Wow...A LOT of historical omisison...like, no Japanese reply after the first bomb was dropped was received, the bomb dropped on Nagasaki was a plutonium bomb (more powerful), not an uranium bomb, AND, it wasn't JUST the bomb that forced Japan to surrender, folks...MYTH! After the first bomb was dropped, Stalin ordered an IMMEDIATE invasion of China and South East Asia. A brand new army of MILLIONS in the East ROLLED through the Japanese, and hundreds of thousands were surrendering in mere DAYS. The Japanese realized the main islands would be next and invaded by both armies and Stalin wouldn't be as nice as the Americans. They surrendered, and Stalin continued his rampage for another week until he reached the NORTHERN part of KOREA and we threatened to use the bomb on HIM. It was the fear of STALIN that truly influenced their hand. They were simply generous occupees when we came ashore, lol... Not saying the bomb didn't influence them...but it was 50/50. Science + Stalin Horde.
Look at all of those BINDERS, full of FOLDERS and PAPER in the background, because they ran out of FILE CABNIETS. "What's a Microsoft? No, I don't eat Apples..." =P
@@FukcAUsername Biden is not directly threatening Putin with nuclear war but calling for Putin's over throw is not good for peace. Biden needs to go as well.
Man, I'd sacrifice nonspecific body parts if i could go back in time and live in 1984 again. Although the Cold War was raging, the rest of everything else was ten times more sane than things are now.
@@crissyb00 No, I think that in America, our nation's moral, industrial, political, economic, legal, and spiritual decline are becoming so obvious to people that many are becoming genuinely alarmed now. I know that every new generation looks radically different to people of the old generation, but its not the benign generational differences that people are starting to worry about. We're starting to see changes that historically result in the death of empires. I hope that we can change it, because I was genuinely brought up to love my country, and I still do, deeply, even though the behavior of *some* of the people running it and institutions that we depend on for normal function, like the media, are becoming deeply concerning.
I like the tales of aliens shutting down silos for sure. No doubt we would never know until it was too late. Would be an exercise in faith and if those not in power waited to hear words from Aliens there would be no reason to save that strain.
No, it wasn't. It was far worse. Things are only as bad as they are now because of what people were doing in the 1980s without any thought for the future whatsoever.
If both sides realized M.A.D. was mad...why didn't they just dismantle them?.....Frickin' Reagan and his stupid S.D.I. dream.... Gotta love the Military Industrial Complex....keeps us warm at night...
@@williamyoung9401 You obviously didn't get the memo. In later years it was admitted that S.D.I. was a ruse and although possible, it wasn't financially feasible. The threat of such a program forced the Soviets to waste huge amounts of money on a non existent threat. It ruined them.
To paraphrase the Pentagon release about this: they felt that the same effect of a tactical nuclear strike could be achieved with masses of drones that can independently target and attack enemies within the bounds of a set of coordinates. These loiter munitions can have a max dive speed >200mph. Really scary if you don't have a really good defense system.
1000,s of Drones dropping small bombs . Reminds me of Hitchcocks movie " The Birds " 1000's of birds attack a small town . Art predicting the future is not uncommon
Obviously America and Russia were the key players, but it would have been nice to have seen a least a tacit acknowledgement of the important role played by the British in the Manhattan project.
@@doctormcboy5009 Maybe not but the US did not live up the the agreement that as we had many Brit scientist to help make the bomb we would share in it. So we built our own - in months. The screams from 'across the pond' did make me laugh.
@@memezoffuckery3207 We have a Commonwealth what do you have ? We went slowly into the sunset, America will be a bloodbath. Nothing new there then. Hail China. Good old Mao.
Is just me or did the past have a higher quality of political leadership and the academic establishment capable of analysis and response when these leaders had made questionable decisions...
You mean, "so today we're led by idiots" the answer is yes. There was a time when the best and brightest actually were in positions of leadership, rather than political ideologues and morons like we have today. Later! OL J R : )
Yeah that's before crony capitalism like basically at this point in society most people still make enough money that they don't have to do really f***** up s*** to try and survive so like the political class is just actually trying to be political or they're like normal citizens who have enough of income to just be like honey I'm going to run for office an awesome local dude is the mayor and then a senator like it all actually kind of makes sense in the old world corporations have so much power not even corporations just everyone is so money hungry but any politician you elect doesn't give a f*** about America or the nation or anything he's just trying to get rich I mean look up neoliberalism again understanding of this it basically took over the entire world in 1970s it's basically the core idea of money is the only thing that matters economic growth and GDP growth is the only thing that matters not the wealth of citizens not freedom not even arming yourself with weapons just GDP growth it's why we're doomed in this nuclear war because our enemies understand that you could win a nuclear war and that we need weapons and we're just still looking at everything like don't you want to buy something
Historically, the world has had its share of tyrants such as Stalin, Hiltler, Tito, Pol Pot, Mao, but think you are right in thinking that America in particular has has appallingly poor quality leadership in Bush, Trump and Biden. 2 out of three have dimentia.
