Calling Russia's nuclear bluff - Russian nuclear doctrine & the Ukraine war
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ค. 2024
- I survived COVID, let's talk about nuclear war.
Russia's nuclear threats, and warnings of potential nuclear war growing out of the Ukraine invasion, make for great headlines - but how much substance actually sits behind those threats?
Nothing triggers fear quite like the prospect of a world ending nuclear exchange, but that doesn't make the hype true. While we can't relax entirely (the risk isn't zero), I think we can afford to stop hyping the risk of WWIII quite so much, at least for now. So if you'd like some reverse clickbait where I explain why you probably shouldn't be that afraid, let's get into it.
In this video, I take a look at what Russia's been doing that has caused so much concern around the world, both in terms of demonstrating new weapons and issuing warnings and threats. Then I dive into Russian doctrine around nuclear weapons use, as well as the reality of the nuclear taboo, in order to determine how great the actual threat of Russian nuclear weapon use is.
Finally, I talk a bit about what other nations can do if they're determined to avoid any breach of the nuclear taboo, and keep Russian warheads locked up in their storage bunkers where they belong.
A caveat as always that I am not a nuclear strategist by trade, but there are a number of good talks and articles out there if you would like to know more. I come at this from the perspective of someone who has studied and written on cold war era.
I rely on a number of documents in this piece, a few key ones are listed below:
US 2018 Nuclear Posture Review
media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02...
The Russian Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence - a number of sites host English translations
I found "Nuclear Signalling Between NATO and Russia" by Rear Admiral John Gower, former Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Nuclear & Chemical, Biological) to be an easy read among the papers I looked at preparing for this presentation - though admittedly his work predates the 2020 basic principles.
www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resr...
The Perun Gaming Channel (I will aim to start shifting and publishing new content there this weekend):
/ @perungamingau
Patreon:
/ perunau
Timestamps:
00:00 Introduction
01:02 Nukes and the media
02:09 But hold up a moment
02:28 What am I going to cover?
03:33 TLDR
04:40 Caveats
05:28 WHAT IS RUSSIA DOING?
05:34 Capability demonstration
06:21 Rhetoric
07:10 Capability development
10:21 So who is the audience?
11:50 DOES NUCLEAR COERCION WORK?
12:02 Historically? No
14:30 Nuclear taboo
16:34 A simple example
18:59 RUSSIAN NUCLEAR DOCTRINE
19:08 Doctrine and declaratory strategy
20:03 Why should we care?
21:34 Lavrov quote
21:58 Putin the nuclear warmonger?
25:32 Historical perspective
28:17 The 2020 statement
29:39 The four reasons
32:11 "Escalate to de-escalate"
33:48 SO WILL THEY USE NUKES?
34:10 No doctrinal use case
35:03 Russian media control to the rescue
36:15 No military utility
37:14 Likely response
39:24 WHEN MIGHT NUKES BE USED?
39:39 Nuclear use case?
42:03 HOW DO YOU PREVENT USE?
42:11 Signal and deter
44:30 KEY TAKEAWAYS
47:33 CHANNEL UPDATE
“The economy does better when everyone is not dead”[citation needed]
Can't go in the red if dead.
:)
Omg i almost died laughing at that point.
Citation not needed
Sometimes I wonder if human life on this planet just might be the existential threat to this planet. We certainly don't have a lot of house cats or even mean dogs threatening us all..
@@martinoamello3017 define existential. If we humans do kill each other. Life on earth will continue.
For me, the stark number was the amount Russia and the US spend on the maintenance of their nuclear arsenals. Apparently, the US spends something like 50 billion, while Russia spends 5 billion. Granted, Russia can probably do most things cheaper than the US. I don't want to sound conspiratorial, since we don't have much info on that, but I am curious how well-maintained the Russian arsenal is.
It's dogshit.
Yeah there's always the PPP argument in resource rich countries like Russia, but I'm not sure that it accounts for a 10x difference in upkeep.. I would be surprised if Russia didn't have enough nukes to wipe out at least Europe but there's a good chance they've inflated their number of (operational) nukes quite considerably
An unknown I would rather not test, but an unknown Putin is probably looking into furiously.
I wonder if they are so keen to raise the moscow because they have less than they admit and might have lost a decent chunk of them overboard
Good chance that's true, but the common consensus in Europe at least is that they'll have enough functioning nukes to effectively pose the same threat as if they had 100% of their claimed amount operational. And nobody really wants to find out either.
"Australia probably would've benefiterd from a nuclear weapons program to counter some of the greater and more threatening examples of our wildlife, the reality is that we never erally went down that road". 10/10
This is why they lost the Emu war.
@@glenshumate9260 Emu's are the bird equivalent of cockroaches. No weapon works against them
The uk tested some of their nukes in outback australia.
@@JustAnotherAccount8 "If we had a military division with the bullet-carrying capacity of these birds it would face any army in the world... They can face machine guns with the invulnerability of tanks. They are like Zulus whom even dum-dum bullets could not stop." Actual quote from an Australian millitary officer (Major C. W. P. Meredith)
The Final Emu War.
With respect to the Suez crisis: it's worth pointing out that the US was more-or-less on the same side as the USSR there, which means it was _both_ nuclear super powers that cowed the French and British. And many credit that incident for pushing the French to develop their own nukes three years later.
Yep it was a big push for Britain and France to develop their own arsenal's.
Well British got help from America, and France just stole the tech.
The Brits were not helped by the US for their Bomb because of all of the Spies they provided that leaked the Atomic secrets to the Russians. They could not trust working with the British scientists .
wrong,Britain and France were completely broke.
The US was lending them money.
Ike shut the money off.
Your colonial BS was over cause we said so.
Monkey see Monkey do, people are power hungry ,all over the world, especially when power is in a dictator ,rule over the people . Putin is a good example of that activity.
Russian officials giving a whole new meaning to "tactical n-word"
*DON'T PRESS THE BUTTON!*
"are you talking about the possible start of ww3?"
"kinda..."
They're gamers.
@@ericmckinley7985 Putin be reading too much TNO.
MRS. OBAMA! Get down!
@@manofcultura Putin:
Only Perun could have made us excited for a PowerPoint presentation 👍
In an internet ocean of drivel, finding calm rational analysis is exciting. ✅🤣
lol
Being boyishly excited over slides, I have a weird inner child it seems.
He definately deserves my subscription. Measured, clear, level-headed and good research. And not preachy. ;)
@@chrishieke1261 and I hope a few $, be it American, Canadian, Singaporean, or other denominations. First video and I added to his Patreon.
