Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

🇺🇸 INTERVIEW: “THE IDEA THAT AMERICA IS UNTOUCHABLE IS A MYTH” U.S. Army Colonel Daniel Davis Deep Dive , Defense Analyst “It’s always been a myth. In the past, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans provided a sense of protection. But once nuclear weapons became widespread, that illusion vanished. The... ocean protects you from ships, not ballistic missiles. There’s no defense against a barrage of intercontinental ballistic missiles, not even the older ones. Forget about the new ones. If we ever did develop the technology for a perfect missile shield, China and Russia would see it as an existential threat and act before we finished it. That wouldn’t make us safer. It would make the world even more dangerous.”show more

Mario Nawfal

3,729,095 subscribers

35,696 views • 10 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🇺🇸 INTERVIEW: “AMERICA CAN’T DEFEND AGAINST RUSSIA’S NEW MISSILES” US Army Colonel Daniel Davis Deep Dive, Defense Analyst “It’s hard for us to develop defenses against any of these systems, especially Russia’s hypersonics. Even the standard ICBMs both sides already have come in at hypersonic speeds. The idea of building some kind of ‘golden dome’ missile defense is purely aspirational. The technology wasn’t there during Reagan’s Star Wars program, and it’s not there today. The cost of the interceptors, sensors, and infrastructure needed to protect the continental United States would be orders of magnitude more than we could ever afford. So, the reality is that no one, not the U.S. or Russia, has air defenses capable of stopping these weapons. We’re still living in a world of mutually assured destruction, whether people want to believe it or not.”

🇺🇸 INTERVIEW: “AMERICA CAN’T DEFEND AGAINST RUSSIA’S NEW MISSILES” US Army Colonel Daniel Davis Deep Dive, Defense Analyst “It’s hard for us to develop defenses against any of these systems, especially Russia’s hypersonics. Even the standard ICBMs both sides already have come in at hypersonic speeds. The idea of building some kind of ‘golden dome’ missile defense is purely aspirational. The technology wasn’t there during Reagan’s Star Wars program, and it’s not there today. The cost of the interceptors, sensors, and infrastructure needed to protect the continental United States would be orders of magnitude more than we could ever afford. So, the reality is that no one, not the U.S. or Russia, has air defenses capable of stopping these weapons. We’re still living in a world of mutually assured destruction, whether people want to believe it or not.”

Mario Nawfal

33,292 views • 10 months ago

Stoltenberg: European countries are laying out how it is in the interest of the U.S. to have a strong NATO. Oceans do not protect the U.S. in the age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarines. Norwegian and Danish naval capabilities help to make you safer. 1/

Stoltenberg: European countries are laying out how it is in the interest of the U.S. to have a strong NATO. Oceans do not protect the U.S. in the age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarines. Norwegian and Danish naval capabilities help to make you safer. 1/

Tymofiy Mylovanov

49,449 views • 4 months ago

🇺🇸 Secretary Marco Rubio: ⚠️ Iran poses a grave threat to the US ⚠️ Iran is trying to restart its nuclear weapons program and resume enrichment ⚠️ The regime already has thousands of ballistic missiles that threaten US bases in the Middle East, and that can reach most of Europe ⚠️ Iran refuses to discuss limits on its ballistic missile program ⚠️ Iran is trying to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles

🇺🇸 Secretary Marco Rubio: ⚠️ Iran poses a grave threat to the US ⚠️ Iran is trying to restart its nuclear weapons program and resume enrichment ⚠️ The regime already has thousands of ballistic missiles that threaten US bases in the Middle East, and that can reach most of Europe ⚠️ Iran refuses to discuss limits on its ballistic missile program ⚠️ Iran is trying to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles

Israel War Room

27,518 views • 6 months ago

The threat of missiles and drones Is that all that Russia has Oreshnik. That’s all you talk about. America has much more military strength than Russia ever thought about that one missile is not going to save you if you ever use it against the U.S.

