@Marcos Filho It doesn't work like that. dB is logarithmic.10 decibles is 10 times louder than 0 decibles, or 20 decibles is 10 times louder than 10 decibles.
@@stars227 true.....there are satellites that use energy weapons can destroy icbms....perhaps that same (or similar technology) idea can be used to try to hit stationary targets on earth's surface.
It’s REALLY rare when a video actually lays out all the options in a rational and complete manner. No sugarcoating or naïve optimism. This is the only video I’ve seen that has the guts to state the obvious: the reason we haven’t had a third world war is that no one (including leaders) would survive it - and every sane person knows it. Even small, regional conflicts can escalate, so, these conflicts are dangerous. It’s in everyone’s self interest that conflicts are resolved BEFORE they become wars.
@@Torus2112 No, extremophiles and smaller animals can easily survive the nuclear winter. Life survived an asteroid impact that will make the entire combined nuclear arsenal of the world looks like a spark.
@@mickeyg7219 Probably, except for some small bugs. My point was actually that earth itself wouldn't even notice it. It's the living creatures on earth that would go bye, bye!
Do you know that there is only one country that has developed and exploded a nuclear device and then gone on to scrap it's nuclear program? South Africa.
@Marcos Filho "Open up black hole". Do you even know how those things work? They aren't wormholes. Stop watching Star Trek ffs. "Simultaneously explode 5 nuclear bombs" What are you? Five years old? Do all nuclear weapons have the same yield? What does it take to open a black hole? 5 Little Boys or 5 Tsar Bombas? "sucking half the Earth in another dimension of space" More BS. Even if it did happen, it would not be "half the Earth" moron. Moreover, "Earth" would not survive the journey through a wormhole. Not that it matters anyway because wormholes are a hypothesis. None have been observed so far. Your entire comment is schoolboy level comprehension of a very serious situation.
In all likelyhood, this will never be a thing. If the enemy hits a nuclear missile bunker with conventional warheads, you get a conventional (if somewhat dirty) explosion. If he hits your antimatter missile bunker, the whole lot goes up instantly. If one missile loses power to containment, the whole lot goes up instantly. The yield is higher, but not insanely so; 1kg antimatter would almost equal the yield of the tsar bomba, but the containment equipment would weigh as much if not more, and a hard enough knock will cause the antimatter to collide with the containment walls, causing it to go up instantly. Nukes have all of the power of antimatter in a similar sized package, with inherent safety.
@G Guest yes but a nation like saddam's iraq would not have the industrial capacity to produce a superpower sized nuclear arsenal, north korea for example even though they are not a rogue state and their program is defensive has only managed to pump out about 20 bombs compared to the thousands the US has.
@@Gandalf17 When you know that you can start the end of the world, but the caveat is that you will also die... you tend not to want to start it. When you get over-confident and think you can survive and kill the other guy? Then you start making people nervous. That's why American "Star Wars" Anti-Ballistic Missile defense systems were such a dangerous game. Not only could we not make them work as well as we wanted them to, we had to try and make believe that we could and convince the Soviets that we could. While also giving them enough doubt not to go full paranoid and start doing crazy or stupid things that would cause "incidents" to happen. Thankfully the Soviets were already at a weak point and all we had to do was, basically, out-spend them. Turns out that, thankfully, the Soviets were communists. And communism, as we all (should) know, doesn't work.
I don't think anti missile systems can become 100% success rate. While anti missiles get new capabilities nuclear missiles also got new upgradations. It's a cat mouse game
@@gobimurugesan2411 Agreed you thinking does not work. Luckily we presented our ASD which proves to be 100% against any and all hypersonic weapons in the air, space and deep space. Rest is easy really.
i still think we should have 15-20K nuclear weapons but just like the seedbank, they are under the custodian of neutral countries because the threat of extraterrestrial intelligence is real and nukes are the most powerful weapon we'd have.
Great work on this video. I can only imagine how much time and energy it takes to put together a detailed and descriptive analysis such as this. Much appreciated!
Tsar Bomba is not the largest explosion, although it may be the largest "test". The United States had a nuclear accident which totalled nearly 500 Mt. It was so large that it delivered low levels of radiation to the west coast all the way from the pacific Island test sites.
