Sentinel is a $100 billion US nuclear missile. And 100 billion may not be enough.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ม.ค. 2024
- This video will explain what Sentinel ICBM is, how it compares to the old nuclear missile and it will put its costs into context. It will also dive into the strategic context of Sentinel in nuclear arsenals around the world. And show why failure to field the Sentinel is not really an option for the US.
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
You can also browse for other Binkov merch, like T-Shirts, via the store at our website, binkov.com
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / @binkov
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
![4BANG - NOT LIKE US (REMIX) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HO22cYkha1s/mqdefault.jpg)
"Remember, Binkov may talk about war, but only real peace can bring us together" hits different when the video was about ICBMs.
14:21 Binkov: "The US Parliament"
Me: The what now?
The British overthrew the government on January 6 of 2021 and reverted America to being ruled by The Crown
The Sentinel is too round, it needs to be pointy.
More… Aladeen. The Admiral General demands it
This might be copium on my part, but remember we're comparing stated capabilities with stated capabilities. As we've seen with Kinzhal and Patriot, Russian claims often fall short, while US systems are often understated.
Not a terrible point, though I still wouldn't want to bet my life on it.
The Aegis system - used in US Navy ships - is supposed to be even be even better than the Patriot. The THAAD is also being tested against ballistic missiles. I supposed in simulation. But I doubt the THAAD systems would cover the US and in any case they wouldn't necessarily be 'on' to defend against ICBMs.
They didn’t shoot down the kinzhal weapons though
@@ShizzleGaming14 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@ShizzleGaming14 ukies daily reported on 120% interception a rate. only kremlin bots can deny these numbers!
@@recoil53 what ?
Cancelling the Peacekeeper to save money was incredibly short sighted. 🤦♂️
It was the START treaty as well…but you’re right.
Gutting the B-1 Bomber to make it non nuclear capable was also short sided. pilotphotog put out a video on the B-1 yesterday and another immediately thereafter addressing yesterday's B-1 crash in South Dakota.
Should have modified the basic design and used that as the basis for a minuteman replacement. Reduce the number of warheads it can carry and increase the range.
@@jaffacalling53 totally agree, it would have been cheaper and quicker since the groundwork was already done, plus they could have built on that new architecture as they did with the Minutemans. Plus when Russia and China forgo treaties in the future it would have the ability to carry more warheads.
To be fair a "good enough" nuclear ICBM might be just that.
Except value for money for Sentinel and Columbia class is attrocious. Cost is explosive and carrying capacity - thus versatility - is diminished. Ohio are such great platform, due to durability and volume that allowed conversion for monster of SSGNs.
But good enough when in 2030 2060 etc
@@piotrd.4850 well, it might have a lot to do with inflation lol. inflation really hurt defensive budget lol
Between Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, India, and Pakistan the US defense is outnumbered.
@scorpionx7044 😂 that's like saying birdshot is more deadly than buckshot because there is more projectiles in birdshot 😂
I think the idea behind Sentinel is simply to acquire a reliable, proven design that can be the backbone of the land-based nuclear deterrent. There are other missiles that have the job of being super fancy.
Besides, a ballistic missile is still hard to intercept at the speeds these things would be travelling. If anything, the fact that the Air Force is trying to be realistic and procure something they expect to be developed quite quickly should be reassuring. You don’t want 100 billion dollars to be blown on an experimental concept that ultimately falls through - leaving the US without a reliable missile in its nuclear silos!
Plus, whilst the US was respecting its treaties with Russia, the Russian Federation wasn’t and China wasn’t even a member. So, now the US faces the risk of a capability gap because short-sighted, ignorant, naive, or traitorous politicians didn’t want to fund a replacement for the Minute Man sooner...
The Minute Man has been refurbished for as long as possible. Now, it needs to be replaced.
I wouldn't say traitorous without any evidence however complacent would definitely be accurate
Thats extremely alarming that one company got the contract 'by default' because they'd been allowed to attain a monopoly on rocket motor production. Then, shocker, the company holding the monopoly under performs while being way over budget.
Seems like theres some pretty fundamental flaws in USA military industrial complex. In fact, sounds like state capture.
Biden has been trying to come up with a way to revitalize the US arms industry. Though its not exactly a popular industry in the US, so it will take decades to rebuild what was lost. You can't blame the US for hoping the days of Cold War style arms build up's were gone. I mean look at US history, its actually an aberration that US stayed armed after WWII and stayed as armed after end of Cold War.
@@TK199999 The arms industry itself is to blame for that. They built their capabilities in a way that gave them maximum political leverage over Congress rather than pure free market principles. Congress regularly blocks the cancellation of spending on useless programs such as the A-10 due to the political cost rather than cost or national security reasons.
We are occupied by zog not the MIC lol our corruption is just a product of that.
