If this video sounds a bit different, that's because I recorded it while recovering from a cold. Sorry about that! Happy Thanksgiving! I'll be back in December with one final video for the year. -Evan
I know an AI-generated voice when I hear one. Not that I mind, in principal, you using AI to generate your own voice for reasons such as illness or even to reduce production time, but the difference is pretty noticeable, and not in a great way.
I could hear the cold, yes, and I hope you get better soon. If I was to make a comment, I could also tell that the cold slowed your tempo just a little bit and, for me, that slight change of tempo in your speech was refreshing!
Your description of the reasoning behind the Sentinel missiles is misleading/incorrect. The air force is not replacing the Minute missiles and Launch Silo's because the minute man III strike capability of hitting anywhere in 30-minutes is "not good enough". The Sentinel program replacing everything because the entire Minute man III system (missiles included) are decades past their end of life, and are being incapable of being maintained due to parts not being available or costing huge sums of money to procure due to companies that originally design and built parts/system being long dead. Also the new Sentinel program is updating the missiles and the entire launch system/systems to modernize them (alot of the sites and systems are 30+ years old). The enormous cost of the program is largely down to the 450 sites that basically have to be demo'd and rebuilt and the fact that since we haven't been designing or building missiles for decades there has been generational knowledge lost in air force and industry that is having to be relearned on how to design and produce these are scale again. Not hating by the way, love the videos, just thought this section was glaringly conveying the reasons for the Sentinel program.
Is the Sentinel program cheaper than decommissioning the minutemen? The argument this video makes is that we don’t need the ground based ICBMs at all. Maintaining the minutemen is the worst option, but just taking them out of service seems like it would be cheaper without compromising our deterrence.
@@Dpmt I agree that is the correct argument for or against Sent., but that isnt how he presented the program in the video, he framed it as the airforce wanting better then 30min response capability in the missiles. I believe of all the legs, the grounds sites are actually one of the best ones to have. You create 450+ sites that the enemy has to try and take out to ensure they will survive, which essentially means they need 2-3 nukes per site to ensure they can take out the silo, which mean a country needs 1000+ Nukes to even have a chance to trying to use them. That is a huge upfront cost to even begin trying to launch a nuke at us. Not to mention the site locations being where they are also mean 1000+ nukes are hitting in those less populated locations and not our cities or coasts And all of that is just from the Ground leg of the Triad. Bringing in the other 2 legs, and you have a Masssive deterrent to actually use the weapons, which to mean, is worth the cost of the systems and their maintaince considering money has no value if nuclear war actually occurs.
@@Dpmt The point of ICBM's is that they can strike fast. Bombers can be intercepted which is why the B-52 was never replaced with the B-70 missiles could keep either so use the B-52 for other things. The B-2 is too few in number and we have no idea if China can counter stealth not that stealth is fool proof either. Subs are great but again it's just a few subs ( just 12 Columbia replacing 14 Ohio and each carries fewer missiles) and the missiles are still old Trident 2's from the 1980's.
One sentinel missile is still cheaper than desperately trying to keep the minutemen functional, the orings have rotten out, they still are programmed using floppy disks. etc. The technology to rebuild parts for these missiles is lost.
Why do you think our intelligence agencies are so paranoid about cyber-warfare that they are willing to spend billions more to keep old ICBMS functional than modernize them? It's because they KNOW how easy it is to hack/jam these world ending missiles if they have too much modern hardware and software. Otherwise it makes no sense that we haven't matched Russian/Chinese ICBM modernization efforts despite having a much higher defense budget. Russia brags continuously about how Satan-2 has cutting edge technology, they probably don't even know their missiles are infected with bugs by the CIA/NSA.
@@Cntr-Cmd-Delete as things get older. Their supply chain becomes outdated and inefficient. No one wants to keep factory running just to supply one outdated purpose
2:34 Got curious as to how they artificially aged plutonium so I went to Google it. "To simulate the properties of the plutonium alloy decades into the future, Livermore researchers pioneered a technique to accelerate the aging process in samples by mixing plutonium-239 with isotopes that have shorter half-lives. When plutonium-239 (which has a 24,000-year half-life) is mixed with 7.5 percent by weight of plutonium-238 (with an 87-year half-life), the alloy will accumulate radiation damage at a rate 16 times faster than weapons-grade plutonium alone. (See S&TR , May 2007, U.S. Weapons Plutonium Aging Gracefully.)"
This is Johny Harris level of bad takes for nuclear deterent. While the pits can last for a long time everything surrounding it honestly don't. That's why.
@@Homer-OJ-Simpson Russia is currently engaged in an imperialistic war with its neighbour to annex more territory and shows no signs of slowing done if they win in Ukraine. China is also increasing its warheads and we don't know what number is their target. I just see the US making sure it keeps up with the threat levels and making sure their deterrence is strong enough even against a simultaneous attack by China and Russia.
Not to mention adding the cost of B21 and new ships to cost of "nuclear weapons upgrade" is ridiculous. Just because something CAN launch nuclear weapons doesn't mean that's why they're being built.
Strangely opinionated for a Polymatter video. 80 cores a year doesn't sound excessive for a country with 5000 nukes, it would take 62 years to replace the ones we have.
@@sebastianflynn1746because parts age. If it takes the US 62 years (at the current rate) to re-arm all of their missiles, by the time they finish with those missiles (62 years from now), the missiles they re-armed in 2024 would be out-dated and aging. It's a continuous cycle of repair, retrofitting, and aging.
@@sebastianflynn1746 Our current ICBMs are waaaay past their retirement age. And, despite what this video says, the nuclear triad is vital to ensuring peace. The only saying holds true; if you want peace, prepare for war. The US' greatest asset is its overwhelming deterrence. Lacking in any front opens us up to attack and war is not something we want. We spend so much money on weapons because we don't want to go to war. But we're showing that if we have to, it will come at an immeasurable cost to the enemy.
This video is really strange from your normal style. You jump straight a conclusion after 6 minutes. This video taught me nothing except, that budgets were exceeded. Wow what a shocker
For some parts at least. Though I've over the years learnt that budgets don't tend to include differences due to inflation. So you get the starting budget estimate in say 2020 dollars, and then you get the current estimate for how much it will cost in 2024 dollars. So one can to an extent wonder how much of the supposed price increases are due to inflation, and how much if at all the budget actually increased. On that note, I actually know the B-21 program actually came in at below budget so far as well. Especially the inflation corrected budget. So apparently it's a pretty tightly run project.
I didn’t learn anything new. It was like a video for someone that knows zero about this topic while I expect from this channel a bit more detail and depth as if we already know the basics
@@astroch nah, most of his videos detailed with facts. Sure, it still to tell a story or whatever but they usually offer facts and info I wasn’t aware of. This was like an intro level video for someone who knows zero about the topic…but had too much opinion
To be fair, that question at the beginning is like asking why building one, single, relatively small-scale nuke in secrecy is vastly cheaper than the billions it takes to source nuclear material, build the thousands of weapons, build and coordinate the launch systems and sites, and pay all the thousands upon thousands of people involved. Like that one’s pretty obvious
@@LordJuan4 PolyMatter has always been sloppy content, but I like it better than the news -- I like that it's a single guy (I presume) and not a whole team because he isn't trying to be better than everyone else, and he isnt trying to be 100% objective and non-opinionated
I've noticed this on any nuclear-related Polymatter video. There's a strange rush to arrive at the conclusion that America is irresponsibly rushing nuclear rearmament
4:15 "well apparently that's not good enough" ... because they have significantly exceeded their intended lifespan. Initially designed as a temporary measure, these missiles have undergone several upgrades, and yet the original engineers who created them are no longer involved in their development, many are not even living anymore. The shift from a temp solution to forgotten technology is a VERY valid point that has been entirely overlooked.
There are parts besides the plutonium that degrade over time and we've already spent too much money refurbishing the missiles way past their intended lifespan. It's much cheaper long term to replace the missiles than try to refurbish them again, even with poorly designed contracts that encourage waste and don't punish mistakes.
@@Waldohasaskit210as a layman here who knows it's probably quicker to look it up but I am trying to increase engagement for the creator, can the degraded plutonium be converted to a energy source that way we don't have to bury it? Edit: punctuation
@@Triplehddyes, theoretically that’s completely possible, but most reactors are designed with uranium 235 rods in mind. They’ll have to do a lot of engineering to make it work and that’s more of a cost
@@stormix5755 I know the State department is trying to give nuclear energy a rebirth in response to the Chinese investment in nuclear energy hence my curiosity. Thank you so much for the information 🙂
One can similarly question the submarine replacement, the Ohio class is now ancient and reaching the end of their expected lifetimes. One kind of had to expect they'd be replaced, and obviously for a new variant that was up to date with the newest in submarine technology in being hard to find. And I'm not even sure what their point with the B-21 is, sure it does have the ability to launch nukes. But first and foremost it's meant to launch conventional arms, just like the B-2 before it, which it is actually replacing, as well as some of the other planes like the B-1 and some of B-52. Technological systems get old eventually, especially in a world where technological progress is still pretty substantial. You can't find supplies for quite a few of the old parts, so even if you wanted to do nothing else but maintain, you'd pretty much have to design a new platform that can actually be supported once more for a substantial amount of time. And if the technology for some 'surprising' reason isn't up to date, you might need to update it a bit as well.
...you do realize that there are MANY more parts of a nuke that need to be replaced, right? And even if the plutonium doesn't degrade for a long time, even a small change in it could ruin the extremely specific sequence needed for a nuclear explosion to occur. This feels like an argument bureaucrats who only look as a budget would make, ignoring what maintenance is, and that the longer you try to maintain something, maintenance just gets more expensive then replacement.
