Building bunkers for the very people that start the wars is insanity. Putting our "leaders" in harms way and making sure they know they're the first to go is by far the best way of preventing any such conflict.
OFF-GRID MY FRIEND, LOUD & PERFECTLY CLEAR. BUT THERE LEADERS & LEADERS, THERE ARE FEW, VERY FEW WHO ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE THEIR LIFE FOR THEIR PEOPLE. " THAT IS WHY, "THE CHRIST" IS ETERNALLY OUTSTANDING!!!!!. HE DID NOT RUN FROM HIS ENEMIES ---- & HE MADE NOT A SOUND WHEN BEING CRUCIFIED ---- THE ETERNAL CONQUERER!!!!!!! I ADMIRE THE "IMMORTAL" NOT THESE PETTY MUNDANE RULERS!!!!!!!
@@yuchoob I didn't specify just UK leadership. Wars are started by elites for their own benefit and pose no real risk of death to them. If they were the very first to be eliminated you can be sure there would be very few wars.
Great video. However there is one additional aspect of a nuclear explosion that you didn't mention. After the initial flash followed by heat and then blast there is a fourth effect - it is called drag back. Once the force of the shock wave is over the air rushes back to fill the vacuum created by the shock wave. The drag back effect causes further catastrophic damage.
That was the problem in UK/EU most countries just didn't bother because they needed too many bunkers and not much point in the end. But the swiss.. one place for every citizen in every town..
As a kid in the 80's, my mother worked for the MoD within the Nuclear department. If an attack was imminent, she had a place in a bunker, but the family did not. And for the reason, that after many years going down bunkers for fire drills. The amount of video's and classified footage of the effects from these, she left the department and worked elsewhere. Her advice was that if one went off, she would just march us outside. I guess, because we would not feel a thing and would be the kindest thing to do for us all, rather than try and survive along with the cancer rate and other diseases within an apocalyptic world.
In 1984, the BBC produced a documentary drama,'Threads ' .It was made during the Cold War and was critically acclaimed. It was said this docu drama was the closest Britain came to nuclear war.
It was. In the present, Britain is edging closer to nuclear war than ever before. The main reason for this, apart from acting as a vassal to U.S. empire, is the unstable situation where a much larger and more powerful U.S./NATO now has enough hubris to no longer fear a nuclear confrontation with Russia. NATO is not a defensive alliance but a framework of U.S. empire. It is a tool designed to defend U.S. interests first and foremost, as its European members are even pulled into U.S. imperial wars that are detrimental to own interests e.g. the Iraq war (which led to terrorism, economic damage and refugee crises in Europe). However, NATO's expansion to former Warsaw pact and now ex-Soviet countries was always about weakening and isolating Russia, with a long view to disintegrate, disarm and ultimately plunder the former superpower. The main problem with this plan is that they are still armed like one. A large part of NATO, including Britain, does not posses adequate defence against Russia's modern nuclear weaponry. I believe our masters might be quite safe behind concentrated defences with their GMD, THAAD, Aegis, Patriots etc. But what about us? Our current leadership is convinced they can survive that, probably in some deep bunker. But what about us? When do we get to vote on all the incredible political stupidity that puts us collectively at risk? Oh yes, there is no vote on NATO. That sort of Brexit is not allowed. But the master did appreciate an economical Brexit from the EU, since a more divided Europe is easier to control and allows American businesses to make more profits here.
I've always wondered what justification politicians used to justify their survival post apocalypse and the same goes for any nobility that would have been saved as well. Why save a group of people who's skill sets would in all honesty be quite useless and in fact are more likely to be a drain on whatever society would be left than any realistic benefit.
Money talks. Unless humanity launches dozens of nuclear weapons simultaneously and renders the world uninhabitable, the rest of the world outside the blast zone will still exist and money will still hold its value. That is what I assume at least.
I’m glad our leader get to survive, let them eat cockroaches and scorpions when they crawl out of their little hidi holes, let them enjoy the dark world where rotting flesh taints the air.
The eeriness from watching this vid whilst on a casual walk in the neighbourhood is on another level. I started picturing what a nuclear mushroom would look like on the horizon.
Imagine spending your life career as a physicist and you make history by splitting the atom but your government sees potential to use it as a form of world control
Putin would....he's a narcissistic gangster living in his own psychotic bubble....he 'thinks' he'll live for ever. The 'creature' ruling North Korea would...