@@OneEyedJacker Hmmm... I wouldn't wag a finger too hard, after all look at Canada, the UK, and most of Europe's leaders-- not much better off IMHO. Later! OL J R :)
Seriously though like I really do think the Russians are looking at it like this do you really think any of us are going to do anything about global warming look at how badly we handle coronavirus in world war what do you think's going to happen when the entire Middle East has to migrate when everyone in Mexico has to come to America because they'll burn complete global pandemonium and the end of modern society what is the Russians in the Chinese believe the MIT report that we're all doomed by 2040 and what if they're going to end the world now on their own terms prematurely
McNamara seems to have forgotten that the Soviets had tac nukes, and the local commanders had full release authority. I shudder to think what that would have done to our landing forces.
As I understand it, nobody including McNamara knew in 1984 that the Soviets had put tactical nuclear missiles (Frogs, their equivalent of our "Honest John" or "Pershing 1") into Cuba. They knew there were a handful of Soviet nuclear-capable medium bombers (IL-76 IIRC) in Cuba and they certainly knew about the medium and intermediate range strategic missiles (SS-4 and SS-5's IIRC) being set up in Cuba, which precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis. But even as ExCom was deliberating invasion of Cuba to take out the missiles (if necessary) they had NO IDEA that their invasion WOULD have been met by tactical nuclear weapon strikes on the invasion forces basically as they landed from the Frog missiles. They also didn't realize that due to the limited capabilities of the Soviet command and control system of the time that the field commanders had basically been issued orders allowing them to use their nuclear weapons at their own discretion, if they believed that orders from Moscow COULDN'T get through, and it had come down to a "use it or lose it" situation. From what I've read, and from a subsequent interview with McNamara after the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of their archives, It was only AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union that the US became aware that the Soviets had put Frog tactical nuclear missiles into Cuba, specifically to destroy any invasion forces sent by the US to overthrow Cuba and capture or destroy the intermediate range strategic missiles. IOW, McNamara and ExCom were operating "in the dark" and in the interview I mentioned, McNamara himself said that they DID NOT know there were tactical nuclear missiles in Cuba to repel a US invasion, and that if in fact the US had invaded Cuba, there *WOULD* have been a nuclear war... the Cubans and Russians on the ground in Cuba would have deployed their Frogs against the US invasion, vaporizing it on the beaches, and the US would have then been forced to respond in kind against Cuba and the Soviet Union. That is why basically a nuclear war had ALMOST started during the blockade, because while we were dropping grenades on a nuclear sub we'd been "holding under" near the blockade line, nobody knew or realized that the Soviet sub commander had a nuclear torpedo aboard and had been issued orders allowing them to use it "if it was necessary" and orders from Moscow could not get through... which is EXACTLY what the first officer and political officer of the submarine were pressing the captain to do, but which he alone overrode and rejected their demands to launch the nuclear torpedo against the US Navy because he knew beyond a doubt that the US would then have no choice but to respond against the Soviet Union. McNamara also minimizes the importance of the overwhelming US superiority in ICBM's to not only the REASON the Soviets were willing to take a gamble of putting missiles into Cuba, but why they were also left with no alternative but to stand down or face annihilation. While Khrushev had been maintaining a war of bluff and bluster in the United Nations and elsewhere in publicity and propaganda, asserting constantly the Soviets were "cranking out missiles like sausages" and such, the real facts were the Soviets were terribly behind in the missile race even in the early 60's, despite their demonstration of an ICBM publicly by launching Sputnik first in 1957. The Soviets WERE cranking out MRBM's and IRBM's like sausages, BUT those smaller intermediate and medium range missiles were only capable of hitting Western Europe, Britain, and the Far East from Soviet territory. They lacked the range to hit the US. Their ICBM fleet at the time consisted of a dozen or so launchers of their R-7 and later R-9 ICBM's, the R-7 "Semyorka" being the Sputnik launcher that would go on to become the workhorse of the Soviet space program, launching Gagarin and which continues to this day with evolution to the systems as the "Soyuz launcher". As a weapon it was functional, but incredibly vulnerable because it sat on exposed surface pads and took hours to prepare for launch. The US at the time had perfected the Atlas ICBM and deployed it both in surface "coffin launchers" and even putting evolutions of it into hardened silos, and had deployed the Titan I missiles in hardened silos, and had deployed large numbers of them. Plus we'd put Jupiter IRBM's into Italy and Turkey and later Thors into Britain. The Soviets simply felt that if the US could forward deploy strategic missiles like Jupiter and later Thor into NATO countries near Soviet territory, they could do the same and achieve a jumpstarted "parity" with the US strategic missile force by putting their MRBM/IRBM's into Cuba for the exact same reason... and allowing them to match our capability of hitting their homeland with missiles using the smaller range missiles they already had in large numbers, until their own ICBM force was capable of achieving parity with the US. We weren't having ANY of it and were willing to go to war with the Soviets to stop their putting missiles into Cuba, even if it meant a nuclear war. The US already had a substantial force of Atlas and Titans ready to strike the Soviets, and of course the SAC bomber fleet was completely unmatched at the time and as Lemay had said would "bomb them back to the Stone Age", while the Soviets had only a dozen or so primitive ICBM's capable of hitting the US and their bomber force was limited at best. They *KNEW* they were at a COMPLETE disadvantage, which is why they backed