Transcript
Use with ChatGPT / Claude Auto-scroll A
The conversation opens with alarming claims about brain warfare, drone swarms, satellites, and classified intelligence capabilities. It then transitions into the interview setup and the guest's background as a national security reporter and author.
Speaker A
It's the darkest thing I have come across in all of my reporting.The Chinese have discussed brain warfare.The idea that perhaps you can degradate cognition.It is more sinister than anything I have ever thought about in my 20 years.That you can make civilians dumber.
The war theater becomes a giant test range.There's a company who does a demonstration about electronic warfare.You know what?I'm sorry, I'm not gonna actually.
Imagine right now how dangerous drone swarms are to the Defense Department.Multi thousand swarm drone swarms.Now, imagine a technology where you can push a button and drop all those drones out of the sk.
Imagine that the Defense Department doesn't have the contract on that technology.And if you're me, that says, whoa, I don't understand why the DoD doesn't have the contract.And they say, we don't know either.But we certainly know that Saudi is a great client for us.
Speaker B
Holy shit.NRO is really classified.
Speaker A
I have a feeling that they know more than everybody.You said satellites can see everything.There's one place satellites cannot see.
That is, for example.I'll tell you something about Delta.Los Alamos has a.You could call it a tier one component that goes after nuclear weapons.They generally use Delta.I remember this so clearly because I get this emergency text, and it said, I'm being sent to Iran.I'm probably going to die.I have sent you a letter to give to my wife.
Speaker B
Yeah.For people that aren't familiar with you or your work by now, you are a Pulitzer Prize finalist, New York Times bestselling author, and your eighth book, Biological A Scenario, is terrifying just like the rest.But anyway, some of the subjects that you cover are, including darpa, the CIA is kind of interwoven into all of it.Nuclear war.Really, really fascinating stuff.And I think I was telling you offline, like, if I were to craft a podcast guest in a lab that scratches as many itches as possible for.And my audience, I really think you're pretty damn close.So I've been really excited for this, and I'm really glad we were able to finally make it happen.And I appreciate you coming out.
Speaker A
Thank you for that lovely introduction.
Speaker B
Yeah, absolutely.So maybe, you know, and we kind of started talking a little bit offline about some of the agency stuff.And, you know, there's.Like I said, it kind of rears its head in all of your books in some way.
The guest explains how she became interested in the CIA and how intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance shape her reporting. She frames national security as a broad system connecting military and intelligence work.
Speaker B
So I guess what got you interested in reporting on CIA?
Speaker A
Well, first of all, it's incredibly interesting, as you said.You know, I've written eight books.I've been at this for 20 years.And all of my books interweave, in essence, the military and the intelligence community.The CIA being one part of that very multi headed, almost hydra headed intelligence community.We can get into that.There are at least 17 intelligence agencies.And the way that I weave together the stories keeps me like really seriously curious because you learn one thing and then you realize there is another door and another door and another door and another door.But they all weave together this idea of national security, which you hear a lot.I'm often called a national security reporter, but I think just as interesting is the fact that the intelligence community is feeding the military with what's called isr.Of course, everything's an acronym in, you know, the military intelligence parlance.
But ISR stands for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.In essence, it asks like, what's going on?Where is it going on and who's doing it?It's a military term.
It's most certainly an intelligence community term.And so when you think of that at sort of the 90,000 foot lens, it becomes much easier to do reporting for me, because I know where to look, because I know what I'm looking for.
They discuss the CIA's founding, its roots in the OSS, and the evolution from stealing secrets to covert paramilitary action. The guest explains why the agency was built to fight the Soviet threat with deniable operations.
Speaker B
So it's funny you mentioned that the CIA and the intelligence community overall, they were founded to be in the business of stealing secrets.Right?To.
Speaker A
Would
Speaker B
you not
Speaker A
agree with that?Well, keep going.What I was gonna say
Speaker B
is that it's morphed and we could talk about the ground branch stuff and the paramilitary stuff overall, but it's kind of changed over the years, at least from the periphery of somebody who's not been involved.But would you disagree with the fact that that was what it was founded on?
Speaker A
Okay, so you're saying that the intelligence world was created to steal secrets.
Speaker B
Right?
Speaker A
Right.
Well, that's one component of it.But if you go back.Okay, I'm going to do this without giving you a history lesson, just more like an interesting overview.CIA is created in 1947 with the National Security Act.Before that there was the oss, which was fighting down and dirty behind enemy lines in World War II, essentially killing Nazis.
Okay.And prior.That 1947 line is incredibly important because warfare, war fighting was really American.War fighting was kind of still borrowed from the British idea.This idea of gentlemanly warfare, this idea that there are rules.
And that all changed in World War II.I mean, my book Surprise Kill, Vanish, about the CIA's paramilitary.Many people don't even realize the CIA has a paramilitary.Paramilitary means it's not the military.It operates on its own, it operates like it behaves the way the military does in that it has authority to kill people.
But it's not the military.It has a completely different rule set.And so that is born out of the OSS in World War II.One of whose units, the Jedburghs in France, the.Their motto was surprise, kill, vanish.
That was their motto.It doesn't get more obvious than that.Surprise, jump out of an aircraft, kill one definition, vanish, you're out of here.That's covert action.No one can know what we just did.
But the results speak for themselves.And this pivotal point in 1947, it is.And this is where I'm getting to like, are they just set up?Is the CIA to set up to just steal secrets?No, because here's why.
New enemy in town.1947 war is over.You'd think there would be a moment of peace, but no.The new enemy is the Soviet Union.And they are now considered more dangerous than the Nazis ever were for reasons that can be debated that I write about in the book.
And on top of that, we even hire former Nazis to help us defeat the evil communists.The Soviet Union.And they had dark programs.The Soviet Union.So I'm getting to this point that this.If you really look at the way in which the original founding documents are set up, you realize that the CIA was going to fight against the dirty work of the Soviet Union.Stealing secrets.That's nothing compared to what the Soviets were doing.And that's why the CIA was created, actual quote, to be the president.Well, the CIA's paramilitary was created to be the president's guerrilla warfare corps.
The down and dirty guys that were willing to surprise, kill, vanish.And there is a long history of doing that from 1947 to today.
The interview turns to the difference between military authorities and CIA authorities, including Ground Branch and other Special Activities units. The guest also outlines the agency's branches and the role of ISR in modern intelligence work.
Speaker B
Yeah, and that makes sense when you.When you lay it out like that.I think covert action could, you know, mean a lot of different things.And it does.But I guess where I got that.Excuse me.Where I got that context from is Kiriakou.Right.He's been in here a couple times and I love that guy.And he's very much like an old school case officer.Right where he joined the agent.Well, he started an analysis, but you know, he wanted to recruit assets to seal secrets.And then he talks on here about seeing the day after 9 11, the agency turning into a paramilitary organization.
But anyway, we're gonna be jumping around a lot.But
Speaker A
just to be clear, the CIA was a paramilitary organization long ago.It's just that not everybody has the comprehensive history that I have because if you're inside, you have an incredible perspective that is unique to you and that is so valuable.Those are the people I interview.
But if you're a journalist or a historian, in essence, it's your job to get the big scope of all the information.And so I learned, and I learned from people like Billy Waugh, who was actually doing operations down and Dirty, Surprise Kill Vanish operations when Eisenhower was president.And so you can learn the scope of his actions over 50, 60 years.But again, no one's right or wrong.It's just a different point of view, something that I.
Something that keeps me incredibly interested in what I write about.Because whoever you're interviewing, their point of view is their own.And that, interwoven with authority, makes for a really interesting source.
Speaker B
So you mentioned the.You know, the rule sets are different between the DoD or the military and the CIA, or ground branch, I think it's called Ground Department now or something.
And that's.Are you referring to, like, Title 10 versus Title 50?Can you explain that to people?
Speaker A
And it's also interesting to note that, like, Ground Branch had only been mentioned, I think, once or twice in public, one of which was by a lovely person called Drew Dwyer, who's a source for me in my book, who died on his couch of a drug overdose the day we were to meet for another interview.We had done a lot of them, you know, tragic story there, but he had mentioned it and maybe one other place.
And so all of my sources when I was reporting Surprise Kill Vanish, they did not refer.They leave out certain references to things, but then it became osint.So that's what we're talking about here, is how something goes from, like, deeply classified to being, to being open source to then being talked about.And so I believe as a journalist, this is all important.And it stems from this principle.
Everyone's aware of Eisenhower's farewell speech that he talks about.Beware of the military industrial complex.And this is a real thing that we should, all, we, the citizenry, should all be aware of.That's what we're talking about, the military industrial complex.What is an arms race versus what is national security?
But the second part of Eisenhower's farewell speech is profoundly important to me and a reason that I believe so many incredibly highly placed sources like former SecDefs will talk to me because I tell them, as I'm telling you, that my goal as a journalist, as an author, is the second part of Eisenhower's speech which says an alert and knowledgeable citizenry balances out the military Industrial complex.And it's so important that people know what may be going on, what is going on.Use their brain to figure it out, read things to figure it out, think about it, discuss it, and therefore move society, move democracy in a more transparent direction.
Speaker B
Yeah, and like, I think you do really important work.And, you know, I don't think you're an alarmist.I don't think that you try to get people to panic.I think that you didn't fucking invent nuclear weapons or biological weapons.You're just telling us that they exist and that in and of itself is cause for panic.Maybe, but anyway, okay, you said a lot of different things, but.
Speaker A
Oh, let me finish.The one concept I did want to say about Ground branch is that it's not well known and that there are actually three, perhaps more.Actually more, but three known branches of Special Activities Division.Now Special Activities center, which is Ground Branch, and again, different name, Division.Fine.Air Branch and Maritime Branch.
The guest explains how she handles speculative claims, source trust, and pattern recognition in reporting. She also connects her work to emerging technologies that are moving faster than legal and democratic systems.
Speaker A
And then there's also another one which deals with weapons and like, emerging technologies that I'm not as clear about yet.
Speaker B
Is that different than science and technology?
Speaker A
That's a different directorate.That's a totally different directorate.And we can get into that because that's darpa, iarpa.That's, you know, that really links back to what I was talking about with isr.The lead component, I believe, of the agency's mission that covers both its analysts and its paramilitary is really isr, because, you know, it's gotten very, I don't want to say fashionable, terrible word to talk about operator or it's gotten very popular to hear operators going on missions on surprise, kill, vanish type missions, on find, fix, finish type missions.But there's also another very, very serious and important component which is isr, which is going to find out who is doing what, where.And that does not necessarily involve killing someone, but it is extremely dangerous.You are going behind enemy lines and you are trying to get information that literally you will be killed for if anyone finds out what you are doing.
Speaker B
So what have you heard about that fourth branch?
Speaker A
You know, I tend to not speak about things until I really know about them.So I'll come back for a different podcast on that for you.
Speaker B
Could we call it speculative, just generally
Speaker A
call it.What do you mean?
Speaker B
Like, if you were to say what you do know, could we just label it as speculative and not fact?Like, just out of
Speaker A
curiosity?I wouldn't do that.I wouldn't do that because I'm so clear in my reporting about what I know and where it came from.And sometimes that has to do.Where I won't talk about a subject yet is that I haven't.
I haven't.I don't wanna say double.I haven't gotten enough varying points of view on something to really feel confident that it's not just one individual's take on something.And by the way, I have reported single individual takes on things that I have found to be so stunning that they are worthy of, and I trust that individual.Usually it has to do with trust.And for me to trust someone, you're talking about like 50 hours with them, minimum.Right.Maybe even traveling with them, really understanding if someone is being truthful with me.
Speaker B
No, it's totally understandable.It's a credibility thing for you.And you know what you're doing.And I just.Obviously you're gonna pique my curiosity there.Okay.But
Speaker A
what I will.I will sort of say is that.And again, that's what I was saying.If you're me and you've done this for 20 years, it becomes about pattern recognition at a point.So there are certain things I hear where I go, what.
And I can't possibly fathom how that fits into the pattern or the puzzle.And then until I do, and it always does fit in, you just don't see it yet.And that has to do with emerging technologies, which I'm sure we'll get into.Emerging technologies being the fact that science and technology is presently moving faster, literally, than our democracy can keep up.The architecture to, you know, for legalities around things is just being blown out of the water by how fast science and technology are moving.This has to do with all my book.And by the way, every technology that is important today, you could just look around this room.Point.I can tie it to the military.I can tie it to the military.
Speaker B
Okay, so let's come back to.
They compare Delta Force and CIA special activities, then move into the distinction between military and intelligence authorities. The guest tells the story of Delta testing White House security by parachuting onto the lawn.
Speaker B
Before we kind of went down that windy road there, we were talking about the authorities between the military or let's say jsoc, for example, or Special Activities Center, Ground Branch, whatever the hell it's called.The CIA's paramilitary.Now, I have a ground branch guy coming in here next month.And the way I understand the difference between the two is one has title 10, one has title 50.
And they are different tools for different jobs, essentially.And, you know, when.You know, I guess maybe you explain it like when one.Let's just come up with an example.Like when would the government go with using the Delta Force for an operation versus special activities?
Speaker A
Okay, so title 10 is military laws of war title 50 was created in 1947.The National Security act, the short version of title 50 is what the President wants the CIA's special activities to do.The President gets.It's that simple.Oh, you can't do that, sir.
Let's go get our lawyers at the Agency, many of whom I've interviewed, to write up a memorandum so that you can do it.That's title 50 in a nutshell.Delta is very, very interesting.I do not know as much about Delta as I know about other subjects.Only that many of the incredibly high performing special activities individuals, I mean, very high performing ones, the ones the Agency really depended on in certain situations, those individuals have high esteem for the Delta guys.
High esteem.I remember Billy Waugh talking about Delta and also Lou Merletti, the former director of the Secret Service, who is one of the original founding members of the Secret Service's paramilitary team.Most people don't know they have a paramilitary unit.It's called cat, the Counter Assault Team.And they pull a lot of guys from Delta, from Special Activities to be on the President's detail in that manner.So again, these are all interwoven.Lou Merletti was in Vietnam.He was a Green Beret.So you can see these skill sets are what are really, really valuable.And I think that people who are in these Tier one units, that's what they're all called across the board.
They have different.They all have these incredible skill sets, but some of them excel.They're like the apex individuals among the apex individuals.And Delta's kind of often at the top of that.
Speaker B
And you mentioned Lou Merletti.Wasn't there a story that you covered about when he was head of Secret Service?There was, I believe, and I heard this elsewhere too, so I'm kind of maybe piecing it together, but there was.They did some tests essentially on the President's security where the Delta guys, they gave them, like, they said, hey, try to penetrate our security.And they ended up jumping onto the White House lawn or something like.Can you tell this story?
Speaker A
Yes, that was reported in my book, a source.Lou Merletti told me the story himself and it was Bush 1.I'm like, almost certain.Sorry.I wrote the book 10 years ago, but I believe it was Bush 1.
So Lou was not yet, certainly not yet the director.And he became the head of Clinton's detail.
So he wasn't yet the head of Clinton.You know, he wasn't even that position.But what he was was a founding member of CAT Team, the Counter Assault Team.The Team that you don't.You see Secret Service agents with suits.And now every now and then you'll see them with long guns.And, you know, that's the paramilitary team.And they are set up to basically treat.If the President is.If there appears to be a threat and actually bullets are fired, they will act as if they're in the war theater.That's what the CAT team is, how Lou explained it to me.So there was this idea of looking for holes in the President's security.Where could somebody get the President?And this was on the heels of a number of international assassinations.So Lou.
And they gave Lou, like a challenge, which was try and see if Delta can beat us.
And so he went to Fort Bragg and he gave Delta certain require.You know, he gave them certain parameters, but he didn't tell them any classified details whatsoever.Whatsoever.And said, try and get the President.And then at the White House, meanwhile, the President was informed that some kind of a something was going on.
Okay.And the Secret Service was informed that some kind of a something was going on.Which I took to mean, like, don't fire, you know.And what Delta did was they came in on aircraft directly over the White House and they halo jumped down.Not quite a HALO jump because they weren't really high altitude.
They were at an altitude, but they.It was a low opening situation whereby they.They pulled their parachute cords very low and they landed on the White House lawn and they were completely able to essentially assault the White House.This was classified for a very long time.You can see why.
I mean, it was a stunning move.And as a result.And if you ever go by and look at the White House, you now see a lot of weaponry on the top of the White House for precisely that reason.
Speaker B
Yeah, it's fascinating.I mean, and you would think that that's just a smart thing to do to red team everything, right?
Speaker A
Yes, yes.Red teaming being, you know, I mean, it's.Everything comes down to kind of like sword and shield.You know, there's the sword, that's offense, and then there's defense.How are you going to defend against something?
And that's also at the heart of all military situations.It's at the heart of all CIA.You know, the CIA is essentially assisting the military for the President or assisting the president for the military, however you want to look at it.And that's the heart of the matter.If.
If what we can do, somebody else can do.So wait, now we have to think of what they might do beyond that.It's a Very important part of national security, but it also feeds the military industrial complex.This is that paradox.Yeah,
Speaker B
it's a tough one.
The discussion expands to the Secret Service Counter Assault Team and how it functions as a paramilitary protection force. The guest describes how ISR and sensor technology are used to protect Marine One and the President.
