Lmao their phony’s, their in the dark ages still ur a dumb American if you think they are more advanced then the us. Israel vs Russia. Israel wins in all categories. All them warheads Russia has, DUDS😂😂
Its very likely that they bluffed how much they had to try to scare mostly the U.S. and nato countries not to start anything funny. Its possible they were very close to the us amount in the 1980s
Ah yes, let me call up Russia and ask them how many nukes they have, I shall get a good and trustworthy answer because countries are totally open about how many nukes they have
Have you ever heard of intelligence service ? You know today everyone knows pretty much everything that the others do. Why do you think the medias started to talk about Ukraine weeks before the war began ? We have satellites, infiltrated agents, hacking and all sorts of shit to know what's going on.
@@issoulescondes3913 So you think countries doesn't have secret weapons? How naive you are. Those nukes numbers doesn't matter. Russians have a lot of nukes but still living in poverty without free speech. Well spend money.
@@saiko-no-kamiwell nobody declare that we have nukes but in reality most of the middle eastern countrys are developing nukes which is not great not only middle east turk and japan bangladesh have all the items that a nuke requires Myanmar is also trying to buy a nuke
Pretty accurate description tbh... The pre 1994 government didn't trust Mandela's ANC with nukes so dismantled all our nuclear weapons. Pretty good call given the current state of the nation.
You're just another young pup who thinks he knows everything, but really doesn't know a damn thing and is too stupid to shut your mouth and learn something before opening it again!
@@TheTwoFingeredBulldog what is the point of hiding it? Unless you don't have as much as you say, no one with half a brain would say they have less. They're not secret weapons. They're point is to scare the enemies and keep them away
@@funnybunnies6536after the Soviet fell all the post Soviet countries like Ukraine and Kazakhstan have old Soviet silos in their territory but all the nukes have been returned to Russia
They made them secretly. Probably a lot of other countries out here too with some secret nukes up their sleeve. Israel has never even confirmed they have nukes but they definitely do. I bet most of the Scandinavian countries have them too. Brazil is a maybe as well. You just have to build a big underground bunker and make them there so nobody sees
@@dddf27for treaties that meant Russia was supposed to respect their territorial boundaries, and that went well, should have let em keep their nukes, Russia would have never even gotten Crimea
That's not true. Did you just imagine that would be the case, then state it as fact? The largest nuclear weapon ever deployed by the US was retired in 1976. It was more than 20 times the yield of their current largest weapon. For Russia, their largest ever deployed warhead was retired in 1986, and it's over 12 times the yield of anything they have now. For UK, 1970, an 11 fold yield reduction. France, 1991, 10-12 fold decrease. The exception among the NPT states is China, which deployed it's highest yield warhead in 1981, and hasn't yet retired it.
Nuclear missiles Weaponries warheads are😢Causing totally in Death only 😢.Doesn’t really matter that its Nuclear Warhead tips at all it more or less powerful Nuclear missiles warheads.If ours humanity ever started WW3 with Nuclear Warfare?The planet 🌎 earth are dying and will be dead ☠️ soon at those moments as Numbers missiles of Nuclear missiles tips are starting to flying all over planet 🌎 continents.
@@cmdrgarbage1895 he is speaking truth for example nuclear bomb can divide in to 2 parts atomic bomb and tharmo nuclear bomb. Uranium bomb , plutonium, , are atomic bomb all of nuclear countries don't hold all types of nuclear bomb for example there is 9 nuclear countries but all of them have Uranium bomb.
@@cmdrgarbage1895 7 have plutonium bomb(usa Russia uk india franch China Pakistan) 6 have hydrogen/tharmo nuclear bomb bomb (usa Russia China India UK. France )
India be like mere sab se advanced launncher brahmos khud hi ghalti se launch ho jate hain name India's one successful indigenous weapon Pakistan has many like jf 17 and al khalid and ababeel missile
@@donjunalare you being taught in madarsa? Pakistan can't even manufacture a needle.. Jf17/ al khalid and missile are made in China and painted in Pakistan.. Nothing more than that
@@serbianwarrior5930 do you think that you can put nuclear bomb in a room and forget? But what about security, maintenance and other things? What if the missile explodes on the spot or is launched into an already programmed country?