A small change cannot ruin it. What you meant to say is that it's a threshold event - any change above the threshold is basically irrelevant, but any change that drops below the threshold would ruin effectiveness. Perhaps a nitpick, but oh well :)
Many people have pointed out the deeply flawed and opinionated parts of this video, so I won't repeat the same criticism. What I will point out is that this video mainly focused on the U.S and then claimed that China, Russia, North Korea are "responding" to our nuclear buildup. This is just blatantly wrong. Even the graph you showed in the video showed that China growth of nukes began before the U.S. stated to update its nuclear arsenal. NK has been building up its nukes for years, and Russia never stopped producing Plutonium cores. I would recommend checking out Peruns video on the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal if you wanna video that is at the quality Polymatter usually makes.
I think a lot of the criticisms here are pretty short-sighted. Nuclear deterrence and politics are much more complicated and fragile than nearly any other interaction ever. We shouldn't be sparing any expense or trying to cut anything. I know it's a lot of money and a headache but this is an arena in which we must always be prepared and at full capacity. Not that we'll ever use them or should ever use them, but they do have tremendous value and bringing them in to the modern age is an investment that will allow us to forget about them for another 50 years and hopefully spend less in maintenance during that time. We'll have to do it at some point, and as much as people love kicking the can down the road that should not be an option here.
Agreed, and to the point of this video made about it being proactive of other nations, I think the push to modernize the nuclear arsenal in the US more reactionary to other countries development. Putin has been spending a lot of money modernizing Russia's nuclear program over the past 20 years, and Russia has been developing new maneuverable hyper-sonic ICBMs which threaten to undermine MAD.
@@SimonWoodburyForget Extremely insecure Americans are socialized to cheer destruction. Remember; "Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. Patriotism is its cult."
They are a necessary evil that has kept the world at relative peace for years now it would be wonderful not to need them but that's just wishful thinking reality is much more harsh
@@SimonWoodburyForget Russia says so, if not for their Nuclear Arsenal NATO would have boots on the ground in Ukraine and if Ukraine had their nuclear arsenal still they would never have been invaded
@@ChristianPineiro-td3km well yes, but then the B 29 would be ~45 billion in today’s dollars. The amazing part, which is the fact that the B29 cost ~50% more, stays the same, whether you adjust for inflation, or use 1945 amounts.
This video is disappointingly lacking in perspective and context. I laughed out loud when you said Moscow will be able to make as many nukes as they want once STARZ expires. With what money and which experts? Have you seen Moscow's launches of the Sarmat? Nothing but craters. At their own launch sites!! In order to have a functioning nuclear deterrent, you must have an overwhelming nuclear deterrent. It must be absolutely clear to other nuclear nations that any attempt at a clever first strike or anti-balistic defense will be, not only woefully inadequate to prevent a retaliatory strike, but also replied to with the nigh-total extermination of the offending nation. As long as someone might think there is a chance of a limited nuclear exchange, there is a risk of such a thing happenning. When strategic planners are faced with the looming threat of all their cities and ports being smoking craters, the nuclear strategy becomes "DON'T".
What an unbelievably misleading and biased video. Comparing the first nuclear weapon development program to the cost to build / refurbish thousands of thermonuclear weapons, hundreds of ICBMs and hundreds more SRBMs, dozens of submarines, over a hundred stealth bombers, all of the infrastructure to maintain that… exactly what point are you trying to to make by pointing out that the latter costs more than the former? We’re making 80 cores a year so that we can either replace the existing arsenal overtime or potentially expand it - building one to prove we can doesn’t accomplish that - and when nuclear deterrence is at stake, you don’t take the results of simulated plutonium aging and stake your entire national existence on them being correct. I was a huge fan of your videos until the one you made on missile defense (which has been proven largely wrong by the Ukraine war), and now I simply do not trust you. This video is concluding statement after conclusory statement; opinions portrayed as though they were fact. It is clear that you have not seriously looked into nuclear doctrine and the underlying game theory dynamics surrounding MAD, or you would understand counter-force vs counter-value attacks and why the arsenal needs to modernized is as large and redundant as it is (any questioning of MAD can break the deterrent effect). I am seriously wondering why I still subscribe to this channel or even bother clicking on the thumbnails. We can’t trust you to give us anything other than your opinion.
It's easy to condemn the US buildup, but there's no other option here. Russia and China have stopped negotiating, or never negotiated at all, and Russia in particular has flagrantly violated every agreement it's signed. In this environment a US buildup only makes sense. One could argue that the buildup is too big, or stresses some of the wrong things, but decades old weapon systems and infrastructure are not a deterrent. This is actually the real nuclear risk here, as nobody knows, not even Putin, whether Russia's deterrence force of ready missiles will fire or not because somebody sold their components on the black market. The quiet terror of the Russian leadership due to this fact creates orders of magnitude more potential instability than the fact that the United States is upgrading mostly still capable systems to ones that are truly capable.
I'm against it foolish upgrading the missiles and so on fine but to make more is a shot in our head and a waste we already have more than enough to end the world many times over
@@OscarUnratedThe point of deterrence is to prevent your adversary from using them in the first place. If you don't have a credible 2nd strike capability, you have no way of deterring a 1st strike.
@@USSAnimeNCC- "Make more" - increasing the total viable number is wasteful, agreed. Maintaining viable stock by replacing stock which is aging out of viability is strategically neutral, and it's misleading to describe this replacement as "to make more"
Perun made a good video a while back about nuclear rearmament. I learned some cool numbers from this video but I disagree with the underlying logic that it's a bad idea for the US to modernize their aging nuclear armament.
I feel like the problem with interacting with nuclear argument logically is nuclear weapons are inherently an insane principle. The decision to have them exist has been made for us already, and the same nation will weaken itself to that agree post Iranian then Ukrainian invasion. A weapon capable of vaporizing mountains itself is not meant to be interacted with logically. They will never be into the Cold War, we either get thicker skin or we realize so. Society is malleable just like Atoms and we can make them into what we want. Until the creation of a one world government that has knowledge of all government actions. No government cannot have nuclear programs cause trust cannot exist. When the logical outcome of you being wrong is a sun being summoned on earth.
Well done on the video. However, I must note that you did not correctly identify the reason that the U.S. does not hide its ICBMs (at: 7:21). The U.S. keeps them open enough that U.S. adversaries know of them (and so the ICBMs are a deterrence); but discrete enough so that the U.S. public will not wonder into them.
My only worry really is the limit on deployed nuclear weapons expiring in 2026. Who cares if Russia, China and America are racing to field new delivery systems? The current ICBMs etc arent stoppable anyway - however we do need to replace them as we will at some point anyway - these missiles are so old they are getting more expensive to maintain and we shouldn't be shying away from updating something as important as this. Secondly you said that missiles hitting the ICBM silos will "kill millions of Americans". first of all I highly doubt that as there is nothing really near them + nothing to burn to cause nuclear winter and much fallout. And more importantly does that matter when hundreds of millions of people will die anyway? Yes hundreds of billions will be spent and you pointed out how that money is being spend inefficiently but does ANY money in the US budget get spent efficiently? the US spends billions anyway on its military personally I think its worth it.
No, you have to slow down and check his numbers. 16.5 billion seems to have been spent in fiscal year 2023. So half a Manhattan project. I'm pretty sure that budget will have to be voted in again year after year. It won't just be granted for 30 years automatically. You should check me on that--that's kind of my point about going slow with this information--but I do suspect Polymatter is doing an apples to oranges comparison to make our situation look worse. My opinion is that our situation was always bad. Putin and friends are the ones making it way worse by breaking the nuclear taboo. So, rather than becoming scared like this video might lead you to feel, I think we need to push back hard against countries who make nuclear threats. That will make leaders realize that nukes aren't that useful to them.
bro this video is alot more cringe than your usual, it really feels like you are letting anti-nuclear sentiments come through on the video, the statement about the minuteman missles not being "good enough" is honestly just a very poor take, they are being replaced because they are long past their design life and are impossible to repair at this point
Took the words out of my mouth. So much wrong here. Just one example, we aren't upgrading the minuteman icbms for the hell of it as the video implies. Those missiles are ancient and have already been life extended a few times. "Unreliable" and "nuclear weapons" don't mix, I think everyone agrees. I actually agree we don't really need a land leg (at least not in its current form) but that was such a poor and obvious strawman that I need to reevaluate everything I've ever heard from this guy.
Same here usually I find them very informative but this one i found many errors or at the very least he needed more context or explanation of some points.
Russia already has new nukes,sarmat is way more reliable than minuteman although minuteman is well ahead of its time,how about you both have new nukes so you have balance,just common sense, really makes you wonder what the US can come up with using 21st century technology
When it’s sunny outside people everywhere are screaming at us as to why we have such a fancy umbrella. It’s because when the rain starts pouring, we will be prepared. I don’t know why people don’t understand this.
