Can You Win Nuclear War?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- Get Nebula with 40% off annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/r...
Watch Red Atoms on Nebula: nebula.tv/reda...
Since the inception of the nuclear bomb, military strategists have tried to figure out how to use them best. During the Cold War, this led to two very different doctrines but on both sides of the Iron Curtain the military wasn't sure of you could actually win Nuclear War.
» SUPPORT US
/ realtimehistory
nebula.tv/real...
» THANK YOU TO OUR CO-PRODUCERS
Konstantin Bredyuk, Lisa Anderson, Brad Durbin, Jeremy K Jones, Murray Godfrey, John Ozment, Stephen Parker, Mavrides, Kristina Colburn, Stefan Jackowski, Cardboard, William Kincade, William Wallace, Daniel L Garza, Chris Daley, Malcolm Swan, Christoph Wolf, Simen Røste, Jim F Barlow, Taylor Allen, Adam Smith, James Giliberto, Albert B. Knapp MD, Tobias Wildenblanck, Richard L Benkin, Marco Kuhnert, Matt Barnes, Ramon Rijkhoek, Jan, Scott Deederly, gsporie, Kekoa, Bruce G. Hearns, Hans Broberg, Fogeltje
» SOURCES
Bondarenko, V.M. "The Modern Revolution in Military Affairs and the Combat Readiness of the Armed Forces", Kommunist Vooruzhennykh Sil - Communist of the Armed Forces, (December 1968)
Brezhnev, L. I. Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. 28, No. 8 (March 1976)
Bundy, McGeorge, Danger and Survival, (New York, NY : Random House, 1988)
Carnegie Endowment for Internatinal Peace, “JFK on Nuclear Weapons and Non-Proliferation" (2003) carnegieendowm...
Catadul, Honoré M., Soviet Nuclear Strategy from Stalin to Gorbachev: A Revolution in Soviet Military and Political Thinking, (Berlin : Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz, 1988)
Craig, Campell & Radchenko, Sergey, The Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008)
Holloway, David, “Entering the Nuclear Arms Race: The Soviet Decision to Build the Atomic Bomb, 1939-45", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 11, No. 2, Theme Issue: Soviet Science (May, 1981)
Josephson, Paul R., Red Atom: Russia’s Nuclear Power Program from Stalin to Today, (New York, NY : W.H. Freeman and Company, 1999)
Kiser, John W., “How the Arms Race Really Helps Moscow”, Foreign Policy, No. 60 (Autumn, 1985)
Malinovskiy, R. Ya. Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. 14, No. 1 (November 1961)
Pondrom, Lee G. The Soviet Atomic Project: How the Soviet Union Obtained the Atomic Bomb, (Singapore : World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.)
Rauf, Tariq, “Soviet Perspective on Nuclear War”, Strategic Studies, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1985)
ertais, Bruno, “In Defense of Deterrence: The Relevance, Morality and Cost-Effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons”, Proliferation Papers, No. 39 (2011)
»CREDITS
Presented by: Jesse Alexander
Written by: Mark Newton
Director: Toni Steller & Florian Wittig
Director of Photography: Toni Steller
Sound: Above Zero
Editing: Toni Steller
Motion Design: Toni Steller
Mixing, Mastering & Sound Design: above-zero.com
Research by: Mark Newton
Fact checking: Jesse Alexander
Channel Design: Simon Buckmaster
Contains licensed material by getty images
Maps: MapTiler/OpenStreetMap Contributors & GEOlayers3
All rights reserved - Real Time History GmbH 2023
Get Nebula with 40% off annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/realtimehistory
Watch Red Atoms on Nebula: nebula.tv/redatoms
I would subscribe to Nebula in a heartbeat if it did not require a credit card, I do not have one unfortunately...
You forgot to talk about the Dead Hand/Perimeter.
Would you please give me the page number for the McGeorge Bundy quote from Danger and Survival?
@@Battlefieldsucks0501¾³
5
if russia uses putin''s own nukes, he will also die by inhaling the fumes of putin''s own nuclear poison
Perhaps the most amazing and horrific thing mankind has ever done, is develop weapons which allow us to describe the bombs used on Hiroshima & Nagasaki as "primitive".
