Sentinel is a $100 billion US nuclear missile. And 100 billion may not be enough.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- This video will explain what Sentinel ICBM is, how it compares to the old nuclear missile and it will put its costs into context. It will also dive into the strategic context of Sentinel in nuclear arsenals around the world. And show why failure to field the Sentinel is not really an option for the US.
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestini...
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
You can also browse for other Binkov merch, like T-Shirts, via the store at our website, binkov.com
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / @binkov
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
The Sentinel is too round, it needs to be pointy.
More… Aladeen. The Admiral General demands it
This might be copium on my part, but remember we're comparing stated capabilities with stated capabilities. As we've seen with Kinzhal and Patriot, Russian claims often fall short, while US systems are often understated.
Not a terrible point, though I still wouldn't want to bet my life on it.
The Aegis system - used in US Navy ships - is supposed to be even be even better than the Patriot. The THAAD is also being tested against ballistic missiles. I supposed in simulation. But I doubt the THAAD systems would cover the US and in any case they wouldn't necessarily be 'on' to defend against ICBMs.
They didn’t shoot down the kinzhal weapons though
@@ShizzleGaming14 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@ShizzleGaming14 ukies daily reported on 120% interception a rate. only kremlin bots can deny these numbers!
@@recoil53 what ?
14:21 Binkov: "The US Parliament"
Me: The what now?
The British overthrew the government on January 6 of 2021 and reverted America to being ruled by The Crown
" A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money"
"Remember, Binkov may talk about war, but only real peace can bring us together" hits different when the video was about ICBMs.
Boeing dropped out because of "unfavorable program requirements"... Well yea it had to fly 🤷
💀💀💀
As long as the new ICBM is designed following a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA), and meets range requirements, it would constitute a much grater step forward than an increase in payload capacity.
Nuclear annihilation seems more likely than me getting the first retirement paycheck
I’m just going to cope by saying they’re just elaborately hiding how insanely amazing this missile really is
US is losing human capital and work ethic. The guys who sent men to the moon and invented LGM30 aren't around anymore.
Willing to bet this program will be massively over-budget, bugged and be way behind schedule. Same will happen for AIM260 and FA-XX/NGAD .
that's an old russian wet dream
I smell Vodka on your breath comrade.
The work ethic thing is a weak gab and the human capital is absurd. Unlike certain country's invading their neighbors we haven't had any mass exoduses of our population in, well since Vietnam and even that was comparably small and they usually went up north to Canada benefiting our close and trusted friends so it's meh.
Nice try commie guy.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket Being too comfortable for too long is not conducive to scientific and technological progress. The Qing dynasty learned this the hard way near its end.
@@Bangy Sure, all of us can see, how chinese are good in production and technology - chips especially. And Russia is even "better".
@@giupetr968 Am not sure how that's in any way relevant to the discussion - seems like good old whataboutism. Regardless, it's no secret that the US is not the best when it comes to ICBMs and ballistic missiles in general. That's obviously not to discredit it, they are way ahead of China and Russia in most everything.
'The decision in 2005 to retire the missile named Peacekeeper seems like it's just asking for trouble, a bad omen if you will, either way it's an ironic and sad symbol.'
-Some history teacher in the post the 2020s era
As long as we don’t fill our fuel tanks with water, we should be okay…😂
Just keep believeing your own propaganda, you will be ok 🤣
@@Awaken2067833758it’s china everyone knows it’s gonna be cheap
Okay bot, thanks for the info. lol@@Awaken2067833758
Never should have scrapped the "Peacekeeper Missle".
Blud stil has the cringe pfp
@@dariurad- that is the symbol of a color revolution. if you support Ukraine as a westerner then that should be your symbol.
I still can't figure out why they did that!!!
At this point wouldn't it be better just to upgrade and redeploy the peacekeepers?
Old, decommissioned weapon systems pretty much never get reactivated or brought back because the industry that produced them moved on. Blue prints get lost, discarded or deleted, sometimes even just to make room on a server hard drive, engineers retire or take other jobs, companies and the rights and licenses they hold get bought up or go bankrupt, production lines get repurposed, tool sets get thrown away....
Reactivating a old weapon system would usually be the same as developing a whole new one, in expense, effort and time investment.
The Big Guy needs his 10%.
I miss the peacekeeper😞
The central question not answered is, why don't they use the already developed and obviously more capable peacekeeper tech?
Tax payers Money laundry , Lockheed Martin, Raytheon & Boeing owners need more Profit for their needs !
I'm going to be honest my opinion this is a piece of s*** we need to make a real mother ICBM
100 billion dollars just doesn't buy what it used to. That's more than we spent on nuclear missiles for all of the 1960s ,70s and part of the 80's.
They just kept printing money.
Which caused massive inflation.
Which means they have to just keep printing money.
@@robgrey6183 Sounds *hyper* realistic & rational to me. I'm sure this won't end poorly.
