Why Every Nuclear Power Built the Bomb (And Everyone Else Hasn't)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2024
- Take a break from your worries: download Warpath X Metal Slug 3 now and play with Marco Rossi in the game! Available on PC and mobile: bit.ly/46cI7DN
For the beginners, join your favorite character's team and increase your Power to win amazing prizes by clicking the below link: metalslug3-warpath.lilith.com...
#metalslug3 #warpath
Nuclear weapons are the pinnacle of military power. However, only ten countries have ever developed them, and only nine still have them today. Why did those ten countries go down that route? And what has stopped everyone else from obtaining a nuclear weapon? The answers range from straightforward power politics to bizarre domestic political concerns.
0:00 Who Has Nuclear Weapons?
2:40 The United States
4:23 The Soviet Union
5:28 The United Kingdom
6:34 France
8:05 China
9:03 "Recognized" Nuclear Powers
9:29 Israel
10:17 India
11:24 South Africa
12:56 Pakistan
13:34 North Korea
14:28 Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine
20:22 Capacity to Build a Nuclear Weapon
22:40 Egypt
23:19 General Negotiations, Argentina, and Brazil
23:54 NATO Countries
24:30 Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan
24:59 Lines on Maps, Nuclear Proliferation Style
25:37 Cost of Nuclear Weapons
27:09 Economic Sanctions
27:49 Preventive War, Iraq, and Syria
28:43 Iran
30:01 An 11 Year Old Easter Egg
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Media licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
By FDR Presidential Library & Museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/fdrlibr...
By CTBTO Preparatory Commission
www.flickr.com/photos/ctbto/3...
Media licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
By IAEA:
www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_im...
www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_im...
www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_im...
www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_im...
www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_im...
www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_im...
www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_im...
www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_im...
www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_im...
Media licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
By RIA Novosti:
visualrian.ru/ru/site/gallery/...
visualrian.ru/ru/site/gallery/...
Media licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 DE (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
By Bundesarchiv:
www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/...
www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/...
By Deutsche Fotothek:
www.deutschefotothek.de/obj889...
Media licensed under CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
By Khamenei.ir
farsi.khamenei.ir/photo-album...
farsi.khamenei.ir/photo-album...
By Kremlin.ru:
tours.kremlin.ru/tour/senate/159/
state.kremlin.ru/president/allbio
20.kremlin.ru/en/2000/events/2/12
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
kremlin.ru/events/president/ne...
Media licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
By Zdravko Pečar:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Take a break from your worries: download Warpath X Metal Slug 3 now and play with Marco Rossi in the game! Available on PC and mobile: bit.ly/46cI7DN
For the beginners, join your favorite character's team and increase your Power to win amazing prizes by clicking the below link: metalslug3-warpath.lilith.com/?kol=US
#metalslug3 #warpath
Hello
I love lines on maps
Thank you for the preemptive Ukraine comment. I was wondering about that and even paused to look at the flags to see which one you removed.
Here's some engagemometrics boost, and a steaming dump on your sponsor. William good.
Advertising bad.
I respect the grind
Minor correction: Although Sealand has some resemblance to an oil rig, it was not an oil rig, it was a WW2 sea fort, previously known as HM Fort Roughs.
But it does do a brilliant job of satisfying Eddie Izzard's rules for what makes a country: "Do you have a flag? No flag, no country!"
That's the enclave. Information of its location is in vault 13
A sovereign country
@@okman9684 According to who? AFAIK, no one recognises it as a sovereign country.
It's certainly a grey area, as the UK pretends it doesn't exist.
Entire video is 100% nonsense. Ukraine never even had access to nuclear launching codes, those nukes were Soviet not 'ukrainian'
Did they learn to stop worrying and love the bomb?
make bomb
not love
Boomer comment (pun intended!)
All praise Atom
Dr. Strangelove FTW!
Maybe the real bomb was the friends we made along the way
Correction: You neglected to mention important background information about the 1974 Indian nuclear test. It is true that domestic events played a role in the detonation, but we also need to remember what happened in the years before. In 1971, there was a war in the subcontinent in which East Pakistan (Bangladesh) fought Pakistan for independence and India supported the Bengalis in their fight. During this, the US under President Richard Nixon openly supported Pakistan and brought its navy into the Bay of Bengal and even privately considered to use nuclear weapons against India. The US only backed down when India sent out a call for help and the USSR, a friendly state, sent a nuclear-powered submarine to the region. While the war ended in an Indian victory and Bangladeshi independence, this moment showed that India was vulnerable against foreign powers. There is evidence that preparation for the Pokhran-1 tests occurred in 1972, two years before the moment of the actual test. So while the test may have been conducted partially as a political statement, it was not merely to boost Indira Gandhi’s popularity but as a statement that India would pursue any method to deter foreign aggression.
It is also important to note the reason why India refused to sign the NPT. India was actually involved in the discussions on drafting the treaty. The Indian government at that time agreed with the goal of non-proliferation, but they viewed the treaty in its current form as a half step at best and hypocritical at its worst. In particular, they took issue with the section of the treaty which created a situation of haves and have-nots by allowing the then nuclear states to retain their arsenal and not disarm. They proposed that what they viewed as a fairer treaty in which all signatories would abandon their nuclear programs provided that the states with nuclear bombs disarm. But this wasn’t accepted by the nuclear states. So India refused to sign the treaty. Pakistan, a hostile state to India, also refused to sign if India refused to as well.
But I think a big misconception is that addressing security concerns that motivate proliferation can lead states give up nuclear programs. This may be possible in the case of states who do not yet have nuclear weapons as this video demonstrates with the example of Egypt. But this is a lot harder for states to give up nuclear weapons if they already have them. Say the US and Russia somehow peacefully resolve all their security issues and adopt good diplomatic relations with each other. America still remains a hegemonic power in the world, but it still won’t give up its nuclear weapons so as to maintain its hegemony over the world and it will have security issues with other states. Russia likely won’t either so as to remain a major power in the part of the world it considers as its domain. This is just how big powerful countries are; they do not want to give up their hegemony over the world. It gets even trickier for nuclear states such as India and Pakistan. In these countries, the bomb is not merely a defence but also a political symbol. Having the bomb for them is a symbol of emergence from colonialism and exploitation as modern, technologically advanced countries. The bomb is a symbol of sovereignty and independence from foreign powers. Even if underlying security concerns are addressed, it is still likely that these countries won’t so easily give up their nuclear weapons viewing the giving up of the bomb as caving into pressure from the powerful Western countries that, in their view, do not treat them as equals on the world stage. The only way this can be overcome is if all the nuclear states agree to simultaneously dismantle their arsenals, which will be both a practical and logistical nightmare to get states to agree to and also is not possible with the current state of the world (wars, trade wars, espionage, self-interest of states, and mutual distrust of other states).
You think Russia was your ally. Your country was nothing more than dog to Russia and it still is dog, a hungry malnutritioned dog. Who do you think Russia will support between india and china, news flash china.
So wonderfully written.
Couldn't explain it better 💯
If the US used nuclear weapons against India, the USSR would have used nuclear weapons against the US.
@@zaco-km3su That statement is a huge oversimplication. The nuclear weapon threat from US was not militaristic but merely a tool of political game of chicken. US sought to use fear of showcasing a nuclear submarine close to India to make their position much more amenable in regards to the war. if the us actually used their missiles, they would risk huge political backlash, and their demonstration was more of a taunt , but an effective one. the idea was to make India's position less unfavorable of pakistan during the 1971 war. if india did not relent, all us would have to do is to "sample fire" some dummy missiles from the nuclear sub and show how close they are to nuking india, as a way to make the general sentiment in india dissuade them of their involvement.
