The Serious Problem with Nuclear Deterrence
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2024
- Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping + 2 FREE Gifts @MANSCAPED with promo code “Covert20” at mnscpd.com/Covert #sponsored
For Business Inquiries - CovertCabal@Ellify.com
Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
----------------------------------
Credits:
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommon...
The NATO Channel
Ministry of Defence of Estonia
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
KCNA - North Korea State Media
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping + 2 FREE Gifts @MANSCAPED with promo code “Covert20” at mnscpd.com/Covert #sponsored
yeah just say America was nuked. there would be hell to pay... and who ever did that would see it nasty..
Can nuclear weapons help fight climate change?
What you said is correct, by analyzing Japan would of surrendered either way and they didn’t have long to survive. No one wins in Nuclear War. First time you said something unbiased in a video. Please do more research.
Sadly our country is on the brink of a fall and it is falling like a brick and that’s dangerous to the rest of the world. The war is coming and a really big one, and soon and it will be devastating. It’s not if but when.
What is a little crazy is that the Russians do have detonation engines for their missiles and a puzzle that we Americans can solve till this day because we are too busy electing morons like we have right now that do not know the threat and what will happen when the war will start. The western world wanted to destroy Russia for over 400 years and it hasn’t happened, what makes them think that this time it will happen?
The problem we have as Americans that we don’t have that non standard thinking
YOUR DISINFORMATION VIDEO IS CHEAP AS CHEAP AS YOUR TALK as low as your CREDIBILITY LOL
Covert Cabal "Nuclear weapons have the power to kill millions"
also Covert Cabal "Here's a razor for your balls"
Yeah the shift was quite jarring
@@brock8232 not as jarring as scarring, which is why you need proper blades for the boys
That razor can also potentially kill the potential millions in your balls man, you ought to watch out.
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Hold my beer 🍺 😏
I think the inevitable problem with nuclear weapons is as technology advances it will become easy enough for a non-state actor to create a nuclear bomb, and then all bets are off because there is no nuclear deterrence against non-state actors
Could say the same about biological weapons. Indeed, they are even more interesting, because it is far harder to regulate their development due to the intrinsic connection to advanced medicine.
The world will have to mature to the point where we don't randomly kill each other. Regular people have to resist tyranny, the only reason a terrorist organization gets power from terror attacks is because the local people submit. (as we submit to tyranny over here)
If terror attacks equaled war 100% of the time with the total eradication of the terrorists by the locals then it wouldn't be a legitimate strategy. - Same goes for lockdowns, we must resist.
@@OGPatriot03 Cringe.
@@OGPatriot03 Their will always be crazies
@@OGPatriot03 Wow, . . . you equate a measure that is an attempt to deal with a pandemic with a terrorist attack. Is it just that you never learned how to logically reason or that you are just a wannabe demagogue?
I had a cousin who sounded like you. He thought it was all a farce, to rob him of his freedom to chose paper or plastic. He refused to get vaccinated. He died last week of covid. He was smart like you. A veritable legend in his own mind. Like you.
Was it Ambrose Bierce who during Civil War times defined patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel? All you have to do is look around and see who it is that does all the killing of other Americans to know that it's still true. The right wing-nut radicals in the USA are the most dangerous terrorist organizations for the average American.
I suggest you resist them like you spout off about.
The evolution of nuclear doctrine over the decades is something worth studying.
wrrr
Any suggestions?0
@@juliusraben3526 I recently came across a 2 part video series (4 hours) produced by Sandia National Labs called "U.S. Strategic Nuclear Policy, An Oral History". It tells the US side of the story. I am looking for more resources if anyone has any to share. Here are the links:
Part 1: th-cam.com/video/Qz0Dg5gIjhw/w-d-xo.html
Part 2: th-cam.com/video/cA_8I5hjNO0/w-d-xo.html
@@CuriousPersonUSA okay, watching part 1 now. Hopefully i can find this comment back when ive watched it all xD
@@juliusraben3526 check out the Sandia Labs video called “on deterrence” as well.
Imagine standing waist deep in gasoline with your enemy, and it turns out holding a lighter is the only way to stop a brawl.
Yeah, that's nuclear weapons.
Me just standing there wanting a light for my cigarette.
No that’s the human race actually it’s got nothing to do with weapons
@@amacca2085 Since the scenario presented would not exist without nuclear weapons, I would say it has everything to do with them.
@@SkyRiver1 And yet, without their existence, millions would've perished.
More like two men standing knee deep in gasoline with matches.
"power of decision" (1958)..."fail safe" (1964)..."the bedford incident" (1965)..."first strike" (1979)..."world war III" (1982)..."the day after" (1983)..."wargames" (1983)..."by dawn's early light" (1990)...
grab your popcorn and enjoy the fallout!
You're actually in error here about powers defining their responses. India when threatened with tactical strikes stated during the Indo-Pakistan war "any tactical strike will be considered a strategic strike and will incur a strategic response."
This became the benchmark of the Cold War on the nuclear response and was the underpinning of the latter MAD doctrine worldwide.
Latter? If I am not wrong MAD already existed throughout the cold war, India and Pakistan designed their nuclear policies after tests in 98
Nuclear deterrence has worked...as far as deterrence goes. Nuclear deterrence was never considered as a deterrence for conventional or unconventional war. The discussion has gone on since the Russians perfected their own nuclear weapons. What hasn't changed is the concept that conventional warfare is still possible, but conventional warfare has been restricted. The threat that conventional wars could spin out of control into nuclear war has acted as a "governor" on conventional warfare (ie the US in Vietnam). The example of North Korea using nuclear weapons against Guam is a "box canyon", the use of nuclear weapons no matter how limited or by whom, triggers a nuclear response. Otherwise the whole concept of nuclear deterrence is worthless...it's the ultimate "Triple Dog Dare"...it's a line once crossed there's no going back. Nuclear deterrence doesn't necessarily apply to "smaller states" such as an exchange between India and Pakistan or Israel and Iran, there the question (and the answers) are much more murky. But no one should have any doubt that any use of nuclear weapons against the United States, Russia or China will result in a nuclear response, which just like a broken damn, will flood quickly into wholesale devastation.
Yeah. The only way deterrence works is if the other side knows you'll at a minimum respond in kind.
Also why the idea of tactical nukes was left behind.
well explained!
Nuclear deterrence has worked quite well for deterring conventional war as well. And it's not true that there's no going back from nuclear war. No nation has a first-line plan to launch all of its nuclear weapons at once; even in nuclear warfare there are degrees of escalation.
@@deusexaethera But in reality not launching means most of your nukes will get destroyed by opposing force since it will be the very first thing they will try to destroy at all costs. Even subs MUST launch some immediately since leaving even one enemy warhead whole is absolutely unimaginable. They'll just keep some to destroy the remaining enemy subs hiding but won't be able to find them anyway with severe (total?) communication and intelligence gathering assets destroyed.
