@@m2hmghbMost of the Silos, especially the old ones were made to withstand a nuclear blast. They feared a few getting hit and it causing a longer lasting problem than the bombs themselves.
As a former US Army combat veteran, I can say with confidence; you'll never know what we have. I had no idea when I joined. But the rabbit hole goes deep, I can tell you that.
@@douglascampbell9809 indeed, i still think the US Government have some top secret aircraft that would seem out of this world to anyone who does not know the truth, and i could be wrong, but i would not be surprised, also i am not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, i just think we have some stuff that would have little to no explanation except to those who worked on them and/or knows about them, hell, those "tic tac" UAPs could be ours, but again, no confirming or denying it
Anything we know about and is public, rest assured, we have something better that's operational and won't be public till we have something better than that
Correct. That and in the case of a war with Russia those puppies are going over the North Pole and not over the Pacific Ocean so having them on the coasts wouldn't shorten delivery time. Fastest way is over the Pole.
That's wrong. They are where they are because they're in the middle of nowhere, but they'll take the first round of attack. Do you really think it's harder for a ballistic missile to reach Denver than San Francisco?
Atomic Weapons don't exist.It has been over 70 years now.70 years are a long time for a mortal.Given Human Nature if Atomic Weapons really existed;Someone would have used them to take over The World by now.Just stop and think for a moment.You have a Invention - The Atomic Bomb,which is capable of demolishing Entire Cities,which can crush The Human Spirit and which has "The Power" to literally enslave/conquer The Whole World and No One All Of This Time has tried to take over The World???It doesn't make any sense.Some people might say this is because of "Mutually Assured Destruction",but my devastating point is this:The Americans were "seemingly" the first to develop Atomic Weapons years before Anyone else,so if The Americans were the first to develop Atomic Weapons and had Atomic Weapons,then why didn't they use them to take over The World.They could have bombed every other Country in The World and then enslaved the survivors.No Army in The World could have stopped them at the time.People will say what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?What about All the pictures,photos,videos,destroyed buildings and dead bodies?When I look at those pictures and videos of destroyed buildings;they look "burned","scorched" and "incinerated" to Me;not by "One Giant Brutal Super-Bomb",but by Thousands,Tens Of Thousands maybe even Hundreds Of Thousands of "Mini-Firebombs".To Me those devastated buildings don't appear to have been "Crushed" by "One-Single Mega-Brutal Crushing Super-Force",but by "Innumerable Smaller Burning-Forces".Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like burned Towns/Cities instead of Towns/Cities that were completely wiped out by "One Enormous Force".Now this is only Theoretical.I could be very-wrong,but if Atomic Weapons truly existed - by My estimates a Atomic Bomb would have not only "Completely Flattened" a Entire City to a pancake,but it would have also left "A Giant Crater" in the ground.The sheer "Monstrous Crushing Force" of a falling Atomic Bomb would have not only flattened The Entire City to ground-level it would have also "Torn-Apart The Very Ground From The Ground Itself".The Entire City would have been "Grinded Into Dust"- there would be Absolutely Nothing and Nobody left except "A Enormous Crater".There would be no clue that a City even existed.Example:If You build a Sandcastle on The Beach ( The Sandcastle is The City and You are The Atomic Bomb ) and then jump and stomp on it or punch it with All of Your might;it will Completely Flatten and You may even carve a Deep Hole in the ground.The Demons and The Fallen Angels who rule over this World need "Human Life Blood".Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "Satanic Human-Sacrifice Rituals".All of those Hundreds Of Thousands of people were being sacrificed to Demons and Fallen Angels for their blood.Many Ancient Civilizations from The Past were also sacrificing people for their blood,because The Demons and The Fallen Angels told them so.The Wars in The World are Human Sacrifice Rituals.Nothing has changed.Atomic Weapons are a monstrous deception designed to frighten The Public out of their Minds in order to create a Future situation where A False Saviour or False Saviours can rescue them.If Atomic Weapons truly existed;Someone would have used them to take over The World by now,but Nobody has and maybe this is because Atomic Weapons don't exist!
I guess in a way I sort of understand the Preppers minds and the view of survival and wanting to live longer but the world will be a dark and desolate nightmarish reality of nothing. What are you surviving for??
Imagine if we’re Nuked which scares the SHIT out of me but this being said I’m not that worried since I trust my Country about something this very deep especially our homeland and the ones that still survive or alive or both and far from it imagine what the rest of us Americans we’ll do when we find out who’s responsible my GOD and I could promise u this us Americans we’ll be pissed off badly and when Americans are pissed off badly and come together is the most dangerous thing a Country never ever wants to see
Keep in mind this is based on the info publicly available, which is DEFINITELY not the entire arsenal, and likely downplays the capabilities the US actually has.
Not really. It's more useful for the United States to have that knowledge publicly known, to make nuclear disarmament/restriction treaties easier. It's a whole lot harder to get other nations to disarm if they think you're lying. And the primary goal is to _avoid_ nuclear war, trying to 'win' one is a last resort
That’s absolutely correct. I’m just some random on the internet, but I definitely have my info on very accurate authority… We don’t share our coolest shit with even the American public.
@@DopeDuoYT No, we wouldn't. If the ground is contaminated it's over. If the electrical grid is destroyed the estimates I've seen are 40-90% of people will be dead in the next 10 years.
@DopeDuoYT unfortunately that's not how nuclear war goes. If an all out conflict broke out, and nuclear munitions were used en masse there is no shot for civilians. The sheer number of strikes would leave lasting radioactive fallout and an unfathomable amount of destruction to all vital infrastructures.
As you kept exclaiming “mad . . .” “mad . . .” “ mad . . .” , I wondered if you knew that the weapons system has been dubbed MAD. It stands for “Mutually Assured Destruction”.
@@LindaLittle-m7j what's a bomb shelter going to do against a nuke? Even after that. The food and supplies you have will run out. Then you will need to go into the radiation.
The middle of the country was chosen for Missile bases for multiple reasons: 1. it's less populated and these bases need space around them -- in essence, being in the middle of nowhere. 2. By being in the middle of the country, other Air Defense Systems located in other parts of the country can detect an incoming attack while the Missiles themselves are further away and, since the Missile's speed is go great, can still be launched with certain effectiveness.
16:49 first strike primary targets are A. military, B. government, and C. infrastructure (like electricity, gas, oil, ect...). secondary targets are major cities.... so the biggest cities WOULD be destroyed, but most smaller cities would have a chance.
This is why I was immediately pulled out of school on 9/11 even though I was all the way in Atlanta. I think a lot of US cities are aware of what would make them targets in the event of war. Living near the CDC was just one reason
The b52 has been in service for over 70 years, I watched a video where they showed a family that had 3 generations that piloted that plan….. amazing! The b52 stratofortres is a beast and I’m pretty sure there is still over 50 in active service. They made the perfect tool for the job and have tried to replace it numerous times but it just keeps proving its worth so they keep updating it. It’s truly an amazing airplane and an incredible example of American know how, hell Russia has trouble building a plane with a service life of 1000 total hours and it took them until the 80”s to to build a big jet engine reliable for more than 200 hours but I digress…..
This is what America shows but you can believe we have the best well under wraps. Who's going to show their hand with their best, for many reasons you walk softly and carry the biggest stick.
The same principle is why the US sells the F-35 as opposed to the F-22. The principle being: you don’t sell/give away your best stuff, you get rid of your second best or third best(ie your derivatives) to others and keep your best tech for yourself. Basically, you know full well the DoD, DHS and who knows what acronym groups in the military keep the most important national defense tech wrapped up nice and tight. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there are more advanced subs in the US’s arsenal and more than just 15 or 16 out there.
Specifically look up Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands.....It's the biggest war crime the US ever committed in my opinion. What's sad is that it's not taught in American schools and most Americans don't know what their government did.
