"I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one" (Julia Kelly, Movie, The Peace Maker 1997)!
@@BBwal umm, NSA,CIA,FBI,FDs and PDs would like to know your location Well,the UN,EUROPOL,INTERPOL,USMC,US DELTA,SAS,MI5,MI6,MI7,MOSSAD and the anonymous would also like to know your location. *Choose wisely*
@@xrhstospex8106 US Delta force and USMC doesn't really have anything to do with weapons security. Neither does the SAS unless you mean capturing WMDs from enemy combatants. MI7 also doesn't exist. And anonymous is a bunch of redditors who pretend to be hackers because they took one class in Java.
@@iamunamed5800 for starters,US delta and SAS deal with terrorism soo,ehh.And one big WOW for the Mi7.I was expecting at least a reference to the UN because they really cant do anything,but oh well.I guess i am left out of options here.I will come back with more information another day,but for now,bye
I heard an interview with a military person who was involved with the targeting of these weapons back in the fifties and sixties. Some of the reasoning of why they were targeting 69 weapons in one radar installation was because they had nothing else to do with the extra weapons so they just doled them out across the target lists. Madness.
I remember where I heard this. Hardcore History podcast by Dan Carlin. If you like military history (and a lot of you probably do if you’re subscribed to this channel) then you owe yourself a listen to Dan.
@Will Bailey Don-2 radar is a key part of A-135 anti-missile system. It's obvious that the system supposed to hit some number of warheads. That is the cause of large number of warheads targeted to it. And it was built only in the 1980s. So your version sounds like an urban legend.
@@Noname_NoID perhaps, if I remember right he was quoting some guys book from the Rand Corp but my memory is hazy. I’m also sure some of the targets sure did require multiple warheads. It also sounded like they had more warheads than targets? But I’m just an armchair lover of history not an expert.
The 50s and 60s was an era of nuclear fetish, the military created everything from nuclear artillery shells to nuclear mines, portable nuclear cases and the Davy Crockett mini-nuke launcher. Great video as as always.
Davy Crockett, otherwise known as the crew autoimolation device. Seriously, who came up with the idea of a weapon which would likely kill it's own crew as well when fired?
As awful as nuclear weapons are I'd think that disarmament is a fool's errand. With so much at stake I wouldn't want to rely on my enemy's word that a weapon isn't in the inventory. The old saying of "all is fair in love and war" comes to mind.
There is a factual error in this video. The bomb type used during the Trinity Test was NOT used twice in Japan. The first bomb we dropped was "Little Boy" dropped on Hiroshima was a different type of device using they called a "Gun Type" fission method using Uranium 235. The Trinity test was required because it was an experimental implosion type using Plutonium instead of Unanium 235 they didn't know if it would work or not. In Japan the implosion Bomb was called "Fat Man" and was dropped on Nagasaki.
@John Smith Oh look, a RU-vidr made an error. So you thought it was ok to open your mouth and say some rude af stuff? You offered nothing of value other than demeaning someone. Very impressive.
Covert Cabal, 2020: Ending Nuclear War Covert Cabal, 2021: Nuclear Strategy I'm fine with this. I am completely happy with the way events are unfolding.
"How should nukes be used?" 1- Stuff a nuke up the ass of each and every politician on Earth. 2- Detonate them all. 3- Enjoy a world free of war. 4-.......... 5- Profitsssssssss!
The weapons don't all arrive at the same time so it's an attack that is constantly hitting the target to prevent communications, to prevent a surviving missile launch and like you said interception although it's though unlikely. The nuclear strike would be timed launches according to their location from the target to constantly hit the target over and over again.
French nuclear strategy doctrine during cold war was fairly simple. Any invasion on the french soil by the USSR (or any other nuclear power) would simply be answered with nuclear retaliation.
...you know, that's not a bad policy. If you know the USSR's military is bigger than yours and conventional war/diplomacy is all but hopeless, might as well get straight to the point. It's like a bee with a stinger -- they've got one credible deterrence, they know they'll die if they use it, so they're brightly colored to deter attacks in the first place.
That’s sooo stupid, if France was invaded, at most 20% of the French population would die, but if they did their little suicide pact ‘strategy’ would cause 90% casualties on the French side, not to mention the rest of the world. What is it with the French and absolutely terrible military strategies.
