Can Nuclear War Be Won? Nuclear Strategy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2024
- Go check out kommandostore....
Sign up for their mailing list and get 10% off first order!
For Business Inquires - CovertCabal@Ellify.com
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
Names at the end are of supporters at Silver Level on Patreon, and $10 or more on PayPal
If you would like to have your name kept private, feel free to send me an email, or contact me through Patreon
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
creativecommons...
I heard an interview with a military person who was involved with the targeting of these weapons back in the fifties and sixties. Some of the reasoning of why they were targeting 69 weapons in one radar installation was because they had nothing else to do with the extra weapons so they just doled them out across the target lists. Madness.
No since in letting them go to waste.
I remember where I heard this. Hardcore History podcast by Dan Carlin. If you like military history (and a lot of you probably do if you’re subscribed to this channel) then you owe yourself a listen to Dan.
@Will Bailey
Don-2 radar is a key part of A-135 anti-missile system. It's obvious that the system supposed to hit some number of warheads. That is the cause of large number of warheads targeted to it.
And it was built only in the 1980s. So your version sounds like an urban legend.
@@Noname_NoID perhaps, if I remember right he was quoting some guys book from the Rand Corp but my memory is hazy. I’m also sure some of the targets sure did require multiple warheads. It also sounded like they had more warheads than targets? But I’m just an armchair lover of history not an expert.
No it’s because the president said I want you to choose a number of nukes to f**k up their radar. 69 was the only sexual number they could think of.
The 50s and 60s was an era of nuclear fetish, the military created everything from nuclear artillery shells to nuclear mines, portable nuclear cases and the Davy Crockett mini-nuke launcher. Great video as as always.
Nuclear energy too, which had useful purposes. They even attempted a nuclear-powered car and home, but those didn't work.
They made a nuclear hand grenade too, but no one was willing to throw it 🤣🤣
Soviets designed an atomic freaking rifle
Davy Crockett, otherwise known as the crew autoimolation device. Seriously, who came up with the idea of a weapon which would likely kill it's own crew as well when fired?
dont forget radioactive bullets for assassinations
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play..."
"Shall we play a game?"
But that is wrong though. Only winning move is being able to play and choose to not to.
More like, "There is no winning move, but if you don't play, you've already lost."
old ref... I wonder how many people know where it come from....
The greatest victory in battle is one without injury - Sun Tzu.
Nature uses intimidation all the time.
As awful as nuclear weapons are I'd think that disarmament is a fool's errand. With so much at stake I wouldn't want to rely on my enemy's word that a weapon isn't in the inventory. The old saying of "all is fair in love and war" comes to mind.
Доверяй, но проверяй
@@Strangebyrd sorry dude, I can't read Russian.
This is true.
@@michaelhowell2326 He said pratatak, pretetek.
@@inertiaforce7846 i should have elaborated more. I don't read, speak or understand Russian.
"I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one"
(Julia Kelly, Movie, The Peace Maker 1997)!
Hey , you talking about me
@@BBwal umm,
NSA,CIA,FBI,FDs and PDs would like to know your location
Well,the UN,EUROPOL,INTERPOL,USMC,US DELTA,SAS,MI5,MI6,MI7,MOSSAD and the anonymous would also like to know your location.
*Choose wisely*
The same can be said about a person buying a gun and one bullet
@@xrhstospex8106 US Delta force and USMC doesn't really have anything to do with weapons security. Neither does the SAS unless you mean capturing WMDs from enemy combatants. MI7 also doesn't exist. And anonymous is a bunch of redditors who pretend to be hackers because they took one class in Java.
@@iamunamed5800 for starters,US delta and SAS deal with terrorism soo,ehh.And one big WOW for the Mi7.I was expecting at least a reference to the UN because they really cant do anything,but oh well.I guess i am left out of options here.I will come back with more information another day,but for now,bye
There is a factual error in this video. The bomb type used during the Trinity Test was NOT used twice in Japan. The first bomb we dropped was "Little Boy" dropped on Hiroshima was a different type of device using they called a "Gun Type" fission method using Uranium 235. The Trinity test was required because it was an experimental implosion type using Plutonium instead of Unanium 235 they didn't know if it would work or not. In Japan the implosion Bomb was called "Fat Man" and was dropped on Nagasaki.
@John Smith meanie 😤
Wow karen
Also they didn’t have enough uranium for a test. They had enough plutonium for a test, so that’s what they went with.
@John Smith Not the sharpest tool in the shed.