This was Donald Trump's argument, when it was suggested that North Korea should be nuked. Trump didn't see why US taxpayers ought to fund infrastructure improvements in NK......
I watched Threads the British movie of a nuclear war , its horrific 😢 and knowing now the bombs are so much stronger , it would be quite easy to destroy the planet 😮
Thorm ONLY HE WHO MADE THE WORLD 🌎 CAN DESTROY IT!!!!!? THIS WORLD DID NOT MADE BY CHANCE OR BY GUESS!!!!! THE SEASONS COMES & GOES IN FAULTLESS ACCURACY, LIKE WISE THE SUN & MOON!!!! WHY DOUBT THE POWERS OF ----- THE ALMIGHTY!!!!!.
You continue to surprise with both the quality and diversity of content on this channel. This was an excellent and chilling video. Expertly shot, delivered, and edited. Can't wait to see what's next!
Over 30 years ago I supplied valves and other plant controls. Many nuclear shelters were still in operation at the time and I visited a couple under the strictest security. The air filtration plants would fail regularly - usually every fortnight- and as I was informed by one of the engineers, in the event of nuclear attack one of the personnel who would not be permitted in the facility at that critical time would be the engineers..
I always found it interesting that the Cheyenne Mountain Complex was designed specifically to withstand nuclear (thermonuclear I believe) weapons, but by the time construction was completed the thinking was that a direct hit would still be able to destroy it. It’s also fascinating to me that the only way a fusion reaction can be kicked off (with current tech) is by using a fission reaction. Simply incredible.
They say it's because of the rock that Cheyenne Mountain is made of. It creates a fused shield when exposed to extreme heat. It's also really obvious which mountain is Cheyenne. 😂
Even during the design phase it was accepted a direct hit would destroy it. The belief of the time, now validated as true, was such levels of precision were not possible with initial guidance systems.
@@JG54206 Not hard to spot, unless you are trying to calculate ballistics from a few thousand miles away using inertial guidance systems. Then it is very hard to spot.
I used to work in an R3 bunker during the 90's. The bunkers were so bad that it was said that a 1000 lb bomb could have taken it out. So, whether I'd have survived down there if the big one happened was doubtful.
that's a change of pace. Also: When the Wind blows. Extremely impressive and haunting film on the topic. Despite (or because) it being quite funny as well.
Kept that bunker a secret when I visited Anstruther. Honestly, though, there’s far more to worry about from the nuclear bomb than there is the nukelar bomb because, and this is true, nukelar bomb doesn’t exist 😉 Worked on Britains nuclear deterrent in Faslane and Coulport. The v-boats were fascinating as were the trident ICBMs. If they weren’t so ch a horrendous weapon of destruction (and also housed so f king close to Glasgow), the technology behind them is incredible. Everything from how, on launch, they clear the water to allow the sun launch, to how it travels, all the way to it travels 1,200 miles up and reads the stars to to locate itself and its target
all those who are righteous will increase And all those wicked will act in righteousness in order that they will not be cut off As wicked does not support those righteous They will lie down and not get up.+They will be extinguished, snuffed out like a burning wick. How have the anointed shown themselves to be people for the name today To worship and serve Jehovah accept Those who are not spiritual how was this foretold in bible End the son of man ? For angels , to separate The sons of the kingdom Look! I am doing something new; I will make a way through the wilderness The wild beast of the field will honor me, The wild beast of the field will honor me, For I provide water in the wilderness, For the ostriches For my people to drink I formed for myself The people Who grew You have not called me I have bought And I have not compelled I am the one bring me Prove me your right side The one for my sake Taken from my own body For her sake - Bring me a gift
This is why I can’t wait to see Oppenheimer in theaters. As devastating as these weapons are, I find the history behind it fascinating. Should be a great film
Great documentary! It's visually very creative and highly informative as well. What I love best is how it brings the world scale issue down to a human and local context, in this case Scotland.
I’ve just looked at the reaction of the thermonuclear fusion bomb and that is really very scary. Incredibly impressive that somebody came up with it, but crazily scary.