The threat of missiles and drones Is that all that Russia has Oreshnik. That’s all you talk about. America has much more military strength than Russia ever thought about that one missile is not going to save you if you ever use it against the U.S.

Joey franko

68,234 views • 7 months ago

🇺🇸🇷🇺 "IF RUSSIA ARMED VENEZUELA DURING A U.S. INVASION, WASHINGTON WOULD CALL IT AN ACT OF WAR - BUT IT’S JUST AID IN UKRAINE" More weapons, more red lines crossed, and still no nuclear retaliation. But what if the roles were reversed? Would Washington tolerate what Moscow has? Or has the West redefined the rules of escalation only when it benefits them? "The U.S. has directly fired ballistic missiles into Russia, imagine if that happened the other way around. Every supposed red line has been crossed, including strikes deep inside Russian territory. If Russia and China armed Venezuela during a U.S. invasion, Washington would call it an act of war. The U.S. would absolutely be on a nuclear slope if its cities were under nightly drone attacks. This is not restraint, it's selective outrage dressed as strategy." Mark Sleboda

🇺🇸🇷🇺 "IF RUSSIA ARMED VENEZUELA DURING A U.S. INVASION, WASHINGTON WOULD CALL IT AN ACT OF WAR - BUT IT’S JUST AID IN UKRAINE" More weapons, more red lines crossed, and still no nuclear retaliation. But what if the roles were reversed? Would Washington tolerate what Moscow has? Or has the West redefined the rules of escalation only when it benefits them? "The U.S. has directly fired ballistic missiles into Russia, imagine if that happened the other way around. Every supposed red line has been crossed, including strikes deep inside Russian territory. If Russia and China armed Venezuela during a U.S. invasion, Washington would call it an act of war. The U.S. would absolutely be on a nuclear slope if its cities were under nightly drone attacks. This is not restraint, it's selective outrage dressed as strategy." Mark Sleboda

Mario Nawfal

77,097 views • 8 months ago

We’re in a situation more risky than the Cuban Missile Crisis today and most people don’t even realise it Vladimir Putin🇷🇺: ‘What if we put missiles in Mexico?’ ‘Are we the ones placing missiles near the borders of the US🇺🇸? No. It’s the US that has brought its missiles to our doorstep. Is it really such an unreasonable demand not to place any more strike systems near our house?’

We’re in a situation more risky than the Cuban Missile Crisis today and most people don’t even realise it Vladimir Putin🇷🇺: ‘What if we put missiles in Mexico?’ ‘Are we the ones placing missiles near the borders of the US🇺🇸? No. It’s the US that has brought its missiles to our doorstep. Is it really such an unreasonable demand not to place any more strike systems near our house?’

Going Underground

292,150 views • 10 months ago

What is Netanyahu expected to say to the president? The main problem with the ballistic-missile story is that the Iranians have caught on to the daylight—the gap—between Israel and the United States. What happened here is that Donald Trump gave his word and then broke it. "We will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons." But he didn’t talk about conventional weapons—the ballistic missiles that threaten Israel. They threaten Israel to such an extent that Netanyahu himself, in a video announcing to the Israeli people that he was launching Operation Nation of Lions, said that two existential threats had developed. The nuclear threat—you’ve known about for years—but also the threat of thousands of ballistic missiles. What has happened since then? The Iranians are not acting at all on the nuclear front, as far as we know. They have not even extracted the enriched material buried underground. But they are very much intensifying their experiments with ballistic missiles. Either because they think it is threatening, or because, as Netanyahu says, it is an existential threat to Israel. We also have a race between the number of their missiles and the number of our missiles—and let’s say that both countries need to recover on this issue. Let’s ask the question now, and here I don’t have an answer. When Netanyahu goes to Washington to talk to Trump about this, is he talking to him about a combined attack—which seems a bit far-fetched to me, because the Americans really have no intention of getting involved in a conventional weapons conflict anywhere in the world; otherwise they would never get out of it—or is he content to give Israel permission to attack on its own, with the U.S. providing a defensive umbrella? One. Two, it should also be said, in this context, that there is a big debate in the Israeli cabinet and at the top about whether it is possible to launch an attack every six months. You cannot—unlike the nuclear project—you cannot eliminate the Iranian ballistic threat. Is it sustainable to come every six months, eight months, and launch another round, which includes them firing at us, all the flights leaving Israel, and all the implications for the economy? There is no decision in Israel. There is no decision in the U.S. that's what they will discuss.

