The Danger of Low Yield Nuclear Weapons 

Mr Knight “these wallets can withstand nukes”

he dropped raid shadow legends like we asked tho so i'm not complaining

@@colonelstriker2519 for $105 usd it better

M B Each view of a RU-vid video pays approximately 0.82 cents to the producer, although that specific number depends on a multitude of factors. So on average,About 25,000 views to make $200.

Mr Knight smooooth transition

7 months later and this comment is even more apt. With Russia failing so significantly in Ukraine and lacking in conventional weapons they could resort to firing low yield missiles at city centers to force a cease-fire.

5:29 I think they’ve already started ☢️this week

since the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia has actually abandoned eastern euro countries Maybe even too much

😂😂

oops, accidently almost copied your comment

I fully agree. Small yield nukes is a terrible idea.

Wicked 1323 flawless reasoning to start a nuclear holocaust.

I think the reasoning behind this is to have more missiles, that can still do a lot of damage. This makes them more of a threat as point defense and interceptor missiles will have to deal with more missiles if they are deployed in a swarm attack.

The reason small yield nuclear weapons or tactical nukes exist is to attack enemy formations inside your own territory without destroying the area they are in...or if your own troops are near the enemy.

@@JonAfrica-vg7xq Yeah, and when they are destroyed, you realize that you have contaminated your own territory with nuclear materials, rendering it uninhabitable and unusable for decades at the minimum.

Cockroache's choice.

@@JonatasAdoM 🤣🤣

@@JonatasAdoM lol

Am the upcoming dictator of middle East ( holocaust 2.0 soon )😬🌚😬😬

@@albinrezwan1999 who are you going to bomb ? Which country you going to be a dictator of ?

There are no winners in a nuclear war.

Other than those vaporized or otherwise killed instantly, I would agree with you.

4th generation nukes - most people would never know they had been used.

Yes they ate nuclear weapons allow a country to destroy a enemy nations military without having to invade and kill millions of more people than the amount of people that would die in a nuclear war also mutually assured destruction and nuclear winter are myths the radiation and fallout of nuclear weapons only last 14 days and modern nuclear weapons are actually a lot cleaner and release less radiation than old school nuclear weapons like Hiroshima and Nagasaki also Russia and China have been building up their nucleur stockpiles while the United States is disarmed more than a third of its nuclear weapons to the point where Russia now has three times the amount of nuclear weapons and Russia and China have at least ten times the amount of conventional weapons that The United States has and it’s interesting than the media and government don’t have a problem in starting unjustified and unconstitutional wars in the Middle East yet when we want to go after real enemies like Russia China and North Korea than the media and the military industrial complex will accuse you of being a warmonger and wanting to start a nuclear war and I’m sick of people criticizing The United States for its nuclear weapons yet their is not a peep of criticism directed at Russia and China who unlike Iraq Iran Afghanistan Syria Yemen or Libya are actually real threats and they actually can take on the United States military

During the Cold War the Soviet Union had 70,000 nuclear warheads and the United States had 50000 nuclear warheads now United States has 8,000 nuclear warheads and Russia has 10,000 nuclear warheads Russia has always had more nuclear warheads then the United States and yes a nuclear winter does exist and it will definitely happen if all those weapons are detonated it would put so much fallout and debris into the atmosphere that will block the sun for over 30 years and nothing will grow and we will all freeze but that's only if all those weapons are detonated in a nuclear exchange. Making nuclear weapons Smaller and more tactical is actually very dangerous very very dangerous because some idiot will actually think that the world won't care if you use a small one I'm pretty sure the world will care if we use a small one.

Gandhi Moment

@Charles Yuditsky 80 cities? Demn son

@John Smith compared to every other life threatening disease?; covid is a joke

@Charles Yuditsky lol got to love steamrolling the AI with ICS

Fk are you geeks on about? Lol

The USA was the first to vaporize fellow humans with Nuclear Bombs, and the first to enact a benevolent world power structure, they will never fall behind because they realize if they give up any ground, they are doomed. The United States Military can wipe out every adversary on our Planet with Ease, and then pick off the "Dead Man Switch" nukes like a game of Whack-A-Mole.

@@iinRez uhuh, with what?

@@iinRez with patriots like these who needs terrorists?

@@iinRez lol.. you must be smoking the same stuff as hunter

@@iinRez I dare you to call the power structure benevolent on the ground in Guatemala City, Port-au-Prince, Ouagadougou, or Hanoi.

*sweats in December*

Nope we good, except that we don't know who's actually running the WH anymore

@@intraterrestrial5035 close enough...

@@intraterrestrial5035 I’m pretty sure we do. He’s been in the white house for the last several weeks. Anyone who doubts the claim the Biden is president by now isn’t using many of their brain cells.