The most likely response by the US would be (mostly) low yield nuclear weapons on counterforce targets. In the case of North Korea, it would be military bases, nuclear facilities, government HQs etc. It shows that they are willing to break the nuclear taboo, while also keeping things proportional.
In my opinion, the problem of MAD is not the use of nuclear weapons in an all out direct attack between major nuclear powers, for example, USA on Russia, or USA on China (or the other way around), because they know that the use of nuclear weapons in that scenario would be devastating. The problem, instead, relies on the use of those kind of weapons in a tactical scenario against "lesser" NATO countries. For example, let's say that Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in a very limited scenario against some Baltic countries... Do you really think the US would respond in kind, risking WWIII and MAD, for countries that 99% of Americans don't even know exist, or consider them irrelevant? I REALLY don't.
Sure, incredible sanctions and international condemnation would ensue, but a nuclear response? I don't think so.
And that's the problem.
For this type of scenario there's something called "NATO nuclear umbrella " . Which allows NATO members to keep tactical nukes ( American made ) and use it only in a extreme situation that too with NATO's approval .
There is another way a country could retaliate after a nuclear strike, bio-warfare using man made diseases that can be targeted at specific racial or ethnic groups and can be 100 percent lethal. The Soviets didn't just have nuclear warheads aboard their missiles, they also had bio-weapons aboard them too.
@@taraswertelecki3786 Bacteria and virus do not distinguish between ethnicities or races LOL
@@viniciusdomenighi6439 With genetic engineering it is theoretically possible to manufacture such a disease.
@@mdhasmatalimondal1216 NATO members do not control ANY of the nuclear weapons the US has placed in Europe. That would be against the NPT and US law all nuclear weapons in the NATO sharing program are completely controlled by US forces as are the Permissive Action Link codes. In the case of war the NPT would no longer apply the weapons would be both mounted on NATO planes and armed by USAF Munitions Support Squadrons.
I came to an odd yet terrifying conclusion a few months ago.
The calculus of mutually assured destruction only really works when talking about the US and Russia. If are talking about China and India, their arsenals are not large enough to ensure complete destruction, and that leaves the possibility of actually being able to eliminate your opponents arsenal in a first strike.
Having only a few nuclear weapons actually makes their use more likely than having thousands of nuclear weapons.
that is a flawed logik you dont need a big nuclear arsenal smal nuclear arsenal are enof to meake you uninbadebla and give you a negociation last chance
Having the minimal amount of nuclear weapons still gives some deterence.
I’ve been saying that as well. China needs to increase their nuclear headcount to at least 1k. It’s the way we’ll see world peace. Cause as of right now there is no fear shown by usa. They are constantly provoking China into a war but would not do that to the Russians cause they have 6k nukes
Both of these nations got SSBN subs on deterrence patrols, so even if you destroy the ground silos and bombers in a first strike, they will counter attack with those. Even North Korea is developing a SSBN program.
@@Brandon-sr2bl Russia is not really a threat to the USA, China is, regardless on if they have nukes or not, Russia can only really threaten Ukraine or eastern Europe China wants Taiwan and controle the part of the seas where most trade in the world flows, that's a big no no for the USA and the rest of Asia too btw.
Its just a nuke guys.
Stop being scared.
All you have to do is duck and cover.
Yeah, I'm sure a wooden desk would protect me from a nuke.
Hi Raul. I thought it was cover and duck, not duck and cover. Oh, now I have to dig all this up again. Like you say, it's just a nuke.
@@Admiral_Jezza Dumb take. If you're far away enough to survive the heat and radiation, a desk or a ditch is necessarily to give some protection against shattering glass and other debris. If you're too close, then yeah duh a desk can't save you but a bullet proof vest can't save you from an rpg too, get some perspective and don't repeat tired anti-nuke propaganda.
Ok but to be fair if you’re far enough away it would at least protect you from the nuclear flash, plus some flying debris.
You’ll probably die in the ensuing months from radiation poisoning or famine or whatever but surviving the initial strike would be a first step
I worry about when nukes can be delivered without the bombed country knowing who did it. We are already there. A bomb would easily fit into a shipping container or be delivered by low flying drone. There would be no forensics existing after a nuclear bomb explosion: no camera footage, no vehicle parts, etc.
If the digital records are kept in off-site servers, it would be possible to narrow down the containers that would be located in the explosion's center.
All major ports in developed countries have radiation scanners.
It’s possible to know especially when it’s ground base missile
They can detect it from space
Cargo is scanned in ways people know about and some they don’t. A smuggled nuke is unlikely, and even if it were to happen, the fallout would betray the source. We’ve been doing it since the 60s at least.
There is plenty of capability to figure out who the state actor is.
how'd we get so lucky
By using manscape
@@Kaybossboi lol
alien oversight
@@kissthesky40 You can't even imagine.
'Fun' fact: during the Yom Kippur war of 1973 the world was close to a nuclear World War 3. Israel was about to lose to Egypt and Syria and threatened to use nukes unless the US resupplied them with arms (fighter jets, tanks). If Israel would have nuked Egypt and Syria then Russia would have nuked Israel. And then the US and the rest of the world would have been dragged into a nuclear World War 3...
Is that the premise of Sum of All Fears
I somehow doubt Israel would nuke Syria or Egypt: it would be hard to attain sympathy in exile when you nuked such a populace city like Cairo, or that the USSR would be willing to nuke Israel for Syria and Egypt. What if the mission failed or the nukes didn't perform as well? It would significantly degrade the USSR's image as a nuclear power as well as provide important new data for the US on their capabilities.
@@milandavida5004 they can use an older nuke
n say it was old n saying they have more capable nukes
It's called "The Samson option," or something like that...if we're going down, we're going to take the rest of you with us.
@@panderson9561 This is exactly why Israel, not North Korea is the main threat to MAD. Surrounded by enemies, having nukes, and being willing to use them should they ever lose a war, and no country lasts forever. If the US ever stops financing Israel, and the Arab world unites and manages to win in such a way that the existance of Isael is threatened, Israel might be extremist enough to not only nuke the middle east, but europe as well.
