The Danger of Low Yield Nuclear Weapons
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2024
- Video Sponsored by Ridge Wallet:
www.ridge.com/...
Use Code “COVERTCABAL” for 10% off your order
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
"nukes... are bad. But first let's look at wallets."
Mr Knight “these wallets can withstand nukes”
he dropped raid shadow legends like we asked tho so i'm not complaining
@@colonelstriker2519 for $105 usd it better
M B Each view of a TH-cam video pays approximately 0.82 cents to the producer, although that specific number depends on a multitude of factors. So on average,About 25,000 views to make $200.
Mr Knight smooooth transition
"You shot a nuke"
"Just a small one go cry"
wrr, bix s or not doesnt matter
.
Where's this reference from?
Zes Exactly.
About 17 kilotons
"for example, if Russia were to invade an eastern European country" aged like fine wine
7 months later and this comment is even more apt. With Russia failing so significantly in Ukraine and lacking in conventional weapons they could resort to firing low yield missiles at city centers to force a cease-fire.
5:29 I think they’ve already started ☢️this week
since the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia has actually abandoned eastern euro countries Maybe even too much
this video was prophetic. look at the explosion in tver this past week...
5:31 "For example, Russia against an eastern European nation..."
Yeah about that....
😂😂
oops, accidently almost copied your comment
Sponsor time: Ridge wallet. Ever wanted your wallet to survive a nuclear holocaust? Buy Ridge wallet.
Cockroache's choice.
@@JonatasAdoM 🤣🤣
@@JonatasAdoM lol
Am the upcoming dictator of middle East ( holocaust 2.0 soon )😬🌚😬😬
@@albinrezwan1999 who are you going to bomb ? Which country you going to be a dictator of ?
It’s still a nuclear weapon… no matter how big it is.
It’s like if me and the neighbor are throwing rocks at each other, then he pulls out a small .22 handgun and I pull out a .50 BMG
He pulled out a firearm and so did I, it’s not my fault the enemy went for a small gun because he thought it was a small escalation.
I fully agree. Small yield nukes is a terrible idea.
Wicked 1323 flawless reasoning to start a nuclear holocaust.
I think the reasoning behind this is to have more missiles, that can still do a lot of damage. This makes them more of a threat as point defense and interceptor missiles will have to deal with more missiles if they are deployed in a swarm attack.
The reason small yield nuclear weapons or tactical nukes exist is to attack enemy formations inside your own territory without destroying the area they are in...or if your own troops are near the enemy.
@@JonAfrica-vg7xq Yeah, and when they are destroyed, you realize that you have contaminated your own territory with nuclear materials, rendering it uninhabitable and unusable for decades at the minimum.
MAD falls apart the moment someone thinks they can "win" a nuclear war.
There are no winners in a nuclear war.
Other than those vaporized or otherwise killed instantly, I would agree with you.
4th generation nukes - most people would never know they had been used.
Yes they ate nuclear weapons allow a country to destroy a enemy nations military without having to invade and kill millions of more people than the amount of people that would die in a nuclear war also mutually assured destruction and nuclear winter are myths the radiation and fallout of nuclear weapons only last 14 days and modern nuclear weapons are actually a lot cleaner and release less radiation than old school nuclear weapons like Hiroshima and Nagasaki also Russia and China have been building up their nucleur stockpiles while the United States is disarmed more than a third of its nuclear weapons to the point where Russia now has three times the amount of nuclear weapons and Russia and China have at least ten times the amount of conventional weapons that The United States has and it’s interesting than the media and government don’t have a problem in starting unjustified and unconstitutional wars in the Middle East yet when we want to go after real enemies like Russia China and North Korea than the media and the military industrial complex will accuse you of being a warmonger and wanting to start a nuclear war and I’m sick of people criticizing The United States for its nuclear weapons yet their is not a peep of criticism directed at Russia and China who unlike Iraq Iran Afghanistan Syria Yemen or Libya are actually real threats and they actually can take on the United States military
During the Cold War the Soviet Union had 70,000 nuclear warheads and the United States had 50000 nuclear warheads now United States has 8,000 nuclear warheads and Russia has 10,000 nuclear warheads Russia has always had more nuclear warheads then the United States and yes a nuclear winter does exist and it will definitely happen if all those weapons are detonated it would put so much fallout and debris into the atmosphere that will block the sun for over 30 years and nothing will grow and we will all freeze but that's only if all those weapons are detonated in a nuclear exchange. Making nuclear weapons Smaller and more tactical is actually very dangerous very very dangerous because some idiot will actually think that the world won't care if you use a small one I'm pretty sure the world will care if we use a small one.
