Oppenheimer's warning lives on
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ส.ค. 2023
- Visit 80000hours.org/caspian and start planning a career that is meaningful, fulfilling, and helps solve one of the world’s most pressing problems. Make your 80,000 hours count.
#Oppenheimer was right. Today, the world is closer to #nuclear ruin than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The #DoomsdayClock stands at 90 seconds to midnight.
Support CaspianReport
✔ TH-cam membership ► / @caspianreport
✔ Patreon ► / caspianreport
✔ PayPal ► www.paypal.me/caspianreport
✔ Merchandise ►teespring.com/stores/caspianr...
Crypto endorsement
✔ Bitcoin ► 1MwRNXWWqzbmsHova7FMW11zPftVZVUfbU
✔ Ether ► 0xfE4c310ccb6f52f9D220F25Ce76Dec0493dF9aA0
✔ Bitcoin Cash ► 1BKLti4Wq4EK9fsBnYWC91caK7NZfUhNw9
Join us on Facebook or Twitter
✔ Twitter ► / caspianreport
✔ Facebook ► / caspianreport
✔ My equipment and editing software ► www.amazon.com/shop/caspianre...
Watch CaspianReport in other languages
✔ Spanish ► / historiageopol%c3%adtica
✔ Russian ► / thecuriouscat
#ad #sponsored
Visit 80000hours.org/caspian and start planning a career that is meaningful, fulfilling, and helps solve one of the world’s most pressing problems. Make your 80,000 hours count.
#WarOnAmhara
An Ethiopian army drone has bombed protesters in Amhara, killing at least 70, local media reports.
Air strikes reportedly hit demonstrators, who'd gathered in the town of Finote Selam to protest federal forces who planned to enter the area. #MakeavideoaboutWarOnAmhara
An actually good sponsor! Glad you're moving away from promoting scams
Mystery in Romania as rumor ,it is said that before 1989 the Ceausescu regime succeed to build 2 nukes for Romania (see Cernavoda nuclear reactor built in his time of "reign")
this rumor circulate even now , that these 2 nukes are hidden deep inside in The Carpathian Mountains military bunkers ,of course ,nobody from today will recognize this, myself i heard this in the time during my military service, inside military base, from Pitesti City (i served 6 months ,when i was member of the tank) in the period june - december 2002 , before Romania entered in NATO in 2004.
currently status ,of course, Romania: zero nukes.
Nukkehoaxxx
Nothing like waking up in the morning and getting reminded about nuclear winter. Have a great day everyone!
for real
No need to worry cares is living the day by day anyway... 😉
Look at the bright side: At least the skiing will be good.
😂
Nuclear winter is a fiction made up by anti-Reaganites in the 80s. Horrifying as a nuclear exchange of any scale would be, the planet wouldn't be destroyed. Creating an unstoppable boogeyman has only prevented people from taking actually meaningful steps that could increase their chances of survival, like having 3 weeks of food, water, and potassium iodine on hand to wait out the most dangerous of the radiation (high intensity, ~2 week half life isotopes). Doesn't help you if the bomb lands on top of you, but will if you survive the initial blast.
It’s unlikely that the first use threat is going to come from a relatively stable state actor, but from a new or unknown nuclear armed entity that has been attacked with conventional forces.
America did already
@@Ese_osa Almost 100 years ago stop dwelling in the past. Terrible as it was, it saved millions or perhaps even billions of lives since it literally ended WW2 which might have still been going on today if nuclear weapons did not exist.
Additionally it's one of the biggest reasons why we have so few wars now compared to 100+ years ago. Nuclear war means the end of our world as we know it and nobody wants that.
Don't underestimate the USA. They are capable of anything, doesn't matter is their economy is stable. The worst? They will lie and launch a media propaganda that will justify their future actions.
They did it so many times, you should kow by now how the USA works. They don't care if millions of civilians die as long as their "interests" are protected (by interests I also mean not minded their own businesses).
A misfortune within own borders is also a factor. There have been too many "accidents" that we know of and many more in reality. There's really a concern that especially the Russian arsenal is in such a bad state of operational status just by watching their use of conventional weapons lately.
@@dinodudedanny6324 false.. Standardized lie. the Japanese were ready and willing to surrender, u.s nuked them anyway for influence, power, and empire.. also, US knew in advanced about the pearl harbor attack's, that's a fact and this is why the carriers were moved.
In my humble opinion, the biggest danger with nuclear weapons is that someone could misinterpret opponents move for an actual attack, or an accident causing a nuclear explosion. Then again, a world without nuclear weapons would be a lot less stable one. Imagine how close Soviet Union and USA got to a nuclear war. Now imagine what would stop then from an open war if mutual destruction was not on the table.
Eh, russia would be wiped out of existence without nukes! And im for that.
