America’s Most Expensive Weapon 

The government needs to bring back the Peacekeeper. The CEP was so much better than anything else.

Reminds me of UltraCorps brought into the 21st Century(yes, it's still online & free to play, it's a RISK in Space)....

The Peacekeeper was phased out because the contractor that built the guidance system used non approved components in order to meet deadlines. As a result, up to 80-90% of the missiles were failed for launch in their tubes. This was a major scandal and they were traded away under the arms limitations treaty because the missile was a failure and the fix was very expensive for new guidance systems. So why not trade away a broken system?

What happened to the 57 Kawasaki satélites usa pure in the spare ?.

problem with reloading these things though is if they are known by the enemy, after launch there probably isnt a chance of a reload.

The US looked at moving the missiles among various shelters as a deterrent. The Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces took the same basic idea and instead looked at using mobile missile carriers that could hide and then reload and be ready for launch in under 24 hours. In a way it's even scarier than the US system which was predicated upon fixed storage locations. The Soviet doctrine would have seen missiles scurrying on their carrier vehicles in all directions and hiding basically anywhere. Cold launch and reload was a big focus for them, and cheaper than building new silos. Not only were reloads probable, they were difficult if not nearly impossible to stop. Reference the SS-18 (R-35) and the negotiations of the SALT/START treaties. The cold launch capability was indeed a huge concern for western countries and therefore a key goal was to limit Soviet deployment of systems with that capability. @@ashleygoggs5679

@@ashleygoggs5679 That's also the point though.

He’s explained that in like 8 other videos homie

Hot Launch: That's what she said she wanted.

👍That MERV test was about as cool as anything I've seen in a while on RU-vid 🎉

Amazing for sure

Significant improvement to some of the stuff he's posted in the past

James May

@@NiteAtTheFortYES that scene was hilarious!

Target: Chipsky Norton

I thought you could open the silo doors to escalate? Signaling the immanent ability to launch

⁠@@1funnygamenope, opening silos doors straight up means ww3 due to security protocols.

@@1funnygame The doors are only opened moments before launch. Doing that would be like randomly laying a card face up in the middle of a poker match. It can only hurt you.

@@dustinbrueggemann1875 Good to know. Must be a false recollection on my part.

The doors only open seconds before launch. Its crazy how fast they slide open for how big and heavy they are.@@1funnygame

whats special about the new warheads?

​@@johndor7793they're new

​@johndor7793 they use an optical firing set, and are independently dial a yeild. One size fits most modular,

​@johndor7793 they use an optical firing set, and are independently dial a yeild. One size fits most modular,

@@christopherleubner6633 nobody even knows about "new" nuclear warheads. don't kid yourself. anything "new" in the nuclear military will be classified for the next 10 yrs minimum before it is leaked. you watch a video on "new" nukes? Please. Otherwise, I urge you to claim sources for "new," military source verified nuclear warheads, with specs included. oh wait... those don't exist. and to anybody that they do exist to, you already know the NSA is watching everything you type, and if you type the wrong thing...... good luck to you. point being, you have no idea what is new or not 🤣🤣

The warhead limit per missile is still in effect from previous treaties.

The Sentinel is designed to be stuffed down Minuteman tubes, I believe. I don’t expect them to carry a different loading than the Minutemen.

​@@howlingwolvenThey'll use the W87-1, a higher yield modification of the W87-0 currently carried by Minuteman.

What class are you taking that talks about ICBMs? Sounds cool

back in school it was the loudest shouting guy that always won. same with us in the word: they just scream the loudest (example you lol)

@@hanspeter24 That makes no sense. Who is screaming at whom?

thats 120 icbm in one place haha

@@killerbern666 Well, it would if they were ever all in port at once. They aren't. Our local boats represent about 1/4 of our nation's nuclear deterrence force. I don't recommend F'ing around with them. The Finding Out could get ugly fast. We also have two SSGNs that can bring their own unique pain to the finding out.

@@killerbern666 that’s 120 silos in one place, not 120 missiles. There’s a reason the upcoming Columbia class number of missiles carried are scaled down to 16, we haven’t enough to load 20 on each submarine, following the treaties and scaling down of the nuclear force.

Smoking Ivan: "Hold my vodka bottle!"

You mean the “Minute Man Intercontinental Ballistic Missile” capable of reaching speed of 17,045.231 Miles per Hour and hitting it’s target with the at most accuracy with ensuring that the enemy would think twice about why they went to war with the Grand U.S. Of A?

