Are We on The Verge of Nuclear War?
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2024
- Instagram: . / rudyardwlynch
Twitter: wh....
Patreon, First 200 pages of cultural history of America and 400 of history of the new world alongside exclusive maps:www.patreon.com › whatifalthist
Check out Pearl:pearl.link/wha...
"Imagine a rogue actor like a terrorist organisation nukes Washington D.C., the U.S. now enters a period of prosperity and freedom" 🤣 Legend.
Wow! That's so cool and edgy to make fun of American government...
@@anti-emo4721 goverment bootlicker over here
@Anti - Emo, It is, wdym? We’re gonna call you Butthurt Betty😂😂
@@anti-emo4721 Wait, the current American government isn't a world laughing stock now? I really do need to check my news feed more often.
@@adamweisshaup Which coutries would that be?
The biggest and most damaging part of any nuclear war is how nuking major cities would kill infrastructure... which means most of us would be at each others' throats for the last loaf of bread at the store. The lack of resources and distribution networks after "the war" and how quickly and effectively people can pull civilization (food, water, fuel, and electricity being readily available) back together is going to be the great decider of how many casualties will accrue.
Only in the cities and suburbs. Rural areas would not be as hard hit.
@@franklyanogre00000 until the surviving city folk go into the rural areas
@@franklyanogre00000 Until rural areas run out of fuel, and spare parts for their machines. Farming without machines and without fertilizer is what the modern world got away from, a couple generations ago.
EMP would also knock out the infrastructure, most cold war attack plans included focused EMP attacks beyond the pure nuclear attacks. So even in the rural areas power grids would most likely be down and not coming back up.
City dwellers gonna hate on this. But it’s funny.
As a Hindu I can tell you that Vishnu told the prince that violence is necessary to restore order. He also said that you must fight only and only to restore order and not for reasons like personal revenge( the prince's wife was humiliated ) or the throne of Hastinapur( name of kingdom ). In short, commit violence only for betterment of society and not for personal reasons.
life isn't so clear cut. Personal reasons vs "restore the righteous order" is literally kinder garden logic.
That is a pretty dangerous line of thought if I wouldn't say biased in my opinion. Anyone could come and say "Hey, you're disturbing the betterment of our society! We are gonna kill you!" but in fact you're just doing something different than the norm, it's like a traditionalist/moralist line of thought that will certainly be used regardless of political thinking on any spectrum.
@@dhruv9744 not to mention communism as a great example of "the ends justify the means" taken to a horrific degree. logically if you think you are creating a utopia in the long run for the world, killing millions of people to stabilze your revolution makes sense
Ah yeah, genocide for a greater good. So easy to use those ideas wrong.
@@dhruv9744 It is clear cut , wether one should listen to the distilled wisdom of an entire philosphical and theological tradition or some random youtube commenter
A former co-worker of mine once said that we're always 3 missed meals away from chaos.
The garbage man is the last line of defense holding back the collapse of civilization
The line between order and chaos is as thin as a stream of electrons. I said that in an apocalyptic fiction novel I wrote. Not tooting my own horn, but I think that these days we'd be more affected (at least initially) by the loss of electricity than by limited food.
@@entropiated9020 Those meals are far more important than electrons, I can assure you.
@@algorithmgeneratedanimegir1286 then you would be fine if i took your electrons?
Well, seeing as if the power grid went down you'd have no running water within a few days as the pressure in the pipes ran out (and the pumps are all electric), your food begins to spoil and getting more food is dependent on a functioning power grid, yeah you'd begin to miss the three meals and then chaos. In a total grid down situation, there wouldn't be panic the first or second day, people would just be confused as to why a blackout was lasting so long. By the end of the first week, people would begin panicking and looting whatever was left in stores and then after that it begins to break down. It's not that simply not having power would create the collapse it's the fact that not having power would lead to people going hungry and thirsty very, very quickly that leads to the collapse. 3 missed meals is still what causes the collapse, losing the power grid is just the most likely way it'd happen on a country or continent scale.
In other words; Ladies, you're both pretty, stop fighting. You're both correct.
Do a video on “what if mr krabs didn’t sell SpongeBob’s soul for 62 cents”
Krusty Krab is unfair! Mr. Krabs is in there!
Mr Krabs becomes a feudalist Lord and initiates a period of extremely intense global conflict
I know you’re joking but this is an alternate history channel not a fictional what if channel
You're looking for DocuDubery
Don't think it would matter. They have no soul anyway
If it happens, I hope it's during the day time. I hate getting woken up in the middle of the night to be vaporized.
If thats the case I am just going back to bed. Might as well be relaxed and rested then in panic when the bombs hit.
I'm hoping it's at night. I'll be home and not at work one mile from the only thing in my state worth nuking.
If you're close enough to a nuclear detonation to be vaporized, it would happen faster than you could wake up. In other words, you'd never know that you were sleeping through your last minutes.
I hope its on a Monday morning
Yep. If it's a boring enough day at work, I might even welcome it.
Yes, actual city-killing nukes may not have the Cold War-type, apocalyptic effect, but the civilizational destruction from a series of coordinated EMP attacks would have an even greater effect. As previously stated in other comments, the civilian casualties from being instantaneously returned to the middle ages would be devastating to the short run (1-5 years).
Thanks, Rudyard!
Meh, it'd be more like stone-age rather than middle ages cause we'd see a 98% population collapse within 2 years (according to a study done by the DoD) and ain't no way we'd be able to switch to a medieval economy. Not near enough horses, donkeys, ect to pull plows, no blacksmiths to make the plows, ect. You think city folk can sew their own clothes or cobble a new pair of shoes? How many people know how to smelt iron without modern tools? Modern Americans wouldn't have enough sense to boil river water before they drank it and then they die of dysentery within a week. Ironically, the people who would know how to do something like smelt iron without modern tools would be your engineers and academics, people who would be the silly city dwellers drinking right out of the river. Now all that useful knowledge dies with them as they shit themselves to death. Nah, we're talking full reset on civilization. "Civil war era" and even "Middle ages" would be WAY too damn optimistic. Expect full throw back to hunter-gatherer stone age. Relearning shit will be much easier, sure, but it'll still take a long ass time, easily a century or two.
Exactly my theory. A single nuke at specific distance in space should end all technology on earth instantly. We not only return to dark ages after civil wars and state collapse, but the state also loses the reason to restart. I personally calculate decline of 4 billion in 50 years and 'golden age of nature and wildlife' for easily 500 years.
@@Lusa_IceheartOne thing you don't account for in this scenario, however, is all the modern tech that will still exist and be functional without electricity. Guns, hand tools, bicycles, things like that won't just disappear. And especially in the United States there will be a glut of still functional guns and plenty of ammo to last generations. People that know what they are doing can reload the spent cartridges as well as repair and smith their own zip guns similar to a blunderbuss. Yeah they will need gunpowder but realize also how much ordinance is sitting around all over the place not just for military, but for demolition and even recreational use (fireworks). It won't quite be as extreme a fall back as you predict, in my opinion. Indeed it would be a very significant setback, but enough modern material would still exist to rebuild off of. The downside would be roving gangs and various individuals that hoarded many of the weapons. They would rule the land and it could definitely get pretty ugly. There was a tv show a few years back about such a situation and when I watched an episode and saw people sword fighting I laughed and turned it off. Where did all the guns and rockets and bombs go? There is so much of that stuff it would absolutely still be around in abundance. I myself have 7 guns and about 2,500 rounds of ammo. And I am child's play compared to what's out there. There are people sitting on literal arsenals.