@@robertokandal that's what we get for sticking our nose into a War that has nothing to do with us -'we're like a subsidiary of the US in this Country. Everytime they say 'jump', we say 'how high' !?
fusion bomb 'impressive'? The works of JS Bach are impressive, the works of Shakespeare are impressive , not fusion bombs.... fusion bombs are the stuff of nightmares.
This is a great video and I hope you do more like this, and not just war stuff but random tech, engineering, and just any random interesting stuff. You did a really great job on this one, writers and editors pat yourselves on the back. It's sad that the people we put in power end up becoming power-crazed lunatics who would rather sacrifice thousands of their own countrymen than find a reasonable solution. So far thank the flying spaghetti monster none have used these bat$h!t crazy weapons since WW2. Hopefully, in the future, our descendants look at war as just a crazy part of the past.
The human species has always made war. Horrible species in that regard. it shows no signs of stopping. Putin invades a peaceful democratic neighbour and goes about demolishing and drowning it. Warlords fight with modern weapons in Sudan and, as the man said, 'so it goes'.
@@AnarchAngel1 a lot of things change. We used to do human sacrifice for the Gods. Capital punishment is slowly going away. To say war will always be a part of life is a bit pessimistic.
I am a younger person I don’t understand what ur talking about I understand all the risks and possibilities and how devastating it is and I am in no denial at all
@@water4826 I'm glad you say that but I think you are the exception rather than the rule, judging by the average comment by peopl on the internet in the West.
@@water4826 I think it's more that people who lived through the Cold War believed in nuclear war as a real possibility, but in the safe (for the West) unipolar world we've had since 1991 that possibility has become too remote. People in the West have become used to running the world and ordering everything for their benefit. They can't imagine things not always going their way.
Great video, thoroughly enjoyed! One small correction if I may, the RAF are no longer in Kinloss, the old base is now Army barracks. It’s nearby Lossiemouth and Leuchars that are still active 😃
Like with so many other things, we opened Pandora's box when we made the first nuclear bombs. In an ironic twist, it became so the only way to ensure none would be used against you was to have your own so you were equally as threatening to your enemy. I fear the AI revolution that is taking off now will be the next problem like the nuclear arms race was. Because don't kid yourself, AI will absolutely be used, or at least be available to use, as a weapon of mass destruction, and quite possibly it may very well reach a point where we are no longer controlling it.
@@stevezodiac491only because Werner Heisenberg was attempting a nuclear weapon for the Nazis. They actually had a several year head start but the program was vastly underfunded. The Americans didn’t know how far along they were with it though.
Let's add one significant correction - The US pursued the bomb to it's conclusion first - but they did so off the back of all the UK University of Manchester and University of Oxford research that had already been done, and components already made in a tunnel in North Wales which were shipped across to them as part of the agreement between Churchill and FDR and to prevent the Germans getting their hands on the research in the event of successful invasion of Britain. That work formed a nucleus of the start of what went on to become the Manhattan Project. The USA could have done it without but this saved them several months of work in the early stages.
The worst of it will be for the people farther away from the blast. Those that are close will die quickly. Those farther away will have severe injuries and radiation sickness. Most of them will still die, but it will be over a long and excruciatingly painful period of time. These weapons should have never been created. I know it didn't appear so at the time, but the losses taken invading Japan would have been preferable to the looming destruction and suffering we face today. Murphy's law will eventually get us.
I agree, better more loss of human lives then than this monstrousity threatening the very existance of our world as it is now. I think somebody took the wrong decision and they didn t have much forsight to see what would happen.
What's interesting is that every major power in WWII tried to make a version. In Germany and Japan's case, we hit their research facilities without even knowing it during normal bombing raids. In Germany's case, their only way to obtain enough power to refine the uranium was by keeping the facility next one of their larger hydro-electric dams. They went from under a year to starting from scratch. In Japan's case, we firebombed Tokyo and their research was being done at the university there. They also were under a year from a prototype. Everyone saw it as just another weapon to develop at the time and issues with radiation and fallout were unknown or ignored. Even during the Cold War, the number of countries that almost got their hands on it was quite large. There was simply no lack of desire to use it until well in to the 80s for most of the world. We collectively dodged about half a dozen incidents as well in that time.