The market for solid rocket motors is small, with the US government being the main customer. If there isn't enough business to keep all companies busy, the little companies have no choice but to go out of business or merge with a bigger company.
@@TK199999the military aren't the only ones who buy and use rockets, there's also NASA as well as private sector satellite launches.
Boeing dropped out because of "unfavorable program requirements"... Well yea it had to fly 🤷
💀💀💀
" A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money"
Won't it be cheaper and faster to reactivate (and modernize) the Peacekeepers? Since they were retired in the early 2000's the loss in institutional knowledge shound't be a problem and given the fact that they were already deployed for nearly 20 years reduces the chance of teething problems and delays.
They probably did look at that as an option. It would probably have been analagous to the F-22 production restart feasability report which showed while possible it would be hilariously expensive, which lead into the hypothetical Joint Strike Raptor. But in this case the value for bringing back the peacekeepers would have been higher than just developing something new due to production of almost all of the tech within the peacekeepers would either need to be changed for modern versions which takes time and adds new challenges. So they opted for the just make something new with currently available tech so as not to worry about what was around in the past.
Making the F-22 a throwaway aircraft is the best move the USAF made. Who wants to maintain another F-15 for decades?
As long as the new ICBM is designed following a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA), and meets range requirements, it would constitute a much grater step forward than an increase in payload capacity.
What’s another 100 billion when you’re 34 TRILLION in debt ……
Pretty much nothing when that $100b (actually $280b) is the total development, building, maintenance, and decommissioning cost over 50 years. That is $6b a year, or not even a single percent of the US military budget in any given year.
@@ImBigFloppa100 Billion is nothing for the US. The money printing machine in the basement of Whitehouse can print trillions of dollars. 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂🤣🤣
Save the money and just spend a couple thousand on teddy bear flowers and Lesbian dance
I’m just going to cope by saying they’re just elaborately hiding how insanely amazing this missile really is
Never should have scrapped the "Peacekeeper Missle".
Blud stil has the cringe pfp
@@dariurad- that is the symbol of a color revolution. if you support Ukraine as a westerner then that should be your symbol.
I still can't figure out why they did that!!!
Nuclear annihilation seems more likely than me getting the first retirement paycheck
As long as we don’t fill our fuel tanks with water, we should be okay…😂
Just keep believeing your own propaganda, you will be ok 🤣
@@Awaken2067833758it’s china everyone knows it’s gonna be cheap
Okay bot, thanks for the info. lol@@Awaken2067833758
100 billion dollars just doesn't buy what it used to. That's more than we spent on nuclear missiles for all of the 1960s ,70s and part of the 80's.
They just kept printing money.
Which caused massive inflation.
Which means they have to just keep printing money.
@@robgrey6183 Sounds *hyper* realistic & rational to me. I'm sure this won't end poorly.
In a pentagon that has no fear of audit accountability, these cost estimates are political theater. Take the highest estimate, and double it.
Any proof ?
@@ni9274 The F35 program. The F22 program. The LCS program, and pretty much every military contract ever. Over budget and not on time. The excuse? "It's a different world now....".
@@billwhitis9997that’s not really possible to predict how much developing a next generation fighter jet will cost since you’re doing something that was never done before
@@ni9274 Mmm yes, another one of there excuses for bad estimates. You'd thing that after all the years, they'd have figured out how to include that factor in their cost analysis. But no, what they are trying to do is get the contract, not give the American people the true cost of these projects. They are just trying to present something palatable to Congress.
This behavior does not just apply to contracts with cutting edge technology.
@@billwhitis9997 American know the true cost of the project afterward, but you don't see many Americans saying US army should stop developing innovate weapons systems
The central question not answered is, why don't they use the already developed and obviously more capable peacekeeper tech?
Tax payers Money laundry , Lockheed Martin, Raytheon & Boeing owners need more Profit for their needs !
Could they make it like 999,999,999,900 mil and fix my damn potholes?
It's a big American company trying to rip off the give us a crappy ICBM
"Not dragged around as much" is a serious understatement. I hear about that here pretty much the first time. Maybe vagueley haered the type number but had no idea. Jeez, thanks I guess.
At this point wouldn't it be better just to upgrade and redeploy the peacekeepers?
Old, decommissioned weapon systems pretty much never get reactivated or brought back because the industry that produced them moved on. Blue prints get lost, discarded or deleted, sometimes even just to make room on a server hard drive, engineers retire or take other jobs, companies and the rights and licenses they hold get bought up or go bankrupt, production lines get repurposed, tool sets get thrown away....
Reactivating a old weapon system would usually be the same as developing a whole new one, in expense, effort and time investment.
The Big Guy needs his 10%.
With all these problems you got to wonder how the heck China and Russia is maintaining similar or better missiles. Or are they?
Russia notoriously lies about their capabilities.
There is one thing that certain. The communists always lie about their weapon systems capabilities. While the US lies about their weapons existing or downplays their capabilities.