The lightbulb finally went on for me during this video. Russian nuclear statements and actions have been very carefully calibrated and are highly logical. Scaring the crap out of Ukrainians and the citizens of NATO countries = WIN. Scaring the decision-makers who control US/UK/FR nuclear arsenals = LOSE. While those decision-makers are also some of the most important decision-makers when it comes to making decisions about aid to Ukraine and sanctions, they are all also highly vulnerable to pressure from their own citizens and from the leaders of non-nuclear allies. Thus, the winning Russian strategy is to rattle that nuclear sabre hard, while at the same time making sure that the truly well-informed (the leaders of the Western nuclear powers) *know* they are bluffing.
this is such a great way of putting it, thanks man
"They'd have to be stupid to launch nukes"
They'd also must have been stupid to invade Ukraine. In the mud season. After letting them militarize for 8 years.
They were giving peace a chance. It didn't work
@@treeman5274 they weren't as they've started and fueled that conflict in the first place
@@treeman5274 "Giving peace a chance" by funding and controlling separatists? GTFO, armchair politican.
It was obvious for everybody that Crimea was only the beginning.
@@jskratnyarlathotep8411 I think it's not so simple. The US had been trying to destroy Russia for decades, fomented a coup in Ukraine in 2014, there has been a civil war ever since and after 8 years of waiting for the Minsk agreements to be fulfilled by Ukraine, who in the meanwhile was being armed to the teeth by the west, Russia lost patience, and took matters in their own hands. Geopolitics. Move and countermove. They've got this one.
@@Proctors_former_paycheck there have been many reports from western news outlets on Ukrainian Nazis for years now, BBC newsnight comes to mind, look that up, Ukraine On Fire is another, it is real
Would love to see a PowerPoint presentation from Perun on "Why Australia should have adopted a nuclear program for use against its own wildlife"
seconded
... but what if the drop bears captured one, and reverse engineered the technology? There would be nowhere safe in the world, let alone Australia
Emu war 2?
The Emu war is even funnier if you know how the Aussies won. Their army was attacking air, like the Russians did in Ukraine, and the Emu's were waging a guerilla war and retreating from any overwhelming force. So the Australians used fences and barbed wire to divide the land and clear the pockets, like the British did in the Boer War in South Africa.
Hopefully he does it as an April Fools next year.
Beat me to the Punch Perun, was thinking of covering the Nuclear War angle. Outstanding as always mate.
Cheers! Clearly we need to get EE and Hypo into a discord at some point and get these releases planned better. What are people going to think if the Aussies don't have their topics perfectly synched up?
And It'd be great to hear your perspective if you were going to do the topic anyway - I was thinking about revisiting lend-lease 2022 once it's signed into law (albeit from more of a mechanical/legal perspective) and you did a great job of covering that already.
It'd be great actually to have a chat! Our national pride is at stake XD
What I am itching to talk about is the air war, but both sides are naturally rather cagey about information so I have been scraping around and theorising.
So many projects to work on so little time.
Would still love that video animarchy
Collab when?
@@AnimarchyHistory cover it too anyway.
I think the Russian's are starting to tone down their nuclear saber rattling as they are realizing that it is 1) Did not or atleast is no longer disuading the Wests arms shipments and 2) It is actually making their conventional forces look weaker as they are admitting that their conventional forces are not up to the job.
Hmm, Russian TV hosts have been talking about wiping out the UK with nuclear weapons, and how Russia is being "forced" into this by NATO.
The haven’t rattled that saber in a long time. They haven’t used nuclear weapons to dissuade arms shipments. Take into account under what conditions they even mention their use. The US intelligence, the CIA, they can’t have misjudged Russian strength. If their conventional forces were over hyped they were the ones doing it.
You are deluded by Western Prop.
@@dirtyaznstyle4156 You're joking right? They rattle that sabre virtually every day!
Every single time a new western weapon starts slaughtering orks, they start whining that "the world is headed for nuclear war!"
They've not been sabre rattling, they've been signing to the choir. Very different. Russia is a mafia state authoritarian regime. It needs a bogeyman (in this case USA and Nato). Any mention of nuclear has always been in context with propaganda at home.
32:12 For the gamers out there, this is actually the situation that leads to the Fallout universe. The US and Red China got into a conventional war, the US ended up invading mainland China and was in spitting distance of Beijing (and was clearly on the verge of victory) when China launched every nuke in it’s arsenal at all their pre-selected targets, which prompted automated response from the US, which prompted automated responses from the Soviet Union, which prompted automated responses from the remnants of the European Commonwealth, etc, until the only not nuked nation left was Australia. Because the Aussies have it bad enough with the native fauna so they don’t need irradiated mutants.
Perun's history:
1945: Hiroshima and Nagisaki nuked
1946: Russia builds nuclear arsenal
1947: in a final stand against the Emus and giant spiders, Australia sends a final goodbye to the nations of the world and declares itself radioactive hellish wasteland...then nukes itself.
Fallout Australia
Whoa whoa whoa, do you want Australia to lose ANOTHER war to the Emus???
@@Guplk Replace deathclaws with wombats the size of a bear, supermutamts with carnivore emus and kangaroos, sprinkle some kookaburras where bloatflies would be, add koalas falling on your head from the trees above (dropbears ftw), crocodiles can remain unchanged. Who would the BoS equivalent be though? Order of Steve Irwin?
Leaving the rest of the world to deal with the coming plague of radioactive drop bears. :)
@@theleva7 TY for the nightmares tonight bruv.
Another note to be made on the 'specialness' of nuclear weapons is that, unlike almost all conventional options, retaliation will likely immediately attack command and control. Given that leadership is standing in command and control, that's a much larger risk for a politician or a general to stomach than sending some teenagers off to die and seeing their poll numbers go down 8%.
The dangers of radiation are greatly exaggerated in the media and fiction. I wrote a long explanation. But let me just say this instead. Most of the people who were inside the Chernobyl nuclear power plant when it melted down were not killed by it.
Is radiation dangerous? Yes. Would a lot of people die in a nuclear war? Yes. Could it wipe out humanity? No.
💯
And even if you “win” a nuclear war the question then becomes “what comes next?” Being the king of a ruined country and a radioactive wasteland is not ideal even if your primary enemy is dead.
If you're going to launch a nuclear strike, I don't think you're going to hang out in any of your published C&C locations to wait for the reaction of your fanbase.
Excellent point, Nuclear war is the only type of war in which the leadership will be the first to die.