WW3 casualty breakdown estimates: Total nuclear exchange between belligerent powers could potentially involve in it’s entirety detonations in excess of 100k megatons over significant portions of the northern hemisphere. Initial death toll within 24 hours is estimated at 300-500 million with variances dependent on use of fallout shelters and evacuation procedures. Past this point casualties would continue to increase as a further 1-2 billion are expected to succumb to radiation poisoning and cancer in the proceeding weeks and months. A substantial number of these fatalities are expected outside the belligerent powers as radioactive particles are spread globally via atmospheric currents. Secondarily a nuclear winter resulting from the injection of soot particularly black carbon entering the upper atmosphere is expected to lower global temperatures between 11C to 22C for a period of 3-5 years under optimistic projections with some modeling showing global temperatures being affected for periods extending several decades. The result of this drastic temperature change is expected to deplete farm yields in excess of 80-90% causing a further 4-6 billion global fatalities due to starvation. With the casualty variation being highly dependent on proper use of food stocks and rationing from the remaining populace. Further still the majority of industrial fertilizer and farm equipment manufacturing that is responsible for the consequential increase in farm yields of the past century is located within the belligerent countries territories. Studies estimating planetary carrying capacity using preindustrial farming techniques provide a range of 600-800 million as sustainable in terms of global population. And with the majority of arable farmland located within the impacted northern hemisphere. Along with the effects of nuclear winter, planetary carrying capacity would be reduced further still. With some modeling predicting as few as 50-100 million being sustainable. In addition ocean fauna would also be dangerous to consume as rain/snow runoff funnels radioactive material along with debris containing large concentrations of lead and other heavy elements into coastal waters. With the destruction of much of the northern hemisphere global trade would for all intents and purposes cease to function. As all major ports, navigable rivers and highways within the belligerent states intersect economic zones that would now be impassable due to radioactive contamination and debris. As per UN food sustainability studies between 58%-62% of countries are dependent on food imports. Even within countries classified as food sustainable estimates put 70%-74% of populations farther than 200km of their respective food producing regions. A further strain on food distribution would be the loss of major fuel refining facilities based in the impacted countries. Fuel shortages would compound already strained food stocks leading to a breakdown in the supply chain. Under these conditions remaining governments would face a monumental task in attempting to maintain law and order. Possibly resulting in the breakdown of civil society and extreme lawlessness in most of the world. Rate of homicides during this period can't be calculated with certainty but expected to be significant. Lastly the majority of pharmaceutical manufacturing for both antivirals and antibiotics, along with medical equipment is produced by the belligerent countries. Loss of these facilities would compound the spread of disease along with the subsequent conditions. Further adding to the substantial number of unpredictable deaths. It is outside the scope of this summary to predict a time frame for the reemergence of civilized societies and or nation states. Final estimate for a total nuclear exchange is between 5.3 to 7.7 billion casualties. With a moderate chance of complete human extinction. A strange game, the only winning move is not to play. -WOPR
@中田沙耶 Your response borders on delusional, unless it was intentionally sarcastic? The data is from a RAND report in 2015 with relevant details on food scarcity from the UN. In the real world fantasy weapons that fill peoples imagination aren't very useful. Might as well say the US operates the death star in secret. And the number of fallout shelters both federal and private has decreased ten fold since the cold war ended.
A nuclear winter is unrealistic and overstated
I don’t think 100k megatons of weapons has even been created in all of history. The biggest detonation was 50 megatons, most weapons are 300-450 kilotons, or 0.3 and 0.45 megatons respectively. Jesus Christ check your math
@@robertalaverdov8147 Ballistic misslies are easy to intercept with nodern technology
That's why nuclear capable hypersonic missiles and glide vehicles are such a huge deal
@Varangian Guard It's fast, that's still certain
But the ballistic trajectory of ICBM's are relatively east to determine and track
Also ICBM's have rather high ballistic trajectory arches meaning they can be detected a decent amount of time before they land
Hello covertcabal can you make a video concerning the predicted conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Thank you
If this happens I believe it will be coordinated with China taking Taiwan.
@@billy56081 two flies in one shot nice 🙂.
@@billy56081 The thing is.
China now is playing the long game.
Trying to starve Taiwan...
@@billy56081 Russia wants to attack Ukraine now, China will not be ready to attack Taiwan for a few more years, so unless Russia will wait, it won’t be at the same time. Also, it’s pretty clear the west won’t intervene militarily in an attack by Russia on Ukraine, so it doesn’t really matter.
I think it more likely that North Korea attacks South Korea at the same time China attacks Taiwan.
@@willbarnstead3194 Yeah who knows, I do think that they see the US as weak under the Biden regime.
If I'm going down, I'm taking them with me. Period. In my eyes, whoever recovers faster from nuclear war would be considered the victor.
Let's get real. The only winners in a nuclear war would be the cockroaches feeding on our corpses.
Sorry Pete but you wouldn't recover from nuclear war, that's kind of the point.
@@shuathe2nd that’s not true, it will take about 100 years but it can be done. Only half of the worlds population would die.
@@robertalaverdov8147 come on man be realistic who's going to Nuke small town in the middle of nowhere there is people going to survive and rebuild
There’s not enough nuclear weapons to vaporize every small community, or even every city around the world.
Keep up the great work Covert Cabal!!! Love your videos!!!
I love the Existential thought experiment of nuclear war and deterrence being followed by "Shaved Balls!" What the fuck is 2021 anyway.
Maybe the threat of shaved balls is a potential deterrent...
The US could respond conventionally to N. Korea, but the opening phase of that war would make the Scud hunts of the First Gulf War look like a joke.
That’s why the US has such a large and capable special forces. Socom would undoubtedly be involved in tracking down North Korean nukes when the government collapses after the initial US response to any attack. The NK Air Force would be down in a few hours and the rest of the military would fall in weeks. US missile defenses can likely take care of whatever NK has to throw at the US and there won’t likely be a insurgency since the NK people aren’t retarded, they know the truth about their government, they just don’t say it. So the only real challenge would be the humanitarian effort and tracking down WMDs that have scarce paper trails on them.
The danger is the country/non-state actor with only a few nuclear weapons. With no capability to outright destroy a potential nuclear adversary the tactical use would need to be responded to in-kind as escalation to complete annihilation cannot occur for one side.
Guam example is good, if NK only has enough nukes to use tactically they can KO key US bases expecting similar retaliation (but nowhere in NK is as strategic as Guam). Imagine if a non-state actor or a certain interested party false flagged that attack to get rid of a key naval base in a lead up for another conflict.
If I only had a few nuclear weapons and my enemy had many many times more, the doctrine would be to destroy major cities since I dont have enough to make a tactical difference vs someone. I would make this public and known and hope that it deters a country with a much bigger arsenal from launching a nuclear attack
@@lastword8783 It depends. Major military bases are often close to major cities. San Diego naval base Bangor very close to Seattle. Pearl Harbor close to Honolulu. Nevermind hitting the capital which is the top target in any scenario. Hitting just these 4 targets and wiping them out would kill millions and push the US into a deep recession lasting at least a decade. If that isn't enough deterrence then nothing is. Most other countries are similar in terms of bases.
@@florinivan6907 Yes but the hubris is thinking one can limit this type of warfare to strictly military targets. Whereas I'm saying with a small number of nukes, I'd rather my doctrine be to target the biggest cities rather than military targets. I forgot exactly what it was called but there was a name for this where a country with a small nuclear force achieves detterance by targetting the biggest civilian centers rather than military targets.
@@lastword8783 It's called being SUICIDAL I believe
@@lastword8783 I think that's the French "Force de frappe" strategy for nukes.
Fun fact: the firebombing of Tokyo killed about as many people as the Hiroshima a-bomb so I'm not so sure a war without nukes would be any less horrifying.