They aren't
They are pointy. Very Aladeen. 👍
The fact we make this shit is insane
'The decision in 2005 to retire the missile named Peacekeeper seems like it's just asking for trouble, a bad omen if you will, either way it's an ironic and sad symbol.'
-Some history teacher in the post the 2020s era
I miss the peacekeeper😞
This guy gets it. It should be at least be MIRV like peacekeeper.
Minor correction. The US Congress... Not Parliament. We in the USA do not have a parliamentary system.
I was just going to say that lol
Potato, potato its the same thing just a different name. Ohh no you dont say university like normal people, you say ,,collage"
@Silver_Prussian. In the US, Universities are schools which have Colleges of Law or Medicine as part of their institution (or at least, that's my understanding).
@@Silver_Prussian what is normal? I am ready to buy your normal, but work it. Orderly, my little prussian friend?
@@victors4333 ahh finaly an american who seeks knowledge from a cultured european like myself instead of being all pissy and missing the oppurtunity to learn.
You know how you use wrong words and do things the wrong way ? Yeah thats why it aint normal.
I totally agree with the comment below "GOOD ENOUGH "IS pretty much good enough when it comes to ICBMs .Once mutual assured destruction is aoconplished, it becomes like 2 guys standing in a swimming poool full of gasoline and arguing over who has the most amout of matches!!!
You can bet your bottom dollar that there will come a day when technology balance shifts in favor of one country. Good enough will not be good enough
“ good enough “ is all you need if your delivery method is better than your adversary.
It's not
One billion going into the missile and the ninety billion will go into the pockets of the few!
As always. Learn a lot
It's strange... We seem to be a species that's Hell Bent on self annihilation... Well... Some of us anyway...
It's resources. Its all about power and resources. War is a byproduct of this power and resource grab. Those in power will have access to resources, having access to "more" resources provides a better quality of life. Nukes are the ultimate deterrent to direct confrontation and a loss of power and resources. Those with the most powerful military arsenal have the most power and thus the most resources.
Because mankind was disobedient from the begining, and will be untill the end of this age:
Please type:
King James Bible Online,
Matthew 24: 4, 6, 7 and
especially 8.
v 21 and 22.
He shall reign on the earth for ever and ever. His name/reputation shall be Wonderful Counselor, Prince of Peace. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. The wolf shall dwell with the lamb. The lion shall eat straw as the ox. Little children shall yet play in the streets of Jerusalem.
The fatling and the young lion together, and a little child shall lead them.
Neither shall they hurt nor destroy in all His Holy Mountain.
Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end. HalleluYah, Savior Yeshua is the Son of Yehovah!
Exodus 20 including v 10.
To be fair… I think the US needs to just get a “good enough” solution. Just make sure that the US has the capability to hold Russia and China in danger for MAD.
Ideally this is a defense program that will never be used in full capacity.
I'm going to be honest my opinion this is a piece of s*** we need to make a real mother ICBM
They literally just had to bring back the Peacekeeper instead of trying to waste money building a Super Minuteman.
At 13:15 that test was done in Promontory in Utah. I grew up watching the clouds from those tests billowing up over the western mountains during my lunch break while we played kickball.
Itd be hazy for a day or two after each test. Although back then it was usually NASA rockets being tested. I didnt ever consider they tested military stuff.
I would prefer this strategy than overmatching Chinese/Russia capabilities. Matching/just a little under the capabilities of rivals mean nobody has to escalate. Hopefully they believe the US, and hopefully the new program is what they say it is.
China is already doubling the size their arsenal, it's already escalating.
"US parliament" got me pretty good
'Parliament' is close enough for US govt work. ;-)
Very comforting.
One of the largest cost factors for the Sentinel ICBM is the recreation of pit manufacturing. The US has refurbished the same warhead cores for the last 50 years and they are at the end of their possible lifetime. The nuklear pits need to be manufactured from new or recycled pits, but the production lines got sold of as part of the peace dividend 30 years ago.
I think the Sentinel actually makes a good deal of sense when you consider overall American nuclear strategy, where the ICBMs’ main purpose during an actual nuclear exchange is to force enemy forces to deploy at least 1 warhead per Sentinel silo in order to destroy them, hence drawing more than 400 warheads from an enemy’s finite stock of launch-able warheads away from other targets to a relatively sparsely populated region of the country. With this being their main purpose in a major nuclear exchange, it makes sense for them to be able to be rapidly launched with very high acceleration to escape the blast zone, hence meaning the enemy wasted the warhead or warheads targeting its silo, and for them to carry a relatively small number of warheads so that the ones that fail to be launched in time and are destroyed don’t represent a large part of the American nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, with the capabilities of the Trident D5 and the extreme difficulty of finding American boomers, the Tridents make sense as the primary retaliatory leg of the triad, meaning that the need isn’t there for the Sentinel to carry a large number of MIRVs, particularly when you consider that if the US were to need to rapidly carry out a limited nuclear strike on a nation, take Iran for example, it would make more sense to use a land-based ICBM with relatively few warheads but enhanced penetration aids to ensure that all warheads used reached their targets for the strike as in order to avoid a full scale nuclear exchange the US would presumably warn Russia and the PRC we were going to launch, and by using a land based missile we could pre warn them which one would be launched without giving away any valuable information like the location of a boomer, which would obviously be given away if it had to launch a Trident
Why did you say boomer? that word is incorrect.