Yes, Japan were under a year to develop a nuclear weapon in WW2! What nonesense 😆 At that time they must of been making the Choe Mein Bamboo Bomb 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@contingency9 Mind you at the time nobody knew the secondary results and it was just considered normal weapons research. Japan's problem was a near lack of uranium, though. Germany in fact had sent uranium oxide to Japan near the end of the war (or attempted to, as the sub was captured). My point was that all sides were more than willing and trying. We just finished our program first.
"They went from under a year to starting from scratch." What does this mean? How can you go from "under a year"? And if they went to starting from scratch, then that sounds like they were going backwards.
@@yuchoobBecause of the firebombings, how is that difficult to comprehend? They were close to finalising a weapon of the sorts yet, due to the city being firebombed, had to start from zero.
@@paulbrouyere1735 This isn't dyslexia. This is a bizarre mispronunciation of a word by a significant number of people. And it's not even consistent: He doesn't mispronounce "nucleus" as "new-que-lus", so why does he insist on saying "new-que-lar"? Does he also say "skelington"?
Brilliant video, I wasn't subscribed but I am now. I know it is very difficult to condense such complicated information into a short, easy to understand video but for anyone interested -when an atom undergoes fission and splits apart it is not smashed apart in the conventional way like a bullet would smash an egg apart. The atom actually absorbs the neutron and then it vibrates, becomes unstable and pops apart. (This all happens in fractions of a billionth of a second) Both pieces of the atom have a net positive charge and it is that electrostatic force of two positives that makes the two pieces fly apart at high speed. Contrary to normal intuition the faster a neutron is travelling, the less likely it is to make the atom break apart because it will more likely bounce off instead of being absorbed. That is why water and graphite are used in nuclear reactors - to slow the neutrons down.
Dear Mike, this was a great video, but I have to admit that I’m not bothered at all by the possibility of a “nucular” war happening, but I do find the possibility nuclear war terrifying, whether fusion or fission bombs were to be used.
Exactly. You cannot speak with authority if you keep saying "new killer." Plus the constant cut-away shots where he's no longer talking to us but someone off camera (who?) is so jarring.
Today I saw the movie Oppenheimer. It was impressive, tense, and difficult in terms of making such a decision that would destroy "our enemies" in a blink of an eye, and then the consequences of those who survive the explosion will last for decades. On one hand I have admiration for these incredibly intelligent men, yet they build is "a massive destruction weapon" that put an end to WWII. It is said that in love and war everything is possible. Yet I wonder how these people could live the rest of their lives knowing what they did. It is insanity to think of a hydrogen bomb that literally would destroy the world as we know it. and then what... Why instead we find a way to live in peace and help one another like brothers and sisters around the world. Why humans are so unkind and want more and more power to control the world? Will this even come to an end?
Probably never. As long as their are human beings on this planet of ours there will always be power mad people who would use these weapons. Mankind will be responsible for its own destruction.
@@ednammansfield8553 Man will be brought low, And if the righteous man is being saved with difficulty, what will happen to That is why all hands will go limp, And every man’s heart will melt with fear. What is mortal man that you keep him in mind, a son of man that you take care of him? Only when a wild donkey can give birth to a man. As one would between a man and his fellow in mind, And a son of man that you take care of him and the young man became like one of his sons.
Actually Britain jumped on it first with operation tube alloys, before handing the research off to the Americans in the joint US/UK and Canadian Manhattan project. the British did the groundwork and the initial research into making a fissile bomb. Scottish independence isn't going to happen, look at the SNP and there is more need to be protected by Trident now than there has in the last 40 years. it is the only reason we have been able to resist Russian nuclear threats.
@@petewatson9866 well..... look at Ukraine...Georgia.. Syria obviously that can happen Russia is one of the most aggressive and expansionist countries in human history how much have you had to smoke???? i'm guessing a lot with that hair brained reply. Britain is the corner stone of NATO's Nuclear deterrent and would be first to reply in a nuclear exchange. it Guarantee's a swift nuclear response if Russia invades a NATO nation or launches a nuclear strike. without Nukes the United Kingdom would be a sitting duck, it isn't fair to let the United States provide NATO with all of it's nuclear deterrence. other countries have to pull their weight. every country that isn't the United States, United Kingdom France or Poland should be doing more.
Год назад
Nicely done Video. When I saw it in the End Cards of the last car Video, I was quite surprised. But as a history nerd, I liked it.