Definitely a war crime…… Also the opening of Pandora’s box…..
Rookie numbers
I liked Stalins attitude towards nukes. He didn't let fear of them rule his decision making.
Word.
@@preppertrucker5736development of the weapons was a war crime?
Dora the Explorer taught me that saying no is enough and then they won't nuke you back
And per Spongebob, "It's not about winning, it's about fun."
Plankton: "F is for Fire that burns down the whole town. U is Uranium. Bombs. N is for No survivors ..."
Swiper no nuking
Stalin no nuking, Stalin no nuking,... " aww shucks" says Stalin in disappointment
But at least three times
Which chicks are notoriously bad at :p
Only works with swiper
I’d very much prefer never finding out.
This is a relatively new format from you guys but I am really enjoying it. Props to all at RealTimeHistory
wholeheartedly agree
You have found out: We have won the nuclear war.
Who's 'we'? I don't need to fill that in for the statement to be true, because the MAD effect of the nuclear kept it from happening, thus we won.
Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to help
As its not about you
It's about your kids and loved ones
@@waynehewett4017 wow we got the edgy kid here
U can win
Honor to the man that had the strength to not sound the nuclear alarm and realized it was a glitch, avoiding nuclear annihilation
Stanislav Petrov
If only nukes were real
He didnt relize it mate he Just assumpt
@@potatheaddname checks out
Except he didn't avoid anything. There would have been many more verifications to conduct before anything would have been done and he certainly wouldn't have been the one to make that decision. Just a greatly exaggerated story for publicity.
Penguins could finally evolve to be the dominant species.
Penguin supremacy shall prevail.
All penguins live in deserts. Fun fact is that
If Batman Allows it.... mwahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahagahahaha
Fool, the crab is superior
the thing with plans one has to keep in mind is that, even if theoretically fit for actual execution, they often are concieved so a) there are plans for any possible situation, no matter how unlikely, and more importantly b) so planners have experience in devising plans, for that is how they learn how to plan in the first place, and its not always clear if a plan is drawn up for actual possible use or more for plannings sake
Exactly what I've been thinking
Something the film War Games captured very well.
In learning to plan, all planners learn is to make fancier versions of plans they've already planned.
"Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth" Mike Tyson
Think ive heard a quote about this very question.
Guy number 1: "As long as two americans survive, wed have won".
Guy number 2: "Well, you better hope its a man and a woman that survive, then".
"The Twilight Zone" episode, "Two." (Season 3, episode 1) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_(The_Twilight_Zone)
U can win an we will
The cameras in all of these nuke tests must be made from vibranium lol
r/dontkillthecameraman
Search nuclear hoax in youtube
You can win a nuclear war if your enemy doesn't have nukes
Japan be like
Yes. In fact even if you destroy an enemy that also has nukes, if that enemy has just two submarines that have nukes? You are also doomed if you can't detect and destroy those two before they launch. Scary stuff.
The risk is a nuclear power gets involved in the war against you depending on the enemy's alignment
@@samfisher2306you arent doomed, you just possibly lose some cities.
It will destroy some cities if only drop a few….
The reason nuclear weapons could be used during World War 2 was because only one power had them. After another power got them, it became impossible to use them without taking into account all sides that have them.
Making them almost irrelevant at the same time the most important thing. Making the complexities of having them more complicated than not having them. As long as more than one power had them.
Not to mention if the first side to use them, even understood the damage they could cause before using them or after.
That short time when nobody else had them would've been the perfect time to nuke Moscow. Would've saved the whole world a lot of trouble.
To be fair they aren't irrelevant, if a country is backed up into a corner and has to choose between surrender or nuking the enemy they will resort to nukes
@@rias.gremoryyy That has more to do with who is in charge than the nukes themselves.
Psychopaths don't care.
And you take the circumference and multiply it by two divided by the square root you get the same thing you just said
I'm glad people are discussing this. One thing I do know, I've never seen one pop off and I hope we never do. Nuke war is all around bad.