@@HedgehogZonenot back in the day USSR had a clear edge over usa. France would attempt to be neutral, so would UK, so the situation would be a hot mess
@@ee1pj
Not if the US did it after taking Berlin. Should have listened to Patton and kept moving east. The GULAG system was a thing of nightmares that even NAZI's wouldn't do...
@@TheTyrial86 I think you underestimate the Nazis...
@@stixinst5791no they didnt. Russia lost 20 million people in ww2 while the US was untouched. The US had a huge head start over the soviets,all they had to do was wait for the soviet Union to collapse.
At this point, I hate to say, with humanity's track record of well-established behaviors of self-destruction and selfishness, it is only a matter of time before these weapons are used. Especially with zealots in the mix.
As time goes on, the nuclear taboo becomes self-refuting. If everyone is convinced nobody will want to risk nuclear annihilation, then it becomes easier to pursue risky policies that test the limits of the taboo, up to and including the use of the weapons. This problem was even obvious during the height of the Cold War, when the taboo was strongest.
In 1965, the U.S.A. lost a nuclear bomb near Japan (at the Philippine Sea). It was kept a secret and only revealed to Japan in 1989. That nuke was never recovered.
The wikipedia page is called "1965 Philippine Sea A-4 incident".
lmao, as if the US ever lost only one bomb
@@delfinenteddyson9865 hahaha fair point. They probably never cared enough.
The problem is, the USA talk at least more open about, but I cannot imagine the Russians or Chinese admitting, that they lost nuclear bombs. There might be so many others, no one knows about.
@@delfinenteddyson9865 and so does ruSSia, how many did they lost? between their nuclear subs that sunk for mistakes and problems with their nuclear torpedoes.
Lost a couple off the southern coast of Spain
“Neglect breeds peril. When caution falters, the instruments of death impose their ruthless resolve” my god what a bar
The more poetic and fancy a sentence is, the more the audience is forced to think about it in order to understand what was said, thus making that line stick in their brains a lot longer. Caspian's pretty good at it.
@@lucasharvey8990 These zingers are almost never his words. They're quotes from other people who he doesn't credit.
Without yield restrictions it's still dangerous, less than 500 but has 10+ megatons yield is quite devastating.
High yields are stupid mainly because the higher the yield the lower the efficiency and defense experts rightly dont go that route.
There is no need for extra large yield any longer because the targeting is a lot more precise. They can lob them within a 3 meter radius of the targeted point. They also have improved the safety and security mechanisms. Most nuclear weapons have a variable yield of 45kt to 186kt. The biggest ones in use currently are fixed yield 2.2Mt devices.
Bro a "tactical" device is still armaggeddon and the beginning of TEOTWAWKI. The Hiroshima bomb was a tiny fraction of what modern nukes will do, and it still obliterated a population center and caused horrific injuries.
@@adi_1o1ok that's wrong. The high yield nukes tend to burn more of its nuclear material then the lower yield ones. You can however fit more warheads on one missile with lower yield which is why they go that direction.
Actually, yield restrictions is not as significant as the number of warheads. Due to the Inverse Square Law, five properly spaced 1-Mt warheads cause just a bit more overpressure damage than a single 10-Mt warhead, and just a bit less with regards to thermal radiation.
If you look at warhead yields over the decades, they have been trending down.
The doomsday clock does not exclusively track the severity solely on nukes threat… that is a misleading point right there
It has at max been 17 minutes from midnight so the clock is complete bullocks
Caspian report is just a parrot and sensationalism now
The doomsday clock is a self important self righteous advocacy group that only remains important by alleging an ever increasing never decreasing threat.
It’s also completely unreliable these days and doesn’t represent reality
Whole video is misleading, he acts like the west has no blame what so ever in global tension...just wow
To get rid of nukes all together you’d have to get rid of every single reason anyone anywhere would want to go to war. Otherwise if there is any chance of any kind of armed conflict nations should be trying to build the best weapons to destroy their enemies with. That’s kind of how war has always worked. Even when there are treaties that limit certain types of arms in warfare, once a real war actually breaks out those treaties go out the window.
Very important thing to note, the science of a nuclear winter is heavily disputed, there are many papers that compare the level of debris to major volcanic eruptions and they tend to find that it would be very unlikely for us to trigger a nuclear winter as even volcanic eruptions that spew much more debris don't always. But the scientific consensus is let people believe a nuclear winter is a guarantee so they dont use the bombs
Indeed. Michael Crichton even demonstrated that the science is flimsy at best using WW2 firebombing campaigns as a frame of reference.
I read this as well. From what I gather it is fair to say that no one can be sure either way, and that there are too many variables to be absolutely certain. I can absolutely guarantee with 100% certainty that it would not be wise to actually put the theories to the test.
Whether or not a nuclear winter possibility is spurious is completely irrelevant given the amount of devastation and disruption a nuclear war will cause. It’s this kind of hopeful skepticism that just extends the finish line by a few inches. Who cares if a nuclear winter happens or not, the consequences of a nuclear war in this age will spell the essential end of the human race.
