Can Nuclear War Be Won?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2024
- Install Raid on PC/Mac for Free clcr.me/1FXFmP Start with💰50K silver and get a Free Epic Champion as part of the new player program!
We started a Podcast - Tac Ops - / tacops - or find it on any typical podcast location
If you'd like to help support me continue to create videos, you can do so here...
Patreon (Monthly) - / covertcabal
PayPayl (One Time Donations) - www.paypal.me/...
Discord - / discord
For Business Inquiries - gregr1251@gmail.com
Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
----------------------------------
Credits:
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommon...
The NATO Channel
Ministry of Defence of Estonia
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
KCNA - North Korea State Media
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
Install Raid on PC/Mac for Free clcr.me/1FXFmP Start with💰50K silver and get a Free Epic Champion as part of the new player program!
Covert Cabal can you please talk about loitering munition and all models available on your next video thanks !
Thanks +
I'm just going to inform people who don't know better - THIS GAME IS LITERAL GARBAGE. Don't download it, it has literally 0 gameplay value.
SomeOrdinaryGamers made a good video about it: th-cam.com/video/nGNMNXTSfxc/w-d-xo.html
@@Katniss218 Or, you could download DCS, if you are capable of handling it.
"Yey, get a free reskinned garbage champion that doesn't do anything"
Could you do a video on the cold war plans for conventional warfare during and after nuclear strikes? Both sides developed strategies and battleplans that envisioned fighting on nuclear battlefields, yet this topic has barely been covered by videos like these. It would be interesting to see a few declassified plans in detail, for example one italian alpini brigade supported by US troops would have bombarded the main roads of the alps with nuclear artillery shells but the warpac forces would have had to fight through nontheless. Those technical, strategic and psychological factors would be an extremely interesting topic to cover.
A video on general Cold War conventional warfare would be pretty interesting. Other than 7 days to the Rhine, there's not that many WP plans we know about.
Fulda gap and tactical nukes , after deployed they would rush the gap with mechanized units and tanks I guess..
I think that’s what Colin Powell’s autobiography stated and he was in control of that area for a while
Good suggestions, the tanks of that Era where cool too
Yea he should go over the battle plans in europe during the mid 80s, when USSR amped up it's military spending so much (14% of gdp) then it ruined its economy and caused the collapse of their own country lol. Apparently USSR was to strike and just take a fuck ton of ground while NATO just sat there and took it, would wait, and then just use tactical nukes and not really bother with serious conventional force counter-offensives.
Yes pls
Lol imagine the secretary of education having to launch a nuke
Edit:Thanks for the likes never knew it will go up this much.
"Are you ready kids ?"
@@nicolasjay1178 Aye aye, captain!
@@Belodri I cant hear you
@@Lion7ism who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
@@nerfinator03 SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS!!!
Nuclear War......
But FIRST.. raid legends.... Got bills to pay
"Shadow Man" enter the chat.
mikes gt lol wastes money
mikes gt luckily you can skip in videos I guess
What’s wrong with y’all he has bills to pay to 😂 like you don’t even have to watch it just skip ahead a few seconds but why you gotta be so entitled
@mikes gt but you can skip the youtube video, can't skip the youtube ad if it forces you to watch it. At least you don't have to deal with that part.
Nuclear war is like two sworn enemies standing waste deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five. -Carl Sagen
Sounds like a crazy way to torture somebody
What a beautiful quote. Respect++
"Mil-yuns and bil-yuns of light years away"- Carl Sagan
I miss Dr. Sagen. He was always interesting. I loved the series he did.
@@armadillotoe Pity he dead an atheist.
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." ~Joshua - Wargames 1983
We're talking about 'Raid: Shadow Legends' right?
Its defcon
Or make your last strike strong like we did with Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
I just got done watching this on TH-cam 10 minutes ago. It's one of the "free with ads" movies right now. Then this popped up on my feed. Little weirded out.
@@section8usmc53 They know what you want & when you want it. BTW I got offered the movie a few weeks back and watched it again. Still holds up this many decades after it was made.