Moab's Washpot lame

Yes but you'll be glowing green so it will not matter.

Although I hope he says it again but in a video on biological weapons because I never seen a clear demonstration of their effectiveness or if they work at all.

@@wowfmomf6126 which video

Jack Robert he hasn't made a video on biological weapons yet I was asking for it.

I guess a year still is a few months

😂😂

1) This argument is false. The USA was the first country to use nukes (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). They did not face international condemnation.

@@1schwererziehbar1 Your right they did and that was before we even knew what radiation really was, back then it was commonly believed you could just brush it off with a broom like any old dust and be fine. Since then the world has learned a lot about Fission and its byproducts, which combined with general public opinion on their use means anyone going first strike with nukes is in for one hell of a time politically.

International condemnation is overrated. See covid-19’s international condemnation hardly deters China.

Yeah, looking at the melted toy marbles in Hiroshima really puts a sour taste in the mouth.

@@EmpPeng2k7 They _did_ brush it off with a broom. People came back to Hiroshima pretty much immediately. Of course they had to rebuild the houses, but ten years later, the city was back at the population it had before the bombing. A nuclear bomb is not the same as a a nuclear power plant. A nuclear bomb is just thousands of conventional bombs condensed into one very expensive bomb. It also releases a lot of radiation while it explodes, but not afterwards.

so you havent seen the sarmat 2.

SS-18 Satan Mod 6 with a yield of 20 Mt.

All ICBMs should be pointy; pointy is scary.

@@Redsauce101 it has to be pointy - General Aladin

The Titian II is way scarier. One rocket: one nuke: one city destroyed.

I don't know, do they?

yes they have more fallout per kiloton, so they have lest fallout over all but is not a liniar relation

Depends on how you build them, as I understand it.

I think it also depends on what type of nuclear material you wanna use, cobalt for exemple produces a shit load of fallout, but it will need to be heavier than a conventional plutonium one if you want to get the same result. I’m not an expert I recommend that you check if what I’m saying is true.

First, there is no clean fallout. It's all bad, whether irradiated air or sea water or whatever. How much dust fallout you get depends mostly on how close to the ground it explodes. Higher it explodes, less ground material is irradiated. If you explode it far underground for a test, little or no fallout is released.

Same here....sure as hell looked like a low yeild.... especially the blast wave...not many can emit such power...

look for "Shot Baker" or "Crossroads Baker" nuke test.

He did mention nuclear artillery and I'm sure that's what the Crockett is

Apollo11011 I just looked them up, the Davey Crockett was the smallest of the nuclear artillery peices, it fired a 10 - 20 tons of tnt equivalent warhead from one mile to about three miles and a few were mounted on Jeeps meaning very small. Looks about 5 feet or six in the photos with warhead mounted on the blaster. 'Atomic Annie'is a bit larger (massive really) - 280mm special artillery peice which fired an 800lb nuclear shell six miles, with about 15kt blast. Later on, a couple varients of nuclear shell were mass manufactured (couple thousand each) then USSR and NATO and China followed suit. Thankfully those arsenals were dissasembled in the early 90s. (hopefully with a God-like thoroughness)

What a facinating topic

@@louisimisson9065 Yeah, tactical nuclear weapons are pretty interesting. Almost all American, and Russian, weapon systems had a nuclear option, such as: Mark 45 ASTOR torpedo, RIM-8 Talos surface to air missile AIR-2 GENIE air to air rocket Mk 101 Lulu depth charge 406mm W23 naval shell for Iowa class battleships 155mm W48 artillery shell for standard 155mm howitzers Special Atomic Demolition Munition SADM basically a nuclear satchel charge BGM-109A Tomahawk standard shipboard cruise missile RUR-5 ASROC and UUM-44 SUBROC anti-submarine missiles

Lieutenant Danielson Wow thanks for the info I didn't know that. By the way, the Iwoa ships had 406mm guns!?! Thats shocking, imagine whitnessing those things in barrage. Do you know much more about them? I've heard of Shwer Gustaf and the paris gun with their 100ft barrels and 60 mile ranges, their 2 - 4 tonne shells and their ludicrous muzzle speeds from the world wars - I'd love to know how the Iowa guns compare to them

Well that, plus 7 submarines redeployed forward into the southwest pacific, an aircraft carrier putting to sea by Japan before finishing it's maintenance cycle, NORAD/NORTHCOM blast doors sealed, etc. I think he's referencing that China is playing with fire.

That's an interesting twist.

