it takes to spot the trap your walking into at this point because the longer it goes on the more it cost. They stopped at 60% enrichment because of the cost of maintaining it and the risk of getting nuked themselves and went after the bank accounts of Israel and the US. After years of embargoes it taught them how much it really hurts and their reversing it on the US and Israel by making us spend all our money on a bluff.

You can't put yourself in their shoes. Global leaders have frequently done things that a normal human would never have done.

You have to ask yourself what happens to Putin if he capitulates? What happens to the IRGC? What about Xi. These guys all new the consequences of trying to have their own currency, they saw what happened to Libya. These leaders put themselves into a position where if they capitulate they will be executed by their own people, so they would rather burn down the world than do that.