1:50 to skip the ad
Much appreciated soldier
Thanks! ;D
Thanks
@SpyingDutchman He already did many Raid ads, I highly doubt any1 will download it because of him
@SpyingDutchman If you dont want the app, you don't want it. Not sure if his ad will turn someone whi's seen 400 of the same ad
I'm just going to inform people who don't know better - THIS GAME (RAID) IS LITERAL GARBAGE. Don't download it, it has literally 0 gameplay value.
Katniss yeah, we all know. But CC just got paid about $3k, I don’t support him financially, I just watch his videos; so I’m ok with him doing what needs to be done to make that bread.
@@radaroreilly9502 I'm not telling him to not be promoting this. I understand that people need money. I'm just trying to dissuade potential downloaders of this shit game.
Katniss did YOU try it?! Lol!
Also, now that I think of it, this entire video was was actually pretty weak for CC; it’s pretty obvious it was just about pumping out a vid so he could get the advertisement bucks.
@@radaroreilly9502 th-cam.com/video/nGNMNXTSfxc/w-d-xo.html
@@radaroreilly9502 I don't mind the sponsor, but dislike the script "I have a lot of fun with this game".
Short answer: No
Long answer: No
Short answer : no
Long answer : nooooooooooooooooooo
Only answer...NO
His argument is fundamentally flawed. Winning a nuclear war doesn't mean gaining more than you lost, it means ending up in a better condition than your opponent ended up. One side will always be better off than the other, and there are countless ways you can increase your chances of turning out the "winner", such as the inherent advantages of striking first, or increasing your civil defense program.
Yes, a nuclar war can be won. And if the total annihilation of humanity is not a win to you then WTF is your problem?
Nooooo
Covert, I'd love to see a two part video series on biological & chemical weapons. It could be similar to your epic two part on SEAD & EW. Comprehensively covering each, such as chemical weapons used in the past, their current state, and future trends. Then there's the biological side, which still remains a complete mystery to most.
Raid will advertise on absolutely anything it seems. Next, I'll see a sponsorship on porn.
I'm just going to inform people who don't know better - THIS GAME IS LITERAL GARBAGE. Don't download it, it has literally 0 gameplay value.
Since i actually do watch porn i would see that add for sure :)
😂
dalmar23 you won’t last 5 minutes playing THIS GAMe!?!
@@dalmar23 Since you actually do need porn, you will see the ad for sure. I don't need porn.
"Cancer!"
-sponsored by Raid Shadow Legends
Ahaha lmao, true.
As Arnold never said "It's just ah TUMOR!"
In reference to survivability of things during an EMP attack, I was told somewhere that Russia still uses many radios with vacuum tubes in them instead of transistors for this very reason. Not sure if it’s true.
It's true. They will use in aircraft too for a last options as comms.
They supposedly have EMP weapons, as do we. So, they should know something about it.
„It’s virtually impossible to win a nuclear war“
the one and only correct answer!
I mean the only way to win is to simultaneously destroy the entire military command, nuclear arsenal, submarines, military bases, intelligence officials and any potential secret arsenals in space or hidden in an underground silo...before retaliation can occur
As someone who lived through the '60s and served in the infantry I can tell you the only way to win a nuclear war is not to fight it. An exchange of nuclear weapons means the end of civilization as we know it. Why are you kids even talking such nonsense?
The way to win the game is to convince two other parties to play
… against anyone with missile submarines.
Technically speaking.
@@markdesjardins3153 So you are a child still who cannot argue with facts ...
If you have a wall that can withstand 75 direct nuclear strikes you would know better. Or just shoot all nukes down with ASD and if that fails you fire the gatling laser cannon. While your entire population is inside nuclear bunker complex's.
See? Easy win.
Some laughed.... some cried.... Many were silent
the rest were playing RAID SHADOW LEGENDS
I am become raid destroyer of shadow legends
In the U.K. 🇬🇧 the PM will issue last orders to all nuclear subs when he/she takes the job. Apparently there’s a letter in each sub with these orders.