Dont know the actual reason but what i'm guessing the reasoning was that theres no way you can expect everyone to go "oh yeah sure let me just never use the weapons with which i could end or prevent a war". If a dictator rises to power in some country and decides to build nukes, you have no deterrent anymore because theres no threat of mutually assured destruction.
@@pavelvalenta5103 Every one that's worried about "Getting freedomed" might votes against. Since the main way to discourage "Getting freedomed" is by having a way to start a human extinction event.
From what I here the Afghani president basically handed the control over to the Taliban. Highly Doubt a insurgent/terrorist group would take over government headquarters in a western nation.
@@nsaagentkali8984 So what if the government of a western nation hands the keys to a terrorist group?! It's not that much likely when you consider what's going on in United States.
@@RameenFallschirmjager well I don't live in America or Afghanistan and what do you mean what if the government hands them the keys? That's literally what happen the Afghani president ran away and gave the country to them pretty much and yes it's no secret that Taliban uses American weapons and tech so really what is the issue we already no the government gave the Taliban the keys.
@@nsaagentkali8984 Afghans are imported to United States by planes by thousands as refugees right now. Let's that sink in. And we have also southern border crisis on our hands too! Let's than sink in too.
@@RameenFallschirmjager aha that's where your wrong big dawg I don't gotta let anything sink in freedom of opinion. Your the one who was implying Taliban took Afghanistan over by control when they really walked in when the president ran like a bitch. Also I ain't give a shit about what's happening in America that country is much of a joke as Afghanistan so let that sink to 😂
You cannot win a nuclear war even if your side stands you likely won’t survive the coming fallout followed by nuclear winter it’s called mutually assured destruction for a reason they’re not just talking about the explosive itself
@@Chris-rd2pv MAD developed in a world where the superpowers had thousands of high yield nukes; which are powerful enough to throw radioactive material into the upper atmosphere and cause nuclear winter. Nuclear doctrine has changed through the decades and most nuclear weapons now are tactical in nature. Tactical nukes aren't powerful enough to cause nuclear winter and there aren't enough high yield nukes anymore to cause nuclear winter. We're more at risk now of nuclear war than we ever were during the Cold War, imo.
@@Chris-rd2pv im very aware that nuclear war can't be "won" and would lead to death for both parties. Me saying I appreciate the tips given is just meant to make fun of the fucked up situation we are in and the fact, that none of us have any control over the outcome of a war on this scale. We really can just hope that no idiot up there will start a nuclear war anytime soon. This type of humor is called sarcasm and is oftentimes not understood by people like you.
Originally, nuclear weapons were viewed as simply more powerful conventional weapons. However, the destructive potential of nuclear weapons increased and wargaming studies showed a very strong tendency to escalate to an all out nuclear war regardless of how limited the initial use of nuclear weapons. The speed of the escalation once started was such that de-escalation would be almost impossible.
The problem with deterence is currently shown in Russia, nuclear countries can be as aggressive as they want and invade other non nuclear nations. This is going to unleash a nuclear arms race and the weapons will fall into the wrong hands for sure. Nuclear weapons are aggressive not just deterrence.
Building nuclear weapons isn't cheap and isn't easy. Even if you have everything to create them you still need to enrich the Uranium or other radioactive fuels to the point that they can be used as weapons. Biggest part of nations don't have money and technology to create them at all.
Can you imagine observing a civilization that detonates weapons of mass destruction on their one & only planet? That’s probably why UFOs started popping up after these nuclear tests.
Whoever uses them could be in some serious trouble, possibility we are being monitored and it's possible they reside here on earth living in Earth's oceans, and their technology is far superior than ours and if they showed themselves we would realize how horse and cart we are compared to them.
Fun fact: During the 60s, the US strike plan involved so many targets in the USSR, PRC and NK and so many warheads that military planners actually named the plan "Wargasm".
Yeah, the US target selection got pretty much overboard as time went on.... While I don't think we need thousands of nukes, I do believe they have advanced our skill in diplomacy a whole lot.
Not realy advanced more like froze, borders and nations have barely changed since the collapse of the USSR, this is not a system that can go on forever and it's very disfunctional long term.