I recall reading somewhere that the Tsar Bomba was actually built to be capable of yielding a 100 megaton blast, as that was what the Soviet leadership wanted. But the scientists developing it talked them down to 50 megatons. Telling them that a 100 megaton fireball would be taller than the Earth's atmosphere, and might fling chunks of the very air we breath out into space. Whether that last bit is actually true or not, the leadership agreed, and the scientists swapped out one of the Bomba's fusion stages with a fusion damper, cutting the final yield in half for the desired 50 megaton output, and accidentally also making the resulting detonation relatively clean, with nowhere near as much fallout as was expected.
I think another reason was that since it was only a test flight the poorly couldn’t attualy get the plane out of the kill zone but I doubt that if it was attual drop in a enemy target they would go for the 100 and not give a fuck about the pilot
@Marcos Filho On a macro scale, a three dimensional geometric array of nuclear devices built as one bomb could theoretically make what you're after. After measuring for whether said device shall be detonated with or without atmosphere conditions(on Earth or in space).
The nuclear bomb to defeat the incoming nukes was actually a neutron bomb, designed to irradiate the incoming nukes core with neutrons, making it fissle
@@UmbraHand The Sprint and the Zeus were deployed for only few months, I can't say exactly for the rest of the Nike program but some missiles mainly conventional A2A like the Ajax and later ABM Hercules were deployed around pretty much all major cities from the mid 50s to mid 60s, but I get your point for the Zeus and the Sprint, they were technically deployed but not enough and not long enough to make any impact whatsoever to the US defense capability I was just taking the piss ^^
How to not get nuked: Have enough nukes to be able to cause severe damage to your enemy. It doesn't matter if you have 500 or 5000 missiles. 500 missiles are enough to cause extreme damage to your country. Enough to destroy major parts of the infrastructure, kill a lot of people or attack atomic reactors to increase the damage exponentially. Even if you have 50000 atomic bombs you wouldn't want a nuclear war with a country with even "only" 500 bomb. Having more bombs than your enemy won't help you. You wouldn't want a nuclear war nonetheless.
@@CaptainChromUse 500 warheads on your enemy. Wait a few weeks for the fallout and freezing temps to slowly kill your people at their job and in their homes. There is no reason to strike back. 500 nukes is worldwide destruction. For you budding young dictators on a budget, you could cause world-wide havoc with a 90% death with 100 well placed Nukes. Think about the poles and what all that ice is going to look like radioactive and thawed. I bet you could melt it all, and yet still have 50 or so left to hit the world's desert areas. Pay special attention to the central Saudi Desert. It's sand is exceptionally fine and dusty, they have to import sand for construction purposes. Cluster a few together in that desert, spread the rest around the other deserts, you will have an ash cloud that will pretty much block out the sun for 10 years. The last people to die from radiation will be followed by the first of the ones to die of starvation. When countries beat their chests and say, "look at me, I have nuclear weapons". They are really saying, "look at me, I'm an asshole".
MAD: A TL;DR by me: “If you launch one nuke at us, we’re going to launch out entire arsenal at you to not only intentionally destroy your country, but to also ensure that you will never be capable of hurting us or anyone else ever again. Capiche?”
Fortunately, it doesn’t quite work like that. A small scale launch would typically be met with similar force. Granted, it depends on our tech to accurately see what is coming our way, but a few nukes launched by north korea or china would not mean the usa would throw everything it has. Then we would have nothing left for russia, who could take advantage of the situation. However, the russian dead hand system would most likely launch all their icbm’s if enough damage was sustained to their military infrastructure.
RTGs aren't actually that powerful. The one on the curiosity rover only generates abut 110 watts of electricity, and yet produces about 2000 watts of heat. Any RTG powerful enough to power a space based ABM laser would be obscenely hot and heavy.
Nuclear pumped x-ray lasers. Yes, using nuclear detonations to power lasers. Not cost effective, pretty insane, very difficult, very expensive... but we have done work into them and proved that they are possible and can work. And would be, if done correctly, insanely powerful.
tsar bomba wasn't a weapon....it barely fit on the aircraft carrying it. it was a demonstration of power, from the start. it was never meant to be seen as a real weapon.