The fact we make this shit is insane
With all these problems you got to wonder how the heck China and Russia is maintaining similar or better missiles. Or are they?
Russia notoriously lies about their capabilities.
There is one thing that certain. The communists always lie about their weapon systems capabilities. While the US lies about their weapons existing or downplays their capabilities.
They aren't
They literally just had to bring back the Peacekeeper instead of trying to waste money building a Super Minuteman.
It's strange... We seem to be a species that's Hell Bent on self annihilation... Well... Some of us anyway...
It's resources. Its all about power and resources. War is a byproduct of this power and resource grab. Those in power will have access to resources, having access to "more" resources provides a better quality of life. Nukes are the ultimate deterrent to direct confrontation and a loss of power and resources. Those with the most powerful military arsenal have the most power and thus the most resources.
Because mankind was disobedient from the begining, and will be untill the end of this age:
Please type:
King James Bible Online,
Matthew 24: 4, 6, 7 and
especially 8.
v 21 and 22.
He shall reign on the earth for ever and ever. His name/reputation shall be Wonderful Counselor, Prince of Peace. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. The wolf shall dwell with the lamb. The lion shall eat straw as the ox. Little children shall yet play in the streets of Jerusalem.
The fatling and the young lion together, and a little child shall lead them.
Neither shall they hurt nor destroy in all His Holy Mountain.
Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end. HalleluYah, Savior Yeshua is the Son of Yehovah!
Exodus 20 including v 10.
I think the Sentinel actually makes a good deal of sense when you consider overall American nuclear strategy, where the ICBMs’ main purpose during an actual nuclear exchange is to force enemy forces to deploy at least 1 warhead per Sentinel silo in order to destroy them, hence drawing more than 400 warheads from an enemy’s finite stock of launch-able warheads away from other targets to a relatively sparsely populated region of the country. With this being their main purpose in a major nuclear exchange, it makes sense for them to be able to be rapidly launched with very high acceleration to escape the blast zone, hence meaning the enemy wasted the warhead or warheads targeting its silo, and for them to carry a relatively small number of warheads so that the ones that fail to be launched in time and are destroyed don’t represent a large part of the American nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, with the capabilities of the Trident D5 and the extreme difficulty of finding American boomers, the Tridents make sense as the primary retaliatory leg of the triad, meaning that the need isn’t there for the Sentinel to carry a large number of MIRVs, particularly when you consider that if the US were to need to rapidly carry out a limited nuclear strike on a nation, take Iran for example, it would make more sense to use a land-based ICBM with relatively few warheads but enhanced penetration aids to ensure that all warheads used reached their targets for the strike as in order to avoid a full scale nuclear exchange the US would presumably warn Russia and the PRC we were going to launch, and by using a land based missile we could pre warn them which one would be launched without giving away any valuable information like the location of a boomer, which would obviously be given away if it had to launch a Trident
Why did you say boomer? that word is incorrect.
@@TCKRDefense Lowkey good pun, but also good point in a way, just in case someone who doesn’t know English slang reads this comment and reply section I’ll specify that the definition of “boomer” I’m using here is a SSBN, a nuclear powered submarine that carries and launches nuclear warhead armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (edited for spelling)
@@johnberetta7141 you're right i just looked it up and i was wrong ughh you're so right. boomer for SSBN.
ICBMs in US nuclear weapons strategy, have the so called "sponge" role, meaning they are there mostly to attract and force our enemies to spend a large portion of their nuclear arsenal for destroying our ICBMs.. That means many hundreds of nuclear warheads from China/Russia would have to fall in the fields of North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.. And strategy wise, this would mean that our homeland was attacked with nuclear weapons which would result in a massive nuclear retaliation. This retaliation would probably be much smaller, if nuclear at all, if any of the other 2 legs of the nuclear triad were attacked.. Destroying the Ramstein Air Base in Germany filled with F-15s and F-35s armed with nuclear weapons or sinking an Ohio class SSBN, wouldn't be the same as sending nuclear warheads on the American soil....
That being said I really don't know where is Binkov getting his information or how is he coming to a conclusion that the Sentinel will be a mediocre ICBM.. Sure, it won't carry 10-12 warheads but we have no idea what technologies will be used for the in development ICBM.. For example there's a great chance that the warheads will be MARVs, meaning maneuvering reentry vehicles. These warheads would me much harder to take out.. Also we don't know jack sh** about the penetrating aides that would accompany warheads... Basically everything except the price and the general size and profile of the missiles is classified and we can't conjure up conclusions like "Sentinel is nothing special" from the lack of information..
Last but not least, Pentagon has rightly decided that the cutting edge technology and money for it, regarding the nuclear triad, will be funneled towards the B-21 Raider strategic nuclear bomber, Columbia class SSBNs and the new in development nuclear tipped cruise missile AGM-181 LRSO.
B-21 is the as far cutting edge as cutting edge goes, as are the technologies incorporated into the COlumbia SSBN, with the latest information saying the next subs will use the mythic magneto hydrodynamic drive....