@@TywinLannister0 Lowkey good pun, but also good point in a way, just in case someone who doesn’t know English slang reads this comment and reply section I’ll specify that the definition of “boomer” I’m using here is a SSBN, a nuclear powered submarine that carries and launches nuclear warhead armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (edited for spelling)
@@johnberetta7141 you're right i just looked it up and i was wrong ughh you're so right. boomer for SSBN.
ICBMs in US nuclear weapons strategy, have the so called "sponge" role, meaning they are there mostly to attract and force our enemies to spend a large portion of their nuclear arsenal for destroying our ICBMs.. That means many hundreds of nuclear warheads from China/Russia would have to fall in the fields of North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.. And strategy wise, this would mean that our homeland was attacked with nuclear weapons which would result in a massive nuclear retaliation. This retaliation would probably be much smaller, if nuclear at all, if any of the other 2 legs of the nuclear triad were attacked.. Destroying the Ramstein Air Base in Germany filled with F-15s and F-35s armed with nuclear weapons or sinking an Ohio class SSBN, wouldn't be the same as sending nuclear warheads on the American soil....
That being said I really don't know where is Binkov getting his information or how is he coming to a conclusion that the Sentinel will be a mediocre ICBM.. Sure, it won't carry 10-12 warheads but we have no idea what technologies will be used for the in development ICBM.. For example there's a great chance that the warheads will be MARVs, meaning maneuvering reentry vehicles. These warheads would me much harder to take out.. Also we don't know jack sh** about the penetrating aides that would accompany warheads... Basically everything except the price and the general size and profile of the missiles is classified and we can't conjure up conclusions like "Sentinel is nothing special" from the lack of information..
Last but not least, Pentagon has rightly decided that the cutting edge technology and money for it, regarding the nuclear triad, will be funneled towards the B-21 Raider strategic nuclear bomber, Columbia class SSBNs and the new in development nuclear tipped cruise missile AGM-181 LRSO.
B-21 is the as far cutting edge as cutting edge goes, as are the technologies incorporated into the COlumbia SSBN, with the latest information saying the next subs will use the mythic magneto hydrodynamic drive....
Now we know why Northrop Grumman tried to bid the all-SRB OmegA rocket for the Air Force NSSL contract.
Do land-based ICMs have more secure "launch/ no-launch" communication during a crisis?
Considering the F-35 program is costing over a trillion dollars $100 billion isn't all that bad
Yeah but US is not alone with the f35 program
That's the cost of the F35 program over the next 60 YEARS including inflation, maintenance, upgrades, spare parts, etc. Stop quoting the same dumb talking point that the F35 costs "a trillion dollars." Inagine quoting the "cost" of buying a new home by including the addition of every tax bill, every new roof, all of the maintenance, utilities, landscaping, plus depreciation over the next 60 years. It's absurd, and shows you have no idea what that number means
Girth is important. Uhhh, I'm talking about ICBM's.....
I suppose physics hasn't changed that much in the 50 years. Then again, maybe the new program does have additional capabilities which are not being published. The goal, after all, is to not tip your hand to the enemy.
Au contraire. The goal of deterrence IS to tip your hand. It is exactly like having the best cards in the game, and showing them to your enemy. The enemy will either have to bluff, or fold. That is the purpose of advertising and demonstrating nuclear capability
The Minuteman 3 missiles had their intended lifespans passed decades ago. They have had to go through multiple life extension programs that are now getting more and more expensive because there’s only so much you can do to repair and maintain a half century old missile that was only supposed to be around for 30 years. The only real difference in ICBM technology and effectiveness is the warheads themselves. Whether they can maneuver in flight, deploy counter measures, or are just extremely accurate. The missile itself is largely unimportant. Their sole purpose is to launch a certain mass a certain distance.
If god forbid nuclear breaks out the Minuteman 3 ICBMs would be able to do the job fine. That said when China and Russia been updating their ICBMs for decades it is ridiculous we never had new replacement ICBMs since its Replacement (Peacekeeper/MX) was deployed and decommissioned in only 19 years was awful
Upgrades in China and Russia have issues of corruption. Fuel for the missiles being stolen and replaced with water and a lot of maintenance money for something no sane person would use is a tempting target to syphon off. Also hearing stories of rusty silo hatches being stuck closed.