Spend the money from defence on gifts to the people of opposing powers. People would have a hard time trying to hate a nation that kept donating funds for building, schools, and hospitals and life enrichment.
Love is the answer haha, yeah people would likely be against the war, but there's still obstacles, propaganda from warmongers and the reducing need for soldiers (people with moral) at the war fields.
@@farlandduck4463 Technically it is, while not exactly gifting one of the main things nuclear war gets into the way of is trade - which is exactly what causes things like building schools, hospitals and other entertainment options.
Thanks for another highly informative and entertaining video, CC! And thanks for working so hard to create an in-depth video about this particularly important (and highly relevant) topic. Most people cannot imagine the true horror and devastation a nuclear conflict would bring, but it's extremely important for everyone around the world to understand this topic deeply, so as to avoid nuclear weapons proliferation and also for people to support *sane* world leaders and oppose candidates who would even consider ordering a nuclear strike. This topic is so powerfully disturbing that most people choose to suppress any critical thought about it and instead avoid thinking about it, enjoying their bliss in ignorance. The more complacent humanity becomes regarding nuclear war, the more dangerous this world becomes and the closer we all are to the "clock" striking midnight. The global clock is slowly but surely continuing to tick closer to zero hour.
@@Mr71paul71 Stealth aircraft are difficult to detect, more difficult to track, and nearly impossible to target due to advanced radar jamming technology. Stealth does not make aircraft invisible, but lowers reflection greatly. This makes jamming much easier. Consider this: An anti-aircraft system sends out pulses containing megajoules of energy, but is looking for return pulses of nanojoules or smaller. When a jammer sends back a huge quantity of energy in a narrow beam into the radar receiver, the jamming signal is millions or even billions of times as great as the radar receiver is expecting. Imagine trying to track a firefly in front of a spotlight. The return signal is washed out. Stealth permits the use of lower power jammers.
Stealth bombers still make up a large portion of America's (and probably Russia's) nuclear defense program The other two parts are submarine launched missiles and the icbms in silos out in the wilderness
4:08 problem with multiple warheads and decoys in midcourse phase could be solved by changing hunting approach. Instead of direct hit method, small, tactical grade nuke warhead (10 kilotons or less) should be used, this warhead must be designed to generate as much as possible intense EMP and neutron radiation. EMP will fries warheads electronics, neutron radiation will be able to trigger fission reaction in warhead's U/Pu charges. Such reaction will be able at least cause mechanical damage to integrity of the incoming warheads, so many of them will disintegrate in the atmosphere during reentry.
The best solution is a 21st Century 'Drone Dome'. The problem with most deterrent/defensive assets, is absentee ratio. A global high altitude drone fleet, could significantly diminish a missile threat, with conventional AA type weapons, or a pre-launch ATG strike, when an imminent launch is detected.
51HankySpanky I concur, however this might not be a sustainable strategy for the long term, because super powers collapse and are born over the centuries and even decades. In the future we might need to readjust who should and could own nuclear capabilities to keep this balance going. One could easily imagine a future scenario where one of the current nuclear powers fragments into civil war or collapses socially and economically leading to the possibility of fringe elements will nothing to lose gaining access to nuclear arms. In fact it’s a miracle this has not happened during the collapse of the Soviet Union.
@@ares106 >Super powers collapse This is the reason MAD is a flawed concept. It's based on only 60 years of history, and a handful of capable nations. Expand either of those variables (Time or capable nations) + actual history of total warfare, and somebody will eventually launch a nuke in anger.
Grubby bum, indeed. Yet I can’t think of a better and more enforceable strategy to prevent a return to the cycle of world wars. MAD is a stop gap that needs to eventually be replaced but total disarmament is also a bad idea imo. Hopefully much smarter people than me will figure something out for the sake of humanity.