Pakistan holds about 100-120 nuclear weapons, which can be delivered by aircraft and land-based missiles, while India's nuclear arsenal is around 90-110 nuclear weapons, according to estimates by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
@@hackero757 ek toh bc tumhare missiles k naam 😂😂 upar se yh pta h Pakistan k kaum ko ki unke paas koi bhi carrier nhi h ek bda nuke drop krne k liye? Bajwa sahab sutli li tarah aag lga k islamabad mein hi phod lenge xD
The pre 1994 government voluntarily dismantled our nuclear weapons because they didn't trust Mandela's ANC with nukes. Probably for the best if you look at the state of the nation today...
@@becomingyeti8363 the nukes are stored in a high level security base, They were dismantled but the uranium that was used to assemble the nukes are still there that means south africa can easily become a nuclear power again but the no nuclear weapons treaty that south africa is in won't allow that to happen
South Africa developed a few nuclear bombs by the early 90s and deactivated them before the apartheid government relinquished power as they could tell the country would turn into what we see today and that wouldn’t be safe with nuclear weapons lying around, and they kinda faced a lot of international pressure as everyone kinda knew they had them.
I once read that Russia can kill the population of the Earth 10 times, meaning they will kill you 9 times and the entire population of the Earth, and they still have enough to kill more.
The didn't own these rockets, the thing is that Russia is what is called the successor of USSR, because Russians also took all obligations for the debts of the USSR and the obligations of the USSR under international treaties, AND its place in the UN Security Council. Ukraine refused to pay on USSR debts, so they can't claim the property of the USSR just because it was placed on their territory before the collapse of the USSR. In short, it was Russian property on Ukrainian territory. Russia then showed all the caution needed (after all, this is a very dangerous weapon) and agreed with Ukraine to return these missiles without scandals, although it had every right to take away these missiles by right of ownership, but Ukraine was already known then for appropriating stuff that it never possessed, like, for example, the city of Sevastopol, which was a separate administrative unit of the USSR and was not part of the Republic of Crimea, which came under the jurisdiction of Ukraine. They basically annexed it in 1991. What goes around comes around I guess.
The whole Pakistan India rivalry seems so odd to me as an American, like you guys so similar yet hate each other so much (though I guess that’s not unique to that rivalry)
Anywhere from 100-200 nukes being used in like a year would end the world anyway. Anything over 250 is just like having 5,000 bullets in your house for “self protection” lol
You mean blasting bullets at the range for training. You only need like 10 rounds for self defense if you need more you’re either wanted for bounty like John wick or a terrible shot. Shooting is just another hobby.
@@Evan_Bell Really there is only one way to find out. The fact you would argue is sad. Kind of a weird pissing match considering nobody would want 100-200 nukes to be used at any given time. However, if your child or grandchildren have arms growing out of their forehead and you have proved me wrong….. good for you
@@seanfloyd4510 I'm simply correcting your misunderstanding and misinformation.. Calm down. Also, the use of 100-200 nukes would not result in a massive increase in the rate of birth defects. The total fission yield of a global nuclear exchange would only equal 3-4 times the fission yield of atmospheric nuclear tests. If you get upset by someone correcting you, don't state things you don't know to be true. If you're going to make claims, you have to be prepared to be mistaken and corrected. Sensible people don't get their knickers in a twist over that.
People don’t understand that it doesn’t matter how many warheads you have what matters is how powerful are the warheads and strategy on when your gonna launch it 💯💯💯💯
What actually happened was that the nukes were built during apartheid and before apartheid ended the government quickly disabled them knowing that if the anc takes over and keeps the weapons they could just as well give a loaded gun to a 3 year old
Think about how much it would have cost to build and keep that many warheads. Russia was just on another level. However who knows how many were actually operable.
@@no-oneinparticular7264 honestly your not that far off. I think Russia exaggerated the number of warheads they had and it ended being really similar to what the US had during the 80s, so closer to 10-15k instead of over 30k
@@emperorofwar1 What makes you say that? They built that many to keep up with the United States. Once they realized it wasn't neccessary they started to get rid of them. Even if what you say is true they still more than enough.
