@@develynseether4426 Yes, I understand that in order to destroy all life on our planet, an even more terrible and powerful thing is needed. But I was talking about people, animals and plants
@MrWhite_19 even if every nuclear weapon were launched (which seems unlikely) it wouldn't wipe out humanity/plants/animals. Billions of us would die, huge food chain crisis would happen but some would still survive. Even if we had a nuclear winter (which scientists debate if we would or not) the planet went through an ice age that lasted over 75,000 years and only ended about 11,000 years ago and look at the world now.
It's crazy to think at one point the soviet union had over 40000 nukes and after the collapse of the USSR ukraine had the 3rd most nukes in the world with 3000 nukes
All that power but to destroy, even now in human evolution and technology that has become quite advanced we still cannot shake off that primeval, territorial confrontational savage instinct. I do not think there is any hope for mankind, too much money to be made (for some vile people) in war.
@@user-nc3pt7zc3c Childish fear of absolute nonsense is your motivation for holding bizarre ridiculous beliefs. Lack of honesty and critical thinking skills is your assistant.
@kevinlankford4383 my observation is that Russia have used new hypersonic missiles to attack Ukraine just 2 days ago, the first country to use them. They are also capable of holding nuclear warheads. Last year Russia brought into service the RS-28, it is the most powerful and longest range ICBM currently in service.
@@develynseether4426 i dont doubt what they have, it just remains to be seen if quality is consistant. Communism generally doesnt produce pride and quality in the workplace
@kevinlankford4383 it doesn't need to be consistent, as long as they have enough to destroy every major city and military facility in the western world which they do. 85% of their deployed 'first strike' salvo was modernised as of 2013, some, as I've said is even newer.
But Russia has said they had 10000 tank it turns out that was true but most were very old and do not operate I suspect the same with there nuclear weapons. Sad sad 😂😂😂😅😅😅😊
Да, очень sad то что ты такой глупый. Какие бы танки не были у России, новые или старые, они показывают результат, результат в свою пользу. Так что, не важно какая у тебя техника, важно как она показывает себя в боевых действиях. Армия США тому хороший пример, где их знаменитые Abrams? Горят так же как и все остальные, хрень а не танк. Так что, думаю с атомными бомбами ситуация такая же, может там и есть старые бомбы, но я уверен они не хуже новых бомб.
@@darylglover7037 great google translator 🙏 Yes, it’s very sad that you are so stupid. Whatever tanks Russia has, new or old, they show results, results in their favor. So, it doesn’t matter what kind of equipment you have, what matters is how it performs in combat. The US Army is a good example of this, where are their famous Abrams? They burn just like everyone else, crap and not a tank. So, I think the situation with atomic bombs is the same, maybe there are old bombs, but I’m sure they are no worse than new bombs.
@@darylglover7037 And of course, there is no need for anyone to have to use atomic bombs, including Russia. Otherwise it will be the end of the world, the apocalypse.
@darylglover7037 1. if you want them to 'write' in English then use it properly yourself first. 2. They have a right to type in whatever language they want and that borders on hate-speech so watch yourself. 3. Russia's nuclear arsenal is based on UN nuclear inspections made in 2013 and before you possibly comment on how old that is you might want to see current news events and how Russia just yesterday launched brand new technology hypersonic missiles at Kyiv.
