What if EVERY state owned Nuclear Weapons? 

Fantastic job mate. Well worth the long wait.

Excellent work.

Yes

Thats risky ..... Every country are not stable securitily nad regime change is another issue... If those wepaons end up in wrong hands they are most likely goona get used

They exist, That is not a good thing but they exist, yea they prevent war, but the price may be way too high, that is a very high price for peace maybe that's what it cost's maybe not. Hopefully nobody uses them, and if they do than hopefully someone responds to it well.

I think its because its random, you may never know when one "accidentally" drops and explode, while in conflict you can evacuate

​@@manleyaccmanley617 Yes but Countries like the US or Russia there isn't a "No first use" philosophy. They could decide to drop a bomb even in response to precieved imminent threat. Other countries like India would refrain from using the bomb unless one were used against them first.

when you think about the fact theres houndreds of nuclear bombs lost at sea

WHERE IS THE 15K YOU OWE ME?

Dropping truth nukes over here, dude.

No it's still the worst weapon it's just possessed by more. Doesn't make it any less dangerous. That is until someone comes up with something more deadly than a nuke.

It's another gun, which breaks your own arm when you shoot it

Yea, but just think what happens if one of them falls to a terror group... for it it would still be a nuke.

a 14 year old boy scout "David Hahn" enriched uranium out of his garage in Michigan in the 1980s using florescent lightbulbs... technology becomes more available over time, its inevitable everyone will have nukes at some point

"Yeah guys, nuclear weapons are so terrible don't get them, ever" "What do you mean get rid of mine? I'm the world police I need to be able to bully states into submission" America has been led by massive hypocrites for the last 100 years

@@dylan__dog the US had 31,255 warheads (1967). Since M.A.D they now have 5,000 (2021) It’s the same with all 5. Everyone has been slowly getting rid of there nukes for decades.

@@joshbentley2307 5000 you know of And 5000 is still a lot more than 0 and still an absurd number that can cause damage of apocalyptic proportions

@@dylan__dog Russia has 6,000. And as I’ve already stated, everyone is reducing there amount of nukes. But if Iran gets nukes for example, Saudi Arabia would follow. And India/U.K./France/ Israel will start to produce more nukes, which will cause Russia/Pakistan to build more nukes, which will cause the US to build more nukes, which will cause China to build more nukes.

@@joshbentley2307 no that's alright. I see the domino effect as if iran gets more nukes, Saudi Arabia will get more nukes and since Saudi Arabia gives tons of weapons to terrorist groups (not the actual government but high ranking officials) terrorist will have nukes and terrorist are crazy.

Pretty basic knoweldge. Anyone who has some interest in history knows that Tito and Stalin hated eachothers...

for many years i thought yugo was part of the warsaw pact, must have been all those shitty maps that painted them as red.

​@@alioshax7797 "Stop sending people to kill me. We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle (...) If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow, and I won't have to send a second." doesn't sound like friendship indeed lol

@אלף החרב Albania was part of it until Stalin died

@@JewTube001 1 yr late, but its also the shit history books in school

They came to Russia under international control. Simple.

There are also couple lost by the US

@Félix Sánchez nope. Nuclear weapons are heavily monitored. And all of Soviet arsenal was counted to the letter. The best thing bad guys could hope to get their hands on is custom made dirty bomb, but without scientific and intelligence help it's is also just a fantasy.

oversimplified reference in there even if abit

@@ontheline3077 US army officially lost 6 nuclear weapons and Russian army officially lost 2 nuclear weapons. These are official numbers. I would bet that no army would like to admit to losing nuclear weapons, so there may be more

Or americans

@@imiy We're aware of a lot of them, but a lot are also likely still classified.

@@concept5631 same as russians are aware of the soviet ones.

Nuclear reactors use uranium with a much smaller enrichment percentage compared to nuclear weapons, so you can have nuclear energy without the capabilities of making a nuclear weapon.

​@YAMERO CAT That's not my logic, I think you misunderstood the point entirely. Nuclear energy is the best available energy source we have and it should be promoted over all others, yes. But it's wrong to say "instead of nuclear weapons"... *precisely* because it is different and doesn't have a direct correlation with nuclear weapons. My point is the same as yours.

Countryball rules. Israel is always a cube, poland is always upside down to hide from germany, kazachstan is a rectangle, nepal has shark teeth, etc

What about sex trafficking civil wars, thoughs can cause wars two.