"A reverse clickbait video." This sir, is why I love this channel so much.
Something missing is a discussion about the "red button". People have somehow got it in their imagination that Putin just pushes a red button a missiles starts flying, when the systems are more complicated and involve people who are not terminally ill.
Discussed and covered if you listened to the content. Imaginary red buttons are irrelevant.
So who told you that Putin is terminally ill MSM. You will sleep better without them!?
The internet is amazing. From cats and dogs living together to the second phd level analysis on war from a primarily gaming channel. Thank you for the excellent content.
cats and dogs living together is unrealistic
If they are raised from puppy and kitten together, they can and will live together.
@@GhostlyJorg especially in Ghostbusters.
if you think this is phd level political content you need to have your head checked, seriously
@@anarchyorslavery1616 careful mate , them's fighting words for an aussi .
“The economy does better because not everyone is dead.”
Words to live by.
Kappa
well...
It would be horrible for the economy!
Loved the "random" selection of the 2 countries that might be in a nuclear situation: a small country wanting to join a "blue" coalition, a big nuclear neighbour yelling not to do that as they might use their nuclear weapons :))
It's just "hypothetical".
Remember Cuban crisis?
"thei" and "migjt"??😏😅
But good comment otherwise!😉
@@Superknullisch Thanks, I corrected.
@@iam8401 the Cuban Missile Crisis was different in nearly every conceivable way
Wonderful research and presentation. One of the best I've seen on the subject. It's a breath of fresh air to me, a Vietnam vet who's quite concerned during these troubled times. Thank you for your dedication to providing sound reliable material.
“Nuclear powered cruise missile” has to be the most Russian weapon ever
Nah the USA started developing one back in the 1960’s powered by an open cycle nuclear ramjet. The concept was that this thing would fly low at supersonic speeds and dump nuclear warheads off a pre designated points, before crashing and irradiating a wide area with it fuel source. Fortunately sanity prevailed and the program was cancelled but they did have a working model of the engine by the end.
@@metalfatigue708 I do not think the major reason for the cancelation was sanity but budgets and that there was no need for it. ICBM could be launched immediately and become available and nukes got smaller in size there was no need for a fast man or unmanned aircraft for strategic nuclear bomb delivery. The B-58 Hustler has a short service life, XB-70 Valkyrie is canceled.
It was reasonable to develop an aircraft delivery system when rockets were not capable or were slow to fuel and launch. But when air defenses get better and better and ICBM that can be launched immediately exist programs like that got canceled for a reason.
There is some sense in developing it now when a ballistic missile defense system that works starts to exist. I would guess it is more of developing the capability to build it in the future if missile defense gets better. I suspect it is also a message to the US if you build missile defense we build this weapon that it can't stop so do not try to build a missile defense system that could handle all Russian ICMBs.
Naw, that honor belongs to the coal-fired, steam-turbine powered cruise missile.
Fission candle cruise missile.... O.o
Scott Manley has a video on the rocket equivalent. th-cam.com/video/cvZjhWE-3zM/w-d-xo.html
"I've simplified some things out of necessity, because we don't want to be here all day."
Well I for one wouldn't really mind!
Great material as always, I hope the release is a sign of your recovery.
tfw someone says 'I've simplified things' and the video is still almost an hour long lol
Almost all of the analysis is excellent *except for the part of other historical comparisons at* 12:00, where Perun's lack of historical knowledge/research of those conflicts shows. Many of the examples cited reflect a poor understanding of those conflicts and situation. Some strange examples are picked and where they are used are partially or largely incorrect.
*China and Vietnam* - Using this as an example of nuclear coercion failing is wrong because nuclear coercion was not used in the first place. The war was always meant to be a highly limited war, with no intention of conquering any part of Vietnam. This was in fact outright promised by China to the USSR (and the US) and in exchange the USSR would not enter into the war as Vietnam's ally. As a result of this limitation even the Air Force and Navy were ordered to mostly not participate, let alone nuclear weapons. The relatively low importance of the conflict to China and the explicit no-first-use policy of China meant that nuclear coercion was never on the table.
*Nuclear Monopoly* - It is a common misconception that the time of greatest US nuclear advantage was right after 1945 when only the US had atomic bombs, and therefore possessed some magical ability to immediately order everyone in the world around or face atomic destruction. In fact, nuclear bombing was still secondary to conventional bombing in 1945. Nuclear bombs were both much smaller in quantity and in yield (fusion bombs not yet invented), thus they did not become the core of strategic bombing until the mid-50s. Compared to the 8000-megaton SIOP-62 plan, the US arsenal in 1946 amounted to less than a single megaton - and they were deployed on far inferior platforms (planes) with lower range, survivability and accuracy. The 1946 arsenal would have struggled to destroy even 1% of the USSR. "Wiping out a gigantic country from the map" was not a thing for nuclear arsenals in 1945-1949. Nuclear weapons in themselves could only form a limited part of the full spectrum of military deterrence. In fact, the very phrase "massive retaliation" was only uttered by Eisenhower in 1954. This reflects the reality that "nation-destroying" nuclear bombing power only started emerging as a possibility around this time.
*India and Pakistan* - This argument is even weirder. The idea that India could somehow use its nuclear weapons to destroy Pakistan just because it got the nukes first is extremely wrong. Just because India got nukes before Pakistan doesn't mean it had a monopoly. Pakistan was allied with the United States, the country with the most nuclear weapons in the world. Even if India was ruled by a warmonger, its ability to conduct any nuclear invasion of Pakistan would have been hampered by this alliance. India did *not* have any nuclear advantage over the US and therefore it is silly to to speak of Indian restraint in not nuking Pakistan as if India had any advantage in that conflict to begin with.
All in all a good analysis for Russia and Ukraine but when Perun doesn't have the knowledge or research on the other parts of Asian history it shows.
@@Eric149162536 Seems like sound criticism (though I'm rather ignorant on Asian history myself, I'll admit that freely).
Still, I think you'd do better to levy it at Perun directly, rather than bury it here in the comments by answering me.
@@pax6833 It *is* simplified - well, imagine delving into all the theoretical background, the minutia of different doctrines, historical precedents, logistical basis of all that, knock-on effects... He's not lying, we WOULD be here all day.
@@michaireneuszjakubowski5289 I agree; I would love to see Perun's response to this constructive criticism, and he's more likely to see it if it's posted as a direct comment instead of buried in a reply.