The silos are in the center of the country for three main reasons. 1. They’re far from populated areas, meaning if Russia or China wants to attack the us without fear of a return attack they have to hit the silos and not populated cities. 2. They’re far from the coasts insuring their safety from likely invasion routes and preventing conventional bombers from reaching 3. It allows for more missile defenses to have a chance to take down incoming missiles before they hit
@@lycheemyusic even if we assume your scenario is correct, which it likely wouldn’t be as the US has VERY good anti missile systems, not everyone would die. A lot of people would die, for sure. Not all though.
Some short range MERV can carry as many as 14 individual warheads that are approximately 18 inches in diameter and four feet long, weighing between 600-680 lbs each. Most long range MERV missiles carried between 3 & 12 warheads.
If you're ever in Albuquerque, New Mexico: They have a Nuclear Museum where they have one of those SLBMs dissected on display. The warheads are surprisingly small, like you mentioned.
Yes. In the Albuquerque area we have nuclear capabilities, research and personnel that have been here for many decades. My dad was XO of the Navy Weapons installation at Kirtland AFB. We're good here. The defense system in place is nearly impenetrable, as well as other places around the country. The concept of "mutually assured destruction" is real. My money is on the US to take out incoming threats, and respond in kind with land, sea and air capabilities.
I live in southern az and I remember going as a teen in the early 90's to the Titan Missile Museum and being amazed on how large the Titan missile was and how small the warhead was compared to the missile. You can tour the missile silo which is mostly under ground. It's an interesting tour if you are into the history of nuclear war.
My cousin was a b52 maintainer in the 70s. He said he was never worried because as long as they kept him working on the same 4 planes, it means we weren't headed for annihilation lmao.
@@dusfitz Dad was shuffled around quite a bit so he never got too familiar with the specific birds. A year in Thailand, some in Italy, some in Louisiana, time in Rome NY, Australia, Guam, Rammstein, and other places.
@@m2hmghb my cousin was out of a hanger somewhere in the northwest, I don't remember where specifically. I couldn't imagine being a crewmen on those flight rosters, that's gotta be a stressful job and then some.
I live about 1 mile from one of silos and when I see the armored Hummers drive by I wave and sometimes I invite them for coffee or bring them coffee. I drive by the silo pretty much every day. I respect the difficult job they do.
There's a couple reasons the silos are in the middle of the country. It's less populated, so an attack on them will kill less people. They also hev little other use for some of that land due to the terrain and climate. Nobody wants a silo in a beautiful coastal town. Third, being so far from civilization allowed the silos to remain protected from spies and gawkers.
To all younger folks..... welcome to the Cold War 2.0. If we all make it out of this one, y'all are going to have lots of stories and experiences to tell your kids in about 25 years. All of us older folks went through this from the 1960s through the late 1980s. Gotta love all that progress we've made as a species.
I live in Colorado, and as strange as it is to say... You actually get used to the idea that a weapon capable of erasing an entire county is just kinda there. Same as getting used to knowing that if nuclear war did break out, you just happen to live in the part of the US that's likely to be hit early on. It just is what it is.
Same I live in California if we ever get attacked its likely California, Oregon, and Washington are gonna be among the first to see hostile enemy forces
Don't count the UK out! As a American I LOVE MY COUNTRY!!! That being said we are really and proudly"Boastful" about who and what we are. You guys across the pond are it seems .... quite reserved and not near as "Loud and Proud" as our culture is. You never know what your country may have for it's defence plan. Hopefully we as in all of humanity, will never encounter a reason to be shown .
Many NATO countries and allies have missile defense systems capable of downing an ICBM. Maybe not hundreds of them at once but sure enough plenty. Even IL has Iron Dome, David's Sling and Iron Beam laser defense systems that work. Even the US Patriot can take down some ICBMs. RU can't even stop a drone from the UA. RU has no real air defense to speak of. Europe does.
America is “loud and proud” because it has earned the right to be. It’s economy is what makes it the powerhouse that it is and allows it to have the massive military it does. No other comes close. The UK was the powerhouse for a couple centuries and during that time frame they were also quite the “boastful, loud and proud” country as well. I mean their imperialist ways literally had them controlling a quarter of the world at one point. You anglophiles always love to throw the US under the bus when the UK has shit tonnes of skeletons in its closet as well. Don’t single out the US just because it’s the big guy on the block right now.
It's funny how much Lewis and other Brits put themselves down when they are one of the most scrappiest nation to have existed. Examples, the Vikings, merged with them. The Spanish Armada, obliterated and created pirates as well as the infamous British Empire. The last free European country facing the Nazi alone, never waiver their faith in their country. As someone who love learning history and culture beyond the US, it breaks me how much our Brits neglect to understand how inspiration their country is. It just makes me want to give them more love to help them understand they are more amazing than they recognize. Their country is the bedrock of the influence of the Enlightenment Age! We Americans are the first of one of the many the products of that period, but much of the concept comes specifically from the British and a few other European countries. Anyways, I'm always amazed looking back at their history, especially when they defied Hitler when they had the choice to give in and ally with him. Any culture would be honored to have a fraction of the integrity they had.
We keep the missles inland to help prevent water damage to the silos/missles as well as give a buffer between a strike because they have to get past all other missle defense systems first
@@shawnsparkman7916 Stop loss is a real thing. They used it on a couple buddies of mine during GWOT. He'd also be part of the IRR for 2 years if he's on his first hitch.
Being raised in the 70s and 80s in the height of the cold war, for some reason, it's not as scary now. Don't get me wrong, it's scary AF, but I think the difference is technology and the fact that in the 80s, the movie The Day After came out and scared the shit out of everybody. Some even think that the movie played a part in cooling down the attitudes of the nations.
I always think it's hilarious when people react to how powerful the United States is. Because you know we have way more than just what we tell you. I heard a story once about a man who was at a military function and overheard an unnamed (for obvious reasons) US military General say something along the lines of "if we've shown it to the world it's already obsolete". Now I don't know how accurate that really is but you better believe with how much money we spend on our military, it's probably not very far off from the truth.
Back in the early 60's we had Titan 1 Intercontinental ballistic missiles in our hometown. My mother would tell us that she could look out our back window and see the missiles at our municipal airport a mile and a half away. Our property backs up against the mandatory flight path crash zone where no housing developments are allowed in order to give air craft a place to ditch with fewer fatalities. It gave us a perfect and unobstructed view of the airport facility. The missiles were ultimately removed out of our Northern CA town a few years later, but the missile silos where they were housed still remain to this day!
I live in southern Arizona where until the late 80's we had a Titan 2 Missile silo. It has become a museum since it's decommission in 87. As a teen in the early 90's I remember going there for a school field trip. It was .... interesting. Lol.
The old joke was you find an ohio by looking for where the water is too quiet. Of course the nickname they got is amusing in a dark way "chicken of the sea"
@@SteveIsNumbToThisWorld Basically the boomer is the most important submarine out there - in some ways more important a vessel then an aircraft carrier. To the point an attack submarine may sacrifice themselves to keep it alive. It happened during the cold war where attack subs would intentionally screw with other attack subs to scrape them off the boomers. If it had been a hot war they would have taken hits for it. They're also on their own once they get to a patrol area.
No, they are not. Get your head out of the 1980s. The quietest submarines are those running on battery power - either diesel-electric or AIP boats. Submarine technology has progressed significantly since the Ohio-class was designed, and there is no reason to believe that they are better or quieter than the new Columbia-class boats.
To answer your question, "why in the middle?".... 1. the rocky mountains along the western coast serve as a shield for low flying missiles that would target these silos. 2. having them on the coast would leave them vulnerable to surprise attacks and we'd have less time to defend them with our own air defenses. 3. Any attack on them would have to go through multiple waves of air defenses and thousands of miles of harsh terrain (massive mountains and massive deserts) 4. Those places where the silos are have very little population near them, which makes citizens safer in the case of a nuclear attack coincidentally. 5. It is easier to move maintenance parts to them since they are in the middle.