The danger also includes the fact that should the USA use these and still not trigger a full-blown nuclear war, there is still the danger that using low-yield nukes would normalize their use. The next thing you know, adversaries are deploying them against the USA or allies. The best thing to do is to not use these weapons. Perhaps have them, but not use them.
The USA was the first to vaporize fellow humans with Nuclear Bombs, and the first to enact a benevolent world power structure, they will never fall behind because they realize if they give up any ground, they are doomed.
The United States Military can wipe out every adversary on our Planet with Ease, and then pick off the "Dead Man Switch" nukes like a game of Whack-A-Mole.
@@iinRez uhuh, with what?
@@iinRez with patriots like these who needs terrorists?
@@iinRez lol.. you must be smoking the same stuff as hunter
@@iinRez I dare you to call the power structure benevolent on the ground in Guatemala City, Port-au-Prince, Ouagadougou, or Hanoi.
CIV 5: "Our words are backed with nuclear weapons!" -lmao so are mine.
Gandhi Moment
@Charles Yuditsky 80 cities? Demn son
@John Smith compared to every other life threatening disease?; covid is a joke
@Charles Yuditsky lol got to love steamrolling the AI with ICS
Fk are you geeks on about? Lol
Dude you just spoilerd the 2020 ending.
*sweats in December*
Nope we good, except that we don't know who's actually running the WH anymore
@@intraterrestrial5035 close enough...
@@intraterrestrial5035 I’m pretty sure we do. He’s been in the white house for the last several weeks. Anyone who doubts the claim the Biden is president by now isn’t using many of their brain cells.
ok so couple of points I would like to bring up
1) The deployment of Nuclear weapons isnt just a scale issue but also a political decision as the side to first use a nuke of any yield will face international condemnation and risks loosing allies
2) As you pointed out, low yield nukes already exist including medium range missile delivery systems in play meaning a new generation of low yield long range missiles simply continues that aspect of the paradigm rather than contributing to a marked shift.
1) This argument is false. The USA was the first country to use nukes (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). They did not face international condemnation.
@@1schwererziehbar1 Your right they did and that was before we even knew what radiation really was, back then it was commonly believed you could just brush it off with a broom like any old dust and be fine. Since then the world has learned a lot about Fission and its byproducts, which combined with general public opinion on their use means anyone going first strike with nukes is in for one hell of a time politically.
International condemnation is overrated. See covid-19’s international condemnation hardly deters China.
Yeah, looking at the melted toy marbles in Hiroshima really puts a sour taste in the mouth.
@@EmpPeng2k7 They _did_ brush it off with a broom. People came back to Hiroshima pretty much immediately. Of course they had to rebuild the houses, but ten years later, the city was back at the population it had before the bombing. A nuclear bomb is not the same as a a nuclear power plant. A nuclear bomb is just thousands of conventional bombs condensed into one very expensive bomb. It also releases a lot of radiation while it explodes, but not afterwards.
Will a Ridge Wallet protect my cards magnetic strip form the EMP from a nuclear weapon?
Moab's Washpot lame
Yes but you'll be glowing green so it will not matter.
It has been a year and you still say a few months ago I started using ridge wallet!!
Although I hope he says it again but in a video on biological weapons because I never seen a clear demonstration of their effectiveness or if they work at all.
@@wowfmomf6126 which video
Jack Robert he hasn't made a video on biological weapons yet I was asking for it.
I guess a year still is a few months
😂😂
Dont these low yield nukes have more "dirty" fallout?
I don't know, do they?
yes they have more fallout per kiloton, so they have lest fallout over all but is not a liniar relation
Depends on how you build them, as I understand it.
I think it also depends on what type of nuclear material you wanna use, cobalt for exemple produces a shit load of fallout, but it will need to be heavier than a conventional plutonium one if you want to get the same result.
I’m not an expert I recommend that you check if what I’m saying is true.
First, there is no clean fallout. It's all bad, whether irradiated air or sea water or whatever.
How much dust fallout you get depends mostly on how close to the ground it explodes. Higher it explodes, less ground material is irradiated. If you explode it far underground for a test, little or no fallout is released.
Another major point I think you missed out on was the implications of fallout. On larger warheads the fallout is usually sucked into the stratosphere and is generally lost. But with smaller warheads the fallout is usually worse. Meaning that while smaller warheads produce less destructive damage, they do present more ecological and prolonged damage through fallout.