India's subsequent response, asking USSR for help, was to persuade the US from taunting by securing political backing they could leverage in case US tried to poke India. by securing ussr's political backing , India was able to counter taunt US by implying retailiation for any show of nuclear force from the US. it is notable that the vague treaty which was signed earlier in august between indo soviet preemptively helped secure a submarine from the soviets a week later after the us had deployed their own submarine near india. in essense, it was basically similar to how france could show its "proxy nuclear arsenal" via uk.
subsequent development of india's nuclear weapons program was triggered by the same, as a need for recognition to stand as a foreign power of its own without depending on reliance of other superpowers, especially, considering its tenuous position with its neighbors Pakistan and china. After all, during the cold war era, there is no telling when ussr would switch allegiances.
Came for the lines on maps, stayed for the nuke-making tutorial
[FBI has entered the chat]
Welcome to Nukes "R" Us and don't spill Uranium 235 at aisle 7
The general plans are public, unless you show how to create explosive lenses or build uranium centrifuges ur fine
^^
Came for some more “thus far”s, stayed because the nukes deterred me from leaving
I think Iran enjoys the threat of building a bomb more than having a bomb. It seems convincingly deliberate at this point.
Now that you put it that way it makes a lot of sense. Anytime Iran wants something it stirs up something for intelligence agencies to find so they have leverage. Wouldn't be shocked if the only progress they had was how to make it look like they had progress which ironically means they have to have 'some' knowledge.
for what? getting more sanctions?
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 Sanctions dont mean shit.
Plus, Iran has little to fear from an invasion. Iran has the terrain of Afghanistan and twice the population of Iraq, and they are a bit more sophisticated technologically. America does a lot of saber rattling in Iran's direction, but if they ever did actually invade, it would financially ruin the US. And Israel can't do anything because their military is basically useless at anything beyond bombing things from the air.
Basically, Iran and the Judeo-American bloc are already at a stalemate where no one can make a first move. Nukes would almost be redundant.
@@ShinAkuma
sanctions actually destroyed the huge capacity of Irani economy
I know its not discussed here but isn't it generally believed that Israel and South Africa worked together in developing nuclear weapons and there were some unexplained 'incidents' believed to be connected to this in the Indian ocean south of South Africa. This would also in part explain why we haven't any records of testing of Israel nukes as they were tested along with the South African ones far from Israel.
Yes, it is the "Vela Hotel incident"
What about the Saudi’s nuke that they bought and were allowed to keep?
@@georgeorwell8501That one was tested on the Moon.
Interestingly the only country to have voluntarily given up its nukes (aside from former USSR states)
😂@@General12th
Thats a really myopic view of the Indian programme for nuke. Preparations for the peaceful nuclear explosions started before indira gandhi (approved during shastri's term who was earlier opposed to it. It had a long history when bhabha made sure india could procure plutonium from Canada's CIRIUS and then nehru finally gave way in 1960 for a plutonium reprocessing plant with the chinese threat looming. The 1962 defeat and unreliability of the soviet allies nudged india to head for nuclear deterrence.)While the test certainly would have yielded domestic political points for her, its wrong to attribute indian pursuit for nukes for domestic benefits.
yeah the indira part was so badly researched it was hilarious
@@tharv_2609it happened tho
"Peaceful nuclear explosions"
india and pakistan both countries are not so responsible who knows when they actually Use it
@@dejazO0How many wars India initiated and How many US?? You'll know the answer
The soviets also did their best to remove as much uranium ore as possible from their eastern european satelite states. For example, Romania alone "voluntarily" exported more than 17,000 tones of uranium ore to Soviet Union. It left an ecological disaster behind, one that still affects people today.
Surprising that the Soviets didn't care much about the countries they got invaded by.
But oddly, as I understand it, in Ukraine the newly freed country was allowed to keep the Uranium, and the bombs and rockets were repatriated without the nuclear material.
Unless I'm mistaken, that was part of the deal that Russia made with the Ukrainian government. I now wonder why the Russians took the ore from former satellites, but we're willing to allow refined reactor/bomb material in the former SSR?
Perhaps because of the existence of the various nuke reactors that couldn't plausibly be repatriated ? I'm only guessing...
imagine how was the Scalation of the damage in Niger, when France was (stealing) taking the Uranium for almost 40 years,
@@andresfelipeod6819all African mining is destructive. If the French didnt someone else would, inculding Niger for huge economic gains. Lets not pretend if Niger was had mined it things would turn out better. Niger like nearly every other non industrialized state got the short end of the stick the last two centuries but it was not long before that Africa held the power in the world while Europeans were in the dark ages.
Its cyclical
The Soviets made Mongolia their toxic waste dumping ground, too.
You are 100% wrong about the US providing the UK with technical assistance. The Manhattan project was supposed to share results with the US and UK but instead the US cut the UK off at the knees entirely denying them access to the research they had been jointly doing - going so far as to confiscate British scientist's personal notes. The UK was forced to conduct their post-war nuclear weapons program entirely independently, right up until the US relented after the UK detonated their first H-bomb. The US treated a lot of technology "sharing" agreements with the British with similar contempt, for example taking British high speed flight technology and giving them nothing in return, allowing the US to beat the UK to breaking the sound barrier.
How else were america going to make themselves the head of the world, rather than the stuffy old brits or any other dying european empire, than with dishonest deals?
Yes and no the us did cut the uk out of the program after the us had its first successful nuclear bomb and did take away their notes, beyond that though they did little to obstruct the uk from getting the bomb. The scientist were still allowed to return to the uk and pick up were they left of with the Americans. It’s not like they had to start over from scratch like you were implying.
@@johnlynch1353...but nor is it like the US had a viable alternative.
Sure they 'allowed' scientists to return to the UK, and 'did little to obstruct' them, but it didn't have much choice otherwise. Short of completely severing its closest alliance in Europe, one it desperately needed to oppose the USSR and continue to fuel its own nuclear program, it couldn't imprison British scientists nor blockade the UK to prevent the development of key technologies.
However, the US did do virtually everything short of that to hamstring British Nuclear efforts, including tearing up the agreements that had led to the development of the bomb in the first place.
@@solomonpilbrow8488 I’m not saying your wrong. I’m saying I think your making it sound worse than it actually was.
@@johnlynch1353 What a ridiculous thing to say! The US did everything in its power to prevent the British from having their own bomb. You're reasoning for why it "sounds worse than it actually was" is that they didn't _IMPRISON_ the innocent scientists they were working with just up until recently (at that time)!? What a horrendously low criterion
25:50 When the US lost an H bomb in 1966, Robert McNamara stated publicly that it was worth $2B. Perhaps someone divided the total program cost by the current number of nukes?
He may have regretted saying this because a Spanish fisherman saw it enter the water and helped the US find it without waiving his right to a salvage award based on a percentage of its value. Source: John Piña Craven "The Silent War".
2billion dollar in 1966...holy
McNamara was never too sharp
The US have lost more than one. Not all of them have been found. There have been incidents where the US air force unintentionally (goes without saying I guess) dropped armed nuclear weapons on US soil. The fail safes prevented detonation. It makes you wonder how many other countries have lost nukes too.
@@bob-zi1ebTrue,, an air force bomber mistakenly dropped a Megaton gadget by mistake outside Albuquerque, thinking he was doing a final secure before landing or whatever but anyway the conventional package detonated on impact, but the nuclear package didn't... And there was no way those couple of gadgets dropped on the Spanish Coast were worth 2 billion dollars apiece,, that's probably what Congress stole from the American taxpayers to pay for them but yeah they've had to jenison bombs a few different times and not all times were they found..