They're in the middle because the shortest route to their targets in the former Soviet Union is north over the pole; and it would be harder for anybody to get to them and mess with them in the middle of the plains where you can see for 30 miles in every direction.
As a child of the 80s, I remember watching the movie The Day After, now that movie scared me a kid, beacuse were very living in the Cold War era. This also why we don't want crazy people having keys to nuclear weapons. Also you have think that if something were to happened like this, you can survive the blast but then you have to deal with the fall out afterwards, and sometime that much worse then the bomb being dropped.
4:05 keeping the missiles in the center of the U.S. makes them harder to attack from coastal ships. also, they are in the middle of nowhere and there is nearly flat land around them, with almost no large land masses or forests, so ANY threat from saboteurs can be detected from VERY far away across the land, and dealt with quickly and totally...
Lewis, you're thinking of nuclear bombs like regular explosive bombs. They are not at all the same. Regular bombs use chemical explosives to make a big bank. Nukes are very technical and take advantage of advanced physics to cause atoms to release enormous amounts of energy. You can put a nuke in a suitcase that could take out a small city. So, anything you do to a nuke , like setting off a bomb next to it, beating with a hammer, etc., will not detonate it. It will probably disable the bomb although if you blow it up hard enough you might have to deal with the radioactive material inside contaminating the surrounding area.
Brother I'm from NYC and I'm telling you that America has the UK's back 100% your our biggest alliance in the world! Someone fucks with you guys they fuck with Us! We got your back Brother!
He doubts the UK’s strength in such a situation. However, there was a reason why we saw such a large scale attack on the Uk and that reason is because they’re an extremely formidable force, despite Lewis being surprised by it. Just their SF alone is top notch and one of the best, if not the best. Their naval fleet is impressive as well and they’ve basically always been that way. The British naval fleet has been scary for a very long time, even as far back as when they were still fighting with swords and cannons lol. Things have somewhat changed in style but they still remain a force to be reckoned with and our greatest ally.
@@ThatSoonerGuy the few British soldiers I did training ops with were all class act dudes. They were well disciplined, strong, and worked exceptionally well with any group they got put with. They definitely wouldn't cower as shit went down.
I love how the guy who made the original video can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly. It just gives you so much more confidence in the rest of what he says. It's new--clear, not new-Q-lar.
Our missiles that are located in the middle of the US like Colorado for example are because those bases are in the mountains which is strategically located for defensive
Those silos are in the middle of America because they're the least populated. If we're targeted then those silos would be targeted first. Since their first targets will be inland we'll be able to better defend from the first strike and give us more time to get ready to protect the more populated areas.
I live in Nebraska 15 minutes away from Straatcom which is a major target for any nuclear strike against the US, I'd be gone in the first strike. Unfortunately the entire planet would fry because once one is launched every nuke on the planet would follow.
Yup. That's what makes nukes a net null in strategic planning. Aside from shutting down the full elimination of any nuclear power from the world stage. Because at some point, a desperate nation is going to open that box, and then everyone else will. Worse, knowing who fired what at who is extremely difficult relative to how important knowing is. If your the UK for example, and see launches starting, how do you know they're not targeted at you? That first leg of launch trajectory looks near identical no matter the target. So in the event anyone fires ICMBs, everyone is likely to start firing their own for fear of not getting the chance.
Everyone should have Potassium Iodide tablets, they are shelf stable for decades, and cheap. I've got enough for me and my family for months, and it was cheap. Also have shelf stable food for months for my family, as well as water purifiers. Everyone can do this on the cheap, as well as make arrangements to live in a shelter or cave for a few days or a couple weeks. Tornado shelters, anything to give space away from fallout. There are a lot of options available: storm drains, the pit in oil change buildings, etc.. A nuclear war is very survivable it just takes some planning.
4:11 "Why Are These Missile Silos In The Middle of America?, Wouldn't It Make More Sense To Have Closer To The Coasts, So They Wouldn't Have To Travel As Far?" It would make it more practical for the missile Silos to m be closer to the coast, reducing the total distance of travel to the intended targets, but it'd also simultaneously make those Silos More vulnerable to an attack
7:02 it's almost impossible for one missile to hit another one. it's like shooting a bullet out of the air with another bullet from a mile away... Additionally, the U.S. HIGHLY tracks ANYTHING from nearly EVERY country on Earth and ANYTHING that would go into the air is quickly identified. even the HINT of a nuclear missile being shot towards the U.S. would create an immediate response and an immediate launch of a return strike. and since it's unlikely that an enemy would ONLY use one missile to attack the U.S., the ENTIRE arsenal of nuclear missiles would be launched as a return strike, as it would be assumed that a first strike on the U.S. would be enough to kill the entire population, so the return strike FROM the U.S. would be a retaliatory strike to kill off whatever country attacked us first. So the assumption is that IF the U.S. were to be attacked by a nuclear strike, there wouldn't be anyone left to be able to do anything after the strike hits, so we would immediately strike back before their missiles hit us. BUT there is a HIGHLY secure system in place to insure that a false strike doesn't set off our own strike and because of this, the missile silo soldiers are highly trained and psychologically conditioned for this possible event. and they will only 'push the button' if they can confirm through this secure system that they orders to strike are genuine...
The truth is, no one trusts anti-missile interception against nuclear ordinance, because if your wrong about how effective it is the consequences beggar comprehension.
They put all the missiles in the middle middle of no where as a tactic its called The Nuclear Sponge. The enemy has to decide do they want to attack the missiles location, population centers or other military bases.
I'm sorry to say but no if a nuclear missile gets hit by another missile it will not make the nuclear missile bigger or explosion bigger. It has to be at the critical state of just about to explode four that to happen
Our silos are in the mid-north for several good reasons. It buys us more time for decision making. They are also less populated. It also takes enemy missiles longer to get there. Putting them on coastlines would be foolish..
Whenever we talk fire power that America has I also remember what Japan said after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor which was they were afraid they had awoken a sleeping dragon.
What's with all the f'n s3x bots? Love your channel butcha gotta chase down those bots mate. Bant them! But as for the vid, the US doesn't want war especially nuke war. In spite of the world's view of the US being in wars, most of them weren't started by the US (Some, the US should never have been in but that's another story). Also, RU doesn't have the workable nukes they claim. They are costly to build/upgrade and maintain. The US has some old 'shells' of nukes but the guts have been upgraded. They are accurate and well maintained. Just like Iran, 40% of what they sent to IL didn't launch. RU is on par with IR...old, unreliable, even not working. BTW, the US also has a multi-faceted national missile defense system in case anyone tries to send missiles into the US They're stationed all over north America including Canada. Land, air, sea, space, cyber, etc. Nothing is impossible but it would be extremely difficult and would set off our 'response in kind' that can't be as well defended by any nation.
People overnight the Russian military by a huge margin yes they have numbers but here's the problem though this are not very well disciplined we know that for damn sure because why in the hell else they would commit suicide or abandoned their post consistently throughout the Ukrainian war and I hadn't even talked about the criminal soldiers yet and there are a lot of them that they let out of prison just to fight in that damn war and their nukes as he said forget about it they can't fire hardly much of any of them anyways since the Cold War
The thing about the silo based one is we will know they have been targeted an hour or more before they are hit, and it takes only 5 minutes for them to be launched meaning the enemy just wastes their missiles on empty space at that point as the missiles will be launched before destroyed.