Minor correction. The US Congress... Not Parliament. We in the USA do not have a parliamentary system.
I was just going to say that lol
Potato, potato its the same thing just a different name. Ohh no you dont say university like normal people, you say ,,collage"
@Silver_Prussian. In the US, Universities are schools which have Colleges of Law or Medicine as part of their institution (or at least, that's my understanding).
@@Silver_Prussian what is normal? I am ready to buy your normal, but work it. Orderly, my little prussian friend?
@@victors4333 ahh finaly an american who seeks knowledge from a cultured european like myself instead of being all pissy and missing the oppurtunity to learn.
You know how you use wrong words and do things the wrong way ? Yeah thats why it aint normal.
They are pointy. Very Aladeen. 👍
"Not dragged around as much" is a serious understatement. I hear about that here pretty much the first time. Maybe vagueley haered the type number but had no idea. Jeez, thanks I guess.
I totally agree with the comment below "GOOD ENOUGH "IS pretty much good enough when it comes to ICBMs .Once mutual assured destruction is aoconplished, it becomes like 2 guys standing in a swimming poool full of gasoline and arguing over who has the most amout of matches!!!
You can bet your bottom dollar that there will come a day when technology balance shifts in favor of one country. Good enough will not be good enough
One billion going into the missile and the ninety billion will go into the pockets of the few!
The Sentenal program is primarily designed to make a modular universal nuclear weapn delivery platform. The primary benifits are that it can use variable yeild warheads and has an improvement in range and accuracy. It can carry 1, 3 or 5 warheads which could be standard delivery or glide steerable devices. Also has advanced countermeasures systems at the flight and terminal stages.
If it doesn't have 20 marv warheads bus on the ICBM we need something like a peacekeeper capable of fractional orbital bombardment also capable of having multiple hypersonic glider within the one to 10 megatons fourth generation t
"US parliament" got me pretty good
'Parliament' is close enough for US govt work. ;-)
Considering the F-35 program is costing over a trillion dollars $100 billion isn't all that bad
Yeah but US is not alone with the f35 program
That's the cost of the F35 program over the next 60 YEARS including inflation, maintenance, upgrades, spare parts, etc. Stop quoting the same dumb talking point that the F35 costs "a trillion dollars." Inagine quoting the "cost" of buying a new home by including the addition of every tax bill, every new roof, all of the maintenance, utilities, landscaping, plus depreciation over the next 60 years. It's absurd, and shows you have no idea what that number means
Russia has less silos and requires more MIRV. Kaliningrad missiles are almost pointless, but Russia is too stupid to see this. Finland, Lithuania and Poland have enough air defenses to shoot down every missile in boost stage multiple times over. That destroys about 400 of
Russian nuclear warheads from 50 Missile estimated to be there. Russian only has about 300 missile silos that account for 1200 of their nuclear warheads. Finland and Ukraine both sit within range to take out 90% of those silos in boost phase. Almost completely kicking a complete leg of their nuclear Triad.
Girth is important. Uhhh, I'm talking about ICBM's.....
I suppose physics hasn't changed that much in the 50 years. Then again, maybe the new program does have additional capabilities which are not being published. The goal, after all, is to not tip your hand to the enemy.
Au contraire. The goal of deterrence IS to tip your hand. It is exactly like having the best cards in the game, and showing them to your enemy. The enemy will either have to bluff, or fold. That is the purpose of advertising and demonstrating nuclear capability
The Minuteman 3 missiles had their intended lifespans passed decades ago. They have had to go through multiple life extension programs that are now getting more and more expensive because there’s only so much you can do to repair and maintain a half century old missile that was only supposed to be around for 30 years. The only real difference in ICBM technology and effectiveness is the warheads themselves. Whether they can maneuver in flight, deploy counter measures, or are just extremely accurate. The missile itself is largely unimportant. Their sole purpose is to launch a certain mass a certain distance.
Land based ICBMs don’t need to be great. Their mission is to act as a missile sponge, forcing adversaries contemplating a first strike to expend a high number of warheads destroying them. This increases the number of warheads an adversary would need to attempt a successful first strike….driving the cost to field and maintain such a capability toward unaffordability. Said another way, land based ICBMs are designed to encourage potential adversaries to forego first strike in favor of treating their own arsenals as a defensive credible deterrent. And before someone talks about Russia’s “huge” warhead count, consider whether they actually have the resources to pay their enormous maintenance costs. My bet is that their actual deployable warheads are far below their headline warhead count.
每一个陆基发射井可以消耗对手至少3枚核弹头，但是中国俄罗斯还有大量陆上移动的发射核载具，而美国的发射井非常老旧过时
美国依赖战略核潜艇的洲际弹道导弹是无法准确击中俄罗斯陆上发射井目标的
they really dont need to be accurate when they launch 12 nukes per trident missle. Making the subs apex predators, just the aresenal our subs carry would be enough.@@哈哈哈-d8b
The Sentinel can kill hard targets that is what is important
What's insane is the investment inba deterrent thst has but one end. There are no benefits. It's use garauntees minimal survival. It's cost garautees a one return on investment for the public if used. It is indeed MAD.