It says a lot that losing an object that could level New York is common enough that it isn't front page news. I'm sure part of it is until it's found _by the US military_, we really don't want random civilians looking for it. But also, when has that stopped the news?
I think if you have the ability to test a nuke but not in your home territory, you're officially a modern empire.
I mean if you have a nuke you can test it wherever you please, the test county can only choose to do it the soft way or the hard way.
@comlitbeta7532 I came looking for testin... You see- I like yo nuclear testability, and I wants it... we can do this the easy way or da hard way- the choice is yours...
Doesn't that mean I'd be a rogue state/actor and I would get the Iraq treatment if I did so?
@@ElectrostatiCrow Maybe this is another reason Iraq got the Iraq treatment. "So I heard you are building a bomb. In what foreign country are you going to test it as no one tests them in their own country after the first guy found out how bad an idea that was?" *Awkward pause* "I thought so. Launch the bombers!"
@@ElectrostatiCrowNot if you complete the bomb before they try to iraq you.
Correction: The British did NOT receive information on how to build a bomb from the Manhattan Project. The American’s betrayed Britain and refused to hand over the promised technical info, despite Tube Alloys being fundamental to solving the material property issues with building the Little Boy and Fat Man. This is why there was such a delay between the MP & Britain’s first nuclear test. The UK had to basically start over from scratch, using publicly available science as a base instead of the engineering & technical developments of MP.
As I understand it, The US refused to share the outcomes of the Manhattan Project - always billed as a joint, international effort - because they were concerned that the secrets would not be safe. Given that The UK government service was riddled with communist sympathisers amongst the educational elite hired straight out of the top universities (the Cambridge Four included) this might be reasonable EXCEPT that they already knew - or at least strongly suspected - that the Los Alamos spy ring had already acquired and passed on to Stalin everything except for the later simulation results for the design of the bombs themselves.
This should be placed in the context of the freely shared innovations from UK:
1941: The cavity magnetron, which allowed centimetric radar to be portable enough to deploy on ships and planes - without which the Battle of Midway for example might have had a different outcome. (see for example Curious Droids video th-cam.com/video/CbTWzC86R4Y/w-d-xo.html)
1943: The swept wing design which overcame the stability problem when a plane goes through the speed of sound - as used by Chuck Yeager in 1947
1942-45: Designs and several examples of the code-breaking Bombes - originally invented by the Poles who did a lot of the real clever stuff to crack the Enigma code, and given to UK when Poland was invaded - and Colossus, the first digital programmable computer. One of the colossus machines sent to USA allegedly made its way to the University of Texas at the end of the war and just a few years later they demonstrated the "first" programmable electronic computer. Meanwhile, the British had all their machines broken up and everyone sworn to secrecy, lest the code-breaking secrets were discovered by their enemies.
1930s: One could also add Frank Whittles invention of the jet engine to the list - he freely distributed the information for altruistic reasons (including to the rapidly nazifying Germany)
Towards the end of Richard Feynmans memoir "Los Alamos from below" he describes the US army lawyers encouraging the scientists to write patents for any possible fruits of the Manhattan Project - to be signed over to the US army, of course. If Frank Whittle had been a USian he'd presumably patented and licenced it and become the richest person in the world.
Technically they did receive _some_ information, in the form of very large explosions. "Clearly the design works!"
But yeah, it was a really bad thing the US did to betray the French and British allies who provided so much.
They nuked Australia to test it.
@@HansLemurson
The Americans did pretty much pay for the entire thing.
Also France didn’t help at all.
@@graceneilitz7661 France did help, or at least French scientists did.
Unfortunately, Reddit was harping at Ukraine with the nuclear weapon narrative. I'm glad this video is here because we really don't fully understand the nuances of geopoltiical issues of nuclear weapon ownership
its widely missunderstood. in uk most peple beleave that china russia usa and uk are the big nuclear players. totally ignoring france which is infact the 3rd player at the table rather than uk and french companies build and run most of the UKs nuclear industry.........
It's not so much about that old nukes, but also about ability to produce their own. Russia and USA did everything to damage it. Or at least negotiate real safety guarantees in 1994.
What are you yapping on about?
Ukraine has the engineers & scientists to make their own nukes.
Ukraine made the ballistic Missiles .. used by the Soviet Unioni.
Ukraine has tactical nukes from the soviet union which they could use.
And Ukraine along with Belarus & Russia .. represented the Soviet Union .. at the UN.
Idiot Liberals from the US & UK ... worked with Russia in 1994 .. to force Ukraine to give up all of its soviet nukes, destroy its advanced soviet weapons or give them to Russia, was forbidden to make ballistic missiles for nukes, .... had to agree to never develop nuclear weapons ... and ... had to keep the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine and not tell the Russians to piss off.
The US, UK & Russian ... stopped Ukraine defending its borders with its own nukes ... and ... joining Nato ( Oh my!!!) because Ukraine had a Russian base in Crimea. Hmmmmm?
If Zelensky would say today .. that Ukraine will now develop its own nukes ... both the US & Russia will be bitching that Ukraine can't do this ... and both will make threats to Ukraine. But Russian can not nuke Ukraine .. because the US will have to respond. And the US withdrawing miltiary aid for the Ukraine to lose the war... expose their collaboration of Russian to keep nukes only to those with the Power, and simply make the Ukrainians more determined than ever .. to develop its own nukes and not rely on the US or Russia ... when it finally regains it independence again.
Zelensky .. needs to demand from the US all the weapons it needs to QUICKLY win the War otherwise Ukraine will defend its own borders with its own nukes. And after the War and funding for the rebuild ... develop its own nukes anyway, and pull out of Nato.
Reddit is pure social degradation
Some guy said my wife should divorce me because I don't watch movies with her... That was the top comment on her post.
We joke, she asked if I wanted to watch some superhero movie the other day, so I said that my response will be through my attorney.
The Ukrainian nuclear weaponeers who oversaw them in the years prior to ‘ 94 didn’t think Ukraine getting full control of a sufficient number would be difficult. I imagine they were referring to the tactical ones which were built to be under authority of the highest ranking officer in relevant area . In Cuba , it was a soviet captain….
Judging by the fact that Ukraine has sold every piece of the Soviet legacy to the highest bidder - including their air carriers, or the rocket technologies sold to North Korea - those nukes would rather end up in the hands of some third party. And 9/11 could have been the day of US having nuclear blasts on its territory. Some idiots have no idea what they are wishing for,.
You really don't make sense.. and have no clue of Soviet Union worked. Why didn't Russia than just take it in 1991? Russia is nothing but I a leech they have never created or design anything by themselves... That is no reason why they occupy and steal the best from everyone including culture... How is it that Moscowiya kingdom all of sudden became Russian empire ? If you Kiev's Russ and BelaRuss don't make your country Rossia aswell they are still Moscowien and that's why they keep mixing people by sending Baltic people don't Siberia and taking over their houses like exactly what I'm doing in Crimea Lugansk and Donetsk.. if you ever been to Russia you'll understand.. people live like trash and all they do is drink only two big cities have some intelligence and civilized things. Only because they got it from Europe
Tactical nukes were given up even before 1994.