That freeze frame pic at the end of the video was just the 400 ICMB's, that didn't include the thousand or so individual MIRV warheads or air launched cruise missiles. Also keep in mind these are only the weapons that are declassified and have been known about for the last 30 or more years. If you think the US isn't adjusting it's arsenal to counter new threats like China, Iran and North Korea, you haven't been paying attention. The F-35 just got approved to use internally carried nukes...and good luck finding the numbers on how many of *those* missiles exist
7:00 The explosion would have to come from directly under the missile to have any small chance at pushing the core of the bomb into the shell (the core is pushed into the shell with explosive force to get enough radiation in one place for the radioactive materials to go supercritical (make nuke). Unless the threshold of supercriticality is passed a nuke won't go off, which is the reason the core and shell of the plutonium (and other radioactives) are separate to begin with.
You should watch the movie, "Dr Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."' It is a comedy made in the 1960s about a barely-avoided (sort of) WW3. It stars Peter Sellars playing three parts.
They would be easier to protect in the middle compared to the outside there's a lot more defense systems you got to get past including the stuff we already have on the outside
ICBMs have essentially infinite range- they're basically shooting a missile into space and then having them come back down from orbit where you want them. It's therefore beneficial to have them spread out in low-population, hard to reach places like the mountain west, where there's not many people around to be harmed if enemies try and target them, and they're not at risk from enemy attacks trying to strike population or manufacturing centers. Having them on the coasts doesn't really provide a benefit, since the couple hundred miles of range is inconsequential, but any attacks aimed at the coasts have far greater casualty potential than rural Montana/Wyoming/Colorado.
They are in lightly populated areas and are all seperate so it forces a enemy to waste their own nukes and minimal personel losses. They also dont explode like that, nukes use a nuclear fission chain reaction to detonate a simple explsion would destroy but not detonate
The United Kingdom being smaller has one major advantage: it's a whole lot easier to defend using anti-missile interceptors. Each implacement has a limited range/area it can defend, so the UK can more densely pack it's defenses. At least, if it had any.
I live about 45 miles from Whiteman AFB in Missouri. Where I live if the winds are nice I probably survive even a full scale assault. If the winds come in from the North I'll be dead. Not much planning to be done.
On the coast silos would be more vulnerable than deep in the country. Additionally coast tends to be heavily populated so enemy could nuke people and silo with same missile. More people would also make security on the ground against saboteurw etx. more demanding. Also, silos are on the top of target list, at least in counter force strikes. Having them as far from people scattered over large area targeting them spends most of enemy weapons as the video mentioned, while minimizing number of civilian deaths, at least immediate ones. The silos in the middle of nowhere have sometimes been referred to "nuclear sponge" to suck up enemy nukes so they can't hit other forces, infrastructure or cities. Don't tell that to the states where the silos are though.
You’ve got to think E=mc^2. It doesn’t take a whole lot of fissile material converted to energy to make a very big bang. The actual war heads are not that big. The W88 warhead is rumored to weigh 175-360 kg and are 5 ft long by 18 inch diameter. Also remember there are or were nuclear artillery shells for tactical use.
Nuclear warheads require a specific mechanical action for the actual chain reaction to work so blowing up a warhead with another missile wouldn't necessarily activate the warhead.
The silos are close to the center north area of the US because the shortest route for them to take would be for them to fly over the north pole towards Russia/Europe.
To answer your question about why they’re in the middle of the country.. they are literally in the middle of nowhere because if something happens and one of them goes off, they don’t want anybody near them so there’s like nothing around them for hundreds of miles because there is so much landmass in those areas that are just nothing But green grass and maybe some cornfields
The missiles can travel 6,000 mi in 30 minutes. Being closer to the coast would not make anything any easier for the missile, it would just be more vulnerable to other enemy attacks.
called the nuclear sponge ... low density low population ...hardened silos .. enemy had to dump a large portion of of their nuclear arsenal into the silos to ensure destruction or face retaliation
I know it a bit late to commenting this since it’s from a while ago. But here in Arizona near Tucson we have the Titian mission museum it’s a real missile that’s been decommissioned and you could take a tour and everything.
To detonate a nuclear charge you have to have a precise timed detonation of the compression charges which creates the nuclear reaction. Detonating a nuclear charge to take out another nuclear charge will most likely create a bit more radioactive debris than normal.
Thanks!
THANK YOU!!
Missile silos being hit does not cause the nuclear bombs to go off. Detonating a nuclear bomb is more complicated than igniting an explosive.
Far more difficult. It would actually de activate the warhead most likely.
@@m2hmghb Exactly
@@zeuso.1947 Would still spread all the plut around.
It still wouldn’t be a dirty bomb though.. I feel like you would have to have the raw nuclear material being scattered
@@m2hmghbMost of the Silos, especially the old ones were made to withstand a nuclear blast. They feared a few getting hit and it causing a longer lasting problem than the bombs themselves.
As a former US Army combat veteran, I can say with confidence; you'll never know what we have. I had no idea when I joined. But the rabbit hole goes deep, I can tell you that.
Not in the military and don't wanna know what we have but I'm assuming at least a couple decades ahead tech wise from the Civilian market
@@sleeplessking4717 At least ten years. More in some areas.
@@douglascampbell9809 indeed, i still think the US Government have some top secret aircraft that would seem out of this world to anyone who does not know the truth, and i could be wrong, but i would not be surprised, also i am not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, i just think we have some stuff that would have little to no explanation except to those who worked on them and/or knows about them, hell, those "tic tac" UAPs could be ours, but again, no confirming or denying it
Anything we know about and is public, rest assured, we have something better that's operational and won't be public till we have something better than that
'deep' implys there's a bottom to the rabbit hole..lol.seems more like an abyss🕳️
The silos are where they are because it's harder for foreign countries to reach them.
Correct. That and in the case of a war with Russia those puppies are going over the North Pole and not over the Pacific Ocean so having them on the coasts wouldn't shorten delivery time. Fastest way is over the Pole.
Aaaannnd, they force enemies to divert assets away from population centers.
Exactly. Plus the availability of large areas of uninhabited land.
@@ThunderBallz87 They travel so quickly where they are doesn't matter when it comes to launching them.
That's wrong. They are where they are because they're in the middle of nowhere, but they'll take the first round of attack.
Do you really think it's harder for a ballistic missile to reach Denver than San Francisco?
'You don't arm yourself after war has been declared. You build your army so big that no one dares pick the fight.' - Klaus
Atomic Weapons don't exist.It has been over 70 years now.70 years are a long time for a mortal.Given Human Nature if Atomic Weapons really existed;Someone would have used them to take over The World by now.Just stop and think for a moment.You have a Invention - The Atomic Bomb,which is capable of demolishing Entire Cities,which can crush The Human Spirit and which has "The Power" to literally enslave/conquer The Whole World and No One All Of This Time has tried to take over The World???It doesn't make any sense.Some people might say this is because of "Mutually Assured Destruction",but my devastating point is this:The Americans were "seemingly" the first to develop Atomic Weapons years before Anyone else,so if The Americans were the first to develop Atomic Weapons and had Atomic Weapons,then why didn't they use them to take over The World.They could have bombed every other Country in The World and then enslaved the survivors.No Army in The World could have stopped them at the time.People will say what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?What about All the pictures,photos,videos,destroyed buildings and dead bodies?When I look at those pictures and videos of destroyed buildings;they look "burned","scorched" and "incinerated" to Me;not by "One Giant Brutal Super-Bomb",but by Thousands,Tens Of Thousands maybe even Hundreds Of Thousands of "Mini-Firebombs".To Me those devastated buildings don't appear to have been "Crushed" by "One-Single Mega-Brutal Crushing Super-Force",but by "Innumerable Smaller Burning-Forces".Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like burned Towns/Cities instead of Towns/Cities that were completely wiped out by "One Enormous Force".Now this is only Theoretical.I could be very-wrong,but if Atomic Weapons truly existed - by My estimates a Atomic Bomb would have not only "Completely Flattened" a Entire City to a pancake,but it would have also left "A Giant Crater" in the ground.The sheer "Monstrous Crushing Force" of a falling Atomic Bomb would have not only flattened The Entire City to ground-level it would have also "Torn-Apart The Very Ground From The Ground Itself".The Entire City would have been "Grinded Into Dust"- there would be Absolutely Nothing and Nobody left except "A Enormous Crater".There would be no clue that a City even existed.Example:If You build a Sandcastle on The Beach ( The Sandcastle is The City and You are The Atomic Bomb ) and then jump and stomp on it or punch it with All of Your might;it will Completely Flatten and You may even carve a Deep Hole in the ground.The Demons and The Fallen Angels who rule over this World need "Human Life Blood".Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "Satanic Human-Sacrifice Rituals".All of those Hundreds Of Thousands of people were being sacrificed to Demons and Fallen Angels for their blood.Many Ancient Civilizations from The Past were also sacrificing people for their blood,because The Demons and The Fallen Angels told them so.The Wars in The World are Human Sacrifice Rituals.Nothing has changed.Atomic Weapons are a monstrous deception designed to frighten The Public out of their Minds in order to create a Future situation where A False Saviour or False Saviours can rescue them.If Atomic Weapons truly existed;Someone would have used them to take over The World by now,but Nobody has and maybe this is because Atomic Weapons don't exist!