@@Lusa_Iceheart I expect the preppers to be ready for that thou
@@100percentSNAFU I have 5 metric tons of potatoes because I was afraid they would shut down the transport infrastructure because of that covid bullshit, one never know how dumb politicians can be, I really was afraid they would shut down the entire society because they are that dumb, so I just bought an entire potato farm.
Do you want to trade some of your guns for some potato ? in this hypothetical scenario.
We are most definitely in an age where men are attempting to be like God and I find it similar to the serpent's message: "You shall be as gods." We're building WMDs, attempting to change basic human biology, and creating things in labs that we probably shouldn't. I think this drive to become God is why we're having so many issues today.
In Fallout's defense Deathclaws are a bioweapon genetically engineered by the U.S. military, not a result of radiation
Yes and no, the origin of deathclaws involves FEV, so genetically engineered bioweapon yes, but also radiation.
@@the11382 FEV is the Forced Evolutionary Virus.
Nothing to do with radiations.
It's a virus
@@the11382 The FEV is a genetic engineering tool.
Hey Todd!
A majority of the mutants seen in the game are either created by some major military organization via the FEV virus along with gene splicing or just random exposure as it leaked into the environment. Radiation is depicted as a background drain on your health that can be treated or mitigated before it outright kills you which is accurate to how it functions in real life.
I have seen studies that, due to the number and size of slums in India and Pakistan, the amount of soot and black carbon released in a nuclear war between the two would actually be highly deviating in terms of nuclear winter. And due to the low yield of their mainly fission weapons the fallout would likewise be devastating.
But it said it only take 100 nuclear missiles to have small scale of Nuclear winter
@@tiglishnobody8750lol Pakistan and India have 160 nukes each
@@prometheusjackson8787 That is exactly my point
300 would be like overkill as even if Pakistan can only manage to launch 50 missiles and who going to stop India to launch missiles back?
The effects of nuclear winter are from my understanding greatly exaggerrated i don't even think we could really make one
@@Admiral-General_Aladeen So 536 is greatly exaggerated?
While there is no Nuclear conflict but it has similar to Nuclear winter like volcanic eruptions that sends so many tonnes of ashes into the atmosphere that block out the sun for the year.
If volcanic eruptions that send tonnes of ashes can block out the sun then hundred of nuclear missiles can do that too.
Do not dismiss of this
The Scary Part about Nukes is once we start using them We probably can't stop using them. Once the scare of them is not as extreme as we had under the height of the Cold War.... MAD falls apart. Once that happens Nukes are viable Strategic weapon that will be used if an enemy brings to many Conventional forces to bear. It will change everything. We are probably going to see limit nuclear exchanges in the near future partially with tactical nukes to break apart huge convectional units and surfaces fleets.
Once that happens, it changes the calculus. At that point, huge conventional forces aren't as useful. Delivery systems, defense systems, decentralized infrastructure, bunkers and shielded areas, all become more important.
It is interesting that in a war with China, where the Chinese have a manpower and material advantage, nuclear weapons might be just what's needed. And if Russia falls apart and their nukes are not available to be used, the nuclear exchange might be fairly one sided.
Yeah exactly. It could start another arms race, as payloads start to get higher and higher.
We may start to develop antimatter weapons which have exponentially higher energy.
We need to become a spacefaring civilisation to minimise the chance of becoming totally extinct.
i wonder if they would be effective at ending communism as an ideology
We already did.
nukes are like crack, the first one will be nowhere near as bad (globally) than most people would expect, and they'll end up getting used more and more often, hit after hit, until 6 months later we wake up to find we're all gaunt underweight walking corpses on the verge of starvation
I really appreciate how fearless you are in regard to entertaining ideas deemed taboo in education and the media. It’s priceless to hear both sides of any position, whether it be for or against nuclear way, for or against decentralized “Dark Ages”, etc. Thank you.
Honestly I wish a nuclear war would happn because I think it would be interesting. I want to see explosions in 4k, how people and society would react, how politicians would politicize it (just like they politicized covid), and how comedy networks and late night talk shows would talk about it. Especially Conan O'Brien because he never gets political, but a nuclear war might just force him to.
@@abstract5249 Honestly, you're an effing idiot.
@@abstract5249 do you understand if there is a nuclear war all that will be gone. There wont be any internet or late-night TV. there will be only death and the struggle for survival.
Fearless? Lol, bro is not fighting the nether dragon.
When I was a teenager I had this illusion that the University would be a place for such sort of free thinking. How wrong I was.
"They have used me. Now I realise, too late, what Project SuperJapslayer Megabomb 3000 was truly about." - Oppenheimer
Poor thing had no way of knowing 😔💔
LOL
The truth is no one really knows how many nuclear weapons China has. They never signed to any arms agreement and those number are from 2013. For all is known China may have expanded their stockpile significantly.
I think we probably have a good idea. If they had a thousand deployable warheads, there would be evidence of that: factories churning out rockets, centrifuges spinning up fissile material, and specialty manufacturing to build the warheads themselves.
Kind of like how we know China doesn’t have the ability to launch a naval invasion of China: they just ain’t built it yet and both nukes and a D-Day amphibious force are kind of hard to hide in 2023.
I thought the DoD estimated China has a thousand?
@@metal_brrr_2005expected to
For all we know they could have zero functioning nukes
Just props
A report from US said that they are focusing to build 1,000 nukes by 2035
A hypersonic missile isn't only about SPEED. If so any ballistic missile would also be hypersonic since they reach mach 20+ on their ballistic arc. Hypersonic means mach 5+ and maneuverability to avoid defenses.
It's also notable, because they do it where the atmosphere is thicker, lower to the ground, which is, in theory, harder to detect, provided that your opponent doesn't have the spy satellite infrastructure to see the compressive heating from space, like America. It's also faster to reach targets, because it flies close to the ground, but only if we assume the earth is flat for math... If you take into account the curvature, the ICBMs are faster. Hypersonic missiles are expensive toys. It does make it harder to bonk with lasers, I guess.
If they work, a Hypersonic glide vehicle can circle the Earth multiple times without needing to drop, unlike a conventional ICBM. Which means, a country can launch all of their primed nuclear warheads into the air, having it stay in the upper atmosphere and then drop it all down when they want to, anywhere on the planet, scary stuff.
You're doing a _really_ good job at convincing us you're not a doomer Rudy.
The biggest fear is that the minute one nation uses a small nuke, the world sees society go on, that it suddenly makes it okay for nukes to just be integrated as part of warfare as usual. When Dynamite was invented, they thought it would be the end of war too, and now we have all sorts of explosive innovations - business as usual.
That's the dangerous part because it could once again stoke the continuous escalation of payloads, until new destructive weapons get invented.
What's so scary about that? Once we get into space, nukes will look like children's toys. Hell, biological weapons already do that too. Whether you believe COVID was manmade or not, the idea of something like that being created and unleashed on the world makes nukes look like children's toys.
Factories changed warfare to be way more destructive. Train, guns, artillery, bombs, planes, submarines. You fear the wrong things. Our world is filled with things that can kill you. People fear sharks more than bees, yet bees kill more, and mosquitoes even more.
Cars are more dangerous in a mass killing event than any gun. But we don't fear the car, because we are familiar with it. Familiarity doesn't take away the danger, but it takes away the fear. Dogs can hunt and kill, but we call them Good boy and have them sleep in our houses.
the evil/stupid part of nukes is fallout poisoining the air, land, sea, animals, people
if only there already was a nuke without fallout poison, it wouldnt be as evil to use
@@demonslayereren3970they have that👍
21:38 TLDR: Washington D.C. gets nuked, and USA enters an era of freedom and prosperity.
Add California and NY state to that. The three are rotten and beyond redeeming and most go. USA can then truly rebuild
Don’t forget to nuke Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco at the very least. Then I could see a decent future for this country.
