I'm just going to inform people who don't know better - THIS GAME IS LITERAL GARBAGE. Don't download it, it has literally 0 gameplay value. SomeOrdinaryGamers made a good video about it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nGNMNXTSfxc.html
Could you do a video on the cold war plans for conventional warfare during and after nuclear strikes? Both sides developed strategies and battleplans that envisioned fighting on nuclear battlefields, yet this topic has barely been covered by videos like these. It would be interesting to see a few declassified plans in detail, for example one italian alpini brigade supported by US troops would have bombarded the main roads of the alps with nuclear artillery shells but the warpac forces would have had to fight through nontheless. Those technical, strategic and psychological factors would be an extremely interesting topic to cover.
A video on general Cold War conventional warfare would be pretty interesting. Other than 7 days to the Rhine, there's not that many WP plans we know about.
Fulda gap and tactical nukes , after deployed they would rush the gap with mechanized units and tanks I guess.. I think that’s what Colin Powell’s autobiography stated and he was in control of that area for a while
Yea he should go over the battle plans in europe during the mid 80s, when USSR amped up it's military spending so much (14% of gdp) then it ruined its economy and caused the collapse of their own country lol. Apparently USSR was to strike and just take a fuck ton of ground while NATO just sat there and took it, would wait, and then just use tactical nukes and not really bother with serious conventional force counter-offensives.
Covert, I'd love to see a two part video series on biological & chemical weapons. It could be similar to your epic two part on SEAD & EW. Comprehensively covering each, such as chemical weapons used in the past, their current state, and future trends. Then there's the biological side, which still remains a complete mystery to most.
Katniss yeah, we all know. But CC just got paid about $3k, I don’t support him financially, I just watch his videos; so I’m ok with him doing what needs to be done to make that bread.
@@radaroreilly9502 I'm not telling him to not be promoting this. I understand that people need money. I'm just trying to dissuade potential downloaders of this shit game.
Katniss did YOU try it?! Lol! Also, now that I think of it, this entire video was was actually pretty weak for CC; it’s pretty obvious it was just about pumping out a vid so he could get the advertisement bucks.
There is soon as they take office. The PM in the case of the whole of the UK's annihilation give the commanders of the submarines the codes to launch an attack or they're given the choice to join up with the Australian, Canadian navies then the US navy. Aus and Can are part of the commonwealth and are seen as joined at the hip with UK. That's why they'll always become before the US navy in any decisions.
UK nukes don't actually have launch codes or anything preventing them from being used. Somebody brought it up once and the answer was "are you questioning the sacred honor of a royal navy officer ?" So yeah they don't really have that problem.
I remember a cartoon from the '60s of a soldier walking in a battlefield where everything is destroyed, with no people or buildings, total devastation. The soldier haggard and blackened, torn uniform with a caption that reads "WE WON"
@@xShadow_God This argument is fundamentally flawed. You rarely gain more than you lose in a war. Winning a nuclear war doesn't mean gaining more than you lost, it means ending up in a better condition than your opponent ended up. One side will always be better off than the other, and there are countless ways you can increase your chances of turning out the "winner", such as the inherent advantages of striking first, or increasing your civil defense program.
@@kaidanielson5956 I wasn't making an argument. OP asked what he meant by won, I replied with the definition they used in the video. They say that winning is attacking and destroying the enemy before they can attack you. Sounds good on paper. But I doubt the ability to conduct such an attack in reality. It would have to be one of the most perfect attacks in human history. You'd have to hit hundreds of hidden targets in a very small time-frame. Take too long or miss and you fail. You and your people, along with the enemy, and possibly the entirety of humanity is doomed. A stupidly dangerous/risky game. Not worth the prize. Imo, the only way to win is to prevent nuclear war. If we can't, there will be no winning. Only death and destruction.
Dr Strangelove is a Cultural Icon , I have watched it many times, there is a good video on how they made it and chose the actors here it is ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XfJTld0baG4.html
"Think carefully on your choice if you choose to fight if you choose war it is a path few turn from Once the first steps are taken it carries with it a terrible price and in the end you may find you have nothing left to sacrifice".