This is the sort of content that I like best--people just talking over slideshows for more than 10 minutes vs fancy cameras, "TH-cam personalities", overly edited edutainment. You actually make valuable content. Thank you, and congratulations on your well-deserved trophy thing!
This is where I come to get no nonsense and well researched and reasoned info and commentary on what is going on in this crisis. The long form format is perfect for getting to the broad understanding of the situation both militarily and diplomatically. You’re proving a fantastic service and you are a rare gem. So, please keep going. 👍
This reminds me of a quote from Agent Kay from Men in Black: "There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT!"
Ah that explains the slap - Agent J got recalled
In my personally curated copy of "The HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy" This quote ("There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT!") inexplicably occurs as a footnote on page 42. (It is immediately followed by yet another recipe for a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster v.II, which seems absolutely identical to the original recipe.)
I’m so fed up with Russia’s nuclear saber rattling that I’m at the point where I’m thinking “just shut the fuck up” every time they say “we might use em.”
Lavrov opens his horse mouth and the only thing that needs to be said is /watch?v=YAgRBq2jnz4
It's the head pain meme, and I am multiple fifths of vodka in not having any of that bullshit.
Funny how we have still decided to trade with them over the years despite the Kremlin allowing the idea of nuclear threat to leak out through their media, Putins Russia should have been out on pariah status decades ago
True, better push the red button and let it all be over with, no more war in Ukraine, no more covid-19, no more economic downfall, only peace...
Do it, DO IT NOW!!
@@suburbia2050 oh, but don’t you remember? Bush looked into his eyes (soul?) and saw a good man…🤦♂️
Re-watching this today for no reason. /:
Hi Perun I wanted to say thanks for this video. While your word and research would not be able to stop the horrible event from happening it does give reasons to be quietly optimistic. I used some of your points to help talk down some of my friends and family who worry a lot about this topic.
I have vivid memory of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. At school we practiced the drill of getting under our desk for protection. Even at the age of 6 I realised that this was a laughably futile gesture. At that age I dreamed of robots, space travel and how advanced mankind would be by 21st Century. Sadly despite huge advances in technology we are as primitive as ever.
It's not all bad.
The internet brought people across the world together (I'm an Italian, here to listen to a lecture by an Australian...), we took lead out of gasoline and just this week scientists "photographed" the black hole at the center of the Milky Way.
Cheers :)
As a Finn I appreciate to subtlety of hypothetical scenario with Finnish prime minister and flag at the background, since it's very similar to historical Finnish way of speaking about possible threat from the East.
Findor, as a Finn, can you tell for what Finland want to join NATO?
Do the Finns support this decision?
@@ak9266 I mean that's fairly complicated question, both as a short answer: Yes, there seems to be wide support, both political and in public. As for reasons, Finland has undeniably become part of the "West" after end of Soviet Union and therefore in regards to Russia we are seen as getting all of the downsides that comes with that without any of the security benefits provided by the NATO membership. And of course the situation in Ukraine was the straw that broke the camel's back (I would argue that it hit Finns especially hard given our historical context) that basically tipped to scale between any possible uncertainty that the membership would bring and its benefits.
@@findor5639 thank you very much for your answer
Love your stuff, as always. Glad you've beaten back Covid and are on the mend. Looking forward to the next one, but as always take care of yourself and keep rested! Thanks again.
Greetings from Moscow. Thank you for such a detailed analysis. Definitely a calming voice of reason in times of unprecedented hysteria.
"We don't know who fired first...us or them...but we know it was us that scorched the sky..."
Living in the pacific, I've been desensitized by the constant North Korean nuclear threats to everyone around them that I don't think Russia with way more to lose would risk using their arsenal. I hope I don't get proven wrong, dear God
That assumption requires Putin to be a logical agent. He might very well be, but will he always be? What if he goes senile? What if the stress from this invasion not going as planned knocks a spring loose in his head?
The thing that scares me the most is that russia has "small yield" tactical nuclear bombs. And a desperate Putin might be tempted to use them while believing not to provoce a full scale nuclear war.
As a Europea I am also especially terrified by the implications of that. Case 1) NATO also responds with nuclear weapons: We will have a global nuclear war.
Case 2) There won't be a nuclear response in which case russia is likely to launch further nuclear attacks.
The aggressor seems to have lower costs than the defender. That is what really scares me.
This piece completes the analysis. This comprehensive series of videos is the best deep dive into almost every aspect of the war is the best I've seen anywhere.
It definitely is
I agree. I share with anyone who will listen.
You may like the series "Understanding the War in Ukraine".
th-cam.com/play/PL9zL6xEwtVujfHHif6MyfIFxP_G44sfAG.html
It's by Pr Alexander Stubb and ex-Finnish prime minister.
Congratulations on the 💯 K award!...and on recovering from covid. Glad you're on the mend now. Thanks as always for the insights driven from logical, grounded analysis. 🙏
"In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies"
The most literal way of reading that just means that Russia won't unconditionally surrender, which is one of the base deterrence cases for pretty much any nuclear state. "Acceptable" does not mean "favorable", it just means that they will literally accept terms.
As a B-52 pilot in 1970, my target was Moscow with two nuclear bombs. Due to the time required to fly from the US, our ballistic missiles would have already struck. The only benefit to launching B-52’s is that we could be called back up to a certain point.
Max, very interesting to hear from an actual B52 pilot. Those are big airplanes. The film ' Dr Stangelove" was apparently very acurate in its depiction of the aircraft. What do you think? (if you have seen the film)
@@PeteCswampy Strangely enough, I haven’t seen it. Heard about it of course.
That would not be the only benefit. You could also have been given another target. Or make a more accurate strike than what ICBMs were capable of (for instance, if wanting to put a bomb right on top of a bunker complex rated against indirect nuclear strikes)
What was the planned flight path? (CPL + instrument pilot)
"Well, boys, l reckon this is it. Nucler combat, toe to toe with the Rooskies."
Good work, Perun. Thank you.... from an American 1980's & 90's Cold War soldier. (Fun fact: I still have my old NBC Radiac nuclear yield calculator wheel. Back my Army days, it would allow us to calculate yield and radiation dose based on the height and width of the mushroom cloud, and other factors such as air or ground burst etc. We could then calculate our expected duration of combat effectiveness based on that dosage. Good times. Good times. :o)
Let us die young or let us live forever.
Turning golden faces toward the sun.
Praising our leaders, we're getting in tune.
The music's played by the mad man.
Hoping for the best but expecting the worst.
Are you gonna drop the bomb or not ?