I believe if you climb inside a fridge freezer you'll be safe
only if you're the main character
Another brilliant and educational video from real time history. Well done !!
Not really, he is wrong about "Soviet first strike doctrine" it was actually American doctrine, Soviets were more obsessed with retaliation.
Awesome video, really like the inclusion of quotes from the heads of these atomic superpowers. It really puts in context the humanity behind each of this historical events
Great channel. Please do a long format video on tactical nuclear weapons. Thanks
@21:12 that awkward moment when your superior officer salutes you even though they're not wearing their uniform and... you salute back, I guess?
The joint chief of staff under KENNEDY thought that they could win a nuclear war, KENNEDY was agains it.
U can win
Great content as always Jessie and RTH Team. And a great outtro.
9:01 _Sputnik's launch in 1957_
I remember as a teenager, standing with my father in front of our house late in the evening watching the sun glint off the satellite as it passed over.
I was in awe but also a little scared. If they (The Soviet Union) were able to do this, what else were they capable of?
13:04 Brezhnev: _an approach he called, speak softly while you are carrying a big stick_
Props to President Theodore Roosevelt
Great comment! How old are you now, sir? Are you as excited for space and technology now, as when you were younger? I have a feeling people forgot that we used to look to the sky and think about better things to do and far frontiers to explore
And here in 2023 we see the world would have been better off if Russia had been nuke i to oblivion
@@unknownkingdom you consider the world being destroyed in a nuclear war preferable to Ukraine losing its sovereignty?
@@averiWonBTW Russia should be destroyed and i believe this could be done without destrthe world. world.
@@unknownkingdom you just said you wanted to nuke it into oblivion, which would obviously be met with a russian counterstrike
Another wonderful introducing and informative episode shared by a respectful ( real-time history ) channel ...allot thanks for sharing this.. remarkable episode introducing
I am become educated, watcher of Real Time History.
"I am become the destroyer of worlds." A certain Herr Hoppenheimer.
It would be nice if you had pointed out that the US sill explicitly rejects a "no first use" policy.
We reserve that right specifically to retaliate against the use of chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies.
rejects or holds onto?
@@andriypohors2538yeah I was thinking that as well. The way he said it we would have taken out everyone by now lol.
When Soviet detonated its first nuke, to everyones surprise, Truman asked his generals how many nukes the US has ready. They came back after a few days answering: None! All had been used in tests. There were many components in storage, but the physicists had left for academic and engineering careers, and the documentation was lacking.
Very well put together , cheers.
We cannot allow a mine-shaft gap!
I like the Tom Clancy's approach, if there is a War between power, they will keep it Conventional because the other choice is Armageddon. And let's be practical nule Hanoi, Kabul and Kyiv gonna make the situation of the Agressor really better ?
I was just thinking about how contradictory it is that we've largely phased out nuclear power for being too dangerous but we still keep massive arsenals of nuclear weapons.
It really is but the reason we don't use much nuclear power isn't because of actual risk but perceived risk by the public. People are afraid because they don't understand and that keeps them from being built.
@alexmaclean1
Surely those with competing interests in the current energy dominator wouldn’t use any of their considerable assets to help spread ‘information’ about that…
Surely not…
People Forget history and History repeats itself.
Technically a country could "win" a nuclear war, however both sides would essentially lose anyway. The acronym fits perfectly - M.A.D
the answer to the question is best summarized in a knockknock joke.
knockknock.
who's there?
world war 3.
world war 3 who?
(silence)
The Stalin quote was always simultaneously the most cold-blooded logical view and the most vatnik thing I have ever heard.
I love your videos. I know I say that often in the comments, but I really do enjoy them.
1:55 Stalin wasn't talking about the effectiveness of nuclear weapons in war, he was placating a worried subordinate.
Subordinates were scared of him. He was dead for hours before anybody had the guts to check. Doubt he was placating anyone under him!