down. They said, "that will never happen again" because they had committed themselves to redoubling their efforts to achieve strategic parity with the United States in terms of striking power against the US mainland at the earliest opportunity, which they soon did. McNamara, in this video, claims that the US nuclear forces had NOTHING to do with why the Soviets backed down, chalking it all up to superior US conventional forces in-theater at the time. While that's one interpretation, it's more "spin" than fact... IF the Soviets could have "forced the issue" by brandishing their own fully and equally capable ICBM force move for move against the US, Kennedy would have had no choice but to "back down" or risk all-out nuclear war with a Soviet Union equally capable of destroying the US, something the Soviets simply COULD NOT DO at that point in time (1962). Of course the Soviets wouldn't have HAD to take the risk and gamble on putting IRBM's in Cuba *IF* they had an ICBM force on parity with the US at the time, which they did not. The Soviets knew full well that IF a nuclear war broke out over Cuba, they would have gotten by far the worst of it. The US would have launched pretty much ALL our existing Atlas and Titan ICBM forces against the Soviet Union and wiped out many of their cities and strategic capabilites in short order, while they could only have mustered a dozen or so ICBM hits on the US, certainly enough to "bloody our noses" but certainly not enough to eliminate our retaliatory capabilities. Even with the handful of subs equipped with 3 missiles each at the time (which had to surface and stop to launch their liquid-fueled missiles) they still couldn't have done much to hamper a US nuclear response. Meanwhile our Polaris missile boats would have destroyed most Soviet cities and we'd have unleashed the SAC bombers to go in and basically nuke anything left of consequence in the Soviet Union. The US would have been hit by maybe a dozen or so Soviet nuclear strikes, which would have wreaked havoc, but certainly not utterly destroyed the US as the Soviet Union would have been. The US would have recovered from the shambles, the Soviet Union would have been reduced to ashes and a handful of medieval fiefdoms after such a war in 1962. They knew that and so did we. Europe would have probably been ashes-- the Soviets and Warsaw Pact certainly had the MRBM/IRBM and bomber capability to make that happen, as did NATO to do the same to Eastern Europe in the Warsaw Pact and the western Soviet Union. I've read that similarly, while US and NATO war plans assumed a massive armored invasion by the Soviets and Warsaw Pact using tanks and armor to spearhead a conventional invasion of Western Europe, with the US and NATO then attempting to repel the invasion by conventional means using airstrikes and ground forces, which would have been inevitably overrun by sheer numbers of Soviet-Warsaw Pact tanks, which would have then had NATO respond by launching tactical nuclear strikes against their armored columns to halt the invasion. This was classic "assuming the next war will be fought like the last war" thinking. The Soviets, on the other hand, ASSUMED from day one of any such invasion of Europe that NATO would resort to the use of nuclear weapons against their invasion forces, and thus had the Soviets ever invaded Western Europe, it would have started with a strategic first strike against NATO to wipe out as many of the US/NATO nuclear weapons/forces as possible, thus clearing the way for their massive armored conventional forces to go in and take over, and clean up what was left. IOW they came at it from the EXACT OPPOSITE ANGLE-- whomever used nuclear weapons first would win in a war in Western Europe, and they had NO intention of playing into NATO's hands by starting off with a conventional invasion which would inevitably be met by NATO nuclear weapons. If you're going to start a war, you intend to win.
@@lukestrawwalker that was an awesome read. Thanks for that. Please site if you copied that from somewhere because it would be great to share. And if that's all you typing it out, BZ for sure.
@@lukestrawwalker I recently read an article about those “sheer numbers/ overwhelming tank forces”, those were on paper on. The Soviets did not have the economic capability to operate such a large tank force. Most of the Warsaw Pact was still trying to recover after the end of WWII. They were playing catch up for the most part all the way into the 1970s. Bluster and feint was the order of the day for the Soviet Union.
In 1961 the US gov.t based nuclear missiles on Russia border in Turkey. The Cuban missile crises happened in 1962. President Kennedy agreed to take the missiles out if Turkey.
@@doctormcboy5009 Nope. I'm an atheist. But even as such I know a key message of Christianity is thou shalt not kill. And here's a guy praying for God's guidance as to how to nuke people... Because apparently God has purposes that require the use of nukes. People just never seize to amaze me.
There are many ways to use an atom bomb besides dropping it on an enemy... I think that's what he was referring to. Even at that point in time, the battle between the "hawks" and "doves" was in full swing... Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, and others in gubmint who thought as he did, was quite in favor of using the bomb as direct leverage to force concessions from the Soviets in the post-war period and determination of how things would unfold in Eastern Europe. On the other hand, the "doves" led by Secretary of State Byrnes and others argued that using the bomb, "rather ostentatiously displayed on our hips" (like a six-gun in the wild west) to extort concessions from the Soviets would only deepen their suspicions and result in a deepened Cold War, if not worse. As a historical fact, the post-war situation in Europe was poorly handled and neither side got what they really wanted, but could live with the situation. Later! OL J R :)
Great documentary even though it is quite dated. Unfortunately repeats the myth (still widely believed today) that Japan surrendered as a result of the bombs being dropped. We now know that Japan was already trying to figure out the best way to surrender at the time, and the bombs were used more as a show of force towards the Soviet Union.
I'm pretty sure a nuclear detonation is quite the motivator to surrender. While they were looking for the best way to surrender, the bomb made sure it would be unconditional.