My fear of nuclear war is our total inability to rebuild. There are no more coal deposits without removing mountains, or iron and copper viens at the surface, or even oil without SAGD or off shore platforms.
We've used all the easy to access resources, and if our infrastructure crumbles for a decade it will never be rebuilt.
Wtf I love nuclear war now.
The industrial revolution has been a disaster for mankind
That is not true. A lot of coal deposits in Europe closed because they got cheap coal from abroad and lack of people that where willing to risk their lives, so they thought it was a good idea to close a lot of mines in case they would ever be needed.
There are still plenty of oilfields that does have some oil, but where closed for different reasons or non-profitability. The Sagara Oil Field are the most famous example of that.
As the other guy gas said, this is not true, and rebuilding would be comparatively easier because of our starting technological point
That sounds like a very good reason to push the button and launch the bombs to me. I'm hoping for 100 castle bravos.
Also, what about hydroelectric and wind (solar too, but that's harder from a materials standpoint). I feel like the farthest we could get knocked back would be the industrial revolution, and we'd just come back with renewable energy being more prevalent.
Dude just severly underestimated the deterministic effects of radiation poisoning and the time that takes to the isotopes to decay in nature
That's the thing. We'll adapt and work around it so long as humans can still Breed or Work around Obstacles like that.
Our Civilization will end. But Humanity will jist keep going without us.
Yip. Then he goes on about Moose in the dead zones as though hundreds of acres of land aren't still uninhabitable for the next two centuries
@@LaitoChen
I mean, there's probably more than a billion people who would happily and willingly move into and live in the exclusion zone if you accepted them as refugees and told them there was free land and animals to eat there. There's uninhabitable (Antarctica) and "uninhabitable" (the exclusion zone) - you and I wouldn't want to live there, but lots of people would take the risk. It's better than where they are now.
I love how you phrased how Darwinistic competition on the societal scale is inevitable. We should avoid war at any cost but even Poli Sci 101 emphasizes how it and its irrationality is one of Poli Sci's greatest questions, and yet it simply keeps happening. Extended periods of peace between world powers are not the norm throughout history and we have to face that fact.
I mean, right now, if it weren't for Russia and China, I wouldn't see much potential for war, unless we get those famines in Africa and the Middle East, that lead to mass population movements of refugees into other areas, leading to conflict.
I don't even understand what Russia and China stand to gain, because they don't. The war in Ukraine, and a potential invasion of Taiwan, are solely to boost Putin and Xi. It is terrifying that so much death and destruction hinge on the arrogance of two aging men.
But surely we are heading into humanities Golden Age of Enlightenment and Peace through the shared inter-communications of the Information Age.
Wait a second - Trump, Xi, Kim, mass murderers, psychos, thieves, your mom... maybe not! There is always some a**hole who f*cks it up for everybody else.
I do think there are key technological differences (global instantaneous communication for example) that make it at least a little unclear whether that historical pattern is doomed to repeat itself indefinitely
11:25
You have to do some digging for it but a lot of the extreme mutations in Fallout like the deathclaws were from exposure to the F.E.V (Forced Evolutionary Virus)
Nah man, you can get mutations from just radiation.... Too bad they are primarily a boring type of mutation called.... cancer :('
It's made a lot more clear in the first two games and New Vegas than in Bethesda's Fallout games.
Forced evolution, that's even dumber. 😂🤣
It was more about giving an idea on the matter. I mean he mentioned Marvel uses nuclear power as a a reason for some super powers (most notably The Hulk.)
@@hawkevick9184 No it's not.
I hope not, I love living and as much as we argue over gender ideology, gun laws and other policies, this is the greatest issue of our times. Ending a whole city with a push of a button is potentially cataclysmic and our politicians have too much power with this. This essentially makes the president God, with the ability to smite any peoples he sees fit.
The power to commit mass destruction does not make you a god. Many cities and nations of the past where destroyed from the order’s of a king. It takes less time in the modern age but it’s nothing new. People forget the dark times of our past and horrors we have survived.
It is not OUR president you should be truly afraid of...
As a South American life is soo funny. When the pandemic happened I was like: "Well, whatever, the US will save us". When the 2008 financial crisis happened I was like: "well, they caused it, they will eventually fix it". When Russia invaded Ukraine I was like: "well, the US will save them". And if you want to talk nuclear war, I'm like: "well, the US will surely win or destroy the aggressors first". Basically, at this point is, as we say here: "creer o reventar", or "either believing or exploding".
Yes thats nice. And economically the USA will keep their boot firmly fixed on your throat.
Tal vez no deverias confiar tanto en un govierno al que nisiquiera le importa su gente,no seamos boludos al final del dia siguen siendo politicos
Not a single idea detected here as a fellow south American can say that's happiness from having no idea about the real world you live and die in.
South America seems unbelievably depressing, stay strong out there
@@jamesthornton3539 its dificult but not depressing,very low suicide rates
“The percentage is pretty low”
Translation: I underestimate the stupidity of humans and I hope they don’t end life as we know it
every video you have uploaded since you stopped doing alternate history has changed my view of the world around me thank you
Ur falling for a pseudo intellectual lmao
@@salutic.7544 what separates whatifalthist from any other intellectual figures other than a university degree
@@salutic.7544 "DA YTBER NO LIKE COMMNISM SO HE BAD AND PSEUDOOOOO"
@@mogus581 hes on the tankie copium where if the video doesnt say russia good and strong and 2 days away from crushing the west(usa) and that usa will collapse in 3 hours then he gets all mad
I do miss his alternate history videos, they were entertaining
WHOOOOAAA, video games like Fallout have nothing to do with reality???? WHO WOULD HAVE KNOWN??? You're blowing my mind, dude!
You might be surprised how many people get their views from games and movies.
Rudyard: Will the sirens ring into the night and the great cities of the world burn into irradiated chaotic wastelands?
Me, watching the news from Chicago, Portland, LA...: I don't think that will require nuclear bombs.
Nuclear destruction would 100% improve the likes of LA, san fransisco, portland and the like
dumb conservative losers whose bitterness mean they hate those cities, whereas most of the world's population would love to live in those places
@@jamesthornton3539get all the democrat states, in pokemon soul silver
Just wait till you find where the best quality of life, wealthiest, happiest, etc. people are in america. Hint, it’s not the south…
@@skygge1006 That's a really complicated issue that does not yield well to analysis by simple characterizations. In particular, measures like average wealth, average life expectancy, average BMI, etc don't tell a very accurate picture. Robert Reich once commented that "Shaquille O'Neil and I have an average of height of a fair basketball player." I think he was commenting at the time about per capita GDP, but it's true in a lot of analyses. The question is not "How does US News and World Reports rate this place?" The question is "Can I build a life in this place?"
For the last two years i was,and still am,betting on the laser weaponry to be a counter-force to nukes,and the timescale of such development is likely to be turned not in a centuries but "in a single lifetime".
A counter force? I doubt getting a fancy light shined on you compares to having your entire citys attomic structure undergoing a rappid, unplanned dissasembly
Or do you mean laser weaponry as countermeasures to nuclar strikes?
@@leafboy3967 Countermeasures, like LAWs which are known to shoot planes out of the sky. A nuclear warhead cannot have countermeasures against a weapon who's payload travels at the speed of light and can cut through 20 meters of steel per second.
@jeremychicken3339 bud i dont think you know how much steel 20 meters is. Metal conducts a LOT of energy, using an energy weapon against it is one of the worst approaches.
The being able to shoot down a plane is an anemic acomplishment when your actual task is to shoot down about 30 hypersonic warheads in the span of 30 seconds.
The reality is that as anoying as it is, humanity has created a weapon that it doesn't really know how to deal with, it will be a long time before we have sufficient countermeasures against a proper nuclear strike.