It's somewhat comical in a sad and dark sort of way just how much overkill there is in the quantity of nukes in the world. Thank you for another informative episode. Hopefully these terrible weapons will never be used.
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️
I think the alternative is much worse. Without nuclear weapons, major powers would trigger world wars probably every 20-50 years with their conventional armies clashing on the battlefield. And we already had a few of those before. Yes, one nuclear war would destroy our planet forever, but I think that the odds of that happening are much more slim than having a conventional world war every 20-30 years (in the absence of nuclear weapons). Which would probably mean that the world would lose around 300 million or more people every 3 decades. In the grand scheme of things, the loss of life would be much higher compared to a nuclear annihilation that would probably never come.
By owning nuclear weapons, conflicts between major powers are much smaller in scale and generally in the form of proxy wars, using third party countries. As a result, less people are dying and conflicts are generally confined in a smaller geographical area. I think WW3 would've already happened long time ago between the West and the Soviet Union, if they hadn't had nukes back then.
Lol . The wars are still happening outside the western world.
It's called proxy war.
And wherever there is a small war, powers like US and Russia join in to test their abilities.
Which negates your theory, that conventional wars are stopped just bcz America and Russia has nukes.
I had nightmares growing up during the Cold War. If you weren’t there you don’t know. The absurdity that we are closer now than ever before and it’s not on the societal radar says a lot about how our civilization sits on the fence. Go look at the pics from the Hiroshima blast and how the outlines from the shadows of the victims are still cast as if they are still standing there.
The “free world” drowns in apathy and I sadly predict that the entire human race will go out with a whimper in under 200 years.
I think nuclear minimization is a great idea, honestly. It's resolved a lot of my uncertainty on whether it's better to abolish nuclear weapons, or keep them around as a deterrence
Sure, but good luck convincing non-democratic countries to agree to such an arrangement and making sure they actually stick to it. So long as one rogue actor refuses to pay ball no deal of this sorts will ever succeed.
Washington Naval Treaty tried to do that with Battleships and Cruisers. The fact that it failed to prevent WW2 as its advocates claimed proves the folly of such thinking.
Not happening. There was already a good precursor to the idea that could've set the stage for such an agreement - the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, which sought to ensure parity between the major nuclear powers by ensuring their deterrence effect remained as development of defensive countermeasures was curtailed. George Bush pulled the US out of it in 2002, resulting in a new arms race as the US' rivals sought to ensure they had a credible threat against America. And it's much cheaper for them.
@@davidford3115battleships and cruisers can't destroy entire countries
@@alphagamer9505 Tell that to Commodore Matthew C. Perry
Stop worrying people. And start living.
Problems occur when people get bored.
Go outside, enjoy the sunshine, snow, rain, or whatever the weather is right now.
I would like to say, everytime that a situation where nuclear war almost broke out, either by intention or through mistake, there has ALWAYS been at least one person unwilling to push the button. It takes multiple in order for nukes to be launched, and it seems that 1/3 of people have enough humanity in their hearts to not condemn the world to destruction.
Considering the critical lack of trust geopolitically, ain't nobody going to get into any treaty any time soon
Patrolling the Mojave makes you wish for a 10:30
*Goes V.A.T.S mode*
caspianreport is mad as fuck that ukraine is losing lol
@@perrierthomas9507lol what?
@@perrierthomas9507when did he say that? And I wouldn’t say Ukraine is losing. Nor are they winning. They won’t loose as long as the west supplies them, but they won’t win either. And should Russia win, then it will only be a pyrrhic victory
@@luciusgarvousI’d rather be in Russias position than Ukraines. From weapons to public sector government employees payroll, emergency services, hospitals, pension obligations, etc., are all still(?) being paid by the US. A completely subsidized State solely reliant on foreign powers for the continued running and functioning of the State and security apparatus. God forbid that IV drip is removed from their arm.
Truly a “captured state” no matter what. Not a great spot to be in, if I’m being honest.
For the US though? It’s the deal of the century. We effectively *own that ass* and we want that ass to work. And they’re certainly working-and dying.
More recent studies have repeatedly shown that nuclear winter probably wouldn’t be as bad as we thought. Yes, it’d still be really bad, and billions would likely still die, but it would not be a global extinction scenario.
If 2000 nukes are detonated we and everything around us will be on the verge of extinction. We won’t be extinct in the literal sense of the word but modern society as we know it will be destroyed along with whole ecosystems which will result in a limited max population cap for centuries to come. We’d basically be starting from 0.
Agreed. The Chernobyl exclusion zone shows that extinction is highly unlikely. And nuclear weapons produce short decay products unlike a nuclear fizzle of a reactor core accident.