​@sniperspk1237 did u watch the doc? it sound like the midget man is totally different than the minute man. it was mobile.

​@@Keegan_CarterNo, he means the midget man trailer launched missiles that was shorter ranged and only carried one warhead you clown

Huge missed opportunity to call it the secondman

​@@Keegan_CarterNo, he means the MGM-134 Midgetman. A very small solid fueled road mobile ICBM that was in development but cancelled at the end of the cold war.

Thanks 👍

best thing America's governments do... waste taxpayer's money

@@briangriffith3985 To be frank, the alternative might have straight up been nuclear annihilation. The USSR would have probably attacked the US in a first strike if the US couldn't strike back.

​@@briangriffith3985 So cancel your nukes and military. See how much that ends up costing.

@@hankjones3527 nothing to do with cancelling. they make some piss poor choices, and dont mean nuke programs. look at those modern navy ships that are retired because of buckled super structures. they havent seen any heavy use yet. why? cause of piss poor choice of materials. thats only 1 example. another is sending all that money to Israel every year to prop up their own military.

@briangriffith3985 The original comment was about spending money on missiles that were never launched. I pointed out it's best to spend on a military and never need to use it than not have it at all. Yes some programs fail but that doesn't mean all expenditure, like the one in the original post, was a waste as you suggested it was.

Are you familiar with Perun? His latest video is on nukes.

@@hankjones3527 Yep. I’ve also watched Julian Spencer-Churchill’s entire nuclear strategy lecture series.

@@Graatand Thanks, I'll check that out.

because it knows where it isn't. Classic.

Yamantau mountain complex

Why?

@@Evan_Bell why not... Why to tell everyone the truth about your best weapons?

@@John.Greyman Because their function is deterrence. You can't deter someone with something they don't know exists. It's also pretty difficult to test an ICBM without anyone noticing.

@@Evan_Bell so one should send a full inventory list? Their main function is deterrance, but there's the MAD factor. And also the issue of not incentivating other players to develop better icbms. Do you really think US' best weapons are 70-80's projects? Weapons designed 40-50 years back? And then they went watching Netflix this whole time? So skunk works & alikes did nothing in the last 3 decades besides an export fighter? 🤔

It is called kickbacks

Because Peacekeeper had a payload capacity deemed excessive of requirements, and was extremely costly.

Treaties limited warhead counts. Sentinel is mainly a service life extension for the minuteman III as the solid rocket boosters are getting pretty old and they're staying ahead of the eventual breakdown of the thiokol propellant

@@Evan_Bell well Putin is making the RS-28 which is as heavy as the SS-18/R-36. ​ @73caddydaddy93 if the Russians are making a replacement for ss-18 then surely that treaty is as dead as the INF

@@Hobbes4ever The treaty was never ratified. And the US and Russia have different doctrines when it comes to nuclear weapon delivery systems and use strategies. Russia uses has many more tactical weapons, but fewer SSBNs, for example. Just because one country chooses the path of superheavy ICBMs, doesn't mean it's the objectively best solution. The RS-28 is far more costly and less survivable than the LGM-30 (or it would be if both were produced in the same country), even if it does have a far greater payload capacity. The Minuteman fleet was built precisely because it was low cost. There were debates in the US military leadership about the virtues of liquid vs solid fueled ICBMs. Liquid fueled rockets can be more precise, more efficient (for example as measured in terms of throw weight vs overall missile weight), but are far more costly, harder to maintain, physically larger, thus requiring larger more expensive silos... The US opted for solid fuels starting with MM1 because they knew they could out-produce the USSR with low cost solid rockets, which at the time the USSR had not perfected. It was felt that numerical superiority had a greater deterrent effect than greater accuracy, or other advantages of liquid fueled rockets.

I think you missed the joke on that one.

@@NotWhatYouThink 😫

Eh- The alternative could have pretty much been a first strike on the US by the USSR, so I would argue that it was money well spent.

​You're argument doesn't hold up, we're still alive.

Why do you think the entire land based arsenal would not be fired? If any were to be held in reserve, it'd be the SLBMs. Silo launched missiles suffer from a use them or use them limitation.

NASA was created as a Civilian arm of a Military program. The military has their own launch vehicles.