There are many easy ways to keep a nuclear warhead intact long enough to reach it's detonation point if a laser defense system is expected. For a start, the velocity that results from the missile launch, and the pull of gravity during the terminal phase of it's trajectory. Next, just as a necessity for re-entry survival, the warhead is spun up, like a bullet in a rifled gun barrel. The first factor makes it hard to hit. The spin means there is a whole surface to heat to failure, rather than a single patch. And of course, the nose cone is specifically designed to withstand the rapid and extreme heating of atmospheric friction.
point is: if it happens and you don't wanna be a statistic, do some light preparations and maybe think of moving to a more favorable area, but otherwise we'll be fine
I live in America (as the video states, unlikely to ever be nuked by anybody), but more importantly, I live OUTSIDE of any major metropolitan areas (I hate cities. They're so cramped and confining, to me)! So where I live would not even be in any sort of danger of a nuclear attack. The closest nuclear war could possibly come to where I live is that I would see several mushroom clouds on the distant horizon, and I would inevitably lose power as energy grids shut down, but that's it. I'd be fine.
Living in S Korea right now, but outside of Seoul partly in case the neighbor to the north starts feeling lucky
@@MusicalMarble yeah it’s within North’s range. Better be far from it!
@@MusicalMarble It's debatable whether North Korea's incompetent leadership would even successfully launch the damn thing in the first place. I'd be more worried about Beijing than Peongyang.
"favorable area" - like what did you have in mind, genius? No, not everything in North America will be annihilated, but I bet your idea of what's safe is way wrong.
Nuclear war as our eras black death to clean up the detritus of our decadent society to rebuild a grander one is a truly unique perspective that only whatifalthist could've come up with. Superb stuff.
Or build something considerably worse
Big Tech AI dictatorship?
Congratulations new societies have formed from the ashes of the nuclear war.
The cycle of human civilization continues.
All hail Atom's Glow, eh?
@@Medgewick Considering that among the survivors there will likely be cultists and religious fanatics, then yeah, shit can become very grim for the next civilizations to come
Sorry to have to point this out, but both US and Russian nuclear systems are actually very well maintained with as many as 90% of deployed forces on alert that are ready to go on very short notice. I'm not sure what your source is about states of readiness, but both forces are at very high readiness. Sincerely, a retired DIA analyst that focused not only on Russian strategic nuclear forces, but also the START Treaty and US compliance to it.
“America is a humanitarian focused nation” Haven’t had a laugh that good in a long time thank you 😂
If you listened just a few seconds more he explains what he means. He used that as a classification of our mindset toward wmds based on the fact that we still give ourselves a lecturing for nuking Japan 7 decades ago.
@@sojourner99 You’re right, we’re so guilty about it that we used depleted uranium in Iraq and Syria years later!
Just because he explained what he meant doesn’t make it less ridiculous.
@@blackranger7597You mean depleted Uranium in the form of tank armor and shells? And you do know deered Uranium as in its name doesn't irradiate anything
@@shamargentle5801 My man it absolutely is still radioactive. Lower levels sure, but still cancer causing and environment destroying. Do a quick google search
@@shamargentle5801 Yes, but only after the explosion of the Ukrainian warehouse with these shells, the level of radiation for some reason increased greatly. The wind was also blowing to the west, and the Poles can confirm this.) 😅😅
To be honest, I'm generally much more worried about bioweapons, weaponised 5G/Electromagnetic stuff, social media hypnosis, etc.
That’s wacky. The EMP is the only one that scares me besides bioengineering plagues. Read, one second after. It opened my eyes on EMPs
@@buoyant257 Wacky but also possible. Plenty of research into weaponised electromagnetic fields. Social media hypnosis is an attested phenomenon. But yes, EMPs also deeply destructive, and more so to developed nations.
@@buoyant257 just because it's wacky doesn't mean it isn't true
Same, I had a Cold War class for college and we had to read a book about weapons of the Cold War and found myself more terrified by the chemical/biological weapons then nuclear by the end of it.
@@quinnjohnson9750 the recent pandemic showed just how devastating a bioweapon would be on society and infrastructure
What are the odds that by 2045 another nuclear weapon will have not been used aggressively since 1945? 😢
The biggest obstacle to any historical parallel with our current time is that throughout history until the 20th century mankind has always been agriculture centric. After all it was the invention of farming that enabled civilizations to form in the first place. Today very few people know how to farm and farming areas around the world are constantly shrinking. Whereas previous human civilizations could outlast various catastrophes I dare say it will be much harder for us as we simply lack the basic skills that our ancestors always had. Even during extremely prosperous periods in history like the Renaissance most people around the world were still growing crops, it was only the elites that occupied themselves with scientific innovations and the like. Today this pyramid has been reversed with only a few people(unfortunately still at the bottom) still growing crops while the majority performing functions that cease to exist if society collapses. Basically until the 20th century a tiny minority of the population: the nobility, clergy, etc, were typically very wealthy but utterly dependent on the vast majority of peasants. Today it's the vast majority of people that are utterly dependent on a pretty small minority of farmers.
I would add that with agriculture, we also in most of our history had artisans or craftsmen second to the farmers, such as the blacksmith, the tanner, the carpenters, the masons, etc.
This is the historical point of view, and I totally respect that, and I really like the video, the scientific point of view however states that for how small a chance of something happening is, given enough time it becomes a certainty.
Where did you get that scientific point of view?
you can be certain that science can't ever be certain of anything due to the nature of phenomenology
@@Cheaze56789 that's just kinda how statistics works.
@@novakthegodking even a chance of 0.01% a day given enough days will eventually realize itself, anything which is above zero given enough time is a certainty
Nah no way it becomes a certainty in some cases. There’s also the small possibility that if I slam my hand on a table that my hand will go through the table as there’s a minuscule chance the atoms all miss one another and my hand passes through. But I could slam that table for billions of years and I guarantee you my hand would never pass through that table. Because it’s impossible, even though science itself says there’s that tiny ass chance it may happen
Of everything, I hope Russia does not collapse.
I like the Russians, and do not want their lands falling to China.
At least under the Kremlin their nukes are at least under lock and key and they know with good certainty where they are
If Russia collapses then hundreds of nukes can disappear into the Black Market and sold to Warlords/Terrorists the world over and their is no telling what would happen next. Pray that Russia survives as a national entity regardless if you despise the War in Ukraine
Why liking them tho
@@MeMe-zz9dy pretty cool culture & history.
Formed by Vikings, many of which served in the Roman Empire. Proclaimed themselves the 3rd Rome. Conquered all the former nomad steppe in the world, essentially eliminating barbarians.
@@MeMe-zz9dy Why not?
Honestly I question how serviceable the old Soviet nukes actually are.
The Tritium had to have been replaced a few times between the collapse of the USSR and today, and judging by how expensive that’d be, I’m curious as to whether they have more than a few that can successfully reach their target and explode.
I know it’s not smart to bank on that, but after seeing how much graft Russia clearly has in their military, it’s gotta make you wonder…
Well considering that their only aircraft carrier looks like a rust bucket I'm not going to hold my breath on whether their nukes work
Their hypersonic missiles just killed multiple of the US most advanced air defense systems (Patriot PAC-3) ... I would not bank on this option. They are also in the process of fielding newly developed rockets (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat) and they already have fielded brand new hypersonic MIRVs. Also: Russia is the largest builder of nuclear power plants world wide currently - so you can be sure that hey have the know how to maintain ~60 year old nuclear technology.