@John Smith Oh look, a TH-camr made an error. So you thought it was ok to open your mouth and say some rude af stuff? You offered nothing of value other than demeaning someone. Very impressive.
a covert cabal video with a good snack is some of the best time i have in my life
*cabal
Always keep a snack handy so it can be eaten and enjoyed one final time as the nukes are launched.
@@MajorT0m Lol hope i can go to the nearest mountain to watch it
An underrated comment
A stizzy pen included and yes best time in my life as well
69 warheads for a target, means one might get through. It just goes to show how important and well protected the site is.
The weapons don't all arrive at the same time so it's an attack that is constantly hitting the target to prevent communications, to prevent a surviving missile launch and like you said interception although it's though unlikely. The nuclear strike would be timed launches according to their location from the target to constantly hit the target over and over again.
If that didn’t work they were going to step it up to 420.
The Netherlands know that at the end of a nuclear world war they can build their global empire again.
With sticks and stones.
Why the Natherlands?
@@lukemurray4950 watch the video
Posadism with Dutch characteristics.
@@bezahltersystemtroll5055 what video? I did. Why can't you explain it?
@@Carl-Gauss man of culture
well this did age well
It just got interesting.
Not really it’s just been empty threats from deluded wannabe dictators
What a great time to get this in my recommended.
French nuclear strategy doctrine during cold war was fairly simple. Any invasion on the french soil by the USSR (or any other nuclear power) would simply be answered with nuclear retaliation.
Is the maginot line nuclear proof?
...you know, that's not a bad policy. If you know the USSR's military is bigger than yours and conventional war/diplomacy is all but hopeless, might as well get straight to the point.
It's like a bee with a stinger -- they've got one credible deterrence, they know they'll die if they use it, so they're brightly colored to deter attacks in the first place.
That’s sooo stupid, if France was invaded, at most 20% of the French population would die, but if they did their little suicide pact ‘strategy’ would cause 90% casualties on the French side, not to mention the rest of the world. What is it with the French and absolutely terrible military strategies.
Except America they have American bases there
@@tomsoki5738 It's not. Would you risk invading them knowing that they are going nuke you in retaliation? I wouldn't.
"How would nukes be used?"
I'm gonna go with 'briefly'.
"How should nukes be used?"
1- Stuff a nuke up the ass of each and every politician on Earth.
2- Detonate them all.
3- Enjoy a world free of war.
4-..........
5- Profitsssssssss!
Fun fact: the US wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Libya if they actually had nuclear weapons.
ROFL
Covert Cabal, 2020: Ending Nuclear War
Covert Cabal, 2021: Nuclear Strategy
I'm fine with this. I am completely happy with the way events are unfolding.
Under-rated comment.
Covert Cabel, 2022: The beginning of a Nuclear War
@@defendmoon6813 lol, no shit..what a timeline
Yeah really
Originally, nuclear weapons were viewed as simply more powerful conventional weapons. However, the destructive potential of nuclear weapons increased and wargaming studies showed a very strong tendency to escalate to an all out nuclear war regardless of how limited the initial use of nuclear weapons. The speed of the escalation once started was such that de-escalation would be almost impossible.
Weird that this video was recommended to me at this very specific time
Same..strange it is.
Last time I was this early Operation Unthinkable was still considered as a valid option
Can you imagine observing a civilization that detonates weapons of mass destruction on their one & only planet? That’s probably why UFOs started popping up after these nuclear tests.
the market with popcorn in local stellar neighborhood probably skyrocketed
Whoever uses them could be in some serious trouble, possibility we are being monitored and it's possible they reside here on earth living in Earth's oceans, and their technology is far superior than ours and if they showed themselves we would realize how horse and cart we are compared to them.
@@robertlangley687 By that logic all the underground nuclear tests must have really pissed them off...enough to never show up.
Seriously.. I think they actually stopped us from destroying ourselves
Thank you for this quick tutorial on winning a nuclear war. Really appreciated.
I'm taking notes as I type. This video went from theoretical to reality really quick.
You cannot win a nuclear war even if your side stands you likely won’t survive the coming fallout followed by nuclear winter it’s called mutually assured destruction for a reason they’re not just talking about the explosive itself
@@Chris-rd2pv MAD developed in a world where the superpowers had thousands of high yield nukes; which are powerful enough to throw radioactive material into the upper atmosphere and cause nuclear winter. Nuclear doctrine has changed through the decades and most nuclear weapons now are tactical in nature. Tactical nukes aren't powerful enough to cause nuclear winter and there aren't enough high yield nukes anymore to cause nuclear winter. We're more at risk now of nuclear war than we ever were during the Cold War, imo.
