This video will compare the top 10 countries by number of nuclear weapons from 1945 to 2022. Datasources: World Bank, Federation of American Scientists, SIPRI, Statista Music: Curse of the Scarab by Kevin Macleod
They actually do have the acronym for it. The outcome would be "M.A.D" (Crazy) = Mutual Assured Destruction. The chain reaction of Nuclear warheads sent across countries would kill the entire planet on waves of destruction. 1. Initial impacts. 2. Radiation 3. Nuclear fallout 4. Nuclear Winter. In which scenario most if not all life on earth would die off due to the harsh conditions. Its mind-boggling. If we ever are hit by a nuke, your best bet is probably taking one straight on and just dying. 😔 immediately.
For the US and Russia currently both have almost half of their warheads as retired and awating disarmament or being disarmed. Only about 800 to 1000 are deployed for both countries. With an ICBM holding 6-10 warheads.
Putin once said, at some conference with the United States, that about 2000-2500 units have been deployed, and another 1000-1500 units are on operational deployment, i.e., in simple words, inserted into the mine. Do not forget that Russia and the United States have long since switched to the revolver type of mines, when one tactical mine can contain up to 5 missiles, which in turn have many separable independent heads that have independent guidance within the general set. And if we take into account that Russia has hypersonic weapons, then hypersonic missiles can be located inside intercontinental missiles, including with nuclear warheads, and a common carrier rocket acts as the first stage for such missiles. In general, as Putin once said, these two countries can destroy the globe 100 times
The post cold war treaties is what brought the numbers down. However in modern days, it's more about effectively bypassing defensive layers. You don't need more than maybe a dozen or two successful warhead hits to completely destroy a country's infrastructure. Even if you only hit maybe 4 or 5 major cities, the country would likely eat itself in the chaos afterwards.
I doubt it. Humans are very resilient. And relatively well-run governments can deal with serious emergency situations. Look at all the bombings in WW2 of Britain, Germany, and Japan, or the bombings of North Korea and North Vietnam in those wars. Those places got the equivalent of multiple nuclear hits. Yet at no point did any of those populations or governments break, there was no internal conflict, nothing. Heck, much of the Japanese government wanted to keep fighting on after losing most of their military, with their cities shouldering ruins and two of them radioactive. Not saying nuclear war wouldn’t be absolutely horrific and catastrophic. Just saying that any competent government in a major country would be able to handle a few nuke hits. It would take a few dozen at least to cause total breakdown. Let’s just hope and pray this none of this ever happens. It’s why we need to keep the morons and warmongers perpetually out of office.
@@adamesd3699 England didn't see much bombings in WW2. London is the only one that gets attention, and that is only because the Germans did it. Churchill got in and immediately started targeting German civilians, Germany predictably retaliated. Churchill was a vile human being who made that war into the ugly war it became.
@@bikinisforever4163 I think what originally happened was that a couple of German bombers got a bit lost in a night raid and missed their military target in England, dropping their bombs on a city by accident instead. So Churchill bombed a German city. Well, Hitler had promised the German people that nobody would ever bomb them. So Hitler, who had been getting impatient with the effort to break Britain’s Fighter Command, switched the German bombing effort from attacking military targets to civilian targets, primarily London. Then the British, and later the Americans, launched a policy of basically destroying German cities. British civilian casualties from bombings did not come close to German or Japanese civilian bombing casualties in WW2. But they were still not small. If I remember correctly, more than 10,000 civilian Londoners died from German bombings. And the British government sent the children from the cities to live with families out in the countryside to save them from bombing attacks.
@@adamesd3699 From what I have read, the war in western Europe was rather mild, then Churchill got in and started targeting German civilians, then Germany naturally retaliated. Hitler had much respect for England. England going after Germany was one of the biggest blunders in history. Nothing to gain, they ended up losing their empire. And today's Brits celebrate the man who did them in, Winston Churchill.
North corea is dictator country, same as ruzzia, and it depends on one person, will he use nuke or not. And this one person may be absolutely mindless and egoistic like putler btw
We all know, in a comparison of such destructive weapons, 100 is about the same as 10000. The success rate of the delivery system/mechanism is much more important.
its more about anti-air defence, let’s not forget that some countries are able to prevent a nuclear strike with their anti-air missles and interceptors
not every nuclear weapon is as big as the strategic nukes of japan in 1945. Most of them are tactical nukes, which are made to destroy smaller targets like air bases etc.