Your videos have come so far in a video. Amazing.
Thank god we’ve got at least a few people out there giving straight facts as well as context via a succinct overview of historical events, long standing doctrines, etc. BTW, a lot of commenters have noted “don’t feel gun shy cause you haven’t worn a uniform.” The number of former soldiers with videos talking about the war that are filled with nonsense or simply nothing you couldn’t learn in the worst evening news brief is considerable. There are vets with great analyses and vids too. Sharp and dull tools in every industry/profession/service.
As a massive Fallout fan I hope your sound analysis is correct. The one thing those games drilled into my young mind 20 years back is that nukes aren't cool, they're terrifying and should remain in their silos.
I do have to note on the Russian habit of threatening vague nuclear-sounding consequences if we (Finland) or other neutrals don't do what they tell us. There's a bit of a cry-wolf effect with them. Russia has threatened doomsday so often and over so many issues that threats like the ones we're seeing now don't carry the intended punch.
Also a big Fallout fan. I think the main issue would be the lack of mods and access to the console. What's even the point of an apocalyptic wasteland if there aren't any anime girls and sim settlements? 😂
But invading non-nuclear-capable countries and shelling cities does carry a punch.
My new favorite out of context line ever: “Every time a Russian Authority opens their mouth and says the N-word, it seems the apocalypse is one step closer.”
But is it the Hard R version?
@@kmech3rd Nucleah
Whaaa,, nobody throws in the Bush ' newcular ' ,,, sheesh,,
@@capturedflame Yes I'm very aware that Bush was much smarter than CNN et al made him out to be. Biden could never manage his files.
And of course no one dared use the chimp meme on Obama,,
I was just making a crack joke off the cuff.
Thanks for posting,,
Slava Ukraine !!
Audio and editing was great this week. Love your work keep it up mate!
Congrats for hitting 100K man! Great content, well deserved.
These videos are absolutely top tier - I really appreciate having solid, credible, well thought out videos that try to avoid arguing based on opinion, and rather try to stick to arguments based solely in fact.
It is I'm glad the algorithm was able to show me his content
I think he misses the human element precisely because it becomes a scientific accounting exercise. With the current situation rationality and scientific strategies may work up to a point but the wild card is how the other side perceives these actions. In ww2 Japan attacked pearl harbour over oil sanctions, this dwarfs that. USA has openly said they want to degrade the Russian military and have all but indicated they want regime change. I think culturally westerners misunderstand the minds of the Russian leadership.
No they're kiddie gamer stuff. But fun. You want actual stuff watch Scott Ritter or Defense Politics Asia.
The logic of nuclear weapons never seizes to amaze me.
It´s soooo close to being paradox that it´s downright weird.
Nuclear standoffs are like both sides standing in a pool of gasoline, with 1 side bragging they have 5 matches whilst the other side has 4....
Thanks for your informative analysis. I've just recovered from Covid myself - a week ago I was struggling for breath and know that tiredness. You have relieved me from worrying too much about Putin undermining my efforts to survive! Thank you :-).
Grats on 100k Best slideshow operator on youtube! :) Keep up the great work!
I look back at the cold war with nostalgia remembering that this could be the day we where invaded or there was the end of the human civilization.
Born and raised in Sweden -76 at some time invasion or destruction was inevitable possibilities.
You had to deal with it. And you did. We had our airforce base flying Viggen attack jets daily.
Windows where rattling.
We had dug us in something abnormal.
There where leaders of countries asking us what kind of war we where preparing for.
We had alternate production for necessary things like swedish snus (wet tobacco under your lip) and all kinds of other production the civilians and military needed.
We had caves full of oil. Like big seas of oil expecting us to be cut off.
Stores to keep the population from dying and also production to keep the troops.
We had conscription with retraining weeks.
Poor and rich mixed and there where friendships for life.
We knew we had an enemy that was overwhelming.
We where told never to end the fight.
It gave character to boys who came out kind of like men.
Each serving in a post that the govt thought would be the best utility.
We had NCOs om group, platoon and even a conscript officer level on company level.
I remember the training. We took risks that our current professional military do not take.
Like how when I grew up we didn't wear bicycle helmets unless there was something problematic with us acceptation of risks changed over time making it more or less mandatory to wear helmets if you ride a bike. At least for kids.
The military was taught to take initiative and some played around with their explosives.
We had bomb-shelters everywhere.
In cellars. In garages.
We had plans for blowing up anything useful by the coast that the enemy would want and flee westward into the country.
We also had hospitals hidden in schools. Normal kids went to school not knowing above the lamps and ceiling was oxygen, operating lights and all kinds of medical stuff.
We had a leading central blown into the mountain 100 meters from where I lived.
On top of that mountain was a machine-gun nest filled with stone.
Inside was communications and command and control facilities with bunks and its self-contained water and all.
There even was a faraday cage that was used for electronics.
I believe it was for the local civil govt.
The military probably had other control centrals hidden deep into mountains.
It was a completely different life.
Remembering the fall of the wall.
The lifting of the looming threat of nuclear destruction and invasion.
The happiness for the freedom of the soviet people.
I remember so much good will towards the Russians hoping their lives would be much much better now.,
If we are not prepared to stand up to a nuclear ultimatum we are forever slaves.
it is not within our control to choose to press that button or not even if everything was fine.
Make it impotent by saying no.
And I am sorry about how Sweden acted during WW2.
In part we where neutral but in part we accommodated the axis.
The Finnish friends obviously didn't think highly of us when we didn't take up arms in their defense.
We had volunteers. Sent materiel. Food. As a controverse we also took in Finnish kids for safety. (Something that had tragic consequences with identity and family ties).
I am so for joining NATO.
And not for our own benefit and protection.
Mostly for the solidarity with our like-minded friends and countries.
Especially the baltic states.
I am sure we would have people posted along Finland on its border.
We are quite used to cold (up in the north at least) so it is an environment we are suited for.
We have lived through years and years of threats of armageddon.
Don't be weak.
I lived with it as a kid.
You can do too.
as for WWII, the Danes are grateful for Sweden sawing thousands of Danish lives,
so don't be too hard on yourself.
If Putin touches Finland, we'll all (Scandinavians, that is) have to go there - so let's hope he doesn't.
Peace and love
Edit: I'm born in '64, grown up the coast of the Great Belt. It felt like we were basically waiting for "them"
> And I am sorry about how Sweden acted during WW2.
See "Counterfeit Traitor" w/William Holden
This was an amazing post.
What a wonderful synopsis of Swedish and American life during the cold war.