EMP and Nuclear weapons detonated in the upper atmosphere not only knock out electrical systems but also disrupt communications during my time it was known as a blue out. If you can not communicate you can not give the order to launch. That leaves the submarines but then they have to be at a certain status before the CO on his own will launch.
McNamara gamed this out countless times during fractious meetings with the Joint Chiefs. Took him months to finally get a hold of the war plan from the Pentagon and when he did it was little more than a typed sheet of single A4 with any and all nuclear exchanges resulting in global thermonuclear war. And throughout his time in Kennedy's and Johnson's administrations he made very little progress amending it.
I think the UK system is good, we have a letter of last resort on each of our 4:subs, when the sub commander confirms an attack he opens the safe and read the letter from the PM to tell him what to do. Options are 1. retaliate 2 don't retaliate 3 hand your sub over to a surviving friendly nation. OR 4 commander to decide for himself.
The answer is extremly simply. "NO"! To think some country can win a nuclear war is sick, unrealistic and a dream imagination. It does not happen ever if humanity will survive. @Covert Cabal Good work (as always). Keep it up mate.
Dont you just have to make your enemy think a different enemy launched a nuke? That way they mutually destroy each other then your enemies are weakened if not eliminated
@@mickeyg7219 Nah over 18 billion containers enter the US annually. Less then 8% are checked. That would be 200 megatons in a major US city easily. Can you explain how your magical non named 'early warning network' can detect that? Is it a real network or from some videogame?
@@MrFlatage I'm pretty sure I said "launch." ICBM produce a lot of IR radiation that can be detected by satellites. Early warning network is comprised of satellites, ground-based radars, air surveillance and spies. It's nothing hi-tech, what so unbelievable about it? Nuclear terrorism can't be detected as easily, but who know what the intelligence services are up to?
@@mickeyg7219 K so since you failed to name anything we can assume your 'early warning system' is in fact a fantasy at best. Very unbelievable. You even mention magical 'intelligence services'. Ofcourse if one existed they would know? lol! Or anyone who can hack them ... Not that hard with some agencies. Or just walk onboard a US carrier and hack their stuff inside the nuclear reactor rooms. Easy. You do realize everyone educated know for a fact that conventional ICBM's do not produce alot of IR radiation. ;-)
@@MrFlatage Without the early warning system, the world would ended before you were born, because there would be no way to identify the source of the missile and how many there is. The early warning system is what allowed one Soviet officer to draw a conclusion that the "nuclear attack" from the US is in fact just a scientific probe from Norway.
You can win in some cases. Infact the only time when nuclear bombs were ever used in a war, the attacker won! Now, if you are talking about today, it is still possible to win a nuclear war against less powerful countries like Pakistan and North Korea. This is mainly due to their inability to retaliate strongly. They may not even have long range missiles! But, anyways it is best to avoid nuclear war for all parties due to the unacceptable destruction caused anywhere in the world is bad for everyone in general.
Bestoids Bro do your research we have completed our nuclear triad few years ago. And we routinely exercise with our nuclear forces which includes missiles with range upto 3000 miles and also we regularly make cruise missiles just go to ISPR you'll know what I'm saying.
North Korea does have nukes now. Also they may not have the stockpile of the US, but I'm sure China and Russian wouldn't take to kindly being on their borders and all.
North Korea? Unless you count Seoul and other south Korea turning into nuclear waste as "winning" then you are right. North Korea doctrine is flatter South Korea if U.S was to even fire anything close to water pistol near its border.
User Name Right now the biggest threat we face is from India not Russia or USA. I mean right now we are on pretty good terms with both countries. So that's why don't have a strategy against them but if ever threatened then remember there are several American bases in the area near us and also most of the Russia is also in our missiles range.
Even if one was able to circumvent an opponents deterrent the dentation of more than 100 Fat Man or Little Boy sized weapons would create the effect of a Nuclear Winter. Some estimates place the number as low as 10, which is the expected weapons use in an Pakistan and India conflict. So, MAD has an additional defense that is not widely known, at least by your channel.