The joke is that we the United States will enjoy both the spectacle of launch, and feel the fallout of the investment.
lol the us will spend 100b on a missile but only give NASA 20b a year and expect them to do a moon landing with it by 2025 🤣🤣🤣
The US spends 100b on a missile its stated policy objective is NEVER TO USE. And the public is only too happy to shovel money on the project, NASA gets 20b to put a man on the moon, goes a bit over budget and takes a bit longer but gets the job done. Jerk critics in the public demand to know why we "waste money on space."
That's not really comparable. The 100b figure is for the programme as a whole, the development, testing and procurement is just one part. Importantly the refitting of the silos and their associated technology, as well as the upkeep and maintenance for around 400 missiles and even more silos is also included in that pricetag.
The Artemis program is said to cost 93 billion by 2025, a fairly comparable sum. By then it is however far from certain that even one manned moon landing has taken place. The cost for that program is thus likely to rise again.
But as I said, these two programs are not really comparable and have vastly different goals.
@@Tealice1 they still shouldn’t spend that much on missies and instead put that money towards productive things
@@averiWonBTW I would also like to see money being spent on something else but weapons. Unfortunately the world we live in is and forever has been, a dangerous one. While the USA is certainly a flawed country, it is also the world's most powerful democracy and generally speaking a force for good (with numerous exceptions). To defend itself and by extension the rest of the free world, the need for a capable military is sadly unavoidable. One elemental pillar of this defence apparatus is the system of nuclear deterrence. If this pillar is not maintained and viewed as an existential threat to any foe daring enough to attack, the whole system of defence becomes very unstable and unreliable. With the old Minuteman missiles desperately needing replacement soon, an effort to maintain this capability is elemental, for the cost of its failure may be too high to bear.
@@Tealice1 No country is seriously considering a nuclear first strike.
Even if we were nuked and didn’t retaliate at all, the attacking nation wouldn’t gain anything expect being shunned from the international community for killing millions of people. You wouldn’t be able to extract war reparations or exploit resources from a defeated America if it was turned into a radioactive wasteland. Not to mention that even in a world without nukes, no nation has the logistical capability to launch an invasion of the continental US. I seriously doubt that a leader of a nation will be willing to risk a nuclear war just because they perceive themselves to have a slight edge in ICBMs. And if they were stupid enough to try anyway, then I don’t think upgrading a missile system is enough to deter them from their actions.
@10.45 china has 500 icbm warheads? They do not even have 500 warheads of any type
Wrong, they're in the middle of a massive strategic nuclear build-up.
@@phasestar7787too bad the silos and fuel is filled with water.
@@phasestar7787not really, they arent increasing their numbers by that much. Fr+UK still outnumber them
@@tbnthompsonthey aren't filled with water, the vast majority of chinese icbm are solid rocket fuel, only a few liquid based fuel ballistic missiles. Using liquid fuel isn't a good idea for an icbm since it is vulnerable when preparing to launch it takes time. Most liquid fuels for rockets are cryogenic as well so just all around bad for that purpose. It's likely a bad translation, probably meant watered down, but what was watered down we cant know since again solid fuel.
@@gaypigeon5365 that’s not my point. The silos and everything are flooded with water.
Ive never understood the logic behind having 10,000 nukes. I understand they might get shot down, fail, whatever. But still, 10,000? Thats expensive as hell to maintain. Better to have 100 missiles that are each 100x stronger.
But then I see this, and their "new, more effective" missile costs over 1B. That was not the logic here guys!!
who has 10k missiles? smaller warheads are more cost effective as strong ones are so powerful most of energy goes into space
It's based on MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) doctraine, the 10k nukes are spread differently, from being gravity bombs to missiles that used on carriers and subs, not to mention the bunker busters too which are designed differently since most nukes use air burst technology for maximum damage above ground.
As for underground bunkers, you going to need a buster so it deters those in power from firing off nukes, you don't want your enemy to feel "Safe"
Theres about 10,000 total nukes in the world, I said that number mistakenly. My point is still the same though. @@hphp31416
At 13:15 that test was done in Promontory in Utah. I grew up watching the clouds from those tests billowing up over the western mountains during my lunch break while we played kickball.
Itd be hazy for a day or two after each test. Although back then it was usually NASA rockets being tested. I didnt ever consider they tested military stuff.
What’s another 100 billion when you’re 34 TRILLION in debt ……
Pretty much nothing when that $100b (actually $280b) is the total development, building, maintenance, and decommissioning cost over 50 years. That is $6b a year, or not even a single percent of the US military budget in any given year.
@@ImBigFloppa100 Billion is nothing for the US. The money printing machine in the basement of Whitehouse can print trillions of dollars. 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂🤣🤣
Save the money and just spend a couple thousand on teddy bear flowers and Lesbian dance
The Chinese will have to drain the water from the fuel tanks of their ICBMs first.
haha, you forgot the💩
Why not produce a modernized peacekeeper icbm?