@@monkey_8227 Actually the two nukes dropped on Japan are tactical nukes as the Fat Man was 21 kilotons and nukes up to 100 kilotons are classified as tactical nukes
Countries have learned so much from that hiroshima and nagasaki. The potential of atomic bomb as a weapon and protection has been brought into significance. They knew you couldn’t get bullied easily no matter how small of a country you are when you have some of these shit with you. And they probably foresaw that in the future nuclear War might become inevitable.
during the years of the USSR, only Russia had nuclear weapons, in other countries of the social bloc there was only the deployment of the entire bloc on the territory for the defense. in the 60s the United States deployed nuclear weapons in Turkey, no one can say that Turkey had nuclear weapons
Imagine how scared would the people living in 1950's would be with USA having 5000 nukes in 1957 with 12 years back they have bombed Japan and razed Hiroshima and Nagasaki USA with 31150 nukes in 1965 Soviets with 40000 in 1985
I'm just thinking, god damn, is 40,000 or even 10,000 nukes really that necessary? Seems like way way way overkill. lol I'm quite sure you'd be good with around 300~500 nukes.
Not really - Japan was cutting off Austalian's heads and eating their bodies at that time. More people died in the conventional bombing of Tokyo that from both nuclear weapons. Real war is much worse than imagined. USA is about freedom - if you want proof it occupied Japan but now Japan is free. Same with the UK. UK gave Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand and a ton of other countries their independence. West is best!
The fissile material after the disarmament is still available with these big countries and can be still made available at finger tips in case they are needed.
@@stick550, это срок службы детонаторов ядерного заряда. Сам оружейный плутоний может храниться тысячелетиями. То есть из 54% мировых запасов оружейного плутония Россия может собрать 54% ядерного арсенала планеты.
For example in case of India and China we both have equal amount of uranium to make 1000 nukes as of 2021 The countries that have a lot of nuclear power plant have a lot of fissile material
What do you even need 30k nuclear bombs for? Like, is there any difference whether you hold 200 or 20000? Are they expecting to nuke every single enemy city 2x or what even is the point
i think main point of nuke is simple: nobody will try to liberate country with nukes and several thousand of them looks more menacing on paper, and lets face it ussr wasn't country which cares about costs. there is also second factor: not all nukes are strategic nukes, some are just tactical, very weak nukes which can be considered as artillery ammo on steroids (funny take me wrong, its still powerful, but it's only fraction of typical nuke everyone has in mind)
There are a lot more targets than just population centers. In its heyday, the arms race took on a life of its own because the nukes themselves would have been targets. "Use 'em or lose 'em."
it was a stupid arms race imposed by the US. Who has more - the steeper and more dangerous. They didn't care that the USSR could destroy the whole world ten times. Most importantly, the more, the better. There are resources.
In fact most of the nuclear weapons that the US and the USSR, and now Russia have are tactical nuclear weapons, they are intended to be used to destroy the enemy's military, most of them are only a few thousand tons equivalent, and are used in a duel after a major nuclear war. That's right, tens of thousands of nuclear warheads cannot completely destroy each other, because the power of nuclear weapons is actually overestimated, even for strategic nuclear bombs such as the U.S. Army's W88 warhead, the kill range in cities is only a few dozen kilometers, and the kill radius for targets in bunkers is less than 10km, and this is still the power of hydrogen bombs. Most countries have nuclear weapons only atomic bombs, and atomic bombs are difficult to do more than 500,000 tons of explosive yield, so they have a nominal nuclear deterrent, while hydrogen bombs have no upper limit of power to create hundreds of millions of tons of nuclear weapons to have the power to really destroy the country. The only countries that have hydrogen bombs are the five permanent members of the UN.
The main threat is not the power or radius of warheads either tactical or strategic. The disaster is aftermath - nuclear winter. It would reduce plants reproduction rate thus it would lead to a hunger.
China is actually doing the opposite. They're planning a massive nuclear buildup in the next 10 years that could see their arsenal more than double. Remember that unlike the US and Russia, China has almost never signed a nuclear arms limitation treaty, so there is no limit on the power of the weapons they develop.
Just a quick remainder, the maintenance of nuclear weapons cost millions of USD, so that’s why ussr and USA reduced there nuclear arsenal, otherwise it’s a threat to themselves.