CommandoDude the radiation can still kill a populated area even when it’s away from the blast wave. And nuclear radiation destroys land and contaminates it for centuries. It’s echo systems will be affected by this. My point is nobody wins a nuclear war.
And when the smoke clears, the acting president (the former Secretary of Education, someone said above) will attempt to govern from the temporary capitol in Indianapolis.... Since there's no DATA COMMUNICATIONS, it's fortunate that there are still some mimeograph machines and the US Postal Service. I have a hoard of EMP-proof manual typewriters here just for the occasion.
My strategy to win a Nuclear war would be to have my Spy agency infiltrate the enemy's nuclear arsenal and sabotage it as discretely as possible, so that in the event of a Nuclear launch, it would explote in their faces. Unscrewing a Bolt here and there, putting gum or C4 in some places, hack into their electronics, etc. It would be multi year effort, but totally worth it. Maybe burry small briefcase-size tactical nukes near known nuclear launch sites.
Good video. I think there are a couple of factors you could discuss in a follow up: early warning, launch on warning, and accuracy needed to take out enemy missile silos. I think those factors all influence nuclear strategy and whether there are winning strategies that could be employed.
The best/only way to win a nuclear war is to have silos buries in enemy territory, so you can shift the optics away from yourself. It'd be incredibly risky to have nukes just standing by in an enemy nation's territory, but could actually work. A huge question after that is 3rd party analyzing; in such an attack, there could be an array of 3rd parties called in to verify the government's claim that they didn't authorize the attack, so you'd have to somehow bring said government to such a high degree of national security alert that they'd ultimately be left to determine that there was a rogue member in the chain of command.
In the case of nuclear war, I'd say winning would be crippling the opposing nation through nuclear strikes without being hit by any counter strikes. For example, the minor nuclear war that occurred between the United States and Japan in 1945 was the US winning a nuclear war.
I fail to comprehend the logic of this proposition - any exchange would result in an escalation of missile launches. Each atomic explosion would release enough radiation to affect life on earth. So the real question is - since the newer atomic bombs are 100's of times more powerful than those used in 1945, how many bombs does it take to poison the environment to the point of no return ? It is in fact a loose loose strategy - nobody can survive the spread of radiation.
you should have defined a worst-case scenario victory. I was interested to learn just how much collateral damage is accepted in order to still declare victory.
The problem is, every world leader has their own idea of what 'winning' is. Eventually, under some circumstances, some megalomaniac is going to say, "The current situation is absolutely unacceptable to me. Let's blow it all up so that either a) I'll feel more in control afterwards; or if not, at least b) _they'll be sorry_ ."
Damn bro I understand you gotta make money, and I enjoy your content but a 2 minute Raid Shadow Legends commercial? 20% of your video is a Raid Shadow Legends ad read...
Nuclear war I believe would start with tactical nukes until one side is losing and decide to take chance going all out nuclear war. The one who has more disposable nuclear missiles left after all out strike would win. Russia should be in a favorable position due to its vast terrain to hide.
Very interesting video. There's a couple of things I wish you had talked about: first, the famous Letters of Last Resort that the UK for instance has, and tell the commanders of SSBNs what to do in case all leadership dies and they can potentially order nuclear retaliation even if literally every high ranking government officer dies. Do we know if other countries have this? They seem like a good idea to allow SSBNs to act on their own in case worst comes to worst. Second one is ballistic missile defense. I know that it's definitely not 100% effective, but how much can it do to mitigate the damage of a nuclear strike, if anything?
Er thats the thing, im pretty sure not being able to have a war because of nuclear weapons will just make the people who are that way minded just adapt to become more inventive. We could be in war now without even knowing it.