Speaker B
And you mentioned the Counter Assault Team.And I guess for people, the correspondence dinner is a good example.When there was the shooter there, you can see pictures of like people on stage with Trump and they're not in like suits and ties.They're in cry uniforms and they have like long rifles on them and night vision goggles and.
But when you say paramilitary, like, they don't do any sort of offensive operations.They're just like a.Like a quick reaction force to be around the President that.And they happen to be the most skilled in that sort of thing.
Speaker A
Right.Well, para like kind of meaning, like alternative.Right.Like military, meaning they are trained like the military and they will act like the military if an offensive maneuver comes at them.So they do not do other missions, but they have pulled from.Often from special activities, from Delta.That's who they put on those.You know, there's an interesting detail to sort of visualize.It is if you ever see Marine One flying with the President in it.So I live in a place in Hollywood that for whatever reason, presidents often fly through my canyon.Like whenever a president is in Los Angeles, they fly through my canyon.And what's super interesting, it's like from Los Angeles to Burbank, maybe they're taping something in Burbank at one of the studios.But of course, there's always a dry.There's like several dry runs before.And what that is, is it's.
It's aircraft flying over to essentially take like a radar print of the ground below.
They're looking for weapons, they're looking for heat signatures.And then they keep flying over again and again because they're looking for the pattern changing.
You know, they might see me on my bathrobe, you know, waving.Right.Isn't that a great Fellini movie where that happened?But then when the President is actually flying himself, you see Marine One surrounded by a bunch of really heavy duty helicopters.And inside one or two of those helicopters, I have learned, is the CAT team.
So they are there.That is a really interesting paramilitary visual.The President no longer just flies around in his own helicopter.
Speaker B
I mean, I would want to have those guys with me, but.And this is all same day this is happening.The advanced stuff.
Speaker A
No, the advanced stuff happens in advance because they need to look at.They need to.They do pattern analysis and they're looking for heat signatures and they're looking for changes.Right.
So imagine if someone was going to, you know, like assault the helicopter from the ground.Right.A shoulder fired missile or something they're looking for.I mean, this is how advanced ISR has gotten.Now when you're talking about sensor technology, and we can certainly get into that, which is you're just doing a sweep and you're just having a data analysis of changes in the environment beyond the normal civilians doing their things.
The guest explains how Billy Waugh shaped her understanding of nuclear weapons, terrorism, and secret missions. She recounts his role in surveillance, assassination planning, and the hidden history of CIA operations.
Speaker B
Was it.And obviously you wrote the book Surprise Kill, Vanish, and a lot of that is about ground branch and the stuff that they did.But was it Billy specifically that got you interested or was it the other way around?
Speaker A
That's a good question.I mean, Billy Wall was always really, really, really interesting to me.And that has to do with nuclear weapons, you know, And I don't think I could have written Nuclear War a scenario, which is the precursor book to biological War a scenario without having.I couldn't have written it so intensely without having spent days and weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks and months with Billy Waugh over the course of many years.Because I learned so much about nuclear weapons.
Because Billy Waugh, yes, he was a singleton for the President.And he did missions like conduct ISR against Osama bin Laden in Sudan nine years before anyone really even had eyes on him.But the CIA, because he took down terrorists like Imad Mughniah, Hezbollah's master chief, because he was so involved in these singleton missions for the presidents, because Billy was literally willing to do anything.But he also had a very secret component in his very secret life that involved nuclear weapons.And I'm always really curious about what it is I'm not supposed to know.
I mean, that's probably the little girl with pigtails in me, you know.No, you can't look over there.I just want to know.I just want to know.And so I will go to great lengths to develop, trust and work with someone to learn what they can tell me and what I can therefore report to the people.And sometimes that involves a longer story than just a snippet, because it is to really understand why some of these very dark missions are conducted.I think it's really important you understand the history.And if you're really trying to understand the person at the center of that and not just write them off as a killer or a twirling mustache bad guy or a hero, because so much of society wants to do that with any of these individuals who are doing these extraordinary actions.And that's not me.
I want to know the person and then I can understand when I understand them.I Understand context, then I can understand big mission.And then it kind of all fits together.And then it leaves me questioning what is the military, what is valuable national security, and what is promoting the military industrial complex, which is kind of a dangerous doom and gloom end if you really just follow it through.
Speaker B
It's a fine line for sure.And we'll come back to Billy as it pertains to nuclear war and just in general.But you mentioned the Mughnia one.Was that the joint operation with CIA and Mossad where they killed him
Speaker A
with a
Speaker B
car bomb?
Speaker A
Yes, and it was.
First of all, it was classified for a very long time.Then the Washington Post reported the story, but they left out the CIA because they didn't know about it.And the reason they didn't know about it is cause it was pretty much just Billy.I mean, I shouldn't say that.Cause I'm sure now 10 people will come forward and say, no, no, no, it was me too.But so let me rephrase that from what it took Billy Waugh telling me about it to make that known officially.And actually, by the way, it's still not official.
But I think Billy wanted that known before he went to meet the maker, because it was.Okay, so the story goes like this, which is interesting.It's the middle of the war on terror and Osama bin Laden is not dead yet.He's the most wanted terrorist in the world.But seemingly forgotten is the fact that before Osama bin Laden was the most wanted terrorist in the world.
That was.That mantle belonged to Hezbollah weapons chief Imad Mughnia, who was responsible for an extraordinary number of deaths with bombs, with sophisticated car bombs and truck bombs, including the Beirut bombing.And so Mossad obviously wanted him dead.CIA wanted him dead.He had disappeared.There were rumors that he had had plastic surgery.He hadn't been seen in a decade.No one could find him.And then there was a tip that he was found.But the way the CIA works, or at least worked at the time, was they couldn't.It was President Bush.They couldn't get President Bush to.To authorize this joint operation with Mossad without being 100% sure that it was Imad Mughnia who they were killing.
And so they needed a photograph of him.Hence intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance.Okay, so the story, according to Billy, was there was a special activities guy who was a former SEAL who was on it and who was.So Mughnia was found in Saudi Arabia, which is impossible to wrap your head around because, you know, Iran's Hezbollah's weapons chief.What is he doing in Saudi Arabia?The arch enemy?I'll give you the punchline on that at the end of what Billy said about that.But details first.So Mughnia was allegedly in Saudi Arabia in the capital.The SEAL guy, according to Billy, freaked out one day and was like, I'm not doing this anymore.Because if you are captured by the Saudis, you wind up in a dark, well, tortured goodbye, you're never seen again.And it was one of the few places that Billy was really clear that the CIA would not be coming for you.
So if you were to be captured.And Billy had this incredible desire to always outperform himself and everybody around him in that world.And so when the SEAL said, I'm not doing this anymore, Billy raised his hand and said, send me.And he was in and out of Saudi in 24 hours, according to Billy.And what he did is he gets there and he's given the address of where Mugnia has an apartment.
And Billy, being Billy, is all about the people.So he needs to set up a post to conduct reconnaissance and surveillance because he has to get a photograph.Now imagine trying to take a photograph of a most wanted terrorists in Saudi Arabia.I mean, that is like you're putting yourself at risk because there's so many people in that intelligence world looking, looking for that type of thing happening.So Billy befriends the cafe owners across the street from the apartment who happen to be Sudanese refugees, migrants from the Dinka tribe, which is exactly a language Billy learned when he was in Sudan.
I mean, that's just Billy Waugh for you.Like, he was so creative and clever.He befriends them and all the while you can just imagine, first of all, Billy was not a tall person.And the Dinka are just like notoriously like 6 foot 2 minimum.So you can imagine the scene of him talking to these guys, you know, in their language and, you know, probably sipping, you know, a Coke and looking over their shoulder to try to get a bead on Mugnia's apartment door.
And he befriends.And then he realizes that there is a big giant garbage bin in between the coffee shop and Mugnia's apartment.And he realizes that's where he needs to be inside.And he befriends them.Now this is sort of like he didn't reveal exactly how he befriended them, but he befriends them and they let him climb into the garbage bin.
He cuts a hole in the garbage bin and he's now able to photograph from that perspective unseen, what a Great visual.That's
Speaker B
insane.
Speaker A
And lo and behold, Mughnia leaves the apartment.Actually, he's walking back to his apartment.
And Billy described him as carrying dry cleaning still on hangers over his shoulder.That's how comfortable he was in Riyadh.And Billy, snap, snap, snaps.Gets pictures of his face and then he's out of there.And him describing his ex vil was remarkable.Like, you know, it's done, see you later.And he swings by the station chief, drops off the photos, and he's out on a plane, you know, in a matter of hours.Those photographs confirmed Mugnia as Mugnia and gave President Bush the confidence to go ahead with the operation to kill Mugnia, which happened then later in Damascus with a car bomb.That's the story according to Billy.That's the story according to Billy.
Speaker B
That's an insane story.
Speaker A
And when I asked Billy, like, from a sort of theoretical international politics maneuvering perspective, like, Billy, what the hell?Why was Mughnia in Saudi Arabia?What?Why was he being protected by the Saudis?
Billy said to me something that I often say to others, which is, he said, annie, it's just a bunch of dirty shit at the top.
And if that isn't the truth, and it's so wonderful because, I mean, I'm not someone who philosophizes on this nation doing that because of this, because of that.Because I'm kind of more interested in the operations and the details of the science and technology behind operations than I am in pontificating why.Why these big national security swings just seem so remarkable.But I do believe that Billy is probably the most just precise and sort of human truth that I can imagine.It's just a bunch of dirty shit at the top.
Speaker B
Gosh, just so crazy.And like, because you're right, like, in a lot of, as far as I understand, in a lot of those covert action type scenarios, like, it's gotta be totally deniable, like if you get picked up, sorry, it's hands off.And like, it just makes the whole send me in that context and scenario so crazy and like to comprehend.But
Speaker A
Billy was never captured, you know, that's what's really remarkable.Of all those years, I think he operated in 64 countries.And I only, as I was told by Kofer Black, Billy's one of Billy's handlers, you know.Oh, Annie, you think, you know, I'm paraphrasing him, but essentially what he said is like, what you think, you know, is just the tip of the iceberg.He said most of Billy's Operations were never written down and will never be known.It was a guy like me, him referring to himself, cover Black, telling a guy like Billy what to do and having it done.
The interview briefly pauses for sponsor messages about recording tools, health testing, and business software. These ads interrupt the national security discussion before it resumes.
Speaker B
This episode is brought to you by Plodding.If you've watched this show before, you know that the interviews that we do can go up to six hours or even longer sometimes.And weirdly, when it's over, it just feels like a big blur.And a lot of the times I forget entirely what we talked about until I go back and watch it when I edit it.So that's why I started using the Plaude Note Pro.
As you can see, it's a credit card thin AI powered recorder that either sits in your pocket or in this case, right next to me on this chair.And when you're done, it gives you a full summary of the conversation that you just had so you can go back and remember the important parts.There's even a feature called Ask Plaud where you can literally query your own recordings and say, hey, what did we talk about when we were discussing X?Or what did we decide?And it pulls the answer for you.
So it's basically an additional brain for your conversations.So if you do any kind of long form meetings, calls, or even just have conversations that you need to remember, this thing is a game changer.No more scrambling to take notes and having to tune out for half the conversation or go through an entire recording just to find one thing.So if you head over to Plaud AI and use code DFP10, you'll get 10% off of a Note Pro.Right now that's P, L, A U, D, A, I and code DFP10 for 10% off the plod Note Pro.
You know how you go to the doctor and you pay a ton of money and you wait there for like 30 minutes in the waiting room and then they rush you in and out in like eight minutes and they tell you essentially the same thing that you already knew from asking Claude beforehand.No real data, no baseline, nothing actionable.Just the same generic advice you already knew.That's not what healthcare should be.That's just a waste of our time and money.
And that's exactly what Superpower fixes.They send a licensed professional to your home, or you can go to a nearby lab, do one simple lab draw, and you get over 100 biomarkers analyzed.Heart, liver, thyroid, hormones, testosterone, metabolism, vitamin levels, environmental toxins.Way more than you'd ever get from a standard checkup.And it's not just a one time snapshot.It Tracks everything over time so you can actually see if your workout, your diet, your supplementation routine, if all that stuff's actually working or not.They give you an actionable health plan based on your results, supplement recommendations, and even prescription options like peptides all through the app, plus an on demand care team.So you're not sitting there googling what your numbers mean at midnight.And for me personally, being into fitness and optimizing performance, this is exactly the kind of data that I want.So make this the year you stop guessing about your health.
With Superpower.For a limited time, our listeners get $20 off to unlock their new health intelligence.Head over to superpower.com and use code Dalton for $20 off your membership.That's code D, A, L, T, O, N. And after you sign up, they'll ask you how you heard about them.If you could do us a favor and tell them Dalton Fisher sent you, it would be a big support to the show.
Thank you.
The guest explains how ISR evolved from human fieldwork to sensor-driven surveillance. She traces the origins of modern military sensing back to Vietnam and McNamara's electronic fence.
Speaker B
So there's a lot of stories about, you know, again, that we know of, about Billy doing stuff like that and taking pictures of people, Carlos the Jackal, stuff like that.But do you think that to take a side step back to the science technology thing is like modern isr, right?We have nro, we have satellites that, you know, as far as I understand, could read a golf ball from space.Like is on the ground surveillance.Do you think it's still done the same way or is it outsourced to our technology?
Speaker A
This is the actual heart of the matter right now.So once upon a time, sensor technology that was humans, ISR was done by humans, people.People like Billy.I mean, when you look at the Vietnam War, and I write about this in my book on darpa, which is called the Pentagon's Brain, and I learned.And so I show readers how sensor technology was born in that era in the early 60s, and it was deployed onto the battlefield in Vietnam.
I mean, here's an anecdote to just underscore what I'm talking about.So gps, we all just take it for granted.It's like, I can't.My Uber driver could not have gotten me here this morning if he didn't have gps.Once upon a time, it didn't exist, of course, but when did it exist?Oh, the Vietnam War.It was the guys in the military working with the intelligence community to say, how do we make our missile strikes more accurate?How do we make our guided weapons guided.There used to be dumb bombs.They call them dumb bombs because you had an individual human lying down in an aircraft looking through what was called a Norton bomb site, you know, pushing a button and notifying someone that, yes, drop the bomb.Now, it would go down and hit the target.That is a dumb bomb.That is a gravity working in a human brain pre calculated to how that's gonna go down.
And then along comes this idea of being able to have a guided weapon.And if you really wanna know the details of that, I tell the story that and all these other components that computers didn't really exist.People are shocked by this.In the Vietnam War, a computer was the size of a house.In the early days, literally there was like three at the Pentagon.There was no such thing as the Internet.It was actually called the arpanet.
And that was created.This is all kind of early days of Vietnam.So you have computers, you have sensors, you have guidance technology.And now you start to see, oh, we can make.This is called offset technology.
We can run things here from this chair.It's where you get the term armchair general and have it be impacting the battlefield.But one of the earliest sort of efforts to make that happen was in the Vietnam War.And it was something called McNamara's fence.It was the electronic fence.
McNamara, the SecDef at the time, Robert McNamara decided, let's create an electronic sensor system in the jungle in Vietnam so we can figure out who is doing what, where.And that is because the reason that America was failing in early Vietnam was because the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese army, were bringing weapons from the north to the south through the neighboring country of Laos.And they were doing it along what would become known as the Ho Chi Minh Trail.It was a footpath.And they were bringing weapons, men, artillery down.
And there was nothing the Defense Department could do to stop it.This is asymmetric warfare.You couldn't see it from overhead aircraft because of a triple canopy jungle.And so McNamara came up with this idea of, let's send guys in like Billy Waugh.That was what Mac V SOG was created for.
Let's send these guys in with these sensors, for example, you know, I mean, we now have micro technology, just sound.I mean, sensors are so tiny you literally cannot even see them.An acid, which was the.It's like the size of a. I mean, it's this high, like a giant dart.Guys like Billy Waugh would be in helicopters and they would throw these acids out of the helicopter to hit the Ho Chi Minh trail.
The dart part would hopefully poke into the ground.It was this giant contraption sitting in the jungle floor trying to be able to gather signals of barefoot NVA soldiers running up and down the trail.I mean, that's just one tiny slice of what this electronic fence did.It was considered a colossal failure, something like $9 billion.But it has led to everything that we have now that is pretty much the origin story of military sensor technology.
And it took off from there.
They discuss how GPS and satellite systems emerged from Cold War competition and the creation of the NRO. The guest connects satellite reconnaissance to the broader arms race and classified space programs.
Speaker B
So correct me if I'm wrong on this, but you mentioned the GPS thing with darpa.Now, the way I understand it is that this, again, existed for a really long time, essentially, and DARPA created it.The government had its hands on it, they were using it for defense purposes.And then one day, I believe it was some country in Europe or some company in Europe also stumbled upon the technology.
And Clinton was president at the time, and I think, and he said, like, no, no, no, like, let's declassify it now and go to market with this.Is that how it happened?
Speaker A
A little bit.I mean, really, at the heart of the matter of that story is the nro, the National Reconnaissance Organization.So that had been a classified organization from its creation in the 60s, early 60s, up until the time you're talking about when Clinton was president.