This kind of wondering is pointless. Let's assume that they launch them all, but only ONE PERCENT (or SIXTY) detonate. If you're gonna say "yeah, that's a risk I'm willing to take" then I hope one of those nukes will arrive at your metro center. 😂
@@KILLSWITCH14FP69 at that point I don’t think it would matter if only like 15% even managed to fire, it’s the end of the world
@@TylerDurden-pk5kmThat literally never happened don't spread Kremlin propaganda
the US's nukes almost certainly work, given the comical amount of money we spend on maintaining them, and given the fact that every few months we yank them out of their silos, remove JUST the radioactive core, fire them at guam, and watch and very carefully measure the chemical detonation using sensors designed to transmit all their info before they are destroyed.
My concern with nukes is that MAD relies on rational, level-headed actors to be maintained but I fear that we aren't dealing with rational people anymore. I can see a situation where when someone like Putin, or Xi realizes he's not going to win, they'd rather throw the chessboard off the table than take the checkmate and move on.
Hmm, maybe if Ukrainian troops are marching on Moscow, maybe Putin would pull a Hitler in the bunker, but I don't think at that point that the chain of command would go through with it. One madman may, but as long as humans are alive, there is hope.
For Xi, I could see the Chinese arrogance and shame based culture leading to such an outcome, but luckily the Chinese have far less nukes. It is what it is, but I'm not lying awake at night.
Why push them to that situation ?
They would also need all the generals and officers and other influential people in the government to be totally for a nuclear apocalypse. But Putins or Xi's entourage does not want to go down in flames with him.
@@aj9969 Because they're genociding civilians, maybe?
Our children will look back on this fondly.
I would really like to know your sources for why a nuclear winter is unlikely according to current computer models. All I've ever learned about this is that a nuclear winter is basically guaranteed if a certain amount of ash is blown into the atmosphere. This then depends on how many and what yield of nukes are used.
come on, to generate so much ash and dust you need not only high amount of material to be burnt by nuke but also to force this ash high enough to stay in upper layers of atmosphere.
Only very powerful eruptions can generate so much ash via magma and also fired it through earthy tube into atmosphere. After nuke this ash will remain on the ground covered. This kind of modeling was produced to scared public (which is good)
Also there is event in planet history when very big asteroid can lift trash into atmosphere. But it was time when no grass plants had evolved yet so soil was uncovered and easy to make it dusty.
If such asteroid would hit todays earth ... no winter will follow because of whole new plant class evolved and existed in every corner of planet (grassy plants with well developed roots)
Consider what happens when Cities burn for months, unleashing toxic smoke and ash from burning plastics & other man made materials. Most of the land & surface will be contaminated from chemically toxic materials. Then consider what happens when all of the nuclear power plants meltdown & their spent fuel pools catch fire. I think a nuclear winter is the least problem to worry about.
Cities will be targets, and many civilian targets like airports, major bridges, Oil\NatGas infrastructure, and rail hubs will all be hit with ground strikes to prevent them from being used by the US military. Any Airport can be use for military operations.
Where does the food come from? No diesel for the tractors & trucks, no more food & probably no way to move food anyway because the roads are impassible. All surface water sources (ie reserviors) will be toxic from both radioactive material (bombs & Nuclear Power plants) & chemical from burning plastics.
I commented on this same observation in another post, but from the research I have done, the volume of debris kicked up that would cause a nuclear winter will be determined by whether this is an airburst (most likely) or a ground burst. An airburst kills more people from both the fireball and the radiation, which is why it is more likely.
Because "Nuclear Winter Theory" depends upon equating your average nuke with an asteroid, when, in real life, that comparison is completely untenable, and not even in the same ballpark of comparison. No nuke ever made, not even "Tsar Bomba," could send enough material into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun away for hundreds of years, the way that a gigantic meteor could.
The dust clouds necessary were calculated to be the result of the US and USSR throwing about 8500 warheads at each others' ICBM launch complexes. These warheads would be set for ground burst fusing, unlike air bursts favored against surface targets, and in this mode, and in this volume were calculated to possible eject enough dust to cause a global cooling episode.
This us the best fu*king content anywhere on CZcams, wow! Please never stop!
Great video, the added nuance of what damage a nuclear war would actually cause was brilliant.
Bro said America is a humanitarian focused nation 😂😂😂
A better way to put it is that we are philanthropic and charitable, comparatively speaking, to the rest of the world
@@erichimes3062 🤣
@@erichimes3062 sending food supplies and medical aid to a country you have devastated to pursue some delusional regime change, resource control war is not charitable, there isn't any charitable nation. There are interests, soft power and influence, states don't do good acts because they feel like it
@@chico9805 I’m completely serious. And I am completely right. Look at all of our foreign aid organizations, and even at the community level, there are so many charitable people. It’s a redeeming quality of American culture that originated in New England.
@@erichimes3062 Virtually all of our foreign aid is directed at projecting soft power and effectively bribing foreign nations and leaders, hardly any of it is altruistic.
Wait, Russia lost the Ukraine war? News to me.
Many are trapped in this assumption.
@@The_Custos Yes, and it's extremely faulty as it's based purely on the propaganda that the media has been spewing.
In the same video
The us is reluctant to use nuke. They almost did it in both korea and cuba. Only a sane president stopped the crazy generals
The US is an humanitarian power...
Syria irak lybia Ukraine 😢...
It's disappointing to see him say this.
Winning the war is getting something positive out of it. They failed to achieve their goals and are doing scorch tactic warfare because there is nothing else to do with their military.
Ideological victory is also not possible because their opponents didn't show up (NATO). So they will just continuously kill other slavs and their own young population.
I personally don't see ANY victory condition at this point, even if they destroy the whole Ukraine with nukes and claim its territory, it's simply not worth it.
Also, nobody talks about it, but they basically supercharged their brain leakage in millions running from potential military draft and destroyed their universities future by installing governmental control over higher education facilities. I wouldn't want to be in Russia in 20 years - 2/1 or worse working/elderly, no science, nationalism on the border of fascism and "you cannot believe anyone mentality".
I totally agree that a nuclear war would not be the end of humanity or even human civilization. Even at the height of the cold war when we had enough nukes to, if not completely, at least mostly destroy every major city on earth, the aftermath of a nuclear war would probably create a dark age that was shorter than the one after the fall of Rome because its basically impossible that no tech would survive meaning it would be reverse engineered and allow us to advance at a much more rapid rate than we did the first time around.
That's my take as well.
🤞
Problem is the supply chains for modern tech will be destroyed
Not to mention its kind of hard to reverse engineer stuff that is 7nm in design
....We will be flung back at least 150 years in tech
Back to mechanical....everything
Problem is 2: Most oil reserves on land are dry, if we lose infrastructure to get it from off shore stations, no more fuel or plastics, no easy grocery stores, no car drives, no deliveries, no easy repairs on public services (water, electricity, sewerage) you get the picture, indirect TRUE dark age.
@@azmanabdula oh absolutely, for at least a little while. But by combination of people remembering how computers work and having working examples of them, we'll get back to making them before too long. I'm not trying to say it wouldn't be horrible and incredibly hard to recover from, but when you consider the entirety of future human history, our first nuclear war will probably not even be notable compared to conflicts of the distant future
70% of the US nuclear attack capability is in the Navy and is quite functional. 12 warheads per missile, 20 missiles per SSBN, and 14 subs. 3360 first strike warheads.
Your thoughtful dissertation is encouraging, and full of good points !
No, he just tells you what you want to hear
@@quinnard9750damn i really wanted to hear about the posibility/inevitability of nuclear war, i guess hes totally brainwashed me now
I think the effects are much more complex. Its not just about how many die in the blasts etc, but how nuking major cities and infrastructure has an effect on everything else.
Aside from cities, the major targets are power stations, oil refineries, ports. A nuclear war would be utter chaos, and the surviving citizens would quickly start fighting each other for resources. Everything would grind to a halt.