What is Netanyahu expected to say to the president? The main problem with the ballistic-missile story is that the Iranians have caught on to the daylight—the gap—between Israel and the United States. What happened here is that Donald Trump gave his word and then broke it. "We will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons." But he didn’t talk about conventional weapons—the ballistic missiles that threaten Israel. They threaten Israel to such an extent that Netanyahu himself, in a video announcing to the Israeli people that he was launching Operation Nation of Lions, said that two existential threats had developed. The nuclear threat—you’ve known about for years—but also the threat of thousands of ballistic missiles. What has happened since then? The Iranians are not acting at all on the nuclear front, as far as we know. They have not even extracted the enriched material buried underground. But they are very much intensifying their experiments with ballistic missiles. Either because they think it is threatening, or because, as Netanyahu says, it is an existential threat to Israel. We also have a race between the number of their missiles and the number of our missiles—and let’s say that both countries need to recover on this issue. Let’s ask the question now, and here I don’t have an answer. When Netanyahu goes to Washington to talk to Trump about this, is he talking to him about a combined attack—which seems a bit far-fetched to me, because the Americans really have no intention of getting involved in a conventional weapons conflict anywhere in the world; otherwise they would never get out of it—or is he content to give Israel permission to attack on its own, with the U.S. providing a defensive umbrella? One. Two, it should also be said, in this context, that there is a big debate in the Israeli cabinet and at the top about whether it is possible to launch an attack every six months. You cannot—unlike the nuclear project—you cannot eliminate the Iranian ballistic threat. Is it sustainable to come every six months, eight months, and launch another round, which includes them firing at us, all the flights leaving Israel, and all the implications for the economy? There is no decision in Israel. There is no decision in the U.S. that's what they will discuss.

Amit Segal

273,898 views • 8 months ago

As Ukraine braces for what it fears will be a massive attack by Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he has not received a response after sending a letter to the White House and Congress requesting ballistic missile interceptors to aid the country’s defense. “We see that Russia is increasing their internal production, the production of ballistic missiles, and we have deficit with anti-ballistic. This is big problem,” Zelenskyy told Margaret Brennan in an interview on May 29.

As Ukraine braces for what it fears will be a massive attack by Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he has not received a response after sending a letter to the White House and Congress requesting ballistic missile interceptors to aid the country’s defense. “We see that Russia is increasing their internal production, the production of ballistic missiles, and we have deficit with anti-ballistic. This is big problem,” Zelenskyy told Margaret Brennan in an interview on May 29.

Face The Nation

20,572 views • 2 months ago

SPEAKER JOHNSON: “As you know, we tried very hard to negotiate with [Iran] about that nuclear enrichment of uranium. We tried to talk with them, about their continuing to fund their proxies, all the terrorist organizations that have wreaked havoc and killed Americans and American citizens.” “And the buildup of their missiles was so important and so serious that the President of the United States, this President, thought that it was a great enough threat that we needed to act. We had a narrow and unique opportunity, a window of opportunity to act and if that window had passed it would have been much more difficult for us to achieve the mission.” “The mission is very simple, it's two-fold. We take out their ability to launch ballistic missiles and to produce ballistic missiles and we downgrade their Navy.”