@@void7080 If that were true then the Japanese would have surrendered immediately after the first bomb was used in Hiroshima. As I said, the Japanese were already in the process of arranging their surrender. The need for this myth is simply to assuage the American conscience of this horrific war crime. In any case, you seem to be attempting to justify the killing and poisoning of hundreds of thousands of civilians living in non-military areas. Unconscionable.
It's no myth. The atomic attacks on defenceless Japanese cities were a war crime that gave the Empire of Japan a moral basis for surrender for all humanity's sake.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it! If we're to avoid a third world war, we have to understand not only how the current situation came to be, but how our actions, inactions, attitudes, or what we purposefully or accidentally transmit as our intentions to a potential adversary have on the situation, and what their natural response is likely to be. The world didn't turn into what it is now by accident. Most of the situation that caused WW2 was a direct result of stupidity and mishandling of the end of WW1. Even some people of the time realized it-- the famous quote after the Treaty of Versailles was signed while the victors were breaking their arms to pat themselves on the back, when it was said, "This isn't a peace, this is a cease fire for 20 years". This proved to be ABSOLUTELY true, because the mistakes made at Versailles directly led to the rise of Hitler and set the stage for WW2. Similarly, the Sykes/Picot agreement between Britain and France to carve up the Middle East in the wake of WW1 has DIRECTLY led to the situation we now have in the Middle East, which has been a tinderbox for over 70 years. Even now, with the situation in the Ukraine and with the Russian invasion and our response to it, there's plenty of blame to go around. We've expanded NATO and fed the Russian fears that we might try to conquer them either militarily or interfere with their internal politics to turn them into a puppet state, our interference in Ukraine and expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and right up to the Russian border in some areas has left them with no buffer, and while we interfere with Ukraine and Eastern Europe we continue to back them into a corner. I'm not saying the Russians were right to invade Ukraine, but I am saying our mishandling of the situation over the past years have created the situation we now find ourselves in. Same way we armed the Mujahadeen and financed Osama bin Laden to oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's, only to see Osama bin Laden and his cohorts form the Taliban and turn the very weapons and training and money WE gave them against us, to deadly effect for all the world to see on 9/11, which directly led to all the nonsense that has occurred in the years since then... now we've seen Traitor Joe completely mishandle the situation in the pullout of Afghanistan, emboldening and empowering our enemies (who respect only strength while we now look like incompetent fools) and anybody who doesn't believe that all THAT isn't going to come back to bite us in the @ss simply is ignorant or hasn't been paying any attention to history whatsoever... Later! OL J R :)
This is helpful, I was thinking of getting into owning a nuclear arsenal.
Could you do an unsponsored unboxing and review after your purchase?
Can’t be more expensive then collecting warhammer 40k models good on you!
Dp you what to go halfs on the cost. 🇬🇧 👍 ❓
@@andrewdaley5375 Sounds like a plan. We have them on alternate weeks?
And how does it work if either of us decide to let one off or break one?
Wow...A LOT of historical omisison...like, no Japanese reply after the first bomb was dropped was received, the bomb dropped on Nagasaki was a plutonium bomb (more powerful), not an uranium bomb, AND, it wasn't JUST the bomb that forced Japan to surrender, folks...MYTH! After the first bomb was dropped, Stalin ordered an IMMEDIATE invasion of China and South East Asia. A brand new army of MILLIONS in the East ROLLED through the Japanese, and hundreds of thousands were surrendering in mere DAYS.
The Japanese realized the main islands would be next and invaded by both armies and Stalin wouldn't be as nice as the Americans. They surrendered, and Stalin continued his rampage for another week until he reached the NORTHERN part of KOREA and we threatened to use the bomb on HIM. It was the fear of STALIN that truly influenced their hand. They were simply generous occupees when we came ashore, lol... Not saying the bomb didn't influence them...but it was 50/50. Science + Stalin Horde.
The algorithm has decided I must know this.
But we fed the machine and now we will learn.
The algorithm is wise in all things🧐
'slow applause' lol.
Me Too!
All hail the algorithm in its infinite wisdom lol!!!
Man that Nova intro was a time machine
Look at all of those BINDERS, full of FOLDERS and PAPER in the background, because they ran out of FILE CABNIETS. "What's a Microsoft? No, I don't eat Apples..." =P
“Brb mom, going to the library to learn about nuclear war strategys”
“Ok honey, be home by 8”
2022. Seemed like a good time to bone up on Cold War Nuclear strategy.
Yup 🙂 I can only agree.
Yup, Biden and his cohorts are desperately trying to start nuclear war with Russia.
@@HonorableBeniah-A yeah cuz they're the ones threatening the world with their nuclear weapons. Hush
@@FukcAUsername Biden is not directly threatening Putin with nuclear war but calling for Putin's over throw is not good for peace. Biden needs to go as well.
Jo
Man, I'd sacrifice nonspecific body parts if i could go back in time and live in 1984 again. Although the Cold War was raging, the rest of everything else was ten times more sane than things are now.
And I bet your parents would say exactly about the difference between your youth and theirs
@@crissyb00 No, I think that in America, our nation's moral, industrial, political, economic, legal, and spiritual decline are becoming so obvious to people that many are becoming genuinely alarmed now. I know that every new generation looks radically different to people of the old generation, but its not the benign generational differences that people are starting to worry about. We're starting to see changes that historically result in the death of empires. I hope that we can change it, because I was genuinely brought up to love my country, and I still do, deeply, even though the behavior of *some* of the people running it and institutions that we depend on for normal function, like the media, are becoming deeply concerning.