I’d add financial centres, universities, major cultural centres, etc, as targets too.
Nuclear weapons don't actually exist. They're a meme weapon
It's amazing how no nuclear bombs have been dropped in anger since 1945 despite the many opportunities to do so.
When the bombs drop all Fallout fans must remember to fill their cabinets, mailboxes, and trash cans with random junk for people a few centuries from now to find and leave behind.
bro i just want that cake that seemed perfect in fallout 4 but never obtainable
@@ommsterlitz1805 I swear I spent 4 hours in the dugout Inn before I managed to get the perfectly preserved pie
OMG... the line about a rogue actor blowing up Washington and the US entering a time of prosperity and freedom...PURE GOLD! i come here for the history, but I stay for the comedy!
6:44 based
This video has to be the weirdest promotion for the Oppenheimer Movie coming in July
One correction on hypersonics:
You dont need to be faster than the missile to intercept. Coming in at a proper angle will do it.
Hypersonics arent that impressive. The US used to have a hypersonic program, to the point where they had one that would literally light itself on fire it moved so fast. We ended it because its not that efficient as a way of getting through missile defense.
Strange the Russians found their missiles to be an effective way to get through missile defences.
@@The_Custos dude Patriot shot down kinzals last week.
Exactly. Doesn’t matter how fast a missile is going if you put something in its path.
@@Albatross159 There's been one confirmed shootdown of a Kinzhal out of dozens that have been fired. That's a lower success rate than the Patriot had against the Scuds during the Persian Gulf War.
@@saurondp ZERO Kinzhals hit their targets since Patriot was deployed. Unless Russians are intentionally targeting fields and forests outside Kyiv...
The 7:37 mini-skit is golden.
I give thanks you and your channel exists every day. I'd be so lost without it.
The thing with nukes is that they are insanely destructive only within about 10 miles of where they hit. The countryside, suburbs, and small cities would likely be fine. Detonating a megaton bomb in let's say downtown Chicago would devestate the downtown and destroy most of the big skyscrapers but most of the manufacturing and population which is located just outside the down town would be fine. Infact if you wanted to kill an entire city it would be much more effective to lay the city under seige and level the whole thing with millions of artillery rounds then slowly move in and once the defenders and population are bottled in a small area just hit it with chemical weapons.
Bio weapons like you said are way more destructive. Imagine making a bio weapon that causes a 100% death rate of rice and hit China with it. You could cause a famine the likes of which the world has never seen. Or a super virus that has an RO of something insane like 13 and a 100% death rate and a 2 week incubation period. You could kill an entire city or a country regardless of quarantine measures.
Laying a city under siege and or bombarding it relies on an actual ground force though, which ignores the entire point; nukes can be launched from far away.
@MyUsersDark Very true which brings me to my second part that bioweapons can be far more destructive if you are just looking at death tolls though bioweapons would do no infrastructure damage.
@@Garmin21111 indeed, I agree with that part
Looking around at the state of global culture I think "Hopefully" but then I take a walk and hear the birds singing and bumblebees going through the clover and I think "Hopefully not".
get off the internet. pay more attention to the real world
Yeah I get that
I generally agree with your sentiments but I think you, and this includes Zaihan as you referenced him, vastly underestimate Russia in relation to this. I don't think that Putin is particularly likely to cause a nuclear war, but calling Russia weak seems wrong to me.
Everyone was stunned about Russia not winning in Ukraine within a few days, but calling their war a loss is a stretch. They currently control over 25% of the country (blockading the ports and controlling almost all of the industrial heartland of Ukraine). Their causalites are basically impossible to estimate, but given that they use Wagner Forces and Ukrainian Militia (comprised of Eastern Ukrainians who wanted indepedence) the actual manpower cost on the Russian economy isn't that heavy. Obviously Russia has serious issue in its army, but they also invaded the second largest country in Europe with bascially no strategy because everyone assumed they would win, not to mention they were outmanned almost 4 - 1 against the Ukrainians.
Bakhmut fell a few weeks ago and I think it's a really telling sign for this war. It's unlikely Putin will cause a nuclear war because he's currently winning. There's been a lot of talk about the upcoming Ukrainian counteroffensive but Russia is prepared this time. They've been very conservative with their advances, mainly using auxillary forces to capture land like Wagner in Bakhmut, while spending at least 6 months training their mobilized forces. I think this upcoming offensive, if it ever happens, will determine the outcome of the war. But I think we're going to a see a much better equipped, trained, and led Russian army then we saw a year ago.
Bringing this into the economy, Russia is somehow doing well. They're not flourishing by any means, but the economic plans Putin had set up in anticipation of the war have worked. Their GDP is stable, currency has returned to mostly normal levels, and their economy is growing at a steady rate. Keep in mind this is in the midst of a global economic nightmare, Germany, the largest economy in Europe, is in recession, the UK and France have had massive civil and economic retaliation to the increasing cost of oil that sanctioning Russia has caused. I simply don't see a way that Europe can continue sanctioning Russia, which has already not worked as intended, while their economies suffer.
In relation to Nuclear War, I agree with you that Russia isn't really a threat. Nuclear War is the last thing anyone wants in the Kremlin, or Washington for that matter. I just disagree with your reasons. Putin is popular by all metrics (indepedent Western sources have confirmed his high approval rating), this includes popularity for the war. With an economy that's doing relatively fine, and a war that isn't particulary costly in terms of manpower and resources, I don't see a world where Russia collapses. The only country likely to fall apart is Ukraine, relying on NATO and the EU not just for weapons and equipment, but even for money to pay their soldiers. Ukraine requires almost $8 Billion USD/month just to survive economically, and the US and NATO can only afford that for so long.
I'm not taking a side on the war, I'm just trying to explain how I see a lot of people underestimating Russia when all signs point to them surviving this war with relative ease.
Indeed, two invasions into Belgorod have failed. Humiliating losses for Ukraine.
The enormous fireballs from depot destruction aren't talked about enough either. Strange...
@@The_Custos surely
I've literally never been afraid of nuclear war. Dont project your fears into me.
"america is a humanitarian focused nation" lmao.
Guy really is pushing… the delusion is astounding hahahah😂
You should visit the developing world sometime. People in developing countries couldn't care less about charity. In many cultures they ridicule charity as a weakness.
i have become debt, the destroyer of students
Self inflicted. Foolishly often
Students were sold a bad bill of goods. 17 year old Millennials were propagandized to go to college or else be broke. Then they were offered free debt, with no strings attached. Don't need collateral, don't need credit, just need to sign up for classes. Don't even need to pass them. Don't need to have a plan or degree.
Put it in any other context and it is madness, or entrapment. And now the economy and world suffer from lowered consumption. Since COVID the government has been postponing repayments, and they are gonna have to eventually bite the bullet that people don't want to pay back those loans, especially since most people didn't really benefit from them. The value of a college degree has flatlined.
It is a huge fiasco, and entirely of the government's making. But they will pass it on the to taxpayer. Remember that, before you believe that the government can fix problems by spending money.
quoting a friend of mine: *"Even the most insane and warmongering world leader would avoid a nuclear war at any cost"*
Except... if they are dying... and/or mentally ill... and a lot of these old leaders can become mentally ill and/or so full of themselves, they believe their own lies... like every dictator in history. This happens most if not every single time. Just watch one qadafi UN speech and you'll understand. Just look at Putin speeches, totally disconnected from reality. The guy believes his own bullshit.
... should. Untill they have nothing left to loose.
@@Destroyer_V0 Look at North Korea. Do they have anything to lose? No. Yet they still haven't nuked anyone.
dont jinx it
Most reasonable and non deranged whatifalthist video
He is now just crazy.