And that's what he decided to declassify was the nro.And so he had his vice president go and sort of announce that this organization existed.So what does the NRO have to do with gps?Well, GPS technology works on satellite technology.It can't exist without it.
Right now, there are 17,000 satellites overhead flying around, okay, 11,000 of which are Starlink, by the way, civilian satellites.Two thirds of those, or rather three quarters of the 17,000 are us, three quarters of the US satellite.Two thirds of the US satellites are Starlink, civilian owned.So that seems overwhelming, all those numbers I just threw out that I stumbled on.But let's go back in time.
Once upon a time in 1957, not that long ago, there were no satellites.And then in October, the Russians launched Sputnik, the first satellite.And that set off an extraordinary arms race.It also created DARPA because for the first time in the Cold War, the US had been beaten in a very important component of science and technology by the Russians, the evil communists.And people say, well, what's so dangerous about a satellite like Sputnik was like this silver, you know, this ball just rotating, beep, sending signals back to Earth.
Well, if you can launch a satellite, to launch a satellite requires a rocket.If you can launch a satellite, you're very close to be able, being able to launch a nuclear warhead.And that gets missed A lot from the thinking about why satellite technology kicked off the arms race.But that led to the creation of NRO.And I had the great fortune of interviewing two of the original founding members of NRO.
Dr.Bud Whelan, who was the first director of the Directorate of Science and Technology at CIA.Different.This is like.That's the science and technology origin story.
And he was in charge of the U.S. satellite program that first lofted spy satellites into space called corona.And then Dick Garwin, who was the designer of the world's first thermonuclear weapon, that's on the COVID of my nuclear war scenario book.Garwin was the scientist who at the age of 23, 24, was able to make the thermonuclear bomb explode.Everyone thinks about Edward Teller being the father of the hydrogen bomb.He couldn't make it explode.He could only think about it theoretically.It was Garwin who drew that.Drew the architecture that allowed for it to explode.That was classified until about 10 years ago.So in all the books about the origin story of the hydrogen bomb, that's not even there.
And then, you know, the agency decides to declassify Garwin's component of it.And now that story has changed again, like another bit of a digression.But it's interesting how all of these things fit together.That just when you think you'd know the story of something, oops, we didn't tell you about this,
Speaker B
man.That's.Yeah, that's another aspect of it that makes it endlessly fascinating is like the dots never stop connecting.And then when you're.And then you're like, oh shit, like, okay, but NRO is really classified and they have a really big budget.
The conversation shifts to what satellites can and cannot see, especially underground facilities and hidden weapons programs. The guest argues that this uncertainty creates paranoia, which can be dangerous in the field.
Speaker B
So as far as your interest in them or research into nro, like what stands out as most interesting to you?
Speaker A
I mean, their motto is above and beyond, right?Which is just so
Speaker B
quite literally
Speaker A
right.They, I have a feeling that they, they know more than everybody and anybody because first of all, they were classified for 30 years.
No one even knew it existed.Which is kind of brilliant.No one even thought that it, you know, thought to think, wait, who's running all the satellites?Who's in charge of that technology?So imagine what they must own now.
Since then, a couple new agencies have, or organizations rather, have cropped up sort of post war on terror.One of which is nga, the National Geospatial Agency.Now that is an extremely interesting agency.It's like what would have been old school?Mapping.
Mapping again.Who?What, where?Well, where mapping so now you throw sensors into it.Oh, wait, we cannot just map.We can have three dimensional maps.So you can see how these components all start to fit together.So when NGA came along during the early days of the war on terrorists, there's a very.There's an interplay and an interweaving, I think, between NRO and nga, but they also individually have siloed information, which is both good and bad.You know, siloed information can sometimes mean the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
But no, I think NRO is an incredibly.And I've interviewed a number of people that work for nro and they're just really, really, really clear about most of what they cannot discuss.
Speaker B
How do you even defend against something like that?
Speaker A
Defend against.
Speaker B
Like back in the days of, you know, ISR has come a long way.Right.And the way that we used to surveil what different countries were doing has evolved a lot.But to the point of having satellites, I don't even know if they have to be parked directly over them.That's something maybe that you can comment on.But like, how do you even hide what you're doing?
Like if we want to know what North Korea is doing or Russia
Speaker A
is
Speaker B
doing, their military movements, like
Speaker A
what they're
Speaker B
building, like, how do you even defend against that?
And could they
Speaker A
just
Speaker B
be doing the same thing to us?
Speaker A
Okay, so this is great.This is like such an interesting hinge point.
So my first six books are the history of the CIA's paramilitary DARPA, the Nazi science program, Area 51, the CIA psychic program, first biometrics, history.They're all written in the past tense.This happened.My two most recent books, Biological War A Scenario, and before that, Nuclear War Scenario.These are scenario based, they're nonfiction, but I'm writing about what could happen based on Pentagon war gaming.
Okay, so what they really present is which segues to your question, which is what are the biggest threats?What are the existential threats?What is global catastrophic risk?Because that's where we are right now.It's like, in many ways, the past is a much easier place to defend against.
Technology has made things extremely difficult for this reason.Well, you said satellites can see everything.Of course they can.But there's one place satellites cannot see that is underground.
Where are nuclear weapons stored?Underground.
Okay, so you can't know.And that has created.
And now imagine with biological weapons.So you have the same situation where laboratories above ground.But the suggestion is biological weapons work is taking place underground.But you can't know.And this creates another component, a psychological component to ISR that is profoundly important, and it's called paranoia.
And that is the thing that gets people killed in the field.It gets people killed in the field.It gets our guys killed, and it gets our guys killing people that they didn't necessarily need to kill or mean to kill.
They explore the difference between healthy suspicion and destructive paranoia. The guest cites CIA legends whose paranoia ruined them and explains why counterintelligence work can distort judgment.
Speaker A
Paranoia.
Speaker B
You're saying paranoia gets you killed?
Speaker A
Paranoia is, in my mind, so profoundly dangerous, and it's also incredibly real because, you know, paranoia will destroy her.
Speaker B
Don't you have to be a little bit paranoid, though?Like, if you're some.If you're Billy Waugh.Well, that's maybe not
Speaker A
relevant today.You're suspicious.
Speaker B
Okay,
Speaker A
Suspicious suggests.And this is like.This is like the interesting philosophical part of the conversation, right?Like, what is the difference to you of being suspicious and being paranoid?
Speaker B
I mean, without having thought about this, it feels like a feeling in certain actions that you take could be categorized as being maybe over the top.Maybe.But what if you're right?I guess so.It's like, how much do we let it.And do you want to talk about this?How much do you let it seep in?But I don't know, you're only paranoid until you're right.
Speaker A
Right.But, you know, there are famous stories about CIA legends becoming paranoid and losing it.
Right.And now what is it?Well, if you're in charge of a program or a country, the entire program in a country, and you become paranoid, imagine how dark things can become.
Speaker B
How could you?Like, okay, now I'm just.Now I'm playing it out in my head.Like, if you are, like a part of that spook world and you're living behind the curtain, isn't it only normal for at some point someone to have paranoid type thoughts?Like if you work for the agency and you're doing all this shit for them overseas, like how you know.You know what I mean?Like,
Speaker A
I mean, look, I agree with you.This is where it's about, like, personality.And can you predict that in advance?Like, Billy Waugh, to my eye, did not have an ounce of paranoia in him, but he was.I don't even think you can call it suspicious.He was aware of everything.I mean, I can give you 10 examples in a minute.But I'm also gonna say for anyone who's interested in this and wants to do more of a deep dive on it, there's two people that I write about in Surprise, Kill, Vanish, CIA legends who became paranoid.Okay?So Frank Wisner, he was sort of very important OSS officer Incredibly effective.
He became a major component of early CIA surprise, kill, vanish type missions.And he went paranoid.The CIA knew he was paranoid.They retired him.He ended up putting a shotgun in his mouth and killing himself.
Frank Wisner, Very interesting.In surprise, kill, Vanish, then there's the story of James Jesus Angleton, another legendary OSS officer.I mean, he had such incredibly.He was so impactful in fighting Nazis.Then he becomes a very key player in Cold War CIA.
And, you know, there are different stories about him, but sort of an anecdotal story is that he became paranoid and couldn't differentiate between who had which.When a Soviet defected to the United States, he had trouble discerning whether or not they were truly a defector or whether they were a double agent for Russia.And there is a story of him locking someone up somewhere.There's varying stories about whether it was at the CIA or at a safe house outside where he allegedly maybe even tortured somebody, this person, to try to get.And it's still not known, or rather it's not declassified, what that true outcome is.
But it's a cautionary tale of, okay, if you're going to play with fire, are you going to eventually get burned?
Speaker B
He was head of Counterintelligence, right?
Speaker A
He was head of a lot of things.He also ran Israel, right?So in that incredibly important time when Israel got the bomb.
So this is, you know, these stories weave and interweave.And
Speaker B
I just ask because it's like, you know, counterintelligence, he's trying to find spies within CIA.So you're.He's a little bit getting paid to be paranoid.Maybe there's a different word.Or like, maybe there's.They establish some sort of balance, which I'm sure they do in training.And, you know, but it's.It's fascinating.That's like.That's a rabbit hole.
The discussion returns to how the U.S. hides programs from Russian and Chinese satellites. The guest uses Area 51 and stealth aircraft as examples of deception, spoofing, and counter-surveillance.
Speaker B
Okay, but back to defending against, like, if I were the Russians or the Chinese, like, sure, there's some things that you can build and do underground.There's plenty of things that you can hide.But there's also things that you can't.Like big military exercises, mobilizations.Like, I would park one right over Delta's compound or like, right over Ford, like, you know what I mean?Like, do you think that these guys, or even CIA, Right.Do you think that these guys are aware of, like, an eye in the sky at all times and they
Speaker A
are
Speaker B
acting as if.
Speaker A
You mean when you say they, like China, Russia, Iran.
Speaker B
No U.S. meaning, like scenario.
Speaker A
Absolutely.I mean, I'll just Tell you a vignette like.And this goes back to Area 51.So we had these spy planes on the tarmac at Area 51.It was the CIA's overhead espionage base.And we were, we, Lockheed Skunk Works had built the U2 spy plane.And was this, I'm talking about now, like in the early 60s, late 50s, early 60s, was transitioning to build this plane called the A12 Oxcart.And it's this very famous CIA plane of which there were only a dozen.There's a variant of it that the Air Force flew called the SR71 Blackbird.So if you watch any of the X Men movies, that's their airplane, the comic book, right?So that's a two seater.CIA's was a one seater.
They only declassified this program in like 2009.It's the central sort of tail in Area 51.So it's built in Burbank at Skunk Works.It's trucked out to Area 51 disguised as like, you know, those mobile homes that are wide loads.So they're really big.
I have a picture of it in the Area 51.
Speaker B
It's a huge plane, right?
Speaker A
Huge.I mean, but the wings were really incredible and very uniquely shaped.So it's boxed up, it's shipped out to Area 51, and now it's going to be test flown out there.
My Area 51 book is really, I interviewed the pilots who were flying this plane.It's incredible.I mean, there was no manual, right?They're just like, how does this thing work?It flew at 90,000ft in the sky at this incredible mach.
It was invisible to radar.That is the origin story of stealth technology.So clearly we did not want the Russians to know about it.And they had satellites going over Area 51.And so.And they would.The satellites were such at the time that they didn't have imagery the way we have it now.So it was a lot of heat signature to create a shape of something.So the guys would go out onto the tarmac at Area 51 and heat up the tarmac in these crazy shapes sometimes to look like UFOs.And then when, because we had.They had the schedule, the actual schedule of when, you know, every 92 minutes the Soviet satellite was gonna fly overhead and take pictures.So they were kind of.That's like, you know, that's like a form of a deception campaign against the Russians.But if that was going on in 1960, some things don't change.
You can imagine that kind of spoofing that goes on today.
And of course we're aware of the imagery that foreign countries have.We have to be.That's why we send spies.Not on surprise kill vanish missions only, but ISR missions.
Speaker B
Well, that's what I'm asking is like, that's what's fascinating is what the game looks like today because you're still playing the same cat and mouse game, but the technology is a lot different.
So it's like, are they projecting things up at satellites or.I don't know, like I'm just, it's just crazy to think about.
Speaker A
I mean, they're, you know, and all of that is very classified.And that's nro, by the way.That is what NRO does and has eyes on.
And they're working on different technologies to understand what the enemies and adversaries have and what they're capable of.
The guest argues that human intelligence remains essential because it reveals intent, especially for hidden biological or nuclear programs. She explains why underground facilities are so difficult to monitor and why that matters for global security.
Speaker A
And that's like a, it's a system of systems.You do it through technology.But, you know, if you talk to people who work in human intelligence at the CIA, in human.Like for example, in biological war, I interview the head of counter proliferation, the former head of the counter proliferation.So he's looking, he's trying to find out about wmd, right?He's trying to find out who might be making biological weapons, who might be making nuclear weapons and what kind.And he'll tell you that all the technology in the world, SIGINT imaging, signals, intelligent imagery, intelligent mazint, which is measurements, intelligence, like sniffing, like trying to find out chemical components.We have sensors in placed around the world to do this for us.And we look from the sky.
But human officers at CIA will tell you that there's nothing more valuable than an actual source, than an actual human because they can tell you about intent.
Intent.And if you're going back to your question about like, you know, offense, defense, if you don't know what someone's intent is, then what they're working on can look very different.Look, biological war would be the leading example of this.If you say you're making vaccines, you can be disguising a biological weapons program or you can be making vaccines.That is why you need to know about intent.
And that is its own incredibly difficult task.
Speaker B
So, and you've, I mean, you've interviewed a lot of people in this world, like probably at almost all these agencies that we're talking about.You've interviewed a shit ton of people.It's how you write your books.What, just generally speaking, when you talk to these people and you ask questions because you're curious, has There been something that stands out that maybe is like most classified, or when you brush up against it, people kind of like squirm and they're like, we're not going there.
Speaker A
I mean, I can't think of anything like, right off the top of my head because maybe just be one more degree of specific, like in a certain.Because everything, you know, I have interviewed, let's just say a hundred people for each book.And I've written eight books.And each one of these individuals, or almost each one of these individuals, you could literally write a whole book about.
Speaker B
Okay, so for example, you said there's 17 intelligence agencies that we know of.You just got done telling us that NRO for 30 years was classified.And presumably there's organizations.Not.Presumably there are a thousand percent there's organizations that are still classified that we don't know about.And we're sitting here talking about stuff, but there's obviously people that we don't know about yet.
So I don't know again.And you cover a lot of really compartmented things.
Speaker A
Yes.
Speaker B
Whether it be nuclear war or biological war or whatever the next threat is.I'm just curious if there were something where people are like, oh, that's the one thing I just won't even comment on to a journalist.
Speaker A
I don't think anyone would say that to me because they know that would be probably exactly what I would not stop talking about.But also, I also find it interesting, and I've said this before of like, certain people, you know, let's just say in the UFO world, like, they're always saying, I can't comment on that because that is classified.I mean, I'm sorry, but that is one of the most mediocre statements I think that can ever be made publicly.Because anyone who really.
Is where they are and has the knowledge base of what they have, they would just not.They just don't say that.They just don't say that.That's like drawing attention to, you know, the place that you're not supposed to go.I mean, I've interviewed presidential advisors regularly and they just simply move the conversation in a different direction.
So for me, if someone starts barking about how they.Well, I can't tell you that because that's classified.I just immediately put them in a different category of perhaps access and knowledge.That's just me.Because there are things that anyone that has a TSSCI clearance like that, they just have access to things that they're just simply extremely aware they cannot talk about.Now, with that said, an area that comes to mind for me that I am very interested in.Again, because of pattern analysis.I figure out, like, what don't I know about what areas where I'm having conversations with people where suddenly the pivot happens?Okay, that would be, what are we doing about what's going on underground?That is a natural, obvious question.
If you're me and you have studied this for 20 years and you have, with all the books, come to the conclusion, wow, like nuclear war and biological war, which doesn't have to be war, it can also be an accident.That's why biological war is so profoundly dangerous and sits not just right behind nuclear weapons and the Defense Department's threat spectrum as the most dangerous.But biological is considered the greatest overall threat because it's most likely to happen.Or rather more likely to happen than nuclear, because of the command and control around nuclear.Bio has a very low threshold for entry.And you can have accidents.Think about it.If you had a nuclear accident, Chernobyl, like the whole world in today's world, would perhaps ideally come together to help.It would be an accident.It would be obviously an accident.
But with biological weapons, because biological weapons are illegal and no one's supposed to have them.Even though nations do have them, no one will admit that they have them.So if there is an accident, which includes a lab leak, the COVID up begins, the disguise begins, and everyone dies anyways.So that is what is called a wicked problem.A problem that trying to solve only reveals even more problems.