I like the tales of aliens shutting down silos for sure. No doubt we would never know until it was too late. Would be an exercise in faith and if those not in power waited to hear words from Aliens there would be no reason to save that strain.
No, it wasn't. It was far worse. Things are only as bad as they are now because of what people were doing in the 1980s without any thought for the future whatsoever.
Spot on Megaton
In addition to teaching me squad level Anti-Tank tactics, the algorithm has blessed me with more everyday know-how to fully crush my enemies.
10:28 His words Still resonate to this day. Thank you so very much for this 4 part series!
If both sides realized M.A.D. was mad...why didn't they just dismantle them?.....Frickin' Reagan and his stupid S.D.I. dream.... Gotta love the Military Industrial Complex....keeps us warm at night...
@@williamyoung9401 You obviously didn't get the memo. In later years it was admitted that S.D.I. was a ruse and although possible, it wasn't financially feasible. The threat of such a program forced the Soviets to waste huge amounts of money on a non existent threat. It ruined them.
In 10 years or less, we'll be worried about a new WMD: swarms of drones
The new one is already here dummy. Biowarfare. Covid19 is man made. They've admitted it.
To paraphrase the Pentagon release about this: they felt that the same effect of a tactical nuclear strike could be achieved with masses of drones that can independently target and attack enemies within the bounds of a set of coordinates. These loiter munitions can have a max dive speed >200mph. Really scary if you don't have a really good defense system.
1000,s of Drones dropping small bombs . Reminds me of Hitchcocks movie
" The Birds " 1000's of birds attack a small town . Art predicting the future is not uncommon
Yea meother is predictive programming
Don't get the "Ted Faros" an Idea
Obviously America and Russia were the key players, but it would have been nice to have seen a least a tacit acknowledgement of the important role played by the British in the Manhattan project.
Rip British Empire :(
the brits are NOT a world power either
@@doctormcboy5009
Maybe not but the US did not live up the the agreement that as we had many Brit scientist to help make the bomb we would share in it. So we built our own - in months. The screams from 'across the pond' did make me laugh.
@@memezoffuckery3207
We have a Commonwealth what do you have ? We went slowly into the sunset, America will be a bloodbath. Nothing new there then.
Hail China. Good old Mao.
@@jp-um2fr too bad so sad for the brits because America ruled the waves after ww2. pay back for the racist brits bring over the slaves
The 80's !!!🤘😎👍
Is just me or did the past have a higher quality of political leadership and the academic establishment capable of analysis and response when these leaders had made questionable decisions...
the racist black lies matter to brandon
You mean, "so today we're led by idiots" the answer is yes. There was a time when the best and brightest actually were in positions of leadership, rather than political ideologues and morons like we have today. Later! OL J R : )
Yeah that's before crony capitalism like basically at this point in society most people still make enough money that they don't have to do really f***** up s*** to try and survive so like the political class is just actually trying to be political or they're like normal citizens who have enough of income to just be like honey I'm going to run for office an awesome local dude is the mayor and then a senator like it all actually kind of makes sense in the old world corporations have so much power not even corporations just everyone is so money hungry but any politician you elect doesn't give a f*** about America or the nation or anything he's just trying to get rich I mean look up neoliberalism again understanding of this it basically took over the entire world in 1970s it's basically the core idea of money is the only thing that matters economic growth and GDP growth is the only thing that matters not the wealth of citizens not freedom not even arming yourself with weapons just GDP growth it's why we're doomed in this nuclear war because our enemies understand that you could win a nuclear war and that we need weapons and we're just still looking at everything like don't you want to buy something
Historically, the world has had its share of tyrants such as Stalin, Hiltler, Tito, Pol Pot, Mao, but think you are right in thinking that America in particular has has appallingly poor quality leadership in Bush, Trump and Biden. 2 out of three have dimentia.
@@OneEyedJacker Hmmm... I wouldn't wag a finger too hard, after all look at Canada, the UK, and most of Europe's leaders-- not much better off IMHO. Later! OL J R :)
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
How about a nice game of chess
Seriously though like I really do think the Russians are looking at it like this do you really think any of us are going to do anything about global warming look at how badly we handle coronavirus in world war what do you think's going to happen when the entire Middle East has to migrate when everyone in Mexico has to come to America because they'll burn complete global pandemonium and the end of modern society what is the Russians in the Chinese believe the MIT report that we're all doomed by 2040 and what if they're going to end the world now on their own terms prematurely
Yes, I would like to play and offer up a few contenents.
I wonder how many people actually get that. I suppose you have to be a certain age
@@suminshizzles6951Sadly, I am of that age 8-(
I was a kid when this came out I remember hearing so much about Nuclear War in the early and mid 80’s. It was a scary time.
And how is today any less scary? It seems your generation has forgotten that Russia still has nuclear weapons.
No mention of the atomic spies and their role in developing the Soviet bomb, which we now know to have been very significant.
Would get it pulled by TH-cam.
NOVA. The best episodes were those narrated by the late Peter Thomas.