As for the American equipment even the missiles they had in the 60’s were hypersonic. Modern MERV systems are an absolute nightmare for any nation on the receiving end of a nuclear exchange.
I think we should use our old ICBMs before making new ones...
"Refurbishing the Minuteman III will cost $38 billion more than fielding a new missile"- 14:58
What do you mean by “using our old ones first” 😂😅😮😨😰
@@cozyclanz978 Idk, I'm not too picky. All of the nuclear explosions I've seen are archival footage with shitty ancient cameras. Wouldn't you want to see one (or many) in high definition, or in person?
we can reach proxima centauri b in just 25 years (even less for those inside the ship) if we use nuclear explosions for thrust@@walkingcarpet420
why dont we just reuse the peacekeeper… its proven and very capable
defense contrax
Because contractors won’t make money.
US is losing human capital and work ethic. The guys who sent men to the moon and invented LGM30 aren't around anymore.
Willing to bet this program will be massively over-budget, bugged and be way behind schedule. Same will happen for AIM260 and FA-XX/NGAD .
that's an old russian wet dream
I smell Vodka on your breath comrade.
The work ethic thing is a weak gab and the human capital is absurd. Unlike certain country's invading their neighbors we haven't had any mass exoduses of our population in, well since Vietnam and even that was comparably small and they usually went up north to Canada benefiting our close and trusted friends so it's meh.
Nice try commie guy.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket Being too comfortable for too long is not conducive to scientific and technological progress. The Qing dynasty learned this the hard way near its end.
@@Bangy Sure, all of us can see, how chinese are good in production and technology - chips especially. And Russia is even "better".
@@giupetr968 Am not sure how that's in any way relevant to the discussion - seems like good old whataboutism. Regardless, it's no secret that the US is not the best when it comes to ICBMs and ballistic missiles in general. That's obviously not to discredit it, they are way ahead of China and Russia in most everything.
This is about updating aging components and materials
I love your videos
Russia has less silos and requires more MIRV. Kaliningrad missiles are almost pointless, but Russia is too stupid to see this. Finland, Lithuania and Poland have enough air defenses to shoot down every missile in boost stage multiple times over. That destroys about 400 of
Russian nuclear warheads from 50 Missile estimated to be there. Russian only has about 300 missile silos that account for 1200 of their nuclear warheads. Finland and Ukraine both sit within range to take out 90% of those silos in boost phase. Almost completely kicking a complete leg of their nuclear Triad.
@10.45 china has 500 icbm warheads? They do not even have 500 warheads of any type
Wrong, they're in the middle of a massive strategic nuclear build-up.
@@phasestar7787too bad the silos and fuel is filled with water.
@@phasestar7787not really, they arent increasing their numbers by that much. Fr+UK still outnumber them
@@tbnthompsonthey aren't filled with water, the vast majority of chinese icbm are solid rocket fuel, only a few liquid based fuel ballistic missiles. Using liquid fuel isn't a good idea for an icbm since it is vulnerable when preparing to launch it takes time. Most liquid fuels for rockets are cryogenic as well so just all around bad for that purpose. It's likely a bad translation, probably meant watered down, but what was watered down we cant know since again solid fuel.
@@gaypigeon5365 that’s not my point. The silos and everything are flooded with water.
Remember the nuclear triad: Land based ICBM, air launched cruise missile or guided gravity bomb, and submarine launched ballistic or cruise missile. As long as the submarines are still lurking in the ocean, and as long as the air force maintains a fleet of B2 and B21 stealth bombers, there is no reason to waste billions of dollars on the blingiest ICBMs. The deterrent effect of the existing nuclear triad capabilities is 10x overkill. There is simply no way a future enemy could counter the retaliatory strike from all of these platforms. Hell, the United States doesn't even have the capabilities to counter a nuclear strike from the United States.
The triad gives national command authority the most options on how to respond. Bombers can be recalled in a situation where it is not clear that an attack has been launched but are the least survivable. ICBMs and SLBMs can't be recalled. SLBMs are the most survivable but are dependent on wireless communication links with command and control. Their accuracy is limited by the launching platform's ability to determine its precise position course and speed. ICBMs have several advantages over the other parts of the triad. They are more accurate than SLBMs and are harder to defeat than bombers or ALCMs. They also have the most solid communication links with command and control, typically hardwired ground links with radio and satellite backups. They are the first choice to use as a counterforce weapon. This is a two edged sword though as they are easily targetable and makes them the first targets of any attack.
@@dmac7128 yeah but all of this statist talk about nuclear capable state overlooks the most important point & that is mcnukes...
@@dmac7128 >> I rather doubt that ICBMs are still more accurate than SLBMs. Boomers know where they are at all times, even when no one else does.
Ive never understood the logic behind having 10,000 nukes. I understand they might get shot down, fail, whatever. But still, 10,000? Thats expensive as hell to maintain. Better to have 100 missiles that are each 100x stronger.