Although I may be wrong, I am not a nuclear scientist nor a strategic intelligence person. This is based off my knowledge from being on the internet.
If they would go from conventional to nukes , how long to go from small nukes to large nukes?
Its like saying I,m only going to get her a little bit pregnant.
1:43 That woman falling distracted me
6:01 Having played C&C Generals my whole childhood, that shot brought back some memory.
Man the Trident is such a mean looking ICBM
so you havent seen the sarmat 2.
SS-18 Satan Mod 6 with a yield of 20 Mt.
All ICBMs should be pointy; pointy is scary.
@@Redsauce101 it has to be pointy - General Aladin
The Titian II is way scarier. One rocket: one nuke: one city destroyed.
the worst type of nuclear bomb is the enhanced radiation weapon (neutron bomb). just hearing and reading about its effects make a standard nuke look merciful
These puppies just got stationed in Guam, see you after harvest.
Well that, plus 7 submarines redeployed forward into the southwest pacific, an aircraft carrier putting to sea by Japan before finishing it's maintenance cycle, NORAD/NORTHCOM blast doors sealed, etc.
I think he's referencing that China is playing with fire.
Came here to compare with the Beirut explosion.
Same here....sure as hell looked like a low yeild.... especially the blast wave...not many can emit such power...
look for "Shot Baker" or "Crossroads Baker" nuke test.
I big reason for the decline of high yield nukes it's that they are really inefficient, they may have a big blast radius, which helped compensate for low accuracy guidance, but they spread most of the energy into the atmosphere, specially with air burst triggering. Given modern highly accurate targeting systems it is much more efficient to target enemy installations or infrastructure with a spread of lower yield nukes instead.
They are also inefficient with their usage of the uranium or plutonium too, as a lot of the material doesn't go through fission and just ends up as a waste product dumped into the environment. The materials required for fission are also very expensive and difficult to acquire so using such a large amount of it in a single weapon is a huge waste of such a rare and valuable resource when it would be better to use less of it and in smaller warheads
I survived the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. I only have a few more years to go, and then the world's going to have to get along without me. Good luck ya'all.
this aged like fine wine.
Anyone here because of the recent Ukraine war changes?
Minds of men who seek power,
over imaginary lines On the earth's surface
May end up scorching everything we love because they can't let go of old ideas.
And forget how much In common supposedly different people have.
In the low yield nukes from the past department I am surprised that you did not mention/show the Davy Crockett battlefield nuke.
He did mention nuclear artillery and I'm sure that's what the Crockett is
Apollo11011 I just looked them up, the Davey Crockett was the smallest of the nuclear artillery peices, it fired a 10 - 20 tons of tnt equivalent warhead from one mile to about three miles and a few were mounted on Jeeps meaning very small. Looks about 5 feet or six in the photos with warhead mounted on the blaster.
'Atomic Annie'is a bit larger (massive really) - 280mm special artillery peice which fired an 800lb nuclear shell six miles, with about 15kt blast. Later on, a couple varients of nuclear shell were mass manufactured (couple thousand each) then USSR and NATO and China followed suit. Thankfully those arsenals were dissasembled in the early 90s. (hopefully with a God-like thoroughness)
What a facinating topic
@@louisimisson9065 Yeah, tactical nuclear weapons are pretty interesting. Almost all American, and Russian, weapon systems had a nuclear option, such as:
Mark 45 ASTOR torpedo,
RIM-8 Talos surface to air missile
AIR-2 GENIE air to air rocket
Mk 101 Lulu depth charge
406mm W23 naval shell for Iowa class battleships
155mm W48 artillery shell for standard 155mm howitzers
Special Atomic Demolition Munition SADM basically a nuclear satchel charge
BGM-109A Tomahawk standard shipboard cruise missile
RUR-5 ASROC and UUM-44 SUBROC anti-submarine missiles
Lieutenant Danielson Wow thanks for the info I didn't know that. By the way, the Iwoa ships had 406mm guns!?! Thats shocking, imagine whitnessing those things in barrage. Do you know much more about them?
I've heard of Shwer Gustaf and the paris gun with their 100ft barrels and 60 mile ranges, their 2 - 4 tonne shells and their ludicrous muzzle speeds from the world wars - I'd love to know how the Iowa guns compare to them
5:32 this hits different in 2022
Normal bombs are generally aimed at military targets. Nuclear bombs are primarily aimed at civilian targets. They truly are cruel bombs.