At 17 I went into the United States Navy and into the Submarine Service - both diesel and nuclear boats.
I was born in 1949 .
I went into the submarine service in 1966 and was in it until 1972.. Always following around the Soviets.
I like to think that we were able to make a positive impact impact on a safe free world .
Your synopsis is very very good and should be read by all that are Interested in following and understanding the the cold war and today's threats to our freedom.
Throughout the history of humanity, we always have needed good hard men with dangerous weapons!
Best regards, Jim Moroney
You won't live with anything if we get this wrong.
Fake strength that ends the human race is weakness by any other name.
After "losing", Russia can say "Our joint Russian and NATO operation in Ukraine has successfully removed the Nazis, and we have taken their grain and John Deere tractors".
Underrated comment lol.
My opinion is that some commander or general stole the grain and equipment for themselves the same way the more common Russian soldier stole washing machines. The general's theft is just on the industry scale.
@@wotnot4646 but generals can not use federal police to escort trucks with grains, do they?
American farmers have trouble getting new John Deere tractors fixed because they wait forever on a JD tech, since JD has many repairs locked out at the software level...good luck getting someone to fix them when they breakdown or need maintenance.
@@tealc6218 JD has remotely disabled them
love your videos! no bs, logical analysis, well explained
Thanks Perun - you rock, man!
I'm not sure why I come home from work and check TH-cam for my weekly 1 hour slideshow presentation. I think you are well and truly scratching my military economics analysis itch.
Because this one hour makes you smarter than the other 6 days and 23 hours of coverage we've heard.
Yes daddy. Gimme that PowerPoint
up your tight boot?
#MakePowerpointGreatAgain
LMAO
Thank you for editing out all the coughing! Very much appreciated.
Fantastic presentation. Probably the most in depth analysis I have seen thus far.
“A second sunrise over Ukraine” is an absolutely beautiful phrase. Great video!
Except its horrible implication.
Old old old cold war phrase.
The future is bright, so bright in fact, that you don’t even need to open your eyes!
Reminds me of the Roger Waters song ‘Two Suns in the Sunset’
@@CJ-nd9gg Beat me to it!
Having witnessed the incompetence of the russian army, I am mostly scared about them accidentally going nuclear.
you know.. maybe they'd accidently detonate on themselves x D
i dont think they are incompetence
No nuclear power is incompetent But. 🥺S--t happens ...☯️☮️
Lavrow in august: "today Moskow was attacked by the nazl drog addicted swines of the russ... Russian federation. we hereby declare war on them."
@@ishan7735 I'm a former infantryman, and watching the Russian soldiers work on many different videos leads me to believe that most of their infantryman haven't received enough/good training. Most of them are incompetent.
Sorry to hear you caught Covid and don't feel well. I hope you get well some and feel better. Great video and I'm glad to see you are back!
Very reassuring video. Balanced content like this is extremely important to combat the fear mongering and propaganda on both sides of this conflict.
From all outward appearances, the rust, the rot, of the graft and corruption in the Russian system has been fairly complete and thorough. It costs quite a lot to keep up that nuclear arsenal. Who knows how many detonators were said to have been replaced properly that weren't and the money disappeared up some middle level military stooge's coat sleeves?
Its not something you want to gamble with but at the same time, we shouldn't let incompetent bullies push us around when they're showing themselves to be mostly a paper tiger.
Or they just pawn off warheads on the black market now and then.
Honestly, a corrupt nuclear force is still world-endingly deadly, but also terrifying in its own right.
The US spends around half the total Russian military budget on just maintaining their existing nuclear arsenal. So you can imagine how well the even bigger Russian arsenal is maintained.
I think you can go quite a bit further than that. Given the rot and corruption within the military that has affected all branches we can see, it is extraordinarily unlikely that most of their nuclear weapons will work as advertised or planned. In addition, there is no way at this point in time that the Russians can know how bad the problem is, and it will likely take them many months to figure that out. And in any event it will likely take them many years to address those problems.
@@davidbonn8740 thanks for the insight general patreus. Would love to see your PHD paper elucidating these claims.
@@davidbonn8740 As has been shown when UKR captures T-80 and T-90 tanks from RU. The shells they have loaded 60% don't have primers. Training rounds with plastic primers. Munitions that can't explode can't win battles. So while RU has a lot of missiles, a majority fail (thank God!) But the ones that do "work" cause great pain and destruction. It's a full time job clearing unexploded munitions in UKR.
A lot of Russian bots like to bring up the fact that Russia has hypersonic missiles as if they somehow believe that definitively proves that they would "win" a nuclear war against the United States and NATO nations but they seem to be willfully ignorant of multiple obstacles to prop up the notion _"Russkiy stronk"_ :
- The amount of hypersonic missiles in Russia's arsenal is very low. They've only formally declared 15 and with the existing sanctions in place from when they annexed Crimea that halted mass development on their other wunderwaffe such as the T-14 Armata and the Sukhoi Su-57, its safe to assume that the real number is barely higher than that. Not all of their 6,000+ soviet era stock, the ones that are maintained btw, are hypersonic nor can they be easily retrofitted to be them either.
- Hypothetically, let's just say that the real number is 50 hypersonic nuclear missiles. Russia doesn't just have 50 targets they'd have to hit to "win" the nuclear war and they're not all located within the US. They'd have to hit multiple targets in the UK, France, Germany, Poland, Turkey, Japan, and other NATO aligned nations. Emptying your entire stock of super-futuristic missiles with no way to replace them short term is an incredibly idiotic approach so that would mean they'd have to use their standard, much slower ICBM's in tandem which defeats the purpose of hypersonics as those are easily detectable on early warning systems and countermeasures can be mounted.
- The US has publicly confirmed there are two hypersonic missile projects in the works, but thats only what they're telling us. Unlike Russia that has to constantly parade its most up-to-date-arsenal to convince itself that its still a global superpower, the United States has been historically hush-hush on its up-to-date tech. Examples include the SR-71 Blackbird entering service in the early 1960's but the world at large not knowing about the craft until the mid 1980's, the US Military had access to ARPAnet decades before the world got their first taste of the internet, or that the only reason the world found out that the US has stealth helicopter technology was because an outfitted UH-60 Blackhawk went down during the otherwise successful raid on Osama bin Laden's compound. There are rumors abound of the US actively testing laser & railgun tech which would be faster than hypersonics and while it can't be confirmed if those are real or ready, it should be noted that unlike Russia there has been nothing financially stopping the US from continuously advancing its weapons and defense systems.