Shit Joe good point

They are also inefficient with their usage of the uranium or plutonium too, as a lot of the material doesn't go through fission and just ends up as a waste product dumped into the environment. The materials required for fission are also very expensive and difficult to acquire so using such a large amount of it in a single weapon is a huge waste of such a rare and valuable resource when it would be better to use less of it and in smaller warheads

There is no need for nuclear weapons such as the Tsar Bomba, not with meter accuracy ICBM's, unless the goal is to kill millions at a time through air-bursting them above populated areas or detonating one in space to cause EMP across a continent.

Someone said "what's the point in a Tsar Bomba unless you want to level a mountain" and I finally realised maybe that was the point of it.

"The enemy cannot retaliate if the Earth has been destroyed" *All hail the Glorious Imperium of Planet Musk* 🇵🇸. 🇼🇪 🇭🇦🇻🇪 🇨🇦🇹🇬🇮🇷🇱🇸

@@UncleWermus Antimatter bombs would be too expensive to mass produce, so not effecient.

@@cinemaclips4497 You only need 1

@@cinemaclips4497 You don't make the whole bomb antimatter, you use antimatter to ignite a fusion secondary.

@@UncleWermus Praise Lord Elon :prayer:

I want that so bad! love that movie! (not a war though that would be bad.)

I am sure I would hate them both.

Samuel Fischman if you truly love that film you would know that a remake would be impossible. Dr. S stands in a category all its own.

Go away hollywood. Stop stealing ideas

Yeah, but all the major characters would be women and nobody but leftists would watch it.

lol

Deal with it 😎

it would be bubble guam

Sergio Martinez Thank God for THAAD

BYE BYE Rob!!!

@Charles Yuditsky T H O O M P "Alright guys, clamp your peepers!" I mean, who the hell would pass down the opportunity to put radiation warning symbols on their rifle? :D

Nuclear satchel charges are a thing. Give the soldier time to walk away and it changes everything.

@Charles Yuditsky There's this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

Would be most effective with a Dead Man Switch in a volatile enemy meeting. MAD

Just hope the enemy doesn't throw it back to you.

Yes, this channel sounds like an FSB maskirovka agent.

Sagar Rao Sexy voice .... makes me tingle all over ....

Tf😂😂😂 How about the wallet

@@Kelv_Nganga 😄😄

YT channels need sponsors, since YT ad revenue is so shit. Cut them some slack......

You don't complain at Superbowl ads or any other BS ads you see on TV.

Mycel I mean, it’s better than RAID: Shadow Legends

@@dust1077 exactly. at least a fancy moneyclip is just that: a fancy money clip, which has a market and presumably doesn't charge microtransactions every time you use it.

whats hypersonic?

@@zeezoo6174an object with sustained speed more than five times the speed of sound.

The thing is that the USA is by far the most likely to use them . Russia doesn't have the will and budget to fight any war and China is strictly against military deployment outside of its borders. Neither of all those argument apply to the USA.

@@dekaaizer2550 being strictly against war outside your borders is a policy that is only a policy until it isn't

@@dekaaizer2550 It’s a good thing China keeps expanding its “borders”, then, huh?

it's still young. The autumn will be everything but boring

2020 will eventually get better and 2021 will be great.

Worse*

2

2 kilotons

If you use it to end a regional conflict, other superpowers won’t get involved.

Ever seen footage of them blowing up? No. But somehow we had cameras that could sit right inside of the blast when we showed other "footage"... people will really believe the dumbest shit.

Andrei Sakharov quit the nuclear program and became the USSR's leading anti-nuclear activist because of the Tsar Bomba test.

I see a couple of problems with the comparison. First, Ukraine wasn’t actually a threat and wasn’t being actively considered for NATO membership. Also, even if they did join NATO, it doesn’t mean that nuclear weapons would be stationed there. The US stores some nukes in only or handful of European countries. But it’s not even necessary. This is why comparing today’s scenario with Cuban Missile Crisis is flawed. Back then, delivery systems had a much shorter range and accuracy. That’s why parking them so close to the US was an issue. It changed everything. Today, the US could hit targets in Russia accurately from US soils as well as from aircraft, submarines, and land-based sites in Europe. NATO simply doesn’t need Ukraine as a place to keep nuclear weapons in order to strike Russia. So parking keeping nuclear weapons in Ukraine would change nothing.

Well, they are it's just kept hush hush. Citizens are merely resources to Governments and all wars are Resource wars. Elections, Diplomacy, Representatives - these are all illusions. The World is controlled by engineering, scientific, and military Institutions that have figured out how to trick the masses into dedicating their focus to the games called "Politics" and "Economics". *We are a domesticated species in a Zoo. Nothing more.*

How are things going for you now?