@@Chris-rd2pv bro this was a joke
@@Chris-rd2pv im very aware that nuclear war can't be "won" and would lead to death for both parties. Me saying I appreciate the tips given is just meant to make fun of the fucked up situation we are in and the fact, that none of us have any control over the outcome of a war on this scale. We really can just hope that no idiot up there will start a nuclear war anytime soon. This type of humor is called sarcasm and is oftentimes not understood by people like you.
Yeah, the US target selection got pretty much overboard as time went on....
While I don't think we need thousands of nukes, I do believe they have advanced our skill in diplomacy a whole lot.
Not realy advanced more like froze, borders and nations have barely changed since the collapse of the USSR, this is not a system that can go on forever and it's very disfunctional long term.
@@golagiswatchingyou2966 you seriously use "borders not changing" as a counter-argument to nuclear weapons? laughable.
@@danielsteger8456 not sure what you mean, I´m saying borders aren´t changing much anymore due to the nature of mutually assured destruction, two things can happen long term with this system in place.
1. the deterrent breaks down due to new technology be it defence based or offensive, in the process making war seem more likely as result.
2. the threat of losing power and desperation or fanaticism of ideology or religion causes the rise of irrational governments to risk nuclear war despite the immense losses for everyone involved.
there is no way to avoid one of these things from happening long term and people are not aware of them, governments too are becoming to used to the long peace and simply assume nuclear war is impossible when in reality more nations than ever have them and some have even gone missing, we should pray that option 1 happens and we just have a massive war instead of allowing option 2 to become a reality.
thinking this current system can go on or will go on forever, is delusional and naive.
@@golagiswatchingyou2966 this is a terrible argument.
1. the deterrent breaks down... lmfao. governments are extremely concerned about the maintenance of their ability to promise MAD and will go lengths to preserve it. look at hypersonic weapons, the whole point of them is to bypass defence mechanisms. look at STATUS-6. ability to MAD is of upmost importance to the security of the country, atleast for nuclear capable countries who dont rely on a larger power for peace.
"making war seem more likely..." this is flawed thinking. the risks are still the same: complete destruction of the planet. just imagine this:
"president, we have developed counter-nuclear weapons! now instead of 99% of the country completely destroyed, only 85% of the country will be leveled. perfect time to start a war..." if you unironically think this then you are a lost cause.
2. ah yes, the argument of irrational leaders. this reminds me of some child sitting in front of the TV breathing heavily because believed the empty words of some fat leader across the pond. doesnt matter who is being talked about. Kim jong un, taliban, china, iran, etc etc. fact is, leaders arent retarded. they have atleast some idea about strategy, and they know full well what nukes are capable of. and if they dont, their allies will let them know. you think china, north korea's only ally, will just let him fire ICBMs? so where are the nukes? i dont see any bombs falling out of the sky.
and imagine, even if there is a leader who wants complete death of non-believers, you think he is unaware of how a post-nuclear 3rd world country compares to post-nuclear USA, russia, china, etc? he would know his religion would be completely wiped out. so he would pursue other means of spreading his beliefs, that atleast preserves his religion.
@@danielsteger8456 you assume human beings, societies and religions are way more rational than they tend to be and remember im saying this in the long term, long term as in between now 100 years +
I never said that if it only destroys 85% then wars would suddenly happen, you are saying that, I'm saying bringing that number down to 0-1% would make that event far more likely and as technology keeps advancing the idea that nothing will ever stop an ICBM is the same logic people used in ww1 thinking nothing is ever going to outshine the horse or the rifle armed soldier, today we have things like advanced AI, robotics, next generation fighters, let alone in the near future, the USA alone and Israel have advanced missle defence systems and are trying to develop better ones, it's not hard to imagine at some point the defence and counter attack systems become better than the ICBM's used today, we are simply extending the usefullness of ICBM's by making them faster, what happens when someone goes into space and places weapons like it above the world's head? it just seems naive to think this can go on forever.
as for child sitting in front of the tv, that sounds more like you, trying to make childish insults and comparing real rogue nuclear states (which already exist today) aren't going to become a more common thing, you might not know this but places in the middle east might consider getting nukes if Iran gets them, Japan could become a nuclear power because of the threat of China, India and Pakistan also have nukes and hate eachother the only thing that's preventing them from engaging in open warfare is the USA world system and the fact that they aren't sure if they would win such a conflict, now add in potential new players or terrorists gaining the ability to make nukes or weapons like it and you could see a world that spirals into desperation, fear and thus irrational behavior.