Nukes are aimed at both, as well as infrastructure.
@@NickFrom1228 nuclear are aimed at both, but typically because the blast is so large it destroys both.
I’m rewatching this after the start of the Russian war on Ukraine and I wonder if there is a new video in the pipes about nuclear weapons (especially tactical nukes) given Russia’s saber rattling about potentially using them in Ukraine. I hope it never happens but who knows with a madman like Putin and his fascist regime?
Everyone is reasonable, but if Islamist Jiahdis take control of Pakistani Nukes, That will be a real nightmare for the world. We have seen these people are crazy, what they did with Kurds in Syria, burning alive and throwing humans from top of building. scary indeed.
I am the part of an East-European nation invaded by Russia. We were, and still are afraid of possibility of Russia using its tactical nukes against us.
How are things going for you now?
@@mill2712 Me personally - surprisingly cushy. I’ve got a country house in the middle of nowhere, 90 km to the west of the capital. I own a quite large goofy dog, so I could not stay in Kyiv with all those movement limitations and sheer aggression to my pet.
During the first three weeks of the war, I could see smoke and explosions on the horizon from my little countryside lodging. It was horrifyingly pretty, like a vicious thunderstorm, only red and orange. It’s been quite serene during the last couple of weeks.
Now, even when the enemy retreated - the road to Kyiv is still closed for repairs and recovery of bodies. From time to time, Telegram channels publish random images and videos of uncovered mines and dead civilian bodies. It is very chilling, when you see corpses scattered near familiar roadside cafes and gas stations.
Yesterday, my neighbor drove off to his condo in Irpin (near Bucha). I’ve got to ask how is it there. All I know is that his apartment doors are torn off, and the flat is robbed.
I can only pray and quiver, when thinking of the fate of the people in Mariupol.
Feels like the beginning of a second cold war
I say double down and start making antimatter bombs
"The enemy cannot retaliate if the Earth has been destroyed"
*All hail the Glorious Imperium of Planet Musk*
🇵🇸. 🇼🇪 🇭🇦🇻🇪 🇨🇦🇹🇬🇮🇷🇱🇸
@@UncleWermus Antimatter bombs would be too expensive to mass produce, so not effecient.
@@cinemaclips4497 You only need 1
@@cinemaclips4497 You don't make the whole bomb antimatter, you use antimatter to ignite a fusion secondary.
@@UncleWermus Praise Lord Elon :prayer:
Other than cities, super high-yield nuclear bombs, such as Tsar Bomba and B41, also had an important role in defeating ultra hardened targets such as command structures. Examples being the Cheyanne Mountain Complex and SAC Headquarters. Of course they lost that role when low yield, earth-penetrating, and highly accurate bombs were introduced.
There is no need for nuclear weapons such as the Tsar Bomba, not with meter accuracy ICBM's, unless the goal is to kill millions at a time through air-bursting them above populated areas or detonating one in space to cause EMP across a continent.
Someone said "what's the point in a Tsar Bomba unless you want to level a mountain" and I finally realised maybe that was the point of it.
wow, this video is incredibly relevant today
There is a huge quantum leap between the largest conventional bombs and even the smallest low yield nuke. I understood there were strict laws controlling these weapons in the US.
5:31 a bit relevant now...
And one more thing
What most people seem to think about a nuclear exchange is very much wrong, ie a city or whatever target would be hit with one bomb and that's it. No no, every target be it a city, missile field, military base etc... would be hit with at least 12 weapons. Each and every weapon used would have a yield of 100 kilotons or more (Hiroshima = 10-15 kilotons Nagasaki = 18-20 kilotons). So if the Russians decided to hit New York their plan was/is to use 25 warheads and let's say 10 get through, each of their nukes has a yield of 300 kilotons, so 3000 kilotons worth of boom, reducing all of NYC and surrounding areas to an autoclaved wasteland
Throwing around nukes will end badly for everyone. Both to those involved in the conflict and those who are not.
I once saw a vid where in an interview a nuclear scientist once remarked that a nuclear grenade is entirely within the realm of possibility but what unlucky soldier would be the guy to chuck it?
@Charles Yuditsky T H O O M P "Alright guys, clamp your peepers!" I mean, who the hell would pass down the opportunity to put radiation warning symbols on their rifle? :D
Nuclear satchel charges are a thing. Give the soldier time to walk away and it changes everything.
@Charles Yuditsky There's this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
Would be most effective with a Dead Man Switch in a volatile enemy meeting. MAD
Just hope the enemy doesn't throw it back to you.