On the other hand, inability to have an all out conventional war stipulates advancement of hybrid warfare - mutual subversion and undermining - which frankly is becoming as destructive as WMD's are.
this is important to study because there is almost no chance that some jerkoffs who've watched too many movies aren't eventually gonna convince their selves that turning those keys is a "hard decision that most people wouldn't be able to make" and then doom us all in an attempt to impress their emotionally distant fathers
You are absolutely correct, it's extremely important for every person on Earth to study nuclear weapons and nuclear war, stay informed about local and international politics, and exercise any and all political influence they have in order to support politicians and other leaders who both fear, respect, and understand nuclear war in depth. Most people cannot comprehend just how insanely devastating even a small nuclear conflict would be, not only for targeted cities, but for every nation on Earth due to radioactive fallout and other large-scale, deadly aftereffects.
People made the same argument in the 1960s. We're still here. Then you have the disturbing fact that for god-knows-how-long the override code for all Permissive Action Links for American nuclear weapons was "00000000". Meaning any crazy idiot could punch that in and theoretically have access to ending the world. And this was known by the guys in control of the weapons. The people aren't the problem. The system can be, however. Which is why there should always be someone that has to decide whether or not to go along with a legitimate launch or to say, "No." and do so even if it means death. And many have succeeded in that role and made that all. Stanislav Petrov, for instance. But... When you start automating? When you start having "Dead Hands" (which the Soviets supposedly did/still do have and thankfully not even the Soviets were insane enough to automate it like in "Dr. Strangelove" and was kept semi-automatic if it even was operational) and whatnot? ...Then you might as well start counting down the inevitable.
None one will help us but ourselves. Large scale countries like Russia or China won't be the cause of a nuclear war if there ever is one. They care about their survival and know every one loses in a nuclear engagement. But in this age of religion and ignorance fueled nonsensical hate on each other, what will start the war is some dumb extremist country that tried to brainwash their country a little bit too much to the point where the common citizen (and common military guy as a result) firmly believe in the lies of religion to the point of no longer fearing death by nuclear fire (because some bloke told him big man in the sky says burning your neighborhood is the thing to do). MAD only really works when both sides know and fear the consequences of nuclear fire. But with a regular ideological warfare mostly everyone understand the nature of the arms race and that a nuclear assault is only ever a bluff. But with religions, while the top leadership are basically atheists politicians that use religion as a control tool, the deeper you go, the more people actually believe what they are told, leading to people being actively OK with killing themselves for some guy's word. That adds many more layers of human stupidity on the already extensive layer of things that can trigger nuclear war by accident.
The GBI's at Ft. Greely and Vandenburg AFB are mission designed to intercept before MIRV separation. MIRV separation IS the terminal phase for modern ICBM's. We cold never build enough interceptors to stop an all out nuclear attack, even to just hit boosters. Trying to hit MIRV warheads would be ludicrous for long range intercept. I liked your presentation anyway.
"Thus it's possible that the only way to stop nuclear war may is the inability to stop nuclear war"(i.e. incoming missiles) Thank you for that. Makes me think.
"ICBMs have become much more accurate so we can target specific targets with smaller warheads to reduce collateral damage." ...nuclear warheads, we are aiming to reduce colateral damage with nuclear warheads...riiiiiiight...
...You do know that nuclear weapons scale, right? We have nuclear weapons that can destroy most of a major city instantly or be only a few kilotons and maybe destroy a city block or two. Stop trying to give witty commentary to point out oxymorons when there is none. Yes, you can reduce collateral damage with nuclear warheads by having better targeting and Dial-A-Yield capabilities. Which many countries with advanced nuclear programs have.
@@matchesburn All this "destroy entire city" nuke thinking comes from Nagasaki and Hiroshima remains, right? This photo? Most cities that are counter-value targets in nuclear warfare are megacities and modern megacities are built out of RCC, not wood like in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Yes nukes have gotten much stronger, but not strong enough yet. Go play on nukemap to see how much of the city would be "destroyed" by a nuke. And don't use Tsar Bomba. That thing was the size of a bus and would not fit onto modern Ballistic Missile. Even Russian heavy ICBM don't have the throw weight required for Tsar Bombas.
Of course. How are you supposed to occupy conquered territory and render first aid to refugees/survivors if you've turned your target into a radioactive wasteland?
