Category: Conservative Review
The nukes are fine — the advice is not
Despite his well-known aversion to using the “other N-word” and discussing the issues connected to nuclear deterrence and nuclear saber-rattling by America’s adversaries, the president, during his recent trip to Asia, dropped a bombshell of his own.
On October 29, President Trump posted a brief statement on Truth Social about nuclear weapons testing, which contained the following key points:
- The United States has more nuclear weapons “than any other country.”
- During Trump’s first term in office, the U.S. accomplished a “complete update and renovation” of existing U.S. nuclear weapons.
- Because of other countries’ testing programs, the president has “instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”
- The process of testing our nuclear weapons “will begin immediately.”
Sadly, whoever provided the president with the background information for each of his statements is manifestly unaware of the easily ascertainable facts. The president is being extremely poorly served by his own staff.
The president appears to have been informed that the Department of War is responsible for nuclear weapons testing. It is not.
First, the Russian Federation has more nuclear weapons than any other nation. Its stockpile of nuclear weapons available to the Russian military is about 5,200, while its overall stockpile is about 5,600. The numbers for the U.S. are about 3,700 and 4,400, respectively. This information is readily available in public sources such as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook or the annual assessments published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Second, during the president’s first term, progress was made on the Strategic Modernization Program initiated in 2010. Still, no new platforms (submarine-launched ballistic missiles, bombers, or land-based missiles) were deployed between 2017 and 2021. Instead, we rely today on aging systems that are decades old.
Importantly, a small number of modified, low-yield submarine-launched warheads were produced and placed in service, and development of new Air Force nuclear warheads began, but none were deployed.
Related: America must lead the Mars race before China claims the final frontier
Photo by NASA/Getty Images
Third, the president’s staff has a profound misunderstanding about the difference between the test of a nuclear system’s delivery vehicle (i.e., a ballistic or cruise missile) and the test of a nuclear warhead. In the days before the president’s post, Russia conducted a test of a new cruise missile and a new trans-oceanic torpedo (both of which, incidentally, are not constrained by the new START treaty). Tests of missile systems are commonly conducted by all the nuclear powers, including the United States.
Today, with the sole exception of North Korea in 2017, neither Russia nor China nor any other nuclear power has conducted a nuclear warhead test in this century. To be clear, the U.S. intelligence community has raised concerns that both Russia and China may be covertly carrying out extremely low-yield tests of experimental nuclear designs, but those do not appear to be the “tests” to which the president’s Truth Social post was referring.
Finally, the president appears to have been informed that the Department of War is responsible for nuclear weapons testing. It is not. That responsibility belongs to the Department of Energy. Based on over 30 years of neglect, that department would be unable today to conduct a nuclear weapon test in the near future. Based on estimates provided by the Department of Energy to Congress, it would take 24-36 months to do so, at a cost of several billion dollars — dollars that have not been authorized or appropriated by Congress.
When asked, on his return flight from Asia, why he had delivered this signal of U.S. strategic nuclear weapons muscle-flexing, the president said he believed that if others were testing, then we should too. Depending on the state of our own nuclear weapons (currently assessed by the military as being reliable), and if he had been properly informed on the facts that others had resumed testing of nuclear weapons, there would be something to this argument. But as things stand, the president owes it to himself and to America’s national security to improve the quality of advice he is being provided on the vital issue of nuclear deterrence and our ability to sustain it — and soon.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.
What we lose when we rush past pain
“No one ever told me that grief felt so like fear,” wrote C.S. Lewis in “A Grief Observed” after the death of his wife. Grief often strips away our certainties, leaving us to fear if God is who we thought He was, or if our suffering has any meaning at all. In allowing grief to become his teacher, Lewis left a road map for others, showing how to sit with sorrow, process it, and respect both loss and trauma.
That understanding doesn’t come casually; it takes time. In that willingness to observe pain rather than manage it lies a quiet reverence, a recognition that some experiences are not meant to be conquered but understood.
Suffering doesn’t exist to make us louder or more righteous. It exists to make us wiser — to teach maturity, not mobilize outrage.
I watched a young widow step into public life just weeks after her husband’s death. The world called her strong — and maybe she is — but what I saw most was sorrow: raw, recent, and surrounded by noise.