I think that the last part is a bit misleading given that there are many other reasons these adversaries and making more nukes and I think our nuclear upgrades are a very small part of that. E.g. Russia more because of war in Ukraine, China army expansion relating to a desire to grow its hard power and expand military capability for a potential Taiwan scenario
From Perplexity: The United States needs the Sentinel program for several key reasons: 1. Modernization of nuclear deterrence: The Sentinel program is designed to replace the aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which have been in service for over 50 years[1][3]. This modernization is crucial to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent in the face of evolving global threats. 2. Addressing technological obsolescence: Many components of the current ICBM system are using original equipment from the 1970s, with some parts becoming obsolete and difficult to maintain[3][7]. The Sentinel program aims to update these systems with modern technology. 3. Countering emerging threats: The U.S. is facing two near-peer adversaries (likely referring to Russia and China) who are rapidly expanding and modernizing their nuclear weapons[4]. The Sentinel program is part of the effort to maintain strategic stability in this changing security environment. 4. Ensuring reliability and effectiveness: As the Minuteman III system ages, there are increasing concerns about its long-term reliability and effectiveness. The Sentinel program aims to provide a modern, integrated system that can adapt to future threats and keep pace with emerging technologies[4]. 5. Supporting the nuclear triad: The land-based ICBMs form a critical part of the U.S. nuclear triad, alongside submarine-launched ballistic missiles and strategic bombers. Modernizing this leg of the triad is considered essential for maintaining overall strategic deterrence[1][3]. 6. Improving infrastructure and quality of life: The Sentinel program includes upgrades to launch facilities, missile alert facilities, and other infrastructure, which can also bring quality of life improvements for the personnel operating these systems[4]. While the program has faced challenges, including significant cost overruns[8], it is still considered a vital investment in U.S. national security by military and government officials[1][3]. Citations: [1] www.airandspaceforces.com/opinion-sentinel-non-negotiable-defense-investment/ [2] warontherocks.com/2024/02/how-many-sentinel-missiles-does-the-united-states-need/ [3] www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3876098/sentinel-the-history-of-the-daf-modernizing-the-backbone-of-americas-national-s/ [4] www.northropgrumman.com/space/sentinel/about-sentinel [5] www.northropgrumman.com/space/sentinel [6] www.armscontrol.org/events/2024-01/sentinel-icbm-program-risks-costs-alternatives [7] www.afnwc.af.mil/Weapon-Systems/Sentinel-ICBM-LGM-35A/ [8] www.defensenews.com/air/2024/07/08/pentagon-keeps-commitment-to-sentinel-nuclear-missile-as-costs-balloon/ [9] www.perplexity.ai/elections/2024-11-05/us/president
Not even remotely close. Don't believe every claim made by or ambition of Elon Musk. An attempt at long term habitation on Mars would be suicidal with present technology.
Considering Libya and Ukraine are great examples of non-nuclear countries being vulnerable to attack, it's a question why the U.S. doesn't arm their allies with nuclear weapons as well. If North Korea can why can't South Korea? Why not Ukraine or Poland or Germany? Why not Taiwan? It may very well be the best way to maintain peace if the U.S. wants to become more isolationist in the near future.
Unreliable. Not many discuss that the Cubans were heavily lobbying for a Soviet first strike to be the response to the US blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis. It's the same reason why the Chinese don't look fondly on the DPRK nuclear program. Unnecessarily destabilising.
South Korea and Ukraine both have fast track nuclear weapon contingency plans if the U.S. nuclear detergent umbrella starts looking at all undependable.
This whole video is extremely flawed. The central claim that the US maintaining a powerful nuclear arsenal, will embolden Russia and China, is incorrect. What will embolden Russia and China more than anything is the tiniest doubt in mutually assured destruction in the event of a nuclear conflict with the US. You don't get respect through weakness, you get respect through overwhelming strength. And your point about land based missiles is also extremely poorly thought out. Yes, submarines and stealth bombers exist but the whole point of mutually assured destruction is the complete impossibility of any other outcome. Diversification of our nuclear arsenal minimizes the chances of any potential vulnerability ever having the chance to disturb the promise of mutually assured destruction. In a nuclear conflict, sacrificing the vast, sparsely populated interior of the US as a nuclear sponge is well worth the tiniest decrease in the destruction of urban areas. You cannot underestimate the importance of hundreds of warheads being wasted to blow up farmland in the attempt to destroy every nuclear silo. Peace through strength is the only way to prevent nuclear war. The natïvity to think that international cooperation could eliminate nuclear weapons is exactly what will get us into nuclear conflict. Everything you said plays right into the hands of China and Russia. Which team are you on?
You get respect through strength, not overwhelming strength. Overwhelming strength just creates fear, and a "well if you're gonna come for me then at least I'll give you a bloody nose back" type of recklessness - the exact thing we do **not** want to inspire in Putin (and Xi, and Kim, and Iran). Also, the chance of some tech some day making subs unviable is sooooo remote that it's not really worth the investment into these silos. At worst, you could have your subs hang back around Australia or Alaska or whatever, and they could still launch from there. I strongly doubt they'd ever risk going into the Taiwanese Strait in the first place - even if you just have a malfunction or accident, you do not want the Chinese coast guard picking up the survivors and potential debris pieces.... So there's no vulnerability in the deterence due to technological breakthroughs, just temporarily less oceanic range that's accessible without being detected. As for the sponge strategy. Yeah, making the enemy have to build and launch many more nukes will drive up their costs and fears of missing one. And I guess it would clear up the radar picture of an attack, cuz there'll have to be a lot more missiles incoming... But you can use empty silos for that too, like China does, and it's wayyyy cheaper but still equally effective! So that's definitely an argument, but not for the full costs of total replacement. Okay, those were the three points I have issues with. I totally agree about the naivety of international cooperation to eliminate nukes (reductions were possible in more peaceful times, but complete disarmament is not - and now tensions are ruining higher and higher). I hope a balance gets struck between being strong and intimidating, but not despair inducing. And that these weapons remain an insurance, that never has to get used... Hope you have a great day :)
My brother works at LANL and is one of the people seeing this gets done safely. I'm not allowed to know what he's working on past that due to security issues, but I can say with confidence that we are in full swing for pit upgrades as well as a few other modernization upgrades. It's crazy having family directly involved in this.
@micahbonewell5994 I've been noticing a lot of people (including a considerable number of people on the right) acting really squirrelly ever since Putin started ramping up his nuclear saber rattling, and it's gotten exponentially worse since Russia launched their Oreshnik IRBM, hitting a Ukrainian city a couple of weeks back. It's disheartening to see so many Americans readily eating up blatant Russian propaganda, and it's embarrassing to see so many Americans ready to cowtow to Putin's threats like a bunch of cowards. Backing down is the exact WRONG thing to do. I'm not saying that we need to get actively aggressive with any of our adversaries, but we can't show weakness in the face of desperate threats from Putin that we have good intelligence in knowing are largely empty. "Speak softly and carry a big stick." It seems like far too many people are prepared to loudly declare that we'd rather carry a small twig because we're too p*ssy to stand firm. We still outclass all of our adversaries in military power combined several times over. Now is NOT the time to fold and display weakness, or we might just convince our adversaries that they now have the opportunity to strike us successfully, and worse, that we may be too reluctant to do anything about it. Once you're on top, you do NOT let that advantage slip, because make no mistake, giving up our dominance will devastate both our prosperity and our security. There has never been a king in human history who has been successfully deposed and simply allowed to go about his life as just another citizen. No. Whenever a king loses his throne, he also loses his head. Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are not our friends, they never will be our friends, and people need to quit pretending as though it's our actions that cause their hostility towards us. In reality, it is quite the opposite. The ONLY reason none of these nations have tested our gangster and aren't prepared to test our gangster is because we're gangster. The day we hang that up is the day they grow brave enough to try something that could turn the entire world order and balance of power on its head. The barbarians are at our gates. If we capitulate, we WILL end up like the Roman Empire. I'm not suggesting we send a battalion through the gates to slaughter the barbarians. I'm suggesting we stand atop the city wall with such terrifying weapons in such high numbers that the barbarians see them and choose to run back in the direction from whence they came, letting them take care of themselves, all without a shot needing to be fired. Our prosperity as a nation and the relative peace of the last several decades has caused our population to grow soft. Far too many people have lost touch with how much strength and grit is required for us to be able to live in such a relatively gentle manner. A gentle man is not a weak coward too afraid to fight. A gentle man is a deadly man who, through his strength, is afforded the opportunity to not need to use it. That MUST be our philosophy. Strong, firm, and fair. Only with those qualities can we be kind and compassionate. Otherwise, we'll be leaving our children and our children's children with a threat to their future nation and security that makes current events pale in comparison.
After 9/11 America shifted the focus from “we can beat any country if we absolutely had to” to “we need to make sure no country could ever even get close to harming us at all.”
@polymatter I'm confused by you saying we don't know how long it takes plutonium to degrade. Plutonium-239 has a half life of 24100 years. Plutonium-238 has a halflife of 87.7 years. Uranium-238 has a half life of 4.4billion years. Uranium-235 has a half life of 700million years
I believe that the question nuclear scientists have is how long it takes for the degradation to make the weapons unreliable, not the speed of the degradation itself.
The high levels of radiation produced by the plutonium cause damage to its physical structure. Chemically, and isotopically almost identical after a century. But it may also be a brittle powdery mess
The problem is probably more in how long it takes before decay products start seriously interfering with the device still working as intended. Some decay products for instance can I believe work as breaks on nuclear chain reactions. So long before the Plutonium is all gone the devices will stop working.
I feel a bit relieved seeing so many other comments pointing out the flaws in this video’s reasoning. I’ve been subscribed for a long time and now you have me questioning your credibility when you clearly didn’t put much effort into deeply researching such an important aspect of our national defense. The main reason those Minuteman missiles are being replaced is because its become too costly and difficult to maintain them and they are way past their originally designed service life.
Disagree. It is not a waste for two key reasons. 1. Deterrence HAS slipped substantially, along with the massive nearly 90% reduction in total world arsenals since the end of the Cold War. We frankly no longer have sufficient warheads guarantee proper and total Mutually Assured Destruction. Now its more like, mutually assured disaster but that is very different than sure destruction. Back in the day, it was like two guys pointing shotguns at each others' heads. If USSR launches their 50,000 warheads then NATO throws its 40,000 warheads and quite literally Everbody Dies. Everybody, its an extinction level event. Not now. There will be survivors and indeed surviving mid-tier nations which would then be new superpowers that the surviving Russians, Americans, Chinese etc would be in grave danger of being dominated by. At the same time the very fact that it is a known certainty that there will be at least a hundred million rural American or Chinese or Russian survivors makes the though to actually fighting nuclear war more palatable, vs the Cold War where any nuclear war meant literal extinction. 2. Nuclear war is no longer a binary contest. In the Cold War, an exchange would annihilate all nuclear powers. Nowadays that is NOT the case. For this reason we actually need substantially more magazine depth than we require for fighting/retaliating in the actual nuclear war. If the US and China make an exchange, Russia is still left standing with its arsenal intact. As is India, Pakistan, the Norks, Israel... So we not only need enough to survive a first strike then fight a retaliatory campaign, but we also need enough in FURTHER reserve that remains unused as deterrence against THIRD PARTY nuclear powers. After we've been through an exchange, we will be no condition whatsoever to defend ourselves conventionally for 100 years or more. So the only way we don't get dominated by an unharmed third party is by being able to credibly deter them, even after all the destruction of the exchange war. We need MOAR. Build em' up. Stack em' high and deep. In submarines mostly though, we don't need to increase ground based ICBMs or strategic bombers. They're too soft and vulnerable. Whereas for your post-exchange deterrence, you can just tell 4 out of 16 subs to go silent and sit it out. Should be more like 30 subs IMO. Remember its like 2 on patrol and 1 in refit at all times, at best.