Take a step back and think about the fact that we are debating to wich capacity we can reasonably annihilate each other and when it "might get too far" if we take the planet down with us... and we can't even agree on that! I have no idea how we managed to survive this long xD
Warheads have gotten more accurate, thus warheads can be smaller. You no longer need an 800kt-10mt nuke that takes out a city to wipe out the airbase or factory near by.
So that’s good, though I suppose it makes them seem more practical, their use more “palatable” and reasonable since they have smaller “yields” and thus *appear* less “indiscriminate”.
Public opinion reigns supreme. As soon as you use one of these "strategic" nuclear weapons there will be outcry and pressure to respond. People are still scared of nuclear power. This is why no one has used such a weapon for fear of severe international backlash
It's a different category of bomb but the true wmds still exist under the banner strategic bombs versus tactical bomb. Both are still very much part of military doctrine in both Russia and the US.
Awesome video. This message needs to get out more. Thanks for the detailed analysis of a nuclear winter and the minimum necessary.
Barbenheimer saying "I am death, destroyer of Barbie worlds" is so philosophical it changed my viewpoint on life and space
Yea man!
Now let's hope Russia pulls another "Napoleon/Hitler card" and once again defeat the entire West.😂
@@alonglostmemory1908 take your pills 💊
@@Kodakcompactdisc No need to be triggered buddy.. calm down.🧘🏻
@@alonglostmemory1908 💊
bro really put a future career ad in a video about nuclear Armageddon
Nuclear minimization, according to your presentation, appears to apply only to the United States and the Russian Federation. A bad move for either party, as it leaves those nations in a state of parity, with the middle powers of the world, such as India and China, while extremist states such as Israel and North Korea are least likely to minimize or disarm, and yet remain perhaps the most likely to make use of them.
Appreciate the honesty in calling Isreal an extremist state
@@getaforeheadreduction6017 If the Palestinians laid down their weapons, there would be peace but if Israel laid down their weapons, there would be no more Israel. If you reversed things and gave Israel the limited firepower of the Palestininians and gave the military might of the Israeli's to the Palestininians, there would be no more Israel. If Israel was an extremist state, they would have used their military and wiped various places off the map but they don't.
@@themetalhead1463They literally bombed an entire apartment block full of Palestinians.
@@tetraxis3011 Amd the Palestinians regularly target schools and hospitals for their terrorist attacks. Save your moral outrage for people who have chosen killing over letting their neighbors live in peace.
“When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons. Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
― Golda Meir
@@themetalhead1463says the European whose grandads took part in the wipe out of 6 million Jews. There's no evidence Palestinians would behave that barbarically. For over a millenium Jews lived far safer under Arab & Muslim empires than they did in Europe
Been waiting so long for a video
This reminds me of a quote from the late George Carlin "The planet is fine; the people are fucked"
Kinda reminds me of a 4x game I recently played where we all let the nukes fly. I "won" by default because I had one little colony in the Antartic as everyonescity's got vaporizers.
So Russia, China, NK, Pakistan, India, Iran are to blame for the risks in 0:45 , but never USA nor Israel?
Please remind me who actually used nuclear bombs against civil population.
The countries influenced by Nazi Germany are the good guys, clearly
great, as always!
“The world gonna blow up… check out my sponsor”
"Here we are, arguably the most intelligent being that's ever walked planet Earth, with this extraordinary brain ... and yet we're destroying the only home we have." ~ Jane Goodall
If I had a nickel for every Jane that has worked with monkeys I'd have 3 nickels
Which is kinda odd
I must disagree with this notion that nuclear winter would end life on Earth.
When the Iraqis set fire to oil wells during the first Gulf War, it was widely predicted by the likes of Carl Sagan that the plumes of smoke would cause something similar to a nuclear winter, minus the fallout, which would lead to mass famine and starvation across the Middle East. Needless to say, that didn’t happen.
This is perhaps the closest thing we have to a real-life test of the nuclear winter hypothesis.
Therefore, even though mass detonation of all nuclear weapons is a much bigger event, I’m very sceptical of these predictions of human extinction. The atmosphere is surprisingly good at removing things like ash and soot, so nuclear winter would be unlikely to last very long, if at all. But of course, that’s not what makes a good news headline.
never heard the phrase, better safe than sorry? ITs better to be extra cautious than being complete lack luster on this topic. Theres enough ignorance nd dumb people in this world. Dont play with fire is as simple as that
also you comparing two complete different things.... Our natural eco system works on a fragile balanced sequence, disrupting this on macro levels can have unforseen consequences... Just assuming thingsfor the best will not make things any safer
@@HotAI-1990 I agree, I truly hope we never have to find out whether these predictions are correct or not.
That being said, if people blow the dangers way out of proportion, then people may stop talking the threat seriously at all, so we should be honest with people about the real levels of risk.