I used to work in defense , relating to explosives and developing ultra high strength concrete and nuclear shielding technologies. I have a nuclear radiation map of the U.S. cities targeted by Russian ICBM's (Older Cold War scenarios) The burst circle of these nukes carrying multiple warheads shows red on the cities in the U.S. Basically except for areas with low population densities, which are in tan, nearly the entire continent is red. It seems inevitable at some point in the future we will do the unthinkable. 10 million dead in WWI 40 to 50 million dead from Spanish flu. 60 to 70 million dead from WWII. 3 to 4 billion dead in WWIII? There is no long term escape for us or the Russians or the Chinese. The American survivors will need to head into Central or South America. Mexico will also be hit with fallout radiation. We will be welcomed just like we welcomed the refugees at our border. We will eventually see nuclear fallout drifting through the world. I would personally try to avoid this scenario kids. I believe the Bill Gates of the world and other world government organizations would like to see a significant reduction in the world population. With them calling the shots.
Space based missiles could give virtually zero response. A first strike that was totally unexpected backed with a lot of very good ABMs to take down the few that can’t be stopped from Subs or mobile platforms. Many US military think the IS could win with a first strike and Russia is anticipating one by 2026. Their FIS have conducted extensive studies that arrived at this conclusion. This is why they are getting ready now and will be forced to make a first strike in Europe, very possibly Poland if they have any hope of gaining new territory to buffer Russia. We need to find a way to work together before it’s too late.
The only real way to guarantee a win is to possess enough ballistic missile interceptors to lower the number of missiles that can get “through.” All these scenarios are against the Russians, but what about against a smaller nuclear power with a lower number of nukes.
EMP is a very very realistic use of a nuke. .... you dont need a large nuke. all you need is a fission bomb. with most of the casing removed to maximize the compton scattering. its a use north korea could pull of as well which is worrying. all you need to do is detonate a nuke a few 100 miles above the northern hemisphere and you can set the economy and infrastructure back decades and cause untold trillions of damages.
Generally, no, you can't win a nuclear war, but if you redefine winning, that might work. A nation nuking another nation is pretty much out, but as an example, a terrorist organisation trying to set off a handful of bombs while remaining undetected might be possible, and they could count that as a "win" for their cause.
Well, of course you can win, for a given definition of winning: General "Buck" Turgidson: "If...we were to immediately launch an all-out and coordinated attack on all their airfields and missile bases we'd stand a damn good chance of catchin 'em with their pants down. Hell, we got five to one missile superiority as it is. We could easily assign three missiles to every target and still have a very effective reserve force for any other contingency...An unofficial study, which we undertook of this eventuality, indicate that we would destroy ninety percent of their nuclear capabilities. We would therefore prevail and suffer only modest and acceptable civilian casualties from the remaining force which would be badly damaged and uncoordinated.."
> It is 2025 > Raid Shaddow Legends have sponsored terrorist groups in the middle east and have ordered them to force locals to play it and to gain new playerbase trough the conquer of new teritories > Raid Shadow Legends gets mrked as a terrorist group, but quickly sponsors the US military and then gets unmarked > forward fast 50 years > planet Mars has been renamed to Raid Shaddow Legends
What about where it's incredibly asymmetrical? Such as something on the order of the US or Russia, going against a limited nuclear power, like North Korea.
Chris From SouthAus it’s not that simple, because North Korea is just a proxy for China. A better example would be Iraq, they didn’t actually have them WMDs, so the whole war stayed conventional. But you can bet if they did have nukes and used them the USA would have responded in kind and glassed the desert, and China and Russia would have watched with mild interest.
@@radaroreilly9502 oh yeah, totally see where your coming from. I'm more talking about those nations in terms of their nuclear arsenal. I'm just curious as to wether a state with 2000 odd warheads, and highly reliable strike capability, verses a state with 10-20 low yield weapons, and a questionable ability to deliver them, could be won, under the conventional definition of won?
Chris From SouthAus even a non nuclear but well armed country could take on a poorly armed nuclear state. Say Turkey Vs Iran (secular Muslim Ottoman Empire vs Shia Muslim Persian empire is growing less unlikely these days); notionally with a couple of Iranian nukes. I’d still bet on the Turks who have far superior NBC training from NATO and buy the best hardware from the US and Russia. The Turks have also been making a lot of real military hardware domestically, while the Iranians make stealth jets out of cardboard and buy “spacesuit” from Amazon. Don’t get me wrong, there are some crazy smart Iranians, but they are idiotically led by a ideologically possessed dictator. People who believe themselves to be superior (Iranian comes from Aryan, look it up) will always be less adaptive; and if you can’t adapt, you cannot overcome. Plus if the Iranians shot missiles westward, you can bet the Israelis would get involved...