The soviet space shuttle was originally designed as a platform to strike the US, in response to the American space shuttle as soviet leadership thought the space shuttle was designed to launch nuclear strikes but as we know it wasn't. The Buran (soviet space shuttle) ended up only launching once in the late 80s before the collapse of the soviet union, after the USSR collapsed Buran was placed into storage until 2002 when it was destroyed

​@@thesmartgoose2099it wasn't destroyed. It's in storage at its launch site in Kazakhstan. There are even youtube videos documenting this.

@@garystewart3110 The military has their own space shuttle? (serious question)

⁠@@kurtnelleExpendable rockets. Back in the day, the USAF ran the launches that the ULA, SpaceX, Orbital, and others, are now contracted to launch. No vehicles like the Space Shuttle…although I guess the USAF-managed X-37 would count - but no one knows what it carries.

I mean we have plenty of video evidence showing them to get off the ground just fine. The reliability of Russia's ICBM are comparable to that of the US.

Isn't that most of nice things we are using come from war's needs? Like radio, GPS, IRS..

⁠@@sarahkatherine8458Jet engines, etc.

@@sarahkatherine8458 Radios were invented long before the wars that extensively used them. The wars accelerated their development by throwing more resources at them out of necessity, but they were very much extant before that.

@@gimmethegepgun Sorry for the misunderstanding, I didn't meant to say that "they were invented for war" (and I also didn't say that), despite some of them were. What I meant was exactly what you said: the tech may exist long before, but wars and similar conflicts reveal the needs for them, and such accelerate the developement/refinement. On a small note, why picked radio over the other two? Should I throw in the Internet?

@@sarahkatherine8458 Receiver-only radios had plenty of consumer presence, and two-way radio communication was being developed, because ships at sea and airliners in flight greatly benefit from it. The war probably accelerated advances in miniaturization of transmitters but I don't really see a whole lot of credit there. I picked radio over the others because I don't know what you're referring to with IRS, and GPS was obviously a military program. However, though both GPS and the internet were developed by the military, they both could've instead been non-military programs made for public use. The internet in particular shares a lot of similarities with the telephone network and could've followed a similar path of development.

Nope, "American 200 Billion dollar missile it never used" or something like that

@@jr2904 meanwhile the title has changed again.

Yeah, that's literally what he said later on in the video. Just keep watching it instead of asking questions lol

I wouldn’t have been born so that’s a plus

😮

And ...? You do realize, that for last generation of Soviet ICBMs - containerized ones - that was about as designed? One in production to replace legacy, one on duty and one on factory level maintenance?

Where’d you even hear that from lol

Where to you see that gem of nonsense?

Show your references. This would have to been documented.

2.76 million subs

Midgetman maybe. But MX was extremely expensive and had a payload capacity deemed unnecessarily excessive.

​@@Evan_Bell No its the drop in budget. Remember the treaty only counts DEPLOYED warheads not payload loadout they could easily put 1 or 2 warheads each and a ton of decoys and countermeasures

@@gotanon9659 Yeah, they could do that, but it'd be far more expensive than the current fleet of MM3s

Fantasy land M.A.D was and still is in effect. Nobody is knocking out hundreds let alone thousands of ICBMs in boost stage

@@johno1544 nobody has thousands of icbms ready to launch either.

@@johno1544 yes we do have classified satellite constellations.

@@garystewart3110 Your dreaming if you think there is some SDI network up there. Neither side would have limited warheads if there was such a defense and both sides would back to tens of thousand of warheads. There is also going to be a insane amount of decoys to deal with

@@johno1544 it has been PRIORITY NUMBER ONE to defend against this very threat for the past 60 years. You are kidding yourself if you think they planned to defend the homeland soley on deterrence. They had plans for this since the 1960s. A way to keep a project secret is obviously to tell you that they didn't do it.

Your not first

I care. I was first once, it’s worth announcing.

Whole idea was driven by concept of first incapacitating strike / failure to respond on time and suffering crippling loses as result.

You ain't superior in any way

@@antoniohagopian213 >He still believes in "le roosia stronk epic maymay"...

Not if they get subs off the coast, 5-10 min warning tops, less for some. Possibly no warning at all, our first notice may be the detonation of dozens possibly hundreds of sub launched hydrogen bombs.

The worry was always one side pulling off a suprise first strike. Green light teams for example

Nobody cares

Hey, I care. Thumbs up 👍

@@ronjon7942 thx bro