I gotta point there especially with subs. Of the three in the US nuclear triad subs are probably the most mobile and independent of the 3, bombers though they can strike stealthily and with long range are still vulnerable and silos are in my opinion too old of a delivery system especially in an age where missile defense has advanced over the years. And the fact that the US air force has control of two of the 3 delivery systems for our nukes we need to ensure more creative ways to deploy nukes on a more mobile platform, and subs right now are our most capable and most mobile ways to deploy nukes.
Very good points but I think missle silos will remain relevant,as others mentioned with advancement in radar and satellite technology Russia and China may develop counters for the submarine, while ground based missile silos can be launched at an instant if ordered by the president,the minuteman is called minuteman as it can be launched in a minute,you just need to be absolutely sure that the missle will launch and reach its destination
Back to Duck and cover era right? Because that fixes everything, yes? This is exactly how the world had 50,000+ warheads during the cold war with a 247 fear of dying to a nuke.
Probably named for the original Minutemen. Minutemen were members of the colonial militia during the American Revolution who were trained to be ready for military duty at a moment's notice.
They can't be launched in less than a minute, but they're called minutemen as a nod to the men who were ready and willing to fight at barely a moment's notice in the US' fight for independence.
Russia was already violating these treaties before they were fully dropped. Russia's decision to increase their nuclear development has far more to do with their complete inability to face NATO in a conventional war than it does the development of US nukes. China was already on a path to seek parity in armaments, so this is no surprise either. In general, the theory that choosing weakness will cause our adversaries to relax has never proven to be true.
The B21's main selling point isn't even that it's a nuclear upgrade, its conventional ability improvements over the B-2 which really is only capable of dropping bombs as opposed to the B21 acting as a mothership for all sorts of autonomous systems is more the reason it is being greenlit, hell there are rumblings it might replace other efforts in the air superiority fighter role.
Banks artificially inflate debt of government reliant private companies beyond their serviceability such that the government needs to spend more on them to keep them alive. This is less about strategic alignment.
Putin is threatening a nuclear war every week and now is the USA who is escalating ? With all due respect, i don't think escaltion, among all concerns about nuclear weapons, should be our priority
Most of the costs mentioned are not due to replacing the actual nuclear warhead, but because we are replacing the delivery device (ie. missile, submarine, and aircraft). For all of these, they have service life’s where the cost of continuing to maintain the device exceeds a threshold and it is cheaper to replace it. For example, our current fleet of Ohio class submarines are hitting their end of service in 2026, so the Columbia class replacement is necessary for continued strategic deterrence. This is the same for the minute-man (which has actually exceeded service life) and the bombers. Actually, there’s a good argument that pit production is also due to degraded plutonium that is past it’s service life and we haven’t been replacing because we stopped plutonium production after the Cold War and have been surviving off of previous nuclear stockpiles. I agree a modernization program is expensive, but our entire strategic deterrence program is past its shelf life and needs replacement.
At the end of the day, nuclear weapons are very similar to keeping a gun at home for the purpose of defense in that, you're more likely to end up hurting yourself with them than ever use them for their intended purpose. Look how many close calls ("Broken Arrow") events that have happened since the invention of nukes, and it's plain to see that a significant nuclear accident isn't a matter of "if" but "when".
i get that "mutually assured destruction" is supposed to be a deterrent. but what happens when it isn't? what if a madman somehow got hold of a bunch of intercontinental nukes? isnt it better to build something like an "iron dome"?
Seeing how Russia is threatening nuclear war every other day and North Korea threatening nuclear war every day and Iran building nuclear weapons, I think the threat of national security makes a good reason...
70 billion dollars a year seems like a steal for invulnerability. I’m pretty sure the Australian government would be willing to pay that price for nuclear weapons.
It's the same as saying the f35 is overpriced waste when it is the only fifth generation aircraft remotely capable of dealing with the Chinese especially after the disastrous retirement of f22 which is a joke in and of itself
Or, perhaps, the US lowering the number of nuclear weapons gave the impression to its adversaries that it is no longer interested in maintaining world peace. Which, in turn, might be the reason that those adversaries feel so emboldened.
The fusion bomb can have a better yield if the core is made significantly larger since the fusion byproducts can guse themselves and so to their byproducts right upto iron. There can be deterrence when high speed drones intercept missiles but there are no data available on this subject. Though the projects of the coldwar are expensive it does put R&D first. It does put the world on edge but a lot of incentives for work is generated.
0:35 was a tough choice for me, but ultimately I’m happy with my vote for this over addressing climate change. I just figure that if there’s gonna be an existential crisis doing us in, it might as well be one we deliberately pay to create rather than something unintentional. What were your reasons for voting how you did in the summer ‘24 National Referendum on Nuclear Modernization???
I get that it's hard to do domain expert level research given the huge number of topics you cover, but I really do recommend trying to reach out to domain experts or professors to schedule an interview. You're a 2M subscriber TH-cam channel, it could seriously help inform the directions and perspectives you discuss. A sources page made of almost entirely newspaper and blog articles, and one scientific publication, is the level of research I could expert out of a high schooler - a great starting point to inform an opinion and have an intelligent conversation with an expert, but not to assume you can make the sorts of conclusions you jump to here.
We know no one else could really afford something like this. To help the Soviet Union fall apart, we spent, and spent, and spent, forcing our primary enemy to spend too, knowing they couldn't afford it. I have to think we want someone else to either feel set very far behind, or try and stay on par or out spend us, either way they're not going to be able to keep up.
Pretty topical video. When your largest adversary (China) is rapidly producing nuclear weapons, you may want to modernize your deterrent. Ours is 30+ years old. Doesn't take a galaxy brain to figure this out. Hope you revisit this video with one that is actually worthwhile.
If this video sounds a bit different, that's because I recorded it while recovering from a cold. Sorry about that! Happy Thanksgiving! I'll be back in December with one final video for the year. -Evan
I was about to comment that you used AI to voice it :D
bro i noticed the difference, but thank you for putting this video out bc its quality ❤
i noticed it! haha, i hope you're ok now.
I know an AI-generated voice when I hear one. Not that I mind, in principal, you using AI to generate your own voice for reasons such as illness or even to reduce production time, but the difference is pretty noticeable, and not in a great way.
I could hear the cold, yes, and I hope you get better soon. If I was to make a comment, I could also tell that the cold slowed your tempo just a little bit and, for me, that slight change of tempo in your speech was refreshing!
Its the year 2,357 and the B52 has been retrofitted for the 35th time to be able to withstand the journey through wormholes 😂
Your description of the reasoning behind the Sentinel missiles is misleading/incorrect. The air force is not replacing the Minute missiles and Launch Silo's because the minute man III strike capability of hitting anywhere in 30-minutes is "not good enough". The Sentinel program replacing everything because the entire Minute man III system (missiles included) are decades past their end of life, and are being incapable of being maintained due to parts not being available or costing huge sums of money to procure due to companies that originally design and built parts/system being long dead. Also the new Sentinel program is updating the missiles and the entire launch system/systems to modernize them (alot of the sites and systems are 30+ years old). The enormous cost of the program is largely down to the 450 sites that basically have to be demo'd and rebuilt and the fact that since we haven't been designing or building missiles for decades there has been generational knowledge lost in air force and industry that is having to be relearned on how to design and produce these are scale again. Not hating by the way, love the videos, just thought this section was glaringly conveying the reasons for the Sentinel program.
The quality and accuracy of this channel's videos has fallen off a cliff.
@@ethancfannthat’s an overstatement
Is the Sentinel program cheaper than decommissioning the minutemen? The argument this video makes is that we don’t need the ground based ICBMs at all. Maintaining the minutemen is the worst option, but just taking them out of service seems like it would be cheaper without compromising our deterrence.
@@Dpmt I agree that is the correct argument for or against Sent., but that isnt how he presented the program in the video, he framed it as the airforce wanting better then 30min response capability in the missiles. I believe of all the legs, the grounds sites are actually one of the best ones to have. You create 450+ sites that the enemy has to try and take out to ensure they will survive, which essentially means they need 2-3 nukes per site to ensure they can take out the silo, which mean a country needs 1000+ Nukes to even have a chance to trying to use them. That is a huge upfront cost to even begin trying to launch a nuke at us. Not to mention the site locations being where they are also mean 1000+ nukes are hitting in those less populated locations and not our cities or coasts And all of that is just from the Ground leg of the Triad. Bringing in the other 2 legs, and you have a Masssive deterrent to actually use the weapons, which to mean, is worth the cost of the systems and their maintaince
considering money has no value if nuclear war actually occurs.
@@Dpmt The point of ICBM's is that they can strike fast. Bombers can be intercepted which is why the B-52 was never replaced with the B-70 missiles could keep either so use the B-52 for other things.
The B-2 is too few in number and we have no idea if China can counter stealth not that stealth is fool proof either.
Subs are great but again it's just a few subs ( just 12 Columbia replacing 14 Ohio and each carries fewer missiles) and the missiles are still old Trident 2's from the 1980's.