Yeah, but the firebombing of Tokyo was one of the largest strategic bombing operations in history, whereas Hiroshima was a single plane with a single bomb.....
@@kingnotail3838 Still, conventional weapons are usually more deadly compared to nuclear war-heads.
@@kingnotail3838 "strategic bombing operations" burning houses is now considered "strategic"?
@@sindoray2094 Yes, why?
@@sindoray2094 Firebombing enemy cities counts as "strategic bombing" ie destroying an enemy's means of production, industry etc.
slight correction, north korea's survival isn't so much dictated by its nuclear arsenal, but more for the sheer volume of conventional artillery currently aimed at south korea's capital, Seoul
Exactly, so many people forget that.
No one ever talks about use of warheads on one's own soil to defeat the enemies convential forces once they've defeated your army and begin to drive on a strategically vital location, again on the one's own soil.
Once you've used warheads on the legitimate military target what does the side who lost forces in the blasts? Respond with nuclear weapons of their own? And on what? A civilian target invites escalation and presumably if the initial nation is in such dire straits, it's unlikely they have many legitimate, solely military targets open for attack.
I raise the issue because a Russian defense minister brought it up during the HMS Defender incident, and yet everyone thought he meant they'd hit a city, but it seemed pretty obvious he was saying they would hit NATO forces within Russian territory if it came to that situation (sounds to me like they don't have much faith in their conventional forces, and definitely not in their reserve units) and are warning they'd use the nuclear option. But there's no really good response to this scenario for NATO and it's something to think about.
If they nuked their own cities all NATO would have to do is sit tight and wait whilst the Russian people hang/public execute their leaders. They’re no longer holy wars out their surrendering is a feasible option.
In the current Russian military doctrine the use of nuclear weapons to destroy invading forces is an option of last resort, just in case they'd be loosing and loosing very badly. At which point it wouldn't be an issue. Russia is preparing its military not to revert to such measures, and they do have faith in the capabilities of their conventional forces (and so do I, an outsider in a NATO country). It's just an extra layer of defence, a further deterrent if you like.
@@akon360 they wouldn't nuke their own cities. Lots of empty space in Russia
@@westsonrises We will nuke western counties. "In last resort", to minimize our losses. Russians do not have to attack nuclear states to defend Russian's territory.
@@imrekalman9044 how about now ?
If the TROUBLEMAKER stops attacking people around, no body will need nuclear weapons...
What's interesting is that so far there have been few instances of biological or chemical warfare (was used in ww1) used in modern wars because both sides agreed that using them would lead to more deaths and harm, even the nazi's did not use chemical weapons on the battlefield during ww2, so there is some hope that nuclear weapons won't be used in the case of a global/industrial conflict, however small countries that don't have the conventional weapons to defend themselves with might become desperate enough to use them on a much larger foe, then there is the subject of more advanced technology making nuclear weapons useless, thus making war more likely.
There really is no getting around MAD, either it breaks down and you have war or it continues and you risk nuclear war by smaller states but at some point it will break down and you can't unopen pandora's box, the only possible solution I can think of is most of the world coming under one world government and just not allowing anyone else to ever develop nuclear weapons, though then you will get other problems and the potential of nukes being used on smaller states that want to rebel or try to develop/use them anyways, such a state ironically can only come about after something like ww3, defeating the goal in the first place.
Very tricky... Perhaps we are all doomed?... Probably not.
Chlorine and phosgene gas was widely used in ww2.
@@daniellenz6347 The only battlefield usage I've ever heard of is the Japanese using mustard gas against the Nationalist Chinese a couple times. Are you referring to the Nazi extermination camps?
The Nazi's did use gas outside the battlefield and killed 6 million ! so even if they didn't use it on the battlefield, it's not something to congratulate them on !
they did use it, end of story !
@@Tekisasubakani I think I did read something about that
not sure, but if the Nazi's used it ON the field, I think it was against the USSR...
but if you wanna be sure, I suggest to look it up lol (and not on the Wikipedia page) :))
@@Vanyali not on the battlefield which was the topic at hand.
im still right.
this reminds me of the scene in Yes Prime Minister regarding nuclear deterrent. in the end, the prime minister basically asks, "how can we defend ourselves by comitting suicide?" which explains why nukes were never used again after WW2.
“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
- Albert Einstein.
"Ooo Ooo Aaaa AAAAAA!"
-Monke, Circa World War V
I said it better, the human race will never reach 2100
DAYUR: I dont think so; to start a WW there needs to be a advanced/high level of communication and logistics, and that is not the same society that fights with sticks and stones...or to put it differently; there is a reason why WW1 didnt happen before early 1900s (and not in roman or viking era)
"Quoting overused sentences from famous persons adds nothing of value to a discussion"
- Gandalf
"Everyone's got a plan until they get punched in the face"
Highfleet paint nuclear war in one clear sentence= "once you release the genie out of the bottle, there is no way to put it back in"
**proceeds to spam tactical nukes until enemy is destroyed or random cities destroyed becoz of missed missiles**
But in real life the cities ARE THE TARGET TOO!!
Any country that faced a nuclear war would have no choice but to send a full response and use all their arsenal… you can’t have a bomb dropped on your nation and just hope that they don’t drop another one. You will have to respond. That’s only between major nuclear powers not smaller ones. A small nuclear power could be defeated
You say the bombs on Japan were the only ones used in combat. This caught me off guard because it wasn't really combat; it was strategic bombing of civilian populations. I think that has shaped our entire understanding/fear of nukes: we assume they'll be dropped on NYC. In reality, if used in war, they're much more likely to hit military bases, missile depots, troops in the field, or fleets at sea. This was how American generals thought about nukes when the US still had a nuclear monopoly; it's even how MacArthur wanted to use them in Korea against China. I never want to see nukes used in war; but if they are, we're much more likely to hear about a fleet getting sunk or a field army destroyed rather than Chicago or Seattle getting leveled.
Counter force (US, Russia) v counter value (China).
You’re assuming your enemy has the same doctrine and values. You think China a country that has proven their lack of concern for their own causality rate wouldn’t nuke San Francisco?
@@akon360 Yup! This whole video was about strategic calculation of using nukes. If used tactically in battle, it might work. No country could survive nuking a population center. It's easy to hate on China, but you can expect them to not commit suicide like that.
@@akon360
They might not care about their people. But they would care about their infrastructure. Not to mention the unable regions of land mass.
Not really, though. All nuclear powers come up with plans that distribute their warheads by target type. There's counter- force, counter- value, decapitation... Don't think for a second that population centers aren't on the menu.
I think It is a mistake to include examples like Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Libya, Iran etc to argue about nuclear deterrence. There is no reason to assume that USA have to response to those nuclear attacks by the same kind of weaponry. US military has the capability to wipe out almost all valuable targets in N.K by the means of conventional response and such nuclear attack by N.K only give them a reason to do so! It is practically a suicide.