Тоже считаю, что это нужно проверить, для этого НАТО нужно чуть посильнее потыкать палкой в медведя
Indeed. Even Michael Crichton used the WW2 firebombing campaigns to show that fears of nuclear winter were exaggerated. Even Pinatubo which released energy equivalent to the world's stockpile barely made a dent in the climate.
It all went downhill when Photoshopennheimer finally split the Adobe particle and created multiple different paid subscriptions
Fantastic work on this video!!!
No one will ever give up their nuclear weapons because of what happened to Ukraine.
Its crazy isnt it? Russia even signed a non aggression treaty with them too and still genocided them
Ukraine couldn’t even use its nukes. All the launch codes were in Moscow.
@@tetraxis3011 Doesn't matter. They could have disassembled them for components. When the arming device won't work, simply remove it and replace.
Great content. You produce high value videos and they're always well researched. Your bias is obvious and that's natural because we are human and will always gravitate to one side or the other. Respect to you sir and thank you for keeping us informed 🙏
Total accurate thumbnail
Most countries do not want to give up their nuclear arsenal because most countries cannot build their military through the printing machine like the usa. Its much much cheaper to have 5000 nuclear heads than 5.000.000 conventional military personel.
We can destroy ourselves if we stay this dedicated just another few decades longer. C'mon guys, we can do it!!!
USA =NATO why would Russia want or even Agree to reduce when everyone else is increasing? 😂😂🤨
The US dismantled 11,683 nuclear warheads between 1994 - 2020
Well, according to START I, START II, and New START both USA and Russia have significantly reduced the number warheads.
Its mutual decrease
Not one sided
There is a more pragmatic reason: Nuclear weapon cores can be reprocessed into power core rods. Swords into plows as described in scripture, ironically.
@@trihard7323 USA dismantling means nothing when NATO is not, they are one and the same!
Thank you for your input. Another great video 📹 👏 I can not wait for the next.
Great video!!
*Oppenheimer movie in theatres right now*
TH-camrs: “It’s free real estate”.
Everything's perfectly.alright as long as the big guy gets his 10%.
😂😂
This deserves top comment
who's the Big Guy? 🤔
ok ok, I kid😂
Seriously though, there are simpletons who voted for The Big Guy still swallowing the Blue 💊 and have no idea who he is, or what's REALLY going on 🤦♂️🙄😸 They're the Yahoo news and CNN readers 😂
Russian bot 100%
@@jasonpark4293blinded by a bot and crook former president 😂
As a sentient species upon a planet that stares at the mother star....the only thing that comes to those that crave control...is the use of ultimate power. There is only one thing to change all of this...a new spiritual technology that will wipe away the tears of those that fear extinction.
Thanks for not Kyle Hill'n the subject, this video is succinct and thorough. Great stuff, already can't get enough but ready for some positive coverage!
I thought the scientific consensus was that nuclear winter is very unlikely or impossible
I always enjoy your videos but this one was particularly well done.
Love your work
Thanks for sharing
they are the greatest force for peace that has ever been invented. how quickly we forget about ww1 and ww2. if it weren't for nukes america and russia would surely have fought a war in europe by now
What are you talking about? We could have a nuclear war and wipe out most of this "progress" within 48 hours, this is not peace, this is a nuclear knife against everyone's throat.
I think I would have prefered the 3rd world war without nukes to see an end to the USSR, China and all other totalitarian states, instead of seeing them with nukes.
Interestingly that’s the exact words used by Margaret Thatcher when she was the Prime Minister…
@@pearls1626 doesn't make it wrong though
They already are… the fighting never stopped just evolved.
Always a pleasure to watch your videos. Keep up the good job. Thankyou❤
Just the Canadian forest fire smoke has cooled our summers in Michigan so much the garden is 2-3 weeks behind
Well that was a cheerful start to my morning ;)
I like to believe this era we live in, is our species defining moment. We either break through this barrier, and set forth on a path to becoming multi planetary species, exploring the galaxy and stars considering we are stepping into the true golden age of space exploration.... or.... we fall into chaos under nuclear war, and civilization crumbles setting us back thousands of years of progress both technological and culturally. The next 5 years is going to conclude this era's chapter...what a time to be alive.
This is just my opinion. But I don't see how we can become a multi-planet species until we figure out how all humans can live peacefully. But considering the serious cultural and religious differences, as well as loads of humans still being evil, true planetary peace is impossible. And without that peace, total nuclear disarmament is also impossible. The utopia depicted in Star Trek where all humans are good, is just fantasy.
As long as oil companies like Shell on one side and Extinction Rebellion on the other side blame each other instead of both taking responsibility for geoengineering Earth's climate, I've no faith humanity will ever become a multi-planetary species sustainably.
4:50 "Safety mechanism has prevented detonation."
Nuclear bombs do not have safety mechanisms that prevent accidental detonation, because nuclear bombs cannot detonate by accident.
They can be detonated by mistake, however. That's why they have safety mechanisms to prevent that.