There is soon as they take office. The PM in the case of the whole of the UK's annihilation give the commanders of the submarines the codes to launch an attack or they're given the choice to join up with the Australian, Canadian navies then the US navy. Aus and Can are part of the commonwealth and are seen as joined at the hip with UK. That's why they'll always become before the US navy in any decisions.
@@DavyRo Unfortunately the US is no longer a reliable partner.
UK nukes don't actually have launch codes or anything preventing them from being used. Somebody brought it up once and the answer was "are you questioning the sacred honor of a royal navy officer ?" So yeah they don't really have that problem.
@@pspicer777 You win the most ignorant knowledge less comment of the week award!
@@MrSmith336 Hmm, my observation is accurate. Would you dispute it's veracity?
"Do you want to play; Global Thermonuclear War?"
But first, play RAID SHADOW LEGENDS!
Nah I prefer tic tac toe
How about a nice game of chess
No! Checkers ! Checkeeeeeers!
Nuclear weapons are simultaneously the most ineffective and most effective weapons ever developed. They are never used, however, the threat of their use prevents any large-scale global wars for decades to come. When groups advocate for their abolition, I find it ironic. If you abolish global nuclear deterrence, then you open the door for global conventional/biological warfare. Global nuclear deterrence is the reason why we have not had any global warfare after the second World War. As stupid as it sounds, if we all have large weapons that are able and targeted at each other constantly, (edit) large-scale, superpower vs. superpower (edit) conventional and biological warfare will not happen.
Until we can agree on a better governmental system, this seems, to me, the best agreement possible.
Best comment.
Ten points to Ravenclaw?...
They are never used? What about Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan?
@@ritchesusanjason about to say.....
@@ritchesusanjason By "never used" I think he means that there has never been a nuclear attack since then, considering the massive stockpiles nuclear armed countries have. That is pretty much the only time they were used in combat, and never again. It showed just how deadly these weapons are. No other nation had the capability to nuke another but the US at that point in history. Now, that is not the case.
Nukes against Japan mark the first ever use of nuclear weapons. Additionally, these nuclear bombs were much less powerful than contemporary thermonuclear weapons. I'm not discounting their use, but it was basically the prototype testing of nuclear weapons.
Also, it isn't about nuclear deterrence. US was the only nuclear power at the time, and they came into it during wartime. So the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is completely different than SOP during and after the Cold War.
Nowdays, if a nuclear power used their weapons against a non-nuclear power, that would be unacceptable and could even incite a global exchange.
1:52 beginning of video
Depends on what you mean by "Won".
I remember a cartoon from the '60s of a soldier walking in a battlefield where everything is destroyed, with no people or buildings, total devastation. The soldier haggard and blackened, torn uniform with a caption that reads "WE WON"
An eye for an eye makes the everyone blind. Winning mean having one eye, so that at-least you see something ;)
Defeated the enemy without retaliation.
@@xShadow_God This argument is fundamentally flawed. You rarely gain more than you lose in a war. Winning a nuclear war doesn't mean gaining more than you lost, it means ending up in a better condition than your opponent ended up. One side will always be better off than the other, and there are countless ways you can increase your chances of turning out the "winner", such as the inherent advantages of striking first, or increasing your civil defense program.
@@kaidanielson5956 I wasn't making an argument. OP asked what he meant by won, I replied with the definition they used in the video. They say that winning is attacking and destroying the enemy before they can attack you. Sounds good on paper. But I doubt the ability to conduct such an attack in reality.
It would have to be one of the most perfect attacks in human history. You'd have to hit hundreds of hidden targets in a very small time-frame. Take too long or miss and you fail. You and your people, along with the enemy, and possibly the entirety of humanity is doomed. A stupidly dangerous/risky game. Not worth the prize.
Imo, the only way to win is to prevent nuclear war. If we can't, there will be no winning. Only death and destruction.
While you're secure in your bunker enjoy a game of RAID: SHADOW LEGENDS. Now available on your Geiger counter!
Hilarious and depressing at the same time.
Pipboy...
NO Covert Cabal has been sucked into Raid shadow legends Deep Pockets....
😈
People will do anything for money. Raid averages about $3k for a shoutout.