@@danielsteger8456 not sure what you mean, I´m saying borders aren´t changing much anymore due to the nature of mutually assured destruction, two things can happen long term with this system in place. 1. the deterrent breaks down due to new technology be it defence based or offensive, in the process making war seem more likely as result. 2. the threat of losing power and desperation or fanaticism of ideology or religion causes the rise of irrational governments to risk nuclear war despite the immense losses for everyone involved. there is no way to avoid one of these things from happening long term and people are not aware of them, governments too are becoming to used to the long peace and simply assume nuclear war is impossible when in reality more nations than ever have them and some have even gone missing, we should pray that option 1 happens and we just have a massive war instead of allowing option 2 to become a reality. thinking this current system can go on or will go on forever, is delusional and naive.
@@golagiswatchingyou2966 this is a terrible argument. 1. the deterrent breaks down... lmfao. governments are extremely concerned about the maintenance of their ability to promise MAD and will go lengths to preserve it. look at hypersonic weapons, the whole point of them is to bypass defence mechanisms. look at STATUS-6. ability to MAD is of upmost importance to the security of the country, atleast for nuclear capable countries who dont rely on a larger power for peace. "making war seem more likely..." this is flawed thinking. the risks are still the same: complete destruction of the planet. just imagine this: "president, we have developed counter-nuclear weapons! now instead of 99% of the country completely destroyed, only 85% of the country will be leveled. perfect time to start a war..." if you unironically think this then you are a lost cause. 2. ah yes, the argument of irrational leaders. this reminds me of some child sitting in front of the TV breathing heavily because believed the empty words of some fat leader across the pond. doesnt matter who is being talked about. Kim jong un, taliban, china, iran, etc etc. fact is, leaders arent retarded. they have atleast some idea about strategy, and they know full well what nukes are capable of. and if they dont, their allies will let them know. you think china, north korea's only ally, will just let him fire ICBMs? so where are the nukes? i dont see any bombs falling out of the sky. and imagine, even if there is a leader who wants complete death of non-believers, you think he is unaware of how a post-nuclear 3rd world country compares to post-nuclear USA, russia, china, etc? he would know his religion would be completely wiped out. so he would pursue other means of spreading his beliefs, that atleast preserves his religion.
@@danielsteger8456 you assume human beings, societies and religions are way more rational than they tend to be and remember im saying this in the long term, long term as in between now 100 years + I never said that if it only destroys 85% then wars would suddenly happen, you are saying that, I'm saying bringing that number down to 0-1% would make that event far more likely and as technology keeps advancing the idea that nothing will ever stop an ICBM is the same logic people used in ww1 thinking nothing is ever going to outshine the horse or the rifle armed soldier, today we have things like advanced AI, robotics, next generation fighters, let alone in the near future, the USA alone and Israel have advanced missle defence systems and are trying to develop better ones, it's not hard to imagine at some point the defence and counter attack systems become better than the ICBM's used today, we are simply extending the usefullness of ICBM's by making them faster, what happens when someone goes into space and places weapons like it above the world's head? it just seems naive to think this can go on forever. as for child sitting in front of the tv, that sounds more like you, trying to make childish insults and comparing real rogue nuclear states (which already exist today) aren't going to become a more common thing, you might not know this but places in the middle east might consider getting nukes if Iran gets them, Japan could become a nuclear power because of the threat of China, India and Pakistan also have nukes and hate eachother the only thing that's preventing them from engaging in open warfare is the USA world system and the fact that they aren't sure if they would win such a conflict, now add in potential new players or terrorists gaining the ability to make nukes or weapons like it and you could see a world that spirals into desperation, fear and thus irrational behavior. everyone knew going into ww1 and ww2 would destroy most of their own and enemy nations and they had plenty of people saying the people on the top that would be the case and they went along with it anyways because that is the nature of human civilization and how wars happen, most of human history is waging wars or preparing for the next war, the only time this did not happen is when one side becomes so powerfull that forces others to not wage wars, as the USA becomes less powerfull, other nations catching up to them and more internal problems keep dividing people that will lead to more irrational governments and you only need a few of them to do something stupid to start a world war or just a large global conflict on a smaller scale. some religions have death cults in them or end of the world visions of the future, for them killing everything and everyone is the goal, most of the world is becoming more nihilistic and out competed or controled by technology, the idea that such cults and religions would not rise to some degree again is very naive. now look if you don't care about any of this and want to pretend like this little bubble is going to work forever then go ahead, I just think it's very naive and will probably not be very usefull to have when shit hits the fan.