If the Peacekeeper was so great, why was it abandoned?
Overall Cost to maintain a system that is new that delivers 10-12 nukes vs a system that is in place that delivers 1-3 nukes.
The Cold War ended unexpectedly.
The total number of warheads was limited by certain nuclear disarmament treaties. Thus the huge capabilities of the land based nuclear deterrent were not needed anymore. With a limited number of warheads but many missiles to go around, it is wise to spread them across the available ones. Putting 10+ warheads on a single missile, while efficient cost whise, carries a greater risk, were the missile to fail. But putting one or two warheads on such a large missile is very inefficient and costly. Thus the smaller, but available and reliable, missile was chosen, even if it was a bit older.
The republic has become weaker I fear, and we the people are ignorant to it.
Fix the lgbtq shit and most of the problems of your republic will ho away
@@ikramullah7370 Those animals are a cancer
@@ikramullah7370they might end up being our undoing, the abominations have made their way into parts of our military 😢
@@ikramullah7370 Being anti-woke sure hasn't made russia any stronger 🤣
And imagine, that in 80's Peacekeeper/MX was supposed to cost 50 bln and only 1/5th - 10 bln - was supposed to be a missle itself, rest was for crazy basing scheme. Giving up MX and Midgetman was by far WORST decision by US after X-33. 15:23 - acceptance for such gross neglignce is nothing short of amazing. Really, re-drawing and validating documentation once a decade shouldn't be such a problem.
MX was cool; Midgetman (and Dense Pack) were silly. X-33 was a dog, too.
The range of the minute man was greater than the diameter of the earth. Why does the sentinel need to have a greater range?
Getting your geometry mixed up, Diameter doesn’t mean anything in this context. CIRCUMFERENCE of the earth is ~25,000 miles, minuteman has range of ~8,000 miles. A range of ~12,500 miles would be halfway.
Land based ICBMs should be replaced by more ballistic missile subs.
why dont we just reuse the peacekeeper… its proven and very capable
defense contrax
Because contractors won’t make money.
Do land-based ICMs have more secure "launch/ no-launch" communication during a crisis?
My tax dollars wasted again.
This is one piece of the nuclear triad that needs to go back to the drawing board. I suppose it’s offset by the Trident 2 missile
I'm convinced the old icbms don't even work anymore
The US launches multiple Minuteman III's every year. They definitely work.
Nuclear missiles can’t be stopped by a rival nation, so why have a state of the art upgrade for land based missiles. Since 50% are submarine based, those are major deterrent since that is the most survivable leg of the triad.
Sounds like there is a company with a monopoly on crucial technology. The US should nationalize Northrop Grumman.
Communist
@@Jay-om8gr Actually, in the case of monopolies, nationalisation really isn't communist. "Well-regulated private monopoly" is essentially just pretending the state doesn't actually run it, and in Northrop Grumman's case, had it been nationalised circa time of the competition then perhaps it might be Boeing delivering the Ground-based Strategic Deterrant (currently known as LGM-35 Sentinel). I recall the US putting someone in charge of compliance, not that that worked out very well; but had Northrop Grumman been nationalised, then perhaps Boeing could portray it is the state being incompetent and/or corrupt, although there is the issue that a nationalised Northrop Grumman would have a serious soft power bonus in such a conflict. Still Boeing would have "US Government not honouring legal obligations" in its favour.
The free market is about competition and when you have a monopoly, you don't have competition so it really doesn't matter, nationalisation isn't reducing competition.
Also, I note that France is pretty good at exporting warships and that's considering the French state owns the shipbuilder that builds them.
I object, though what's a few middlemen between Fascists?
What's difference of who's got the better delivery system? When nukes fly, ITS OVER!
The big difference is that if it is shot down on approach, it will not detonate, it will simply fall.
@@FufuFufy-df8pknot a single country has close to enough interceptors to knock down all the warheads. The US has like 40 ground based interceptors. We have dozens more at sea on ships, but the ships have to be at a specific region of the ocean to even have a chance of landing the interception.
Russia doesn't have as many s500 interceptors as we have warheads.
You'd need 2-3* as many interceptors as your enemy has warheads. No one has anything close.
@@pierredelecto7069 We probably don’t have them, I’m talking about missiles that could shoot down US missiles, but in any case, the whole world will end in any case. It’s just that many Americans are 100% sure that bears live in nuclear mines in Russia, and nuclear submarines are fake, etc.
I feel like we're seeing symptoms of serious issues in engineering companies being run recklessly for short term stock price increases
minuteman: retires
us taxpayer: slaves until death
😂👍
@BlackFlag714
True because the USA does not tax the rich. The massive waste spent on defense that results in a budget deficit is financed through the sale of Treasury Bonds. Hence the poor pay taxes and the rich invest in interest paying T-bonds.