everyone knew going into ww1 and ww2 would destroy most of their own and enemy nations and they had plenty of people saying the people on the top that would be the case and they went along with it anyways because that is the nature of human civilization and how wars happen, most of human history is waging wars or preparing for the next war, the only time this did not happen is when one side becomes so powerfull that forces others to not wage wars, as the USA becomes less powerfull, other nations catching up to them and more internal problems keep dividing people that will lead to more irrational governments and you only need a few of them to do something stupid to start a world war or just a large global conflict on a smaller scale.
some religions have death cults in them or end of the world visions of the future, for them killing everything and everyone is the goal, most of the world is becoming more nihilistic and out competed or controled by technology, the idea that such cults and religions would not rise to some degree again is very naive.
now look if you don't care about any of this and want to pretend like this little bubble is going to work forever then go ahead, I just think it's very naive and will probably not be very usefull to have when shit hits the fan.
The problem with deterence is currently shown in Russia, nuclear countries can be as aggressive as they want and invade other non nuclear nations. This is going to unleash a nuclear arms race and the weapons will fall into the wrong hands for sure. Nuclear weapons are aggressive not just deterrence.
Building nuclear weapons isn't cheap and isn't easy. Even if you have everything to create them you still need to enrich the Uranium or other radioactive fuels to the point that they can be used as weapons. Biggest part of nations don't have money and technology to create them at all.
U.S. pretty much has full immunity for all our human rights violations.
Video Beginns at 2:14
Have a nice day
I love your videos. Thorough and informative but not boring. Keep up the great work
He repeats the same info in every video that is about nukes.
How is that informative?
Basic history
The Netherlands voted against getting rid of nuclear weapons?
*eyes Netherlands suapiciously
Nuclear weapons preserve the status quo.
All NATO countries (even those that have no nuclear capabilities), Russia and China voted against.
Dont know the actual reason but what i'm guessing the reasoning was that theres no way you can expect everyone to go "oh yeah sure let me just never use the weapons with which i could end or prevent a war". If a dictator rises to power in some country and decides to build nukes, you have no deterrent anymore because theres no threat of mutually assured destruction.
@@pavelvalenta5103 Every one that's worried about "Getting freedomed" might votes against. Since the main way to discourage "Getting freedomed" is by having a way to start a human extinction event.
Fun fact: During the 60s, the US strike plan involved so many targets in the USSR, PRC and NK and so many warheads that military planners actually named the plan "Wargasm".
Time to brush up the knowledge
I think if there was a possibility that nuclear warfare would begin, bro I would just leave, go down to Australia, Africa, South America, wherever, I’m out.
Who's watching this after the Putin has ordered military command to put nuclear deterrent forces on high alert?
Me
Me
Man TH-cam recommendations has a sense of humor
ikr
What a coincidence that this video popped up on my recommended
World:
"Nuclear weapons are the most important weapons in the world."
Taliban: "Hold my Kalashnikov, I need to pee in presidential palace toilet!"
From what I here the Afghani president basically handed the control over to the Taliban. Highly Doubt a insurgent/terrorist group would take over government headquarters in a western nation.
@@nsaagentkali8984 So what if the government of a western nation hands the keys to a terrorist group?! It's not that much likely when you consider what's going on in United States.
@@RameenFallschirmjager well I don't live in America or Afghanistan and what do you mean what if the government hands them the keys? That's literally what happen the Afghani president ran away and gave the country to them pretty much and yes it's no secret that Taliban uses American weapons and tech so really what is the issue we already no the government gave the Taliban the keys.
@@nsaagentkali8984 Afghans are imported to United States by planes by thousands as refugees right now. Let's that sink in. And we have also southern border crisis on our hands too! Let's than sink in too.
@@RameenFallschirmjager aha that's where your wrong big dawg I don't gotta let anything sink in freedom of opinion. Your the one who was implying Taliban took Afghanistan over by control when they really walked in when the president ran like a bitch. Also I ain't give a shit about what's happening in America that country is much of a joke as Afghanistan so let that sink to 😂
"General, how many missiles should we use?"
"......69....."
Nice
"......Nice General, Nice...."
Biden right now:
WRITE THAT DOWN, WRITE THAT DOWN!!!
literally LOL-ed, now I'm depressed again
Notifications Squad ?
Present !
Bell button squad
Yep, every one. I’ve watched this channel for almost two years now
Here
Who else is here because of Russia? Thank you TH-cam algorithm.
Come on! No sane government would completely abandon his nuclear arsenal. Let's be real.
South africa did, and for a good reason.