Whatever. He got money out of it so good for him. Anyone with a half of a brain will ignore this raid shit and just continue to watch rest of the video.
yeah like what if he only got 1.5k from raid? thats worth like multiple videos of adds, and would allow him to spend so much more time on his vids
I don't mind, our boy is getting paid and thats all i care about
Imagine being the secretary of agriculture being asked if you want to launch nuclear missles.
And then be the ACTING PRESIDENT of whatever is left of the country after that, if you live.
"Target their silos, gentlemen!"
"The missile silos?"
"What, are you stupid? The grain silos!!! We must destroy the farms!!!"
There are no winners in a nuclear confrontation, only survivors.
Well, all players of this game are in the north hemisphere, so the winner will be all in the south hemisphere...
@@efxnews4776 So long as they stay out of the prevailing winds for a few months.
You can win in some cases. Infact the only time when nuclear bombs were ever used in a war, the attacker won! Now, if you are talking about today, it is still possible to win a nuclear war against less powerful countries like Pakistan and North Korea. This is mainly due to their inability to retaliate strongly. They may not even have long range missiles! But, anyways it is best to avoid nuclear war for all parties due to the unacceptable destruction caused anywhere in the world is bad for everyone in general.
Bestoids Bro do your research we have completed our nuclear triad few years ago. And we routinely exercise with our nuclear forces which includes missiles with range upto 3000 miles and also we regularly make cruise missiles just go to ISPR you'll know what I'm saying.
North Korea does have nukes now. Also they may not have the stockpile of the US, but I'm sure China and Russian wouldn't take to kindly being on their borders and all.
North Korea? Unless you count Seoul and other south Korea turning into nuclear waste as "winning" then you are right. North Korea doctrine is flatter South Korea if U.S was to even fire anything close to water pistol near its border.
User Name Right now the biggest threat we face is from India not Russia or USA. I mean right now we are on pretty good terms with both countries. So that's why don't have a strategy against them but if ever threatened then remember there are several American bases in the area near us and also most of the Russia is also in our missiles range.
@@muhammadhumzariaz3875 People who claim others need to become researcher always have no actual research to show for, lol!
I wish the video went into anti-missile schemes such as THAAD, SDI, etc to shoot down ICBMs in flight.
Yea Reagan is kinda dead and burried by now? '-)
Well done, Sir. Very well done. Thank You!
As a Physician, I once volunteered to undergo training to become competent in rendering medical and surgical care to treat military as well as civilian survivors of nuclear accidents as well as thermonuclear explosions. I have found that the consequence for adults surviving a nearby “airburst” detonation of a modern thermonuclear explosive (the vast majority of which have yields far in excess of the horrifically effective explosions used to kill/incinerate the civilian populations of Hiroshima - 15 Kilotons @ 580 meters ASL, and Nagasaki - 21 Kilotons @ 503 meters ASL) are horrific to even contemplate. And the consequences for unborn children and any other child are gruesome.
Sadly, I hear civilian elected men and women in most governments, and military leaders in those governments, state that “limited nuclear strikes” do not necessarily imply that such actions (which I personally consider to be unconscionable acts of Gewalt) would lead to escalating nuclear “conflict”. But what many so-called “leaders” do not share or discuss openly are the short and long term effects of nuclear explosives on the civilian defenseless population. Merely contemplating the effects of nuclear explosions on human beings, nature, and global climate (the latter never discussed and catastrophic in and of itself) gives me nightmares.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts and perspectives on your channel.
Salome (Live in Peace) und, Mögest du weiterhin im Frieden und SEIN der Schöpfung leben.
Preis sei der Schöpfung, der Weisen, der Gerechten.
Dead hand reminds me of Dr. Strangelove lol
I did not see Dr Strangelove until last year! Such a great movie, I dont know why I didnt watch it sooner!
Russia's 'dead hand' is based on the concept of a 'dead man's switch'.
@@CovertCabal You need to watch the movie Fail Safe from 1964 . It is in my opinion even better.
@@danielwalicke6635 Right on !