@14:23 "U.S. Parliament" ?!?
Your name is ironic to your comment
@@Retly_Ai How is it ironic?
Same thing basically😕 Both are fkd up😷
US has shown me that these large sums aren't usually going towards a single project.
MAD isn't going anywhere because the correct adjustment for MAD is proliferation. Everyone's prepared for a direct strike and retaliation no one's prepared for 50+ countries or groups with WMDs distributed. It's a matter of time but other entities will, greatly assisted by advances in technology, obtain what you least want them to have eventually. You can slow down proliferation but once it crosses a certain threshold it'll be fireworks every month that no military can shield from.
That’s a scary thought. Suppose some strongman type takes over a country like Iran or Pakistan and just launches nukes almost haphazardly. The US and allies even China should make a decision to end this if it gets too far.
This guy gets it. It should be at least be MIRV like peacekeeper.
Future ICBM must also have a duel rule
That including planetary defense
God forbid we get a viable healthcare system though
China makes you pay before you get care, unconscious with a gunshot wound... better hope someone has money and cares around you else you are kicked to the curb to die. This is your healthcare to ensure that never happens. We have, by far, one of the best and cheapest healthcare around but people just don't understand wtf they are talking about.
Us investing in the military or Ukraine isn't what's stopping us from getting what you view as viable healthcare system. You can blame ANY national focus for us not having the health care you want, but what's actually stopping us is the policies not getting through, not the idea that "It's just too expensive right now"
@@alexalford7874 "Investing in Ukraine" has to be the most idiotic logical fallacy I read today, we aren't getting a return that is a degenerate statement. Policies all tunnel back to monetary situations.
@@devinbutler3271 If you would think about anything beyond how to lace your sentences with pseudo intellectual garbage you’d see how investments don’t have to be direct material returns. The potential return is greater security in the region which means less former Soviet satellite states we interact with or countries like Finland worrying about being invaded by Russia, maintaining a foothold in the region, maintaining Ukraine as a trade partner, spending less money sending weapons/equipment we’re phasing out rather than spending more money on disposing of them, there’s plenty of things we could talk about. But go ahead and throw out charged language like “degenerate” and terms you learned recently like “logical fallacy” to make your universal healthcare tantrum sound more intelligent than it actually is.
@@devinbutler3271 If you spent more time around other people in the real world rather than thinking about how you can best lace your sentences with pseudo intellectual garbage you’d realize that the term “investment” is not a strictly financial term. I may invest TIME into a relationship for example, or your family my invest money into your future but the expectation is not for them to receive money back.
But, if we do want to talk about returns, we’re looking at things like more security in the region beyond just Ukraine which makes any of our friends in that area less vulnerable, we will have a stronger foothold there, we get valuable data on the performance of our military equipment and we spend less money sending the aging equipment out there then we do disposing if it, there’s plenty of angles we could look at this from but continue to have your little temper tantrum about how “current issue is definitely the reason I don’t have free healthcare !”. I’m sure if we weren’t focused on Ukraine we’d totaaaaaally get something like universal healthcare on the docket immediately and passed through right ?
Opting for a mediocre missile design may be an attempt to keep pace with Russia and China without sparking another arms race. If the US fields the most advanced ICBM ever seen, Russia and China might be pressured to respond by closing the gap or even attempting to boat race the US in missile design.
While China might be a concern, Russia at this point just... isn't 😅
Why don’t they just re-engineering the peacekeeper if it’s better than our current model?? Bring it out retirement
Peacekeeper should have been the basis for the Sentinel rather than the Minuteman. It had the range and payload needed.
Decentralization and flexibility are the name of the game. We’d be better off with 15,000 cruise missiles and few hundred smaller ships and planes to deploy them.
yea, however, for deterrence you need ballistic
Wait, wait its only now going over a 100 billion? I am shocked the program as been so cheap so far. But something to remember nuclear weapons/ICBM's are not actually meant to be used so if you are forced to start lobbing them, doesn't really matter how hyper advanced they are? The whole point of the current system of land based ICBM's is a last resort desperation move to overwhelm any possible missile defense system with shear numbers and well Armageddon. With both massive amounts of ground and air burst attacks. Besides the US actual war plans are to use sub based nuclear missiles combined with stealth bomber (B-2/21) deliver classified stealth nuclear tipped cruise missiles. Along sub launched missiles it doesn't give an enemy much to respond before impacts start. While all land based ICBM's are easy to spot launching and take the longest of all types of nuclear attack to impact and are the easiest to intercept as they have to follow ballistic trajectory in their first/second stage (even if hyper sonic glide vehicles are used to carry warhead on its final approach). Since US doctrine that if nuclear exchange is unavoidable, then it should try to win. By targeting leaders of enemy nations who fired their nukes and try to destroy all enemy launchers before they can fire.