SPEAKER JOHNSON: “As you know, we tried very hard to negotiate with [Iran] about that nuclear enrichment of uranium. We tried to talk with them, about their continuing to fund their proxies, all the terrorist organizations that have wreaked havoc and killed Americans and American citizens.” “And the buildup of their missiles was so important and so serious that the President of the United States, this President, thought that it was a great enough threat that we needed to act. We had a narrow and unique opportunity, a window of opportunity to act and if that window had passed it would have been much more difficult for us to achieve the mission.” “The mission is very simple, it's two-fold. We take out their ability to launch ballistic missiles and to produce ballistic missiles and we downgrade their Navy.”

Fox News

134,874 views • 5 months ago

BREAKING: Today, the IRGC Aerospace Force attempted to target Dimona twice—once in the afternoon and again tonight. These footages show the moment they launched the first barrage of missiles at the nuclear site and the nearby town. It appears that most of the missiles in the first barrage were intercepted by Arrow-2/3 and also THAAD anti-ballistic missile systems, as seen in the footage. It is possible that the IRGC had intelligence from sources on the ground, which may explain why, during the second barrage, they used hypersonic missiles that are more difficult to intercept. Israeli sources claim that not a single missile hit the nuclear reactor, but that the intended targets were the nearby town. Even if anything had struck the nuclear site, Israel would likely not release such information due to censorship. #OperationEpicFury #OperationLionsRoar

BREAKING: Today, the IRGC Aerospace Force attempted to target Dimona twice—once in the afternoon and again tonight. These footages show the moment they launched the first barrage of missiles at the nuclear site and the nearby town. It appears that most of the missiles in the first barrage were intercepted by Arrow-2/3 and also THAAD anti-ballistic missile systems, as seen in the footage. It is possible that the IRGC had intelligence from sources on the ground, which may explain why, during the second barrage, they used hypersonic missiles that are more difficult to intercept. Israeli sources claim that not a single missile hit the nuclear reactor, but that the intended targets were the nearby town. Even if anything had struck the nuclear site, Israel would likely not release such information due to censorship. #OperationEpicFury #OperationLionsRoar

Babak Taghvaee - The Crisis Watch

45,892 views • 5 months ago

“WE KNOW THE WAY TO TEHRAN.” Brigadier General Erez Winner, Chairman of the Israel Defense and Security Forum IDSF | Israel Defense & Security Forum, explains why Iran’s ballistic missile program remains a direct threat to Israel, Europe, and eventually even the American homeland. He says that even if the ballistic missile issue is not formally part of the MOU, it will remain on the table. And if Iran tries to rebuild the threat? Israel already knows the way to Tehran. Full interview in the comments.

“WE KNOW THE WAY TO TEHRAN.” Brigadier General Erez Winner, Chairman of the Israel Defense and Security Forum IDSF | Israel Defense & Security Forum, explains why Iran’s ballistic missile program remains a direct threat to Israel, Europe, and eventually even the American homeland. He says that even if the ballistic missile issue is not formally part of the MOU, it will remain on the table. And if Iran tries to rebuild the threat? Israel already knows the way to Tehran. Full interview in the comments.

Mossad Commentary

41,710 views • 2 months ago

The reality in Ukraine right now is that sometimes we do not have the missiles needed to intercept ballistic missiles. That is why we launched a new Anti-Ballistic Missile Program that includes coordination across the political, governmental, and industrial dimensions and can deliver anti-ballistic weapons at scale: the system and the missiles for it. We named the program FREYJA, and today our Anti-Ballistic Missile Coalition held its first, inaugural meeting. Thank you, friends, for your support. It is important that European companies are also represented – specifically those that manufacture critical components for defense systems: Fire Point, Thales, Diehl Defence, Saab, Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, Weibel, Leonardo, Sener, MBDA, Eurosam, Safran, and Destinus. Each of us has important pieces. Ukraine has missiles, but they are only part of the system. Together, over the next 12 months, we can build this system at scale – FREYJA. Joint press conference with the co-chairs of the Coalition of the Willing. (1/3)