I just discovered this channel yesterday. Very interesting stuff 👌
I think people really cared about Ukraine they’d be calling for peace talks, not pushing for more death.
Peace-Talk with whom? With that KGB guy who invaded ukraine to "demilitarise" it in the first place?
@@ViperAnton and again why did russia invade ukraine? ohhh could it be that USA wants to plant some nukes to destroy russia?
Let’s put it to a referendum among the Ukrainian army, the soldiers on the ground. Acquiesce to Russian authority or keep fighting?
They are obviously willing to keep going or they would have already lost, not our job to tell them when to give up.
@@ViperAnton Yes, what else do you want to do?
@@Adsper2000 Uh, no I think the 16-year-old conscripts would prefer Russian authority over dying in a trench.
Man, I really enjoy these videos. That being said, you suggest things about Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S. that I would say is a bit naive. But kudos on the videos. Thanks.
He's smart but emotional and headstrong. Grain of salt 🧂 needs to be taken with this
That and the need for war or else nations will fall apart or become dictatorships. That is pretty stupid thinking.
@@stephennootens916war booms up the industrial and economic might of a nation, and creates jobs to.make the materials for weapons and armenets, this is how the USA from the great depression far faster. Wars have aways pushed economy's and technology forward due to their being geared to support or fight war. They are costly but the results are of you are the victor your nation comes out the economic powerhouse it has a chance to be.
Most of it is dookie
The 200 year Pax Romana wasnt a period without war. It was a period where Romans weren't killing other Romans. The Empire was greatly expanded during that time, and plenty of Romans and non-Romans died in external conflicts
Still a Period of Stability for the Empire especially for the Roman Citizen.
Are you telling me radiation wont turn me into a superhero
What do you think about the possibility of us starting a nuclear war by accident?
Very likely. It has almost happened numerous times, and it’s kind of surprising that it didn’t.
Like the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident
Which is luckily altered by Stanislav Petrov
Very good and interesting video. And even if the event of a nuclear war or attack somewhere in the world, for the most part or lack of better words, would not be AS BAD as many would assume, I still wouldn't wish such a fate on anyone and nor do I EVER what to see and/or experience such horror. I never what to turn on the TV, radio, social media or whatever and find out some terrorist faction or nutjob in some country (our U.S.A. or otherwise...) and find out a nuclear strike occurred somewhere. 😔
Some places will make out just fine. Just not the places you are thinking of.
@Malignard Brazil will be nuked FOR THAT REASON.
that's the scary thing about the rapid advances of technology - it's intended to be used to have computers and machines solve problems that humans alone couldn't do, or could only do with great difficulty. But what if some terrorist groups get a hold of some advanced AI and learn how to make nukes? Present day that's near impossible, it takes so many machines, processes, resources, skilled and knowledgeable scientists to put it all together to refine uranium, to test the rockets etc.
But what happens in the future when we have next level AI that can figure it out for them and advanced 3D printers that can assemble the centrifugres and rockets and warheads, drill drones that can mine the uranium etc? Or even simpler, just have the AI take an existing pathogen like the bubonic plague and make it even more deadly & easy to spread? Technology isn't slowing down, it's speeding up, it's making so much more possible. And people will use it for evil. If history has taught us anything, it's that.
Don't even get me started on anti-matter bombs that will make nukes look like fire crackers by comparison.
@Malignard Of course it will, cause there won't be any countries to compete with or those that could would be in a worse situation.
good chance the first sign of it would be power going out..forever. Imagine suddenly having no way to communicate other than word of mouth and then finding out this has happened because we're in nuclear war...
Where did you get this info about the US nuclear arsenal? I've heard stuff like that in regards to Russia but the US neglecting it's weapons seems out of character to me
You’ve never had a government job have you?
oh my gosh he mentioned one of my favorite songs. UUURANIUM FEEEVERRRR, HAS GONE AND GOT ME DOWNNNNNN.
Kinda fitting that the Oppenheimer movie releases the same year nuclear war risk is at an all time high lmao
Elites be sweating.
All time high? absolutely not. people don't know how cold war was like. Today is pretty much safe and you can say with an almost 100% certainty that a nuclear war between nations will not take place
It's not at an all time high lmao.
It's definitely been closer to happening in the past than right now lol
When this shit goes off I Better be invited to join the enclave
You're dead wrong about Russia. It's getting stronger and more confident. They're also winning against Ukraine. You have your facts completely wrong.
“Nations without external opponents fall to tyranny, social collapse, and decadence every time” that’s a quote
the only realistic way i see nuclear war happen is not with ICBMs but with nuclear-tipped artillery shells for tactical operations
You mean Nuclear tactical missiles because no one use nuclear-tipped artillery shells since 1960s
@@tiglishnobody8750 um, lol.. NATO was using them in Yugoslavia
@@Bug0xF4 You mean depleted uranium?
UK is the most guilty of the recent escalation, they said they support Ukraine attacking targets within Russia, and now Russia said all British politicians are "valid targets."
Nice way to perverting cause and effect.
@@ViperAnton i'm not even a Russia fan, all countries suck in this time, but UK has overextended itself unlike Biden/American policy of cautious support.
@@ViperAnton Did the British Government not supply depleted uranium weapons to Ukraine?
@@ViperAnton fuh REALS, daww! 🎯
@@chico9805 so what, since when is supplying a defending nation an escalation?
I think recent events would disagree here, nuclear winter seems possible given an average size wild fire in Canada plunged the East coast into smoky darkness for a few days, now imagine in a nuclear exchange how many forests will be burning, probably all of them tbh. So there’s that. And also the fact that America is not able to be conquered conventionally could be argued as a driving factor for a desperate measure from a dying nation in spite of us. Not to mention that as we speak right now more direct escalations are being taken in Ukraine rn against Russia at the hands of the US than occurred in the Cold War. The delivery of nuclear capable f16s to Ukraine is comparable to the Cuban Middle crisis but reversed, not to mention that now a rogue mercenary company (Wagner) is now spearheading and training the army of a russian puppet nation that possesses nukes (Belarus) and said individual has stated he’s in direct support of nuclear conflict and finds it necessary and inevitable, Us is trying to pass a bill that makes a nuclear incident(power plant go boom) akin to a nuclear attack on NATO allies. (Which there is multiple power plants under attack in Ukraine as we speak) especially with evidence mounting that the nordstream was an inside job, I’d keep a close eye on Ukraine, I think they’re desperate enough to hurt their own nation if it means NATO boots on the ground. There’s a lot more going into this than “it’s not in our interest” you’re wrong. It’s very obviously in ALOT of people’s interests, if it wasn’t escalations wouldn’t keep happening. And threats of global destruction wouldn’t be leaving he mouths of military leaders. If a crackhead outside 7-11 says he’s got a gun and is gonna shoot you, I don’t think the proper response would be to insult the guy, which is what we’re doing currently, we are playing with fire.
I would like to add in that around the 2010s, it might be impossible to find again since it was a single study, but in said study they found the amount of radiation a bomb would spread out was miscalculated and there would actually be less radiation spread from the radiation which is just one more thing to add on to the idea that nuclear war would be less devastating then we used to think. This should be taken with a massive bit of salt however due to it being a single study but I really think we need more investigation and re-evaluation of what nuclear bombs can actually do, and that's gonna require alot of nuclear bomb testing again to get more modern, accurate measurements on what the worlds nuclear weapons can ACTUALLY do.
I think you forgot something nuclear bombs can cause Electric magnetic pulse
When you mentioned Chinese warmongering, you accidentally used the wrong photo. You obviously meant to show the United States Congress. I don't think I agreed with anything in this video. I think it was bemusingly far from reality.