But then I see this, and their "new, more effective" missile costs over 1B. That was not the logic here guys!!
who has 10k missiles? smaller warheads are more cost effective as strong ones are so powerful most of energy goes into space
It's based on MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) doctraine, the 10k nukes are spread differently, from being gravity bombs to missiles that used on carriers and subs, not to mention the bunker busters too which are designed differently since most nukes use air burst technology for maximum damage above ground.
As for underground bunkers, you going to need a buster so it deters those in power from firing off nukes, you don't want your enemy to feel "Safe"
Theres about 10,000 total nukes in the world, I said that number mistakenly. My point is still the same though. @@hphp31416
It doesn't really make sense to pursue a substantially more capable rocket. The only places on earth the minutemen III's range can't hit are in antarctica and some of the indian ocean, so increased range isn't really adding value. The logic behind keeping the numbers of MIRVs per rocket small still holds (fewer single points of failure, more targets for enemies far away from population centers, and easier verification of arms control), so larger payloads likewise aren't adding much capability. Hypersonic glide vehicles offer lower trajectories than ballistic missiles could ever handle. Getting through missile defenses, you really want better countermeasures rather than a greater amount of obsolete countermeasures. While solid rocket engine technology has not significantly advanced, massive improvements to computers allow for a lot more to be done with the same payload. Frankly the minuteman III is a perfectly adequate system as is; you only need to be able to destroy the world once. Where it makes sense to try and make improvements is in reliability and system life, which seems to be where they are focusing. If you can get that for a lower price tag than keeping the current system in place, it's really a no brainer.
You echo my thoughts! But I think Binkov;s point is the price I guess, but compare that to countries where you cant even get financial reports on these projects at least you know where to tax money is going xD.
a hidden benefit in the minute man 3 is being analog. theres no feasible way to hack into and threaten US nuclear arms. communications, sure, but you need to physically be in the room to activate the system.
lol the us will spend 100b on a missile but only give NASA 20b a year and expect them to do a moon landing with it by 2025 🤣🤣🤣
The US spends 100b on a missile its stated policy objective is NEVER TO USE. And the public is only too happy to shovel money on the project, NASA gets 20b to put a man on the moon, goes a bit over budget and takes a bit longer but gets the job done. Jerk critics in the public demand to know why we "waste money on space."
That's not really comparable. The 100b figure is for the programme as a whole, the development, testing and procurement is just one part. Importantly the refitting of the silos and their associated technology, as well as the upkeep and maintenance for around 400 missiles and even more silos is also included in that pricetag.
The Artemis program is said to cost 93 billion by 2025, a fairly comparable sum. By then it is however far from certain that even one manned moon landing has taken place. The cost for that program is thus likely to rise again.
But as I said, these two programs are not really comparable and have vastly different goals.
@@Tealice1 they still shouldn’t spend that much on missies and instead put that money towards productive things
@@orionSpacecraft I would also like to see money being spent on something else but weapons. Unfortunately the world we live in is and forever has been, a dangerous one. While the USA is certainly a flawed country, it is also the world's most powerful democracy and generally speaking a force for good (with numerous exceptions). To defend itself and by extension the rest of the free world, the need for a capable military is sadly unavoidable. One elemental pillar of this defence apparatus is the system of nuclear deterrence. If this pillar is not maintained and viewed as an existential threat to any foe daring enough to attack, the whole system of defence becomes very unstable and unreliable. With the old Minuteman missiles desperately needing replacement soon, an effort to maintain this capability is elemental, for the cost of its failure may be too high to bear.
@@Tealice1 No country is seriously considering a nuclear first strike.
Even if we were nuked and didn’t retaliate at all, the attacking nation wouldn’t gain anything expect being shunned from the international community for killing millions of people. You wouldn’t be able to extract war reparations or exploit resources from a defeated America if it was turned into a radioactive wasteland. Not to mention that even in a world without nukes, no nation has the logistical capability to launch an invasion of the continental US. I seriously doubt that a leader of a nation will be willing to risk a nuclear war just because they perceive themselves to have a slight edge in ICBMs. And if they were stupid enough to try anyway, then I don’t think upgrading a missile system is enough to deter them from their actions.
Land based ICBMs don’t need to be great. Their mission is to act as a missile sponge, forcing adversaries contemplating a first strike to expend a high number of warheads destroying them. This increases the number of warheads an adversary would need to attempt a successful first strike….driving the cost to field and maintain such a capability toward unaffordability. Said another way, land based ICBMs are designed to encourage potential adversaries to forego first strike in favor of treating their own arsenals as a defensive credible deterrent. And before someone talks about Russia’s “huge” warhead count, consider whether they actually have the resources to pay their enormous maintenance costs. My bet is that their actual deployable warheads are far below their headline warhead count.