"By accident" means things like short circuits, concussive damage, corrosion, overheating, freezing, cracks, fire, explosions, someone sticking a finger where it doesn't belong... None of these things can cause a nuclear bomb to detonate.
Nuclear weapons are so complex, and the detonation depends on so many things working together, that any accident or damage will make the bomb less likely to detonate, not more likely. Detonating a nuclear bomb by accident would be like dropping a bag of wheat on the floor and finding that it transformed into a bag of bread.
"By mistake" means that someone initiated the ignition sequence, beause they thought WW3 has started.
You're 100% CORRECT!!!
This video is just globalists propaganda or a clikbait at its best.
Well-written intro :D
these vids are all tops but.. yeah, this intro stood out big time
I was waiting for the zinger at the end and I wasn't disappointed.
The only thing we can do is develop systems that can intercept these nukes. Russia claimed hypersonic weapons were un-intercept-able until the Patriot kept intercepting them over Kyiv.
Impossible. With the amount of nuclear warheads that can be fired from a single missile, combined with numerous decoy duds, even if one got thru it the consequences would be devastating
Now that just one missile, next think of multiple, even hundreds all carrying hundreds of there own nuclear warheads bearing down from you. Launched from a high angle giving you no real time to react to intercept. This simple attack strategy overwhelms even the most complex defense system and even one that can be developed in the foreseeable future.
This is why countries have been focusing on scaring others off with their stockpiles for so long as there is no game to be played in intercepting the missiles anymore
The technology to do that is still decades away, if it's ever even possible. Even if we went full Star Wars with it, with laser satellites and stuff, the other side would develop ways to counter that.
Except none of those Patriot claims have been verified. And considering they failed to intercept Iranian missiles in 2020 I seriously doubt Patriot downed even a single Hypersonic missile.
@@tetraxis3011 Except Indian observers have confirmed it. ISW even cites them.
@@davidford3115 It's irrelevant anyway, the problem is the sheer number of missiles, warheads and decoys you'd have to accurately track and shoot down. It's just not possible. It's like trying to shoot down an entire flock of geese mid-flight with a 9mm handgun. Even if you manage to hit one hundreds more are getting through.
Its poetic, a single species that successfully conquered its planet in the span of many years all of a sudden decides to eradicate itself
Maybe that's the great filter and why we don't find alien civilizations. Eventually every intelligent species destroys itself
@nevyanplamenov5409 I doubt it. Nukes can't destroy humanity, it can only set up back a bit. And once they all get used up I'm pretty sure the remaining nations will be hard anti nuke, stopping it from happening again.
The real danger is AI.
@nevyanplamenov5409 we've invented one of the most important things. To communicate with each other in an instant, share information and knowledge using the internet and all we do is share hopeless peace negotiations and nuclear threats. We are doomed
Thank you, Good Job ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
I read an analysis online, that estimated that there exists not enough nukes anmore to destroy the whole planes. Rather, the area would be that of Greece:
- Only a third of nukes is operational, while the others are in maintenance.
- Targets will be hit with more than one nuke.
- It is questionable how many of the Russian nukes are even operational (refilling Tritium is costly and might not be tracked, making it a great opportunity for someone to pay his yacht instead).
- The particle clouds of an explosion do not reach the upper atmosphere, so there will be no nuclear winter.
I wonder how much of that is realistic. But there might be only one way to find out.
not strong enough to destrpy the earth, strong enough to make you suffer.
we needa test it out just to make sure
I don't know where do you live. Which one century. It's the inquisition one?
Few nuclear bombs in high altitude will take you to the bronze age, quickly.
Yeah im skepical Russia even has 1k nukes at its disposal with its track record of corruption and general inability to do anything well
@@user-el4su7tl6fIk right? This guy sounds insane! Regardless we don’t really wanna put that to the test my guy! 😅
Thanks for the the informative video Caspian. I work at ORNL in Tennessee and the amount of people that underestimate the destruction that would result of a full blown launch is kind of baffling. I hope and pray it never happens but your right. Whether through human/machine error or the upheaval of a normal war it's going to happen at some point. I would recommend a movie on the testing that the USA did called trinity and beyond, it was lots of HD footage but it's mostly informative of the line of escalation that we took development bigger and more destructive bombs.
I visited the National Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas recently. Extremely sobering.
Yes, thanks Caspian.
Quite chilling.
Important comment that requires more upvotes. It's not 'IF' it's 'WHEN' which is honestly scary af. We're creeping very close to midnight.
Bravo. Exceptionally well said.
On one of the drone shots overlooking a city you just have Spokane Washington 😂
absolutely fantastic video yet again Caspian, so clear and insightful. I guess that the post- Cold War generations have to get used to the fact that they're not only inhereting the previous generation's nuclear liabilities, but that more liabilities are being created within their time. We're not any safer, yet we have to shrug off that comfy, pervasive feeling that we are.