And a problem that if you actively put a solution on it, like dropping a nuclear weapon on a biological weapons facility preemptively, which, by the way, has existed as a presidential emergency action directive in the past thanks to leaked information, and therefore, I would assume exists today.So imagine the problem, the wicked problem.You put a nuclear weapon, because conventional bombs won't kill the germs, they'll send them out with the blast wave.You put a nuclear weapon on a suspected biological weapons facility to kill all the germs with that incredible heat.Now you're opening yourself up to nuclear war, because as I told you, I learned in nuclear war, no matter how nuclear war begins, it only ends in total annihilation.
And so my thinking and reporting for 20 years on these worlds is that perhaps nothing is more important than knowing somehow learning how to know what goes on underground.And that is where I would imagine a lot of frontier technology is going at the present moment.
They discuss how Delta and other teams may be used to enter underground sites when technology cannot see inside. The guest explains how she pieces together scattered clues to infer what is happening below ground.
Speaker B
So when you ask those questions, like I would imagine, my first reaction to it is a human intelligence is probably king again.Because intent is relevant, obviously, but it's extremely relevant in this scenario where you can't even see what's going on to begin with.And B, I would have to imagine there is.There's technology that maps that and like, you know, maybe the really classified
Speaker A
underground.
Speaker B
Yeah,
Speaker A
well, there's technology that maps.Oh, there's the door.Oh, there's the entrance
Speaker B
that we know about and that you
Speaker A
could talk about.Definitely know about that.I can source that stuff in declassified.And you can see it, too.Declassified photographs, satellite photographs that I used to have to go to the National Archives through a very long process to look at.
And you can now see online.And you can see doors in the floor, you can see doors in the side of a mountain, but you can't see beyond that.
Speaker B
So.But what I'm getting at is, like, the game.And we could talk about classifications, too, because sometimes they can be viewed as, like, arbitrary.And there's not.Everything that's classified is.I think it's just.It could be damaging to national security.But there's different things.
Things that are classified for different reasons.So let's just game this out, right?Let's say that the.Let's say NRO's got some technology that can lay somewhere and see deep underground, or like, map underground.Maybe it's to a certain depth below ground.
And that number, whatever that number is, that's like the big classified number.You know what I mean?Or like, it starts at a certain depth, so.Meaning our adversary, if they just put it below that threshold, then they would still be out of prying eyes.You understand what I'm saying?
Speaker A
Yes, but I mean.Yes.And so that's where, like, for example, I'll tell you something about.About Delta.So Los Alamos has a tier.You could call it a tier one component or like a paramilitary component that goes after nuclear weapons, suspected nuclear weapons facilities.In my book, Dr. Glenn McDuff was actually the.This is a nuclear war scenario.You know, I write about him for a lot, in a lot of ways.But what I don't get into in there is that he also led the team that went after nukes.Cause you have to have, like, a really smart scientist with you.So this is like.And I've, you know, there are situations, too, where, like, ground branch halos in the scientist.It's a really interesting visual
Speaker B
strapped to the front of
Speaker A
him.Yes, they need him.And so that was Dr. McDuff again.That's one of those.Like, he doesn't say, oh, I can't talk about that, Annie.It's classified.Because he just simply changes the subject.You know, we're eating at the Subway.We were.I was in Los Alamos with him, and we're eating lunch at the Subway sandwich shop.You know, and, you know, suddenly it's like, oh, look at that guy.I know him.You know, it's like that.It's like that kind of a pivot.But what he did do is there was a.
That's.You have to have the.They generally use Delta.So they would sheep dip over Delta guys.And then there's a lot of, like, you know, we break down doors and we go into places, and that's all you hear.
And those are.That's underground.Then if you are the journalist, like me, you can source other documents, stories that other journalists have reported of Delta guys you know, working underground on missions.And then I am able to put them together.Aha.That's exactly the kind of activity that is required to go into a underground facility and find something.Now, then you can ask yourself, this is like the reporter's mind, well, what are the Delta guys wearing?Okay.Because you're gonna have a different kind of night vision to need to be able to see in a tunnel where there's water in the ground, which is a lot of missions in the war theater.You're not going to have water in a nuclear weapons facility.
Okay.So once you start coming upon that kind of a reportage.Are you following?So this is like the pattern recognitions.This is the puzzling.
That's my job, to piece all that together.And the conclusion is that.That.And I.And I could be wrong.I hope I'm wrong.Because I would love to believe that we actually have eyes on what's happening in these underground facilities.But I don't think.I don't.I don't think we do.
It's extremely difficult, short of busting in with Delta and finding something.So does that make sense?
Speaker B
100%.
The conversation turns to Iran, Qassem Soleimani, and the dangers of operating there. The guest reflects on covert action, precision strikes, and the moral discomfort surrounding deniable killings.
Speaker B
Yeah.I'm gonna have some questions because that's very interesting.
Speaker A
It is interesting.But you see, I'm always interested in, like, what don't we know?
Speaker B
Yeah,
Speaker A
because that's the problem.Now then, you also get to open that lens up to what don't we know about who?
So, China, Serious puzzle.Iran, Serious puzzle.Now, here's an interesting anecdote.Billy Waugh was on the Iran desk.Do you know how many stories he told me about Iran?
Speaker B
Either a lot or none.
Speaker A
Zero.
Zero.
But I will tell you this.Here's another anecdote.
There was an individual that called me up the day Qassem Soleimani was killed by Trump in the Trump 1 administration.And, you know, sometimes I'm.Sometimes I write television.And I was actually in a writer's room in Hollywood.And I just.I remember this so clearly because I get this, like, kind of like an emergency text.There's, like, a certain way to break through my phone that certain people have, right?And I, you know, was like, if you'll excuse me, and got up and left to read this text, and it said, I'm being sent to Iran.I'm probably going to die.I have sent you a letter to give to my wife.
I had never met his wife.I mean, I was floored.
And.
About six months later, he called me to see if we wanted to do another interview.And I never mentioned that, and neither did he.
Speaker B
You weren't curious?You didn't ask about it?
Speaker A
That if you notice, I'm not saying the person's name because.
I probably am guessing that they most certainly should not have texted me that.And I felt for that individual.So I'm a wife and I'm a mother.So I am a human, right?I mean, obviously, but I am.
There are very rare moments where the human component.
When I'm reporting, I usually have my reporter's hat on.And there are certain guidelines and rules, and everyone knows that that's the professional world.One wants to be professional.That has to do with trust and my authority.I'm an author, and I have a certain authority.
And they're guidelines, and I honor them, and they are honored.And I mean that sincerely.In everyone's profession, you should do that.That's like a basic standard.Then there's your personal life, which for me is very separate.But that individual, I believe, was reaching out to me just 100% as a human.Like, they really thought they were going to die, and they wanted their wife to have this letter.And I put that letter in the fireplace, by the way, after the person came home.
Speaker B
That's an incredible antidote.Obviously, I don't want you to say their name, but can you say, generally speaking, what their role in the government was?
Speaker A
They were a helicopter pilot,
Speaker B
military or other.
Speaker A
That I'm not gonna say so, but where did that anecdote come from?What made me think of that?Oh, it just had to do with.Oh, well, we were talking about places that are impossible to operate.
That are impossible to operate.Iran and China and sometimes Saudi people will disagree with me.I'm sure there's, like, 10 people watching this that have been operating in Iran or China, you know, but let me rephrase.That is it takes.I mean, there's courage and then there's, you know, courage where you're willing to face existential risk every second.
And that's obviously what that individual was doing when the day after Qasem Soleimani was killed.And for whatever reason, they were going to.And maybe he never went, you know, maybe he never went, but I still think about that.
Speaker B
That's really interesting because I'm just like, Soleimani.And do you have any, like.Do you remember as far as the munition?It was a very interesting missile that was used.Do you know what I'm referring to?
Speaker A
I'm not up to speed entirely on that.On that mission.I just think it was really interesting.I remember when it happened, that thinking, wow, that's like a surprise kill, vanish mission.Like page one, meaning if you're the.Any president before that individual president would not have spoken about it.The guy would have just been dead.
That's how usually it works.It's called.Listen, Covert action is called the president's hidden hand for a reason.And so President Trump made a decision, or maybe it wasn't a decision.Maybe he just.
I don't know.But President Trump took a different action than almost everyone before him to make that announcement.And that's what I was really focused on, less so than the weaponry involved.
Speaker B
I was just curious because it was a.It was a missile that didn't have any explosive charge in it, and it was essentially like.It just had knives, for lack of a better term,
Speaker A
that came out of it,
Speaker B
essentially.So you can be really precise with it.And, for example, kill the driver of a car without harming the passenger.And it's fascinating.
Speaker A
And my feeling on that sometimes is sometimes the agency or whatever organization is involved wants the public to know something.It's, you know, it speaks volumes beyond.And now I'm remembering there were, like, diagrams of that.It was called, like, the Ginsu knife weapon.
And, you know, that is probably a little bit of subliminal messaging to other people.Like, we're gonna come get you, too.I mean, you know, at the end of the day, if you're dead, you're dead.So I'm not sure why it would be more threatening to be killed by the Ginsu knife missile than a regular missile if your car explodes, but.
Speaker B
Well, you're right, it adds to the mystique and it adds to, you know, we have pretty long tentacles and we can touch you wherever you are.And we have shit that you know like, because again, I've had.Fuck a couple people in here talk about this.This is just an example.Like the Delta guys that have come in here doing vehicle interdictions, they know what our left and right limits, so they'll take their children and keep them on their lap.
Speaker A
Yeah,
Speaker B
I guess maybe there.The point would be, like, if you're in a car with your kid, it doesn't fucking matter because we could just get you anyway and your kid will be fine.
Speaker A
Yeah,
Speaker B
and that's pretty scary.And it should be, right?
Speaker A
Yeah.I mean, look, the war on terror was its own animal.And it's, you know, it comes into play in many of my books.And it's also a place where a lot of these weapon systems, essentially the war theater, becomes a giant test range, for better or for worse.And that certainly has to do with surveillance and sensor technology and data collection.
And that all is where we are now is really pretty remarkable.And how quickly things are accelerating, specifically with science and technology in society, it's just a remarkable.It's a remarkable thing.And so I think that's why it's very interesting to me on the trajectory of my own work is this idea about global catastrophic risk, this idea of weapons of mass destruction that no matter how dark they may seem to some people, they're incredibly important because they will if used.Everybody dies.
This is not a war on terror situation where wars are fought by Americans thousands of miles away and we do not feel the suffering with weapons of mass destruction.It's end game for everyone.And so therefore, in a sort of almost perversely paradoxical way, it offers a little bit of hope because it's everybody's problem.
The guest describes how the war on terror became a proving ground for surveillance and weapons systems. The discussion then moves to North Korea's underground tunnel networks and the challenges of detecting them.
Speaker B
What's up, guys?When I started this podcast, everything was overwhelming.There was no roadmap, there was nobody showing me how to do it.I had to learn everything myself.Cameras, audio, lighting, editing, guest booking, social media, YouTube, the whole thing.
And so every day was a new problem that I just didn't know how to solve yet.So if something existed back then that had any of that stuff pre built for me, I would have jumped on it immediately.You know, any shortcut, any win, no hesitation.And that's exactly what Shopify is for anyone building a business, everything pre built, everything in one place.Shopify powers millions of businesses and 10% of all E commerce in the US they give you hundreds of store templates, so you're not starting from zero.
AI tools that write your product descriptions and Headlines for you, built in email and social campaigns to find your customers and expert support available 24.7 for whenever you get stuck.No figuring it out alone.No reinventing the wheel.So head over to shopify.comdalton to sign up for a $1 per month trial.
That's shopify.com d a l T O N to give it a shot for $1 per month.
You know what?I didn't think of it that way.And I know a lot of people, when they interview you, they, you know, they ask for or they don't ask for, but they comment on the fact that it's a lot of doom and gloom is the wrong word.But it's like, hey, Andy, give us some hope.And I appreciate that.And take a step back.When you were telling the story about Los Alamos sheep dipping the Delta guys to go do underground stuff, you were talking about these locations overseas, correct?
Speaker A
Yeah,
Speaker B
theoretically.
Speaker A
Yeah.
Well, I mean, they also do a lot of training.So sometimes it's interesting when I'm talking to a source, like, they might say, oh, no, no, that's a training mission.
But if we.Okay, so the real problem is North Korea.Like, oh, my God, I forgot to like, China, Iran, North Korea.Nothing, nowhere is harder to operate in than North Korea.And North Korea has so many underground facilities, including, like an entire system of systems of tunnels, some of which have marble floors.Okay?And we know this from defectors.And this is because the current dictator's grandfather was obsessed with the fact that he was going to be nuked and borrowed tunnel technology, engineering, both scientists and tools from the Soviet Union to begin building what is now this entire system of underground tunnels beneath much of certainly everywhere, where the dictator Kim Jong Un has a house.And the greatest anecdote of all came to me from someone who studies North Korea for the intelligence community, probably better than anyone.And he said that KJ Yoo keeps with him a boring machine underground.
Okay,
Speaker B
like tunnel boring,
Speaker A
tunnel boring.And the reason is because we, the agency, the intelligence community, the military, the US Military, knows about the entrances, theoretically, to these underground facilities.We can see a lot of them from space.
But what about the exits?Well, we also.Entrance, exit, same thing, right?The reason he has the boring machine with him is so that he can create an exit so he can certify that he's not gonna be, you know, if you drop a bomb on an entrance that's no longer an entrance, that's just called a big pile of rubble you can't get out of.
Speaker B
Right.
Speaker A
And now you're trapped so he has the boring machine so he can get out.It's such a great.It says everything.You don't need all the details of the.I mean, the marble floors are interesting too, but so what?So how do we find that stuff out?We find it out from defectors.That's why North Korea is like, they will just murder anyone who is trying to defect.
And we probably have gotten officers in, their intelligence officers, but man, is that a dangerous, dangerous job.So
Speaker B
it's a black box for sure.
Speaker A
Isr.What is happening, where is it happening and who's doing it?
Speaker B
And there's the.What is the acronym?Million of them Dumb Deep Underground Military Base.
Speaker A
Yep.I mean, there are there.Yes.
Speaker B
Have you been to any of those?
Speaker A
To an underground facility?
No, but when I was out.So Area 51 sits right outside the Nevada Test Site, which has been renamed.I'm not going to even try to say it.I just call it the Nevada Test Site.That's what it was for like 50, 60 years, 65 years.
They examine underground facilities at the Nevada Test Site and the historical roots of American bunker-building. The guest connects this to Nazi engineers brought over through Operation Paperclip and the origins of Raven Rock.
Speaker A
The Nevada Test Site is divided into, you know, all these other areas.Area 1, Area 13, Area 23.You can look at them on a map.And there are underground facilities there for sure.There's lots of conspiracies that have developed over what's going on under them.
There's one in Area one that I know about.I went on a tour of the Nevada Test site with two of my sources from the Area 51 book who could say, like, that's Area 51.And they could kind of like point over the mountain to the trees.But mostly we were looking at the Sudan crater, which is the, this giant crater from a nuclear bomb that was, you know, out at the Nevada Test Site.We set off more than 100 nuclear bombs.Most people just like are stunned when they first learned that.You can see a lot of the craters out there.It's very interesting.
But under Area 1, I know for a fact that there is an underground facility.You have to take an elevator 1,000ft down because I saw the entrance to it.It's very interesting.And that's not, it's not like, you know, it's not like a big sign up about that, but it is, but it's not classified.You know, it's just one of those details that's really interesting because you gotta wonder what.
You know.So what we technically do out there is very, very like sort of low yield nuclear tests that are still allowed within the context of the treaties, proof of concept tests.So that's allegedly what's happening out there.But if you have a base, you have a science facility that's a thousand feet underground.I mean, the mind can, you know, that's in the TV writing realm.
Speaker B
Yeah.
Speaker A
Okay, so, you know, I'm interested in origin stories.So why the origin of America's national security interest in underground bunkers.Direct tie not just to the Nazis, but to a Nazi who America hired to come here.And his name is George Rike.
So R I C K H E Y. Weird German pronunciation, Rike, but.So he ran the slave labor facility at Nordhausen, which is where.Von Braun, Wernher von Braun, the future American alleged science hero, rocket program director responsible for the Apollo program, getting men to the moon.A Nazi.And General Doernberger, who also came to the United States under Paperclip, also a hardened Nazi.
These guys were building the V2 rocket underground at the end of the war because the Allies were bombing the old facility, Peenemunde, because they could see it from the air.Not from satellites, they didn't exist yet, but from the air reconnaissance flights.So they move underground.They need a tunnel.They need slaves to build the tunnel.Rike is responsible for getting the slaves from Buchenwald, okay, concentration camp prisoners, and working them to death in the tunnels.Horrific reality.There are documents I have seen at the National Archives where Ricket von Braun and Doernberger, all three people who would sit in the United States after the war lauded as heroes, discuss needing more slaves from Buchenwald and figuring out how, which slaves, which concentration camp prisoners were better until they worked them to death and they all decided the French were.So, as we discussed earlier, nuclear is the new threat.
After World War II, the Soviets are the new threat.So we have the Nazi scientists and the first underground bunker to protect the President against nuclear attack gets built Raven rock outside of D.C. and who does the Defense Department hire to build it?George Racay, the engineer.It turns out if you read his resume, his Operation Paperclip resume, they conveniently leave out the part about the killing, the slaves, the slave laborers, working them to death.And they mention that he built something like some crazy number of miles, it might even be a million miles of tunnels under Berlin.He built Hitler's bunker under Berlin.