每一个陆基发射井可以消耗对手至少3枚核弹头，但是中国俄罗斯还有大量陆上移动的发射核载具，而美国的发射井非常老旧过时
美国依赖战略核潜艇的洲际弹道导弹是无法准确击中俄罗斯陆上发射井目标的
they really dont need to be accurate when they launch 12 nukes per trident missle. Making the subs apex predators, just the aresenal our subs carry would be enough.@@user-yw8zm9wn7l
The Sentinel can kill hard targets that is what is important
Nuclear missiles can’t be stopped by a rival nation, so why have a state of the art upgrade for land based missiles. Since 50% are submarine based, those are major deterrent since that is the most survivable leg of the triad.
If the Peacekeeper was so great, why was it abandoned?
Overall Cost to maintain a system that is new that delivers 10-12 nukes vs a system that is in place that delivers 1-3 nukes.
The Cold War ended unexpectedly.
The total number of warheads was limited by certain nuclear disarmament treaties. Thus the huge capabilities of the land based nuclear deterrent were not needed anymore. With a limited number of warheads but many missiles to go around, it is wise to spread them across the available ones. Putting 10+ warheads on a single missile, while efficient cost whise, carries a greater risk, were the missile to fail. But putting one or two warheads on such a large missile is very inefficient and costly. Thus the smaller, but available and reliable, missile was chosen, even if it was a bit older.
The Chinese will have to drain the water from the fuel tanks of their ICBMs first.
haha, you forgot the💩
How dumb can we be to imagine who can strike first, when it makes absolutely no difference who strikes first.
Future ICBM must also have a duel rule
That including planetary defense
Why not produce a modernized peacekeeper icbm?
The range of the minute man was greater than the diameter of the earth. Why does the sentinel need to have a greater range?
Getting your geometry mixed up, Diameter doesn’t mean anything in this context. CIRCUMFERENCE of the earth is ~25,000 miles, minuteman has range of ~8,000 miles. A range of ~12,500 miles would be halfway.
need a video of french M51.3 and future versions please.
What's insane is the investment inba deterrent thst has but one end. There are no benefits. It's use garauntees minimal survival. It's cost garautees a one return on investment for the public if used. It is indeed MAD.
The joke is that we the United States will enjoy both the spectacle of launch, and feel the fallout of the investment.
If it doesn't have 20 marv warheads bus on the ICBM we need something like a peacekeeper capable of fractional orbital bombardment also capable of having multiple hypersonic glider within the one to 10 megatons fourth generation t
the most hilarious thing is that they called the monstrosity "peacekeeper" 😂 I mean if you raise to ground everything probably what you get is peace...
But it is a Peacekeeper because it is used NOT to have a nuclear war
idk@@ulikemyname6744 maybe I oversimplify the thing but, if you plan to NOT use a thing you better don't buy it, if you are not planning a county wide genocide, you better avoid having something able to create this, no one knows who will be allowed of using it in the future. Furthermore, nature is a strange place where not all phenomena are linear, so sometimes it's easy to stop consequences of an action because there is negative feedback, but sometime the feedback is positive and what you create is unstoppable... This apply well to climate change and also to nuclear proliferation...
I feel like we're seeing symptoms of serious issues in engineering companies being run recklessly for short term stock price increases
US has shown me that these large sums aren't usually going towards a single project.
"US Parliament"
Being concerned about cost after knowing it’s 100B+ is a bit a joke isn’t it. When your sacrificing capabilities.. what’s the f point in spending so much if it isn’t the best
we need 1000 sentinles with 25 megaton warheads but its modular so its mission can change and it can easily be upgaded for more warheads,range etc
America is scared of any megaton rated warheads. It's why the canceled the B-83 gravity bomb. Only Russia loves megatons. America is too in love with low yield nukes. (For whatever reason)
And imagine, that in 80's Peacekeeper/MX was supposed to cost 50 bln and only 1/5th - 10 bln - was supposed to be a missle itself, rest was for crazy basing scheme. Giving up MX and Midgetman was by far WORST decision by US after X-33. 15:23 - acceptance for such gross neglignce is nothing short of amazing. Really, re-drawing and validating documentation once a decade shouldn't be such a problem.
MX was cool; Midgetman (and Dense Pack) were silly. X-33 was a dog, too.
My tax dollars wasted again.
The f35 is nuclear capable
Thanks for giving a video about other stuff then again and again about russian or ucrain topics.
The binkov echo 🔊
Sounds like there is a company with a monopoly on crucial technology. The US should nationalize Northrop Grumman.