As a matter of deterrence, we'd have to respond in kind. And remember that such an attack would cause great civilian harm, not just military casualties.
The purpose of military action from any rational actor is to achieve a measurable gain. A non-nuclear response to a country like N.K could deny any sympathy toward them while they are under the most massive attacks imaginable! But a single nuclear response is just another tie!
His hypotetical scenario when North Korea launches a nuclear strike and saying there is only two options, either launch own nukes or accepts losses, is wrong.
There is the option to respond to a nuclear aggression with non-nuclear weapons, this doctrine was introduced as early as 1961 and was called Flexible response.
That sets a bad precedent though. It shows an enemy that a nuclear strike isn't always reciprocated, thereby nullifying the threat of MAD.
“You just nuked my military base, I’m not gonna respond.”
Said no one never
Biden trust me
@@ashleyoasis7948 A weird way to spell "Colin Powell".
You don't mention the situation when one side develops a complete missile defence shield and so becomes impervious to nuclear attack. When that happens that country will be in a position to attack the other side without suffering from the retaliation.
That would mean very little... Competent missile defense has existed for quite a while now and the nuclear powers have already been putting their minds on how to make it mean very little, for example, Russia developed a nuclear powered and armed torpedo. Hyper sonic missiles are being developed with currently no system being able to intercept them, decoy warheads and so on, so many ways to deliver retaliation. The day might come when one of the nuclear powers feel so safe as to start using their nukes but this is not where we are.
The result is simple: more missiles fired at them in the hope that some will get through, same as now just with more missiles.
No missile defence shield will ever be complete. You can always saturate the defense with a large number of warheads and/or decoys, so at least some warheads will always come through.
@@yairweinberg1647 There's no competent missile defense for a strategic nuclear war.
Just more.missiles.and decoys.. hypersonic missiles or nuking the coast for that radioactive tsunami
There's a serious problem with a nation giving up their weapons & blindly hoping their dishonest opponents do too
Libya did stop there nuclear program n got destroyed by the west from inside n outside
@@thickboi4304 It was for Israel's benefit as gadafee called israhell out for their nuclear program & complicity in the JFK murder. now russia & turkey are keeping the region unstable just as israhell wants
@@endtimescrucialinfo South Africa gave up their nukes.
@@mwanikimwaniki6801 doesn't matter - The current south African government is communist & in league with israhell.
@@endtimescrucialinfo Lol. Funny AF
Another scenario: if Iran develops nukes and gives several to a terrorist group. Or claims that hezbollah or hamas stole one nuclear bomb. This would escalate proxy warfare into uncharted territory.
not bellibable
they are not suicidal
@@anuvisraa5786 your English is terrible.
@@quokka7555 he meant to say not believable, why not teach him instead of insult him, he is learning
@@someinternetperson why not write in your native language. He has posted several comments with trash English.
I’m not here to educate, this is TH-cam.
You know they would use it on Israel give them a chance. And people in the comments or think it will be a good thing they are evil
Basically. Make your enemies believe your Crasy enough to end the world... But not Crasy enough to do it without reason.
I think interdependence and economic entanglement has prevented more wars than nuclear weapons.
In my opinion, the reason the US and China haven’t escalated into a militaristic Cold War is because of the amount of trade that they do together.
The nuclear arsenals may have a little to do with it but I think trade and the economic impact is the primary deterrent.
Less hope so...!
Yeah, There is so much debt in between nations
You're wrong. Nazi Germany and Soviet union were trading alot before operation Barbarossa.
I agree among other smaller things anyone who is still trying to keep and maintain nukes does so for something that might never happen. I hope the international community is against that but with reckless desperate nations out there who knows. North korea would scare me if they get nukes they let loyal north koreans starve just to get a chance. if they could strike the entire us.. I definitely would move away... Even parts like guam would be crazy but i feel it would force the un to finally step in again. Testing to get icbms like they do is really crazy its like a cult with a nation shooting rockets just to scare the world. At some point how will the world deal with it just hacking there program like with iran. Its funny because i wouldnt be surprised if iran and north Korea work together.... There very few other threats i worry about more because the intentions and desires really are never really known.
@@Slavkovic_Predrag yup. That's where Germany got the oil from to invade France. Once that was done and reserves running low with the luftwaffe wasting it all on London. Hitler decided the best solution was barbarossa and the race for the caucuses.
The problem with deterrence is that it assumes your opponent is rational. If he's unafraid of death or thinks God will pluck your missiles out of the sky, then you're in trouble. It's also expensive, boring and exhausting. Generals like to think up sneaky ideas. That's what makes them generals. After 75 years of deterrence, I think that there are now plenty of ideas of how to get around MAD. Right now, today maybe, we can see a new post-MAD boldness returning. The generals are bored.
I hope nuclear war never happens
The biggest threat of Nuclear War isn't somebody thinking they could win, but somebody knowing they will lose. If a man has access to nuclear weapons and knows that he will lose the war, there is no amount of doctrine that could guess what they will do. The most dangerous enemy to fight is the enemy with nothing left to lose. At the point where the world falls to war and a nuclear armed country loses, it is up to the morality of that country's leader whether to take the world down with his country or to be the bigger person and step down from such a situation.
LOL. Be bigger, let the west to commit another genocide, and propagate their genes on our land.
From another perspective I’m not saying Nukes are obsolete but the war fighting has evolved and inflicting huge damage to your adversaries has became easier than using nukes. To illustrate more the issue with nuclear deterrence in our time that conventional weapons are getting smarter and have longer range. It may sound cliche but think for a second would you is a nuke on an expensive IRBM,ICBM that can be shot down by an advanced ABM.to destroy a city or you can easily fire a cruise missile or a tecto-ballistic missile with 4 types of guides to destroy a power station or a C2 station that’ll cripple an entire country and probably cause a civil disturbance. Also don’t forget the use of long range loitering drones. On the other hand nukes are connected via a robust C2 or C4 systems and those systems depend on digital data links so you need a robust and impenetrable cyber security system so no one can hack the trident d-5 submarines and accidentally fires it to China or even the mainland US
your premise is flawed; if a missile is any sort of Ballistic, that is, goes above the atmosphere and reenters at something like 22,000KPH, interceptor missiles have yet to consistently manage to shoot them down without resorting to nuclear payloads of their own, which then leads to treaty issues.
Oh, there are systems that SAY they can, but the US has been trying to get AEGIS equipped ships using the Standard Missile Platform to pull that stunt off correctly ever since the start of the AEGIS system's inception, which was alllll the way back in the 80's; They haven't managed to intercept any test missiles in anything but perfectly staged tests yet, so that programs ability to stop inbound missiles is suspect to be sure.
Patriot? Ha, that systems been a fucking nightmare as well; its taken decades to work out the severe kinks with the hardware, and its ability to shoot down inbounds is suspect as well.