One sentinel missile is still cheaper than desperately trying to keep the minutemen functional, the orings have rotten out, they still are programmed using floppy disks. etc. The technology to rebuild parts for these missiles is lost.
Why do you think our intelligence agencies are so paranoid about cyber-warfare that they are willing to spend billions more to keep old ICBMS functional than modernize them? It's because they KNOW how easy it is to hack/jam these world ending missiles if they have too much modern hardware and software.
Otherwise it makes no sense that we haven't matched Russian/Chinese ICBM modernization efforts despite having a much higher defense budget. Russia brags continuously about how Satan-2 has cutting edge technology, they probably don't even know their missiles are infected with bugs by the CIA/NSA.
what’s wrong with floppy disks?
@@Cntr-Cmd-Delete as things get older. Their supply chain becomes outdated and inefficient.
No one wants to keep factory running just to supply one outdated purpose
Floppy disks are hard to hack
@@dosmastrifyA CD would be likewise as "hard to hack" as a floppy. So it's rather meaningless.
2:34 Got curious as to how they artificially aged plutonium so I went to Google it. "To simulate the properties of the plutonium alloy decades into the future, Livermore researchers pioneered a technique to accelerate the aging process in samples by mixing plutonium-239 with isotopes that have shorter half-lives. When plutonium-239 (which has a 24,000-year half-life) is mixed with 7.5 percent by weight of plutonium-238 (with an 87-year half-life), the alloy will accumulate radiation damage at a rate 16 times faster than weapons-grade plutonium alone. (See S&TR , May 2007, U.S. Weapons Plutonium Aging Gracefully.)"
This is Johny Harris level of bad takes for nuclear deterent. While the pits can last for a long time everything surrounding it honestly don't. That's why.
What take did he specifically make?
@@JohnDorian-j7x That the US shouldn't modernize their nuclear arsenal. That doing so is wasteful and even dangerous. I disagree with both statements.
@@The_GuyWhoNeverUploadsAnything
US should modernize but doesn’t need that many nuclear weapons. I think most would agree with modernizing the nukes
@@Homer-OJ-Simpson Russia is currently engaged in an imperialistic war with its neighbour to annex more territory and shows no signs of slowing done if they win in Ukraine. China is also increasing its warheads and we don't know what number is their target. I just see the US making sure it keeps up with the threat levels and making sure their deterrence is strong enough even against a simultaneous attack by China and Russia.
Not to mention adding the cost of B21 and new ships to cost of "nuclear weapons upgrade" is ridiculous. Just because something CAN launch nuclear weapons doesn't mean that's why they're being built.
Strangely opinionated for a Polymatter video. 80 cores a year doesn't sound excessive for a country with 5000 nukes, it would take 62 years to replace the ones we have.
Why do we need to replace 1:1?
@@sebastianflynn1746because parts age. If it takes the US 62 years (at the current rate) to re-arm all of their missiles, by the time they finish with those missiles (62 years from now), the missiles they re-armed in 2024 would be out-dated and aging.
It's a continuous cycle of repair, retrofitting, and aging.
Have you not watched any of his stuff on China? Opinionated...
@@boarbot7829 Honestly less opinionated than lots of commentators though.
@@sebastianflynn1746 Our current ICBMs are waaaay past their retirement age. And, despite what this video says, the nuclear triad is vital to ensuring peace. The only saying holds true; if you want peace, prepare for war. The US' greatest asset is its overwhelming deterrence. Lacking in any front opens us up to attack and war is not something we want. We spend so much money on weapons because we don't want to go to war. But we're showing that if we have to, it will come at an immeasurable cost to the enemy.
This video is really strange from your normal style. You jump straight a conclusion after 6 minutes. This video taught me nothing except, that budgets were exceeded. Wow what a shocker
For some parts at least. Though I've over the years learnt that budgets don't tend to include differences due to inflation. So you get the starting budget estimate in say 2020 dollars, and then you get the current estimate for how much it will cost in 2024 dollars. So one can to an extent wonder how much of the supposed price increases are due to inflation, and how much if at all the budget actually increased.
On that note, I actually know the B-21 program actually came in at below budget so far as well. Especially the inflation corrected budget. So apparently it's a pretty tightly run project.
Yep that's my take as well. This is riddled full of opinion and I've unsubscribed.
He spits facts and you all start unsubscribing ?@@ethancfann
@@ethancfann You're living in a bubble 😂
The budget was so exceeded because oh man is building a new ICBM that can outperform the next greatest missile system on earth is challenging.
3:33 the B-52 will never be replaced I swear to god
Bro I bet the B-21 will be retired before it.
@@zaijiancelisFact
Love Shack > Rock Lobster imo
Never Say NEVER 😎 Justin Bieber
If its Boeing I aint going
I am a huge fan of this channel but this video just falls too short in trying to explain these concepts.
I didn’t learn anything new. It was like a video for someone that knows zero about this topic while I expect from this channel a bit more detail and depth as if we already know the basics
Like any other of his videos tbh. Is just low quality research, and it shows many times. No focused on objective facts, rather trying to sell a story.
@@astroch nah, most of his videos detailed with facts. Sure, it still to tell a story or whatever but they usually offer facts and info I wasn’t aware of. This was like an intro level video for someone who knows zero about the topic…but had too much opinion
Ryan McBeth is going to have a fun day with this one.
To be fair, that question at the beginning is like asking why building one, single, relatively small-scale nuke in secrecy is vastly cheaper than the billions it takes to source nuclear material, build the thousands of weapons, build and coordinate the launch systems and sites, and pay all the thousands upon thousands of people involved. Like that one’s pretty obvious
This whole video is full of kinda dumb stuff like that imo
@@LordJuan4 PolyMatter has always been sloppy content, but I like it better than the news -- I like that it's a single guy (I presume) and not a whole team because he isn't trying to be better than everyone else, and he isnt trying to be 100% objective and non-opinionated
8:03 to draw nuclear strikes away from cities. a nuke in NYC is a lot more devastating than a nuke in a random desert
This video feels like a completely different channel. The quality isn’t up to par. It happens, but it should be noted
I've noticed this on any nuclear-related Polymatter video. There's a strange rush to arrive at the conclusion that America is irresponsibly rushing nuclear rearmament
4:15 "well apparently that's not good enough" ... because they have significantly exceeded their intended lifespan.
Initially designed as a temporary measure, these missiles have undergone several upgrades, and yet the original engineers who created them are no longer involved in their development, many are not even living anymore.
The shift from a temp solution to forgotten technology is a VERY valid point that has been entirely overlooked.
There are parts besides the plutonium that degrade over time and we've already spent too much money refurbishing the missiles way past their intended lifespan.
It's much cheaper long term to replace the missiles than try to refurbish them again, even with poorly designed contracts that encourage waste and don't punish mistakes.
@@Waldohasaskit210as a layman here who knows it's probably quicker to look it up but I am trying to increase engagement for the creator, can the degraded plutonium be converted to a energy source that way we don't have to bury it?
Edit: punctuation
@@Triplehddyes, theoretically that’s completely possible, but most reactors are designed with uranium 235 rods in mind. They’ll have to do a lot of engineering to make it work and that’s more of a cost
@@stormix5755 I know the State department is trying to give nuclear energy a rebirth in response to the Chinese investment in nuclear energy hence my curiosity. Thank you so much for the information 🙂
One can similarly question the submarine replacement, the Ohio class is now ancient and reaching the end of their expected lifetimes. One kind of had to expect they'd be replaced, and obviously for a new variant that was up to date with the newest in submarine technology in being hard to find.
And I'm not even sure what their point with the B-21 is, sure it does have the ability to launch nukes. But first and foremost it's meant to launch conventional arms, just like the B-2 before it, which it is actually replacing, as well as some of the other planes like the B-1 and some of B-52.
Technological systems get old eventually, especially in a world where technological progress is still pretty substantial. You can't find supplies for quite a few of the old parts, so even if you wanted to do nothing else but maintain, you'd pretty much have to design a new platform that can actually be supported once more for a substantial amount of time. And if the technology for some 'surprising' reason isn't up to date, you might need to update it a bit as well.
...you do realize that there are MANY more parts of a nuke that need to be replaced, right? And even if the plutonium doesn't degrade for a long time, even a small change in it could ruin the extremely specific sequence needed for a nuclear explosion to occur.
This feels like an argument bureaucrats who only look as a budget would make, ignoring what maintenance is, and that the longer you try to maintain something, maintenance just gets more expensive then replacement.
A small change cannot ruin it.
What you meant to say is that it's a threshold event - any change above the threshold is basically irrelevant, but any change that drops below the threshold would ruin effectiveness.
Perhaps a nitpick, but oh well :)
So great that Brillisnt saved the world from nuclear holocaust
Many people have pointed out the deeply flawed and opinionated parts of this video, so I won't repeat the same criticism. What I will point out is that this video mainly focused on the U.S and then claimed that China, Russia, North Korea are "responding" to our nuclear buildup. This is just blatantly wrong. Even the graph you showed in the video showed that China growth of nukes began before the U.S. stated to update its nuclear arsenal. NK has been building up its nukes for years, and Russia never stopped producing Plutonium cores. I would recommend checking out Peruns video on the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal if you wanna video that is at the quality Polymatter usually makes.
Perun shoutout 🙌
I think a lot of the criticisms here are pretty short-sighted. Nuclear deterrence and politics are much more complicated and fragile than nearly any other interaction ever. We shouldn't be sparing any expense or trying to cut anything. I know it's a lot of money and a headache but this is an arena in which we must always be prepared and at full capacity. Not that we'll ever use them or should ever use them, but they do have tremendous value and bringing them in to the modern age is an investment that will allow us to forget about them for another 50 years and hopefully spend less in maintenance during that time. We'll have to do it at some point, and as much as people love kicking the can down the road that should not be an option here.