Best bet is a type of space cannon which can reuse excess heat produced as an energy store what could do more is a tracking system to keep it on course
I'm 66 years old, when I was a kid, age 6, we were aware and frightened of Russian Nuke attack. Duck and cover scared us. Today there seems to be no concern, that scares me more.
The only problem with M.A.D. and hypothesizing that if one nation had the capability to defend against another's nuclear strike, or if all nations had defense capabilities from other nuclear strikes, that conventional warfare would once again become the norm is that every nation is in a constant pissing contest with another. If we made nuclear weapons obsolete, we'd simply find another way to kill each other. In fact, it's one of the things that we're really good at doing for a variety of reasons. I don't think we'd see conventional warfare ever again as we're developing machines to do the fighting for us, working hard on A.I. and the like. War is nothing but another business opportunity for the world's elite... and war... war never changes.
Its rubbish !!! Ww4 will be fought by conventional weapons against sticks and stones uses by the nations that aren't able to rebuild quickly enough to defend themselves
That Poseidon torpedo looks very mean! It probably is one of the meanest things around. I wonder how it sends information back to base. Maybe its just laying in wait for the attack. You cannot send radio messages back underwater when you are deep. You can however receive very low frequency messages. Very interesting! Greetings, Jeff
Sometimes your curiosity reaches a point where you want to magically reach into the future to know when your impending doom is scheduled. Great video but also very depressing to see where human innovation has reached a point too greater than its ability to comprehend. There's an Arabic proverb of warning that goes " you are fattening/feeding a wolf that will eat you". This is that.
@MATHA NOSHTO-MAN I'm sure that dogs are the animal with one of the highest number of instances of injuring humans every year today. Also, Arabs don't think dogs are impure and proverbs usually are meant to convey a meaning in abstract and higher level thinking. What's meant here is that you think that you are feeding a loyal subject that will grow and not discriminate you from your enemies. In the nuclear context, humans think they are making these weapons to protect themselves against the "enemy" when in reality the weapons will wipe out the human race equally well regardless of who the "firer or aggressor" is. Thank you.
Rebuilding civilization from scratch wouldn't take very long. We'd be rebuilding the old and building the new at the same time. Eventually, the only time lost would be the actual fighting time and nothing more. 😁
We just fired a 100 petawatt laser in the lab and you can buy 2.3megawatt commercial lasers. I have been thinking for a few years that there is more going on than they are telling us cause this shouldn't be that hard anymore.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Shall we play a game?
the only winning move is not to play
Marcos Filho where’s you’re peer reviewed scholarly source?
@Marcos Filho It doesn't work like that. dB is logarithmic.10 decibles is 10 times louder than 0 decibles, or 20 decibles is 10 times louder than 10 decibles.
@Matthew Cooper Lol if you fart hard enough to reach 1100dB then yes.
Never heard of it before that we could create black hole by just create really intense vibration.
@Marcos Filho eh, nuclear weapons don't disapear matter, it just transforms it into something diferent but that matter is still there
It's simple guys: *Just build the Death Star*
It wouldn't surprise me it was already thought of by a military.
@john maziasz To stop nukes, what other non radical conspiracy theory could there be?
How about we make the moon a death moon
@@stars227 true.....there are satellites that use energy weapons can destroy icbms....perhaps that same (or similar technology) idea can be used to try to hit stationary targets on earth's surface.
@john maziasz
>god emperor Trump
Lol
And on that note, merry christmas
You to m8
Merry Christmas 🎄
Oh and happy Boxing Day lol
12345redrock maybe Kim Jung un will send a pretty vase
12345redrock and happy new year
Signed USA
Not so merry bruh ahaha CD
It’s REALLY rare when a video actually lays out all the options in a rational and complete manner. No sugarcoating or naïve optimism. This is the only video I’ve seen that has the guts to state the obvious: the reason we haven’t had a third world war is that no one (including leaders) would survive it - and every sane person knows it.
Even small, regional conflicts can escalate, so, these conflicts are dangerous. It’s in everyone’s self interest that conflicts are resolved BEFORE they become wars.
I would agree with you, except the video is clickbait. It should more accurately be titled “you cannot stop enough nuclear warheads.”
“Mankind had the ability to destroy the earth”
More like scratch the earth.