Russia lacks stealth bombers/cruise missiles and its boomer (boomer means subs out fitted to launch sub launched medium/short range ICBM's) is no where near the Soviet day's and isn't likely to return to that any time soon. China so far doesn't have a stealth bomber or stealth cruise missiles either. Its boomer fleet is tiny even compared to Russia today and is still decades away from matching either Russians or US, let alone the old Soviet fleet.
Whoever Launches Firsts Wins
Stealth or Not it doesn't Matter as you Say
Launching 1000-5000+ Nukes in a span of Few Minutes can Wipe all US Bases and US mainland itself 20 times over
There's no Defense yet to Counter mass Atomic Bombings
@@zilalibayan6030noone would win a nuclear war
Sure, except Russia and China got that as well, the idea behind a nuclear Triad is if any one system is defeated by the enemy the other two guarantee a response. The consequences of nuclear war are too great to allow chance any say in the matter.
That's is definitely not all the silos 😂
imagine arguing that you want more of your money be spent on nukes
Why not build LGM-118 peacekeepers?!? Proven design that was doing Sarmat long before Sarmat 🙄
ICBM + nuclear warheads made in the 1970s are like Swiss watches and only ever need incremental upgrades. I am also sure there are more than 3 clusters of silos that we dont know about, which is fine, because we talk too much of things that need not be spoken of.
Nuclear warheads actually DON’T last forever.
$100 billion "here", $100 billion "there"... sooner or later it adds up to real money.
The US Parliament?
They will probably be going for long term sustainability so they don't have to so many life extension programs
Yes this. US has experience maintaining arsenals that China is just getting its feet wet in, comparatively. Hugely expensive.
YIKES!!!
"We have all these nuclear ICBM's, but nobody knows exactly how they work, because the people who made them are all dead." ROFL,LOL, LMAO
The real question is where these are going to be stationed.
Its mentioned in the video. They will be stationed in the silos where the Minuteman IIIs are deployed. It would a one for one missile swap assuming they are replacing the entire force.
That's not the real question, because they will be stationed in exactly the same missile silos that already exist
Jesus. How are we this bad at being serious with our security in the West?
Left out the new Missle will have failsafe and could be aborted after a launch. Minuteman cannot be destroyed / Aborted by the USA after launch.
i think the us with its massive logistics and cost issues have lost the war already.
well we can make every factory into a war industry just like ww2 giving people jobs but you know everyone wants to be a doctor and stuff not a factory worker
I think you are not very intelligent.
US defense industry is just a national welfare system but with way more corruption, wastage and dealing in war and death.
Lmao do you really think China doesn’t have any issue ? They just purged half of the generals of their rocket forces
it doesnt matter how good the tactics are you usually cant do anything when the enemy has 10 times everything from tanks to missiles. @@ni9274
This is about updating aging components and materials
F-35As are B-61 certified.
And there will be a lot of US and Allied F-35As.
Thanks for giving a video about other stuff then again and again about russian or ucrain topics.
I wish you would out line why more missiles could be needed if you are going to suggest that the current deterrent is inadequate. It’s hard for the average person to understand why over 170 nuclear missiles is not enough missiles. But I’m open to hearing.
Because the United States is responsible for creating the nuclear umbrella over not only ourselves, but the territory of our allies as well. That's a lot of ground to cover, and it is assumed that some missiles will either fail or be intercepted during an all out nuclear exchange
Seems I heard reliable and survivable being mentioned. If missles cannot survive delivery they are somewhat irrelevant?
@@inoculateinoculate9486 Maybe some of those "allies" could pay for some of this?
I mean, European taxpayers have affordable health care. American taxpayers have eleven super carrier battle groups.
I don't disagree. However, we want (and have wanted for 70 years) those allies to be dependent on the US for defence and nuclear deterrence, because it gives the US a massive point of leverage in any policy discussion regarding global security.
I asked the government what would it take to build a Minuteman silo-based solid-fueled multi-warhead intercontinental ballistic missile.
They replied "We can't, we don't know how to do it."
Has anyone mentioned that we don't refer to it as "Parliament" in the US but as Congress? Just wondering because I've heard it in a few videos now.
Pretty sure because they didn't wanna copy the brits so they had to make something up.
@@liamspencer4941 Probably, but who really knows. Either way it's weird to hear someone say "the US Parliament". lol
What I can figure out is the dudes who designed/deployed Minuteman 3 - most of them are already dead. And in most cases, they don`t have a clue how to maintain them. Because some schematics are simply...gone ?!
Now imagine what everybody else’s systems are like.
@@Art-is-craft hope so. I don`t wanna a real-life Fallout experience or Mad Max in less than 10 years. Or both combined. Killing each other for an expired, rusted pork can.Or hunting rats. In the northern hemisphere, 95% of the remaining survivors will die in a 3-month span. Especially from radiation, food shortage, water shortage, or lack of medicine. People killing each other for basic needs will do more damage than the nukes themselves. Plus most of these folks never slept under the clear sky in their entire life. I don`t know how most of them will gonna make it in such a harsh environment. If you own a gun - this doesn't make you a survivor - like most of the folks think.