The problem with winning isn't just the active or reserve nukes but also the nuke infrastructure. This includes the active infrastructure for example all the DoE stockpile maintenance locations but also the passive one. Ie every location that has an enrichment plant or an active civilian reactor. Reactor grade plutonium works just fine for nukes. An enemy that trully wants to fight to the bitter end will simply take reactor grade plutonium build bombs from it quickly jerry rig it to an aircraft even civilian aircraft can be used if things get apocalyptic and send them on one way trips. Heck with how effective drones are getting you would simply send drones with nukes. At that point it makes no difference anymore except hitting back. And that's the problem countries like China have a huge nuke infrastructure and thousands of drones. Its too many to take out in one strike. They're too dispersed and in an emergency they would be even more dispersed. If they wanna fight to the bitter end you're gonna get some hits. And even a few hits are nation ending.
Vasily Arkhipov, "the man who saved the world" is the only reason we exist today.
I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks. - United States Air Force Four-Star General, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Buck Turgidson
😂
I was wondering how long it would be before you guys did a video related to Oppenheimer
In the Cold War era, RU had a Politburo. There was therefore a structure of political checks and balances. The difference now is that there is only a capo di tutti i capi in the Kremlin (if he is actually there). His main aim is physical and political survival, yet we know you don't get to retire in the mafia (Tony Soprano had a few words to say about that). We assume the current capo is a rational actor, but look at the people around him e.g. Medvedev, a former president, ramping up his post-Putin credentials with talk of tactical nukes. Things could get hairy in a post-Putin transition.
why do people like you who have no understanding of Russia and it's politics have to talk. You make something very simple into something it's not. Putin doesn't think about survival at all because the Russian peoples support renders him invincible. Russian politics is just very surface level simple, they have factions in the government just like any other country, they have coruption and incompetence, again, just the same level as other countries. This mythical thinking of some kind of mafia can be transplanted to any and all countries because thats just how power and even more so popular power works. Trust me if Vladimir Vladimirovich wanted to retire he would do so, but he is from the KGB, he has ingrained values that a man must finnish what he started. He is a ceasarian type leader and he doesn't answer to anyone but the people
Worst, they think they have RIGHT to ocupy other countries like Moldova, Georgia or Ukraine.
Then why is our country doing everything in its power to undermine his government?
@@MrGbscott1954 I don't think he has a government as such, not in the UK sense (not sure where you're from). The primary aim is for Ukraine to win or, at the very least, not to lose. I don't think the primary aim is for regime change in RU due to the issues above.
I think there's enough people in Russia who'd sooner decapitate anyone who tried than allow their country to be obliterated.
Since I don't have a single nuke,I probably couldn't.. can you?
Always learn something new.
Depends on what you count as "winning a nuclear war" Really though, Nobody wins in a Nuclear war, not even the "winner".
No, it is not possible to "win" a nuclear war in the traditional sense. Nuclear war would have catastrophic and irreversible consequences, causing immense loss of life, widespread destruction, and long-lasting environmental damage. The use of nuclear weapons could lead to a "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) scenario, where both sides involved would suffer unacceptable losses.
It is like two guy get into a fist fight in the arena. The other guy is lost. He come back with a machine gun on the other guy. lol
U can win, an we will it’s coming there preparing an u have no say in this. Be prepared
As terminator said..its inevitable….
Victory would be impossible because H Bombs are militarily unusable. Victory would be reduced to an exercise in accountancy..The side with the smallest mountain of corpses would emerge the victor in this scenario. Victory would be like so many ashes in the mouth of the victor.
U can win
I would have welcomed the mentioning of the implementation of so-called "dead-hands" like "Perimetre" - systems; making sure that armageddon will happen, even if the leadership has been terminated!
Amazing how ppl confuse surviving with winning
Even if we consider unlikely the scenario of a full exchange of ICBMs, a more likely scenario (but not by much) would be the use of a small yeld tactical weapon in the battlefield. Although it might not trigger a military escalation, even might end a war, it would cross a moral and ethical red line that would give cause for concern to even the most brutal dictatorship. That nation, its people, language and culture would be ostracized from the rest of the world as bloodthirsty barbarians.