Simply put, there are currently NO functional Anti Ballistic Missile Systems deployed that have a guaranteed hit rate in the high 90 percentile range, which is the bare minimum you'd want against inbound nukes; Russians might have one around Moscow, but it needs nukes as well, and its interception ability was never demonstrated publicly, so nukes that are fired WILL take out their targets.
But
I can put a nuclear warhead on those smart bombs
@@Shinzon23 is AEGIS the ciws
If so it works well
@@justarandomtechpriest1578 AEGIS isn't just the CIWS; AEGIS is supposed to be a networked warfare system, with nearby friendlies sharing data of all sorts and theoretically pooling defense and offense stuff amongst themselves.
It's also apparently buggy as hell,
and the ballistic missile parts never worked properly.
Also, CIWS doesn't help when a nukes inbound at 22,000mph, and is set to detonate far above the max range of CIWS
Nuke should never be used
If N Korea sent a couple of nukes to Guam, do you really think the US would just say, "oh well" and do nothing ?
🤣
Nuclear retaliation because a glorified runway in the pacific got glassed isnt a risk worth taking. Besides it would be the United States that would start such an exchange in the first place.
What would they do? They won't do anything serious if they have something to lose, they won't use nukes. But they will do something like blockade N.Korea or some other political stuff. Those nukes would be intercepted anyways.
@@hassanalbolkiah127 They are already under blockade, so no difference there. Maybe invasion which would be incredibly costly as NK has one of the largest militarys on earth.
They could also influence China to also blockade.
In reality though Guam isnt a productive target for a nuclear strike. That would be(vs the USA)... Vandenberg, Sanfrancisco Bay, and Panama canal and others obv.
edit: Intercepting Nukes is incredibly hard as during the reentry phase they are coming almost straight down at orbital speeds, even then they dont need to even enter the troposphere to obliterate a region.
Nuclear attack is an irreversable crossroad. Respond with overwhelming force to eliminate further threats. Or respond insufficiently and invite every player to further attack. Death by a thousand cuts.
Do you think kim cares if you nuke his people. He will bring down everyone with him. The population centers of US will surely be worth his death in his mind.
First of all, any nuclear strike will result in a nuclear response. There is no such thing as a "tactical strike" when it comes to nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have two uses, deterrence and total destruction, no in between. Anyone insane enough to allow for even one nuclear strike needs to be eliminated as soon as humanly possible to prevent future strikes because no one can predict what this person is willing to do and conventional warfare isn't going to stop someone like this. Another thing to mention is that Nuclear Deterrence isn't to deter from conventional warfare, although it does do that to an extent, it's to deter from Nuclear Warfare. The only people that would retaliate to conventional warfare with nuclear warfare are those that are living in a fairytale thinking they are the hero of the Earth and are invincible from anything and everything and then the desperately depraved that would prefer everyone burning rather than just their own people with burns.
Can someone simplify the range restrictions for ICBM's? I'm guessing it can't only be fuel b/c they all enter orbit. So is it a function of fuel, mixed with the orbital mechanics of where on the globe they were launched?
They don't really go into orbit, only sub orbit. As far as I know the main restriction is weight...getting a warhead down small enough so that the missiles that you have can push it from point A to point B.
@@panderson9561ah geez, I think I remember hearing it before. Launching anything into proper orbit requires such resources, yet some nukes can exit from a sub. I just wasn't seeing it. So thank you, that really helped.
With current technology there is no range restrictions . If you can put a satellite into orbit , then you can drop a nuke anywhere on the globe . There's a saying - " Difference between space rocket and missile is just the intention "
@@mdhasmatalimondal1216 if you like take a look at the first comment to my question. I agree with you that there are not really any meaningful restrictions when talking 11K km or 13K km, you're pretty set either way!
But as a purely technical matter, that didn't make sense to me. If they enter orbit, then what could possibly limit one to 10k, but another 12k?
So that first guy helped make it clear immediately. In fact, if I had followed my own misconception about orbit further, I would have seen range wouldn't even need discussing. Because they could basically 'hang out' for millions of miles until commanded down to say hello! No doubt that's being looked at (or already deployed?) for some time now. Like the 24/7 bombers during the cold war, but as usual always looking to be a bit more efficient!
Take it easy.
ICBMs can load up to 8-12 Warheads. Load it up with 1 or 3 and here you go, range limitations are screwed.
It's possible that there are other effective methods of deterrence, but I like having multiple methods of deterrence operating simultaneously.
If my enemy used even one warhead, I would completely annihilate the enemy without any delay rather than just sit and watch my nation turn into a nuclear wasteland.
congratulations, that’s the exact mindset that will cause the destruction of our entire species (along with most other life on earth)
@@realtissaye We have a clear nuclear doctrine, known to our enemies. We will not strike first, but will not give a second chance to our enemies in case they decide to strike us with their nukes, no matter if their strike was on a civilian or a military installation.
And when their neighbors take offense to the radiated wasteland down the road that's giving their citizens cancer and diminishing their economies, we'll just hope they don't also have nukes?
I don't know, sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I would just totally annihilate my enemy with nukes before they could even fire one of theirs. That way my country doesnt have to have an irradiated city.
You are MAD.
Check back in a month to see if big wars can still happen regardless of nukes.
Love your videos man they make my day
2:23 to skip
Give a Like
What about a treaty where all current nuclear powers have to disarm down to say 10 total warheads or less? Of course everyone would have to be on board.
He mentions some UN treaty to ban all nukes. But yea that'll never happen. Even if they all agreed... someone would cheat. Countries already cheat on arms control agreements to give them a small advantage... so someone would absolutely cheat on such a treaty cause them having the only nukes would make them king of the world
@@grobbs666 Yeah
That's why I mentioned not doing away with them but limiting them to where it would still be a deterrent but not enough to wipe out a big country or destroy the world.
@@Joe_Friday that's a good point. Minimal deterrence they call it. Idk if 10 is enough though. Maybe 100. Only 10 makes it possible for an enemy to catch them on the ground, or shoot most them down. US could probably handle 10 ICBMs with their GMD... not more though. And 10... if say 3 we're destroyed on the ground, and 2 of the others failed (which happens all the time)... that only leaves 5. Some crazy dictator or mentally unstable person might be willing to accept losing a couple cities.
It's a weird one, idk. What do you think? You want lowest amount possible, but lowest amount that still is a solid deterrent
It’s too ez to hide more. If everyone only has 10 and you squirrel away 40 more on top of that. In a matter of a few warheads you can have many fold the number your opponents wield
What are the consequences of not obeying that rule
The intro music sounds like it came from Out Of This World (Another World), a 1991 video game by Éric Chahi and published by Delphine Software.
I've heard the argument that Japan was on the verge of surrendering and the nukes didn't need to be used. But, keep in mind, despite the destruction of most of their navy and air power by 1945, their resolve to keep fighting harder the closer we got only increased. Iwo Jima was a slaughterhouse and such a tiny strip of land. Okinawa too saw very high loses given the size of territory being fought for. Also keep in mind, it took not one but TWO atom bombs to get the Japanese govt to surrender and even then, there was an attempted albeit failed coup against the Emperor to keep on fighting.