Often times maintaining old tech is simply impossible because those weapons were made using 70s/80s hardware, and many of those core parts simply aren’t made anymore.
It’s not that we necessarily can’t, it’s just at a certain point it makes more sense to come up with a brand new design.
Often times maintaining old tech is simply impossible because those weapons were made using 70s/80s hardware, and many of those core parts simply aren’t made anymore.
It’s not that we necessarily can’t, it’s just at a certain point it makes more sense to come up with a brand new design.
Often times maintaining old tech is simply impossible because those weapons were made using 70s/80s hardware, and many of those core parts simply aren’t made anymore.
It’s not that we necessarily can’t, it’s just at a certain point it makes more sense to come up with a brand new design.
More reentry vehicles is important. I expect countermeasures to improve over time especially during boost and midcourse. You'd want every missile that gets through to count.
How do the Sentinel rockets compare to the water fuelled Chinese rockets?
Lol
Just wait until space x releases its reusable icm
Already obsolete. Satellite mounted lazers have been around.
spacex has no experience with solid rocket motors and also a reusable missile kind of misses the point of a missile
@@clementine_awesomeness An ICBM could absolutely have a reusable first stage. It's just not really worth it for something that would only have to be used once. Since, you know, it would be the end of the world.
They could do that for the primary boost stage. Not so sure it would be able to be reloaded in time though 😂
Nothing will ever be enough for the MIC ...
Even when New York is a smoldering radioactive ruin they'll still be asking for more funds.
Money is never a issue for the US government. Resources is the only limitations hindering it's military industrial complex, (only materials or man power , and possibly technological stagnation can limit the USA)
Why not bring back the Peacekeeper?
I like Binkov; but this time I believe that he has hooked a "Red Herring" .
Smells to me like this missile program is just part of the US Military's " budgetary shell game".
America; FOOK YEAH!
The US doesn't have a Parliament.
You do to. It's just domestically called something else. Many countries use a unique word for parliament, but it's the same thing.
@@SmartassX1 there is also differences as to how it's set up and how people get on and the powers they have.
@@SmartassX1 No, we don't have a parliamentary system.
In a parliamentary system, democratic form of government in which the party or a coalition of parties with the greatest representation in the parliament forms the government, its leader becoming prime minister or chancellor. The USA has a type of legislature, we call congress.
@@SilverStarHeggisist Yes, that always differs in every country. The "parliament" is the default universal word for "the legislative body of government", which gains its mandate and its members from the people by an election. In the u.s., it's called "congress".
@@SmartassX1 the entire British parliament in the UK isn't from elections of the people
need a video of french M51.3 and future versions please.
Leaving domestic politics out of it, does anyone really think the USA and the Soviet Union would NOT have gone to war with each other during the cold war if nukes had not existed? Nukes put a hard limit on military adventurism since nobody has a clue how to win a nuclear exchange. Now that Russia is facing national oblivion due to demographics, we must have a credible nuclear deterrence to have any hope of keeping Russia from using their nukes to get what they want. That means replacing Minuteman missiles is just part of the price we are going to have to pay if we want to avoid nuclear war in the future. Whine all we want about the cost to do this, but the alternative would cost us everything.
this is just an upgrade for the land based icbms. the US main arsenal will always be the trident 2 submarine missiles that can hold up to 14 warheads, relax people. land based icbms are seen as vulnerable due to their stationary position anyways
陆基洲际弹道导弹实际上更可靠，陆基发射井和陆上机动的洲际弹道导弹打击精度和爆炸当量比核潜艇更强大
Intercontinental ballistic missiles carried by land-based launch silos are a primary strike force. They usually have more accurate strike accuracy and greater explosive yield. Intercontinental ballistic missiles carried by land-based mobile launch vehicles are a secondary strike force similar to strategic nuclear submarines. Land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles are similar to strategic nuclear submarines. Mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles are difficult to target and destroy, and the United States has not developed land-based mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles. Even the United States' land-based silo Minuteman 3 is a very outdated and old intercontinental ballistic missile.
To be precise, the land-based nuclear force of the United States carrying a nuclear warhead can only hit part of the three northeastern provinces of China, and cannot even hit Beijing. China will probably have more than 400 newly expanded land-based launch silos to fill all of them by 2025. Nuclear warheads are fully operational. China also has hundreds of land-mobile DF41, DF31AG, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. The United States only has strategic nuclear submarines that pose a threat. China also has 6 strategic nuclear submarines that can launch JL3 intercontinental ballistic missiles in the South China Sea.
@@pandaprince5349 true but they are an easy target to first strike. And the yield maybe higher but we’ve realized more “smaller” bombs can devastate a wider area than three bigger warheads. And by smaller i still mean city destroying
@@professorfinesser4322The nuclear warheads carried by strategic nuclear submarines cannot achieve precise strikes, and destroying an intercontinental ballistic missile silo requires about 3 nuclear warheads and is within 500 meters of the silo to be effective.