When I say built it, he was the engineer in charge of it all.So he was in charge of building Raven Rock.And he began the plans.And this is all declassified National Archives material.And then word comes down that he's wanted for war crimes and he has to.So they eject him from Paperclip Very quietly, don't tell anyone.And he goes back to Germany and he's convicted of war crimes.And his friends von Braun and Doernberger just kind of hold their breath and don't say anything, and then continue on with their glorious careers.When I wrote Operation Paperclip, a lot of people were unhappy with me at NASA for sure, because those individuals were still seen as heroes.And it's remarkable.
I mean, listen, I've interviewed Apollo astronauts who cannot wrap their head around the fact that von Braun was a Nazi.But this was an unpopular notion in 2013 when the book published, and I got a lot of pushback from it.And interestingly, since then, that has changed.And there have been some changes to NASA's website about the histories of some of these individuals
The guest explains how she interacts with CIA sources and why she stays apolitical in public. She describes how she handles interviews, source trust, and the difference between journalism and clearance-based secrecy.
Speaker B
as it relates to pushback.People maybe not being happy with certain things, being happy with other things.We mentioned before, or you mentioned before when you were talking about that munition, that it was put out there, as if maybe they want people to know things sometimes.So overall, outside of.And maybe let's say with CIA specifically, aside from all the retired people that you've spoken with, like active agency, what has been your interaction with them as it pertains to your reporting across all your books?
Speaker A
You mean in general, the CIA?
Speaker B
Yeah,
Speaker A
I mean, it's.First of all, it's.Person by person, I would say.But, you know, as I mentioned earlier, I write tv and I was working on this excellent espionage television program for Paramount by my two friends and colleagues, Brit and Zahl.They created the oa, and I was working in the early days of developing the scripts for the show with them.And we were going location scouting.This is just.I don't know, less than a year ago, we were going location scouting in D.C. and I thought it would be fun if we all went to the CIA.
And, you know, that happened.So we went to the museum where visiting dignitaries get to go.You know, it's a very limited, but it was wonderful for the team because we got to.They got to see some of the mystique about that agency demystified.And the museum is very interesting.And the museum has a lot of.I'd been to the museum before in 2011 when I went with the guys that I wrote about in Area 51.And a lot has changed in the museum.And interestingly, there are a lot of exhibits that were very similar to some of the things I'd written about.So that's that kind of when something becomes OSINT concept that I find very interesting.
About an alert and knowledgeable citizenry.So I think that as I have been on this subject for 20 years and this is sort of answering your question in a roundabout manner, I suppose having been on this subject for a very long time, the subject of national security, one of the positive aspects of it is I now find that many people understand perhaps what it is that my intent is in writing my books, which is to help the public understand how the national security apparatus works and to let readers ask their own questions about that and also draw their own conclusions about what they think is right or wrong, moral or immoral or amoral, overreach or not.And so that, I suppose, has left me with what I would call solid relationships with a lot of people.
Speaker B
And by the way, I just wanna say I think you.I have to make a point of this because I think that that's one of the really, really great things about your work is that you do stay apolitical.
Because not just like.Not just for journalistic integrity purposes, like that's what a journalist should be, but outside of that.There was a time where, like, politics didn't need to drip into everything.You could speak about information like you didn't know what your friends politics were or your coworkers politics were and it didn't matter and whatever.That's a separate thing.But I guess back to the reason that I asked kind of a parallel question is like, you write about them a lot.Do you have to get things cleared by them?Do you have to run things by them?How does that work?
Speaker A
Definitely don't get anything cleared by anybody because I'm a journalist with the freedom of speech.But I wanna make one anecdotal comment about being apolitical.I was just in Missouri.I've been on this book tour for biological war.And so I'm in Missouri, which is just like a perfect sort of representation of America to my eye.There's 350 people in this auditorium at a library, another perfect representation of America in my world.Like, people should go to the library.And all of my audiences have.Seem to have old and young, right and left, in other words, all kinds of people.And what's really interesting is I get a lot of questions, particularly on bio, and this is foremost.So, like, for example, someone will be incredibly against because bio deals with hhs, the Department of Health and Human Services, because that's who's in charge with the military in the event of a bio attack.
So RFK is the junior, is the current head.So one person will say that obviously is against that individual and pro vaccine.And they'll ask me a bunch of.They'll ask me a very heated question and then somebody else will ask me a really heated question.And obviously that person is a vaccine skeptic.
Okay.And so in very much a way that we were talking about where you can, like I'm trained as a journalist, you.There's one thing which is you answer the question you want, not the question you're asked, which is something that you can kind of learn from, you know, people in the agency as well.But there's a, we're smiling about that because there's a certain authority that comes with that because you're basically saying, I'm not going to go there, I'm not going to get dragged into that discussion.So anyways, there I am in Missouri and I've sort of handled that by not creating a polemic.And I've handled that by not creating a polemic.And then comes the third question later on down the road, which is, you write about these dystopian end of the world scenarios.How do you sleep at night?It must be.
And I said, look, anyone who knows me personally knows I am an incredibly optimistic person.
I just am.I really enjoy life.I have a very even keel family and personal life.And then I said, maybe, because I've never had a political argument.At which point there was wild laughter and applause from the audience because maybe that's true, you know, that your life is better.
Just maybe.I understand that there are people, there are journalists whose life depends on having a really extreme position about politics.God bless them.That's not me, but I have, it makes one, it makes my life a lot simpler.I deal with really dark subjects, but I'm not fighting about politics.
Speaker B
Yeah, I think it's great.I mean, you know, people don't know what your politics are.I don't think my viewers know what mine are.There, of course, are red lines when it comes to certain things.Like I told you, I've had people in here on child trafficking and stuff like that, but I don't need to weigh in on everything, nor do I want to.I want to have an informational based conversation so you don't have to get anything cleared by CIA ever.
Speaker A
So the only clearance obligation you have is if you signed a document because you have a clearance.So that includes everyone in the military and the intelligence community.And they have to know what it is that they know what it is that they're released from upon retirement.
They discuss what journalists can and cannot know, and how the guest verifies sensitive material. She explains her practice of reading quotes back to sources and how rare exceptions are handled.
Speaker A
So if you're A civilian.I have no.I mean, you don't have to ask anyone permission to talk.So I'm the same.And that's interesting that many people think that journal.There's two interesting myths.
One, that a journalist somehow has a clearance that's just not accurate.And two, that.
That I get classified information that is simply not true.I do not get classified information.In fact, one of the things I say to sources when I'm working with them on the record, on the tape recorder is of course I am not looking for classified information.And that's just a legal parameter that's very important because I need to be able.If the department of justice shows up at my door and says, who told you that?
I need to be able to say, you know,
Speaker B
no, it makes sense.And I do the same thing in here.The onus is on the individual in your chair to tell me what they can and can't.And like I said, I've had to cut things out that are.And again, classification things that are like, it's not the big.It's not always the big dark thing that's classified.They're just some things like, for example, before, like how deep underground numbers, shit like that.But I just wonder because sometimes people slip up and how would you know?Maybe they don't remember.You talk to a lot of people that have vast experiences, things like that.But honestly, the reason that I think about it is I had a fascinating conversation with Kiriakou about this CIA.I'm sure they're aware of what's being said about them and you cover them a lot and you have a big voice now.
You've.You've gotten a lot of reach and well deserved.But, you know, I'm sure they've seen this podcast before, maybe on a repeated basis, and so they're aware of it.And you know, Sean Ryan, we were talking about.This is what I talked to John about.Sean feels like he's had people come into his studio that drop in certain nuggets that maybe certain people in the intelligence community, like, they would like for that to be out there, whether it's true or not.Right.It's not necessarily false, but it could further a narrative that they want.Does that make sense?
Speaker A
I think so.Of course, you have to always look at that.That's what I was.
We spoke of that earlier when I was saying, well, I don't really report on something until I'm really confident that this is my position on this.And again, it's just my position and my POV Based on.And that's why every one of my books has, you know, 100 pages of notes in the back.So that anyone reading that says, like, wait a minute, where did she get this information?They can go now.
Interesting story.There's only one time that I ever had a prearranged situation with a journalist.I'll tell you this.So it was with Lou Merletti, who was the director of the Secret Service, which means you are extremely close to the President, like as close as you can get.And I'm talking physically, literally.Okay.And responsible for the President's life.And before that he was the special Agent in charge.I mean, he has a long history of being with the Secret Service.Incredible person.
Just incredible talk.I mean, talk about.Could have his own book.But Lou said to me, and he was very, very good friends with Billy Waugh.They were kind of like offense and defense.
Right?
Speaker B
That's pretty cool.
Speaker A
And they were.Billy was in Vietnam in Mac V sog, and Lou was a young Green Beret.And everybody knew about Billy Wall.
Everybody knew about Billy Wall.And so they had just this, you know, this really incredible relationship over all these decades.And they really respected one another.And I was with both of them together a bunch of times.And it was, it was incredibly interesting.
But Lou said, yes, you can interview me, but I have to be able to read and every single quote.So as long as that is okay, then we can be interview.And that is because not only did he have a secret clearance, but he has what the layman's term would be a non disclosure agreement with the President.And that's the loose term there.But
Speaker B
a secrecy agreement kind of,
Speaker A
well, you have to use.I mean, that is incredibly important.You can't just start talking about the President's dirty laundry and you shouldn't.And even though it seems really, this seems like tantalizing, it has to do with national security.
I mean, if the President is assassinated, that is a national security hole.I mean, we could do an entire podcast on that.So I agreed to this, of course, with Lou.And then Lou, I won.The pages were set, so it was like ready to go.
Then I allowed Lou to read them to make sure that he hadn't in error, said a tiny detail that would have revealed something and nothing changed, which was great.But that was there for that reason and that was exceptional.
The guest recounts a frustrating experience trying to contact DARPA public affairs and later being invited to speak with DARPA scientists. She contrasts bureaucratic defensiveness with the openness of technical experts.
Speaker A
Now when I am working with sources, CIA's weapons of mass destruction that have taken down terrorist Jim Lawlor, took down A Q. Khan and the nuclear network, I mean, this is like These are serious sources and methods that are classified for a very serious reason.And, you know, that was a majorly important program.So I agree to read them their quotes right prior to publication just to make sure everything is set how they intended to say it.
And again.Yep, I said that.Yep.That's always my experience, but I find that very important for integrity and as an author.And that's not how a lot of journalists roll because they like to catch people saying things.
That's obviously my interpretation of it, but I'm not that person.I'm not that person.
Speaker B
Yeah.I mean, obviously you want to do right by people if you're a good person in general.But it's a small world, right?
If you burn somebody in some way, then you might get on a metaphorical blacklist where people stop talking to you.So I get it.But to be honest, I just.Again, I'm curious.I'm speculative.
I guess everybody's speculative in some way.But I know CIA's got an office of Public affairs, and I know that they coordinate with journalists.And I just
Speaker A
never, ever, ever called the CIA's Office of Public Affairs.
Speaker B
I just.What I'm getting at
Speaker A
is, I mean, I would never call an Office of Public affairs because the answer would be like, essentially, let me run it up the flagpole.And then that's just gives you an absolute nothing burger.Right?So,
Speaker B
yeah, that's not what I was getting at.I'm not insinuating that you clear anything with them.I just wonder what they think of your work.I wonder what they think of my work.That's all.It's interesting to think about.
Speaker A
Well, I will say this.You know, I was, in a general way, I did a Q and A with DARPA on my new book bio with their scientists.And at the end of it, they thanked me and they had a copy of the Pentagon's Brain, and they said, we tell everyone to read this book.And I found that incredibly fascinating because, as I said then, DARPA was actually the only book that I tried to get Public affairs to talk to me, and they wouldn't.
And when the book published, and that was the book that was the finalist for the Pulitzer, when the book published, I was on npr and the NPR reporter said to me, well, I'm paraphrasing, but we got a call from darpa and they were like, she never contacted us.At which point I pulled up my phone records from AT&T and showed 10 email.Actually, it was my email records.10 emails to the DARPA Public affairs office.You know, and they, and I told that story recently to darpa and they laughed and they said, that's the difference between Public affairs and the scientists.
So there's a, there's a humor that can come with all of this because really, in truth, everybody's just doing their job.And now through the lens of history, I realize that poor individual at Public affairs, imagine it's like a desk job.You do not want to lose your job.And it's easier to just be like, no comment, or we'll get back to you 10 or 11 times.And that's what that individual did.
They were communicating me, but they never, never gave me my answers.
The conversation returns to Billy Waugh and the moral tension between different kinds of killing. The guest describes a knife in a weapons case and reflects on why close-range violence felt different from remote strikes.
Speaker A
So you understand that
Speaker B
1,000%.
Speaker A
Yeah.
Speaker B
What is that?Just really quickly, on a personal level, what does that feel like?Like you take your work very seriously.Like it's your life.There's nothing better to you than writing books.You write a book on DARPA and they invite you to come talk to DARPA about it.
What does that feel like?
Speaker A
I mean, well, first of all, I've just been at this for so long, but, you know, each of us in our own lives have like the little trials and tribulations that really upset us.And I find that it's like you have to have a really good tribe.Like, as I said earlier, I have a very even keel family and tribe, you know, my lady friends.And they hear the, you know, they hear in real time what upsets me, what digs at me.
But it's not for public consumption because you just wanna work that out because it's usually deeply personal.It's usually the little girl with the pigtails not gonna, you know, and so then you get to continue to do your work separate from the personal feelings or sort of ego bruising that you may experience along the way.And I think that's really important.And by the way, I have seen, I know many colleagues, journalists and entrepreneurs, lots of people who, they get attacked publicly and then they go on the path of revenge publicly.And it never works out well for them, in my experience, because that stuff, you should work out with your tribe.
That's my two cents on it.And then also, it's just a great learning experience.You know, my kids, who are like, basically my wisest counsel, will be like, but mom, remember when, I mean, you know, they grew up, they were like, they've been with me through all this reporting and they were little guys and I would come back from military bases and of course stop and get merch.When I went to the CIA, I don't know, they were like 5 and 8 and they had like, CIA hats and CIA shirts and, you know, and then I remember once, like, this is an interesting antidote.There was the Predator.
The Predator had just come out, and the CIA had Predator hats
Speaker B
just come out to the public.
Speaker A
Yeah.
Speaker B
What year was this?
Speaker A
Oh, my God.Like 09.
Speaker B
Okay.But we had it for
Speaker A
the Predator is only as old as.I mean, I write about it in Surprise, Kill, Vanish.But the Predator was created by the CIA right before 9 11.
The CIA wanted to kill bin Laden before 9 11.And Billy Waugh was part of the kill team, and Kofer Black was too.And they wanted to send in a special activities team to kill him.
Speaker B
How long before 9 11?Sorry to cut
Speaker A
you off.I want to say one year.It's in the book, the exact time.And he was at this place called Karnak Farms.And they had satellite photos of this tall guy with a white turban.I mean, it was him.And they were like, let us go kill him.And the way Kofer Black told me the story, Billy, it's all sourced in the book.Hank Crumpton was also in there.Was that the word came back from the Clinton administration was you have to bring an FBI team along to read him, you know, to kind of read him his rights before you.
And you can't really kill him.You have to capture him.But if he won't be captured, the details are all in there, but it's very interesting.And that was the rule following way before the towers were hit.And so the Predator drone was developed as a means to do that, which is the central question I asked in Surprise Gilvanish, which is, why is it okay to kill someone with a missile and everybody freaks out when you slit their throat?
Speaker B
Yeah,
Speaker A
that's the central question.Because of an operator that came to see me and he was showing.You know, I'm digressing over here, but, like,
Speaker B
no, I like this digression.
Speaker A
So this is.So I write this in the author's note of Surprise Kilvanish, that an operator came to see me at my house.Now this I would later find out he was in ground branch.He never told me.I did not know he was coming back from the Middle East.He actually brought me a gift, a challenge coin from the embassy in Kandahar.Not in Kandahar, in Kabul.So he was a State Department official, and he is definitely not a State Department type guy.And he had a bunch of weapons cases with him.And my boys being boys, we had all these GI Joes at the time.
And they asked him, you know, he showed them, you know, there were like all these army soldiers from the American Revolution up to the present.And the different weapons they have.GI Joes are pretty amazing with their details.So this individual was showing them, no, this weapon goes with this.And it was fascinating.And they were young boys and they were just like, oh my God.And then he had these cases there and they're like, what's in the case?And he looked at me and I, you know, I mean, obviously people that operate, they know safety.So he asked me if he could show them them.And they were different firearms, one of which was a long gun with a long rifle, which we set up on the.
He set up on the kitchen table.And there is.I live in a canyon, so there's like houses way across the canyon.And he demonstrated the kind of things you can witness through a scope.And it was fascinating to these kids, my boys.Right?
Speaker B
Fascinating to adults.
Speaker A
Are you kidding me?Right?I write this in the author's note.And then there was one case he didn't open.And the boys went to bed and my husband and I were talking to him and I said, what's in that case?And he opened it and it was a knife.And I said something along the lines, which is very embarrassing of what's that for?