I think if there was a possibility that nuclear warfare would begin, bro I would just leave, go down to Australia, Africa, South America, wherever, I’m out.
This video bypassed a specific answer to the question raised in the tag line- " Can nuclear war be won?" No it can't be won and that's why no one dared to enter into war with a country having nuclear weapon.
We have seen very few wars between nuclear armed states. That said when you look at India and Pakistan, you could argue their nuclear weapons have prevented a large scale war, it has not prevented small battles between them. One could argue the fear of a nuclear war is now so strong, that two nuclear armed countries could fight a conventional war of considerable scale without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons, the fear of what the other side would do, being enough to convince both sides not to use their nukes. It is also possible that a first use might not result in a large scale nuclear response. The question that is hardest to answer is how would you response to an enemy you used just one nuke against you. Their is no easy answer to that question.
I think that the use of nuclear weapons would be more and more likely as the war went on and one side gained an advantage over the other. A dramatic shift in one side's fortunes (a catastrophically lost battle or the loss of a key logistics route) could push one side to use a nuclear weapon in order to stem the tide
@@ashesofempires0404 I do not see nuclear weapons as a war ender. People will point to Japan, but the reality is that the war was already over at the point, as we now know negotiations for surrender were already underway. I am not a big believer in the idea that using nukes will change the course of a war. If you are already losing, it is unlikely that setting of a few nukes will change that. The threat of use maybe, but not the actual use. Actual use is more lightly to inflame the situation than calm tensions and remember you might be on the receiving end of a nuclear response as well. It is more likely that somebody would use nukes as an opening move, for example a modern-day Pearl Harbour would be a nuclear strike. Using a nuclear armed sea mines to take out a carrier battle group would also make sense as an opening move as you would have none of the civilian casualties you would associate with a strike on a major naval base.
Aye, all that is necessary is that both sides have more desire to wage conventional war than to nuke the opponent. A conflict that takes place on the soil of a third party is prime example.
@@DzinkyDzink The proxy war will always be conventional, as the political cost of using nukes will always be substantial. The history of countries following conventions of war does not give me much confidence nukes would never be used.
The winners are the ones who goes quickly with the blast. The survivors are the ones I feel bad for. Worst yet are the one living on some remote island and they witness the world going dark
One "wins" a nuclear war by ensuring that the greater part of the population doesn't perish in one. Obviously the winning move is not to play, but if your alternative is complete capitulation to the threat of a nuclear exchange, then you've already lost everything that matters anyway. Avoiding target rich environments, and evenly distributing your population and productive capability ensures that the number of bombs required to "wipe the slate clean" is simply insurmountable. Architectural choices that are naturally hardened to the overpressure blast and fires that result from a nuclear detonation further reduces the effective range of warheads to only close or direct hits. Extensive use of underground shelters protects from fallout. Well provisioned shelters preserve life until normalcy can resume. A well prepared and resilient population can not only endure a nuclear exchange, but can render it a largely ineffective means of waging war, which will do more to eliminate vast nuclear arsenals than diplomacy ever will.
Or it will encourage vast amounts of nuclear armament buildup and increase tensions greatly by destroying other nations’ strategic deterrence. If a country can feasibly withstand a full scale nuclear strike, that means that it could essentially wipe any other country off of the map in about 30 minutes to an hour. That tends to make said other countries a bit worried.
thats why the russians have us totally beat in this way. While all their metros in every major cities also serve a role as "sealable fallout shelters" for city inhabitants. Meanwhile, we americans are left on our own because of "capitalism" and we are fucking S.O.L . if we havent built a Fallout shelter in our backyards
Naa, in that case .... Its more likely that one human faction will collude with the aliens to wipe out the others 😅 .... dont underestimate human capacity to inflict violent on each other
I know the point of launching 69 warheads at one single target is to ensure that at least a few are not shot down, and actually make it. But I cannot even imagine what 69 nuclear detonations on one single location would even look like. We've all seen one single detonation in one location, but never multiple on top of each other, one after the other.
“I won’t get into whether it was moral to nuke Japan because it’s been covered so extensively” “Here’s why WW3 hasn’t happened yet” I think someone doesn’t want to lose a decent portion of their subscriber base out of fear…
8:46 We still have hot was between the superpowers, it’s just done by proxy. Conflicts such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan involve so many nations that they are close to being world wars.