As an American I can honestly say that I wouldn't even want to be alive to witness the aftermath if we were ever nuked. I am sure many feel the same.
we all know there is no winning nuclear war
As American the one thing I’ve never feared is nukes we have a better chance of bein invaded in the homeland
I might stick around for 3 mins
I guess in a way I sort of understand the Preppers minds and the view of survival and wanting to live longer but the world will be a dark and desolate nightmarish reality of nothing. What are you surviving for??
Imagine if we’re Nuked which scares the SHIT out of me but this being said I’m not that worried since I trust my Country about something this very deep especially our homeland and the ones that still survive or alive or both and far from it imagine what the rest of us Americans we’ll do when we find out who’s responsible my GOD and I could promise u this us Americans we’ll be pissed off badly and when Americans are pissed off badly and come together is the most dangerous thing a Country never ever wants to see
Always remember...
Whenever you see "what the US has" its always... ALWAYS less than what is really there. You only hear what's "declassified"
Not really, nuclear weapons are inspected by international agreement. Nobody wants nukes going missing.
and you know this....how?
@@inkey2its only logical with how secretive the US government is
@@inkey2 Common sense
@@inkey2you think UAPs. Are aliens or classified us military hardware? Remember. Which ever is more probable is likely the truth.
Keep in mind this is based on the info publicly available, which is DEFINITELY not the entire arsenal, and likely downplays the capabilities the US actually has.
💯
That's always the game plan. I wouldn't be surprised to know we have a lot of hypersonic nukes already on standby
Not really. It's more useful for the United States to have that knowledge publicly known, to make nuclear disarmament/restriction treaties easier. It's a whole lot harder to get other nations to disarm if they think you're lying. And the primary goal is to _avoid_ nuclear war, trying to 'win' one is a last resort
That’s absolutely correct. I’m just some random on the internet, but I definitely have my info on very accurate authority… We don’t share our coolest shit with even the American public.
No one wins a war like this.
I disagree, we have nato, as long as we destroy enemies, it would probably be ok
I prefer Einstein's take "I know not with what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"
@@DopeDuoYT No, we wouldn't. If the ground is contaminated it's over. If the electrical grid is destroyed the estimates I've seen are 40-90% of people will be dead in the next 10 years.
@DopeDuoYT unfortunately that's not how nuclear war goes.
If an all out conflict broke out, and nuclear munitions were used en masse there is no shot for civilians. The sheer number of strikes would leave lasting radioactive fallout and an unfathomable amount of destruction to all vital infrastructures.
Except the scumbags that murdered us, living it up in their bunkers.
As you kept exclaiming “mad . . .” “mad . . .” “ mad . . .” , I wondered if you knew that the weapons system has been dubbed MAD. It stands for “Mutually Assured Destruction”.
It's not the weapons system. It's the wordwide policy. "You use nukes, everyone else will also."
It would be like commiting global suicide!😢😢😢😢
If you have a bomb shelter you would get in it, keep it stocked with food and water.
@@LindaLittle-m7j what's a bomb shelter going to do against a nuke? Even after that. The food and supplies you have will run out. Then you will need to go into the radiation.
The middle of the country was chosen for Missile bases for multiple reasons: 1. it's less populated and these bases need space around them -- in essence, being in the middle of nowhere. 2. By being in the middle of the country, other Air Defense Systems located in other parts of the country can detect an incoming attack while the Missiles themselves are further away and, since the Missile's speed is go great, can still be launched with certain effectiveness.
Which also makes it more difficult for saboteurs to land and attack.
@@m2hmghb Yep
Also harder for opps to strike out sites
Also it forces the enemy to choose between taking out a silo, and taking out a resource or population center.
You gotta watch part 2 - that's when you see the full effect
16:49
first strike primary targets are A. military, B. government, and C. infrastructure (like electricity, gas, oil, ect...). secondary targets are major cities.... so the biggest cities WOULD be destroyed, but most smaller cities would have a chance.
This is why I was immediately pulled out of school on 9/11 even though I was all the way in Atlanta. I think a lot of US cities are aware of what would make them targets in the event of war. Living near the CDC was just one reason
If I’m not mistaken, these are the plans from the 1970s and 1950s. I’m pretty sure our strategic nuclear priorities have changed considerably.
The b52 has been in service for over 70 years, I watched a video where they showed a family that had 3 generations that piloted that plan….. amazing! The b52 stratofortres is a beast and I’m pretty sure there is still over 50 in active service. They made the perfect tool for the job and have tried to replace it numerous times but it just keeps proving its worth so they keep updating it. It’s truly an amazing airplane and an incredible example of American know how, hell Russia has trouble building a plane with a service life of 1000 total hours and it took them until the 80”s to to build a big jet engine reliable for more than 200 hours but I digress…..
This is what America shows but you can believe we have the best well under wraps. Who's going to show their hand with their best, for many reasons you walk softly and carry the biggest stick.
The same principle is why the US sells the F-35 as opposed to the F-22. The principle being: you don’t sell/give away your best stuff, you get rid of your second best or third best(ie your derivatives) to others and keep your best tech for yourself.
Basically, you know full well the DoD, DHS and who knows what acronym groups in the military keep the most important national defense tech wrapped up nice and tight. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there are more advanced subs in the US’s arsenal and more than just 15 or 16 out there.
In the word's of the late Mr. H. Truman.
You should check out the history of America's nuclear weapons testing, some of them are truly scary.
Specifically look up Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands.....It's the biggest war crime the US ever committed in my opinion. What's sad is that it's not taught in American schools and most Americans don't know what their government did.
The silos are in the center of the country for three main reasons.
1. They’re far from populated areas, meaning if Russia or China wants to attack the us without fear of a return attack they have to hit the silos and not populated cities.
2. They’re far from the coasts insuring their safety from likely invasion routes and preventing conventional bombers from reaching
3. It allows for more missile defenses to have a chance to take down incoming missiles before they hit
Doesn't matter were you live everyone would die.
The only question is how fast
That is incorrect.
@@UpperDarbyDetailing okay, you try surviving the collapse of the economy and government, mass famine, and nuclear fallout..
@@lycheemyusic even if we assume your scenario is correct, which it likely wouldn’t be as the US has VERY good anti missile systems, not everyone would die. A lot of people would die, for sure. Not all though.
Some short range MERV can carry as many as 14 individual warheads that are approximately 18 inches in diameter and four feet long, weighing between 600-680 lbs each. Most long range MERV missiles carried between 3 & 12 warheads.