@@yamby6709 south africa was sanctioned by every great power until they abandon their arsenal
@@bosanski_Cevap lol
@@yamby6709 nobody really wants to I made south Africa now do they
@@bosanski_Cevap not really, the gov. Which was govern by foreign nationals was handing it to locals. You dont want locals having nukes.
Ahhh, the TH-cam algorithm kicking in with spot on timing.
This video bypassed a specific answer to the question raised in the tag line- " Can nuclear war be won?" No it can't be won and that's why no one dared to enter into war with a country having nuclear weapon.
About that.
youtube algorithm has a sense of humor atleast
This aged like fine wine
Man this aged like milk…. Hope y’all saved up bottle caps…
"This could ignite the atmosphere"
..........
Send it.
This about to come in real handy in the next couple of months
This is something we need to be watching right now
We have seen very few wars between nuclear armed states. That said when you look at India and Pakistan, you could argue their nuclear weapons have prevented a large scale war, it has not prevented small battles between them. One could argue the fear of a nuclear war is now so strong, that two nuclear armed countries could fight a conventional war of considerable scale without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons, the fear of what the other side would do, being enough to convince both sides not to use their nukes.
It is also possible that a first use might not result in a large scale nuclear response. The question that is hardest to answer is how would you response to an enemy you used just one nuke against you. Their is no easy answer to that question.
I think that the use of nuclear weapons would be more and more likely as the war went on and one side gained an advantage over the other. A dramatic shift in one side's fortunes (a catastrophically lost battle or the loss of a key logistics route) could push one side to use a nuclear weapon in order to stem the tide
@@ashesofempires0404 I do not see nuclear weapons as a war ender. People will point to Japan, but the reality is that the war was already over at the point, as we now know negotiations for surrender were already underway.
I am not a big believer in the idea that using nukes will change the course of a war. If you are already losing, it is unlikely that setting of a few nukes will change that. The threat of use maybe, but not the actual use. Actual use is more lightly to inflame the situation than calm tensions and remember you might be on the receiving end of a nuclear response as well.
It is more likely that somebody would use nukes as an opening move, for example a modern-day Pearl Harbour would be a nuclear strike. Using a nuclear armed sea mines to take out a carrier battle group would also make sense as an opening move as you would have none of the civilian casualties you would associate with a strike on a major naval base.
@@marktucker8896 Agree.
Aye, all that is necessary is that both sides have more desire to wage conventional war than to nuke the opponent. A conflict that takes place on the soil of a third party is prime example.
@@DzinkyDzink The proxy war will always be conventional, as the political cost of using nukes will always be substantial. The history of countries following conventions of war does not give me much confidence nukes would never be used.
One "wins" a nuclear war by ensuring that the greater part of the population doesn't perish in one. Obviously the winning move is not to play, but if your alternative is complete capitulation to the threat of a nuclear exchange, then you've already lost everything that matters anyway. Avoiding target rich environments, and evenly distributing your population and productive capability ensures that the number of bombs required to "wipe the slate clean" is simply insurmountable. Architectural choices that are naturally hardened to the overpressure blast and fires that result from a nuclear detonation further reduces the effective range of warheads to only close or direct hits. Extensive use of underground shelters protects from fallout. Well provisioned shelters preserve life until normalcy can resume. A well prepared and resilient population can not only endure a nuclear exchange, but can render it a largely ineffective means of waging war, which will do more to eliminate vast nuclear arsenals than diplomacy ever will.
Or it will encourage vast amounts of nuclear armament buildup and increase tensions greatly by destroying other nations’ strategic deterrence. If a country can feasibly withstand a full scale nuclear strike, that means that it could essentially wipe any other country off of the map in about 30 minutes to an hour. That tends to make said other countries a bit worried.
thats why the russians have us totally beat in this way. While all their metros in every major cities also serve a role as "sealable fallout shelters" for city inhabitants. Meanwhile, we americans are left on our own because of "capitalism" and we are fucking S.O.L . if we havent built a Fallout shelter in our backyards
Nuclear war would be the dumbest thing any nation could do
INDEED
6:41 How many nukes should we use? 68? Not enough. 70? Too many.
Shout out to Tac Ops listeners who get this reference.
69 nice
69 nice.
This aged well
Short answer no, long answer no.
I see we all gathered here today, i hope its not too late.
Slava Ukraine
The winners are the ones who goes quickly with the blast. The survivors are the ones I feel bad for. Worst yet are the one living on some remote island and they witness the world going dark
I know the point of launching 69 warheads at one single target is to ensure that at least a few are not shot down, and actually make it. But I cannot even imagine what 69 nuclear detonations on one single location would even look like. We've all seen one single detonation in one location, but never multiple on top of each other, one after the other.