Entire video is 100% nonsense. Ukraine never even had access to nuclear launching codes, those nukes were Soviet not 'ukrainian'
@@bdleo300 ukrainians of the one who built on the icbms and they were doing maintenance on them until 2014 and after Russia invaded Crimea Ukraine stopped doing the maintenance and Russians did not have experts to maintain nuclear rockets and the Silos .. that's why a lot of people are wondering if those rockets are still good because you have to keep up with explosives and other stuff. Ukraine did have the codes.. why do you think the 1994 Budapest memorandum was signed with Ukraine not Russia.. Russia isn't capable of anything from their own they invade neighboring countries and steal the technology has their own.. and now that Soviet Union fell apart best 30 years. Not really inventing or building anything new only that 3D videos of rockets day pretend to have.. also all that Navy fleet was build in nikolaev Ukraine and Poland when it was still communist.. Soviet Union was a UNION that's why they split everything between members and because Ukraine building most of that the rockets they got to keep alot of them.. of course I'm down in 1994 Ukraine got screwed over by giving up their nukes because some countries don't know how to keep promises... But I live need an army base in west ukraine still remember how they moved all the stuff to utilize in1994.. if you assumed something it doesn't mean you know something about Ukraine... Maybe ask ukrainians.. 😉
Ukraine also retured supersonic bombers Tu-22 to Russia, which are now used to fire missiles back at Ukraine. What a lousy deal it was
Plus the cruise missiles were also Ukraine stock as well.
First - not "Tu-22" but "Tu-22M", thats a big difference (big enough so you cannot make 22M from old 22). And secondly - Ukraine gave none of them to Russia, Ukraine got around 60 of them in their air forces but they'v scrapped almost all of them during 00ths ("Nunn-Lugar Act" - TLDR: US gives money and you scrap your army instead) and rest - 3 or 4, were put to museums. And third - related missiles were scrapped too (but not all).
But - some of "Tu-160" and "Kh-22" missiles were indeed "returned". But not actually "returned", they were used as a payment for Ukrainian gas debts during 90ths.
@@T-362Ukrainian gas debt, it's funny thing. They neighbors of Russia and pay more for gas than next Poland or Germany. Even calculation with discount from transfer fees.
@@mateuszzimon8216 maybe during last 10 or so years - maybe yes (thats calculatable but will take some longer time), but 20 years before they'v got an epically discounted gas with fixed prices and the price was like from 25% to 75% of market price depending on year, and they still were managed to get into debts (a long history of corruption and bad government). You can just go and check the whole history of their gas debts, prices and bagging starting from 1991. Shortly - based on y93 treaty (and until y 05-06) Ukraine got 1.09 transit price per 1000m3 and fixed discounted price - 1000m3 for 50 USD, and 80 USD if they will consume above some limit (as an example Germany got market price - and average price was 95 during 91-01, only one year price got below 80, during 01-06 price slowly raised to 150). During 04-09 with "pro EU" gov Ukraine started messing with the treaty trying increase transit price while still keeping their fixed discounted price, so they'v got 95 USD gas price and 1.6 transit price at the end, Ukraine planned to buy Turkmenian gas, but they'v also raised a price from 65 to 100 (meanwhile market price for Germany slowly raised up to 600 at 09, falld to 230 at 09-10 and grow back to 400+ during next 5 years). Also their own gas mining were enough to cover civil consumption, but oligarch owned industry consumed a much lot.
well, that happens when you wanne push all former soviet satellites into NATO.
There is a red line.
Sea land is not an old abandoned oil rig. It is however an abandoned world war two gun emplacement I believe that was constructed for the Uk's defence during that conflict.
dude the subtle flex of a peer-reviewed paper on EXACTLY the topic of the video.
WS at their finest.
Huh?
@@nicolasolton22:04
Well since gunpowder is made of charcoal and that charcoal had a small bit of radioactive carbon 14 in it.
I would like to announce im 10th nuclear power.
The average human has a couple micro-grams of radioactive potassium-40 in their body, so I would like to declare myself a nuclear weapon
"And if you thought" the Chinese would test a nuke in Han China, a look up of the location of Lop Nur shows it is in the contested Xinjiang Uyghur "Autonomous" Region. Since it was worth pointing the locations of USSR, UK and French tests out, China should not be excluded as the current PRC ethnic Han dynasty China tends to count on our ignorance of the regions history to validate it's expansive and hegemonic claims.
Been part of China since the 1600's, invaded by Russia in the 1920's who invented 'East Turkestan' as the front for their occupation. "Contested"... 😆👍
The point of the original comment still stands regardless of what era of lines on maps in central Asia we prefer to consult. The point is that Han Chinese dominance dictated that the nuclear tests and fallout would occur in a subjugated area far away from their center of power and culture. Obviously those with the power to build the bomb also have the power to push the negative repercussions of that development onto a weaker minority regardless of nation.
Yeah, but you could say the same about USSR testing in remote part of Kazakhstan.
@@chriswilkerson4074
Well yes, they didn't feel like nuking downtown Guangzhou.
And you look like an idiot for misconstrueing that fact as part of some grand Han conspiracy.
Try to be less racist and bigoted in the future okay?
The US not using downtown New York as their preferred nuclear test site doesn't prove 'nefarious yankee imperialist plans against whoever tf lives in the desert' either.
@@chriswilkerson4074 That was a good way of putting it.
IIRC, regarding the UK testing nukes in the UK, apparently that was indeed the original idea. Site was somewhere in the highlands of Scotland, possibly an island. However, William Penney (Chief Government Scientist) apparently said that he thought that was not a good idea.
"... thought that was not a good idea" that is a truth for sure.
As an Englishman the thought of inebriated RADIO ACTIVE Scots sitting next to me, and insisting on talking, on the train south is terrifying (not the radio activity so much).
PS
The only place I go on holiday is Scotland, I have lived there and do love the place,😜 only joking.
They nuked Australia instead. Explains a lot really
You should only ever be testing Nuclear weapons in places where no one lives.
Thankfully in the outback, you don't have to worry about the fallout of a nuclear test killing you, because if you're out there, the outback will kill you anyway.
@@moritamikamikara3879 You are confusing few (by European standards) with none. Anangu Pitjantjatjara people who live there were barley warned if at all and did not know not to use there traditional sites next to the crater and so where found to be camping there. They actually in many cases got showered with fallout during the tests. Was this deliberate? Very likely.
The thing is the indigenous people don't get killed by the outback when living traditionally, it is home. Dying in the outback has always been a European thing.
@@fibber2u Agree with everything except the "deliberate" part. "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity." Also, it's not as if no Aboriginal has ever been killed by a predator or something in the Outback - it's just less common.
Many Israeli scientists worked together with the French in France to develop the French bomb. The 1960 French bomb test was essentially a France-Israel bomb test.
LOL back in the time france was as innovative and advanced as usa or japan
Its actualy the other way around. Its israel who learned from france and copy them
France was helped by the US. The US allowed French and American nuclear designers to meet, but the Americans could not initiate any discussions. The French would ask, "We were thinking of pursuing concept X", and the Americans would respond with something like, "That might be a rewarding path", or "That concept might be impractical."
@@kurtlaughlin4250 Sounds more like the Americans were there to spy and see what the French were doing.
and openheimer was Jewish so the cycle is closed
@@gamliel2782
Oppenheimer was a drop in the bucket of Manhattan project
A significant geopolitical rivalry, you say? Well, given its supply of free uranium, one wonders why Emutopia hasn't developed the bomb to keep Kiwiland in its place on the other side of the ocean. And also, why on earth have they allowed so many fifth columnists to enter with such ease? I mean, we've just seen the damage they've done to us from within demonstrated on the world stage in France.
I see you're a man of culture
Crossing the streams.
How sneaky of the New Zealanders to cause mischief and get the blame placed on Australians sheerly by always being mistaken for them.
The British nuclear tests in Australia were actually tactical strikes
Pakistan is not going to have nuclear bombs for much longer me thinks.
Radical Jihadis are very close to power in Pakistan.