Russia's conventional military maybe a joke but their nuclear power isn't, other than America only Russia has successfully tested the most number of nuclear weapons, both atomic and hydrogen. Russian nukes work and are operational, make no mistake about thag
@@shanahmad3974Ye life me toh possible ni he ki Bharat ko hara do bhaijaan. Ye baat tumhe v pata he,mana ki accept karna sharumnaak hogi,par ab sach he toh he. Kitni ladai dekh chuke,parinaam ek hi he.
They're not hundreds of times bigger today than during the period the number of weapons in each country's arsenals were higher. The largest nuclear weapon ever deployed by the US was retired in 1976. It was more than 20 times the yield of their current largest weapon. For Russia, their largest ever deployed warhead was retired in 1986, and it's over 12 times the yield of anything they have now. For UK, 1970, an 11 fold yield reduction. France, 1991, 10-12 fold decrease. The exception among the NPT states is China, which deployed it's highest yield warhead in 1981, and hasn't yet retired it.
Fun fact: the yellow country which is Ukraine had nuclear weapons but USA,Russia,Uk and France said give up your nuclear weapons and you will never get a war with another country but Russia decided to declare a war against Ukraine that’s why the world with Ukraine
the dismantling might be partly from obsolence, and from higher yields. they make extra as back ups because they get targeted, but seems like you could send out your nukes before they got hit. the scariest thing for me is how clean fusion bombs are now. just another piece of artillery : (
Im sure there were other factors at play (like icbm count) but the soviet production is incredibly impressive. Im glad that the cold war didn't turn hot
it doesn't matter how many they have 1000 is more than enough to end human once and for all. The eco system after nuclear fall out would be able so sustain fragile creature like us.
@@ahmermehmood1177 because of the decay of the neutron generator inside the nuclear weapons. Tritium is used as a neutron generator to initiate chain reaction. Tritium has a half life of 12 years. The US and Russia can always service their old stockpile if they want to.
5000 enough Russia or USA alone can destroy mankind. But it won't happen. Because many nukes may not explode at all or can be intercepted easily. Only a fraction of them will explode and take out billions of people
You think that’s scary? Despite spending more money on the military than the next five coutures combined, the US’s nuclear system is so poorly managed that we’ve left open access to them multiple times, have left them in plain sight, and once dropped on by accident on our own country (North Carolina, to be specific))
How many nuclear weapons are actually needed to deter an adversary from using a nuclear weapon? The estimated number hovers around 200, based on a best-case scenario for your adversary. Even if they are able to eliminate 50% on the ground and intercept 60% in the air, there would still be 40 nuclear bombs detonated in your country, resulting in an immediate death toll of 10-15 million and another 10 million injured, as well as trillions of dollars worth of damage to infrastructure. In my opinion, this catastrophic scale of destruction has the potential to bring about the collapse of any country, as such a scenario has never occurred in history.
india's one brahmos missiles accidentally hit pakistan months ago, but pakistan's defence system couldn't intercept it, now think about how many active nukes pak would have and their condition🤣
Fact: PM of Pak was begging on tv for funds to help pakistan from floods as you guys are out of money Now i am laughing how you guys even make these comments🤷♂️always amazes me
@@peak_911 😏🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣Jo b ha economy b kamzor ha chahye par nukes phr b zada ha Tum logo sy Larai tadada zada hony sy nhi ki jati jazba hona chye jazba to Tum gandvo ma nhi ha 😏🤣
Others should stop threatening to use nukes on non nuclear nations before mouthing off to USA. Like China and Taiwan. Or China and Japan. Or Russia and Ukraine. Or Russia and the Baltics.
@@realnapster1522 Pakistan is well aware it possess a fraction of Indias capabilities and capacity. Nukes are mechanism of deterrence for them. As for India, it seems its focus has always been on its smaller neighbor, from politics to media, from sports to culture, it seems to be an obsession of India to focus on Pakistan. India should be competing with China, but it dares not to even look towards its direction out of fear it may anger the dragon.
Israel is enough against its enemies without using Nuclear but india don't India can easily defeat it's neighbouring country except china anyday India have to beat china