When people discuss nuclear weapons it is almost always in relation to land forces or cities. However, I very rarely hear people discuss the possibility of a nuclear strike on a naval force at sea. Such a first strike would be militarily devastating, but would have a low likelihood of a nuclear retaliatory response. It would absolutely start a full scale war, but it would be a conventional one, at least initially.
@@peteranderson037 Also there were ground to air and air to air nuclear interceptor missiles that were meant to attack bombers and ICBMs
Both fell out of use once MIRVs made the idea of defeating a counterstrike virtually impossible.
The US nuked 2 cities and nobody considered them bloodthirsty barbarians.
I disagree. We go along with all sorts of horrific things through manufactured consent. I wouldn't put it past them.
Puking doesn't care
He's only concerned about his own skin and huge ego
Puking as proved without a doubt billions of people could die and he doesn't care one bit
Puking doesn't even cre about the Russian people never alone any one else
You can't win if you don't try.
Your M-4 Bison picture is not an M-4 Bison I'm afraid, it's another Tu-95 of some type I believe.
This is awesome. Well done everyone.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick"
That was Teddy Roosevelt half a century before, if Brezhnev said that he would have been quiting Roosevelt
Great video, thanks for the perspective!
That was very interesting, thanks guys!
Small yield nuclear weapons are a potential solution. They aren't suitable for MAD but can provide targetted destruction on a battlefield.
we have 2 choice, die from nuclear winter or die from global warming
"Victory" is a subjective goal. There are several ways to define victory such that wiping out human civilization - or even humanity itself! - count as a victory.
Did he just say nuclear land mines 🙃
Yah, The best thing is you only need one.
Nobody ever talks about all the nuclear plants that will melt down after a nuclear exchange.
4:05 - a small correction. The first US hydrogen bomb (Ivy Mike) was too big to be delivered and, although extremely powerful and technologically sophisticated, it was just a technology demonstrator. The first Soviet bomb (RDS6) was much weaker and more primitive, not even considered a true fusion bomb but a boosted fission weapon by some, but unlike the US one, it could be (and actually was during the test) dropped by a plane.
IIRC, not sure you can call the first US fusion bomb a technology demonstrator or even a proof of concept since it used cryogenic hydrogen instead of lithium deuteride which is used in all fusion weapons and allows them to be deliverable and have a shelf live over a couple hours or days.
@@jakeaurod it was the first successful demonstration of an Ulam-Teller design, so it can definitely be called a proof of concept - the concept being the Ulam-Teller design. It wasn't really a weapon at this stage, as you wouldn't be practically able to use it against an enemy (unless delivered by, I don't know, a disposable battleship?), but it still was the basis of actual warheads developed later.
“An interesting game. The only way to win is not to play. How About a nice game of chess?”
Very well done thanks!
Thanks Jesse & co!
Can you win a thermal nuclear war. One word NO.
Brilliant presentation unpacking an extremely complex matter, thank you!!
It’s like Tic Tac Toe: the winning move is to not play
I always hated that analogy in Wargames. You could easily also say: “It’s like Tic Tac Toe: Whoever starts cannot lose.”
@@tzarfrogmeister it’s possible to lose despite starting
But it’s because it’s possible to end in a draw…much like MAD
have to say...just your series and Paper Skies videos makes nebula free. Thank you all...oh did i mention History Buff? ))) Viel Glück.
Always love the blanket statements like “never hesitated” without historical context or truth. It was not a foregone conclusion to use the device and given the evidence it did exactly what was foreshadowed in the ongoing brutality of fighting Imperial Japan. While their are facts in the narrative the larger truth is by-passed in mere moments to reach a predetermined conclusion.
Trying to sound smart? Try "there" instead, my friend!
The sac commander was reputed to say, if we have 2 people left and rhey have one, qe win a nuckear war
Great presentation - Impressed
Just one kg of antimatter would produce the explosive force of 43 megatons of TNT, which is just short of explosive force of the tsar bomb, the largest nuclear weapon detonated. If humanity in the future ever gets the knowledge to trap anti-matter at large enough scale, nuclear weapons would seem like fireworks.