The day is not far away when a Taliban type terrorist government will be running Pakistan
The west and the rest of civilization will step in a seize pakistan nukes
Switzerland actually had a nuclear weapons program, mostly as a response to Germany asking its allies for nukes under their direct control, this made us a bit concerned because of all that WW2 stuff.
Anyway, we stopped the program with the final report saying we process all technical requirements to build a nuke. We even had Plutonium and enriched Uranium stored for some time, just in case (we gave it to France so we don‘t have it anymore, at least not officially).
Australia had one too. It got to the point where the Aussies had done the required research and had begun the construction of a reactor to enrich uranium at Jervis Bay. Then they got a new PM and he killed the project.
Yeah Switzerland or indeed any country in Europe except monaco, San Marino and possibly Luxembourg could definitely develop nuclear devices...... Even Norway,, they all have the machine shops and mineral and chemical works and the brain power to make it happen,, Canada Australia they're all turn of the screw countries where the technology exists, but only making the device remains and really,, it is a lot of expense to join a club that has no definite advantages but the definite disadvantage of making you a target......
An amazing video that clearly took a lot of effort and time to make. I appreciate that someone as educated and informed as you is also willing to share their expertise is such an understandable manner.
Pseudo Intellectual is probably the best description.
@@danhobart4009 No, he's an actual intellectual.
Always impress how much I learn, and how easily it happens, when watching your vids. Thank you for what you do.
Just a note on Sweden: we had everything but the will when it comes to nukes, we also understood that having nukes would have made us a target.
We had the plutonium, simulations on how they would work and a potential delivery-system.
We turned all of our plutonium over to the brits/yanks back in 2012 IIRC.
What does iirc mean
@@williamoneswhannell1060if i recall
Edit: Correctly
There are lots of countries that had, he mentioned Argentina and Brazil. But also Mexico. We have a big civilian nuclear facility for power production but its design allows it to be repurposed relatively easy to produce weapons grade uranium. We even had an incident a few years ago because some scientist in a govenrment research office purified enough uranium at weapons grade, and the Mexican government told the US government that they were going to turn this weapons grade uranium to the US and didn´t do it on time. I think they did eventually. But considering that, and some OK military capabilities, it wouldn´t have taken that many years for Mexico to have its own nukes, but what would be the point?
@@richardmh1987 After making some warheads the next problem to solve is the carriers. Unguided bombs probably aren't the wisiest due to you need to fly to your target which cannot be done easily without air superriority at least. So you need the rockets. Ballistic or air-earth ones and carriers for them. This isn't an easy task to solve. If you look at the expirience of countries from the "nuke club" - they all are producing or have a space programms and inventions in rocketing. Making a nuclear BOMB would cause you in greater threat of nuking yourself until you solve other tasks like rockets for your warheads, maintenance protocols, etc. And don't forget about the club - they aren't happy when someone wish to join them so you need to do the all tasks together to be successful so you need to make a nuke, make a rockets and/or make a carriers/rocker launchers in the same time.
Neutral Sweden wanted a deterrent against Soviet invasion during the cold war. But US hinted not so subtly that we should stop those plans, and in return get cover under their nuclear umbrella unofficially
Iran’s nuclear program also hits delays because “tragic events” sponsored by other states that occur to people and material involved in the project
You mean the other states ... that Allah (god) & Prophet (man) ... COMMANDS pagan muslims to hate & kill.
Pagans are the dumbest. Only Satan promises an endless penis & 72 white virgins in Heaven if you commit atrocities on a People ... who has nukes ... let alone the a top 5 military.
McArthur: Nuke em
Truman: no
McArthur: NUKE EM
Truman: NO
McArthur: aw come on
Truman: Your fired
LeMay: *quickly pacing outside of the room, gleeful grin at the thought of turning all of North Korea into glassed wasteland, in the voice of F-22 by Habitual Linecrosser* Please let me nuke them, I haven't nuked anything valuable since '45.
Love the reference
I remember an American general suggesting the same thing in Vietnam. The idea was at least publicly floated. He suggested a similar number of nukes as Mc Arthur. Who it was I don't remember and if he was still serving either but it was not just someone gone rogue.
@@american_supremacy because you lack the brains to like something logical..? 🤪
YOU'RE*
Learn to spell.
I see that Swedish flag easter egg @0:48.
Well done to include them there, as Sweden's reason for not getting nukes in the 60's/70's was basically "making the nuke itself is too expensive" (all other potential external political and economic sanctions aside).
They found themselves with the choice of building a few nukes, or jet fighters. They took the fighters.
And a large mistake when building a nuclear refining plant which set back the Swedish nuclear program.
Those maintenance and deployment costs are why there is a significant likelihood that Russia’s nuclear deterrent isn’t nearly what they claim it is.
Not really. No American citizen wants their government to go to war with Russia on the basis that there's only a 10% chance that New York will be obliterated. It may well be why the still have so many though.
But who is going to test that theory? All it takes is a very few to work properly to give a few cities a very bad day. And since Russia doesn't really aim at military targets, that would mean civilians dead.
That's why Putin keeps using the N word. He wants to scare the rest of the world.
Its it fully what they claim it to be they have the fund and the expertise to not only maintain but develop new weapons, as they have done for the past 2 decades.
@@Silver_Prussian and China too.... Especially china. They're major countries they can do it.
This may be true for the rest tho
Excellent work. I'm glad that I listened to the entire video.
Very busy for me at the moment.
America was not cool about nuclear stuff with the uk. Our research was key at the start and then they cut us off lol, if we didn’t give them our stuff chances are UK possibly would have been first, although later on than 45
UK was a little busy in the early 1940s though...
What difference would it have made? Would the UK have use it on Berlin? Or some smaller industrial city in Germany? Would they have preempted the US using it on Japan? It should be noted that the UK had a least as many Russian spies as the US, so it would not have slowed down Russia.
@@stevengordon3271 I’m just saying that the uk could and should have been second to have them, but the US cut us off. Not that it would have changed anything in ww2
This is a myth, the uk actually had scientists imbedded in the Manhattan project.
The US cut off the UK because the Cambridge 5 leaked nuclear information like a sieve to the Soviets.
William I haven’t seen your videos recently so today when this one came up I immediately watched it.
Such an interesting and informative discussion. Please keep them coming.
The Ukraine and Montana comparison was a great way to explain what happened to the nukes in Ukraine when the USSR collapsed.
nah, only if montana was a buffer state and a long time colony of rest of usa, also after decade of shock therapy and deep social crisis
@@lenas6246Uh huh,, also missing in this analogy is russia, trying to stooge Montana against the rest of the United states... If in this hypothetical situation,, Montana tried to leave the United States which is a little crazy since Montana is part of the United States as much as Ukraine has always been a part of russia,, with Russia arming a Montana army FROM Canada as NATO is now at war with Russia through Poland and ukraine,, and Russia offering to put nuclear weapons into Montana to counter the "American aggression"...... It's exactly the same situation, the analogy has been floated ever since the special military operation in Ukraine started, but all Western pundits want to ignore the metaphor......
Now,, COLORADO trying to leave the United States would pose a definite problem, since Lockheed Martin which produces nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, also has nuclear silos in the state of colorado..... They also have the Rocky flats arsenal which has created nuclear warheads ever since the American cold war production line really started to roll......
Just an interesting add-on about South African nuclear aspirations.
America definitely knew of South Africa building a bomb and they wanted to test it in an underground location north of the western Cape, but the US had evidence of the hole being dug and pressured them not to test it as they would not be able to covertly support the regime any longer as the international community would become aware of it.
The scientist working on it had to create an Afrikaans dictionary, just about, to be able to describe all the terminology relating to the development of the bomb. It was seen as a prestigious project to portray the Afrikaners as enlightened etc.
