Thermonuclear weapons are the only thing which prevents full scale WWIII. Nuclear deterence is a real thing that works, lets hope that it countinues to work as intended.
Exactly. Look how accurate U.S. intelligence was for Iraq. My thoughts are no nation will ever know exactly how many nukes other countries may have no matter how high tech their intelligence may be... .. not even a ball park figure.
@@thelocallocksmithcompany-t9164 são estimativas com base em análises de documentos. Todos sabíamos a e os Estados Unidos estava mentindo sobre o Iraque, como em quase todas suas guerras.
Ядерное оружие является очень хорошим аргументом сдерживания. К слову та же Северная Корея сейчас себя чувствует намного лучше как раз за счёт Ядерного оружия и поддержки России. Поверь мне без этого оружия Пхеньян себя чувствовал намного сложнее особенно когда часто проводились военные учения между Америкой и Южной Кореей тогда часто самолёты этих стран практически заходили на территорию Северной Кореи и пытались спровоцировать на ответ и это могло сработать во первых радары явно не могли точно показать в нужное время что самолёты не долетели и развернулись, а во вторых Пхеньян вот он, до него рукой подать, а там сотни самых важных людей страны находится. Думаю объяснять что Южная Корея перестала подобным заниматься из-за появления Ядерного оружия у Северной Кореи, думаю не стоит, сам поймёшь 😊
India and Pakistan had the ability to produce nuclear weapons in the 60's. It was not until late 90's that they engaged in a nuclear arms race. Both countries had operational nuclear reactors running in 60's.
Quantity comparison with nuke overkills is like two guys counting their matches with one having 2 and the other one having 5 on the hand - and a bathub full of petrol between them.
I remember the height of the Arms Race and the end of it. The Arms Race was TERRIFYING. We’re still feeling the effects today. I don’t think people realize how deeply that conflict scarred the world. I genuinely cannot stand Reagan. However, his decision to up the ante with space-based defense was absolutely the hole in the dike of the Iron Wall. With that shift, we only need about 25% of our full arsenal to glass every Russian urban center and defense sector. And it can happen before 50% of anything Russia launches, gets here. That would be absolutely awful. But as Sting sang, “There’s no such thing as a winnable war. It’s a lie we don’t believe any more… Believe me when I say to you, I hope the Russians love their children, too.”
But, doesn't the present us have enough men,real men to fight a long bloody war ? I don't think so, and men win wars.any doubt, sissies?😂😂btw, Ukraine is fighting a proxy war for the US now, and that's how it's gonna become,that's until others get it,and that is, the US doesn't have real men anymore!!Men without balls don't win wars!!😂😂
What is not mentioned is that Italy at Aviano NATO Air base has alot, all belonging to the dmUSA which they can use when ever they want and the Italian government has no power over it.
@@Joker-no1uh yep, but also because Italy since the 2nd WW has been ruled by the Mafia and USA tbh. In Italy every one knows this, our government is corruption and tge USA dictate to them. Sad, but true!
Are you a American? If the Italian government becomes uncomfortable with Aviano nukes it can order them removed by the US. And, if the US is slow to take them away the Italians can seize them and forcibly return them to America. What's the benefit to.Italy to keep nukes there?
The US could've conquered the world after WWII with it's nuke arsenal and while the rest of the world are still reeling from the aftermath. Yet it did not. Instead, the US helped rebuild those mostly affected by the War, like Japan. It would've been a different story if it was the Nazis who triumphed.
You mean it could have conquered the whole world by nuking all the countries? Ok, yes. That's true. Why would the US want to do that? What would be the purpose of having a polluted and radioactive planet with the US as the only liveable country on the planet? Actually, I don't get your point. Please explain.
In 1960, the Kennedy campaign tried to claim that Eisenhower had allowed the USSR to leap frog the US nuke deployment and open a "missile gap" but we had a 10:1 advantage at the time. By the time JFK/LBJ were out it was 3:1. By the time Reagan cancelled "detante", they had actually leapfrogged us. Politics is funny that way.
@@mattllaves numbers in those days were based mostly on human intelligence and on the amount of industrial activity in areas where we knew nuclear development was being done via U2 flyovers and the like. You are right that this would be a gross estimate at best.
Его нет ! Его убили русские . Русским вообще нельзя доверять власть . Горбачев развалил страну . Ельцин пропил и продал страну. Путин добивает и распродаёт то что осталось от них . А народу дал ложный патриотизм того , чего уже давно нет . Живут прошлым и думают о прошлом .
Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus have never had nuclear weapons. These were the heads of the USSR, located in various parts of its territory, including the territory of the USSR, the BSSR and others. To say the opposite is the same as saying that the US nuclear heads located in Belgium, Italy and Turkey are the nuclear weapons of these countries
Ukraine held control of the nukes. When the USSR collapsed, so did their control. Ukraine didn't want them, and eventually signed a deal to give them back. But they weren't under Russian control.
After the collapse of the soviets, the weapons still remained on their territory. The main command post no longer existed. The fact that these countries surrendered their nuclear arsenals is a result of the Lisbon Protocol. This was a collective decision and a joint agreement, not the desire of one of the parties. So technically they had nuclear weapons and, more likely, if they had not accepted this protocol, they would have remained nuclear powers.
No, it was a Soviet nuclear weapon controlled from Moscow. And Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus could not launch it in 1992 - only from Moscow. Just like Belgium today cannot launch American nuclear weapons located on its territory
Ничего удивительного. На Западе энергетический кризис и психологическая травма от поражения во Вьетнаме. В СССР благоприятные цены на нефть и то, что было заложено Сталиным в экономике и образовании дало свои плоды.