​@@mill2712 Me personally - surprisingly cushy. I’ve got a country house in the middle of nowhere, 90 km to the west of the capital. I own a quite large goofy dog, so I could not stay in Kyiv with all those movement limitations and sheer aggression to my pet. During the first three weeks of the war, I could see smoke and explosions on the horizon from my little countryside lodging. It was horrifyingly pretty, like a vicious thunderstorm, only red and orange. It’s been quite serene during the last couple of weeks. Now, even when the enemy retreated - the road to Kyiv is still closed for repairs and recovery of bodies. From time to time, Telegram channels publish random images and videos of uncovered mines and dead civilian bodies. It is very chilling, when you see corpses scattered near familiar roadside cafes and gas stations. Yesterday, my neighbor drove off to his condo in Irpin (near Bucha). I’ve got to ask how is it there. All I know is that his apartment doors are torn off, and the flat is robbed. I can only pray and quiver, when thinking of the fate of the people in Mariupol.

You're missing one of the points Cabal is making, once you cross the nuclear threshhold, do you think you using a low-yield nuke, is going to stop a country from nuking you back if it doesn't have access to these lower yield nukes? Whatever nuke you use, nuclear war will follow, and will quickly spiral into MAD.

In what scenario would you ever be forced to choose between initiating a hopefully limited nuclear war versus initiating a total nuclear war? I can't see how low yield nukes could ever _avert_ all out nuclear war, but it's very easy to see how the exact opposite could happen.

@@broworm1 While I agree it definitely does pose the possibility of escalation to MAD, to answer your question as to whether or not it would stop a country from nuking back I still stand by my point that it probably would. What would said country gain from nuking back with high yield? A retaliation with high yield nukes on them. While it could cease an invasion I doubt many people would argue occupation is worse than annihilation. When Poland declassified the USSR's "7 Days to the River Rhine" plan it showed that the USSR planned to still fight a ground war with limited tactical nuking even after it was assumed they were attacked first. I guess very few people know what NATO's plans were or what anyone's plan is now but i doubt total destruction is top priority. All that being said I agree that crossing the nuclear threshold would bring tensions to a whole new magnitude and predicting the actions of the few people in control is near impossible and no scenario can be ruled out. I just don't think MAD is the most likely.

@@wfjhDUI The scenario in which an enemy used low yield nuclear weapons, where the options to counter attack would be keep fighting conventionally or use a large yield bomb. To be clear I think the world would be a better place if nobody had low yield but it would be naive to assume that so we as NATO should be armed with such devices to deter their use as with large scale, since their use by us would most likely result in their use by the enemy.

@@Epicalogical That logic cuts both ways, "Russia and China would be naive to assume NATO isn't stockpiling low yield nukes and so Russia and China should stockpile their own low yield nukes." It's also just an unreasonably pessimistic take on diplomacy and weapons bans. Do you believe all previous nuclear weapons treaties have been pointless failures? e.g. Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Nuclear Test Ban treaties, SALT, START?

You need to make sure the enemy doesn't also have low yield nukes. Russia has them, I'm sure China doesn't so you have to calculate on the escalation created.

I know the Soviet Union had “perimeter” (death hand) in place. They say Russia still operates it, it’s a good deterrent against this small nuclear weapons. If the enemy wipes all your positions and you have “Perimeter” activate, it would automatically respond with a full nuclear attack on the enemy, no need for permission from chain of command. What’s gonna happen next, if you already wiped out the enemy government and military. But Perimeter responded with a full nuclear attack, will you then respond with a full attack like in the Cold War scenario or just take it, since the only people left in the enemy territory are civilians.

The argument is that if low yield nukes are used, what will the enemy use in retaliation? You may be able to destroy enemy positions quickly, but that does not guarantee the destruction of enemy nuclear weaponry, and their will to use them in retaliation. It really is quite a precarious scenario.

... and then what? Whoever you just nuclear bombed is going to be chill and understanding about it?

This Opinion: "Works great, smaller scale, should do the trick without causing too much trouble" CCP: " *nukes are nukes* "

Why?

Correct, a pattern of small nuclear explosions will kill more people than one large one, because lethal radiation levels will extend much farther from ground zero than the blast or thermal effects will.

Actually it was because 98% of Energy came from Fusion. It had the same fallout as 1 Mt pure Fission bomb. Given that to add power, you'd need to change the lead tamper with U-238, this would change to additional 50 Mt produced by fission.

The B-61 thermonuclear bomb has a variable yield from 300 tons of TNT to 340,000 tons of TNT, the B-61-12 low-yield guided bomb has a maximum yield of 50,000 tons of TNT that can be reduced all the way to 300 tons of TNT. This weapon can fit inside the B-2 and the F-35, and can be carried by many other U.S. aircraft as well, and in a war with China, they will be used. That will result in 5 megaton Chinese hydrogen bombs evaporating every large U.S. city.

@@Heliotail possibly, but the use of low yield weapons does not eliminate MAD. If our cities get erased, so do theirs.