Communist
@@Jay-om8gr Actually, in the case of monopolies, nationalisation really isn't communist. "Well-regulated private monopoly" is essentially just pretending the state doesn't actually run it, and in Northrop Grumman's case, had it been nationalised circa time of the competition then perhaps it might be Boeing delivering the Ground-based Strategic Deterrant (currently known as LGM-35 Sentinel). I recall the US putting someone in charge of compliance, not that that worked out very well; but had Northrop Grumman been nationalised, then perhaps Boeing could portray it is the state being incompetent and/or corrupt, although there is the issue that a nationalised Northrop Grumman would have a serious soft power bonus in such a conflict. Still Boeing would have "US Government not honouring legal obligations" in its favour.
The free market is about competition and when you have a monopoly, you don't have competition so it really doesn't matter, nationalisation isn't reducing competition.
Also, I note that France is pretty good at exporting warships and that's considering the French state owns the shipbuilder that builds them.
I object, though what's a few middlemen between Fascists?
imagine arguing that you want more of your money be spent on nukes
Some weird audio noise starting around 5 minutes. Sounds like algorithmic noise cancellation, or background music punching through.
What's difference of who's got the better delivery system? When nukes fly, ITS OVER!
The big difference is that if it is shot down on approach, it will not detonate, it will simply fall.
@@FufuFufy-df8pknot a single country has close to enough interceptors to knock down all the warheads. The US has like 40 ground based interceptors. We have dozens more at sea on ships, but the ships have to be at a specific region of the ocean to even have a chance of landing the interception.
Russia doesn't have as many s500 interceptors as we have warheads.
You'd need 2-3* as many interceptors as your enemy has warheads. No one has anything close.
@@pierredelecto7069 We probably don’t have them, I’m talking about missiles that could shoot down US missiles, but in any case, the whole world will end in any case. It’s just that many Americans are 100% sure that bears live in nuclear mines in Russia, and nuclear submarines are fake, etc.
MAD isn't going anywhere because the correct adjustment for MAD is proliferation. Everyone's prepared for a direct strike and retaliation no one's prepared for 50+ countries or groups with WMDs distributed. It's a matter of time but other entities will, greatly assisted by advances in technology, obtain what you least want them to have eventually. You can slow down proliferation but once it crosses a certain threshold it'll be fireworks every month that no military can shield from.
That’s a scary thought. Suppose some strongman type takes over a country like Iran or Pakistan and just launches nukes almost haphazardly. The US and allies even China should make a decision to end this if it gets too far.
The real question is where these are going to be stationed.
Its mentioned in the video. They will be stationed in the silos where the Minuteman IIIs are deployed. It would a one for one missile swap assuming they are replacing the entire force.
That's not the real question, because they will be stationed in exactly the same missile silos that already exist
Sentinel is designed to be compliant with the START treaty, which ironically may not exist when Sentinel reaches IOC.
Makes me want to move to the Southern hemisphere.
Fair.
you should
$100 billion "here", $100 billion "there"... sooner or later it adds up to real money.
The republic has become weaker I fear, and we the people are ignorant to it.
Fix the lgbtq shit and most of the problems of your republic will ho away
@@ikramullah7370 Those animals are a cancer
@@ikramullah7370they might end up being our undoing, the abominations have made their way into parts of our military 😢
$100 billion is like a dozen missiles and a free french fries.
100 billion is more than alot of missiles 😂🎉? Why everyone wants to uses nuclear missiles! Pointless. The world has to much hate now. 100 billion dollars 💸 in housing + job's. People will be employed so it a good thing but humanity should be thinking about building better technology now . Cold war technology is doomsday technology
@@FredHouseholdyour not grown up so let me explain humanity- to are basic instincts we love killing and death and more important we humans love domination in technology or other means nuclear arsenal is just same thing,you can never get rid of are basic instincts
@14:23 "U.S. Parliament" ?!?
Your name is ironic to your comment
@@Retly_Ai How is it ironic?
Same thing basically😕 Both are fkd up😷
So over time and over budget. And not what is needed..
They should have asked Spacex to look into it.. Probably be 1/10 the cost.
SpaceX Falcon 9 is a liquid fueled rocket and takes 30 minutes to fuel. That is fine for a first launch application, but it too slow when missiles are already on the way to make a credible deterrent. That's the reason why all US nuclear missiles since Titan have been solid fueled. Plus liquid fueled rockets are much more complicated and require much more maintenance. An apt comparison is a muzzle loader vs a cartridge firearm.
No, he'd be better off in charge of a bipedal assault mech boondoggle
@@haldorasgirson9463 I understand completely.
My comment was meant to be more about the lack of competition and the presence of a monopoly ..and less about the engineering of a land based deterrent system.
That's is definitely not all the silos 😂
I'm convinced the old icbms don't even work anymore
The US launches multiple Minuteman III's every year. They definitely work.
Has anyone mentioned that we don't refer to it as "Parliament" in the US but as Congress? Just wondering because I've heard it in a few videos now.
Pretty sure because they didn't wanna copy the brits so they had to make something up.
@@liamspencer4941 Probably, but who really knows. Either way it's weird to hear someone say "the US Parliament". lol