So I guess the point here is that nuclear proliferation will exist as long as there is significant mistrust between nations.
So instead, instead of focusing on disarmament, world leaders should focus on building trust
Indeed. The Washington Naval treaty, a precursor to nuclear arms control treaties failed to prevent WW2 for the same reasons.
@@davidford3115 not only that, one could argue that by making the western navies weaker, they were less able to dissuade others for starting war. Theodore Roosevelt had it right - if you want to discourage another guy from starting war, carry a big stick.
@@coreyrussellgaming6330 I am in total agreement. Deterrence is much more effective than empty promise of peace.
"Si vis pacem, para bellum; If you want to have peace, arm for war" -Roman saying.
Great report
The doomsday clock is complete nonsense. Youre not seriously telling me that we are currently closer to nuclear armaggedon than during the Cuban Missile Crisis or Able Archer 83.
Those moments were very close, it basically came down to a handful of people saying no to using nukes but we are very close to nuclear war today almost as close as we were then.
More nations have nukes then before and more nations are closer to using them or face collapse.
It’s not based on solely nuclear threats, and in fact is based on things like climate change as well which is becoming more of a problem every, so they will always move it forward. So yeah pretty much nonsense.. Not a good way to bring up nuclear danger at all.
Are you sure? Back then N. Korea, China, Pakistan and Israel did not have nukes.
N. Korea is actively threatening with it's nukes. If Pakistan actually collapses, their nukes can go anywhere... With Iran having enough material for it's nukes, Israel might do something, as they did against Syria before. And then we have Russia.
I'm fairly sure we are as close as it was before, if not closer.
@@bennybundi9671 The clock has always been political grandstanding, which is why it is just as worthless today as it was in the past.
I love the shots from Vienna in the background. Highlights your calm way of explaining
*Lord Vishnu in Gita - Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds* 🕉
Once Pandora’s box was opened there was no going back.
Nuclear weapons force dialogue even when dialogue is not wanted.
There also has been a reason why since WW2 no other nation has used nuclear weapons
For children’s, children let’s hope they are never used
When you get rid of nuclear weapons like Ukraine did, Russia or another large country will attack. Russia promised to defend Ukraine when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons and look just how well that worked out.
In the intro you are talking about the threats from Russia, Pakistan, China and so on but you don’t even mention the US. That’s what one calls biased.
Probably because the US isn’t threatening their use or growing their pile. There is no new news there, as it should be.
The US doesn't really have a reason to press the button first
@@williamverhagen5210 The us is doing everything in its power to give other countries a reason to use nukes against it.
@@williamverhagen5210 They DID! Dont you know about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Civil targets of no militar interest.
And now they are changing the doctrine so preemptive fiest strike is not out of the possibilities.... as it was never was
@@williamverhagen5210 bull sh it
Realistically, the world can never fully eliminate nuclear weapons. Mutually assured destruction has prevented any nation from using them so far, and maintaining that deterrence seems to be the only logical choice.
Those advocating for abolishment never learned why the Washington Naval Treaty failed. Same philosophies.
Rats didn’t invent mousetrap but human did their own kamikaze trap.
That "Impose their ruthles resolve" was something else
Amazing video!!
the reduction is also pretty risky, if you sell it as that, they will have the capacity of destroying "just another country" it would make easier to use them in any scenario since theres no way you may end the world
Indeed. Some people don't realize that nuclear control treaties have a precursor that failed spectacularly: The Washington Naval treaty restricting battleship construction.
When it comes I’m prepared to enjoy the light show.
You cannot abolish nuclear weapons with today’s level of consciousness. Because if you abolish, there will be someone who, secretly or openly, will continue the development and armament.
The cold War never really ended, it's still going on
The great war never really ended, it's still going on
It ended. This is Cold War II
It ended for a bit in 1989, but seems like it's rebooting thanks to democrat politicians.
Nothing ever ended, colonialists
turned into neocolonialist still exploiting Africans and their resources.
Then we have modern day slavery working 2-3 jobs to make ends meat.
The 1% getting richer the rest living below poverty line.
Racial discrimination getting out of control….and
The westerners stirring up internal conflict in the developing nations and assassinating leaders who don’t comply setting up puppet regime … the list goes on….😢😢😢
The Cold War ended. This is a Second Cold War. The ideological aspect of the first Cold War isn't really present here.
The Bhagvad Gita wasn't translated to English by Bob, but by his tutor at UC Berkeley, Arthur Ryder. The original Sanskrit version says "Kaal". Kaal means Time.