@@ajar82 I suppose you're joking. If not, you are sorely misinformed. The passage of the 1983 Constitution Act does not represent the date of Canada's independence. Though, oddly (and a fact not widely known) the US did not recognize Canada's independence until the 1920's (after the Balfour Declarations).
You're talking about the Bomarc missiles, and they weren't Canadian. The US stationed the missiles in Canada and the batteries themselves were under control of the RCAF, the nuclear warheads, though, were always under the control US personnel who were stationed in Canada for that specific purpose. Canadian forces have had control of nuclear weapons (again, US weapons) while stationed in Europe on several occasions, though.
@@mosienko1983 True, but there was still a lot more connection to the british at the time. Passports from the 70s for example still stated the holder is a British Subject.
Для этого нужно поменять саму основу человека.А так,война двигатель прогресса.Многие разработки изначально были военными,но потом модифицировались под гражданские нужды.
@@sergey3533 на примере рашки можно увидеть на какой это «прогресс». Она почти постоянно с кем-то воюет, потратила на армию больше ТРИЛЛИОНА долларов. При этом солдаты одеты как бомжи, ездят на танках советской эпохи, которые оснащены импортной электроникой. Вот это прогрЭс! 😁 О прогрессе можно узнать только из мультиков, которые рисуют вороватые чиновники, и из рассказов туповатого плебоса, который поверил в эти сказки.
The USA had tested one in New Mexico, before dropping two on Japan. Ever since the USA, the USSR/Russia, Great Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and possibly Israel used them for testing. I don't know any other.
If you mean America dropping them on Japan pal, I suggest you look up Operation Downfall. It was either a pair of nukes or the deadliest invasion in human history. Some estimate it would have resulted in 10 million deaths, including Japanese civilians. It was one of the most awful decisions we've ever had to make, there was NO good answer. The World War II Pacific Theater was just insane.
@@thunderbird1921 yeah yeah Japan would have surrended anyway so no need to destroy two completely civillian cities but go ahead Yankee keep justifying civilian deaths
The anti-nuclear movement in Kazakhstan, "Nevada Semipalatinsk", was formed in 1989 and was one of the first major anti-nuclear movements in the former Soviet Union. It was led by author Olzhas Suleimenov and attracted thousands of people to its protests and campaigns which eventually led to the closure of the nuclear test site at Semipalatinsk in north-east Kazakhstan in 1991. The movement was named "Nevada Semipalatinsk" in order to show solidarity with similar movements in the United States aiming to close the Nevada Test Site.
Former countries with Nukes: Soviet Union - collapsed Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus - gave them to Russia South Africa - got rid of them following the end of apartheid
First of all, I would like to say that this video does have a few things that are not accurate, but there are some things that are accurate that one time when the USSR broke up, Belarus and Ukraine used to have nukes. Well, South Africa almost got a chance to get the nuke they had a few. I’ve compiled a list of the countries that have tested their first nuke in order
Public information that these rankings have always been very bias: - warhead count vs. MIRV - individual yield of each warheads - this is official data who can believe that this is so transparent? These warheads are reconditioned using the amount of nuclear material available. A reduction in number of warheads does not mean a reduction in firepower and sometimes result in a higher individual yield of the warheads.
This is rare from the begining like that exponential turbo acceleration in the us SIDE like ussr are the víctims and after that tussian do it even better an after that usa get scared by the power of ussr and Start to slow down the production and ussr do the same as the world watch
@@MarcelNKemet Get your facts straight. India never got it delivered. Our nukes are indigenous and are result of 30 years of research and development. Our nuke programme was so efficient that even US spy agencies didn't have a damn clue about that until we performed the 'Pokhran' tests. Our economy was so badly hit by sanctions at that time because of that., so don't dare to undermine our achievement after all the hardships we have gone through.
@@MarcelNKemet our father of neuclear program get kiled by Americans Cia agent addimited Even that we actually had it in 1977 We officially shows the world and mastered the tech in 90s Just research how Indian scientists fool Americans how we hide our radiation signature from us satelite usa even put Sanctions on us for that we spend 30 years ++ If they don't kill Dr. Homi jahangir bhabha By sabotage we can have it more faster and even had masterd in our only thorium base reactors which nobody have in world Everyone used uranium based reactors India heavily investing on thorium base reactors since we have one of the largest proven reserves of thorium 😉
@@avirup6186 Your achievement?? You still have about 800,000,000 people who have to shit in holes in the ground and you claim spending billions on weapons is an achievement. Next door the Pakis need hand outs for the recent floods while "achieving" a nuclear arsenal. You people deserve poverty.