Nuclear strategy evolves with technology. When they had low accuracy nukes were optimised to destroy entire cities, it was the balance of terror plus the destruction of the political system and the civilian infrastructure needed to support a war effort. Under this set of circumstances you could have an adequate deterrent and not bother with an arms race. However as accuracy increased it became possible to target the enemy's weapons, so-called 'counter-force'. Once this happens it becomes a game of leap frog with a never ending arms race. The side with the numerical advantage 'wins', if inhabiting a poisoned world counts as winning. Eventually weapon accuracy becomes so great you can destroy the enemy weapons without using nukes (Precision Global Strike). At this point the danger of a nuclear miscalculation becomes very great.
This narrator forgot to mention that China n Russia has been working on this type of arsenal as well n both claim to have perfected hyper-sonic missiles. Russian Genral has stated that he believes his country can win a limited nuke war with tactical nukes. This video was biased in my opinion in that it did not address China n Russia both having the same and are continuing to develop n improve on what they have developed.
whats hypersonic?
@@zeezoo6174an object with sustained speed more than five times the speed of sound.
The thing is that the USA is by far the most likely to use them . Russia doesn't have the will and budget to fight any war and China is strictly against military deployment outside of its borders. Neither of all those argument apply to the USA.
@@dekaaizer2550 being strictly against war outside your borders is a policy that is only a policy until it isn't
@@dekaaizer2550 It’s a good thing China keeps expanding its “borders”, then, huh?
Could a conflict in the South China Sea lead to Dr. Strangelove remake?
I want that so bad! love that movie! (not a war though that would be bad.)
I am sure I would hate them both.
Samuel Fischman if you truly love that film you would know that a remake would be impossible. Dr. S stands in a category all its own.
Go away hollywood. Stop stealing ideas
Yeah, but all the major characters would be women and nobody but leftists would watch it.
"With the recent..." WTF are you talking about, we've had mini nukes since the 1950s. The Davy Crockett was the the size of a foot ball and designed to have a dialable power range of 10 tons to 1 kilo ton. The bloody thing was so small it had an anti tank recoilless rifle to deploy it. Do your research man.
Ever seen footage of them blowing up? No. But somehow we had cameras that could sit right inside of the blast when we showed other "footage"... people will really believe the dumbest shit.
For reference, the blast in Beirut was ~5 kilotons.
2
2 kilotons
What about super ultra mega low yield nuclear weapons? We could strap them on the backs of ants and they could destroy an enemy's house... brick by brick.
Genius !!!
"....for example, Russia against an Eastern European nation, that the US would respond with low yield nuclear weapons..."
Very close, but no cigar. It's the USA that will soon have to decide whether to respond to RUSSIAN aggression and possible use of tac-nukes. Because once Ukraine has fought Russia to a standstill AGAIN in the Donbas, I think Putin will use them...
I wonder if Putler would think twice on invasion if Ukraine still got its nuclear missiles.
Chances are anyone reading this is against Putler, after all, 141 nations voted in the UN against Russia, only 5 actually rejected the condemnation.
Chances are you are all for peace, too. But thinking how Ukraine was swindled to give up its nuclear arsenal, with many assurances it wouldn't need it,
the irony is bitter in my heart.
No one is a Sage
But
Once one start a war
One should also know
War can't be contained.
And here I was thinking all nuclear weapons were targeted at killing the most civilians possible.
Well, they are it's just kept hush hush. Citizens are merely resources to Governments and all wars are Resource wars. Elections, Diplomacy, Representatives - these are all illusions. The World is controlled by engineering, scientific, and military Institutions that have figured out how to trick the masses into dedicating their focus to the games called "Politics" and "Economics". *We are a domesticated species in a Zoo. Nothing more.*
A real risk comes when in a conventional war, there’s an imminent loss by one side perceiving such to be absolutely unacceptable. The losing side having tactical nukes might well choose to deploy them.
Russia perceives failing to prevail in their incursion into Ukraine as such a loss. There’s much debate about Russia’s motives, yet there’s a credible argument that Russia maintaining an adequate non-nuke proliferated border from NATO nuclear missiles near its border is essential to Russia’s national defense. This frame of logic is identical to America’s hardline stance during the 1962 ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’, where the world was very close to a nuclear holocaust, except where now the tables are now turned…the West being the aggressor seeking the upper hand.