We rush to praise courage yet hesitate to sit with grief. Pain now unfolds before an audience eager to watch and quicker still to turn sorrow into argument. The question isn’t whether we’ll look, but how. Will we meet grief with reverence or rhetoric?
Suffering doesn’t exist to make us louder or more righteous. It exists to make us wiser — to teach maturity, not mobilize outrage.
When nations grieve
What’s true for one heart is true for a nation. After 9/11, America was ready to fight — and we did. But what did we learn? How did we grow? What did we lose along the way? Pain can rally a nation, yet fail to mature its people. Did we take enough time to observe our national trauma?
The lives lost, the wounded carried home, and the enormous resources spent all suggest we did not. And what is true of nations is true of hearts: When we rush past pain, we forfeit the wisdom it offers.
The thought that God rules our pain can make us flinch. If God doesn’t rule it, suffering has no purpose — something to endure but not to transform. His sovereignty may not always appear kind, yet as William Cowper reminded us, “Behind a frowning providence, He hides a smiling face.”
In four decades as a caregiver, I’ve learned that trauma has its own language, one that will not be hurried or managed. It needs presence, patience, and space. Dr. Diane Langberg, who has spent her life among the wounded, often reminds us, “We dare not rush what God Himself is willing to sit with.” That is ministry: sitting beside, not speaking over.
The wisdom of mourning
The Jewish people understand this. When someone dies, the bereaved sit shiva — seven days of stillness and shared silence. Friends come not to fix but to accompany. Then comes sheloshim — 30 days to move slowly back toward life. For a parent, mourning extends a full year. Their wisdom tells us what our culture forgets: Mourning isn’t an interruption of life; it’s part of it.
We can learn from that rhythm. When tragedy strikes, our nation lowers its flags to half-staff. For a day or two, we pause, reflect, and pray. Then the flags rise again and life resumes. That is understandable for a country, but not for a soul. For the bereaved, the flag stays lowered long after the headlines fade.
Even the church can hurry the hurting. We mistake composure for recovery and public strength for peace. But grief that is forced to perform eventually breaks in private and sometimes spills into public.
When my wife, Gracie, lost her legs and entered decades of agony, healing did not come through attention or activity. It came through grace, tears, and time, mostly in obscurity. People see her sing or laugh and assume she has gotten over it, that she’s moved past it. What they do not see is that she had to redefine her life; this is her life. Someone once told me, “Process the pain privately, share the process publicly.” That wisdom has steadied us for years.
The quiet saints of suffering
Our culture is too quick to parade its wounded on stages when they would be better served by sitting in stillness, in pajamas or sweats, without having to put on makeup or smile for the cameras.
I’ve seen that truth in lives like Joni Eareckson Tada’s, who has lived with quadriplegia (paralysis affecting all four limbs and the torso) for nearly 60 years after a diving accident. In her, suffering has distilled faith into something deep and steady, strong enough to hold her and extend grace to others who suffer.
Forgiveness, like healing, takes time. To forgive is not to excuse or forget; it is to trust God with justice and mercy, believing He knows what we cannot. Forgiveness is faith expressed with open hands — the slow loosening of the grip around another’s throat.
Philip Yancey once observed that grace, like water, flows to the lowest places. That is where I have found it: in hospital corridors, in the lonely watches of the night, and in the long quiet of waiting rooms. Not in applause or attention, but in the hush where pain meets patience.
RELATED: The poisoned stream of culture is flowing through our churches
Photo by Anadolu / Contributor via Getty Images
The best model for us
Our culture distracts us from sorrow, rushing past pain as if speed can save us. “Don’t look in the rearview mirror,” people say. “Keep moving forward. Get past it.” But some wounds do not recede with distance. They remain, reshaping who we are and how we see the world. Grief, but only if we resist the urge to flee from it.
Scripture tells us that Jesus Himself was “a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3). If He carried sorrow, then sorrow itself is not unclean. His setting apart for redemption doesn’t happen on cue, not in our timeframe. It unfolds in God’s time, often unseen and unhurried. Our pain, when entrusted to Him, becomes something consecrated, set apart not for ruin but for restoration. In His hands, our sorrow becomes sacred ground.