Agreed, and to the point of this video made about it being proactive of other nations, I think the push to modernize the nuclear arsenal in the US more reactionary to other countries development. Putin has been spending a lot of money modernizing Russia's nuclear program over the past 20 years, and Russia has been developing new maneuverable hyper-sonic ICBMs which threaten to undermine MAD.
@@SimonWoodburyForget Extremely insecure Americans are socialized to cheer destruction. Remember; "Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. Patriotism is its cult."
They are a necessary evil that has kept the world at relative peace for years now it would be wonderful not to need them but that's just wishful thinking reality is much more harsh
Then there's North Korea and Iran.
@@SimonWoodburyForget Russia says so, if not for their Nuclear Arsenal NATO would have boots on the ground in Ukraine and if Ukraine had their nuclear arsenal still they would never have been invaded
Fun fact, the B29 Superfortress project cost 3 billion, while the manhattan project “only” cost 2 billion
30 Billion in todays money for the manhattan project
@@ChristianPineiro-td3km well yes, but then the B 29 would be ~45 billion in today’s dollars.
The amazing part, which is the fact that the B29 cost ~50% more, stays the same, whether you adjust for inflation, or use 1945 amounts.
B29 was a spaceship compared to everything else
Cost not costed
@@King_Karnage my mother tongue is Spanish, sorry.
Why would it be “cost”? Is cost irregular? Or should I have used the present tense?
This video is disappointingly lacking in perspective and context.
I laughed out loud when you said Moscow will be able to make as many nukes as they want once STARZ expires.
With what money and which experts? Have you seen Moscow's launches of the Sarmat? Nothing but craters. At their own launch sites!!
In order to have a functioning nuclear deterrent, you must have an overwhelming nuclear deterrent. It must be absolutely clear to other nuclear nations that any attempt at a clever first strike or anti-balistic defense will be, not only woefully inadequate to prevent a retaliatory strike, but also replied to with the nigh-total extermination of the offending nation. As long as someone might think there is a chance of a limited nuclear exchange, there is a risk of such a thing happenning. When strategic planners are faced with the looming threat of all their cities and ports being smoking craters, the nuclear strategy becomes "DON'T".
This was...not very good.
What an unbelievably misleading and biased video. Comparing the first nuclear weapon development program to the cost to build / refurbish thousands of thermonuclear weapons, hundreds of ICBMs and hundreds more SRBMs, dozens of submarines, over a hundred stealth bombers, all of the infrastructure to maintain that… exactly what point are you trying to to make by pointing out that the latter costs more than the former?
We’re making 80 cores a year so that we can either replace the existing arsenal overtime or potentially expand it - building one to prove we can doesn’t accomplish that - and when nuclear deterrence is at stake, you don’t take the results of simulated plutonium aging and stake your entire national existence on them being correct.
I was a huge fan of your videos until the one you made on missile defense (which has been proven largely wrong by the Ukraine war), and now I simply do not trust you. This video is concluding statement after conclusory statement; opinions portrayed as though they were fact. It is clear that you have not seriously looked into nuclear doctrine and the underlying game theory dynamics surrounding MAD, or you would understand counter-force vs counter-value attacks and why the arsenal needs to modernized is as large and redundant as it is (any questioning of MAD can break the deterrent effect). I am seriously wondering why I still subscribe to this channel or even bother clicking on the thumbnails. We can’t trust you to give us anything other than your opinion.
It's easy to condemn the US buildup, but there's no other option here. Russia and China have stopped negotiating, or never negotiated at all, and Russia in particular has flagrantly violated every agreement it's signed. In this environment a US buildup only makes sense. One could argue that the buildup is too big, or stresses some of the wrong things, but decades old weapon systems and infrastructure are not a deterrent. This is actually the real nuclear risk here, as nobody knows, not even Putin, whether Russia's deterrence force of ready missiles will fire or not because somebody sold their components on the black market. The quiet terror of the Russian leadership due to this fact creates orders of magnitude more potential instability than the fact that the United States is upgrading mostly still capable systems to ones that are truly capable.
I'm against it foolish upgrading the missiles and so on fine but to make more is a shot in our head and a waste we already have more than enough to end the world many times over
It’s a waste of money. If we have to use these weapons we’re dead anyway
@@OscarUnratedThe point of deterrence is to prevent your adversary from using them in the first place. If you don't have a credible 2nd strike capability, you have no way of deterring a 1st strike.
@@USSAnimeNCC-Having a large number of weapons means nothing if the delivery systems are unreliable.
@@USSAnimeNCC- "Make more" - increasing the total viable number is wasteful, agreed. Maintaining viable stock by replacing stock which is aging out of viability is strategically neutral, and it's misleading to describe this replacement as "to make more"
Wow. This video really missed the mark and is an unfortunate departure from the typical videos from the channel.
Perun made a good video a while back about nuclear rearmament. I learned some cool numbers from this video but I disagree with the underlying logic that it's a bad idea for the US to modernize their aging nuclear armament.
I feel like the problem with interacting with nuclear argument logically is nuclear weapons are inherently an insane principle. The decision to have them exist has been made for us already, and the same nation will weaken itself to that agree post Iranian then Ukrainian invasion. A weapon capable of vaporizing mountains itself is not meant to be interacted with logically. They will never be into the Cold War, we either get thicker skin or we realize so. Society is malleable just like Atoms and we can make them into what we want. Until the creation of a one world government that has knowledge of all government actions. No government cannot have nuclear programs cause trust cannot exist. When the logical outcome of you being wrong is a sun being summoned on earth.
maintenance of nukes is important.
Well done on the video. However, I must note that you did not correctly identify the reason that the U.S. does not hide its ICBMs (at: 7:21). The U.S. keeps them open enough that U.S. adversaries know of them (and so the ICBMs are a deterrence); but discrete enough so that the U.S. public will not wonder into them.
Learning about quantum physics in brilliant will most certainly protect me when a nuclear war break out.
2:30 not 100 years. It's 30 years after that it need to be reprocessed in chemical facilities
You do not understand defense. And it really shows.
My only worry really is the limit on deployed nuclear weapons expiring in 2026. Who cares if Russia, China and America are racing to field new delivery systems? The current ICBMs etc arent stoppable anyway - however we do need to replace them as we will at some point anyway - these missiles are so old they are getting more expensive to maintain and we shouldn't be shying away from updating something as important as this. Secondly you said that missiles hitting the ICBM silos will "kill millions of Americans". first of all I highly doubt that as there is nothing really near them + nothing to burn to cause nuclear winter and much fallout. And more importantly does that matter when hundreds of millions of people will die anyway? Yes hundreds of billions will be spent and you pointed out how that money is being spend inefficiently but does ANY money in the US budget get spent efficiently? the US spends billions anyway on its military personally I think its worth it.
Only 2 Trillions on weapons to extinct the human race? We need more 😂
Playing at 1.25x speed is necessary for all Polymatter vids.
No, you have to slow down and check his numbers. 16.5 billion seems to have been spent in fiscal year 2023. So half a Manhattan project. I'm pretty sure that budget will have to be voted in again year after year. It won't just be granted for 30 years automatically.
You should check me on that--that's kind of my point about going slow with this information--but I do suspect Polymatter is doing an apples to oranges comparison to make our situation look worse.
My opinion is that our situation was always bad. Putin and friends are the ones making it way worse by breaking the nuclear taboo. So, rather than becoming scared like this video might lead you to feel, I think we need to push back hard against countries who make nuclear threats.
That will make leaders realize that nukes aren't that useful to them.
1.5
I listen at 2x speed
1.75x speed to avoid distortion and sound like a regular person
2x here, and i could easily listen at 2.2. Slow af
bro this video is alot more cringe than your usual, it really feels like you are letting anti-nuclear sentiments come through on the video, the statement about the minuteman missles not being "good enough" is honestly just a very poor take, they are being replaced because they are long past their design life and are impossible to repair at this point
So many poorly researched points here - makes me question the research behind your other content tbh
what was incorrect?
Took the words out of my mouth. So much wrong here. Just one example, we aren't upgrading the minuteman icbms for the hell of it as the video implies. Those missiles are ancient and have already been life extended a few times. "Unreliable" and "nuclear weapons" don't mix, I think everyone agrees. I actually agree we don't really need a land leg (at least not in its current form) but that was such a poor and obvious strawman that I need to reevaluate everything I've ever heard from this guy.
AI creates more content but doesn't care about accuracy
It’s the first video of his I was actually surprised by at the errors and false conclusions.
Same here usually I find them very informative but this one i found many errors or at the very least he needed more context or explanation of some points.
Uh oh this video may have broken my Gell-Mann Amnesia.
are you a nuke expert?
so your argument is that us shouldn't have new nukes because enemies will also have new nukes.
that is just a silly reasoning
Russia already has new nukes,sarmat is way more reliable than minuteman although minuteman is well ahead of its time,how about you both have new nukes so you have balance,just common sense, really makes you wonder what the US can come up with using 21st century technology
The nukes get an update before GTA 6
Ain’t no way “Brilliant” is sponsoring the new nuke production
0:43 You had me convinced there for a second that this nuclear arsenal upgrade is sponsored by Brilliant!
When it’s sunny outside people everywhere are screaming at us as to why we have such a fancy umbrella. It’s because when the rain starts pouring, we will be prepared. I don’t know why people don’t understand this.
just wanted to appreciate how insane that thumbnail is
I think that the last part is a bit misleading given that there are many other reasons these adversaries and making more nukes and I think our nuclear upgrades are a very small part of that. E.g. Russia more because of war in Ukraine, China army expansion relating to a desire to grow its hard power and expand military capability for a potential Taiwan scenario
From Perplexity:
The United States needs the Sentinel program for several key reasons:
1. Modernization of nuclear deterrence: The Sentinel program is designed to replace the aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which have been in service for over 50 years[1][3]. This modernization is crucial to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent in the face of evolving global threats.