Your title shot picture shows the re entry of a MIRV shot coming down at Kwajalein (dummy warheads) I have talked to the scientists who watched this re entry and said it was creepy and surreal as each came down with its own sonic boom ! The nighttime tests were even more surreal !
Putin summed it up with Oliver Stone [paraphrased]: 'We know a nuclear engagement is not winnable, but our greatest concern is that military leaders in the U.S. think that it is'. Hence, Russia promises a full retaliatory MAD strike if any NATO nuclear warhead, tactical or not, is used on its homeland. China cannot yet strike the U.S. back in this capacity. The Pentagon could blunder with hubris & unintended consequences on either front. Reaching this brink & requiring a lot of luck and tremendous diplomacy was reached over only 13 days in October, 1962. A similar nuclear storm can develop as suddenly a cumulonimbus category 5 cell in blue skies. What a time to have such ineptness in the U.S. State. They could blow a lot up fast. And according to Colonel Wilkerson (who has admitted his naivety under Colin Powell), China over the last 10 years has created its own MIC with Generals now salivating at sinking American carriers: China could strike first too in their minds pre-emptively. Or ditto the U.S. while it still has nuclear advantage. Side note: JFK and RFK are dead while Biden can't read a teleprompter and Kamala's cackle won't be much of a deterrence. The neo-cons fill that void and expect them to lash out somewhere to 'restore' the debacle of lost prestige and trillions of MIC funding now that Afghanistan is off the table. Nuclear game of chess...where the entire table can collapse underneath it.
Lot it wasnt their nuclear weapons tbh. It was Soviet Union's, under the control of the federal official structure. If today, Texas secede from US, as par the provisions given in US constitution, you cant expect US military will let Texas keep US nukes stationed there. Its part of the deal.
Yes, nuclear weapons have largely prevented world wars 3, 4, 5, and 6, and this overall is a good thing, but what many fail to realise is that from these wars come many excellent movies. Each war would also be accompanied by its own iconic soundtrack, as was the case for the Vietnam War.
I can't believe that given the huge construction costs of the Trinity program, they ran out of copper so borrowed thousands of tons of silver from fort Knox, building large towns just to research the atom
@@tripplefives1402 sure, Dresden and Tokyo were more destructive than a single fat man, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more but I still can't see how it could have been more expensive than the 120,000 people working on the bomb for 3 years and building several reactors
We saved trillion dollars building nukes, we lost trilllions, rebuilding Afghanistan. I always listen to warmongers, they are the smartest people in the world, if any world is left at the end.
Imagine two people, locked inside a sealed room, try to kill each other with poison gas: The side who uses it to kill the enemy first wins. But it is a CLOSED ROOM. Eventually, the poison gas will kill everyone, so no one wins, everyone loses.
It would be somewhat ironic and say a lot about our species (both bad and good) if nuclear weapons somehow prevent any more large scale world wars and ultimately lead to world peace. I am a firm believer that nukes have prevented further world wars and are a necessary evil in a world with greedy and mad men.
@@jewishmcloin1933 Yes, if Ukraine had kept its nuclear arsenal, it would not be in the position it is in now. Expect more nations to develop nuclear weapons and no nation will ever give up its nukes once they have them. Eventually, somebody will use them. I hope we have self-sustaining colonies on other worlds by then but our time may be running out.
The group probably came to the number 311 due to MIRV - multiple warheads contained in each nuclear missile. The US would be able to have the same amount of devastation with fewer missiles.
Fun fact: South Africa is the only country that gave up its nuclear arsenal in the interest of world safety. Those guys maybe looters but deep inside, they're a peaceful people.
The fact that after the Collapse of the USSR many nuclear bombs were left unguarded is not widely known. The nuke inspectors sounded the alarm and funds were made available to pay the guards at these facilities with back pay . I think Russia now has good paid security. We certainly hope so
"Don't" is the best nuke strategy. Even Reagan learned that, thanks to watching "The Day After", and Reagan was dumber than five horses. Edit: Ronnie is unique amongst H-Bomb Era US presidents in that he entered office in '81 thinking a nuclear war, meaning a first-strike on the Soviets, would be a good thing, in that we hit them suddenly with 3,000 warheads, and they can only hit back with 1,000 tops, and we recover in a few years. Woohoo, we win. His advisors encouraged this idiocy, and The Day After ruined it.......with knowledge.