Cape Town had a nuclear reactor in the 80's already, which I found to be curious given their pariah stature internationally, guess there must've been some dealing going on politically behind closed doors.
The French company Framatome began building the Koeberg nuclear power plant in the late 70s. Economic sanctions began later than most people today realize. The UN arms embargo only began in 1977.
"Most of the cost of nukes is in maintenance. So you can reduce costs by using them." - Probably Ghandi
Gandhi*
@@HemantKumar-id3jg :
Amusingly, these nuclear white elephants not only haven’t been used (recently), but are so costly to maintain that anyone who has them has value in them as a hollow threat more than actual use. Meanwhile, it’s the cheap disposable “made in your garage” drones that have played out in actual warfare. I’m sure drones will be regularly used in all those wars in the various Wherever East countries.
Drones are very good, drones carrying nukes even better.
@@Nauda999😂😂😂 those nuke drones gonna cost hell lot of money and resources. There are only a few countries who can afford it.
@@michaelkalashnikov I believe it would be possible to make nukes and even drones without any money, cause money is not an essential part for nukes or drones.
@@Nauda999yes you do? you have to pay the silo/vehicle controllers, the engineering team that built it, and the money given to science to develop them in the first place
@@dawwa1 you think only way to get it done is paying with money, there are people that do things without getting paid with money.
Just look at religions, most people in religions don't get paid, but try to convince everyone that Jesus is real, and died for your sins.
This could be a whole series, BRICS, EU, B&RI, WW2, etc.
You mean "Why Every Country _____"? Yes, I was thinking about how to expand the format beyond this one and the NATO one from last year. I was having a hard time of thinking of other good subjects, though. I think EU might work (thanks for that!), but I need to be careful about differentiating it from NATO.
@@Gametheory101nice
@@Gametheory101 you'll figure it out I'm sure of it 🙏
@@Gametheory101 Easy fix for that: expand NATO and the EU until their membership lists are indistinguishable from the UN. #democracyisnonnegotiable
Interesting topic, glad to see you talking about it ^^
I love the bit at 17.11 where the guy holds the Uranium core in his hands - protected by washing-up gloves!
When South Carolina seceded from the USA in 1860, there was a big dispute over how to handle "Federal Property" within the state's borders.
I think that's a good analogy to Soviet weapons in Ukraine.
Ukraine though was smart enough NOT to attack the facilities and start a war.
Indeed, Ukraine had no control, no competence, no infrastructure even to store them unarmed. Most likely the warheads would be stolen and sold to the Middle East. All these talks about "big mistake" is just speculations aimed at people who don't understand what nuclear industry really is.
Tbf Britain's tendency to use dull names for projects is deliberate to protect against curious eyes. Unless that's what you meant by False Sense of Indifference.
Indeed, like the programme to develop tanks, so called because the only tanks in existence at the time were water tanks, and no spy would be interested in the development of water tanks.
A small thing to add for France. The US and UK doctrine of using the nuclear bomb would only have been retaliatory, and the same was to be applied for USSR at the time. Thus, De Gaulle did not trust its allies to help them with the large numerical inferiority, and in many case also technical inferiority the west had (in the 60s the Russian armored designs were considered better than their western counterparts). The idea behind the French adoption of the nuclear weapon was to be the one to strike first in case of an invasions. 2 things popped out of this : firstly, the US refused to help france in the same way they helped tje british, as France did not follow their doctrine. secondly, when the USSR collapsed, it was found out that their invasions plans of Europe explicitly mentionned not crossing the french border to prevent their use of the nuclear weapon
Remember, Israel has never confirmed or denied they have a nuke but have implied it
Pakistan is not going to have nuclear bombs for much longer me thinks.
Radical Jihadis are very close to power in Pakistan.
The day is not far away when a Taliban type terrorist government will be running Pakistan
The west and the rest of civilization will step in a seize pakistan nukes
maybe they made it but never tested...
@@blackbrute2504Israel probably worked with France to build the bomb, and with South Africa to test it.
It took canada 40 years to forgive India about them using our reactor for nuclear enrichment.
Not really forgiven india was/is a emerging market and future economic power that if the predictions are too be believed is going to rival usa even....so canada backed off
@@leaveme3559
Good joke. I'm sure a lot of BJP regime supporters actually believe it.
Me? I think that India should focus on stuff like getting sewers 12000 years after they were invented, or stopping civil wars within India such as in Manipur.
@@nvelsen1975cope harder lmao
Just in time to start a new grudge about India assassinating Canadian citizens on Canadian soil! Canada just can't catch a break from them...
@@leaveme3559 You're saying this like Canada didn't just start some beef with India despite them being an "emerging superpower".
At 5:51
"Tube Alloys"....
It may be boring, but let's not forget....the British came up with the name "tanks"for something that shoots things other than water!!
"For one thing, welcome back to the channel."
I chuckled probably harder than I should have ;)
Thank you! I'm glad Warpath sponsored you. I'll surely check their game out, but if they stop sponsoring then I'm leaving the game!
I was also in the camp of Ukraine being really silly for giving up the nukes, since it seems it's the only guarantee that the US or the any other empire wouldn't attempt to invade, I suppose it's why I'm subscribed to this channel.
Ukraine had strategic and tactical nukes. Tactical where easy to save. It also had many nuclear power plants, own uranium and nuclear scientists with all the technology and knowledge required to build the bomb. Most of us truly believed that big war is not possible and that there are better ways to invest money for a young country with no enemies...
@@yurijmikhassiak7342we will see if Ukraine fall for another lie from so called ally "friends".
@@rightsdontcomewithpermits7073They end like Poland, we buy everything to stop coming invasion.
Ukraine was silly not to negotiate real working safety guarantees. Though perhaps no one wanted to provide them.
@@ayararesara6253I doubt anyone was willing. To garauntee you'll attack anyone who invades ukraine is to sign up to a potential nuclear war
One of these days, William is going to take over the world with the power of his lines on maps.
I really don't think anyone thought that the UK, a huge colonial empire at the time, would bomb their own small and densely populated island.
The empire was rapidly evaporating at the time and the UK used the remaining influence that it had over certain Australian politicians to push that charming deal through.
thanks for doing this research, you winned a sub!
You know when you get right down to it, the first nukes are hilariously simple in concept though I'm sure extremely complex in practice.
The Fat Man is literally, take a fuck load of C4, make it into a sphere of shape charges so the explosive force goes inward and stuff an unstable material core in the center.
The Thin Man is, you take an unstable core, stick it into a lead half sphere and set the other half to slam down on it, that's it.
Again I'm sure making these are far more complex than the concept suggests but damn.
Very random comment. 28:21 seeing Abrams tanks painted in anything but desert just blew my mind.
High quality summary there, congrats
I would've liked to see the Palomares incident related here, in which a nuclear bomber crashed in Spain during the cold war.
For context, there has been an US air and naval nuclear base in Rota, Southern Spain since the end of WW2.
The B-52 lost many bombs, one of those even disintegrated irradiating the area, but miraculously none fissioned.
During that incident Spanish and US militaries conducted searches and cleaning of the area until the bombs were recovered, but the Spanish authority found one and the dictatorial government kept it secret, reverse engineered it and concluded the country couldn't sustainably copy and maintain that kind of weapon so they returned it.
Great video. I'd add that for South Africa, the reasons for giving up the bomb were more out of practical than political reasons. The South African economy that Nelson Mandela inherited was a complete mess, ruined by PW Botha's excessive spending. The nukes were a part of that. Additionally, democratic South Africa had no serious nearby threats to its homeland, making defensive nukes entirely useless. The thing is, the MIC, intelligence apparatus, etc were transfered over to the ANC government. I think the Mandela government also knew the international community would not tolerate any nukes in South Africa no matter who was running the country.