Lol what is China doing to Muslim population? Nothing, so taht is not a good example,

@@alexzhangdragonn3438 yeah, bad example. Everyone is too nervous about ruining trade with China to do shit now days, since China makes everything.

usa is top example of that . we saw last year how close it came to starting civil war . proud boys attacking blm may start civil war in USA

@@ayushkumar-bg1xf I do believe that the chance for civil war in the USA isn't going to happen in this year, and that we've already hit the peak.

@@ayushkumar-bg1xf That’s not a civil war that’s two political groups trading blows, it always happens A civil can only occur when there are clear sides, and BLM and The Proud Boys aren’t exactly cohesive

@@ayushkumar-bg1xf worst thing for me as a European was to see the attack on the capitol.

@c0ya1 Well technically no, as they do actually do stuff like rallies and protests (though I’m not sure how often the Proud Boys do that) BLM and (maybe?) the Proud Boys are not necessarily dedicated to hurtful action

Ballistic missiles aren't the only way to deliver nukes, they can be delivered the same ways as any other weapon. So long as any form of physical warfare is possible, nukes cannot be really countered

We'd nuke the Taliban

Taiwan is a county that definetly should have nukes pointed at Xi Jinping and his power clique.

South Africa did got nukes. In the 1990s they ended their nuclear program under the supervision of the United Nations and dismantled all their nukes (the only nuclear power to do so)

@@quisqueyanguy120 They only use nuclear technology for civilian purposes. It is located in Pretoria West.

what is stopping the most advanced nuke nation to use its own nuke

@@QWERTY-gp8fd because there’s isnt any country with advanced nukes (including russia and us)

Or China and India

@@skirata3144 Nah They aree not on that level like Pakistan and India

Countryballs rules And pyramids

Or you know, you could recognise that humans, which all nations are made of, are irrational? And that your people are irrational as well, so need checks on their power.

Libya and Iraq doesn't have powerful allies while North Korea have China and Russia so think again.

@@zigy2649 Well I did and still same result And libya and Iraq have powerful allies now they didn't have at the time of invasion because they thought america was their ally since they sold military equipment to Iraq And libya gave up it's nuclear program for Americans lifting the sanctions and security guarantees. Oh yeah you need to research more before telling me to think.

@@morningstar3997 give me some cointries who is their allies before the invasion? You think because you are buying military equipment you are an ally? Also what kind of alliance iraq and libya with the usa and the west when they always threatened each other. So yeah think again because it seems you haven't finish your research. To help you with your research. China and Russia have a pact with North Korea that if they will be invaded they will get help from china and russia but if they will start the invasion of the south then they're on their own. Now who will do the same with Iraq and Libya?

@@zigy2649 Didn't you know turkey and france are at each other's throats for libya France is for general haftars faction and turkey is supporting the UN recognized government even though they are nato members

@@morningstar3997 that's just recently. Im asking who's there allies before they got bombed by us. Also, Iraq was the only one who got invaded by us while Libya, Nato left to them after they killed Gaddafi. Also, France was involved in that war while Turkey (having normal relationship with Nato at that time) supported the war. It just recently that Nato and Turkey are getting involve again because of the continuing instability in Libya.

"Justice" is an all but completely subjective idea that only exists in humans heads. I, and most other people, care about not ending the fucking world, more than I care about supposed international injustices when I really can't see why any country should have a "right" to nuclear weapons. Especially since nations without nukes are NOT at the mercy of nations without them. Simply destroying your enemy is not that useful in actualy politics, because you know, genocide is bad. No nation with nuclear weapons could justify using them on a non-nuclear state unless they were invaded and losing, which could only really happen to Israel. Once you take the chance of something going wrong and ending the world into account it's pretty obvious we don't need anymore nuclear powers. But on top of that, even if every nation has the "right" to build nuclear weapons, they will not all be able to do it. South Sudan or Barbados, or Andorra are not going to have the resources to build a nuke, so they're being excluded anyway. And the proliferation of nuclear weapons will trigger more proliferation, until everyone NEEDS nukes, and the world has wasted trillions of dollars that could've been used to do good on weapons of mass destruction. But that's not the biggest problem to your argument. Who gets to define a "nation". Is Kosovo a nation? Is Taiwan? Is Catalonia? If two countries both claim to be the only, Korea, for example, are the both nations or is one not. Or does the UN and the already nuclear armed permanent UNSC members get to do that?

I meant social girth...

Also india:Forgets about KALBHUSHAN YADAV..search on Google if you guys forgot him

@@AUTOKINGXSHORTS Bruh he didn't kill even one life. What about Pakistan terrorists? They don't even care about Pakistani Civilians🙄