Zx Az Earth will be fine, it’s humans that are screwed. From the social media age back to the stone ages!
@@Wallyworld30 If the nuclear winter after is bad enough there won't be any life left at all.
@@Torus2112
No, extremophiles and smaller animals can easily survive the nuclear winter. Life survived an asteroid impact that will make the entire combined nuclear arsenal of the world looks like a spark.
@@mickeyg7219 Probably, except for some small bugs. My point was actually that earth itself wouldn't even notice it. It's the living creatures on earth that would go bye, bye!
Scorch
Do you know that there is only one country that has developed and exploded a nuclear device and then gone on to scrap it's nuclear program? South Africa.
South Africa missed a liberation chance from uncle sam
@Marcos Filho dB is logarithmic so 5 250dB sounds would be around 255db's not 1250
Mostly because the Apartheid Government didnt trust blacks with nukes
@Marcos Filho "Open up black hole".
Do you even know how those things work? They aren't wormholes. Stop watching Star Trek ffs.
"Simultaneously explode 5 nuclear bombs"
What are you? Five years old? Do all nuclear weapons have the same yield? What does it take to open a black hole? 5 Little Boys or 5 Tsar Bombas?
"sucking half the Earth in another dimension of space"
More BS. Even if it did happen, it would not be "half the Earth" moron. Moreover, "Earth" would not survive the journey through a wormhole. Not that it matters anyway because wormholes are a hypothesis. None have been observed so far.
Your entire comment is schoolboy level comprehension of a very serious situation.
@@death_parade it was a joke dumbass
Oh yes, another in-detail analysis. Have been worried without my monthly dose on independent military analysis.
😂 I like your sarcasm...
That is not sarcasm. Was genuinely worried that I could not get some new stuff to think about.
@Marcos Filho source?
@Marcos Filho
BS, db isn't linear
"Some have suggested the removal of the entire nuclear weapons supply"
Ah yes, I can smell world war 3 from a mile away.
Removal of the nuclear supply via the use of the nukes :P
I do not know the weapons that ww3 will be fought with but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
-Albert Einstein
@@SayinWTF well more like whatever arms are left.
@Ace of Spades neither
Aliens
It's so good to get a video! Yaaaaay! I've missed you Cabal!
Thanks for the time and effort you put into this video, like most of you're video's it was great.
Antimatter weapons is how you remove nuclear weapons.
I dont think the exact composition of deadly subatmoic particles matters as much... fission, fusion or antimatter - the result is the same
I am sure Gendalf can stop nuclear missles
@@qubit_108 But minus the radiation.
In all likelyhood, this will never be a thing.
If the enemy hits a nuclear missile bunker with conventional warheads, you get a conventional (if somewhat dirty) explosion.
If he hits your antimatter missile bunker, the whole lot goes up instantly.
If one missile loses power to containment, the whole lot goes up instantly.
The yield is higher, but not insanely so; 1kg antimatter would almost equal the yield of the tsar bomba, but the containment equipment would weigh as much if not more, and a hard enough knock will cause the antimatter to collide with the containment walls, causing it to go up instantly.
Nukes have all of the power of antimatter in a similar sized package, with inherent safety.
@@lukegodfrey1103 but it does sound cool
I Like this Examination of this Problem.
Deterrent is the Best "Peace Strategy"
Prevent War by Preparing for War.
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
BIG IRON! BIG IRON! OOHHHH HE TRIED TO MATCH THE RANGER WITH A BIG IRON ON HIS STICK!
Wait is this a Fallout reference
@@ZTIERK Yeah, New Vegas
The Mojave is like it has been nuked all ready no change😊😅
Well done and much respect from someone who shares your passion for knowledge and who feels the need to share it with others.
Waiting long time for new video, at least feels long time. Your videos are so full of information. Love it!
"The only way to win, is not to play"
"With the development of nuclear weapons, and the realization of the destruction a nuclear war would bring, we never had a 3rd world war"... yet.
Now, since superpowers are armed with nuclear weapons, we experience the moast peaceful period in human history.