At which point he said, sometimes a job requires quiet.
And I, I had known this individual for a decade at that point almost maybe.And so my mind then went to like, I imagined him slitting someone's throat in Afghanistan.And it's not that that freaked me out.What freaked me out was my own sense of all of this that I would have been okay with, like the long rifle shot across the canyon, this kind of sterile killing, which is killing, but somehow the up close and personal I had a different reaction to.And that's what really interested me because I try to put myself in the.I put myself into the narrative in as much that I'm not there and I'm definitely not there, so I cannot pass judgment.And if I am passing judgment, why am I passing judgment?And what does that really mean?And probably if I'm passing judgment, I'm actually the voice of the citizenry, a part of the voice of the citizenry.
Now that has changed over time because my judgments have fallen away from experience and I'm more about you tell me what it's like.But that began.That's what Surprise, Kill, vanish was all about, was why is that?Why?And then that's What I write, you know, Clinton, President Clinton was willing to send a bunch of Tomahawk missiles into Afghanistan, but wasn't willing to.
To let the CIA, Billy Waugh kill Bin Laden.Close up.Explain that to me.
Why is one kind of killing better than another kind of killing?Explain that to me.That's the central organizing principle of surprise.Kilvanish.
The guest recounts a Vietnam trip with Billy Waugh and a reunion with former enemies, which led to rare moments of doubt. She also describes a CIA operator traumatized by work at a secret detention site.
Speaker A
And in many ways, of all of my work,
Speaker B
it's fascinating, and I think you've said this.Different presidents view killing different ways as more or less humane.I could see maybe if you, you know, if you needed something for like, cover or strategic deception, maybe striking a target with a missile would afford you that more so than killing someone with a knife.But, like, I mean, if we were to really steel man, it the.In some ways, the knife kill is more humane than the reaper kill because it's like, be a gentleman and come kill me like a man.Or like, you know, obviously that's not real.And to be fair, like, I don't think that way.I want our soldiers to stack the odds in their favor.I don't give a shit about any of that.But it's a really interesting subject that a lot of people fall on different parts of the spectrum.
And I think you probably noticed this in your different books.But, like, some people get squeamish at certain points.
Speaker A
Yep.And there are profound moments in all of this about our individual humanity and what we think and where the cracks, the fissures happen.One of them happened to me to Billy Wa.
With Billy Wa in Vietnam, and actually my older son Finley, who was then grown.So, you know, he was.He would have been nine years old when I told you the story about looking through the Long gone in our living room.So now move forward 10 years.Nine years.And he's a senior in high school.Maybe he was a junior in high school.And I'm going to Vietnam with Billy Waugh to go back to the scene of a battle called Oscar 8, which is still classified.Billy spoke about it.It's an insane battle.
The US lost like 14 aircraft and countless MACV, SOG guys and Marines.It's an incredible story, too long to go into write about it in Surprise, Kill, Vanish.But I'm now going back to that battle with Billy because I knew when I travel with Billy Waugh and we're in airplanes, we're in taxicabs, we're in hotels, lobbies.Billy starts talking because that is what he spent his life doing.He usually didn't have a journalist beside him.
He had a pair of field goggles, field glasses and Finley.My son says, mom, I might wanna be a photojournalist.I need to come on the trip.And I'd never mixed my personal and my professional life.I went to my mentor and said to her, what do I do?And she said, ask Billy and your host in Vietnam.And they both, being military guys who, by the age of 18, Finley's age, they had been in war.Okay?So they're like, tell that young man to come.And it was this incredible experience in the end of surprise.Kil vanish.I write this story, but this is.I'm gonna tell you, this is the.I'm setting up the Fisher, the crack.And Billy, the only time I ever saw a side of him about doubt.
So we're sitting in the garden of that used to be the home of General Giap, the commander of the North Vietnamese army, maybe even more powerful than Ho Chi Minh himself.Giap died recently at the age of, like, 101.Billy Waugh had been assigned to kill him at that Oscar 8 mission.That was the goal, kill General Giapp.It went disastrously wrong.
Here we are, 50 years after that event at the home of General Giapp, a guest of his son Dien Bien.And Dien Bien had invited the colonel, 91 years old at the time, who had, back 50 years earlier, been in charge of killing Billy Waugh.These were two enemies meeting 50 years later in the garden of General Zhapp.And I write what happened in that event.And it was about nuclear weapons.And it was fascinating.Billy was supposed to jump a nuclear weapon into Vietnam.The plan got canceled.They were mortified that Billy was saying this was true.It's an incredible story.
But here was the interesting point.
Colonel Byong asked Billy this idea about morality.He brought this up, and he said, I, after the war, became a teacher and a philosopher, and I'm a Buddhist, and I'm not afraid of dying.And Billy kind of went white.And in the taxicab after with me, Finley and Billy, I said, billy, you looked really upset.
And he said, I'm not a Buddhist, and I've done a lot of bad things.
And then he said something about.I think he maybe even said, I don't believe in the afterlife.And it was very.It was the only moment that I ever saw Billy.Almost for like, a flash of a second, I could imagine him thinking about things that he had never otherwise let himself think about.And that has to do with the morality question, the right and the wrong, you know, and maybe he couldn't Think that way.And there are other times with individuals from that book, more so than anything, because CIA is about COVID action.And because unlike in the military, where you have a unit and you can talk to your friends and, you know, you're following the laws of war, many of these operations are done, and they're just so under the cloak of silence, you can never talk about them.You know, I had another operator who.
It ruined him that he was at the door for one of the very early.
There's a very secret CIA.There was a very secret CIA facility outside Kabul called Sandpit, and it's where the first captured Al Qaeda suspects were given.You can call it enhanced interrogation, or you can call it torture.And this individual was essentially like the door guard, but he watched everything, and it messed with him.It messed with him.
And he is now deceased.And, you know, that's a situation where you have an individual saying to you, I would like to talk to you on background, not for reportage, but because I want you to understand who I am, what I've been through, and just some of the things that impact my thinking.And I say, of course.And then, you know, I hear a lot.I hear a lot.
And I don't report it because those were the parameters in which it was discussed.And it's almost catharsis for that individual.I can understand that because I know the context, because I understand what happened before and what happened after.Because I have interviewed people on multiple sides of the story.I'm just hearing their personal experience, and that is so powerful and impactful to me as a reporter and incredibly important in building for me, which is really pretty much a journey as a journalist of these unanswered questions of national security.
Morality versus amorality or immorality, offense versus defense.The necessary, the unnecessary, suspicion, paranoia.You can see how they all thread together.
They discuss how different witnesses to the same mission can remember events differently without being wrong. The guest uses Billy Waugh and Paris Davis to show how point of view shapes war reporting.
Speaker B
Wow, those are really fascinating anecdotes between.Between Billy going white, between the pilot calling you, between the guy that did that rendition.Like, that is fascinating.And it makes sense when you think about it.And, man, I get it.Like, those renditions and what was happening in those Conex boxes, like, it's really nasty shit.And it's just.
It's interesting.
Speaker A
Yeah,
Speaker B
I appreciate you sharing that.
So, okay, just to wrap up really briefly, we've been talking about Billy, and you mentioned the knife thing.I always thought that was a him story.
Speaker A
That's not Billy.
Speaker B
Okay.
Speaker A
No, no, no, no.That was not Billy.
Speaker B
But isn't there one story about Billy sneaking up on an NVA camp and Slitting guards throats and then getting in a nasty firefight and getting.It's almost unbelievable.There's a story like this, right?
Speaker A
Yes.
I'll tell you what's also interesting.The story.You can read the whole story in Surprise Cavanish.It is exactly like you said.It's like they had to sneak up on a camp.
They needed to.Those individuals were the cooks.And what I thought was interesting about that on the morality angle is Billy was leading the mission with as ground branch teams are set up now, similar to or certainly in the war on terror, were set up similar to how they were in Vietnam, which is that you have a CIA person, maybe two or three, maybe a military that's been sheep tipped over, and then you have what they call indig indigenous people, whether it's 30, 50 or 80 behind them.And that has to do with COVID Again, it's like it's their mission, except for it's not because we're leading the mission.So Billy was leading that mission.And when they came upon those two cooks, one of whom was a woman, you know, they have bugles, and it's just like they're gonna sound the alarm, literally.And they needed to be killed.
And what was, I would hope comes across in the book is what Billy was like saying is he did it.He didn't ask anyone else to do it.You know, and when you put that in context of everything we're talking about, it's very interesting.
That is the mission that they, you know, killed a bunch of people that they thought was the target.And then.And this is war, Vietnam War.And then they found out there was actually camps behind the camp.And the bugle gets sounded, literally.
And out comes hundreds, if not a thousand NVA soldiers in Viet Cong.And it is a massive firefight.And Billy winds up with five bullets and gets shot in the head.I mean, it's insane.
Speaker B
In the
Speaker A
head?Yes.He was shot in the head.Like it's, you know, that knocked him out, but wasn't a brain injury.I mean, he literally wound up in the hole of a water buffalo.A water buffalo's like sort of hibernating hole.He crawled there to get out of the fire only to discover that the water buffalo is still in the hole.Right.These details are incredible.But what I found even more interesting is there was another person in that mission named Paris Davis, who ended up becoming a Medal of Honor winner.
Recently he was awarded the Medal of Honor.I think maybe Obama awarded it to him.Maybe it was Trump won.Maybe it Was Biden.I'm sorry, I don't remember.
But Paris Davis account.Billy tells one version, which is pretty close to what Paris Davis, his account.But I found Davis account, and then I kind of tell both of them.And it made for a really interesting conversation for Billy and I later.Because, of course, he started out as a source and he ended up being a friend.
I knew him until he died, went to his funeral.But what was interesting in this was Billy and I just talking afterwards about point of view.That this is incredibly interesting to me.And it's kind of become a guidepost of the way I think about life, which is that you can interview two or five people on a mission and none of them have the same version of events.And they're not wrong.
It's just point of view, literal, like somebody's there, not there, and they see that way, not this way.And also figuratively, like what you bring into it, what your mindset is when you're there.So this is a great way of looking at life, actually, that no one is right or wrong per se.There is point of view leads everything.
The guest defines DARPA and explains how civilian tech companies may now be outpacing traditional military research. She gives an example of electronic warfare technology demonstrated on podcasts but developed outside the Pentagon.
Speaker B
Yeah.And, you know, fog of war, I guess.I mean, there's going to be some variance between stories, but.Okay, so you mentioned it a couple times.Darpa.And DARPA has been, you know, I don't know, over what year was the Pentagon's brain published?
Speaker A
2015.
Speaker B
Okay.So for a while, the average layman, like myself, the way we understand DARPA is that they're at the cutting edge of what is technologically possible in the world or in America, let's say, and, you know, for defense purposes.And they are, let's say, maybe 20, 25 years ahead of what we can see today.But I guess, like, how would you describe it to people from what you've learned through it about your reporting or through your reporting
Speaker A
what DARPA is.
Speaker B
Yes.What you've learned about it through your reporting.I'm sorry.
Speaker A
Yeah.Darpa, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.So things those, those acronyms are always like, they sound.I mean, it is the most powerful, most prolific military science organization in the world.It certainly was when I was reporting on it in 2015.I wrote about its history, so I studied it from the origin all the way to where it was.And I follow DARPA now, and that is the case notice I said Military Research Agency.There is a question in my mind right now about the reality that civilian organizations, specifically, that are working on frontier technologies in space and in compute, artificial intelligence, that may.Annie Jacobson's Opinion may be outpacing darpa.
Speaker B
Who are they that you're thinking of?What organizations?
Speaker A
They're not organizations, they're individuals.They are technology companies.
Speaker B
That's what I mean, like as organization, not like government organization.Like a company is.
Speaker A
Well, you could look at any of the AI companies.
Speaker B
Who are you thinking of?
Speaker A
Well, I'm thinking of all of them.I mean, all the American AI companies and some of the offshoot weapons suppliers.
Now, they work with these organizations, but their systems are faster, their protocols for development for R and D are faster than traditional military bureaucracy.And so that stuff is way above my classification.But there is certainly a lot of.Okay, I'm going to give you an anecdote because you asked me about if anything interested has happened on a podcast, right?So this is public information.
So I did Sean Ryan's podcast and there's a company who does a demonstration about electronic warfare.
You know what?I'm sorry, I'm not going to.Actually, If you look at podcasts like the Sean Ryan podcast and you see some of the technology that has been debuted on the Sean Ryan podcast, okay, and you were to say to yourself, wow, I'm really surprised that the military let that be debuted on the Sean Ryan podcast, only to discover that the military didn't let that date be debuted because it's not created under the military, it's created in a civilian company.Then you will know what I'm talking about.So that's, let's leave it at that and let people go on that hunt themselves.
And that is shocking because that is.And this has to do particularly with electronic warfare.So I'll give you a little, I'll give you a few more clues.Like imagine right now how dangerous drone swarms are to the Defense Department, the Department of War, as it calls itself, I will call it the Department of Defense until Congress changes its name.The Department of Defense is very worried about the fact that the Chinese, for example, have multi thousand swarm drone swarms.
And you've seen open source video in Ukraine and whatnot.So this is a very serious thing.Now imagine a technology where you can push a button and drop all those drones out of the sky.And imagine that the Defense Department hasn't created that technology and doesn't have the contract on that technology, but rather a civilian company does.And if you're me that says, whoa, I don't understand why the DoD doesn't have.
And they say, we don't know either, but we certainly know that Saudi is a great client for us.
Speaker B
Holy shit.
The discussion focuses on a civilian company selling counter-drone technology to Saudi Arabia after not receiving a Pentagon contract. The guest connects this to ITAR loopholes, procurement failures, and the military-industrial complex.
Speaker B
So you're saying that company sells to the Saudis and not the Pentagon?
Okay, the government, like.
Speaker A
But let's caveat this.
For reasons that remain mysterious to me, the Department of Defense, or this current Department of War, as it calls itself, did not choose to give that company a contract.And since companies are interested in their bottom line for their shareholders, that company went onto the open market and found a wonderful client in the Saudis.Now this begs the big question, which is why I'm not answering it directly on which is whatever happened to itar?So there are, you know, organizations that watch that weapon systems are not sold to foreign governments to be weapon systems.I'll give you another anecdote, right?
I was once on a plane and the person next to me had had a little too much to drink and was sharing some.They were a retired.
They were a retired government person and they now worked advising foreign governments on weapons.This person had no idea I was a reporter.And this is just an anecdotal story because it was just said to me with too much champagne in the person and that they had been in the Middle east advising their clients who had purchased a bunch of jets from America on what they had to do to retrofit those jets so that it could pass.
This ITAR situation, which is like, you can't have certain, you can't buy military systems.And they had flown over there because this Middle Eastern king, dictator, whatever you want to call him, had said, like, was being stubborn.And this individual who happened to be a woman, said I had to go over there because I had to explain to him commercial jets do not have an ejection seat for the pilot.Take it out.
Speaker B
Wow.It's a dirty game, huh?
Speaker A
It's a bunch of dirty shit at the top,
Speaker B
like fucking loopholes.
Speaker A
Take it out and then put it, I mean, subtext, put it back in once you pass the specs,
Speaker B
You know.Now I'm just like, I'm thinking like, what do you do if you're this company that
Speaker A
went
Speaker B
on Sean's show like
Speaker A
you
Speaker B
were passed over for a contract?Maybe it was another company that built something similar.Maybe it was just cause like some bureaucrat, like they didn't like you.I don't know what it was, but at
Speaker A
the end
Speaker B
of the day, they are a private company, presumably.I know who you're talking about.People can figure it out, but they want to create or increase shareholder value.So
Speaker A
of course
Speaker B
you want to increase shareholder value.You do that by going on Sean Ryan.So like, why the fuck wouldn't they but it just now I'm thinking about, you know, you've mentioned a couple times the military industrial complex, like where is the line?
Speaker A
Yes.
Speaker B
And how do you, how do you maneuver?
Speaker A
A number of these CEOs that make weapons have asked me to come talk to their core teams.And one of the more interesting and like I said, I'm all about the people.I love meeting people, learning their perspective.And also in those kind of environments, you can really learn a lot about the whole situation.But one of the things that I'm often asked to speak about with these sort of frontier model creators founders is what I wrote about in Area 51, which was this Lockheed Skunk Works.
So this was an organization that existed that was born out of World War II by Kelly Johnson Rand Lockheed.But his Skunk Works was working on super secret programs for the military, like the or for the CIA, rather like the U2 spy plane that no one wanted wanted to happen because generally, as is said, it's the cliche like the military is fighting the last war.And so you see in procurement situations, the old weapon systems being, you know, the contract, that's where the money goes.And so the Skunk Works was creating these systems for the CIA because the military did not want them, because they didn't want to interfere with the old way of being overhead.Espionage was like this new idea and it was a disruptor.
And so what a lot of these founders want to hear about, because I interviewed the literal early Skunk Works engineers who were like scratching their head going how do we create stealth?And I got these incredible stories from them about how they did it.Them running through the aisles of the hardware store buying ping pong balls and piano string because they thought, well maybe that will make the aircraft stealthy.Putting on different coats of paint.I mean these real just physics are solved by human thinking.