McNamara seems to have forgotten that the Soviets had tac nukes, and the local commanders had full release authority. I shudder to think what that would have done to our landing forces.
As I understand it, nobody including McNamara knew in 1984 that the Soviets had put tactical nuclear missiles (Frogs, their equivalent of our "Honest John" or "Pershing 1") into Cuba. They knew there were a handful of Soviet nuclear-capable medium bombers (IL-76 IIRC) in Cuba and they certainly knew about the medium and intermediate range strategic missiles (SS-4 and SS-5's IIRC) being set up in Cuba, which precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis. But even as ExCom was deliberating invasion of Cuba to take out the missiles (if necessary) they had NO IDEA that their invasion WOULD have been met by tactical nuclear weapon strikes on the invasion forces basically as they landed from the Frog missiles. They also didn't realize that due to the limited capabilities of the Soviet command and control system of the time that the field commanders had basically been issued orders allowing them to use their nuclear weapons at their own discretion, if they believed that orders from Moscow COULDN'T get through, and it had come down to a "use it or lose it" situation. From what I've read, and from a subsequent interview with McNamara after the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of their archives, It was only AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union that the US became aware that the Soviets had put Frog tactical nuclear missiles into Cuba, specifically to destroy any invasion forces sent by the US to overthrow Cuba and capture or destroy the intermediate range strategic missiles. IOW, McNamara and ExCom were operating "in the dark" and in the interview I mentioned, McNamara himself said that they DID NOT know there were tactical nuclear missiles in Cuba to repel a US invasion, and that if in fact the US had invaded Cuba, there *WOULD* have been a nuclear war... the Cubans and Russians on the ground in Cuba would have deployed their Frogs against the US invasion, vaporizing it on the beaches, and the US would have then been forced to respond in kind against Cuba and the Soviet Union. That is why basically a nuclear war had ALMOST started during the blockade, because while we were dropping grenades on a nuclear sub we'd been "holding under" near the blockade line, nobody knew or realized that the Soviet sub commander had a nuclear torpedo aboard and had been issued orders allowing them to use it "if it was necessary" and orders from Moscow could not get through... which is EXACTLY what the first officer and political officer of the submarine were pressing the captain to do, but which he alone overrode and rejected their demands to launch the nuclear torpedo against the US Navy because he knew beyond a doubt that the US would then have no choice but to respond against the Soviet Union.
McNamara also minimizes the importance of the overwhelming US superiority in ICBM's to not only the REASON the Soviets were willing to take a gamble of putting missiles into Cuba, but why they were also left with no alternative but to stand down or face annihilation. While Khrushev had been maintaining a war of bluff and bluster in the United Nations and elsewhere in publicity and propaganda, asserting constantly the Soviets were "cranking out missiles like sausages" and such, the real facts were the Soviets were terribly behind in the missile race even in the early 60's, despite their demonstration of an ICBM publicly by launching Sputnik first in 1957. The Soviets WERE cranking out MRBM's and IRBM's like sausages, BUT those smaller intermediate and medium range missiles were only capable of hitting Western Europe, Britain, and the Far East from Soviet territory. They lacked the range to hit the US. Their ICBM fleet at the time consisted of a dozen or so launchers of their R-7 and later R-9 ICBM's, the R-7 "Semyorka" being the Sputnik launcher that would go on to become the workhorse of the Soviet space program, launching Gagarin and which continues to this day with evolution to the systems as the "Soyuz launcher". As a weapon it was functional, but incredibly vulnerable because it sat on exposed surface pads and took hours to prepare for launch. The US at the time had perfected the Atlas ICBM and deployed it both in surface "coffin launchers" and even putting evolutions of it into hardened silos, and had deployed the Titan I missiles in hardened silos, and had deployed large numbers of them. Plus we'd put Jupiter IRBM's into Italy and Turkey and later Thors into Britain. The Soviets simply felt that if the US could forward deploy strategic missiles like Jupiter and later Thor into NATO countries near Soviet territory, they could do the same and achieve a jumpstarted "parity" with the US strategic missile force by putting their MRBM/IRBM's into Cuba for the exact same reason... and allowing them to match our capability of hitting their homeland with missiles using the smaller range missiles they already had in large numbers, until their own ICBM force was capable of achieving parity with the US. We weren't having ANY of it and were willing to go to war with the Soviets to stop their putting missiles into Cuba, even if it meant a nuclear war. The US already had a substantial force of Atlas and Titans ready to strike the Soviets, and of course the SAC bomber fleet was completely unmatched at the time and as Lemay had said would "bomb them back to the Stone Age", while the Soviets had only a dozen or so primitive ICBM's capable of hitting the US and their bomber force was limited at best. They *KNEW* they were at a COMPLETE disadvantage, which is why they backed down. They said, "that will never happen again" because they had committed themselves to redoubling their efforts to achieve strategic parity with the United States in terms of striking power against the US mainland at the earliest opportunity, which they soon did. McNamara, in this video, claims that the US nuclear forces had NOTHING to do with why the Soviets backed down, chalking it all up to superior US conventional