I see a couple of problems with the comparison. First, Ukraine wasn’t actually a threat and wasn’t being actively considered for NATO membership. Also, even if they did join NATO, it doesn’t mean that nuclear weapons would be stationed there. The US stores some nukes in only or handful of European countries. But it’s not even necessary. This is why comparing today’s scenario with Cuban Missile Crisis is flawed. Back then, delivery systems had a much shorter range and accuracy. That’s why parking them so close to the US was an issue. It changed everything. Today, the US could hit targets in Russia accurately from US soils as well as from aircraft, submarines, and land-based sites in Europe. NATO simply doesn’t need Ukraine as a place to keep nuclear weapons in order to strike Russia. So parking keeping nuclear weapons in Ukraine would change nothing.
There's another danger of low-yield nuclear weapons that you didn't mention: Low-yield nuclear weapons don't get hot enough to "burn clean", so they produce more fallout per ton of explosive force. The Tsar Bomba was actually the cleanest in-air nuclear explosion in history, because it got so hot that it consumed most of its own fallout. And that was _despite_ 1 of the 3 nuclear layers in the bomb being replaced with non-reactive lead! So while it did melt an entire freaking glacier in a single instant, it didn't pollute the surrounding area very much.
Actually it was because 98% of Energy came from Fusion. It had the same fallout as 1 Mt pure Fission bomb. Given that to add power, you'd need to change the lead tamper with U-238, this would change to additional 50 Mt produced by fission.
The real danger is, low yield warheads make it economically feasible to hit a hundred targets for the price 20, if you just develop a multi-warhead missile with room enough for that many. More warheads of course also mean a greater probability of overwhelming the enemy defenses with more warheads than they have interceptors for. Smaller warheads can also be made faster, which makes them harder to hit. Now, if you can hit 100 targets for the price of 20, doesn't that also mean you can afford to target smaller cities, in stead of just hitting the large ones? Yes, im stead of just hitting cities with a population of 500k or more, you could also hit every place that has more than 50k people, which of course would make the war a lot more devastating.
3:47 "But with the RECENT development of low-yeild nuclear weapons by the U.S." 😂
Interesting video, especially given current world events
The Tsar bomba caused outrage in the Soviet Union? I'd like to see the source for that.
Andrei Sakharov quit the nuclear program and became the USSR's leading anti-nuclear activist because of the Tsar Bomba test.
Old days were better when weapon meant swords
"this sponsor was absolutely perfect for me all I had to do was bs about their product for 20 seconds and they actually paid me money."
YT channels need sponsors, since YT ad revenue is so shit. Cut them some slack......
You don't complain at Superbowl ads or any other BS ads you see on TV.
Mycel I mean, it’s better than RAID: Shadow Legends
@@dust1077 exactly. at least a fancy moneyclip is just that: a fancy money clip, which has a market and presumably doesn't charge microtransactions every time you use it.
3:11 Hey man I live on Guam
lol
Deal with it 😎
it would be bubble guam
Sergio Martinez Thank God for THAAD
BYE BYE Rob!!!
If your country is invaded and you use low yield nukes to eliminate that invading force on your own soil, does that constitute escalation? If you attack another country with low yield nukes, being nuked is inevitable. Several long range surface-to-air missiles (Talos, Nike Hercules, Bomarc) used nuclear warheads to counter attacking bombers. Using nukes within your own airspace and within your own borders as a defensive measure creates plenty of room for discussion.
That's an interesting twist.
Shit Joe good point
Didnt russia begin using tactical nukes with the Iskander missle
Yes, this channel sounds like an FSB maskirovka agent.
Another problem is wasn't really mentioned is that not only human operators can't distinguish between low-yield and high-yield nukes, automated electronic defense systems can do even less so. Dead Hand or Периметр detects nuclear strikes through light, pressure, radioactivity, and seismic sensors. For the system it doesn't matter if it's a low-yield or high-yield nuke, a nuclear strike is a nuclear strike. And from information that's accessible to the public (which is fairly little) the response of the system is unleashing the whole ICBM stock or at least what will still be left of it. Since the existence of this system leaked out into the international public after the fall of the Iron Curtain, it's a logical assumption that the PRC has at least started to build a similar system if it's not already operational.
Called Dial a yield. How much Tritium gas is in the pit is the dial.
Russia has nearly 2,000 low yield nukes for bombs, missiles and shells. The US gave up most of ours many years ago. We have about 200 low yield gravity bombs, about 100 stored in NATO countries. The low yield warheads on sub launched ICBMs was an attempt at redressing the relative deficiency we had. However, you are correct in that if an ICBM is launched, Russia would have no way of knowing whether it contained low or high yield warheads.