Dr Strangelove is a Cultural Icon , I have watched it many times, there is a good video on how they made it and chose the actors here it is th-cam.com/video/XfJTld0baG4/w-d-xo.html
I think the UK system is good, we have a letter of last resort on each of our 4:subs, when the sub commander confirms an attack he opens the safe and read the letter from the PM to tell him what to do. Options are 1. retaliate 2 don't retaliate 3 hand your sub over to a surviving friendly nation. OR 4 commander to decide for himself.
The analysis is almost reassuring. Any read of Daniel Ellsberg, the Doomsday Machine, the situation is a lot more scary and much tenuous for starting nuclear war
Dont you just have to make your enemy think a different enemy launched a nuke? That way they mutually destroy each other then your enemies are weakened if not eliminated
The early warning network can track the source of the launch, so that wouldn't work.
@@mickeyg7219 Nah over 18 billion containers enter the US annually. Less then 8% are checked. That would be 200 megatons in a major US city easily.
Can you explain how your magical non named 'early warning network' can detect that? Is it a real network or from some videogame?
@@MrFlatage
I'm pretty sure I said "launch." ICBM produce a lot of IR radiation that can be detected by satellites. Early warning network is comprised of satellites, ground-based radars, air surveillance and spies. It's nothing hi-tech, what so unbelievable about it?
Nuclear terrorism can't be detected as easily, but who know what the intelligence services are up to?
@@mickeyg7219 K so since you failed to name anything we can assume your 'early warning system' is in fact a fantasy at best. Very unbelievable.
You even mention magical 'intelligence services'. Ofcourse if one existed they would know? lol!
Or anyone who can hack them ... Not that hard with some agencies. Or just walk onboard a US carrier and hack their stuff inside the nuclear reactor rooms. Easy.
You do realize everyone educated know for a fact that conventional ICBM's do not produce alot of IR radiation. ;-)
@@MrFlatage
Without the early warning system, the world would ended before you were born, because there would be no way to identify the source of the missile and how many there is. The early warning system is what allowed one Soviet officer to draw a conclusion that the "nuclear attack" from the US is in fact just a scientific probe from Norway.
"Think carefully on your choice if you choose to fight if you choose war it is a path few turn from Once the first steps are taken it carries with it a terrible price and in the end you may find you have nothing left to sacrifice".
- Kreia, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II
You could still 'win', depending on your goal, as long as they didn't know where you are and/or you're out of their reach...
especially if you have no assets/population to worry about from them...
So terrorists, basically.
@@hydrochloricacid2146 they could be, depending on ones perspective, but there are some much more organized party that could foot the bill...
The answer is extremly simply. "NO"!
To think some country can win a nuclear war is sick, unrealistic and a dream imagination. It does not happen ever if humanity will survive.
@Covert Cabal Good work (as always). Keep it up mate.
Except it has already been done. The US won a nuclear war back in 1945.
And theres always a winner, in this case, if the powers in the north start a nuclear war, the south hemisphere nations will be the winners...
The question is, if preemptive strike would eliminate stationary silos and land mobile launchers, woul SLBMs be enough to overwhelm the ABM defenses?
Invent something like a *Neutron Jammer* . It suppresses nuclear fission reactions by blocking the movement of free neutrons.
Aron Flip I guess it would be some type of device that stops neutrons from bumping into each other
Aron Flip also it could be a missle that intercepts a icbm or bomb and then stop neutrons
Aron Flip or a wave like a emp
Actually, hypersonic missiles can't do the same, they can hit the target before it hit you...
I NEED a Covert Cabal & Mark Felton Productions collaboration video.
I just got done watching War Games 10 minutes ago, and this pops up as soon as my TH-cam home screen pops up...posted 25 minutes ago. What the hell ?! 😳
Illuminati dude.
@@gibbsm 😆
EMP and Nuclear weapons detonated in the upper atmosphere not only knock out electrical systems but also disrupt communications during my time it was known as a blue out. If you can not communicate you can not give the order to launch. That leaves the submarines but then they have to be at a certain status before the CO on his own will launch.
Best channel. Ever. Don’t argue. Thanks
The DoD has many first strike options and plans. According to some, a nuclear war is very winnable.