Imagine what all the money spent by our government on military could do to improve everyones lives , instead of being hellbent on destroying everything
Imagine if people got off their fat lazy backsides and worked to improve their own lives instead of expecting the government to do everything for them.
Sorry, EVERYONE in the world is lazy and has a fat arse? What are you talking about? I worked.very hard all my life and now I have a comfortable, well-deserved retirement, I think how much better health and how much more years of healthy life I might have if literally thousands of trillions hadn't been spent on nuclear weapons. Does that explain it?
It might be better to imagine that your sat in your garden ,and your neighbour wants to expand his fence with a bulldozer , good luck persuading him to stop with your unicorn 🦄
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto said that Pakistan will have nuclear weapons even if it meant Pakistanis had to later eat grass Thanks to China, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and Pakistanis are eating grass
they are built for deterence. do you know the means of deterence?😂😂😂😂😂At this point its better that any country can have but it surely doesn t mean conventional wars cannot exist anymore.
@@shahid8545 fuck if nukes are used as you think even cities would have their own arsenal. Does the world Deterrence means nothing to you? Probably not.
True, both the US and Russia hit some pretty scary big numbers, but I was surprised - and happy to see - that both the US and Russia reduced their stockpiles significantly over the years.
How many times should it be reminded that Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus have never possessed (were the owners of) a single nuclear warhead. They were deployed on their territory, but these weapons were commanded, guarded, and maintained by the joint forces of the CIS.
Philippines should have its nuclear capability around the year 1970s.. if it wasn't for that revolution which promises progress, freedom which turns out to be the opposite.. so sad..
@@hydrogenivtinyhare5218 The launching vehicle has shown on 2019 parade all added together could have more than 400 nuclear warhead launching capability. Warheads are actually cheaper than the rockets and the vehicles, so there should be slightly more missiles than the launchers. They can't bring all the launchers for a parade, there must be more of them staying in position. That I think it is a safe guess to double that number to be the minimum of the total number.
@@henrywang3977 I checked your estimation, you’re about there. There were 16x DF-17, 32x DF-100, 16x DF-26, 12x JL-2, 16x DF-31, 4x DF-5B, 16x DF-41. In which DF-17 and DF-100 are not nuclear compatible, DF-26, JL-2, and DF-31 can carry 3 small warheads, DF-5B can carry 1 big warhead, and DF-41 can carry 10 small warheads. Assume they were all loaded with nuclear warheads, the total was 296 nukes.
هل هناك تكنولوجيا لتحويل الطاقة النووية للقنابل الحربية الذرية الي طاقة يمكن التحكم فيها والاستفادة منها بدلا من استخدامها كاداة تدميرية إرهابية قاتلة لو الإجابة بالنفي لا توجد فهنا تقع المصيبة كيف نصنع شيئ كهذا ليدمر الأرض التي تجعلنا أحياء على سطحها
@@arfanhaziq3075 of course. Holding a nuclear weapon is not about destruction like it is about the paranoia of its holder and the threatened of those who might be its potential target.
Pues si que bajaron drásticamente con lis acuerdos que tuvieron ¿ solo mira la urss con 40 mil warheads activados ?ahora solo 4800 de actual Rusia Ya son menos los golpes 🤪
This is a bit misleading. Active warheads don’t automatically imply ability to deploy. It also doesn’t take into account deployment technology. Most of the US deployment is focused on submarines. Most Russian nukes are geared for land-based deployment. Also, Russia’s war with Ukraine has amply demonstrated the gap between _theoretical_ war footing and actual capabilities. There’s rampant decay, corruption, lack of training, and incompetence at every level. Imo, there’s equal chances as to whether a launched warhead would 1) not actually launch 2) simply crash into the nearest urban center 3) come down on some random non-target 4) actually make it to the intended target but not activate 5) actually activate as intended. Some of the US systems are also aging but we’re aware of the issues. These mostly affect the silo-based systems that don’t figure into most response plans.
Wouldn't it be crazy if the world did eliminate all nuclear weapons, and then discovered an asteroid headed straight at us, and we had just gotten rid of every device that could have saved us?
Anyone who think human is not the most powerful species in the world and think that human not in the top of food chain is wrong. 1 Nuclear Arsenal can have 3,000 times the explosive power of Hiroshima Nuclear Bombing
The odd one here is Pak The number of nukes they have is far outstripped by the number of begging bowls in circulation begging for money to run their country
When you think about the damages in Hiroshima and Nakasaki - you wonder why these in sane numbers is nessesary. The 10000 people surviving, will all be goverments, presidents and other emperors, sitting in their underground "paradice" - waiting a couple of 100 years to get up in a burned, destroyed world. I heard the neantherthal man was extinct
Правильно было бы сказать, что на территории Казахстана когда-то размещалось ядерное оружие, которое Казахстан не мог использовать и содержать самостоятельно. Вряд-ли эту ситуацию можно назвать обладанием ядерным оружием. Тоже самое можно сказать и об Украине. Разместить на своей территории и распоряжаться - это разные вещи.
Американцы обманули Россию сказали что будут сокращать вместе пока Россия сокращала они свои закапывали в земли!хотя они сами России выделили деньги на постройку специальных заводов по утелизации ядерного оружия и Россия исполняла этот договор а они нет
You should not have put Kazakhstan and Ukraine in the count. Or you should also include italy and Germany who have US warhead on their territories but do not have the clearance nor the ability to use them.
@@kolyakordai5213он всего лишь пишет что не стоило Казахстан и Украину в эту графику вставлять. Так как самостоятельно они не владели ядерным оружием. Оружие находилось на территории, но управлялось из Москвы и после развала СССР постепенно было вывезено. Намекнул на то что ядерное оружие находящееся в Германии и Италии тоже им не принадлежит, это все имущество США. Тоесть ничего хорошего и плохого комментатор не писал.