When trauma shatters a life, our calling is not to elevate but to shelter. We are called to stand nearby like those who sit shiva, unhurried and unafraid of silence. We can only observe another’s trauma, but God enters it. The wounds in His hands and side show us that He understands the anguish of loss, rejection, even death. His way is not avoidance but presence, and His model is a good one for us.
Solitude with God is not empty silence, but the stillness where His healing takes root. The psalmist wrote, “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10). In that quiet, we see what countless believers across the ages have discovered: Even what was meant for evil, God weaves for good. He does not waste our sorrow. When we trust His timing, the trauma observed gives way to the grace observed.
The Weekend Spectator Ep. 51: NYC Democrats Excitedly Choose Socialism
The elections that took place this week are a wake up call for Republicans. Millions of people elected far left…
The Spectator P.M. Ep. 167: Are Women to Blame for Mamdani’s Win?
Exit polls from this week’s midterm elections in Virginia, New York City, and New Jersey revealed that young women helped…
Defending Nigeria’s Christians from Islamist Genocide
If you haven’t read our colleague Ellie Gardey Holmes’s recent article describing the western media’s predictably lame and misleading response…
Trucker Theft Rings Stealing Millions As Industry Reels From Horrific Crashes
Trucker Theft Rings Stealing Millions As Industry Reels From Horrific Crashes
From New York to the nation: Mark Levin warns that socialism’s endgame is America itself
True grassroots communist revolutions are a myth, says Mark Levin. These political uprisings are always orchestrated by privileged, educated elites who romanticize poverty and oppression while living comfortably.
It’s a theme that echoes throughout history. Revolutions rarely start in slums or sweatshops; they start in lecture halls, cafés, and salons where theory outweighs experience.
Take China’s Mao, Russia’s Lenin, Cuba’s Castro, or Germany’s Marx as examples. All were brought up in well-to-do families, educated, and set up for success. They preached justice for the working man, pretending the whole time that their ivory towers were actually trenches.
New York City’s new Democrat mayor, Zohran Mamdani — a self-described socialist — is no different.
“His family is worth millions. … The mother, funded in part significantly by Qatar; the father secretes himself into Columbia University, where he makes a good salary as a radical professor promoting anti-Westernism, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and terrorism,” says Levin, calling Mamdani “a trust-fund baby” who married a woman even “richer than he is.”
Mamdani’s socialist supporters — primarily Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) — have similar stories. Neither grew up in impoverished homes or worked much in the private sector before rising to political prominence. And yet they push socialist reform to the masses as if they knew the taste of poverty.
Levin then highlights his own blue-collar beginnings and decades of conservative activism as proof that he understands real work and therefore real America.
“I was a litigator. I was a lawyer for a nonprofit organization. We wouldn’t have school choice in this country but for Landmark Legal Foundation and the battles that we fought in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. … We are the ones who went after the NEA. … We’re the ones that went after the Environmental Protection Agency that was trying to push out a zillion regulations right before Donald Trump took office,” Levin recounts.
“’76 — the Reagan campaign. ’80 — the Reagan campaign. The Tea Party movement … that’s where I met Donald Trump. He was very interested in the Tea Party movement,” he adds.
“[The Convention of States movement] was started by Mark Meckler and me with my book ‘The Liberty Amendments.’ … It’s now 5, 6 million members.”
“I’m [sharing] this to explain that when I come to you and I talk about these things on this platform, on Fox, on my radio show, where I write about them, it’s not esoteric. It’s not theory. It’s from experience,” says Levin. “So when I see Marxist Islamists doing what they’re doing, I take them on. I expose them.”
“We do not want these poisonous people destroying what our ancestors have worked for — our founders.”
But that’s exactly what’s about to unfold in New York City under Mayor Mamdani, with his socialist agenda poised to wring the city’s capitalist core from the nation’s economic capital.
Levin warns: “It matters what happens in New York because [Marxist Islamists] are organizing in the states and in the cities across the country.”
The plan doesn’t end with New York City. It won’t stop until America herself — and everything that makes her exceptional — is erased.
To hear more of Levin’s commentary, watch the clip above.
Want more from Mark Levin?
To enjoy more of “the Great One” — Mark Levin as you’ve never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