Long before technology assisted physicists.I mean Ed Lovick, who's the grandfather of stealth, gave me, and I still have it and cherish it, his slide rule that he used to calculate the measurements to invent stealth technology.
Speaker B
Wow.
Speaker A
Okay, so what's happening now is the founders that Skunk Works model, they had no one.Who would they sell to if not the CIA?
No one.And now the world is opened up and there is obviously a danger in that if organizations in the bureaucracy are more concerned about their own procurement channels than what is coming down the pike because it will get sold to an adversary.I mean, Saudi's not an enemy, they're an adversary.They're a partner.I don't know, it depends how you describe them.
Read all my books and decide what you think of the Saudis.
They compare modern defense startups to Lockheed's Skunk Works and the origins of stealth technology. The guest emphasizes that the same human ingenuity now exists in a faster, more commercialized ecosystem.
Speaker B
Man, that's, I mean the skunk work story is incredible.I recommend people read the book between the SR71 and the F117.It's an amazing story and that's a very cool little conversation piece that you have.
Speaker A
And I love this part of it because human nature doesn't change.I mean the guys that are the founders today, they remind me in a way.I mean I was interviewing, talk about like a time warp where when I was interviewing the skunk works engineers, physicists, they were in their 80s and 90s and now interviewing some of the, or rather doing Q&As with these young founders.They're in their 20s and 30s.
So this is very interesting to think about when you think about deep time.
Speaker B
I mean, and these guys are patriots, no doubt.And I have no doubt that the reason that a lot of them get involved is because they wanna build things and they wanna serve their country.Like look at the Palmer Lucky's of the world.Like they're, they're incredible people and I'm glad they're on our side, to be frank.
But it just like, it becomes this, like in my head at least this unsolvable thing of like yeah, it's, it's cheaper to buy it than it is to build it.And it's more efficient too because if you have a thousand Palmer Lucky's like working on startups and building this shit, and you're the CIA, or you're the Pentagon, you're the dod, you say, okay, what are we going to procure here?We don't have enough bandwidth, we don't have enough assets or funding to build all this stuff ourselves.And some of the smartest people in the world are those kids.They are the engineers that are working at Lockheed or wherever.
But again it opens up a lot of doors to some bad things because there are bad actors and there are bad impulses.
Speaker A
It's also important to realize that once you have a weapon system, reverse engineer it, then you have all the technology.That's decades, or maybe in this case of where we are now, a few years of hardcore and you know, R and D.
Speaker B
I'm glad you brought that up because that's another thing like the Chinese, you don't think that they place people inside these defense contractors?They steal our shit all the time.That's how it goes.
What do we do?Annie Jacobson.
Speaker A
I write books.That's what I Do.That's what I do.
The guest explains that DARPA's work often appears in public only decades later and introduces IARPA's sensor and biometrics focus. The conversation then pivots to brain-control research and the implications of neural manipulation.
Speaker B
So you don't think DARPA is like, they gotta be working on something,
Speaker A
right?Of course they are.But most of what DARPA is working on hits the news after it's been in development for 20 years.I mean, a great example of that is the F117 that sort of made its debut in Gulf War I and had been on the drawing board since as a different incantation.It was originally called have blue, you know, since the late 70s.So that is what is being worked on, there's no question.But I don't envy anyone that's in that area right now in that space, trying to keep up with everything.You can't have every weapon system.
It's interesting.And I talk to a lot of different people in these different procurement lanes, and they have different situations they're focused on.And then as we were talking about earlier, there's.The CIA has its own DARPA model, which is called iarpa, that's focused almost.Not entirely, I should say.My knowledge of it is that it is focused on sensor technology.Really being able to read biometrics at a distance.That's like a very leading charge right now.And then HHS Health and Human Services has its own age, you know, innovation Agency.So again, everyone's scrambling for a piece of the pie, and the pie being a lot of money.
Speaker B
That makes sense.And just again, like, to speculate for a second, like, one of the DARPA anecdotes that I find fascinating was the thing that they did with rats where they planted the chips in their brain and, like, the sensory and reward centers, and it essentially made it so that, you know, you could influence their movement or remote control them.That's crazy.But that was in 2002.Like, that's 25 years ago.
Speaker A
Yeah.
Speaker B
That's insane.So, like, today, what they're working on, like, what the hell does that look like?You call.Like, they called 911 a failure of imagination.
Speaker A
Yeah.
Speaker B
Like what?I don't even know what to imagine.
Speaker A
Yeah.Well, I think it's worth thinking about this in terms of 25 years ago and in terms of now.
Right.Because you've hit upon something that I think about presently that is very disturbing, and it kind of links DARPA and my new book, Bio.
For a very long time, the focus has been on the brain.That's what you're talking about when you're talking about the rat moving through a maze.A DARPA program where a brain chip in the rat was controlled allowed a human to control its physical movements.So this is brain control technology.And if you want to have like a thin version of it and a sort of like a layman's concern, then you can go off into the, you know, MK Ultra of it.Like they're trying to control your brain.Like.But if you just really look at it, the brain is profoundly important.And this has to do with what we talked about, paranoia and suspicion.But there's another component which has to do with the rate and speed at which biotechnology is moving.
And this brings us to the biological book.And it's something I didn't report on, but is very valuable to think about moving forward for all kinds of people.
The guest describes Chinese military writings about the brain as a battle space and calls it the darkest thing she has reported. She explains why the idea of degrading cognition through biotechnology is so disturbing and difficult to defend against.
Speaker A
And it goes like this, that the Chinese have discussed brain warfare.
So the mouse and the chip is this idea of maybe we can control someone.I would control a mouse.Next thing primate, then a human.That's what that progression is.
And then this brings.Feeds into the idea of the super soldier, that you can enhance cognition in the same way.Now, remember, these are ideals.Can they actually happen?That remains to be seen.But you can enhance cognition, you can enhance physiology.I write about all of these programs in darpa.How do you.I mean, DARPA was studying bears and how they hibernate to try to figure out how you could have, like, operators, whether they're seals or special, you know, be able to kind of, kind of hibernate, almost like, have, like, an abundance of sleep and then somehow perform without sleep.Right.This is like an incredible, just paradox of being human, that we have to sleep.And the people who sleep the least in battle that I know of are the seals.They're, like, trained not to sleep.It's insane.And what happens to them is insane.
Okay, so you've got all this emphasis on super soldiers.Into the mix comes a new concept put forth by the Chinese that perhaps you can degradate cognition, that you can make civilians dumber.And this is put forth in a paper by Dr. Robert Kadlik, who is our current biodefense chief in the Trump administration and has advised presidents all the way back to the rat experiment.Okay, so he, a former Air Force surgeon.I mean, he is an extremely knowledgeable individual.
And before he came back into government service, he wrote a paper which is worth reading, which is on.It's called Hiding in Plain Sight.And it's about whether or not Covid might have been a lab leak.It's a very sourced paper about, you know, information on that subject.The plausibility of it talks about Xi Jinping's pride in those Wuhan labs, their first BSL4 lab.
But then it also gets into publicly released literature by the Chinese military about their consideration of the brain as a battle space.That is actually a phrase that they use.And it leads to this idea that they could perhaps be using biotechnology to degrade Americans, the Western world's thinking.And it's really disturbing.It's the darkest thing I have come across in all of my reporting.
Separate from that, and knowing that the Chinese are pursuing this as a theoretical concept.Ka DLik does not say that there is proof that they are doing it, but rather that they have discussed the possibility of it.And then I sometimes think about what happens to me with what I call Covid brain, right?Which is this.This is just an anecdote, but, like, I have a pretty good memory with a lot of information in it.
I am sometimes can't remember someone's name.It's called, like, tip of the tongue amnesia, right?Like, it's there.I can see their face.I can't for the life of me remember their name.
So I count how many traffic lights it takes me to remember their name.And sometimes it's like two or three, and sometimes I drive for like a mile.
Now, is that Covid brain?Did that happen to me after Covid?I don't know.But after having read Kadlik's paper and knowing that there could be such a program whereby a pathogen was released in society that made people have degraded cognition, that is like shockingly dark, beyond dark.It's probably more sinister than anything I have ever thought about in my 20 years of reporting because it's completely a hidden hand operation.Are
Speaker B
you referring to Covid?
Speaker A
I have no idea.I'm just telling you, if that program were to happen, if you know what the Chinese are theorizing about a possibility, if the brain becomes a battle space, that is terrifying.And it also fields right into what we have been talking about in this discussion, which is suspicion versus paranoia.
Speaker B
Okay, so it's the darkest thing.That's a pretty bold statement for you to make.You covered a lot of dark shit.The darkest thing that you've come across.Like, does it.
I haven't read this paper.Does.Did Cadlik outline, like, any, like, sort of vehicles?Like, what are the actual.Is it or is the dark part to you just the idea that they would conceive of doing this to people, or is it the actual methods that got
Speaker A
you
Speaker B
spooked?
Speaker A
Both.And here's why it's so frightening.And it has to do with the Ginsu knife thing we were talking about, right, that you could say, oh, it's just the Chinese sending a message.
We could do this.
Okay.Or it's a different situation, saying, it could be interpreted certainly by individuals in the military intelligence community that really see danger in everything.Oh, they are doing it.If they're talking about it, they are doing it again.This is just the way in which certain people are paid to think.And so it's a.It's a lose, lose situation.No matter how you slice it short of the PLA coming out or the Chinese government, the pulp borough, saying, oh, my God, we don't know what we were thinking.That was just some crazy generals writing about those papers.And we just.They've all been retired and we're actually gonna adhere to the Biological Weapons Convention treaty and we're gonna open up all our files on the Wuhan lab and let's just get back to the basics because, you know what, if a bio attack or a bio leak were to happen or any of these pathogens were to be released, it would kill us all and it would just be horrific.
And we don't want to go there.So let's start again.I mean, that's like, very obviously not going to happen.
But that's why it becomes so disconcerting to me, because how do you defend against that?
And the fact that it's out in the open is also extremely interesting to me.Catholics paper should be read by all.I mean, the people who first told me about it are former CIA weapons of mass destruction individuals.
I've told many people I know about it, and they didn't know.It's just.It's a paper I believe.I can't remember.I think it's like Texas A and M sponsored, the paper.But you can read it and it has, you know, a third of the pages in the back are notes, primary source notes translated Chinese documents, documents translated from the Chinese.So it really opens up this idea.And so, you know, everyone.Everyone values their cognition.
And we work so hard to walk that line between suspicion and paranoia.That's why we have a tribe, at least in my world, you know, that's why, you know, you have people help you when you're thinking and you're upset about this or not, you know, well, you know, you want to be able to have mentors and colleagues that you can air things by and move your thinking back to center.So that's why that paper is so incredibly disturbing to me.
They discuss the JASON scientists, their role in Cold War defense research, and why they are less visible today. The guest also explains limited hangouts and how narrative manipulation can divert attention from the truth.
Speaker B
And I think that when we.I just want to ask you about one more thing before we get into bio and then we'll come back to that.But.
Speaker A
But this is bio, by the way.
Speaker B
That's what I mean then.
Speaker A
I mean, the Catholic paper is bio.
Speaker B
That's what I'm saying.So,
Speaker A
like,
Speaker B
yeah, we'll come back to it in a second because it's all interwoven.But the last thing before we move on from DARPA is the Jason scientists I wanted to ask you about because I know that you've said that there are a lot of conspiracy theories around the Jason scientists and I hadn't heard of or the Jason Group is what it's called and I hadn't heard of it.And I looked it up and the first thing that struck me was like, there are, I think there was two or three videos on YouTube about it
Speaker A
and
Speaker B
they were really old and like one minute long.And that was just weird.Like, YouTube is the second biggest search engine in the world.I was like, this is strange.And they have a Wikipedia page.But.And again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I hate to even use that term because it's a legitimate, definable term.It's when more than one person conspires, we conspired to do this podcast.So connotation, be as it may, I just found it to be strange.
And they are publicly linked to darpa or there was funding going back and forth.I think the Pentagon cut their funding in 19, the NSA, the National Nuclear Security Administration picked it up until 2020.And now we don't know.So question is like, what do you know about the Jason scientists?
Speaker A
Well, I've interviewed many Jason scientists, including the founder Murph Goldberger, who is now dead.
And I was writing about them during darpa.And I think, you know, the Jason science were extremely relevant up until about 2015, up until when my DARPA book published.And then I realized and learned from people that actually were DARPA program managers that they had sort of become less relevant.Now.The Jason scientists were sort of full time professors who were part time defense scientists and they would solve the Defense Department's greatest problems.They were called the Superman of science.And then things shifted from my understanding.And now the Defense Science Board, the DSB inside the Pentagon, has kind of replaced the Jason Science, the Jason scientists in relevance.That's what I understand.So probably the reason why the Jasons don't have a lot online is because where they were really most powerful was like during the Vietnam War.
And so, and all the.And through sort of offset technology, they Did a lot of work with that leading up to Gulf War one and we didn't have the Internet.And so their records are all paper records.So I'm not sure that it's as much da na da na as it is old school.But what's interesting is looking back, I loved the fact that they were actually part time defense scientists and full time professors because I think that it gave them on balance a different kind of thinking.And I also think that it's very important who is paying you.To all of us, it is very important who is paying you.And then you can see people act in a certain way.And that's not throwing shade on that, that's just a true, that's for life reasons.And so the fact that the JASON scientists had salaries from places like Princeton and Berkeley and Stanford and Harvard speaks a lot.
Yeah.
Speaker B
So what are the, like, what are the theories around them?That,
Speaker A
I mean, I don't know.I write, I know what the reality is around them because, or at least my perception of the reality of it because I interview a lot of them and they really were looking at early defense systems during the Cold War to go up against the Soviets and they were, they literally developed the electronic fence.
So all that technology is jason, not all of it, but the ideas behind it are JASON scientists.
Speaker B
Yeah.And it sounds to me like again, there's, there's a, there's just a lot of these groups and like more, more of them get more advanced and become more relevant and less relevant.So that could very well be the case.I was just curious because you've said specifically that there are conspiracy theories about them and I was just curious what they were.
Speaker A
I think that's maybe speaks more to like at the time when, when I, when my daughter, you know, that that was 11 years ago now.There's a lot more things to be conspiratorial about that have happened in the past decade, that's for sure.
Speaker B
When you and I spoke on the phone after we rescheduled this most recent time, you had mentioned there was something about the Chinese bioweapons program that you hadn't talked about publicly that you wanted to talk about.Was that like this, is it interwoven with this,
Speaker A
that's this idea of degrading cognition, the idea the sort of antithesis of a super soldier.
I mean, imagine if you could make people so dumb that they couldn't create plans to destroy you.
That's it in a nutshell.That's my interpretation of what Kadlik's paper says.About the Chinese government's theoretical plans for using the brain as a battle space.So this is like a very long game.This is done in advance, you know, I mean, if you were to write the Hollywood movie of it, you know, you would put something in the water.
And that why it's so troubling to me about paranoia is because, you know, I do like looking at subject matter that others call conspiracy thinking, which I often call alternative narratives or wildly alternative narratives, as I've said in other podcasts, because I think it's really interesting to realize that a lot of these things have a thread of truth in them.And this is also an old CIA tactic, which is along the lines of chaff, that if you throw enough stuff into the discussion, you can hijack the narrative away from the truth into the fantastical and then blame the fantastical.You never have to speak about the part of it that was truthful.
Speaker B
Well, it's like a limited hangout, right?
Speaker A
I don't know what a limited hangout is.
Speaker B
It's basically exactly what you described.I think it is an actual intelligence term where
Speaker A
it's like,
Speaker B
you know, they give you certain bits of information so that you're not.So that you have something, and it could very well be true, but it diverts from the real meat and potatoes of the matter.So it's like a limited hangout.We'll give you something,
Speaker A
and
Speaker B
it might be bad for us, but the thing that's worse, it's keeping you away from that.
Speaker A
That's interesting.Yeah, yeah, yeah.And that's also why, you know, I'm such a nerd.Like, I love reading, and I love reading long books, and I love reading about the origin story.I think if you understand the origin story, how something began, you can really understand how things are going in the future.And then you're also really surprised when you come across something like this sort of brain is a battle space cognition warfare that I couldn't have even in my darkest TV writing hat necessarily come up with.
The conversation turns to Soviet bioweapons strategy, including engineered plague and a backdoor designed to worsen disease. The guest argues that paranoia itself was part of the weapon and a central theme in her bio reporting.
Speaker B
So presumably they're open to using all tools and, like, think about, like, you know, TikTok, for example.
Speaker A
Yeah, well, using.Using narrative, actual narrative storytelling as a propaganda tool is like page one KGB stuff.That's why.And that's why I use as a thread the idea of paranoia in the biobook, because, you know, okay, so let me just tell you, the foundation of KGB thinking the intelligence apparatus of the Soviet Union was so dark.I've written about it in all of my books, but to me, nothing is more grotesque.Than making someone paranoid.It's ruinous.It's ruinous because trust is perhaps my North Star.It's true in my personal life and it's true in my professional life.
Trust.And it's a leap of faith.Trust.It's the old Reagan adage, trust, then verify.It's an ongoing process.