A nuclear war between peers is certainly unwinnable but pretty much any nuclear power can flat out win a nuclear war against North Korea except for Israel. Another good example: everyone brings up the US vs. Russia but I personally believe that the US could win against China (at least for the moment) if it's okay with losing Japan and South Korea as allies on account of them no longer existing.
The British have another way of ensuring a retaliatory strike. Every Prime Minister that comes into office writes a letter, as well as copies of that letter, detailing what to do in the event the British Government is wiped out in a nuclear strike, these letters are placed in a safe onboard each of the Royal Navy nuclear subs. Only the captain of the vessel can access it, and its never opened unless required, and everytime there is a new PM the previous letter will be destroyed. The letter can say anything really, such as retaliate by lunching nuclear missles, do no retaliate, retaliate and head towards an allied nation such as the US or Australia and place yourself under allied command etc. During the election, Jeremy Corbyn (The Opposition leader) publicly stated he would write down ‘Do not retaliate’ which caused a controversy because its a fucking stupid thing to do, and shows other world leaders that the UK wouldn’t defend itself.
To answer that question will probably depend on which countries who starts a nuclear war. The US against North Korea? Pakistan? India? What capabilitys do these countries have for a second-strike against the US? You can argue that these states have no capability whatsoever to wage a nuclear war against the US.
Consider the following scenarios where the US would win a nuclear war 1) At the start of the Cold War the US had an advantage in missile numbers that could have given it nuclear primacy, up to the point the USSR start to deploy viable nuclear ICBMs. 2) In the middle of the Cold War the US had attack submarines trailing Soviet all SLBM subs. The US has short-range missiles in Turkey. The US attacks first. US missiles fired from Turkey take out the Russian leadership. US attack submarines take out all the Soviet boomers. US land-based missiles take out Soviet land-based missiles. The USAF is able to shoot down bombers. Result: US victory. This is probably something the Soviets worried about and why they were so keen to get those US short-range missiles out of Turkey that they were willing to risk the Cuban Missile Crisis to do it - the end result of that was that the US removed its missiles from Turkey and the USSR did not place missiles in Cuba. 3) Post-Cold war Russia and China did not have patrolling submarines and relied on land-based missiles and bombers. Foreign Affairs wrote a controversial article (www.acamedia.info/politics/escalation/nass/The_Rise_of_U.S._Nuclear_Primacy_%7C_Foreign_Affairs.pdf ) claiming the US had nuclear primacy - i.e. if it struck first it could destroy all Russian or Chinese missiles before they could be launched. Result: US victory. Of course, that has changed with the launch of new Russian and Chinese SLBM subs. Still, that brings us to the last scenario, which the US may be working towards. 4) Post Cold War and when Russia and China have at least one SLBM submarine patrolling. The US has attack submarines but it also probably has enough missile interceptors to intercept that one submarine's worth of incoming warheads - it would get multiple chances to intercept each one with Aegis ships firing standard missiles, ground-based midcourse defense and potentially a souped-up THAAD or Patriot and maybe some space-based interceptors. Result: US victory. I.e. the US had nuclear primacy at the start of the Cold War, possibly had it or almost had it around the time of the Cuban Missile crisis. It had it in 2006 and it might have it again. It might even have it now. Obviously, if you do have nuclear primacy it's not a good idea to say it because your opponents will build new systems to counteract it. If you're aiming for it, and you should, you should vehemently deny it, as the US did when the Foreign Affairs article came out. I suspect a policy of strategic ambiguity makes sense - if your enemies think you might have it, they'll be less likely to push you in a direction that might result in a nuclear war in which you win by nuclear primacy and their countries are completely destroyed. In a nuclear war, the only winning move is to convince your opponents not to play.