The answer to your thumbnail title question is “No, It’s Impossible, Humanity will be Extinct after that.”
CommandoDude the radiation can still kill a populated area even when it’s away from the blast wave. And nuclear radiation destroys land and contaminates it for centuries. It’s echo systems will be affected by this. My point is nobody wins a nuclear war.
Extinction? Lmfao, ever seen the show “Doomsday Preppers” there will always be at least a good few peoples left.
I'm surprised that you didn't mention missile defense. It's widely acknowledged that missile defense would be useless in preventing a first strike (it would just be overwhelmed) but it could potentially stop a retaliatory strike. If the first strike was able to take out most of the enemy's nukes it's possible that the remaining ground and submarine nukes could be intercepted. Of course this is only works for the one that strikes first, which is why it can be argued that missile "defense" is actually an offensive weapon.
Try reading “Command and Control”. It scared the hell out of me.
Can Nuclear Weapons provide Full Spectrum Deterrence ? For example a limited military action between two Nuclear armed nations.
Short answer: no
Long answer: nnnnnooooo
the answer is yes. The Soviets believed, correctly, that they would win a nuclear war with NATO in the later part of the 1970s. Nuclear winter is exaggerated in what the Soviets called "Bourgeois Pacifism." Mutual assured destruction is not talked about in Russia. America is highly casualty sensitive. The USSR could absorb 150 million deaths and still emerge victorious.
*Japan wants to know your location*
5:01
All other nuke countries: Set complicated authorization system to prevent terrorists for launching their missiles
US during cold war: Set minuteman password to 00000000 so anyone can launch in case of communication failure
remember Threads that movie scared the shit out of me
If a nuke hits a nuke power plant then it vaporizes the spent fuel into the atmosphere. People have to maintain the sites too. I think they reaction would stop after the power was lost but you would still need to keep the spent fuel cool, so an EMP might cause a failure in that then the spent fuel would catch fire and release into the atmosphere.
Nuclear missiles submarine enters
"NUCLEAR WIN" LEFT THE CHAT
McNamara gamed this out countless times during fractious meetings with the Joint Chiefs. Took him months to finally get a hold of the war plan from the Pentagon and when he did it was little more than a typed sheet of single A4 with any and all nuclear exchanges resulting in global thermonuclear war. And throughout his time in Kennedy's and Johnson's administrations he made very little progress amending it.
Raid? smh
Same. But you know, people need money :/
Its true. All the same, we gotta do it to em
Bunker-builders think nuclear war can be won (by definition). Russia builds bunkers not just for leadership, but for citizenry. Russia believes nuclear war can be won.
Damn bro I understand you gotta make money, and I enjoy your content but a 2 minute Raid Shadow Legends commercial? 20% of your video is a Raid Shadow Legends ad read...
Why not just skip the ad?
@@jkl9984 IQ check? Room temperature?
@@Atreid3s ah. I guess you didn't get the memo, that you can skip to 1:52 and just continue the video.
put your name in patreon list to have rights saying this
I fail to comprehend the logic of this proposition - any exchange would result in an escalation of missile launches. Each atomic explosion would release enough radiation to affect life on earth. So the real question is - since the newer atomic bombs are 100's of times more powerful than those used in 1945, how many bombs does it take to poison the environment to the point of no return ? It is in fact a loose loose strategy - nobody can survive the spread of radiation.
define "win" first, please
In the case of nuclear war, I'd say winning would be crippling the opposing nation through nuclear strikes without being hit by any counter strikes. For example, the minor nuclear war that occurred between the United States and Japan in 1945 was the US winning a nuclear war.
Yes, you can win it, so long as you don't allow a mineshaft gap
Raid Shadow Legends is a scam and you should be ashamed for shilling for them.
My strategy to win a Nuclear war would be to have my Spy agency infiltrate the enemy's nuclear arsenal and sabotage it as discretely as possible, so that in the event of a Nuclear launch, it would explote in their faces. Unscrewing a Bolt here and there, putting gum or C4 in some places, hack into their electronics, etc. It would be multi year effort, but totally worth it.