I come to this channel for the doomsday background music and the guys voice 😄
Sagar Rao
Sexy voice .... makes me tingle all over ....
Tf😂😂😂
How about the wallet
@@Kelv_Nganga 😄😄
There is something unsettling about calling a nuclear bluff and leaving your fate in the hands of your enemy...
This did not age well
Why?
surprised you did not mention the variable yeilds
The B-61 thermonuclear bomb has a variable yield from 300 tons of TNT to 340,000 tons of TNT, the B-61-12 low-yield guided bomb has a maximum yield of 50,000 tons of TNT that can be reduced all the way to 300 tons of TNT. This weapon can fit inside the B-2 and the F-35, and can be carried by many other U.S. aircraft as well, and in a war with China, they will be used. That will result in 5 megaton Chinese hydrogen bombs evaporating every large U.S. city.
@@Heliotail possibly, but the use of low yield weapons does not eliminate MAD. If our cities get erased, so do theirs.
Russia invading a east European nation 😐😐
The ridge wallet plug helped me out and I actually ordered one with your code. First time I actually listened to an ad.
2020 couldn't get any worser right?
it's still young. The autumn will be everything but boring
2020 will eventually get better and 2021 will be great.
Worse*
Russia was the one who came up with the idea a small nukes. The US is following their thinking, which they have to.
The USSR floated a lie because they thought it was technically impossible. The USA then built the device.
I have actual whiplash from the ad transition
Ridge Wallet: A proud sponsor of nuclear weapons of all sizes
I'd guess the reason for these weapons has something to do with the law of armed conflict. It's hard to justify the deployment of a weapon that will destroy an airbase and the nearby city, and send huge clouds of fallout onto an innocent bystander nation when you can deploy a weapon that will only destroy the airbase.
Ultimately, I don't think these will change the calculus for MAD very much. If you go nuclear, you've gone nuclear. Even with smaller warheads, you risk the majority of your government and military being turned to ash in hours. I think the biggest impact of these is the most apparent: In the event of all out nuclear war, that war won't be quite as world-ending as such an eventuality was in the past.
If you use it to end a regional conflict, other superpowers won’t get involved.
the problem with low yield is that it doesn't require president with the red button to start using it, leaving it to some regional commander, which increases risk of accidental nuclear war 100x times. That's exactly the reason nuclear artillery was decommissioned in the USSR.
I think it's far better to be armed with these small yield bombs, since it provides an alternative to all out nuclear war if a conflict were to start. I think the possibility of fighting a conventional war would provide a much better option for everyone than total nuclear annihilation.
You're missing one of the points Cabal is making, once you cross the nuclear threshhold, do you think you using a low-yield nuke, is going to stop a country from nuking you back if it doesn't have access to these lower yield nukes? Whatever nuke you use, nuclear war will follow, and will quickly spiral into MAD.
In what scenario would you ever be forced to choose between initiating a hopefully limited nuclear war versus initiating a total nuclear war? I can't see how low yield nukes could ever _avert_ all out nuclear war, but it's very easy to see how the exact opposite could happen.
@@broworm1 While I agree it definitely does pose the possibility of escalation to MAD, to answer your question as to whether or not it would stop a country from nuking back I still stand by my point that it probably would. What would said country gain from nuking back with high yield? A retaliation with high yield nukes on them. While it could cease an invasion I doubt many people would argue occupation is worse than annihilation.
When Poland declassified the USSR's "7 Days to the River Rhine" plan it showed that the USSR planned to still fight a ground war with limited tactical nuking even after it was assumed they were attacked first. I guess very few people know what NATO's plans were or what anyone's plan is now but i doubt total destruction is top priority.
All that being said I agree that crossing the nuclear threshold would bring tensions to a whole new magnitude and predicting the actions of the few people in control is near impossible and no scenario can be ruled out. I just don't think MAD is the most likely.
@@wfjhDUI The scenario in which an enemy used low yield nuclear weapons, where the options to counter attack would be keep fighting conventionally or use a large yield bomb. To be clear I think the world would be a better place if nobody had low yield but it would be naive to assume that so we as NATO should be armed with such devices to deter their use as with large scale, since their use by us would most likely result in their use by the enemy.
@@Epicalogical That logic cuts both ways, "Russia and China would be naive to assume NATO isn't stockpiling low yield nukes and so Russia and China should stockpile their own low yield nukes."