Harsh and brutal as the two nukes were, I fall under the camp that their use ultimately saved lives.
civilians were throwing themselves off cliffs at okinawa as it was being lost to the us- despite all their loses and hardship up till then I believe the japanese people were capable of enduring much greater and proplonged suffering in conventional war- it might be argued the use of nukes was twofold- to force a quick end to the fighting and to warn stalin
@@laszlozoltan5021 Stalin's spy network made him pretty aware of the capabilities of what the Manhattan Project was making but yeah, I agree that the dropping of the atom bombs was a message to him as well as a means to hasten the end of the war.
I don't think the issues of Russia was so apparent at the time. They were pretty wrecked. Japan hoped to force a negotiated end that left them as is.
If japanese people were so determined to die fighting why they surrendered after two nuclear bombs, why not ten or one hundred?
The fact is japanese were on the verge of surrender, they fought fiercely in Iwo Jima and Okinawa to get a better peace deal and not just an inconditional surrender.
The will of fighting until death was just a bluff to deter enemy landings, but even in WW2 they werent crazy enough. The USSR entry just accelerated the US willing to finish the war as early as possible to put Japan and South Korea in US sphere of influence.
It was all geopolitics, not for saving human lives.
For now the line is the first one, and at least so far it worked really well. No one want to be the one who open the pandora box
Ukriane Russia analysis please!?
It worked so far, when it won’t then we’ll be back to wars with sticks and stones.
Nice.
We can finally return to monke.
@@Raul_Menendez ride wife, life good
Manscaped trimmers suck, it always knicks my balls and around the base. Its not skin safe nor does it actually get all the hair
Very interesting analysis. If NK nukes Guam…I do NOT want usa to retaliate as that would just escalate it into each other hitting their respective mainlands. Causing me to die lol!
Guam is just a subjugated colony of ours. It’s not a big deal if we lose that territory.
You have to respond in some way, you could use nukes or you could just invade and destroy the regime but if they can use nukes and you can't that's a big loss but you can't do nothing that's even worse.
The moment you let someone get away with limited use, that is far more likely to trigger repeat attacks the same way. No, you have to at a minimum respond in kind.
@@icecold9511 Ignore Brandon, he's a paid PLA troll.
@@angrydragon4574 you’re just a paid MIC shill
@@Brandon-sr2bl LOL, wumao. 😆
The only government that thinks it can win nuclear war is the US government. For everyone else nuclear weapons are necessary not only to retaliate against a first strike but to prevent being bullied with the threat of a first strike. Also I don't think you described the game theory behind nuclear weapons accurately.
If we avoid the issue of nuclear winter and pretend that it is false then nuclear weapons have a clear deterrence function. If one player (call him player 1) can construct a guaranteed retaliation strike capability then he can deter nuclear strikes from the other player (call him player 2). We have to think about what player 1 will do when player 2 makes a first strike.. At that point player 1 has to assess what will happen if he makes or doesn't make a retaliatory strike. If player 1 makes no retaliatory strike that simply invites more strikes because player 2 can then conclude he can strike with impunity. Since player 2 was willing to make a first strike then it signals that he is more than willing to make a second, third, fourth and so on strikes. Also player 2 doesn't know if player 1 will retaliate or not so he has to do his best to eliminate player 1 before player 1 decides to retaliate hence he will strike again and again until player 1 is gone or retaliates. If player 1 makes a retaliatory strike then player 1 essentially has 2 options. Option 1, Player 1 can make a proportional retaliatory strike and see if player 2 stops his strategy. Since player 1 only retaliated proportionally player 2 can judge that player 1 only makes proportional retaliation and this may convince player 2 to stop. Option 2, Player 1 can make repeated retaliatory strikes to race player 2 to see who will die off first. From this you can see that for Player 1 retaliation is always the better option hence before the game even starts player 2 can conclude player 1 will for sure retaliate.
Hence we can see that there are only 2 possible outcomes from a nuclear strike. It will either end with proportional retaliatory strikes or it will end with a nuclear strike race that will end the world. In proportional retaliatory strikes, the strikes have to be proportional. Less than proportional leads to escalation from insufficient deterrent (the trade is not bad enough for the other player to deter them). More than proportional leads to escalation through the opponent's fear of further strikes (the trade is too bad for the other player and they won't believe it will deter us from making further strikes). This means that unless someone is a fool, no one will ever make a nuclear first strike against an opponent with a credible retaliation ability since there is simply no payoff from it. A proportional trade doesn't help anyone and whichever fool that does that will be roasted by their own people afterwards.
What happens if a tactical nuke is used on the battlefield in the middle of the ocean? Is that justifiable?
That is why I think carrier groups are just about obsolete. They only matter now in limited confrontations.
Once the nuclear seal is broken (at any scale/location) it's open season.
If used against the USA, the US would strike back with nuclear weapons. It's literally their policy that the carriers are sovereign US soil.
As to it being justifiable, that depends on ones point of view. It's certainly the most effective way to take out the fleet, but imho it's not worth the retaliation.
The most likely way this could happen would be a suicide attack via a terrorist group secretly given such weapons by US enemies. The catch is, nuclear radiation is traceable to the reactor that created it. So pretty much by process of elimination of every other nation state showing evidence that it wasn't them the culprit would be found.
@@noahway13 That doesn't make carrier groups obsolete it just destroys them. To make something obsolete is to replace it's ability, which for a carrier group is striking hundreds of targets quickly and efficiently. Something you can't do with tactical nukes and anti ship ballistic missiles.
“We’ll meet again, don’t know where, don’t know when…”
Actually the US never intended to invade Japan at all. In fact, Japan had already sued for peace by the time the bombs were dropped. The idea that the US had to either drop the bombs or invade Japan was made up in 1946 to justify the bombings. About a year after they dropped them.
Japan's peace offer was conditional. That has always been a known fact.
@@icecold9511 On the condition they get to keep their emperor which they did keep even with the bombings. But the point is the US was never going to invade Japan and the million deaths was just made up to justify the bombings.
I’m more worried about a 19 year old soldier causing an accident with one.
The idea that anyone with power cares at all about the consequences of nuclear war is a joke.
Not really since they wouldn't be too happy about their own countries being nuked too.
Well power and money cant really make you invulnerable to a nuclear blast, I think they realize that there would be no winners in this case
What a dumb ass statement.
Who wants to rule over a nuclear wasteland?
trump- did he care about the consequences of denying covid ?
There is a pretty cool (and fairly simple) way to illustrate it as a Nash equilibrium. A surprising but interesting application of microeconomics
Why these questions never asked in mainstream conversation? One day a mistake will be made and that will be that.