IT WAS NICE KNOWING YOU, LEWIS!!! 🤯
11:19 😂
😂
🤣
If you're ever in Albuquerque, New Mexico: They have a Nuclear Museum where they have one of those SLBMs dissected on display. The warheads are surprisingly small, like you mentioned.
Yes. In the Albuquerque area we have nuclear capabilities, research and personnel that have been here for many decades. My dad was XO of the Navy Weapons installation at Kirtland AFB. We're good here. The defense system in place is nearly impenetrable, as well as other places around the country. The concept of "mutually assured destruction" is real. My money is on the US to take out incoming threats, and respond in kind with land, sea and air capabilities.
I live in southern az and I remember going as a teen in the early 90's to the Titan Missile Museum and being amazed on how large the Titan missile was and how small the warhead was compared to the missile. You can tour the missile silo which is mostly under ground. It's an interesting tour if you are into the history of nuclear war.
Um EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!😂😂😂 Laughed so hard. Rewatched about 10 times.
I was born at Malstrom Air Force Base in Montana in 71. My dad was on officer key holder. I grew up hearing about how bad things will be.
My dad was a crew chief on alert 52s in the 70s - had the same talks growing up in the 90s.
My cousin was a b52 maintainer in the 70s. He said he was never worried because as long as they kept him working on the same 4 planes, it means we weren't headed for annihilation lmao.
@@dusfitz Dad was shuffled around quite a bit so he never got too familiar with the specific birds. A year in Thailand, some in Italy, some in Louisiana, time in Rome NY, Australia, Guam, Rammstein, and other places.
@@m2hmghb my cousin was out of a hanger somewhere in the northwest, I don't remember where specifically. I couldn't imagine being a crewmen on those flight rosters, that's gotta be a stressful job and then some.
I live about 1 mile from one of silos and when I see the armored Hummers drive by I wave and sometimes I invite them for coffee or bring them coffee. I drive by the silo pretty much every day. I respect the difficult job they do.
There's a couple reasons the silos are in the middle of the country.
It's less populated, so an attack on them will kill less people. They also hev little other use for some of that land due to the terrain and climate. Nobody wants a silo in a beautiful coastal town. Third, being so far from civilization allowed the silos to remain protected from spies and gawkers.
yep. and the real threat isn't discovery of the location, but catching people trying to learn specifics.
Just saw the first missile strike in this video. It was a good run my dude. We are gonna miss ya😂
To all younger folks..... welcome to the Cold War 2.0. If we all make it out of this one, y'all are going to have lots of stories and experiences to tell your kids in about 25 years. All of us older folks went through this from the 1960s through the late 1980s. Gotta love all that progress we've made as a species.
My brother remembers all of this plus WW2
"Ummmm Excuse me??!!" 💀😂
I died with you 🤣
I live in Colorado, and as strange as it is to say... You actually get used to the idea that a weapon capable of erasing an entire county is just kinda there. Same as getting used to knowing that if nuclear war did break out, you just happen to live in the part of the US that's likely to be hit early on. It just is what it is.
Same I live in California if we ever get attacked its likely California, Oregon, and Washington are gonna be among the first to see hostile enemy forces
Don't count the UK out! As a American I LOVE MY COUNTRY!!! That being said we are really and proudly"Boastful" about who and what we are. You guys across the pond are it seems .... quite reserved and not near as "Loud and Proud" as our culture is.
You never know what your country may have for it's defence plan. Hopefully we as in all of humanity, will never encounter a reason to be shown .
Many NATO countries and allies have missile defense systems capable of downing an ICBM. Maybe not hundreds of them at once but sure enough plenty. Even IL has Iron Dome, David's Sling and Iron Beam laser defense systems that work. Even the US Patriot can take down some ICBMs.
RU can't even stop a drone from the UA. RU has no real air defense to speak of. Europe does.
Brits are very haughty...not Lewis, but ask any other European.
America is “loud and proud” because it has earned the right to be. It’s economy is what makes it the powerhouse that it is and allows it to have the massive military it does. No other comes close. The UK was the powerhouse for a couple centuries and during that time frame they were also quite the “boastful, loud and proud” country as well. I mean their imperialist ways literally had them controlling a quarter of the world at one point. You anglophiles always love to throw the US under the bus when the UK has shit tonnes of skeletons in its closet as well. Don’t single out the US just because it’s the big guy on the block right now.
It's funny how much Lewis and other Brits put themselves down when they are one of the most scrappiest nation to have existed. Examples, the Vikings, merged with them. The Spanish Armada, obliterated and created pirates as well as the infamous British Empire. The last free European country facing the Nazi alone, never waiver their faith in their country.
As someone who love learning history and culture beyond the US, it breaks me how much our Brits neglect to understand how inspiration their country is. It just makes me want to give them more love to help them understand they are more amazing than they recognize. Their country is the bedrock of the influence of the Enlightenment Age! We Americans are the first of one of the many the products of that period, but much of the concept comes specifically from the British and a few other European countries.
Anyways, I'm always amazed looking back at their history, especially when they defied Hitler when they had the choice to give in and ally with him. Any culture would be honored to have a fraction of the integrity they had.
Politicians don't think about what's best for the world, or even their country
President has 15mins to respond....
Biden cant even wake up in 15mins. Then they wouldnt be able to hear what he said. So screwed.
The silos are carefully chosen for high survivability conditions as well as giving them more time before a enemy hits them.
The middle is further for enemy missiles to reach.
We keep the missles inland to help prevent water damage to the silos/missles as well as give a buffer between a strike because they have to get past all other missle defense systems first
My oldest nephew serves aboard the USS Maryland. He isn't reinlisting.
He might not be able to leave. It's happened before and it can happen again.
@@m2hmghb he recently got married, wants to start a family with kids. I hope the Navy doesn't screw him over on getting discharged.
@@shawnsparkman7916 Stop loss is a real thing. They used it on a couple buddies of mine during GWOT. He'd also be part of the IRR for 2 years if he's on his first hitch.
My daughter is on the USS Nimitz
Being raised in the 70s and 80s in the height of the cold war, for some reason, it's not as scary now. Don't get me wrong, it's scary AF, but I think the difference is technology and the fact that in the 80s, the movie The Day After came out and scared the shit out of everybody. Some even think that the movie played a part in cooling down the attitudes of the nations.
having them in the middle is a defensive position and nothing is there... so if someone attacks the silos, they are away from population centers.
this.
we all know if a war like this happened we wouldnt know till we got hit the could careless about populated areas its for this reason
I always think it's hilarious when people react to how powerful the United States is. Because you know we have way more than just what we tell you. I heard a story once about a man who was at a military function and overheard an unnamed (for obvious reasons) US military General say something along the lines of "if we've shown it to the world it's already obsolete". Now I don't know how accurate that really is but you better believe with how much money we spend on our military, it's probably not very far off from the truth.
Back in the early 60's we had Titan 1 Intercontinental ballistic missiles in our hometown. My mother would tell us that she could look out our back window and see the missiles at our municipal airport a mile and a half away. Our property backs up against the mandatory flight path crash zone where no housing developments are allowed in order to give air craft a place to ditch with fewer fatalities. It gave us a perfect and unobstructed view of the airport facility. The missiles were ultimately removed out of our Northern CA town a few years later, but the missile silos where they were housed still remain to this day!
I live in southern Arizona where until the late 80's we had a Titan 2 Missile silo. It has become a museum since it's decommission in 87. As a teen in the early 90's I remember going there for a school field trip. It was .... interesting. Lol.
Ohio class boats are essentially the rolls Royce of silent traveling. Whales have collided with them because they can't hear the submarine.
The old joke was you find an ohio by looking for where the water is too quiet. Of course the nickname they got is amusing in a dark way "chicken of the sea"
@@m2hmghbI need context why is chicken of the sea a dark nickname?