forces in-theater at the time. While that's one interpretation, it's more "spin" than fact... IF the Soviets could have "forced the issue" by brandishing their own fully and equally capable ICBM force move for move against the US, Kennedy would have had no choice but to "back down" or risk all-out nuclear war with a Soviet Union equally capable of destroying the US, something the Soviets simply COULD NOT DO at that point in time (1962). Of course the Soviets wouldn't have HAD to take the risk and gamble on putting IRBM's in Cuba *IF* they had an ICBM force on parity with the US at the time, which they did not. The Soviets knew full well that IF a nuclear war broke out over Cuba, they would have gotten by far the worst of it. The US would have launched pretty much ALL our existing Atlas and Titan ICBM forces against the Soviet Union and wiped out many of their cities and strategic capabilites in short order, while they could only have mustered a dozen or so ICBM hits on the US, certainly enough to "bloody our noses" but certainly not enough to eliminate our retaliatory capabilities. Even with the handful of subs equipped with 3 missiles each at the time (which had to surface and stop to launch their liquid-fueled missiles) they still couldn't have done much to hamper a US nuclear response. Meanwhile our Polaris missile boats would have destroyed most Soviet cities and we'd have unleashed the SAC bombers to go in and basically nuke anything left of consequence in the Soviet Union. The US would have been hit by maybe a dozen or so Soviet nuclear strikes, which would have wreaked havoc, but certainly not utterly destroyed the US as the Soviet Union would have been. The US would have recovered from the shambles, the Soviet Union would have been reduced to ashes and a handful of medieval fiefdoms after such a war in 1962. They knew that and so did we. Europe would have probably been ashes-- the Soviets and Warsaw Pact certainly had the MRBM/IRBM and bomber capability to make that happen, as did NATO to do the same to Eastern Europe in the Warsaw Pact and the western Soviet Union.
I've read that similarly, while US and NATO war plans assumed a massive armored invasion by the Soviets and Warsaw Pact using tanks and armor to spearhead a conventional invasion of Western Europe, with the US and NATO then attempting to repel the invasion by conventional means using airstrikes and ground forces, which would have been inevitably overrun by sheer numbers of Soviet-Warsaw Pact tanks, which would have then had NATO respond by launching tactical nuclear strikes against their armored columns to halt the invasion. This was classic "assuming the next war will be fought like the last war" thinking. The Soviets, on the other hand, ASSUMED from day one of any such invasion of Europe that NATO would resort to the use of nuclear weapons against their invasion forces, and thus had the Soviets ever invaded Western Europe, it would have started with a strategic first strike against NATO to wipe out as many of the US/NATO nuclear weapons/forces as possible, thus clearing the way for their massive armored conventional forces to go in and take over, and clean up what was left. IOW they came at it from the EXACT OPPOSITE ANGLE-- whomever used nuclear weapons first would win in a war in Western Europe, and they had NO intention of playing into NATO's hands by starting off with a conventional invasion which would inevitably be met by NATO nuclear weapons. If you're going to start a war, you intend to win.
@@lukestrawwalker congrats on longest reply ever
@@lukestrawwalker that was an awesome read. Thanks for that. Please site if you copied that from somewhere because it would be great to share. And if that's all you typing it out, BZ for sure.
@@MuffinManUSN I saw an interview with McNamara years ago where he said it
@@lukestrawwalker I recently read an article about those “sheer numbers/ overwhelming tank forces”, those were on paper on. The Soviets did not have the economic capability to operate such a large tank force. Most of the Warsaw Pact was still trying to recover after the end of WWII. They were playing catch up for the most part all the way into the 1970s. Bluster and feint was the order of the day for the Soviet Union.
Sadly we never know when may need this knowledge
This algorithm know me very well :D
Brought to you by Milton-Bradley. Ages eight and up.
The heck you cant use a gun to kill a Mosquito a Pellet gun works pretty good .
Thanks
Gonna go play some Fallout 4 now!
My thoughts exactly i hope fallout 4 stays fiction
"DO YOU WANT TO PLAY A GAME" ?
Yeah! This all makes perfect sense.🤪
Dutch-Angle McNamara, sinister...
Wow. Every 3rd word was a lie. We removed missles from cuba by removing ourown from turkey. All weve learn3d in another 30 years
Humankind's I.Q. would permanently drop 10% after a nuclear exchange. We couldn't form complete sentences.
Maybe the algorithm watches the news🤔
2022 pops in. HAI GUIS
Does anyone know anything about the software used at 1:15?
iOS I believe
Windows60
Commodore 64 but it looks more like an Atari game from the 80's Im sorry I don't know 😂
Wouldn’t you prefer a good game of chess?
Wow, that flutters.
It wasn't unconditional. The emperor was allowed to stay and live.
A unused weapon is a sad weapon.
The Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority Program would have ensured everyone was onboard with understanding total devastation.
In 1961 the US gov.t based nuclear missiles on Russia border in Turkey. The Cuban missile crises happened in 1962. President Kennedy agreed to take the missiles out if Turkey.
Dang I thought everyone knew that the only way to win a nuke war was not to have one at all. Lmao
hello students
Hi 👋
Occupy Moscow!
Disturbingly relevant in 2022
Cool whatever. Show us the explosions
For beginners? That would pretty much include every one , eh?
Sounds like it was written by Gwyn Dyer.
Those in Government want Us Scared at all Times.
Part 2: th-cam.com/video/GCHfDR3dzOw/w-d-xo.html
7:20 wait, he prays for God's guidance on how to use the atomic bomb in God's ways for God's purposes...? I wonder if he's ever read the bible.
have you?