- Thinking the Hypersonic missiles would decisively win Russia a nuclear war is to assume that the conflict is over once the first strikes happen, that what remains of the US and her allies would just accept annihilation, and that NATO's nuclear arsenal is entirely landlocked missile silos that can be easily wiped out. It doesn't factor in the they have numerous nuclear submarines as well as strategic bombers that stay in the air 24/7. Unless those Kinzhal & Zircon missiles simultaneously throw up magic deflector shields around Moscow, St. Petersburg, Volgograd, and other cities while they rocket towards their targets, there is little to nothing to stop a retaliatory strike from a very hidden and very angry strike force that is hellbent to drag Russia to hell with them.
While I get your point, I don't see the logic in NATO "massively retaliating" with nukes a first strike by Russia... because that would only cause Russia to "massively re-retaliate"... and in the end guess what.. the world is over.
Also the US has nuclear submarines all over the world, so if nuclear war were to breakout nukes launched from these submarines could easily strike in Russia just as fast as a hypersonic missiles launched from Russia would strike in the US.
Since there already is no way to stop ICBM's in any significant numbers, the hypersonic missile thing really doesn't do anything to change the nuclear balance of power.
The V2 missile was hypersonic in its terminal faze. It’s simply Russian rebranding of existing ICMBs it’s like the t90 re brand. It’s a t72 just new.
@@User-jr7vf Are you aware of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction or *MAD?* Most people are so instead of explaining what it means, I'd rather focus on how we got there. If Humans aren't self-interested creatures, we certainly reactionary. If there was credibly evidence that the Russian Federation launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States, literally actually no one in the US high command would think _"Well, its a pity that Russia took such an evil act against us, but we can take comfort in our final moments knowing they'll get to live the lives we won't while becoming the new world rulers."_ No, instead they would do everything in their power to make them suffer and in that moment the only way to do that is repeat their slight onto them
This is brilliant and it made me feel allot better, thank you!!
You have a real gift for this. Keep it up love your presentations
I've been waiting all week on the next one in this series. Thank you for your work and diligence with these. I greatly appreciate them, as do many others
"Every time a Russian official says the N-word" lmao
You are amazingly brilliant in explaining things that are so obviously right, respect.
Extremely well thought out and accurate vid. Well done mate.
Really glad you're on the mend. My Dad is recovering from covid and he gets wiped out quick so take yr time. And I really appreciate this video, not that I'm a panic merchant, but it helped me find some clarity. Thanks Perun 👍🏾👏🏾
I remember being stationed in Europe and the forecast during an invasion was a survivability of 15 hours to 3 days before annihilation depending on the scenario. I am both relieved and surprised at how dire we thought it would be. Maybe we're wrong about the nuclear threat as well but I imagine the consequences would still be catastrophic.
Sad to say, but at this point I think our best hope is that their nukes work as well as their tanks. Go Ukies!
Left a like, leaving a comment and subscribed. All hail the algorithm!
Great content!
Killing it with these vids Perun! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I've never looked forward to a 50 minute PowerPoint Presentation as much as this!
Here we go! Thanks Perun, hope you're feeling better
Another example from you of, by far, the best analysis of the Ukrainian War on the internet. You are doing a great job.
Brilliant synopsis and superlative factual content. If only the mainstream news reporters followed suit!
I happened upon your site. Thank you for your presentations. They are well-organized and easy to understand, so that we can think about what you present. Good job!
I would absolutely become a patron for extra content of this type. You have really helped me to understand what's happening overseas. I have spent a lot of time scrambling around the internet trying to find reliable, comprehensive, understandable information and your channel has been a godsend.
This is really a top content you're providing, keep up the good work! It's not common nowadays to be able to spend 50 minutes watching some PowerPoint presentation and be entertained :)
Maybe it’s worth a brief revisit based on developments in the last month… 💀
Congrats on your success with the new content. I really like the long format slide shows, there is already to much clickbaity rage content on the internet. I'm looking forward to lots of interesting episodes. Thank you for your good work.
Honestly at this point I'm actually relatively relaxed about the prospect of a nuclear war coming from Ukraine.
Everyone knows that using even a minor nuclear weapon will result in becoming a pariah state at best and annihilation at worst.
The best response to it is perhaps to just make it known that you're ready with your own nuclear forces and will respond to any use of nuclear weapons with extreme force.
Is USA a pariah state for using nuclear weapons TWICE?
@@Kayzef2003 the whole of ww2 was a war crime…so stop… minus killing hitler
@@Kayzef2003 No, because the US did it to end the second world war. Even with that people are still arguing if it was the right choice
@@Kayzef2003 were the japanese not pariahs? Enough was enough, those old fossils didnt want the smoke 😂😂😂 L
@@Kayzef2003 No because a) Given the scale of WW2 and the regular bombing raids, it was not an escalation b) Japan was clearly the aggressor and had plenty of chances to stop the war and c) The world at large hadn't yet established a legal or moral framework for the use of nuclear weapons (for comparison, see the use of chemical weapons in WW1).
The quality of these analyses is incredible
love your old school powerpoint logical thinking that does not fear to be challenged. bold, well documented, although you definitely choose a side here, but using argumented and factual statements
I was literally playing Civilization 6 when you said the Civilization line about nukes. Too funny. Very accurate. Nuking an area just sort of... deletes stuff. This game gives me virtually zero reason to not fire massive first strike volleys and just cleaning up the radiation or waiting for it to "go away" like that's a reasonable thing to do.
I really wish CIV had a better second strike mechanic. Like if you launched nukes on one turn, and everyone could see, but they didn't land until the next turn.
@@HALLish-jl5mo That would be amazing! Someone needs to make this into a mod.
On the other hand, DEFCON really cemented the horror of nuclear warfare, even though the game have basic graphic.
Got hit by Mutually Assured Destruction in Civ V. Got frustrated in a war and launched the first strike, only to be hit right back by the AI who had only been restrained up to that point
@@muhammadnursyahmi9440 That game is among the most depressing games I've ever played.
Great work! Thank you for providing informative insightful content. I've been looking forward to watching more of stuff you make.
Very impressed with your presentation and preparation!
I think there are about three things worth considering here:
1. If Russia uses nukes in Ukraine, it is likely to be tactical nukes. These will have a burst height somewhere between about -100 feet and 5000 feet. A tactical nuke probably can't penetrate much below 100 feet into the ground and still be intact enough to blow up, and a burst much above 5K feet will have too wide a coverage area for tactical use, probably killing most of the Russian invaders within 5 miles or so of the blast. This would not be a positive outcome for Russia.