@@SteveIsNumbToThisWorld Basically the boomer is the most important submarine out there - in some ways more important a vessel then an aircraft carrier. To the point an attack submarine may sacrifice themselves to keep it alive. It happened during the cold war where attack subs would intentionally screw with other attack subs to scrape them off the boomers. If it had been a hot war they would have taken hits for it. They're also on their own once they get to a patrol area.
@@SteveIsNumbToThisWorldi also need context. Im going to youtube search for chicken of the sea and hope to find a fat electrician video on it
No, they are not. Get your head out of the 1980s.
The quietest submarines are those running on battery power - either diesel-electric or AIP boats. Submarine technology has progressed significantly since the Ohio-class was designed, and there is no reason to believe that they are better or quieter than the new Columbia-class boats.
To answer your question, "why in the middle?".... 1. the rocky mountains along the western coast serve as a shield for low flying missiles that would target these silos. 2. having them on the coast would leave them vulnerable to surprise attacks and we'd have less time to defend them with our own air defenses. 3. Any attack on them would have to go through multiple waves of air defenses and thousands of miles of harsh terrain (massive mountains and massive deserts) 4. Those places where the silos are have very little population near them, which makes citizens safer in the case of a nuclear attack coincidentally. 5. It is easier to move maintenance parts to them since they are in the middle.
They're in the middle because the shortest route to their targets in the former Soviet Union is north over the pole; and it would be harder for anybody to get to them and mess with them in the middle of the plains where you can see for 30 miles in every direction.
As a child of the 80s, I remember watching the movie The Day After, now that movie scared me a kid, beacuse were very living in the Cold War era. This also why we don't want crazy people having keys to nuclear weapons.
Also you have think that if something were to happened like this, you can survive the blast but then you have to deal with the fall out afterwards, and sometime that much worse then the bomb being dropped.
4:05
keeping the missiles in the center of the U.S. makes them harder to attack from coastal ships. also, they are in the middle of nowhere and there is nearly flat land around them, with almost no large land masses or forests, so ANY threat from saboteurs can be detected from VERY far away across the land, and dealt with quickly and totally...
Pet peeve - saying with word Nuclear as “new-kyu-lar” with 3 syllables instead of the proper two syllables, “New-Clear.”
Coming from way eaten Montana, almost to the ND border. I cringed whenever the original video guy mispronounced Minot, ND. It's pronounced mine:ought.
The silos would be targets, they are out in the middle of nowhere away from the highest populations.
Lewis, you're thinking of nuclear bombs like regular explosive bombs. They are not at all the same. Regular bombs use chemical explosives to make a big bank. Nukes are very technical and take advantage of advanced physics to cause atoms to release enormous amounts of energy. You can put a nuke in a suitcase that could take out a small city. So, anything you do to a nuke , like setting off a bomb next to it, beating with a hammer, etc., will not detonate it. It will probably disable the bomb although if you blow it up hard enough you might have to deal with the radioactive material inside contaminating the surrounding area.
Brother I'm from NYC and I'm telling you that America has the UK's back 100% your our biggest alliance in the world! Someone fucks with you guys they fuck with Us! We got your back Brother!
Like 2 siblings.
We bicker... we fight...
Nobody gonna mess with one or the other without catching both.
He doubts the UK’s strength in such a situation. However, there was a reason why we saw such a large scale attack on the Uk and that reason is because they’re an extremely formidable force, despite Lewis being surprised by it. Just their SF alone is top notch and one of the best, if not the best. Their naval fleet is impressive as well and they’ve basically always been that way. The British naval fleet has been scary for a very long time, even as far back as when they were still fighting with swords and cannons lol. Things have somewhat changed in style but they still remain a force to be reckoned with and our greatest ally.
@@ThatSoonerGuy the few British soldiers I did training ops with were all class act dudes. They were well disciplined, strong, and worked exceptionally well with any group they got put with. They definitely wouldn't cower as shit went down.
They are in the middle for multiple reasons one being harder for enemies to take out.
I love how the guy who made the original video can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly. It just gives you so much more confidence in the rest of what he says.
It's new--clear, not new-Q-lar.
Doh!
Our missiles that are located in the middle of the US like Colorado for example are because those bases are in the mountains which is strategically located for defensive
Those silos are in the middle of America because they're the least populated. If we're targeted then those silos would be targeted first.
Since their first targets will be inland we'll be able to better defend from the first strike and give us more time to get ready to protect the more populated areas.
It's also harder to task an infiltration group on. Distance is time, time is difficulty. Less options to attack as well.
The humble farmer: 👁️👄👁️
I live in Nebraska 15 minutes away from Straatcom which is a major target for any nuclear strike against the US, I'd be gone in the first strike. Unfortunately the entire planet would fry because once one is launched every nuke on the planet would follow.
Yup. That's what makes nukes a net null in strategic planning. Aside from shutting down the full elimination of any nuclear power from the world stage. Because at some point, a desperate nation is going to open that box, and then everyone else will. Worse, knowing who fired what at who is extremely difficult relative to how important knowing is. If your the UK for example, and see launches starting, how do you know they're not targeted at you? That first leg of launch trajectory looks near identical no matter the target. So in the event anyone fires ICMBs, everyone is likely to start firing their own for fear of not getting the chance.
Everyone should have Potassium Iodide tablets, they are shelf stable for decades, and cheap. I've got enough for me and my family for months, and it was cheap. Also have shelf stable food for months for my family, as well as water purifiers. Everyone can do this on the cheap, as well as make arrangements to live in a shelter or cave for a few days or a couple weeks. Tornado shelters, anything to give space away from fallout. There are a lot of options available: storm drains, the pit in oil change buildings, etc.. A nuclear war is very survivable it just takes some planning.
Thanks for the reminder. I have potassium tablets for myself, as well as stored dried she canned food, but I need to order some more for my family.
In the middle so they're harder to reach and yes, you are right, they are located in very sparsely populated areas.
4:11
"Why Are These Missile Silos In The Middle of America?, Wouldn't It Make More Sense To Have Closer To The Coasts, So They Wouldn't Have To Travel As Far?"
It would make it more practical for the missile Silos to m be closer to the coast, reducing the total distance of travel to the intended targets, but it'd also simultaneously make those Silos More vulnerable to an attack
7:02
it's almost impossible for one missile to hit another one. it's like shooting a bullet out of the air with another bullet from a mile away...
Additionally, the U.S. HIGHLY tracks ANYTHING from nearly EVERY country on Earth and ANYTHING that would go into the air is quickly identified. even the HINT of a nuclear missile being shot towards the U.S. would create an immediate response and an immediate launch of a return strike. and since it's unlikely that an enemy would ONLY use one missile to attack the U.S., the ENTIRE arsenal of nuclear missiles would be launched as a return strike, as it would be assumed that a first strike on the U.S. would be enough to kill the entire population, so the return strike FROM the U.S. would be a retaliatory strike to kill off whatever country attacked us first.
So the assumption is that IF the U.S. were to be attacked by a nuclear strike, there wouldn't be anyone left to be able to do anything after the strike hits, so we would immediately strike back before their missiles hit us. BUT there is a HIGHLY secure system in place to insure that a false strike doesn't set off our own strike and because of this, the missile silo soldiers are highly trained and psychologically conditioned for this possible event. and they will only 'push the button' if they can confirm through this secure system that they orders to strike are genuine...
we literally have the patriot missile which does do that. wee seen idf using theirs very successful from Iran's attack.. just the other day lol
Except "weather balloons" 😂
The truth is, no one trusts anti-missile interception against nuclear ordinance, because if your wrong about how effective it is the consequences beggar comprehension.
How?! Really painfully. It sucks for us that the decision makers have bunkers. 😡
We have them in Europe to protect your ass, they are over there for NATO 😂
That only makes them a target also!!
They put all the missiles in the middle middle of no where as a tactic its called The Nuclear Sponge. The enemy has to decide do they want to attack the missiles location, population centers or other military bases.