2. Addressing technological obsolescence: Many components of the current ICBM system are using original equipment from the 1970s, with some parts becoming obsolete and difficult to maintain[3][7]. The Sentinel program aims to update these systems with modern technology.
3. Countering emerging threats: The U.S. is facing two near-peer adversaries (likely referring to Russia and China) who are rapidly expanding and modernizing their nuclear weapons[4]. The Sentinel program is part of the effort to maintain strategic stability in this changing security environment.
4. Ensuring reliability and effectiveness: As the Minuteman III system ages, there are increasing concerns about its long-term reliability and effectiveness. The Sentinel program aims to provide a modern, integrated system that can adapt to future threats and keep pace with emerging technologies[4].
5. Supporting the nuclear triad: The land-based ICBMs form a critical part of the U.S. nuclear triad, alongside submarine-launched ballistic missiles and strategic bombers. Modernizing this leg of the triad is considered essential for maintaining overall strategic deterrence[1][3].
6. Improving infrastructure and quality of life: The Sentinel program includes upgrades to launch facilities, missile alert facilities, and other infrastructure, which can also bring quality of life improvements for the personnel operating these systems[4].
While the program has faced challenges, including significant cost overruns[8], it is still considered a vital investment in U.S. national security by military and government officials[1][3].
Citations:
[1] www.airandspaceforces.com/opinion-sentinel-non-negotiable-defense-investment/
[2] warontherocks.com/2024/02/how-many-sentinel-missiles-does-the-united-states-need/
[3] www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3876098/sentinel-the-history-of-the-daf-modernizing-the-backbone-of-americas-national-s/
[4] www.northropgrumman.com/space/sentinel/about-sentinel
[5] www.northropgrumman.com/space/sentinel
[6] www.armscontrol.org/events/2024-01/sentinel-icbm-program-risks-costs-alternatives
[7] www.afnwc.af.mil/Weapon-Systems/Sentinel-ICBM-LGM-35A/
[8] www.defensenews.com/air/2024/07/08/pentagon-keeps-commitment-to-sentinel-nuclear-missile-as-costs-balloon/
[9] www.perplexity.ai/elections/2024-11-05/us/president
If all of those money goes to NASA, we already set up permanent human colony even cities on Mars.
Not even remotely close. Don't believe every claim made by or ambition of Elon Musk. An attempt at long term habitation on Mars would be suicidal with present technology.
Shadow wizard money gang
We LOVE casting *Spells*
@@realdreamerschangetheworld7470 AHHHH ahhhh ahhhhh (ahhh)
THIS SONGS SPONSORED BY
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT
The Peacemonger paradox : We need weapons but we can't have strong weapons otherwise enemies will want to attack us.
Considering Libya and Ukraine are great examples of non-nuclear countries being vulnerable to attack, it's a question why the U.S. doesn't arm their allies with nuclear weapons as well. If North Korea can why can't South Korea? Why not Ukraine or Poland or Germany? Why not Taiwan?
It may very well be the best way to maintain peace if the U.S. wants to become more isolationist in the near future.
Unreliable. Not many discuss that the Cubans were heavily lobbying for a Soviet first strike to be the response to the US blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis.
It's the same reason why the Chinese don't look fondly on the DPRK nuclear program. Unnecessarily destabilising.
South Korea and Ukraine both have fast track nuclear weapon contingency plans if the U.S. nuclear detergent umbrella starts looking at all undependable.
Making nuclear weapons is not like making a cake,you still need some time
This whole video is extremely flawed. The central claim that the US maintaining a powerful nuclear arsenal, will embolden Russia and China, is incorrect. What will embolden Russia and China more than anything is the tiniest doubt in mutually assured destruction in the event of a nuclear conflict with the US. You don't get respect through weakness, you get respect through overwhelming strength.
And your point about land based missiles is also extremely poorly thought out. Yes, submarines and stealth bombers exist but the whole point of mutually assured destruction is the complete impossibility of any other outcome. Diversification of our nuclear arsenal minimizes the chances of any potential vulnerability ever having the chance to disturb the promise of mutually assured destruction. In a nuclear conflict, sacrificing the vast, sparsely populated interior of the US as a nuclear sponge is well worth the tiniest decrease in the destruction of urban areas. You cannot underestimate the importance of hundreds of warheads being wasted to blow up farmland in the attempt to destroy every nuclear silo.
Peace through strength is the only way to prevent nuclear war. The natïvity to think that international cooperation could eliminate nuclear weapons is exactly what will get us into nuclear conflict. Everything you said plays right into the hands of China and Russia. Which team are you on?
You get respect through strength, not overwhelming strength.
Overwhelming strength just creates fear, and a "well if you're gonna come for me then at least I'll give you a bloody nose back" type of recklessness - the exact thing we do **not** want to inspire in Putin (and Xi, and Kim, and Iran).
Also, the chance of some tech some day making subs unviable is sooooo remote that it's not really worth the investment into these silos.
At worst, you could have your subs hang back around Australia or Alaska or whatever, and they could still launch from there.
I strongly doubt they'd ever risk going into the Taiwanese Strait in the first place - even if you just have a malfunction or accident, you do not want the Chinese coast guard picking up the survivors and potential debris pieces....
So there's no vulnerability in the deterence due to technological breakthroughs, just temporarily less oceanic range that's accessible without being detected.
As for the sponge strategy.
Yeah, making the enemy have to build and launch many more nukes will drive up their costs and fears of missing one.
And I guess it would clear up the radar picture of an attack, cuz there'll have to be a lot more missiles incoming...
But you can use empty silos for that too, like China does, and it's wayyyy cheaper but still equally effective!
So that's definitely an argument, but not for the full costs of total replacement.
Okay, those were the three points I have issues with.
I totally agree about the naivety of international cooperation to eliminate nukes (reductions were possible in more peaceful times, but complete disarmament is not - and now tensions are ruining higher and higher).
I hope a balance gets struck between being strong and intimidating, but not despair inducing. And that these weapons remain an insurance, that never has to get used...
Hope you have a great day :)
My brother works at LANL and is one of the people seeing this gets done safely. I'm not allowed to know what he's working on past that due to security issues, but I can say with confidence that we are in full swing for pit upgrades as well as a few other modernization upgrades. It's crazy having family directly involved in this.
I understand a lower frequency vocal is more popular on TH-cam, but I'll miss the original vocal for sure
America should send a bill to all non nuclear NATO countries for these weapons. They need to pay for their fair share for our protection
The transition to the brilliant sponsorship was smooth, i'll give you that
Why does this video feel like a polished version of the arguments by Russia today?
Yeah this feels like Russian/Chinese propaganda
@micahbonewell5994 I've been noticing a lot of people (including a considerable number of people on the right) acting really squirrelly ever since Putin started ramping up his nuclear saber rattling, and it's gotten exponentially worse since Russia launched their Oreshnik IRBM, hitting a Ukrainian city a couple of weeks back.
It's disheartening to see so many Americans readily eating up blatant Russian propaganda, and it's embarrassing to see so many Americans ready to cowtow to Putin's threats like a bunch of cowards. Backing down is the exact WRONG thing to do. I'm not saying that we need to get actively aggressive with any of our adversaries, but we can't show weakness in the face of desperate threats from Putin that we have good intelligence in knowing are largely empty. "Speak softly and carry a big stick." It seems like far too many people are prepared to loudly declare that we'd rather carry a small twig because we're too p*ssy to stand firm.
We still outclass all of our adversaries in military power combined several times over. Now is NOT the time to fold and display weakness, or we might just convince our adversaries that they now have the opportunity to strike us successfully, and worse, that we may be too reluctant to do anything about it.
Once you're on top, you do NOT let that advantage slip, because make no mistake, giving up our dominance will devastate both our prosperity and our security. There has never been a king in human history who has been successfully deposed and simply allowed to go about his life as just another citizen. No. Whenever a king loses his throne, he also loses his head. Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are not our friends, they never will be our friends, and people need to quit pretending as though it's our actions that cause their hostility towards us. In reality, it is quite the opposite. The ONLY reason none of these nations have tested our gangster and aren't prepared to test our gangster is because we're gangster. The day we hang that up is the day they grow brave enough to try something that could turn the entire world order and balance of power on its head.
The barbarians are at our gates. If we capitulate, we WILL end up like the Roman Empire. I'm not suggesting we send a battalion through the gates to slaughter the barbarians. I'm suggesting we stand atop the city wall with such terrifying weapons in such high numbers that the barbarians see them and choose to run back in the direction from whence they came, letting them take care of themselves, all without a shot needing to be fired.
Our prosperity as a nation and the relative peace of the last several decades has caused our population to grow soft. Far too many people have lost touch with how much strength and grit is required for us to be able to live in such a relatively gentle manner. A gentle man is not a weak coward too afraid to fight. A gentle man is a deadly man who, through his strength, is afforded the opportunity to not need to use it.
That MUST be our philosophy. Strong, firm, and fair. Only with those qualities can we be kind and compassionate. Otherwise, we'll be leaving our children and our children's children with a threat to their future nation and security that makes current events pale in comparison.
After 9/11 America shifted the focus from “we can beat any country if we absolutely had to” to “we need to make sure no country could ever even get close to harming us at all.”
@polymatter I'm confused by you saying we don't know how long it takes plutonium to degrade. Plutonium-239 has a half life of 24100 years. Plutonium-238 has a halflife of 87.7 years. Uranium-238 has a half life of 4.4billion years. Uranium-235 has a half life of 700million years
I noticed that too. We know with pretty good accuracy how long it takes for all of the nuclear materials to degrade, and have for decades.
I believe that the question nuclear scientists have is how long it takes for the degradation to make the weapons unreliable, not the speed of the degradation itself.