The reality in Ukraine right now is that sometimes we do not have the missiles needed to intercept ballistic missiles. That is why we launched a new Anti-Ballistic Missile Program that includes coordination across the political, governmental, and industrial dimensions and can deliver anti-ballistic weapons at scale: the system and the missiles for it. We named the program FREYJA, and today our Anti-Ballistic Missile Coalition held its first, inaugural meeting. Thank you, friends, for your support. It is important that European companies are also represented – specifically those that manufacture critical components for defense systems: Fire Point, Thales, Diehl Defence, Saab, Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, Weibel, Leonardo, Sener, MBDA, Eurosam, Safran, and Destinus. Each of us has important pieces. Ukraine has missiles, but they are only part of the system. Together, over the next 12 months, we can build this system at scale – FREYJA. Joint press conference with the co-chairs of the Coalition of the Willing. (1/3)

Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський

189,419 views • 1 month ago

Just read through Trump’s interview with The New York Times and really appreciated what he had to say about the New START Treaty between the U.S. and Russia. The New START treaty is set to expire on February 5, 2026. It is the last nuclear arms treaty between the U.S. and Russia that prevents the two powers from rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenals. Trump said in the interview that he wants the deal to be made even stronger because there are a lot of weapons that Russia has that it does not cover, including their battlefield nukes and the Poseidon nuclear torpedo. He added that if it does expire he will make sure that a new "better agreement" is put into place. If the New START Treaty is continued, the U.S. would slow down Russia’s ability to churn out new missiles and nuclear warheads while the U.S. modernizes its ICBM arsenal and builds its new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines. This could also have the added effect of saving taxpayers' money by not triggering a new arms race that would strain the Pentagon’s budget and an industrial base that is being revamped. He even added that he wants a treaty that limits China’s nuclear weapons as they are rapidly increasing their stockpile to compete with the U.S. and Russia. As can be seen in the video below, Trump reiterated the same position back in August, saying that he wants all 3 nations to limit their nuclear weapons

Just read through Trump’s interview with The New York Times and really appreciated what he had to say about the New START Treaty between the U.S. and Russia. The New START treaty is set to expire on February 5, 2026. It is the last nuclear arms treaty between the U.S. and Russia that prevents the two powers from rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenals. Trump said in the interview that he wants the deal to be made even stronger because there are a lot of weapons that Russia has that it does not cover, including their battlefield nukes and the Poseidon nuclear torpedo. He added that if it does expire he will make sure that a new "better agreement" is put into place. If the New START Treaty is continued, the U.S. would slow down Russia’s ability to churn out new missiles and nuclear warheads while the U.S. modernizes its ICBM arsenal and builds its new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines. This could also have the added effect of saving taxpayers' money by not triggering a new arms race that would strain the Pentagon’s budget and an industrial base that is being revamped. He even added that he wants a treaty that limits China’s nuclear weapons as they are rapidly increasing their stockpile to compete with the U.S. and Russia. As can be seen in the video below, Trump reiterated the same position back in August, saying that he wants all 3 nations to limit their nuclear weapons

Ryan Saavedra

115,596 views • 7 months ago

We all see that Putin is now relying on one last thing: constant missile attacks. He has ballistic missiles. So we need anti-ballistic capabilities. We’ve done a lot to defend against drones, and our interception rate is above 90 percent. That is a serious achievement. We are also defending against cruise missiles. But Russian ballistic missiles remain a problem, and we need an answer to that problem. Our anti-ballistic coalition – all the countries that are part of it – must demonstrate full capability and deliver real results – better this year. By this winter, we should already see concrete outcomes from our joint work on anti-ballistic defense. From a speech at the 35th UDCG meeting. (1/3)

