Andrew Roberts: evaluation

Transcript context

…But couldn’t you have said the same thing before World War I, and in fact, many did say that before World War I, where we have all this heavy artillery, we have these to kill millions of people even then, and they still went to war. So how much does nuclear war explain the absence of something escalating? Well, you’re right that the First World War did come about in part because of the arms race, but the knowledge that the nuclear bomb could obliterate the entire planet is something that has always managed to make wars limited. Post 1945, what happened in 1914, the most people you could kill in a single moment would be as a result of an artillery shell. And that’s nothing like a nuclear bomb, frankly. So it’s apples and pears. I think it’s really interesting in this book you write about all these conflicts that have happened since World War II, and in many cases, they’re counterinsurgencies or civil wars. And it’s interesting when one side gets to say that they’re the legitimate force fighting for the country’s independence against foreign aggressors when both sides are getting foreign funding and support. So I’m curious, how come the US has been bad at the propaganda here, where Ho Chi Minh or the Taliban get to say that they’re the legitimate forces fighting for their country, or how does that determination get made?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.