Maybe burry small briefcase-size tactical nukes near known nuclear launch sites.
Only if you pronounce it “nuculur”!
Also, shilling for RAID sHAdow legends? Get that Chinese money!
There has already been a nuclear war. Japan conceded.
You do understand that is a stupid statement right? I expect you to think again what you just said and correct it.
Yes. Nuclear war can be won. There are several strategies. All of which must be completed within 3 minutes. The biggest concerns are the ones you can’t see or don’t know about. You’d defence is just as important as your offence.
Actually... both the USSR and the USA had a technological advantage over each other at periods of time which would have won the war for them.
The only thing actually stopped them for doing so is the unwillingness of committing mass murder at the scale of exterminating the majority of the population of a large country, and its allies.
Only humanity can stop genocide, there is no weapon, politics, or religion that can do that for you.
video starts at 1:52
I survived a EMP event. A lightening strike into a tree 100ft away. Damage to wall wart power supplies and to a garage door opener. An atomic blast 100000 ft away will not have any electro magnetic effect. Its physics the destructive power is dispersed by 1/(distance *distance). So now its 1/1000. Feet away or 1 million in the power. Nothing to see here.
Listen and take it it heart people. "It is virtually impossible to win a nuclear war." And even if it was it would be no consolation to the millions of people who die during and after (remember that a lot of Japanese casualties died after the war was over.) God have mercy on us all.
The best/only way to win a nuclear war is to have silos buries in enemy territory, so you can shift the optics away from yourself. It'd be incredibly risky to have nukes just standing by in an enemy nation's territory, but could actually work.
A huge question after that is 3rd party analyzing; in such an attack, there could be an array of 3rd parties called in to verify the government's claim that they didn't authorize the attack, so you'd have to somehow bring said government to such a high degree of national security alert that they'd ultimately be left to determine that there was a rogue member in the chain of command.
Looks like raid went back to the time tested method of carpet bombing with ads
The problem is, every world leader has their own idea of what 'winning' is. Eventually, under some circumstances, some megalomaniac is going to say, "The current situation is absolutely unacceptable to me. Let's blow it all up so that either a) I'll feel more in control afterwards; or if not, at least b) _they'll be sorry_ ."
I don't think either Pakistan or North Korea have a second strike capability. Not sure whether Israel has SSBNs or not.
Nuclear weapons can only be used as a deterrent but they have no use in actual warfare. In fact, if you are a very conscious person, you will understand that in many cases, for the future existence of the human race, it is better to even lose the war than use them.
Good old Nuclear Triad...always remember people saying we could win when I was a kid. Pretty crazy.
Launch on warning.
"Launch on warning" translation: Launch 'em or lose 'em.
Totally depends on your definition of winning. I don't think I would want to be declared the winner of a nuclear war that left my country in near complete destruction.
The massive nuclear fallout, destruction of the ozone layer and the nuclear winter would make any victory a Pyrrhic victory.
I'd say the first one to destroy the other capital, and then immediately attack all known missile silos will have the best chance. If you kill the president/dictator, there won't be anyone to give out orders for at least 45 minutes, which is more than enough time to take out other known targets. Any unknown missile silos that have not been destroyed will definitely retaliate and fire back. However, with less missiles ready to fire (due to the destroyed missile silos), anti-missile weapon systems could probably take most of them down (since there wouldn't be an overwhelming number of nukes coming).
It depends on what a nation defines as "winning". Nuclear weapons are the ultimate statement of political will for a nation. The question is how much damage is the nation willing to accept to "win". If your nation will be the "last man standing" and the casualties "acceptable", it might be worth it.
Nukes?
The Theater of Deception.
" I've never known a weapon of war created by man that was not used repeatedly against his brother. "
There are at least two countries with known tactics that contradict this logic.
1. Russia, operation Zapad: nuclear EMP bomb on western germany, thus ruining the supply routes of NATO towards the east. Russia conquers Scandinavia and the Baltics. Western european nuclear powers (France, England) get such a moral shock with 60 million starving Germans on their doorsteps, that they do not risk a nuclear retaliation with a counter attack on their own soil. If Trump ruins NATO, this might work.