And so the idea that the sort of soulless, godless kgb, that's how I think of them, we're like, let's ruin that and let's make people paranoid.Let's ruin the west by making them paranoid.It's so nefarious, it makes me as a human want to trust more.Trust and verify.But trust more because I just wanna repudiate that because it's so d and unnecessary.
Unnecessary and leads to nothing good.And when I came across this detail which sets the stage for the biowar book about that, I knew that I had the opening for that.And it goes like this.The Soviets wanted to make us paranoid, obviously, because they were paranoid, because they had good reason to be paranoid, because communism is a vicious form of government.And so in their bioweapons program, they were focused on plague.
Not on bubonic plague, but on pneumonic plague.Plague in the lungs.Plague in the lungs is airborne.Airborne means the weapon system is the human lungs.It means it's pandemic potential.
It's not gonna be an epidemic, it's gonna be a pandemic.And they wanted to weaponize plague.And one of the first things they came up with was let's put a back door in the plague weapon with genetic modification.This was new in the 1980s when they were doing this.Let's put a really sinister, dark hearted back door into it, whereby because plague is a bacteria and people believe that plague can be cured by taking antibiotics, so let's put the back door in so that when you take the antibiotic you develop equine encephalitis.
It's a neurological brain disease that kills you in a way that's maybe even more horrific than plague.You literally go in circles until you die.And the reason they wanted to do that, and this is literally out of the mouths of the Soviet defector scientists who came to the United States, who told their CIA handlers, who told me they also wrote about it in their memoirs.The reason for that was because the Soviets wanted Americans to die this horrific death of biological warfare plague.And that the last thought in their brain would be American doctors and the American government have failed me.
Talk about the ultimate paranoid weapon.It's so sinister and so dark.And I just, you know, I can't make that up.I can't wrap my head around it.But I can report that and let people know that, which is the only defense against that, on top of, you know, biodefense, which we can talk about, is really, like, I can't go there in my own thinking or my own actions.
Paranoia will destroy you.
They discuss how COVID intensified political tribalism and made lab-leak concerns more plausible to readers. The guest says the pandemic showed how fragile social cohesion becomes during a biological crisis.
Speaker B
That's really gnarly.And like, yeah, it just shakes the very foundation of everything.Now that you say it, I couldn't think of many things that are so much worse.
Speaker A
And I also, just off your narrative comment, like, I can't help.
This is part of, like, my North Star principle of why I don't publicly talk politics, which also doesn't mean I don't have opinions and I don't share them with my family and my tribe.But publicly, you do not know my politics, because I see the tribalism getting worse and worse, not by the week, but by the day.And I see the fracturing of society over Covid, over the origin story of COVID over.And then that spiraled into vaccines.It spiraled into everything.
Government control.I see all of that and this extreme distrust and the hatred of the other side and the sort of blaming that we have and people actually putting science second to their own political.Their question is not, is this true, but does it help my party?It's so profoundly dangerous.I can't help but see that as, wow, that's the KGB's intention 70 years.
Starting 70 years ago.
Speaker B
So true.Yeah, I've talked about it a bunch on the show.It's like, I think people feel that they're ceding ground if they give someone, even if it's the truth.It's like, the truth is not the object anymore.It's your own vanity.It's your need to be right.And it's fueled, it really is, by social media.And, like, there's the gasoline.I hope it's not as bad as they make it out to be, but I feel like I have to ask you this.I know you're not gonna answer it, given all the context that we've been discussing.But, like, you know, you did a lot of research for this book, and interestingly, this living weapon of a pathogen is the one thing that can end the world, like, by mistake.It could be a
Speaker A
lab
Speaker B
leak.It could be an
Speaker A
escape.
Speaker B
It could be an accident.Now, like, in your reporting for the book, in your conversations with people, do you think that that's what Covid was
Speaker A
Specifically, I don't say in the book.I let people decide.
What I find interesting is that a lot of readers have come to me and said, and this is particularly among my Hollywood colleagues who are perhaps generally more liberal leaning than colleagues I may have in Washington.I've had them say to me, oh my God, I read your book.And now I'm really concerned that maybe Covid was a lab leak.So I think that says everything.Reader reaction says everything.
The bottom line is Covid taught us two very important things.One, a pandemic from a novel pathogen.Novel means new can cause a pandemic.It's not theoretical.This is not 1918 in the Spanish flu.
This happened a few years ago.And it taught us that if we can't really get together on thinking about what's important for the nation, what's then.The fracturing of society will only make situations worse in the future.Because can you imagine if there was the release of a pathogen?So let's just call that the release of a pathogen, either on purpose or by accident into society right now.
Can you imagine the reaction inside the United States given the degree of polemics about how Covid was mishandled?I mean, it would be an absolute nightmare situation.
Speaker B
Well, okay, so this, I think this is a good.This would be a good to be a good jumping off point for the rest of our bio conversation.
The guest outlines the structure of her biological war scenario, from a lab leak to anarchy and government devolution. She explains the devolution plan, underground bunkers, reconstitution, and the scale of global BSL labs.
Speaker B
Give people an idea of.
Let's just, let's just call it like, call it a BSL4 lab.
Speaker A
Yeah,
Speaker B
right.Like paint a picture for people that.Okay, like starting with what these labs are, what they look like, what gain of function research is that is happening at one of these labs.
Something escapes or, or not, or it was intentional, whatever, it makes its way back to the US and the world at large.Like explain to people how this works and what it actually looks like.
Speaker A
Yep, the narrative of the book.Okay, so unlike Nuclear War, where I take the readers from nuclear launch to nuclear winter in 72 minutes because I learned that's about how much time it takes in biological war.A scenario.I take the reader from Outbreak to anarchy in six Days.Outbreak in the book is an accident.A lab leak at the BSL4 lab in Siberia, Russia called Vector six days later, it's anarchy in the United States, followed by the Insurrection act, followed by the declaration of COG Con 1 and then the devolution plan.So it's a pretty tight narrative and a trajectory that is shocking.It's not 72 minutes, but it's certainly not a multi year situation like Covid and that is specifically because unlike Covid, which had a 1% case fatality rate or less, depending on who you talk to, meaning one out of a hundred people who got it died.
Pneumonic plague, the pathogen in biological war scenario has a case fatality rate of 100%.You get it, you die.You take antibiotics thinking it's going to cure you, you die an even more horrific death.Okay, so the narrative moves very quickly from my subject matter expertise, which is showing what happens in the first 24 hours when you have all eyes on that lab leak.Because, yes, we can see an explosion at a BSL4 lab from space.
Specifically.Importantly, because also it's very near an ICBM base where that lab is.
Speaker B
And that's a real place where an accident did actually
Speaker A
happen.Yes.And an accident actually, thank you, did happen at Vector in 2019.I pin all the important plot points in the narrative to real events.And again, you can look in the notes to see them, because I want to show you this is science fact, not science fiction.But we go from looking at, watching, we, the reader, watching the military and intelligence community try to figure out what happened and what was released, if anything.And you learn a lot about this technology that does that.And we're kind of helpless.Meanwhile, in the United States, you have all the departments that are going to take care of the homeland when it arrives.Notice I didn't say if because it's when, not if.And then you see a whole new, I think, scope of reality that will make sense to a lot of readers because they go, oh my God, of course, Covid.
But didn't really understand how that bureaucracy works.And hopefully I do it in a really interesting way because I interview people who were there in Covid, around in the sit room, the situation room at the White House, advising the President, the director of hhs, the director of fema, dhs, border.You have to have all these components and you can start to see how the government is preparing for what is going to happen when this pathogen lands.And then it lands.And then it's a real shit show.Yeah.
Speaker B
Okay, so just to expedite, because we have 15 minutes, we'll just, let's just say again, and people can kind of use their imagination or prior events from over the past five years to imagine, like, how this makes its way back to the US how it's like it's.It's basically impossible to stop it because during the incubation period, the guy that's out in Frankfurt dancing, like, doesn't know that he's infected with it, he's infecting a bunch of other people, he brings it back, he dies a really horrific death.Because we've already talked about the gain of function research, which is just as it sounds like they do research to have pathogens gain additional functions such as booby trap it so that if you take antibiotics it makes it worse or that it's undetectable.Which is another point because the US government, like by design, will not know what the fuck is going on.
The tests won't read it.It's a really spooky situation.But I do, I want you describe to people.Like, I think the big theme here is, in my personal opinion, the bigger the bureaucracy, the worse the contingency planning.And something that is very unique to you and that I haven't heard discussed at all is this devolution plan and like what the government actually has in place for the collapse of society.So like paint that picture to people.Cause it's really interesting.
Speaker A
I mean it's really fascinating.And that I'll set this up by saying I look at Pentagon war games and in the case of bio, I was looking at pandemic planning.So these are roundtabled out by individuals who are complete subject matter experts.You might have like a former Secretary of Defense playing Secretary of Defense.
You know, a lot of these are either unclassified or were never classified to begin with.But what's interesting is in every one of those scenarios.So I told you, I take you from outbreak to anarchy in six days and then I tell you about the Insurrection act and the devolution plan.In all of these publicly made scenarios, everything ends on day six.Everything ends.And of course maybe that's like month six if they use a different pathogen, or year six if they're.But it always ends right when the shit hits the fan.Every single scenario.And I know from reporting on this, that only means that someone knows, but they don't want the public to know why.So I had to really drill down on that because most people were like, I don't know.
I actually don't know what happens after anarchy.It's called exord, you know, end of exercise.But I did find out from one of the most knowledgeable sources on the issue, which was President Obama's former FEMA director, who explained to me about the devolution plan.And that is a plan that is very real classified, but some of the details aren't.And I was able to source what Fugate told me through FEMA documents.
Not easy to find, but not impossible, that demonstrate that everyone who's part the devolution plan is essentially a separate set of government officials, a pre chosen, pre designated list of individuals.They know who they are.They've signed contracts, they've rehearsed the devolution plan.And when COGCON 1 is declared, the devolution plan goes into effect and all of these individuals leave immediately.They do not tell anyone where they are going.
And they arrive at a predetermined set of underground bunkers around the United States of America.And they're called cold sites, warm sites, and hot sites.And that is where they remain until the insurrection passes.Which you could also say tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people die.The pathogen, the plague, in the case of my scenario, burns out and the government can reconstitute itself.
That's the actual term, reconstitution of the devolution plan.And this is pretty shocking and leaves you saying, like, wow, there's a huge gap between anarchy, insurrection, and the devolution plan.And that's left for a lot of our imaginations to take hold.And I give you the architecture in the book about when the military steps in and what the military is tasked to do.And at first you might think the military is going to come and save all of us.
And then you realize even if the Defense department released its 1.7 million employees and reserves, they're 350 plus million Americans.Those numbers don't stack up.And so essentially, the military is there to create fortresses of America's critical infrastructure.
And what happens to the people is really dark.And in the quote from former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, people will be doing inhuman things just to survive.
Speaker B
Yeah, I mean, it gets even in, like, natural disasters.Like, it gets very primal.And this is something that is like orders of magnitude more serious.So, like, yeah, use your imagination, man.Like, and even for people that volunteer to be aid workers or the military, like,
Speaker A
yep,
Speaker B
if there's over a certain amount of gas masks or a certain amount of, like, in the strategic national stockpile, if there's a certain amount of those, like Andy Jacobson, you might be a police officer handing those out, or an aid worker, let's say.But if I'm an armed civilian or somebody else is an armed civilian and they need to save their family, I think it's gonna end a certain way.99.9% of the time.
Speaker A
I mean, according to Pew Research, might be a Gallup poll, we are a nation of 500 million guns
Speaker B
behind Every blade of grass, they say, right?
Speaker A
And the most common phrase I would come up against, researching biological catastrophe.Fascinating.Again, reminder, doesn't have to be a biological attack.It can be an accident.
But in the event of a biological catastrophe, what the Defense Department planners know is that fear of infection creates all these secondary effects.Fear of infection.And it's so visceral, Dalton.We don't need to explain that.We all know what that means.You know, someone has the flu, it's like, oh, don't get me sick.I don't wanna get infected.Right.But imagine fear, and think of COVID Think of the lengths people went to not get infected.And, you know, most of which was futile.
Then you think of fear of infection.If I catch this, I'm going to die with 100% certainty.And I won't know if I'm infected because there's a certain incubation period.Except for in this sinister scenario based on fact, I report that there's actually, on the front end of the pathogen, a gene inserted to create euphoria, so that the person that is infected, instead of going home and going under the covers, like an infected person normally does, or a sick person, instead, they're out dancing, as you said, in a disco, infecting other people.I mean, this is as dark as it gets.
Speaker B
Do they have a.Do they have a plan to, like, rebuild society?If they make it far enough to continue?Government.
Speaker A
Yeah.
Speaker B
Where the infrastructure's all intact,
Speaker A
there most certainly is a plan.It's called reconstitution.And that is classified, Annie.Right, Dalton.
And so what are those plans?And actually, at some point you have to say, well, what does it really.I mean, sure, the curiosity part of me would really love to know what.But it's so incredibly hypothetical, because that kind of a situation has never happened.One would hope it never does.
But that plan is there.And that plan is there is because, as I was told time and time again, there is no homeland defense against the release of a genetically modified biological weapon with an extremely high kill rate.And so that, like I say in the acknowledgment of the book, the point is not panic, it's pressure.Because you can't fix what you can't face, but you can fix what you're willing to face.Another north star of my reporting.
So, by making a lot of this public, I would hope would empower people to understand why knowledge is so important and why putting pressure on the government in certain areas, like dangerous pathogen research.You asked me how many labs there are there are 3,500 BSL3 labs around the world.You can work on plague, anthrax, hantavirus, rabies.There are 110 BSL4 labs where you can work on Ebola, hemorrhagic fevers, pathogens for which there is no cure, only palliative care.But when you understand, as we have been discussing that, you can now, with gain of function, genetically modify plague, anthrax, rabies to defeat a countermeasure, essentially, you have to consider all of those labs together as BSL4 labs.So now you're talking about 3,600 BSL labs around the world.By the way, those figures come from academics, credit given to them in the book.There is no international body governing or even recognizing how many labs there's.
So how about we start there?
The interview ends on a hopeful note about public pressure, accountability, and the value of sharing these stories. The host thanks the guest, and the video closes with outro remarks and a call to subscribe.
Speaker A
How about we start there with a little bit of pressure for accountability?
And I really believe in baby steps.You know, you start there and you make strides.
Speaker B
Well, yeah, and we can end on that in a bit of a positive note.I mean, the book got picked up or an adaptation for tv.Right.Or optioned, at least.Congratulations.Thank you.That's amazing.So hopefully with things like that.Hopefully with things like, you know, you've been invited to a bunch of different places around D.C. and Virginia and stuff to talk to people who are.Should hear it.And I would like to think that, you know, with.With you coming on podcasts like this one and talking about it, that you're making a positive impact and entertaining us and scaring us also.But, you know, I would.I would like to think that we can end on a positive note.And what's to come is hopefully people come to the table and realize, like, this is fucking madness.So you're doing your part.
Speaker A
It's a perfect way to end.
Speaker B
Yeah.
So tell people where they can find you, where they can find the books, what you got coming up,
Speaker A
Dalton Fisher's podcast.But
Speaker B
as far as your social media and stuff like
Speaker A
that, I mean, you know, go to bookstores, order, order, order online bookstores everywhere.
Speaker B
Bookstores are the best.Like, don't you just walk into them when you're.When you're.When you're in Manhattan and you're walking on the street and you see a bookstore and the doors open and it's just like, you know, like, they're the best.
Speaker A
Yes.
Speaker B
But anyway, Annie, you are.Thank you so much for being so gracious with your time.You're an endlessly fascinating person.And please come back for your next book or whatever the Hell, I don't care what it is.We didn't even get into nuclear war.We didn't get into any of the other books.And it just goes to show that, you know, you can talk about a lot.And again, you do amazing work, and I appreciate you coming.It's been an honor.Seriously.
Speaker A
Thank you so much for having me.We had a wonderful conversation.
Speaker B
I think so, too.Wow.On the money.See you later, guys.
I couldn't have planned that better,
Speaker A
huh?That's great.
Speaker B
Holy shit.That was incredible.Yeah,
Speaker A
that was really good.We got some good stuff I have not ever spoken of before.So it really is some interesting new stuff.
Speaker B
Yeah.Thank you.
Speaker A
It's great.Thank you.You're a wonderful interviewer.Thank
Speaker B
you, really
Speaker A
and truly.
Speaker B
I appreciate it.I'm trying to get a little better.
Speaker A
I could have actually talked for six hours.
Speaker B
Oh, I know.I would love to have you.It's
Speaker A
actually really funny.We could have gone two more hours.Hey,
Speaker B
you want to switch your train?You're welcome.
What's up, guys?Thank you so much for taking the time to watch the interview.If you got anything out of this video at all, please.Like the video.Leave me a comment.
Tell me what you thought of the video.Tell me who you'd like to see on the show.I really appreciate the support.It goes a long way on these platforms, as you guys know.Most importantly, I have some amazing guests that are coming in for interviews in the very near future.
So please subscribe to the channel so you don't miss any of them, but that's it.I really appreciate your support.Thank you again for watching, and I hope to see you again soon.