Good foresight too, as the ANC would end up being one cesspit of corruption, racism, nepotism and hate. Not sure if people chanting "murder the whites" in songs should have acces to nuclear weapons....
Correction regarding India: India didn't decide to develop its own nuclear weapons due to border conflicts with Pakistan and China. China never threatened India with nukes. India developed its nukes due to American threat.
This one has a bit of history. India was engaged in a war with Pakistan in 1971. Pakistani army was carrying out a genocide of ethnic Bengali people in East Pakistan resulting in a refugee exodus to India. India decided to step in and end that. US decided to poke its nose(no surprises there), take Pakistan's side and threaten India by sending its nuclear armed 7th fleet to Indian ocean, Bay of Bengal.
India went ahead to win the war anyway and then it was time for evaluation. Looking at the fact that nuclear weapons were sent to the Indian ocean, India decided to develop its own nuclear capabilities. After three years, India conducted its first nuclear test, in 1974.
Development of its the Indian GPS, cryogenic engines have similar stories. US sanctioned - India developed its own.
Complete and utter rubbish! The US has never made a hostile move against India, rather India has been the beneficiary of billions of dollars of US aid. Whereas India and China have fought a war, and engaged in numerous border skirmishes. China currently occupies territory claimed by India, and has made claims on Arunachal Pradesh region.
@@darkgalaxy5548 US had sent the 7th fleet to Bay of Bengal to threaten India. In response, India developed its own nuclear bomb.
US turned off GPS in the Kargil region in 1999, so that the Indian airforce would not be able to use GPS guided bombs to flush out Pakistani infiltrators. In response India developed its own GPS. It's functional now, provides better resolution and lower seek time than American GPS.
US blocked access to cryogenic engines. India developed its own cryogenic engine anyway and used one to send a mission to the moon recently.
India refuses to take any aid govt to govt. That being said, NGOs are allowed to operate under strict scrutiny and have to abide by FCRA. Some time back, NGOs like Ford Foundation and Amnesty International were asked to pack up due to their involvement in anti-India activities. They should try to help the homeless and drug addicts back home.
@@dexterroy Complete lies! Bay of Bengal is international waters, any nation can and has sent military vessels into the area. India has never suffered one troop death from US military action. The same cannot be said of the Chinese PLA. The GPS system has never been turned off since it went active in 1995, not for any reason. BUT should the US decide shut off its GPS, no doubt sophisticated militaries would have contingency plans to take advantage of the Russian GLONASS, the Chinese BEI-DOU or the Europea GALILEO systems. All are available for civilian use. Cryogenic engine technology dates back to the late 40's, & no doubt India took advantage of any public avaliable knowledge. But it should be acknowledged that the US has no obligation to share its technology with anyone, especially a nation which has declared itself non-aligned to US interests.
@@darkgalaxy5548 Exactly. I'm a indian and I'm well versed on this. China invaded India in 1962 all of a sudden and captured 38000 square km of indian territory which was never ever a part of China at any point of history. They invaded just because india in 1959 gave shelter to Dalai Lama and Tibetans. And now China claims even more indian territories. China insanely has an expansionist obession. United States on the other hand even respect the sovereignty and Territorial integrity of countries like Mexico. While China who has border conflict with all it's neighbor
@@dexterroy half true...pakistan and china were major threat than USA. Atal bihari ji said that nuclear test was done keeping in mind the intention of Indian neighbours. But your point is also valid.
The fact that you even have a vaguely definited process of how to weaponize those elements is a tribute to how no one else wants that particular smoke.
The flag stretch graphic at 14:57 was absolutely brilliant.
8:49 And if you thought China would conduct this test in the Han Chinese heartland, guess again.
Exactly. In many ways, Han people are a lot like Russians. Xenophobic and imperialistic.
I want to mention when it comes to South Agrica dismantling their Nuclear arsenal, alot of that pressure came directly from the USA, who didn't want the successor government to have nuclear weapons
Considering the government is applauding itself for now being 50% anarchic and having zero control over entire provinces, seems like a good policy. Soviet friendly groups cannot be trusted to handle power.
@@red3black344Ah! Racism.
@@HemantKumar-id3jg do you like communist tribals with nukes?
Try to live there for at least a month, then we'll talk about racism.
@@HemantKumar-id3jgNah, South Africa isn’t really stable. We already have one unstable nuclear power in the name of Pakistan, we don’t need more.
@@red3black344 south africa government isn't communist nor tribal
So, I'm not sure if you've ever looked at a WW1 battle plan but there are TONS of lines on those maps. Figured you might enjoy the rabbit hole sometime.
Please keep making more videos!! They are so interesting! 😅
Anyone else satisfied by Ghandi being the Indian leader who developed nukes?
It was not gandhi who lead development of nukes
@@gyani127 He's not a nuclear scientist, so obviously not.
@@gyani127Not the irl one.
Nuclear Gandhi
Whoosh....
That Civilization joke is good
@@gyani127 You forgot Indira Gandhi
That’s not an oil rig it was an anti air WW2 British fort.
there are a couple of glaring errors and inconsistencies in this video but overall it was pretty informative. good job
I give history tours in Savannah and on my Civil War Tour always end up using the term materiel…I don’t know if I like it more when people know what I mean (which they all should) or if I like it more when they look at me and laugh thinking I just butchered the word material.
A very interesting review of nuclear weapons acquisition. Thank you. Whilst a basic grasp of the physics of nuclear weapons is easy the costs of maintaining such an arsenal isn't immediately understandable. I would welcome a follow up on this. How well can Russia maintain it's stockpile? Might it's ICBM turn out to be as good as its conventional arms??
They might. If you were 90% sure they were all duds, would you risk it? Maybe if you were 99% sure?
95% certain is the standard scientific test but the consequences of a dud hypothesis doesn't in most cases result in a city being killed. It might be the inertial navigation that is is dud and it just doesn't go to were it is expected to explode.
I am less than 95% certain an ICBM would go o where it is meant to go and explode. However I do live in the southern hemisphere I have to point out :)@@murdo_mck
They have literally demonstrated they have those capabilites and continue to demonstrate new tech.
Their conventional weapons are no less bad than those ukriane was supplied to. However I doubt any of those leopard 1 tanks can even start while even the tanks that have little rust on them and were sitting out in the open for decades seem to work and become fully operational with quick refurbishment. Reliability in russia means not just something that doesnt brake but something that can be repaired easily. Unlike western philosophy of ,,it will run till the end of the world" the soviets understood since ww2 that no matter how good a piece of equipment is it will eventually brake.
@@Silver_Prussiandoesn’t matter if it doesn’t break when you can just make more. Also, their demonstrations are mostly BS
@@Brent-jj6qi and you say this after that failed trident launch on that british sub, the us also operates them so who know how many could also have defects
South Africa and Israel jointly developed their nukes. South Africa being very good at getting 4 grams of what they want from a ton of what they don't and has mines producing uranium and Israel has a lot of nuclear physicists.
South Africa enriched its own uranium using the helikon vortex separation process. Israel was assisted in its nuclear program almost entirely by France. Where South Africa & Israel collaborated was mostly in sharing of data, and maybe an event known as the vela incident.
The Israeli and South African governments actually *did* perform a joint nuclear test together (ironic, now. Isn’t it?)
It was done in the Prince Edward’s islands on Sep 22nd, 1979. They (still have) never officially announced nor claimed responsibility for the test. But the explosion in the southwest Indian Ocean was detected by seismographs across the regional coasts as well as by a US satellite, Vela Hotel. Thus the event was named “the vela incident”
The Carter Administration held a press conference stating that the detection was a solar interference and not an actual nuclear test. This was because -at the time- both South Africa and Israel were key strategic allies for the US in their respective regions.