That's not what THAAD is. THAAD is one element of the ballistic missile shield. In addition to THAAD there's the Aegis GMD and Patriot systems. THAAD can stop IRBMs (intermediate range ballistic missiles) like the type north korea, iran, pakistan, india, etc have and its ground based and launched from vehicles. Patriot can stop SRBMs like Scuds and is mostly deployed where our troops are. THAAD is mostly deployed in allied countries. The Aegis system can shoot down IRBMs, SRBMs, and ICBMs but with a focus on the first two. It's launched from permanent installations on land or from ships at sea. Its based in Alaska and ours allies and most of our destroyers. The final system is the GMD """system""". its not really a system. They basically invented a satellite that can destroy nuclear warheads in space. but there's no "system" involved. they just strapped it to about 50 rockets thrown together from spare parts in California and Alaska. it can stop ICBMs from North Korea and Iran, but only like 10 of them since because the rockets are made of random bullshit and they need to use about 5 per incoming enemy missile to ensure it's stopped because it never actually works. unless you believe the russians and chinese who claim that Aegis and GMD are both nearly 100% effective and the US has unstoppable nuclear space bombers which is the excuse they use to make doomsday weapons like the 100MT submarine drone and china's new missile silos. whenever China is asked about this they literally say "fuck off america has space bombers and can shoot down all our missiles" basically verbatim.
Something comforting about us all going out together.
Russia is technically winning the war in Ukraine, but is on pace to redefine the meaning of the term "pyrrhic victory."
They are definitely not winning.
They have the initiative right now but they will not hold it for long.
War is an extension of policy therefore whether you are winning or not is defined by whether you are achieving your political goals.
Right now I don't know if even Russia knows what it's political goals are but if they were being honest with that shit about demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine and stopping NATO expansion then I don't think I've seen a country lose so badly in decades
Have not committed and lost nearly enough soldiers for it to be that yet. Leaks on Ukrainian losses, and the constant missile and drone attacks they suffer, reveals the Ukrainians are being hit far harder than they hit back.
See the two failed invasions of Belgorod.
"Ukraine retreated but they inflicted crippling losses" is straight from Washington, not the grounded reality.
@@The_Custos Yeah, if you believe Russian narratives, the Russians are winning. If you believe Western Narratives, then Russia is losing. I wonder which side is telling the truth?
But if the RF ultimately wins, what should they do? Would they likely inflict terrible death and devastation upon the Ukraine? Perhaps a tyrant would chose to do so. It was my ideal for there to be negotiations to prevent this from happening.
@@silverletter4551 Putin talks about ethnic ties to Eastern Ukraine so I doubt he'd be tyrannical towards that region. I think he'll look to incorporate it into Russia and support it economically while it recovers from the war. Perhaps Western Ukraine, which are a different people with a different language, will be able to remain as a country. It's possible that Putin would be way nastier to the "ethnic Ukrainians".
There are people out there who think a 'localized' nuclear war would be a net benifit to the world.
Depopulation, rise in particulate matter in the atmosphere = global cooling.. Some of the most frightening things I've read have comes from Eco-Worshipping.
Oh yeah, the eco-nihilists are insane. But I have also had that thought that if Global Warming and Nuclear Winter meet, who wins? :D
You’re talking about 10% of Northern European teenagers.
@@jonnyd9351 Along with 10% of North American population, it's absolutely terrifying.. The planet will survive whatever 'we' do. If I can remember the quote from George Carlin: "The Earth will shake us off like a dog does with fleas." Something to that effect anyhow.
I find it rather strange that people who are "Eco-warriors" or whatever use toxic paint, glue, or burn whatever for la mode d'aujourd'hui. It makes zero sense.
Yeah we need a few nukes i india, china and subsaharan africa. The populatio is too high.
Total Urban Annihilation would certainly be good for America.
Chinese war mongering? As opposed to the country surrounding them with military bases, fighting and supplying weapons all over the world. Get real
I have never seen another CZcams educator with such a BALANCED knowledge and view point let alone another person around my age. What you are doing is fantastic and I think this education has a chance of helping the world. I want to help
People don’t yet know that the Bhagavad Gita has clear descriptions of nuclear wars. They talk of giant arrows that when they hit their target shone like a thousand suns. I’m paraphrasing here. You can find references online.
Let me just cherry pick one of countless bizarre descriptions of things people saw while tripping balls on drugs to PROVE that ANCIENT INDIANS had SUPER TECHNOLOGY.
@@algorithmgeneratedanimegir1286 aah yes just blame a whole religion on drugs
Westerners man...
Better delete this westerners just cant cope.
@@algorithmgeneratedanimegir1286 I think it just goes more to show that at the end of the day, our weapons today are just better versions of throwing rocks at eachother
@@algorithmgeneratedanimegir1286 You sound like a hater, didn't you know India invented space travel in 4,000,000 BC when one guy took a psychedelic and said he flew through the sky and the stars, or when in 1,000,000,000 BC an Indian poet invented the scientific method when he asked a question to someone?
The ending was unexpected.
A mad max sinario?
Fuedalism?
Or Confederations like the Swiss political system?
Sir this is a Wendys
15:34 not for me. I live in lincolnshire. We produce around 8% of the UK's food output with about 2% of its population.
Nuclear war between India and Pakistan would raise sufficient quantities of ash to cause a nuclear winter. Meanwhile, both the US and Russia having a vested interest in avoiding nuclear war does not mean it's unlikely to happen - in fact, it was more likely than not that the USSR and USA would have had a nuclear exchange during the last cold war - we just lucked out with multiple near-misses, any of which would have spelled annihilation. I thoroughly recommend you read Command & Control by Eric Shlosser.
And considering Pakistan's dysfunctional state, long-term antagonism with India, and Islamist tendencies, the possibility of such a conflict occurring is not so unlikely.
Meanwhile South Korea and Japan could both develop their own nuclear weapons in a matter of days, especially if there were war with China/DPRK.
The TTTAPS computer climate model is even worse than the current IPCC climate models. Sagan et al predicted worldwide effects from the Kuwait oil fires. If you aren’t old enough, it didn’t.
I mean the greatest communication that nuclear warfare during the cold war was often one error or misjudgement by a human or computer that believed nuclear war had already happen or that nuclear missiles were going to hit..
NATO surrounding Moscow with nukes and wanting Ukraine to join can't be a good thing.
@@andrewj4426 Ukraine in Nato would be fine from the Russian perspective IF its territory did not extend beyond the Dneiper, which seems to me like the most probable ultimate outcome to this war.
However contrary to this channel's perspective (and the geopol consensus) I am very bullish on Russia's long-term future.
It wouldn’t surprise me if we do go to nuclear war and it also wouldn’t surprise me if we didn’t.
"America is a humanitarian nation" said unironically whilst people die in America because they can't afford insulin 🤦
The man who envied King Damocles was not sat on his throne. He was a dinner guest, and Damocles had a sword put over his head hanging by a horsehair for the rest of his meal, to teach him what being a king felt like.
I think you're a little too optimistic about the US's position geopolitically. While we are busily sucking up the developing world's excess population, we have not had sustainable birth rates since the 70's. I don't think the "diversity is our strength" strategy is going to last the rest of this century and I don't know of any country that lasted intact for centuries at the level of cultural/ethnic fragmentation we are at now after decades of mass immigration with no real push for integration. Rome did not last long in one piece after the barbarians started taking over the military/government.
Well said and noted.
What do you mean there is no integration? Asians and HIspanics are more integrated then the black american population that has been here since the beginning.
I disagree. Their is a shared common culture between native born Westerners and these global immigrants/refugees
Materialistic Consumerism/Nihilism/Hedonism/Relativism
@@obiwankenobi6871 Well said, Master Kenobi.