“Can I win a Nuclear war?” The last person who asked me that was full of it! They had no intention of giving me Nuclear weapons!
really interesting video, it's cool seeing the comparison
There's a reason it's called mutually assured destruction
While they did set off a military expansion era that will never be matched in my opinion, they was at least rational. The fact we are still here is testament enough to that, although i worry about anger, miscalculation in the current uproar in Ukraine. Russian government has no clear stated goals (that make actual, factual sense).
I love this channel.
The moral of the story is that Soviets used to have bigger Balls than NATO's (USA Specifically)
But hey, what would I know, I'm an English speaking westerner plagued by the usual propaganda of today.
This is just the message I Hear. (taking into logical account both side and responses and reactions from the limited data that I have from this video.)
Winning a nuclear war is like winning a duel with hand grenades.
U can win both of those
No Fears of nuclear war...I was taught years ago in order to survive all that you have to do is duck under your desk and cover your eyes 😂😂 anyone else remember the "duck and cover" video in school??
Thinking along the lines of a most extreme insanity, what fun 😀
It’s not the country with thousands of nukes to fear, it’s the guy with one nuke.
So, North Korea then?
... for he knows to use it.
Cool if we didn't have competing nation states.
Wasn't the "big stick" quote originally from Theodore Roosevelt???
Need to try first and see who wins...if nobody wins then we know NOBODY WINS!
The bottle is corked and being shaken. It was always going to pop.
I have actually advanced through the Fuldagap on a vacation with a bus.
There should be sanctions on USA for using Nuclear weapons on civilian targets killing millions of innocent people. Oh well double standards at its finest as always
I grew up in the cold war and I am thankful for it. It makes you really absorbent to any form of threat. After all, it never happened, cost a huge pile of money and was totally for nothing at all. Relax, take a deep breath and get on with your life.
The Hunt for Red October is partially based on the true story of a Soviet nuclear sub that likely went rogue and tried to start a nuclear war. Look up K-129 and John P. Craven's book _The Silent War: The Cold War Battle Beneath the Sea._ How many times have we come close that we don't know about?
I was stationed in Fulda, from 1981 to 1985. While the tension was palpable it was not overwhelming. As things turned out we didn't have to worry about the Russians nuking us. They nuked themselves in 1986 at Chernobyl. Imagin if they try and light the fuse on one of their "aging, but well maintained" tactical nukes in Ukraine. Snap.
Chernobyl was (and is) in Ukraine...
What was it like in 1983 during able archer?
On the ground we had no idea Able Archer was going on as it was an "administrative exercise'. In hindsight the Cav' was blown out on alert on the second or third day of Able Archer. At the time we found the alert unusual, however "alerts" were a very common event on the border. The alerts followed a fairly predictable pattern, but that alert stood out since we had just had one earlier that month. The only reason I recall it so distinctly, was the unusual timing prompted me to grab my POW (Personally Owned Weapon) that morning, a Barretta 84 (.380 cal) rather than draw my M1911. Years later when the truth about Able Archer was made public, only then did I piece the timing together.@@ethanmcfarland8240
I know, but the Orcs were in charge of it back then.@@Pallid85
Don’t be arrogant our America has fucked up with nukes plenty
Wer hat noch mal als einziger Staat bis jetzt Atomwaffen gegen zivile Ziele eingesetzt 🤔
Twice. In order to intimidate their opponent.
@@mnemonicpie wird aber bei den Russen nicht klappen, die haben mehr Atomwaffen am Start als die Amerikaner
This channel is amazing
US did hesitate to use it. However they feared the Soviet would get japan as they were closing in so they used it to make them surrender before it happened.
Japan also surrendered mainly because they feared being taken by the soviet rather then the destruction of the atomic bombs. It was an important event, but not the main reason.
This video should be named 'The history of ICBMs'. So much content is dragged out for the sake of time.
Short answer - NO
Yes you may win, please try.
If we die we die 1:53
Always remember Wargames' "Joshua":
*A STRANGE GAME.*
*THE ONLY MOVE TO WIN IS NOT TO PLAY.*
U can win, many are preparing right now u don’t have choice in this
I Don't give a toss if there a nuclear war if it happens it happens, So there is no point worrying about it...
Threads vibe