Your example of North Korea making first strike against US is insane. North Korean nuclear deterrence is based on obscurity, idea that they will have enough nukes that some will survive the attack and can do serious damage to their enemies. They will never be able to wipe out US nuclear arsenal. The situation where they might use nuclear weapon is when US and South Korea invade. In that case they might nuke Hawaii, assuming they have enough range major cities in US west coast, South Korean cities and possibly Japanese cities to cause as massive damage as possible to US and its allies. Also they would never make Guam priority target. It major military base, but its economic importance is beyond irrelevant.
One of the most insightful blogposts on MAD is called The President and the Bomb by Alex Wellerstein
The music in this video reminds me of the first scene in Highlander when he closes his eyes and remembers Scotland five-hundred years ago.
The dropping of the bombs in japan is not the reason they surrendered.
Todays nuclear weapons are not like the ones we used on Japan they are hundreds of mega tons more powerful in some cases thousands of mega tons .Nobody wins nothing is left living during nuclear winter.
No. Big nukes are inefficient.
The enemy cant shit his pants if he has no pants to shit in.
Another response to a very limited nuclear attack would be a conventional attack. N. Korea could be invaded as a response.
Except they would try to use the threat of further nuclear attack to prevent it.
Ambiguity is diplomacy's best friend
For a second I thought he used that trimmer to cut grass
Nuclear weapons changed war tactics for the best: any country that has nuclear deterrence will be close to impossible to invade, thus finally stabilizing great powers actions in somewhat of a stall. If it is true that having more countries get access to such technologies would make the probability of nuclear war higher in case of war, the probability of war itself would drastically shrink making the world more geopolitically stable and ultimately a safer place for civilians.
Bruh no. Nuclear weapons should only be possessed by powerful countries because it doesn't change the balance of power. If a much smaller country suddenly acquired nuke it can hijack the international order and you won't be able to sit them down.
@@zwen3763 They don't change the balance of power, they change the tactics and the possibilieties linked to that balance of power: if even inferior nations weren't attackable, what could spark a war? Stability and mutual deterrence bring peace, instability and non mutual detterence bring war
Only hours ago, Putin announced that his nuclear deterrent forces are on high alert. This video is absolutely terrifying right now
Three weeks later ..
Well I'll see you again two years from now or maybe 10 years from now if You Tubes not around.
My point is that it's never going to happen.
It's called mutually assured destruction
What happens when a nuclear power starts losing a conventional war? Especially with old leaders who wont be around to suffer the long term consequences of such a descision
They usually have kids and grandkids. And what happens is negotiated end. China would likely lose a war against the US, but we are talking about a war fought not within either territory. Invasion is a whole new challenge.
Yes
Deterrence capabilities.....
abolishing them would pave the way to wars thus beneficial aswell for some.
Who said, "I am not afraid if someone wants to build a thousand nuclear bombs, I afraid if someone wants just one"?
Sounds like something Christopher Hitchens would have said about Iran I believe, could be wrong though.
Morgan Freeman said something similar in The Sum Of All Fears, a movie that involved nuking Baltimore.
Dude what the hell is going on with these comments
Nuclear weapons strategy is really a bunch of different deterrent and war fighting theories, supported by one or more weapons systems and a handful of pre determined war plans. It was not confined to MAD. There was massive retaliation. flexible response, denial of objectives, hold at risk, just to name a few. And weapons systems purchased to go with each. Example - polaris was justified for the secure second strike of MAD. There are many such cases.
How about an ICBB or Inter Continental Ballistic Burrito? I know when I eat a burrito from the corner store I drop "the bomb" in less than 15 minutes!
well depending on the initial conditions, you could actually win a nuclear "war", tho the winning side are those that actually doesn't have to worry about retaliatory costs in the first place...
yeah but if half the planet is nuked the radiation will make life for the other half hell until they cease to exist, it's almost as bad as nuking your self, just takes longer and is more painful
@@lilskynet8163 as I said "initial conditions"...
@@azazzelx lol, these are the initial conditions
There are no practical means of big nations doing this to each other. It will be detected.
@@icecold9511 think outside the box. In line of being in a think tank.
Great topic, one I've been contemplating for years now.
Going to full out nuclear exchange never seems to be something you'd want, regardless of being attacked.
An even better relevant issue to look at is the prospect of the nuclear "umbrella". If NK nukes Guam then the US would have enough reason to still consider military action, even if not a nuclear retaliatory strike. But what if China attacks Taiwan in a conventional invasion? Do you really expect the US to get involved, even if just conventionally? Why would they? Doing so risks escalation to a nuclear exchange between the US and China. So this is enough of a deterrent for the US to just decide they'll leave Taiwan to be captured, and just put meaningless political sanctions on China instead. The only way to have a chance to defend yourself in Taiwan's position is to have your own arsenal. Promises by other countries do not matter.
Going to full out nuclear exchange might not be what you want but you want to instil in your enemy an impression that it is EXACTLY what you are going to do.
Anything less is courting with disaster, yes at that point where the doom is approaching I hope the men and women who are supposed to pull the trigger on global nuclear war decide resist. Even if Russia fired a full on nuclear attack vs US I think it would be better for humanity for US to not respond and die as martyrs. (or the other way around)
In regards to the north korean scenario.. DPRK nukes guam, a U.S. military base, then US responds by nuking DPRK military base. Thereby not responding by attacking civilian targets. Keeping mainly military targets
You should do a video on the (re)rising conflict in the Ukraine. Love your content and think you could give an unbiased opinion like you always seem to do.
Have been a subscriber since an year now. You really have great quality in your vids. Can we get a vid. about asymmetrical warfare. Why despite modern technology many powers like USA lost Vietnam, while europe conquered entire Africa including Congo during " The scramble for Africa"
Ukraine gave up its nukes. Look how that worked out.
"Here's how we can all die--- CHECK OUT MAH BALL TRIMMER"
The scenario you describe could be like if one side had a senile fool of a leader that barely knew where he was could be seen as a sufficient weakness to exploit.
If the enemy launches two missiles you retaliate with an equal number and not your entire arsenal. That's being flexible. Cities are usually considered "hostages". They'd be last on the list. Military bases are first, then economic/industrial targets.
MIRVs can carry up to 20 individual nuclear warheads on a single rocket. You would have no idea until it was too late if it was a couple of warheads or nearly a couple of dozen.
Not necessarily, you cant conscript civilians if there aren't any left. And its likely military structures would be targeted indirectly to minimise loss of the nuclear weapon from any device designed to be used against them. The bigger the weapon the less accurate you can afford to be.
When does nuclear deterrence fail? Let's ask Captain Matias Torres.
Please do a video on underground nuclear testing. There are no videos on TH-cam about the subject and it would be fascinating do you know how they are performed, what data can be gathered, and how the US can detect one has gone off
Information is available. Seismographs are the detection method.
There's an entire system of sensors all over the world that can detect a nuclear explosion, primarily though seismic data.
untill a single disenfranchised lunatic builds a planet buster bomb and tells everybody else to get rid of their firecrackers or get annihilated.