Context: In the battle of Mahabharata, on the battlefield, the prince Arjuna felt helpless on seeing his loved ones on the other side of the battlefield. He knew his battle skills & thought that while fighting his own cousins & teachers, he'd end up killing them or at least severely injuring them. This threw him into a dilemma (much like what Oppenheimer faced after the nuclear tests). His charioteer, Krishna, tried to motivate him, but in vain. In a sort of last ditch attempt, Krishna who is actually the avatar of Lord Vishnu, took the form of his Eternal Self, as Lord Vishnu, and recited the Gita to Arjuna, telling him how he needs to do his duties because He i.e. God, intended it that way. Lord Vishnu's detailed advice is what the Bhagvad Gita basically is.
This dialogue that has now become world famous, appears in Chapter 11, verse 32. In it, Vishnu says he's 'Kaal', or Time... contextually meaning, the Time-Spirit. What he meant to tell Arjuna was He is Time, and Time comes for all. Time is actually the ultimate destroyer. Think about it .. every second we waste, is a second destroyed & never coming back. What Vishnu meant to convey to Arjuna was, whether you do your duties or no, Time finally comes for us all, so keep doing your duties to the best of your abilities & let Time take care of everything else.
This 'Kaal' was wrongly translated by Oppenheimer's tutor Ryder, as 'Death'.
It should actually mean, "I am the Time-Spirit, the destroyer of worlds."
Thank you
No country in this world is worth to risk worldwide nuclear anyhilation.
Getting rid of nukes is like asking all the good guys to give up all their guns…
Funny how quickly that people calling for disarmament conveniently ignore the failure of the Washington Naval Treaty.
Decent road map for a stabilization of the nuclear threat that is posed by today's nuclear armed nations. Nice.
A very interesting book on this subject was written by Daniel Ellsberg… The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. Highly recommended.
People don't read books anymore, they just place them on bookshelves, and scroll YT videods
Very good material 😎
Shout out to my Spokanites! Caspian using shots from Spokane, WA! Love you my guy!
The fact that the acronym for the treaty keeping us from nuclear war spells MAD says a lot about civilization.. for now it's poetic if i may say so myself, we can only hope it never becomes foreshadowing
It's not a treaty, it's a doctrine
@@BrunoViniciusCampestrini okay I stand corrected
It’s only a coincidence of the English language
How many nukes are floating out there in space disguised as civilian satellites?
None.
Why would you launch a rocket to put a sattelite in space with a nuke when you can just launch a rocket with a nuke?
What next? Flying tanks?
@@tigerpjm congratulations on your moronic comment. Try thinking before hitting the 'post' button.
@@tigerpjmSomething like that would make interception time much less. No chance to intercept at launch or before. And if placed correctly, heavily recudes interception time in space.
And who wants to be the first to violate the agreement on non-proliferation of space weaponization? The costs of getting caught red-handed far outstrip the benefits.
@@davidford3115 they cheat all the time. Do you think Beijing cares about non-proliferation?
the clock is at 90s to midnight for so many reasons it makes me numb!!!!!!
Factor in the threat posed by UAPs, and the security situation becomes even more complicated.
UAP enthusiasts simultaneously asserting that UAPs are real alien space ships, and nuclear weapons are fake.
Conventional forces are terribly expensive, much cheaper to just press a button.
Yes, Minister! :)
The USA had a round of budget debates in the armed forces immediately following the end of WW II and the demobilization. The argument of the Air Force was that the Air Force was the branch that could fight a nuclear war, and therefore the only necessary one.
This changed when the need for army troops and conventional warfare remained in Korea, Germany, Vietnam etc and the USA needed a more flexible option than only nukes. But there was a period where the army tried to keep up and launch the "pentomic army" that would train to fight through a nuclear barrage.
its not cheaper when all your major cities are destroyed in retaliation.
4:53
There were in fact 2 separate War Games incidents in 1983, the other one taking place in June of that year.
caspianreport is mad as fuck that ukraine is losing lol
@@perrierthomas9507 I mean, Russia already won right? They are already occupying Kyiv now, right??
@@Azmuth01 dude none of that shit matters ukraine is down to like 28 million people, russia is just meatgrinding them into genocide
YOU. ARE. PEAKING. THE. MICROPHONE.
I miss Douglas Mcarthur
This channel really seems to be going fast down the sellout route off late. Between its choice of sponsors, alarmist or clickbait topics, chasing trends (this video counts as BOTH of those things), biases to cater to its likely largest audience base, repetition of content to milk the most out of what sells, etc. I used to like Caspian Report, but nowadays it seems to be going down just as RealLifeLore already did (though different from RLL, whose approach seems to be to just saturate every topic he can can cover and hope that quantity makes up for quality)
They’re going after that money, honey! I can’t blame them!
Still better reporting and topics than 99% of the internet and news outlets
Agree with you. content is very biased.
Did you just find out that this channel does not belong to adequate and mature analytics? Garbage.
What's wrong with the sponsor of this video?
It’s really insane like if 500 bombs is enough why have anything more then that? Like at most 600, but more where does it end? My grandfather used to tell me if the probability of any event happening is more then zero, than it will definitely happen