Low altitude nuke blasts pull up a whole lot of dirt, which tends to become radioactive. This makes LOTS of fallout. You get much less fallout from a high-altitude strategic nuke burst.
2. Eastern Ukraine, like the Donbas region, is within about 20 miles of the Russian border, and the wind I believe is blowing generally east. That means that the blast will have an effect within Ukraine, but most all that fallout is likely to end up inside Russia itself. The effects after a year or two will probably be far worse inside Russia than in Ukraine.
3. Western Ukraine is very near to NATO countries. Having a lot of fallout blowing into NATO countries most likely would be considered a deliberate atomic attack on NATO members. NATO and the US, separately or together, would probably not be amused by this. Likely something long-term bad would happen to Russia.
👍 Not to mention that the arms race would be for real in Europe (with some countries trying to go nuclear as well?).
Don't forget how pissed China would be given their own geographical distance to both Russia and Ukraine as well.
@@RealCS2000 China would not be happy, but they're hella far from Ukraine.
"If". They won't. Don't be absurd.
Be glad you didn't have COVID 2 years ago.
It really sucked!
My wife had severe fatigue for months afterwards, and couldn't taste anything for over a month.
Lots of fascinating information, thanks! Apart from that, hope you´re right with your conclusion.
Oh you *literally* survived covid. Glad you're on your way to recovery. Weird, you're the second TH-camr I watch that has gotten sick. It's a good reminder that covid isn't entirely over and a modicum of caution is still warranted.
"But the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?!"
To announce it on victory day of course!
That was epic. Dr. Strangelove is an incredible movie. Many excellent actors.
@@samueladams1775 absolutely, my favorite black and white movie
Wow a powerpoint with good pacing and doesnt drag on.
I cant belive it.
Amazing work
Great piece of information man. Just what i needed.
Another first rate video! Congratulations on 100k. Well deserved.
02:28 *What am I going to cover?* - 03:33 *TLDR* - 05:28 *What is Russia doing?* - 11:50 *Does nuclear coercion work?* - 18:59 *Russian nuclear doctrine* · 25:32 · 28:17 - 33:48 *Will they use nukes?* - 39:24 *When might nukes be used? - **42:03** *How do you prevent use?* - 44:30 *Key takeaways* - 47:33 _Channel update_
-
00:00 Introduction
01:02 Nukes and the media
02:09 But hold up a moment
02:28 What am I going to cover?
03:33 TLDR
04:40 Caveats
05:28 *WHAT IS RUSSIA DOING?*
05:34 Capability demonstration
06:21 Rhetoric
07:10 Capability development
10:21 So who is the audience?
11:50 *DOES NUCLEAR COERCION WORK?*
12:02 Historically? No
14:30 Nuclear taboo
16:34 A simple example
18:59 *RUSSIAN NUCLEAR DOCTRINE*
19:08 Doctrine and declaratory strategy
20:03 Why should we care?
21:34 Lavrov quote
21:58 Putin the nuclear warmonger?
25:32 Historical perspective
28:17 The 2020 statement
29:39 The four reasons
32:11 "Escalate to de-escalate"
33:48 *SO WILL THEY USE NUKES?*
34:10 No doctrinal use case
35:03 Russian media control to the rescue
36:15 No military utility
37:14 Likely response
39:24 *WHEN MIGHT NUKES BE USED?*
39:39 Nuclear use case?
42:03 *HOW DO YOU PREVENT USE?*
42:11 Signal and deter
44:30 *KEY TAKEAWAYS*
47:33 _CHANNEL UPDATE_
Thank you! Your help is greatly appreciated!
Well done, sir. I salute your effort.
Should be top comment.
Up ! Up you go.
@@mitchellbaker4806 is in the description...
I recommend the book " When Governments Collide", it's a case book example of how government messages to their enemies go wrong.
edit - you talking about the one by Wallace Thies?
Will pick it up. The analyses discussing the national signaling always makes me think back to the first Gulf War, where a combination of poor and mixed message signaling combined with a sudden domestic priority shift to suddenly lead to a war that everyone seemed to think was being cleverly avoided.
Here's a classic example. "We will bury you" -Khrushcev, 1956, intended to mean something like "we will outlive you" or "your funeral" but interpreted by the West as a nuclear threat.
Essence of Decision by Allison is very instructive too. How the Cuban Missile Crisis was a series of very near misses rather than confirmation of rational actor deterrence theory.
@@howarddavis2281 Must investigate this, apparently, communications between lower grade Soviet military officials and the big blokes broke down. The decision to launch nuclear weapons was under low-grade officials and some came quite close to launching
@@defective6811 It is said that wars are the result of miscalculations. I was reading an interview of a Hezbollah leader who stated that if they had known that capturing two Israeli soldiers would have led to the 2006 Lebanon War, they never would have done it. The same could be said of many wars. Would Iranians have committed their acts of terrorism in Iraq if they had known how Saddam would react, would Serbia have supported the Black Hand if they had known what would happen, etc.?
The premise of this video is that people are rational, they are not particularly in times of stress.
Brilliant analysis - thank you.
Always impressed with how information dense and well presented your content is. I note that 2months later you’ve near doubled that 100K - seems I’m not the only one that values your content.
As someone that’s suffered from ME for 14years, you have my sympathies around covid, and my best wishes for a speedy convalescence.
The nuclear threat doesn‘t scare me at all. Should a nuclear war happen, nothing will matter and I‘ll most likely die. I personally can‘t change anything when it comes to these things, so why should I worry?
I find it funny that people always assume that they're gonna just die during the first strike. Do you live near a really imporant military base or in the city center of a megacity? If not, it's unlike you're gonna die on day X. Most likely you will die from the following consequences several months, maybe even years later.
I have an old bomb shelter on my property. A few years ago I renovated it and turned it into a wine cellar/recreation room. If a Russian nuke goes off I'm going to have a few dozen bottles of homemade wine, hammer some nails through my pool cue, switch my jeans for leather shorts and proclaim myself the raider king. If a Russian nuke doesn't go off I'll have one bottle of homemade wine before falling asleep on the couch. Either way I'm in for a good time.
You truly have an inherent lack of imagination that is frightening.
The majority of people will in fact survive (especially outside major population centers). We'll just all be miserable, hungry, riddled with cancer, etc.
@@andrewfleenor7459 Well, that‘s a world I don‘t want to live in.