We all see that Putin is now relying on one last thing: constant missile attacks. He has ballistic missiles. So we need anti-ballistic capabilities. We’ve done a lot to defend against drones, and our interception rate is above 90 percent. That is a serious achievement. We are also defending against cruise missiles. But Russian ballistic missiles remain a problem, and we need an answer to that problem. Our anti-ballistic coalition – all the countries that are part of it – must demonstrate full capability and deliver real results – better this year. By this winter, we should already see concrete outcomes from our joint work on anti-ballistic defense. From a speech at the 35th UDCG meeting. (1/3)

Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський

532,686 views • 2 months ago

Reporter: Secretary Rubio said in March that the goal of this war was to eliminate the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles. US intelligence estimates that Iran still retains roughly 70% of its pre-war ballistic and cruise missile stockpile. So when did the administration decide to abandon that part of the original mission? Vance: You talked about an intelligence report that was anonymously leaked to a reporter that was not with context and that frankly is not accurate. Their ability to launch missiles has been substantially degraded. Is it 0? No, but it's substantially degraded and in that sense, we haven't abandoned the mission. We've accomplished that particular part of the mission.

Reporter: Secretary Rubio said in March that the goal of this war was to eliminate the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles. US intelligence estimates that Iran still retains roughly 70% of its pre-war ballistic and cruise missile stockpile. So when did the administration decide to abandon that part of the original mission? Vance: You talked about an intelligence report that was anonymously leaked to a reporter that was not with context and that frankly is not accurate. Their ability to launch missiles has been substantially degraded. Is it 0? No, but it's substantially degraded and in that sense, we haven't abandoned the mission. We've accomplished that particular part of the mission.

Acyn

43,044 views • 2 months ago

Beijing fires back with a brutal reality check after the U.S. blamed China for “late notice” on its missile test. The funniest part is that the United States actually thinks it has the moral standing to lecture China on missile tests. The U.S. is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons. The U.S. has conducted more than 300 intercontinental ballistic missile tests in the Pacific Ocean over the years. It sits on the world’s largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal. It routinely launches strategic missile tests from nuclear submarines. But when China conducts one routine test, notified in advance and not aimed at any country, Washington suddenly becomes the priest of “standards.” The problem is not missile tests. The problem is that China is no longer asking permission to defend itself. Washington is used to being the only country allowed to point missiles at the world while calling it stability. So China tests one missile, and suddenly the arsonist wants to inspect the fire code.

Beijing fires back with a brutal reality check after the U.S. blamed China for “late notice” on its missile test. The funniest part is that the United States actually thinks it has the moral standing to lecture China on missile tests. The U.S. is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons. The U.S. has conducted more than 300 intercontinental ballistic missile tests in the Pacific Ocean over the years. It sits on the world’s largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal. It routinely launches strategic missile tests from nuclear submarines. But when China conducts one routine test, notified in advance and not aimed at any country, Washington suddenly becomes the priest of “standards.” The problem is not missile tests. The problem is that China is no longer asking permission to defend itself. Washington is used to being the only country allowed to point missiles at the world while calling it stability. So China tests one missile, and suddenly the arsonist wants to inspect the fire code.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

72,621 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸🇵🇸🇮🇱⚡- American political commentator Jackson Hinkle on Al Arabiya: 'I think the world would be a lot safer if we gave Hamas intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear deterrence options. As for the terms of the ceasefire, I think that Hamas should only enforce the ceasefire from their end fully if Israel will actually enforce the ceasefire from their end. And so far, Israel has not done that.'

🇺🇸🇵🇸🇮🇱⚡- American political commentator Jackson Hinkle on Al Arabiya: 'I think the world would be a lot safer if we gave Hamas intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear deterrence options. As for the terms of the ceasefire, I think that Hamas should only enforce the ceasefire from their end fully if Israel will actually enforce the ceasefire from their end. And so far, Israel has not done that.'

Monitor𝕏

61,055 views • 10 months ago