In a nuclear war Moscow would likely be turned into a lava lake.
One deep ass crater
Imagine two people, locked inside a sealed room, try to kill each other with poison gas: The side who uses it to kill the enemy first wins. But it is a CLOSED ROOM. Eventually, the poison gas will kill everyone, so no one wins, everyone loses.
Everybody dies
I have a bad feeling that youtube is recommending this video after russia invaded ukraine
Great video!!
“I won’t get into whether it was moral to nuke Japan because it’s been covered so extensively”
“Here’s why WW3 hasn’t happened yet”
I think someone doesn’t want to lose a decent portion of their subscriber base out of fear…
I’m surprised you haven’t done a video on the us evacuation of Afghanistan.
Yeah, but shit just keeps happening, so it may take a while.
@@DonVigaDeFierro Yeah I don’t blame him.
Find a Fox News or CNN video about the evacuation and literally thousands of keyboard generals have offered their expertise on the operation.
@@dongately2817 Thank God.
Putin summed it up with Oliver Stone [paraphrased]: 'We know a nuclear engagement is not winnable, but our greatest concern is that military leaders in the U.S. think that it is'. Hence, Russia promises a full retaliatory MAD strike if any NATO nuclear warhead, tactical or not, is used on its homeland. China cannot yet strike the U.S. back in this capacity. The Pentagon could blunder with hubris & unintended consequences on either front. Reaching this brink & requiring a lot of luck and tremendous diplomacy was reached over only 13 days in October, 1962. A similar nuclear storm can develop as suddenly a cumulonimbus category 5 cell in blue skies. What a time to have such ineptness in the U.S. State. They could blow a lot up fast. And according to Colonel Wilkerson (who has admitted his naivety under Colin Powell), China over the last 10 years has created its own MIC with Generals now salivating at sinking American carriers: China could strike first too in their minds pre-emptively. Or ditto the U.S. while it still has nuclear advantage. Side note: JFK and RFK are dead while Biden can't read a teleprompter and Kamala's cackle won't be much of a deterrence. The neo-cons fill that void and expect them to lash out somewhere to 'restore' the debacle of lost prestige and trillions of MIC funding now that Afghanistan is off the table. Nuclear game of chess...where the entire table can collapse underneath it.
Fun fact: the US nuclear program was cheaper in cost then the fire bombing campaign of Japan
I can't believe that given the huge construction costs of the Trinity program, they ran out of copper so borrowed thousands of tons of silver from fort Knox, building large towns just to research the atom
@@zopEnglandzip Well, the development of the B29 bomber cost more than the trinity project, look it up. Lots of primary sources describing that.
@@SolarWebsite 3bn to develop and build 3,900 units, it's not really a comparison of the cost of firebombing vs the Manhattan project
@@tripplefives1402 sure, Dresden and Tokyo were more destructive than a single fat man, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more but I still can't see how it could have been more expensive than the 120,000 people working on the bomb for 3 years and building several reactors
We saved trillion dollars building nukes, we lost trilllions, rebuilding Afghanistan. I always listen to warmongers, they are the smartest people in the world, if any world is left at the end.
You can only disarm, once you know for 100% certain that your enemy has disarmed,
which might be impossible to ever prove.
8:46 We still have hot was between the superpowers, it’s just done by proxy.
Conflicts such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan involve so many nations that they are close to being world wars.
This comment aged well :/
why is this in my recommended right now??????? BAD TIMING
Exactly.
I don’t see how 311 nukes would be nearly enough to saturate all the targets that could conceivably need to be eliminated. Especially when you consider naval ships and forward operating bases amongst those targets.
It could be a few things 1. classified Nukes have grown their blast radius big enough to cover Russia and or China with just 311 of them. 2. They are hunting only key targets/counter nukes. 3. it was flawed and that's why we still have thousands of nukes.
311 nukes could be enough if they were all hi-yield AND they all got through the defenses AND all detonated exactly when programmed. Those are a LOT of conditions placed on weapons that aren't tested and are to be used in a sure-to-be hostile environment. That is why the 1959 report listed 69 bombs for one radar site. Very few were expected to reach the target. Bomber attrition, failed detonations, misguided navigation, etc.
MIRV'S
At some point in time nuclear weapons, rocketry in particular is going to be made obsolete by some new technology. What happens when firing a nuke no longer works against your enemy?
Biological weapons seem to be all the rage now.
No one wins a nuclear war.