The high levels of radiation produced by the plutonium cause damage to its physical structure. Chemically, and isotopically almost identical after a century. But it may also be a brittle powdery mess
The problem is probably more in how long it takes before decay products start seriously interfering with the device still working as intended. Some decay products for instance can I believe work as breaks on nuclear chain reactions. So long before the Plutonium is all gone the devices will stop working.
Not a good research... so many errors and concern with the health of the PolyMatter team
I feel a bit relieved seeing so many other comments pointing out the flaws in this video’s reasoning. I’ve been subscribed for a long time and now you have me questioning your credibility when you clearly didn’t put much effort into deeply researching such an important aspect of our national defense. The main reason those Minuteman missiles are being replaced is because its become too costly and difficult to maintain them and they are way past their originally designed service life.
Its always fun, when the city you live in shows up on a polymatter map.
Anyone else think the voice is AI, it’s just a little too off.
He has a cold, see top comment
Disagree. It is not a waste for two key reasons.
1. Deterrence HAS slipped substantially, along with the massive nearly 90% reduction in total world arsenals since the end of the Cold War. We frankly no longer have sufficient warheads guarantee proper and total Mutually Assured Destruction. Now its more like, mutually assured disaster but that is very different than sure destruction. Back in the day, it was like two guys pointing shotguns at each others' heads. If USSR launches their 50,000 warheads then NATO throws its 40,000 warheads and quite literally Everbody Dies. Everybody, its an extinction level event. Not now. There will be survivors and indeed surviving mid-tier nations which would then be new superpowers that the surviving Russians, Americans, Chinese etc would be in grave danger of being dominated by. At the same time the very fact that it is a known certainty that there will be at least a hundred million rural American or Chinese or Russian survivors makes the though to actually fighting nuclear war more palatable, vs the Cold War where any nuclear war meant literal extinction.
2. Nuclear war is no longer a binary contest. In the Cold War, an exchange would annihilate all nuclear powers. Nowadays that is NOT the case. For this reason we actually need substantially more magazine depth than we require for fighting/retaliating in the actual nuclear war. If the US and China make an exchange, Russia is still left standing with its arsenal intact. As is India, Pakistan, the Norks, Israel... So we not only need enough to survive a first strike then fight a retaliatory campaign, but we also need enough in FURTHER reserve that remains unused as deterrence against THIRD PARTY nuclear powers. After we've been through an exchange, we will be no condition whatsoever to defend ourselves conventionally for 100 years or more. So the only way we don't get dominated by an unharmed third party is by being able to credibly deter them, even after all the destruction of the exchange war.
We need MOAR. Build em' up. Stack em' high and deep. In submarines mostly though, we don't need to increase ground based ICBMs or strategic bombers. They're too soft and vulnerable. Whereas for your post-exchange deterrence, you can just tell 4 out of 16 subs to go silent and sit it out. Should be more like 30 subs IMO. Remember its like 2 on patrol and 1 in refit at all times, at best.
I gotta point there especially with subs. Of the three in the US nuclear triad subs are probably the most mobile and independent of the 3, bombers though they can strike stealthily and with long range are still vulnerable and silos are in my opinion too old of a delivery system especially in an age where missile defense has advanced over the years.
And the fact that the US air force has control of two of the 3 delivery systems for our nukes we need to ensure more creative ways to deploy nukes on a more mobile platform, and subs right now are our most capable and most mobile ways to deploy nukes.
Very good points but I think missle silos will remain relevant,as others mentioned with advancement in radar and satellite technology Russia and China may develop counters for the submarine, while ground based missile silos can be launched at an instant if ordered by the president,the minuteman is called minuteman as it can be launched in a minute,you just need to be absolutely sure that the missle will launch and reach its destination
Back to Duck and cover era right? Because that fixes everything, yes? This is exactly how the world had 50,000+ warheads during the cold war with a 247 fear of dying to a nuke.
@@Happy-xi9hl Yes but... it WORKED.
Is the audio off or is it just me?
Has a cold
4:20 Aren’t they called minutemen because they can be ready and launched in less than a minute?
Probably named for the original Minutemen. Minutemen were members of the colonial militia during the American Revolution who were trained to be ready for military duty at a moment's notice.
They can't be launched in less than a minute, but they're called minutemen as a nod to the men who were ready and willing to fight at barely a moment's notice in the US' fight for independence.
Russia was already violating these treaties before they were fully dropped. Russia's decision to increase their nuclear development has far more to do with their complete inability to face NATO in a conventional war than it does the development of US nukes. China was already on a path to seek parity in armaments, so this is no surprise either. In general, the theory that choosing weakness will cause our adversaries to relax has never proven to be true.
The B21's main selling point isn't even that it's a nuclear upgrade, its conventional ability improvements over the B-2 which really is only capable of dropping bombs as opposed to the B21 acting as a mothership for all sorts of autonomous systems is more the reason it is being greenlit, hell there are rumblings it might replace other efforts in the air superiority fighter role.
Interesting.
Not a word about Iran?
5:50 makes you wonder what would happen if even one of them goes rogue. More than enough power to destroy a continent.
They made a tv series about that. Not very good though. 😕
Can't happen. You need launch codes from the President to fire an ICBM.
Banks artificially inflate debt of government reliant private companies beyond their serviceability such that the government needs to spend more on them to keep them alive. This is less about strategic alignment.
why does the video cut off so quickly
Vibes of this video were different
A piece of my childhood is back!
Hah! The china guy argues against the US nuclear programme. Who’d thought?!
Who?
This felt eerily like a Metal Gear Solid briefing cutscene
Putin is threatening a nuclear war every week and now is the USA who is escalating ? With all due respect, i don't think escaltion, among all concerns about nuclear weapons, should be our priority
What a heap of nonsense. You ok?
Most of the costs mentioned are not due to replacing the actual nuclear warhead, but because we are replacing the delivery device (ie. missile, submarine, and aircraft). For all of these, they have service life’s where the cost of continuing to maintain the device exceeds a threshold and it is cheaper to replace it. For example, our current fleet of Ohio class submarines are hitting their end of service in 2026, so the Columbia class replacement is necessary for continued strategic deterrence. This is the same for the minute-man (which has actually exceeded service life) and the bombers.
Actually, there’s a good argument that pit production is also due to degraded plutonium that is past it’s service life and we haven’t been replacing because we stopped plutonium production after the Cold War and have been surviving off of previous nuclear stockpiles.
I agree a modernization program is expensive, but our entire strategic deterrence program is past its shelf life and needs replacement.
Thanks brilliant, now i can disarm a f-ing ICBM lol
Great video.
At the end of the day, nuclear weapons are very similar to keeping a gun at home for the purpose of defense in that, you're more likely to end up hurting yourself with them than ever use them for their intended purpose. Look how many close calls ("Broken Arrow") events that have happened since the invention of nukes, and it's plain to see that a significant nuclear accident isn't a matter of "if" but "when".
Are you ok Bro?
i get that "mutually assured destruction" is supposed to be a deterrent. but what happens when it isn't? what if a madman somehow got hold of a bunch of intercontinental nukes? isnt it better to build something like an "iron dome"?
Seeing how Russia is threatening nuclear war every other day and North Korea threatening nuclear war every day and Iran building nuclear weapons, I think the threat of national security makes a good reason...
2nd cold war lesgooooooo
70 billion dollars a year seems like a steal for invulnerability. I’m pretty sure the Australian government would be willing to pay that price for nuclear weapons.
get well soon!
What a gigantic waste of money
How much did they pay you?
It's the same as saying the f35 is overpriced waste when it is the only fifth generation aircraft remotely capable of dealing with the Chinese especially after the disastrous retirement of f22 which is a joke in and of itself
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Or, perhaps, the US lowering the number of nuclear weapons gave the impression to its adversaries that it is no longer interested in maintaining world peace. Which, in turn, might be the reason that those adversaries feel so emboldened.
8:20 you realize that those submarines and bombers carry missiles? Right?
The fusion bomb can have a better yield if the core is made significantly larger since the fusion byproducts can guse themselves and so to their byproducts right upto iron.
There can be deterrence when high speed drones intercept missiles but there are no data available on this subject.
Though the projects of the coldwar are expensive it does put R&D first. It does put the world on edge but a lot of incentives for work is generated.
Yea yea we gotta keep making em, cause there is always a bogeyman outside the window.
What I don't understand is why you could not use a derivative of an SLBM as the land based ICBM instead of developing a new ICBM like the sentinel.
ICBM can be undergrounds and hard to find and hard to bombed
0:35 was a tough choice for me, but ultimately I’m happy with my vote for this over addressing climate change.
I just figure that if there’s gonna be an existential crisis doing us in, it might as well be one we deliberately pay to create rather than something unintentional.
What were your reasons for voting how you did in the summer ‘24 National Referendum on Nuclear Modernization???
I hope in the future we don't treat tactical nukes as conventional weapons. We must choose our future either it cyberpunk or solarpunk.
I get that it's hard to do domain expert level research given the huge number of topics you cover, but I really do recommend trying to reach out to domain experts or professors to schedule an interview. You're a 2M subscriber TH-cam channel, it could seriously help inform the directions and perspectives you discuss. A sources page made of almost entirely newspaper and blog articles, and one scientific publication, is the level of research I could expert out of a high schooler - a great starting point to inform an opinion and have an intelligent conversation with an expert, but not to assume you can make the sorts of conclusions you jump to here.
Um. Did this guy forget that the other side has ICBMs too?
We know no one else could really afford something like this. To help the Soviet Union fall apart, we spent, and spent, and spent, forcing our primary enemy to spend too, knowing they couldn't afford it. I have to think we want someone else to either feel set very far behind, or try and stay on par or out spend us, either way they're not going to be able to keep up.
Return? They never left.
Pretty topical video. When your largest adversary (China) is rapidly producing nuclear weapons, you may want to modernize your deterrent. Ours is 30+ years old. Doesn't take a galaxy brain to figure this out. Hope you revisit this video with one that is actually worthwhile.