I'm sorry to say but no if a nuclear missile gets hit by another missile it will not make the nuclear missile bigger or explosion bigger. It has to be at the critical state of just about to explode four that to happen
The silos are where they are for two reasons. They are easier to defend there and to draw fire away from major cities.
Our silos are in the mid-north for several good reasons. It buys us more time for decision making. They are also less populated. It also takes enemy missiles longer to get there.
Putting them on coastlines would be foolish..
Now you know why we don't have universal health care.
Whenever we talk fire power that America has I also remember what Japan said after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor which was they were afraid they had awoken a sleeping dragon.
What's with all the f'n s3x bots?
Love your channel butcha gotta chase down those bots mate. Bant them!
But as for the vid, the US doesn't want war especially nuke war. In spite of the world's view of the US being in wars, most of them weren't started by the US (Some, the US should never have been in but that's another story).
Also, RU doesn't have the workable nukes they claim. They are costly to build/upgrade and maintain. The US has some old 'shells' of nukes but the guts have been upgraded. They are accurate and well maintained. Just like Iran, 40% of what they sent to IL didn't launch. RU is on par with IR...old, unreliable, even not working.
BTW, the US also has a multi-faceted national missile defense system in case anyone tries to send missiles into the US They're stationed all over north America including Canada. Land, air, sea, space, cyber, etc. Nothing is impossible but it would be extremely difficult and would set off our 'response in kind' that can't be as well defended by any nation.
People overnight the Russian military by a huge margin yes they have numbers but here's the problem though this are not very well disciplined we know that for damn sure because why in the hell else they would commit suicide or abandoned their post consistently throughout the Ukrainian war and I hadn't even talked about the criminal soldiers yet and there are a lot of them that they let out of prison just to fight in that damn war and their nukes as he said forget about it they can't fire hardly much of any of them anyways since the Cold War
even the russians don't have strong confidence in their strategic nukes and related icbms working at all. that should say something.
The thing about the silo based one is we will know they have been targeted an hour or more before they are hit, and it takes only 5 minutes for them to be launched meaning the enemy just wastes their missiles on empty space at that point as the missiles will be launched before destroyed.
That freeze frame pic at the end of the video was just the 400 ICMB's, that didn't include the thousand or so individual MIRV warheads or air launched cruise missiles.
Also keep in mind these are only the weapons that are declassified and have been known about for the last 30 or more years. If you think the US isn't adjusting it's arsenal to counter new threats like China, Iran and North Korea, you haven't been paying attention. The F-35 just got approved to use internally carried nukes...and good luck finding the numbers on how many of *those* missiles exist
If you put the GLN-ICBMs on the coast, theyre also easier for the enemy to attack
7:00 The explosion would have to come from directly under the missile to have any small chance at pushing the core of the bomb into the shell (the core is pushed into the shell with explosive force to get enough radiation in one place for the radioactive materials to go supercritical (make nuke). Unless the threshold of supercriticality is passed a nuke won't go off, which is the reason the core and shell of the plutonium (and other radioactives) are separate to begin with.
It would make the area more radioactive though, not a bigger explosion just a more radioactive crater afterwards
You should watch the movie, "Dr Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."' It is a comedy made in the 1960s about a barely-avoided (sort of) WW3. It stars Peter Sellars playing three parts.
They would be easier to protect in the middle compared to the outside there's a lot more defense systems you got to get past including the stuff we already have on the outside
The U.K. has an arsenal at least one-third as big. I worked on three of those systems during my Army career.
ICBMs have essentially infinite range- they're basically shooting a missile into space and then having them come back down from orbit where you want them. It's therefore beneficial to have them spread out in low-population, hard to reach places like the mountain west, where there's not many people around to be harmed if enemies try and target them, and they're not at risk from enemy attacks trying to strike population or manufacturing centers. Having them on the coasts doesn't really provide a benefit, since the couple hundred miles of range is inconsequential, but any attacks aimed at the coasts have far greater casualty potential than rural Montana/Wyoming/Colorado.
They may avoid the coasts to prevent damage or interference from fault lines and hurricanes.
They are in lightly populated areas and are all seperate so it forces a enemy to waste their own nukes and minimal personel losses. They also dont explode like that, nukes use a nuclear fission chain reaction to detonate a simple explsion would destroy but not detonate
The reason there is the middle is because if something tried to shoot the sites we have time to shoot it down
They’re in the middle because these are locations that have more uninhabited environments more land whereas along the coasts there are heavy populated
We have a West Coast defense with missle silos in the hills.
Bro react to Militaries Ranked 2024 by The Inforgraphics Show! I wanna see your reaction to the UK's spot on the list.
Look up "broken arrows". It's the term for when a nuke is lost.
You definitely have to watch part 2 of that video
The United Kingdom being smaller has one major advantage: it's a whole lot easier to defend using anti-missile interceptors. Each implacement has a limited range/area it can defend, so the UK can more densely pack it's defenses.
At least, if it had any.
The missiles are in the plain for not many people live there. Also, we have defensive missiles on each of the coasts and Hawaii.
I live about 45 miles from Whiteman AFB in Missouri. Where I live if the winds are nice I probably survive even a full scale assault. If the winds come in from the North I'll be dead. Not much planning to be done.
On the coast silos would be more vulnerable than deep in the country. Additionally coast tends to be heavily populated so enemy could nuke people and silo with same missile. More people would also make security on the ground against saboteurw etx. more demanding.
Also, silos are on the top of target list, at least in counter force strikes. Having them as far from people scattered over large area targeting them spends most of enemy weapons as the video mentioned, while minimizing number of civilian deaths, at least immediate ones.
The silos in the middle of nowhere have sometimes been referred to "nuclear sponge" to suck up enemy nukes so they can't hit other forces, infrastructure or cities.
Don't tell that to the states where the silos are though.
You’ve got to think E=mc^2. It doesn’t take a whole lot of fissile material converted to energy to make a very big bang. The actual war heads are not that big. The W88 warhead is rumored to weigh 175-360 kg and are 5 ft long by 18 inch diameter. Also remember there are or were nuclear artillery shells for tactical use.
Nuclear warheads require a specific mechanical action for the actual chain reaction to work so blowing up a warhead with another missile wouldn't necessarily activate the warhead.
The silos are close to the center north area of the US because the shortest route for them to take would be for them to fly over the north pole towards Russia/Europe.
The distance doesn't mean crap. The missles are in the middle for strategic reasons.
You should watch a video of Mnt. Weather its the presidents and staffs bunker inside a mountain its kinda like its own City.
To answer your question about why they’re in the middle of the country.. they are literally in the middle of nowhere because if something happens and one of them goes off, they don’t want anybody near them so there’s like nothing around them for hundreds of miles because there is so much landmass in those areas that are just nothing But green grass and maybe some cornfields
The missiles can travel 6,000 mi in 30 minutes. Being closer to the coast would not make anything any easier for the missile, it would just be more vulnerable to other enemy attacks.
called the nuclear sponge ... low density low population ...hardened silos .. enemy had to dump a large portion of of their nuclear arsenal into the silos to ensure destruction or face retaliation
The distance over the pole is shorter than the distance going around the world.
I know it a bit late to commenting this since it’s from a while ago. But here in Arizona near Tucson we have the Titian mission museum it’s a real missile that’s been decommissioned and you could take a tour and everything.
Nukes work different than traditional bombs thats why the warhead is so much smaller
They are in other areas and states. I've seen the silos hidden or camouflaged
I live in Connecticut.....we have a sub base and "Electric Boat"....we would be taken out.
To detonate a nuclear charge you have to have a precise timed detonation of the compression charges which creates the nuclear reaction. Detonating a nuclear charge to take out another nuclear charge will most likely create a bit more radioactive debris than normal.
Probably in the middle because you can stop anything that would try to destroy them.