Biggest bomb these days is 1.2 megatons. They realised it’s more efficient to fire multiple smaller warheads from the same ICBM rather than one big one.
The weird thing is he can say "nucleus" correctly (he doesn't say "new-que-lus"), but he does say "new-que-lar". I would agree that it's at least 50% of British English speakers say "new-que-lar". It dates far before the Simpsons; most of my school friends used to say it and now so do almost all the politicians and journalists. And yet, most of them don't say "skelington" or "Specific Ocean".
12:33 “…it’s fair to say that the majority of Scottish people don’t want them there…” 🤔 Where, exactly, is the evidence for that? Reference please! The majority of Scottish people (rightly) don’t even want so-called “Scottish independence”…!
I've been inside the bunker at Kelvedon Hatch. Like the one in this video, as you go below ground, there is a very long corridor leading to the blast door around the corner at the end of it. It's obviously a common feature to aid in the defence of these bunkers.
Question is, if the nukes were to fall. Does anyone want to survive to witness the appaling aftermath? Total breakdown of society, the food chain stops, no medicine, law and order ends, people reduced to the level of stone age. If the nukes come I hope i'm right underneath one and its quick. No suffering for me or anyone I know and love.
Depends on the scale of the nuclear exchange. If I was Japanese in 1945 id want to survive. A full on exchange of 10,000 nukes though? Nah. We don't really know how large a nuclear exchange would be. China has 410 bombs. A war of the UK, US and Australia vs China would result in very few if any bombs landing on the UK. A full on NATO vs Russia exchange would be a very different story
How is this even an argument? The other choice is literally dying, of vourse you want to survive. If you are so affraid of living then carry a gun and you can die at your command.
@@HALLish-jl5moYou know at least 10 to 20 would detonate in the UK, enough to reduce London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, Sheffield, Aberdeen, Salisbury etc to ash, we would be reduced to a country of nomads trying to survive in an apocalyptic wasteland, they would only need like 5 to 10 to hit Australia and detonate then the other say 390 would be targeted at the US in this scenario, even then they only need between 20 to 30 to successfully detonate in the States to be effective to reduce the american population and military strength by at least 60% probably more
And yet, life goes on. Someone has to pick up the pieces and start a new government. So bunkers still exist. Well, for the important people. You and I? Yes, might as well have it go off overhead. I have zero illusions about the worth of some random teacher. Lol. Yes, it's grim, but it's what we all lived through in the 70s and 80s.
OK...it is not a big deal, lots and lots of accents lead to it being pronounced "nucular" instead of "nuclear"...just like he did repeatedly starting at 0:17...but ever since Baby Bush said "nucular" SO many times during his presidency with possible weapons in Iraq and actual weapons in North Korea, I cannot help but get a flashback to him saying it whenever I hear it. I know it is such an easy word to mispronounce, and there are lots of videos about that, but it is just really funny to my ear...anybody else get that?
Yeah it’s kind of annoying that the host of an episode specifically about nuclear weapons can’t get the word right. Small detail maybe but imagine doing an episode about a car and referring to it as a Frahree 😂
@@arconcritter it kind of isn't a small detail. The premise of the episode is detailing the use and aftermath of a nuclear device. Pretty central if you ask me.
To be fair, over 2000 bombs have already been detonated, above ground, underground, under the ocean, in the atmosphere, you name it. We are living in a post nuclear environment. Makes you wonder doesn't it.
Lots of people around the world speak lots of different languages, each with their own accents and variations. There is no wrong and right way to say anything. There's your way, and there's somebody's elses way.
Did you understand what he meant? Yeah, I mean, you attempted to correct him, so I guess you did? Well, that's the goal of language achieved. Language is dynamic. Its goal is to transfer information from one person to another. Its goal is not to satisfy some weird rule someone made up, for all to follow.
I wish you would have made more of a focus on the tsar bomba. The destruction of that bomb is immense. Today we probably have nukes even bigger then the tsar which is scary to think about since it’s not much harder to make those bombs stronger. It’s 100% possible to make one bomb that could destroy the planet just by keeping that chain reaction going for a bit longer.
@@chrisj9700most of the bigger devices are around 2mt of which is still going to completely level a city centre. However the majority of strategic warheads that would be deployed would be 250-500kt. Again...they would still level city centres.