i guess this video has been made under the premisses that 2 equaly capable nuclear nations would go to war. but for examole if the us decided to flatten pakistan which has no ssbns, and barely, if any, missiles capable of reaching the US, i assume such a war could be "won"
The authors of, 'The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy ' in Foreign Affairs believed so as they wrote, ' For the first time in 50 years the age of MAD is nearing an end, as the US stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy'. So are there nuclear-weapon states that could defeat other nuclear-weapon states? Of course, they could. Perhaps, the authors were wrong that the US soon would be able to defeat any nuclear weapon state including Russia, but certainly, of the nine, there are some it could defeat. The problem here is that since none expects a nuclear war anytime soon ( if ever) with another nuclear weapon state (and if and when they sense a nuclear war is likely) would surely increase their nuclear weapon stockpiles significantly to ensure mutually assured destruction (MAD). So a country might possess 100 warheads today (just to have minimum deterrent) but if it sensed that war is inevitable it might increase that to 1000 warheads, if not way more. And even if a nuclear war between two nuclear weapon-states resulted in just one being hit (while the other is shielded with missile defenses and had a 'successful' preemptive strike) both countries would be affected by what scientists called a nuclear winter. So no one wins when nuclear weapons are used. ps. It seems that Putin believes the US thinks that it could win a nuclear war, so he reminded the US recently that Russia has hypersonic missiles that are too fast to be stopped by US missile defenses. And if the US thinks it could win (don't think they do) a nuclear war against Russia, which has the most nuclear weapons, just imagine what the US thinks would happen against weaker nuclear-weapon states. PS countries (rather superpowers and potential superpowers) main goal is not to fight a war (and certainly not a nuclear one) , but to be the most technologically advanced AND possess a GDP at least twice the size of the second-largest economy. That's power in today's world. According to Putin, the country which dominates artificial Intelligence (AI} will dominate the world. And according to National Interest, an online think tank, AI dominance will depend on doing well in maths.
Hey @covert cabal i want to ask one thing what if a country doesn't have nuclear triad. I mean nuclear subs .in that case can we win by accurate pre emptive strike ? Like the Pakistan doesn't have nuclear triad they only have land and air based nuclear launch capability? What's your thoughts on it?
@@radaroreilly9502 well i am from India. So no one is gonna clober me. And did you read i mentioned Pakistan not india? For your information india has a nuclear triad so any one who has sane mind will not try to attack india.
RAPTOR in English, from the way you wrote it, it sounded to me like you are in Pakistan, sorry for any confusion. A better way to frame your question would be: can a country (India) with a nuclear triad defeat a country without a nuclear triad (Pakistan) by means of preemptive strike? I would say: yes and no. Yes you could probably clobber Pakistan, but you would totally loose respect among the other nations in the world by striking a smaller country first with nuclear weapons. India would suffer diplomatic and economic sanctions from the rest of the world, and risk becoming an outcast like North Korea or Iran. It always seems easiest to simply eradicate your enemies, but if you follow this path, you will find you always have enemies. If you learn how to turn your enemies into friends, then you will always win.
@@radaroreilly9502 i would say judging someone's country just by his English vocabulary is not a good criteria of judgment even we (Indian +Pakistani) people have our own mother tongue hindi and urdu respectively. But hey i am trying to improve my english🙂 . Ya i would agree on your point but hey you know it again boils down to same enemy is a threat thing. नमस्ते ।
Hey Covert, I love your channel, been watching for a long time and I'm happy you have sponsors. That was a really long spot though, right in the beginning, so make sure you're getting paid appropriately for it. Talk to other people your size and see what they get for the same ads bc I know they try and pull the wool over peoples eyes. I know you do your research so I hope this isnt offensive I just dont want you to be taken advantage of.
Covert Cabal.... It is not about I win.... You lose.... Hi man.... Both of us should WIN.. To comprehend this.... We all need Self Exploration... Inner Engineering...
Living post nuclear is completely possible. Look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima for example. The radiation levels from little boy and fat man were horrible. Low yield nukes produce more radiation.