2. North Korea: detonates one or two nukes over the pacific, showing their abilities. Also they let the world be sure that they have enough nukes (about 100) for strike and counterstrike. No Ko demands the surrender of South Korea or threatens to nuke the US. If the US does not want to take the risk, the plan might work.
It is al too convenient to believe that bad things just won't happen. This sounds like "covid 19 is a Chinese problem, it will never hit the west".
It's good to know that this responsibility isn't solely on one person, this will stop one lunatic from ruining my day.
The third most powerful person in the world is the captain of an Ohio class nuclear submarine
Er thats the thing, im pretty sure not being able to have a war because of nuclear weapons will just make the people who are that way minded just adapt to become more inventive. We could be in war now without even knowing it.
Generally, no, you can't win a nuclear war, but if you redefine winning, that might work. A nation nuking another nation is pretty much out, but as an example, a terrorist organisation trying to set off a handful of bombs while remaining undetected might be possible, and they could count that as a "win" for their cause.
Even if one was able to circumvent an opponents deterrent the dentation of more than 100 Fat Man or Little Boy sized weapons would create the effect of a Nuclear Winter. Some estimates place the number as low as 10, which is the expected weapons use in an Pakistan and India conflict. So, MAD has an additional defense that is not widely known, at least by your channel.
The USAF ICBM Force is aging and does not need a replacement. SLBMs and bombers are more than enough for deterrence
Dear Covert, I have seen a lot of your videos and I'm very impressed! How do you research your topics? By the level of details and consistently great information, to me it seems like you are an insider.
One word: "Perimetr", which is Russian for "nyet".
"We've never had a nuclear war." Sorry, I gotta call bullshit on this one. What do you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were? tiddywinks? We were in a war and we used those nukes to help finish the war sooner. But that was nuclear war & look at how Japan had to submit. But they've shown us as they took our motto of constant and never ending improvement and become a financial superpower.
Winning maybe with a way to intercept incoming missiles, surviving yes. The people of a nation would have to have the "Mind set" of surviving. The nation would have to build underground shelters as well as food stuffs, medications and doctors, security forces, etc., etc., etc.. This would only be for essential people. The rest of us would be on our own like in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This question in the video title is the most dangerous and irresponsible line of thinking. Nobody wins in a nuclear conflict because it further irradiates our planet for future generations who will learn in their history books about the foolish apes would ruined their chance at a good future. We have truly opened Pandora’s box and our human disposition is now capable of ending this wonderful experience of being alive
Nuclear war I believe would start with tactical nukes until one side is losing and decide to take chance going all out nuclear war.
The one who has more disposable nuclear missiles left after all out strike would win.
Russia should be in a favorable position due to its vast terrain to hide.
Like any other form of weapon, its HOW, an WHEN such a weapon would be deployed . . . a "Very Strong" Surface to Air Missile system will be needed to "Protect ones rear", from retailation . . . but it COULD be done !.
The environmental fallout of nuclear war would probably cause human extinction anyway. So even if you "won" the battle you would still loose the war.
1:52 skip the forced ad.
The only real way to guarantee a win is to possess enough ballistic missile interceptors to lower the number of missiles that can get “through.” All these scenarios are against the Russians, but what about against a smaller nuclear power with a lower number of nukes.
Oh no!!!! There goes his soul. I hope he keeps making his excellent content. Keep up the incredible, well narrated, unbiased, entertaining and informative videos.
To answer that question will probably depend on which countries who starts a nuclear war. The US against North Korea? Pakistan? India? What capabilitys do these countries have for a second-strike against the US?
You can argue that these states have no capability whatsoever to wage a nuclear war against the US.
I doubt that you had fun with "Raid: Whaling Legends", but you definitely had fun researching about nuclear warfare.
Cabal: "Just so you know this video is going to unironically entertain the notion of starting a nuclear war. I know advertisers can be wary of being associated with heavy topics like that, so I just wanted to ask up front if that would be a problem for you."
Raid: "No lol."