@@doctormcboy5009 Nope. I'm an atheist. But even as such I know a key message of Christianity is thou shalt not kill. And here's a guy praying for God's guidance as to how to nuke people... Because apparently God has purposes that require the use of nukes. People just never seize to amaze me.
There are many ways to use an atom bomb besides dropping it on an enemy... I think that's what he was referring to. Even at that point in time, the battle between the "hawks" and "doves" was in full swing... Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, and others in gubmint who thought as he did, was quite in favor of using the bomb as direct leverage to force concessions from the Soviets in the post-war period and determination of how things would unfold in Eastern Europe. On the other hand, the "doves" led by Secretary of State Byrnes and others argued that using the bomb, "rather ostentatiously displayed on our hips" (like a six-gun in the wild west) to extort concessions from the Soviets would only deepen their suspicions and result in a deepened Cold War, if not worse. As a historical fact, the post-war situation in Europe was poorly handled and neither side got what they really wanted, but could live with the situation. Later! OL J R :)
@@crockett616 try it then you would not sound so stupid. most atheist hate god and are homosexuals, way to represent
@@creativecatalyst777 grammer nazis have no game like you
7:23 President saying that we want to use the bomb to fulfill God's way and god's purpose.
Yea I wonder what God he's talking about
Satan
US should have made as many nukes right after Japan surrender and gone after USSR.. immediately.
Should have just let the Nazis and the Communists beat each other senseless and then picked up the pieces.
No Hitler, and no Putin either.
Using the bombs twice on civilians was barbaric enough. Why would you wish death on so many more innocent people?
Coulda woulda shoulda
The US did not have enough weapons grade material to make that many bombs in 1945
Great propaganda.
It’s war. Gotta posture/pose as a superior threat since the other side within the country is watching
Great documentary even though it is quite dated. Unfortunately repeats the myth (still widely believed today) that Japan surrendered as a result of the bombs being dropped. We now know that Japan was already trying to figure out the best way to surrender at the time, and the bombs were used more as a show of force towards the Soviet Union.
I'm pretty sure a nuclear detonation is quite the motivator to surrender. While they were looking for the best way to surrender, the bomb made sure it would be unconditional.
@@void7080 If that were true then the Japanese would have surrendered immediately after the first bomb was used in Hiroshima. As I said, the Japanese were already in the process of arranging their surrender.
The need for this myth is simply to assuage the American conscience of this horrific war crime. In any case, you seem to be attempting to justify the killing and poisoning of hundreds of thousands of civilians living in non-military areas. Unconscionable.
It's no myth. The atomic attacks on defenceless Japanese cities were a war crime that gave the Empire of Japan a moral basis for surrender for all humanity's sake.
"muh Soviets" is commie cope, lol.
@@anti-communist103 Don't be like that comrade.
😊😊😊Very informative. Much Blessings to you. ✝Thanks for sharing, Lord-Jesus-Christ dot 🙏c🙏o🙏m
1984? Irrelevant in 2020.
Bull.
More relevant than ever. Ez. 38/39.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it!
If we're to avoid a third world war, we have to understand not only how the current situation came to be, but how our actions, inactions, attitudes, or what we purposefully or accidentally transmit as our intentions to a potential adversary have on the situation, and what their natural response is likely to be.
The world didn't turn into what it is now by accident. Most of the situation that caused WW2 was a direct result of stupidity and mishandling of the end of WW1. Even some people of the time realized it-- the famous quote after the Treaty of Versailles was signed while the victors were breaking their arms to pat themselves on the back, when it was said, "This isn't a peace, this is a cease fire for 20 years". This proved to be ABSOLUTELY true, because the mistakes made at Versailles directly led to the rise of Hitler and set the stage for WW2. Similarly, the Sykes/Picot agreement between Britain and France to carve up the Middle East in the wake of WW1 has DIRECTLY led to the situation we now have in the Middle East, which has been a tinderbox for over 70 years.
Even now, with the situation in the Ukraine and with the Russian invasion and our response to it, there's plenty of blame to go around. We've expanded NATO and fed the Russian fears that we might try to conquer them either militarily or interfere with their internal politics to turn them into a puppet state, our interference in Ukraine and expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and right up to the Russian border in some areas has left them with no buffer, and while we interfere with Ukraine and Eastern Europe we continue to back them into a corner. I'm not saying the Russians were right to invade Ukraine, but I am saying our mishandling of the situation over the past years have created the situation we now find ourselves in.
Same way we armed the Mujahadeen and financed Osama bin Laden to oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's, only to see Osama bin Laden and his cohorts form the Taliban and turn the very weapons and training and money WE gave them against us, to deadly effect for all the world to see on 9/11, which directly led to all the nonsense that has occurred in the years since then... now we've seen Traitor Joe completely mishandle the situation in the pullout of Afghanistan, emboldening and empowering our enemies (who respect only strength while we now look like incompetent fools) and anybody who doesn't believe that all THAT isn't going to come back to bite us in the @ss simply is ignorant or hasn't been paying any attention to history whatsoever...
Later! OL J R :)
@@lukestrawwalker I don't think most people have the ability to even begin to understand.
Posted in 2015...