It's also just an unreasonably pessimistic take on diplomacy and weapons bans. Do you believe all previous nuclear weapons treaties have been pointless failures? e.g. Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Nuclear Test Ban treaties, SALT, START?
Low yeild nuclear weapons? Is that like a Snuke?!😂
Low yield nukes can avoid more bloodshed by quickly eliminating key enemy positions in a single move.
Something like the SADM would be perfect for that.
You need to make sure the enemy doesn't also have low yield nukes. Russia has them, I'm sure China doesn't so you have to calculate on the escalation created.
I know the Soviet Union had “perimeter” (death hand) in place. They say Russia still operates it, it’s a good deterrent against this small nuclear weapons. If the enemy wipes all your positions and you have “Perimeter” activate, it would automatically respond with a full nuclear attack on the enemy, no need for permission from chain of command.
What’s gonna happen next, if you already wiped out the enemy government and military. But Perimeter responded with a full nuclear attack, will you then respond with a full attack like in the Cold War scenario or just take it, since the only people left in the enemy territory are civilians.
The argument is that if low yield nukes are used, what will the enemy use in retaliation? You may be able to destroy enemy positions quickly, but that does not guarantee the destruction of enemy nuclear weaponry, and their will to use them in retaliation. It really is quite a precarious scenario.
... and then what? Whoever you just nuclear bombed is going to be chill and understanding about it?
This Opinion: "Works great, smaller scale, should do the trick without causing too much trouble"
CCP: " *nukes are nukes* "
Just so that you know USA was all prepared to use a nuclear bomb against N.Korea during Korean war.
those madmen only know war and death since the USA was created.
1:14 to skip wallet ad. Your welcome
I think one of the major implications of a shift towards the production and proliferation of low/ultra-low yield nuclear weapons' of sub 5 (or even sub 1) kiloton is the fact that it would be easier of non-state actors to acquire. These low/ultra-low yield nukes would be theoretically produced in relative bulk due to the need to hit many more tactical targets combined with a smaller amount of fissile materials need for production. This in turn increases the likelihood of losing a nuclear weapon and/or one being acquired by a rogue/terrorist group, especially if more unstable nations such as Pakistan or India engaged in this production. And again these would be far harder to detect in order to prevent an attack due to the reduced radioactive signature combined with a (relative) hyper-mobility.
More of them in existence, the greater the chance non-state actors will either be furnished them, or they will steal them, and rebuild them into bombs they can plant in cities or better yet, a nuclear power plant to create enough nuclear fallout to kill the population of entire states.
Perhaps you could explore the issue of nuclear weapons being smuggled into countries by adversaries, thereby bypassing missile defenses.
I believe that high yield nukes were never meant to be used on real targets but rather as an intimidation weapon to prevent the enemy from ever launching an attack, take the tsar bomba as an example, that thing did not have any realistic uses in a real conflict unless one wanted to obliterate an entire city like new york
uh oh
TH-cam just recommended this video again, and...
5:30 "Russia against an Eastern European nation"
I'd rate that one a solid welp/welp.
More Nukes less war 👍
More people should know about the neutron bomb. You drop that sucker on a city with a lot of people, all you’re gonna have left after the flash is the city.
us drops 2 nukes on civilians:
meh
USSR makes a bomb strong enough to blow up most cities:
oUtRaGe
I don't think breaking out the nukes is taking it to the next level . It would probably be final level
I saw this and was like
"Hmm yes"
*The nukes here are made out of nukes*
I think another good point to make is that once that seal is broken and we do use a small one that doesn't necessarily mean they have to retaliate with a small one.
Less likely? No, it's actually... More than likely. With tensions rising tactical nuclear weapons are the first resort, not the last. We've gotten that stupid. And, it isn't to much of a freaking unrealistic scenario.
Instead of 10% off you can buy a ridge wallet from AliExpress for 10% of the cost of the ridge wallet. Your just paying for marketing.
There's nothing new about low-yield nukes. Small rockets and artillery shells with a nuclear warhead with a yield of only 10s of tons were fielded in the 1950s.
This is the worst threat to the future of humanity; a low yield nuclear weapon is a tempting option but would almost certainly cause the enemy to escalate to total nuclear exchange.
The problem low yield nuclear bombs, is that one soldier could carry one, and after arms arms limitations treaty , they will not on the list, small, and impossible to count under the arms limitation treaty, impossible to verify
Small tactical nukes have been around for a long time and what makes them more dangerous is the fact that because they're small, commanders are more likely to use them........ which is worrying.