To this date, it remains the only unregistered rogue nuclear test in history.
Some MGSV fans might recognize this event with a little kojima-ification.
Today I found out you are a professor at Pitt. Just cool to have the Lines on Map professor in your home city.
William, if we could focus US foreign policy on blosoming Iran's "Persian-ness", their penchant for some modern stature may rule the day. Its a neat culture occluded by revisionism.
A non-retarded Iran would be fantastic.
Even if it wasn't pro west it would still be cool.
US doing exactly that is the very reason the country is in the state it is now. Please keep your hands away from where they don't belong.
As I understand it projects and major military operations are generally given code names using names from a predetermined list.
Operation Market Garden, Operation Overlord, the Manhattan Project, and Ultra could really have been named anything.
Now their names are well known, but there must have been hundreds of projects where the code names never became public knowledge, even when the project or results became (more or less) well known over time.
In Australia, between 1952 and 1963, the British performed 12 Atomic tests. 3 in the Monte Bello Islands. 2 at Emu Fields and 7 at Maralinga. This was in agreement with the Governments of the day.
It was a lousy deal for Australia, we were supposed to get help in developing nuclear tech but all we got was plutonium sprayed everywhere after some truly irresponsible tests and a promised clean up effort that failed to materialise.
The Oz government that agreed to it really showed scant regard for it's own citizens.
The pun in the title of your co-authored paper:
I believe Australia is definitely one of the most capable countries when it comes to building a nuclear weapon. For one we have a lot of uranium deposits so much that we export it to other countries, we also are close to china and asia, with tense geopolitcal rivalries in the area making it ever so likely, as well as the "acquisition" of nuclear submarines.
I think the problem would be that China might stop supporting United States efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring one in retaliation. The geopolitical backlash would not be worth it as it would stretch United States military capability. Besides the US fields assets in places like Guam and in submarines in the Pacific Ocean, so it would not make much of a difference overall. China's trade relationship with Australia is still beneficial to it. A hypothetical nuclear conflict without US involvement will be too much of a stretch.
They had a nuclear program. It progressed to the point that a nuclear reactor for uranium enrichment was under construction at Jervis Bay. Then the political winds shifted and the program was cancelled.
Buying uranium ore on the open market is not a serious hurdle. Processing it into a weapon is where the difficulty begins.
The likely location of the Israeli nuclear test was off Bouvet Island. There was a flash caught by a satellite that could only be a nuke or a meteor breaching the atmosphere, and no meteor was detected. I always found it ironic that the US picked a perfectly nice set of tropical islands for our testing, where it would have been equally easy to conduct testing in a place that nobody wants to visit.
Glad you're tearing down the myth that technical ability is the main barrier to a nuclear arsenal
Very interesting all your videos! 😄👏👏👏😄
Damn, spotted that sea land flag when you said "there's an Easter egg in this thumbnail", obviously doesn't count but still
Sweden actually was the fourth country/power to develop a nuclear bomb.
Sweden did not test its bombs until much later though, since Sweden used data from other countries using spies.
The only test that was ever made was an underground test of a very small device.
No the test we did was on a platform using TNT. Equivalent to 1/4 of a hiroshima bomb if I remember correctly. We were only Months or weeks away from a real test.
Or do you have any links to this supposed test under ground? Genuinely interested.
That mushroom cloud cake really blew my mind.
Sealand is NOT an abandoned oil rig. It was one of several structures built in the Thames Estuary that housed anti-aircraft weapons to fend of the Germans attacking London in WW2. ie It's a fort.
why William hasn't built a slave army out of his viewers yet
He will eventualy😂
This is fascinating! It would also be interesting to learn about which countries threatened to build nuclear weapons but never did, I know Poland made that threat in order to blackmail themselves into NATO for instance.
Pakistan is not going to have nuclear bombs for much longer me thinks.
Radical Jihadis are very close to power in Pakistan.
The day is not far away when a Taliban type terrorist government will be running Pakistan
The west and the rest of civilization will step in a seize pakistan nukes
Great channel love this big time.👌
A question why is it that wars and military conflicts are the only thing that pushes technology to the heights we have today as I am sure is all the best scientists from around the world come together with limitless amounts of money could use it to make things we only see in sci-fi movies 👍
JFK was definitely working on Strangereal logic. He would be one hell of an NCD poster.
BTW, while that Winston Churchill quote about Americans is wonderful... it's also something he never said.
When in doubt, attribute a quote to Churchill.
Winston is modern SunTzu
To me the Metal Slug tank will forever be named, "Bonaparte"
SV-001 lol
@@mercenarygundam1487 The Metal Slug vehicle designs are based on an 80s anime call Dominion Tank Police. The main character has a mini tank named Bonaparte which is pretty much an exact replica to the one in the games.
Congrats on the sponsorship!
Its worth pointing out that the ANC was also opposed to nuclear weapon proliferation. So it's not exactly true to say thr SA program was scrapped to deprive the post apartheid government of nukes.
But it is. They did not trust the black government with nuclear weapons. How is that not believable? It literally was the APARTHEID government.
I’m sure you mentioned it in the video but Iran is thought to be attempting to build them
it's at the end of the video
i love the line at 11:08 :D
Love the shoutout to Sealand William.
The video is good, but there is a number of inaccuracies, particularly pertaining Ukraine.
1. It is true that Ukraine didn't have control of the strategic stockpiles, but reprogramming them or even producing their own copies wouldn't have been difficult as many components of those missiles were already being manufactured in Ukraine, with many minds behind the program also being Ukrainian. Heck, the first successful split of an atom in USSR was in Kharkiv, Ukraine. Ukraine always has been the scientific and engineering hub of the Soviet Union, most of the cool tech was invented and manufactured here.
2. The stockpiles of tactical nuclear weapons required no such authorization, nor the long-ranged missiles and bombers that Ukraine also gave up as part of the deal. All of those could have been used quite easily, and the small number of Moscowites wouldn't have been able to stop Ukrainians from getting their hands on a sufficient number of such weapons to deter russia from invading to stop them from taking the rest. So the narrative everyone is spreading isn't false, Ukraine really could have been a nuclear state, and only the combined pressure and bribes from both moscow and the US stopped them. Well, that, and the first president being a moscow puppet since his pro-Ukrainian opponent was assassinated during the election campaign :(
1 yeah no one or two scientists being ukrainians doenst make your complete assumption right the R36 icbm is perfect example of that it was built and designed in ukraine but the main designer was a russian from irkutsk. Many other nuclear weapons were made and designed in the RSFSR. Most of the funding for those weapons was generated by the biggest economy in the union aka Russia
Programming them would not be a walk in the park, it would take atleast an year to do it, not to mention long term maintenance which would impossible with what kind of budget they have. Thats the least of their problems as no other power would allow them to keep it, the ukrainians would be causing an international scandal.
I don't know if there's any truth to this or not thought I was kidding I'd ask about this my mother would say:
"We don't have nukes in Canada, we just have all the pieces in a room together waiting to be assembled"
Canada and Japan are the most capable of non-weapons states by the measure I created, so that is not far from the truth.
That's a great joke
Are the nukes also flatpack, and what’s the Ikea-name? Inquiring minds want to know!
Your ever so slightly accelerated voice when reading the War Path commercial script EFFECTIVELY makes you sound like AI🤣
Also I’ve been doing research on subreddits and forums from what I’ve read and understand Iran is very close to having there first nuke and possibly testing sometime between 2025-27