Only one who loses the most loses
Finally, a new video
Welp, the ww3 line is scarily uncanny at this moment.
Ukraine gave up all of her nuclear warhead and diliver weapon, see what left of it now.
Lot it wasnt their nuclear weapons tbh. It was Soviet Union's, under the control of the federal official structure. If today, Texas secede from US, as par the provisions given in US constitution, you cant expect US military will let Texas keep US nukes stationed there. Its part of the deal.
@@zil1832 well explained 👏
@@roguevader thanks. Dont wanna hurt anyone's pride/feelings but...
feel old yet?
@@zil1832 your reply is fair, but the ukrairian also scraped all of their tu-160, they still have some tactical value.
6:45 "Hey Dave.. how many missiles should we target for that above ground radar system?".. "ohhhhh I dont know... 69? giggity giggity"
Your title shot picture shows the re entry of a MIRV shot coming down at Kwajalein (dummy warheads) I have talked to the scientists who watched this re entry and said it was creepy and surreal as each came down with its own sonic boom ! The nighttime tests were even more surreal !
That's why we need to find life outside our solar system. Only external threat can unite us and cure us of our madness.
Naa, in that case .... Its more likely that one human faction will collude with the aliens to wipe out the others 😅 .... dont underestimate human capacity to inflict violent on each other
The fact that after the Collapse of the USSR many nuclear bombs were left unguarded is not widely known. The nuke inspectors sounded the alarm and funds were made available to pay the guards at these facilities with back pay . I think Russia now has good paid security. We certainly hope so
What's also not widely known is that Boris Yeltsin revoked the Soviet renunciation of the first use of nuclear weapons.
This became relevant again
I was looking for this Polizei jacket so long, I only rememberd I saw it in some military video and finally found it again 😍
Fun fact: My home of Copenhagen, Denmark was targeted by the US, not the USSR. Same with Istanbul.
The "rationale" was to nuke every strait that could box in the Soviet fleets.
does kommandostore sell leftover nuclear bombs?
Yes, nuclear weapons have largely prevented world wars 3, 4, 5, and 6, and this overall is a good thing, but what many fail to realise is that from these wars come many excellent movies. Each war would also be accompanied by its own iconic soundtrack, as was the case for the Vietnam War.
Nuclear war strategy : dont start a nuclear war
*airship/zeppelin not blimp. Blimps are oval balloons without interior.
Ivan Blyat😂😂😂 1:48
Thanks algorithm, due to recent events I needed this
"How would nukes be used?"
Painfully and forcefully
A day without a MIRV warhead falling on your house but your neighbors instead, is a good day.
Happy Saturday Cabal Always Blessings Seeing Another Post 🎉
The Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) was the United States' general plan for nuclear war from 1961 to 2003. The SIOP gave the President of the United States a range of targeting options, and described launch procedures and target sets against which nuclear weapons would be launched.[1] The plan integrated the capabilities of the nuclear triad of strategic bombers, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), and sea-based submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). The SIOP was a highly classified document, and was one of the most secret and sensitive issues in U.S. national security policy.[2]
The first SIOP, titled SIOP-62, was finished on 14 December 1960 and implemented on 1 July 1961 (the start of fiscal year 1962).[3] The SIOP was updated annually until February 2003, when it was replaced by Operations Plan (OPLAN) 8044.[4] Since July 2012, the US nuclear war plan has been OPLAN 8010-12, Strategic Deterrence and Force Employment.[5]
The first plan, following the White House policy guidance, was developed in 1960, consisting of a list of targets (the National Strategic Target List, or NSTL) and the assets to be used against each target. The targets themselves were pulled from the Bombing Encyclopedia, which listed over 80,000 targets of interest.[30] This first SIOP was extensively revised by a team at the RAND Corporation to become SIOP-62, describing a massive strike with the entire US arsenal of 3,200 warheads, totaling 7,847 megatons, against the USSR, China, and Soviet-aligned states with urban and other targets being hit simultaneously. Nine weapons were to be "laid down" on four targets in Leningrad, 23 weapons on six target complexes in Moscow, 18 on seven target areas in Kaliningrad, etc.
Weapon scientist, George Rathjens, looked through SAC's atlas of Soviet cities, searching for the town that most closely resembled Hiroshima in size and industrial concentration. When he found one that roughly matched, he asked how many bombs the SIOP "laid down" on that city. The reply: one 4.5 megaton bomb and three more 1.1 megaton weapons in case the big bomb was a dud (the Hiroshima bomb was 12.5 kilotons).[31] The execution of SIOP-62 was estimated to result in 285 million dead and 40 million casualties in the Soviet Union and China.[32] Presented with all the facts and figures, Thomas D. White of the Air Force found the Plan "splendid."[33] Disregarding the human aspect, SIOP-62 represented an outstanding technological achievement.
Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan
I think Afganistan shows just how useful it is to have vastly superior hardware (such as nuclear bomb) to your opponent. Just because you can destroy the world doesn't mean you can rule it.
Vietnam taught us that less than 50 years ago. People had just forgotten it.
Umm completely off topic but god I wish the HH-53 Pave lows weren't retired. I don't think I've seen a helicopter soo sexy ever.
It would be somewhat ironic and say a lot about our species (both bad and good) if nuclear weapons somehow prevent any more large scale world wars and ultimately lead to world peace. I am a firm believer that nukes have prevented further world wars and are a necessary evil in a world with greedy and mad men.
This aged well, unfortunate for Ukraine
@@jewishmcloin1933 Yes, if Ukraine had kept its nuclear arsenal, it would not be in the position it is in now. Expect more nations to develop nuclear weapons and no nation will ever give up its nukes once they have them. Eventually, somebody will use them. I hope we have self-sustaining colonies on other worlds by then but our time may be running out.
Welp. This is getting a little real.
The more I watch you, the more I’m aware.
Time to start researching
The number 311 is very close to the China's number of nuclear warheads. 350 by 2021
The group probably came to the number 311 due to MIRV - multiple warheads contained in each nuclear missile. The US would be able to have the same amount of devastation with fewer missiles.
Turns out…. It doesn’t matter if we have them or don’t, war still rages on
This "war could never be won" concept is a fallacy built around a lack of definition for what "winning the war" means. If the definition of "winning" is that the enemy is exterminated completely no matter how heavy the costs are, then winning is still possible. The "winning is not possible" way of thinking is just a result of not willing to do whatever it takes to destroy the enemy.
@Scaucy man 2.0 this concept that there will never be a nuclear war is childish. Also, this whole paralyzing fear of nuclear war is the result of Soviet propaganda. They were terrified that they were going to lose so bad that they launched a program in which they paid off various "scientists" to push the idea of nuclear winter and all other kinds of boogymen so that the American general public would be totally opposed to employment of nuclear weapons no matter what.
The reality is that nuclear war will happen sooner or later. And also it won't be the end of the world.
@@jeffersondaviszombie2734 You’re correct. It won’t be the end of the world but will certainly be the end of humanity! A dead planet floating about amongst thousands, millions of them in the vast emptiness of nowhere.
@@OSTARAEB4 you have no basis for saying that. You're just buying into the anti-nuclear propaganda.
Humans have a long and ridiculous history of making apocalyptic predictions about new technologies that they don't understand. They were afraid the Trinity test would set the whole atmosphere ablaze, they were afraid that the first rockets would set the whole atmosphere ablaze... Heck, they were afraid that the "new and fast" railway engines will go so fast that they will set the whole atmosphere ablaze. They were afraid the LHC would create black holes that would suck the whole planet in. And these are only the ones I remember off the top of my head. There are probably much more similarly absurd apocaliptic predictions that, in reality, are so far off the mark so as to be considered wholly ridiculous by any serious person.
Edit: Add global cooling/coming ice age/global warming/climate change to that pile as well. And all the hilariously uninformed scary stories about genetic engineering and artificial intelligence being peddled by people whose understanding of these topics come solely from movies and TV shows.
you have a young sense of warfare, phyrric victories are a concept known to man since antiquity
Putin: _write that down, write that down_
"Don't" is the best nuke strategy. Even Reagan learned that, thanks to watching "The Day After", and Reagan was dumber than five horses.
Edit: Ronnie is unique amongst H-Bomb Era US presidents in that he entered office in '81 thinking a nuclear war, meaning a first-strike on the Soviets, would be a good thing, in that we hit them suddenly with 3,000 warheads, and they can only hit back with 1,000 tops, and we recover in a few years. Woohoo, we win. His advisors encouraged this idiocy, and The Day After ruined it.......with knowledge.
I’ll take 23,723 Regans over 1 Biden…. Thanks.
I'll take many Reagans over any current or recent politicians. Idiocracy wasn't supposed to be a prediction.
@@miamijules2149 That's "Reagan", my illiterate friend.
I enjoy eating while watching these videos so much that when I see a new upload I use it as a chance to buy myself some tasty treat
Very interesting!
Please more on nukes, counter nukes etc.
Greetings from germany
Imagine getting hit with 69 nukes.