This video is wrong. India already had a successful nuclear bomb test done way back in 1974. The Nuclear suppliers group (NSG) was formed against this test.
USA 1945 Soviet Union, 1949 United Kingdom in 1952 France, 1960 China (中国) 1964 Israel, neither confirm nor deny that they have nukes but it is said that they developed the first nuke in 1967
Now people say that nuclear weapons will prevent World War III. Once they also talked about machine guns, and then the First World War began, followed by the Second World War. If anything, I'm sorry for the grammar, I wrote through a translator.
I live in Spain and i am very proud to say that i live in a country wich has enought tecnologhy to made nukes tomorrow and it hasn't got it and probably never Will have it.
So what? The USSR destroyed itself with its own nuclear weapons. At that time, people had nothing to eat. Sausage was sold only in big cities. And to buy it, you had to stand in line for several hours. The country spent all its resources on weapons. Thank God that this horror has already ended. And I really hope that Russia will not succeed in recreating the USSR. The USSR is not a country. It was a prison.
But who gave Pakistan nuclear weapons? i don't think they are technology advance country to produce their own nuclear weapons some say that usa gave them nuclear weapons to counter India if it's true then it really backfired because pakistan gave nuclear technology to north Korea in exchange for missile technology
While Russia definitely fucked over the Ukraine, nukes IMO have little to do with that. You need proper infrastructure to maintain your warheads and missiles in working condition, which also costs a shit ton. And Ukraine didn't have that available after the USSR dissolved. So even if they kept their nukes, by 2022 these would be already inoperable
Source : trust me bro Like any country have open files in which they announce when they build a new one Seeing precise numbers on how many North Korea or Israel have is already ridiculous enough Can just imagine the Israeli prime Minister "we won't tell if we possess the bomb or not but we have 51" xD
The concept of mutually assured destruction makes hiding the number of nuclear weapons you have pretty pointless. Whether it's 100 or 1000, hellish destruction is all the same. Israel refuses to say if they have nuclear weapons or not probably because they're preparing for a war with Iran in the future and nuclear weapons usage may be on the table so they want an element of surprise.
Учитывая уровень развития современных средств сдерживания не всё достигнет цели. Поэтому потребуется повторный залп. А устаревшие боеголовки можно продавать направо и налево
In fact, we were asked to give up nuclear weapons to the United States, Britain and Russia, for which they were supposed to protect us. But no one cares. Otherwise, they would have imposed sanctions on us, the world is not fair. That's why I hate Russia and Europe, only some countries like Poland 🇵🇱 really want to help. 🇺🇦👎🇷🇺🇪🇺🇺🇲
@@user-iq7bt8ze7p Окей перекладач в допомогу :]. Головне в чому ти помиляєшся це у часі. Історія не полюбляє "бы". Ми говоримо тільки про те що вже сталося а не могло статися. І маємо ми договір за яким його сторони признають Україну в її кордонах 1991 року, відмовляються від територіальних претензій та обіцяють не застосовувати силу. В замін цьому Україна віддає свій ядерний потенціал. Отримали ми в результаті те що звичайні росіяни 8 років кричали що Крим їхній а на сході України "громадянська війна" хоча вже тоді там були присутня їх регулярна армія. Як техніка так і війська :/
Well, in profesionál level, there are comparisons between how many weapons are already made, and how many can be made. So that chart will look like by far more scarier. USA have less resources to build them, Russia have by far the most resources to build thousands. Let say, I do not remember exact numbers, as I read that analysis maybe 5 years ago. But it was like, if USA is capable to made another 10 K of nuclear weapons, Russia is capable to make another 40 K weapons. Which is very big difference
The US doesn't bother to build more because what it has is very accurate and its not needed to decapitate Russia. The reason tens of thousands were around in the Cold War was due to massive overkill and relative inaccuracies of said systems, so redundancy was built into the warhead count. It isn't needed anymore since you can hit a pack of cigarettes with a cruise missile (slight exaggeration, but modern missiles are insanely accurate to within a few meters)