G Guest which is why nuclear proliferation is taken so seriously, except for iran
@G Guest yes but a nation like saddam's iraq would not have the industrial capacity to produce a superpower sized nuclear arsenal, north korea for example even though they are not a rogue state and their program is defensive has only managed to pump out about 20 bombs compared to the thousands the US has.
“The only way to stop a nuclear war is to not be able to stop a nuclear war.” Now you are getting deep.🤔
confused as fuck
@@Gandalf17
When you know that you can start the end of the world, but the caveat is that you will also die... you tend not to want to start it.
When you get over-confident and think you can survive and kill the other guy? Then you start making people nervous.
That's why American "Star Wars" Anti-Ballistic Missile defense systems were such a dangerous game. Not only could we not make them work as well as we wanted them to, we had to try and make believe that we could and convince the Soviets that we could. While also giving them enough doubt not to go full paranoid and start doing crazy or stupid things that would cause "incidents" to happen. Thankfully the Soviets were already at a weak point and all we had to do was, basically, out-spend them. Turns out that, thankfully, the Soviets were communists. And communism, as we all (should) know, doesn't work.
I don't think anti missile systems can become 100% success rate. While anti missiles get new capabilities nuclear missiles also got new upgradations. It's a cat mouse game
@@gobimurugesan2411 Agreed you thinking does not work. Luckily we presented our ASD which proves to be 100% against any and all hypersonic weapons in the air, space and deep space. Rest is easy really.
Balance of power can really be a MAD thing
I’m far more concerned about the weapons we DON’T know about than the ones we do. And that’s a long list.
Eh its probably just stealth and drone technology, because thats how warfare works now
i still think we should have 15-20K nuclear weapons but just like the seedbank, they are under the custodian of neutral countries because the threat of extraterrestrial intelligence is real and nukes are the most powerful weapon we'd have.
Great work on this video. I can only imagine how much time and energy it takes to put together a detailed and descriptive analysis such as this. Much appreciated!
That was a great video, very informative, dense with information and concise. The quality rivals big documentary productions.
Excellent video, Specially the point made at the end about the value of nuclear weapons as deterrent.
The B2 is one plane that could deliver them.
Tsar Bomba is not the largest explosion, although it may be the largest "test". The United States had a nuclear accident which totalled nearly 500 Mt. It was so large that it delivered low levels of radiation to the west coast all the way from the pacific Island test sites.
Love watching these videos, always engaging
I recall reading somewhere that the Tsar Bomba was actually built to be capable of yielding a 100 megaton blast, as that was what the Soviet leadership wanted. But the scientists developing it talked them down to 50 megatons. Telling them that a 100 megaton fireball would be taller than the Earth's atmosphere, and might fling chunks of the very air we breath out into space.
Whether that last bit is actually true or not, the leadership agreed, and the scientists swapped out one of the Bomba's fusion stages with a fusion damper, cutting the final yield in half for the desired 50 megaton output, and accidentally also making the resulting detonation relatively clean, with nowhere near as much fallout as was expected.
I think another reason was that since it was only a test flight the poorly couldn’t attualy get the plane out of the kill zone but I doubt that if it was attual drop in a enemy target they would go for the 100 and not give a fuck about the pilot
The blast yield was more than expected it was 57 megatons
Nuclear war simulator game: "dO yoU waNt To plAY a GaMe?"
@Marcos Filho On a macro scale, a three dimensional geometric array of nuclear devices built as one bomb could theoretically make what you're after. After measuring for whether said device shall be detonated with or without atmosphere conditions(on Earth or in space).
"The only winning move is not to play."
@Marcos Filho lol that is not how decibel works. Decibel is logarithmic not linear
Marcos Filho I highly doubtful of that
Okay
The nuclear bomb to defeat the incoming nukes was actually a neutron bomb, designed to irradiate the incoming nukes core with neutrons, making it fissle
Some form of neutron bombardment.
Woah
"Russia was the only country to deploy a nuclear armed interceptor"
Sprint Missile: "Am I a joke to you?"
Thing is that neither of the Nike missile programs were actually implemented
Lain Iwakura they were. It was operational for a few months, I think
@@UmbraHand The Sprint and the Zeus were deployed for only few months, I can't say exactly for the rest of the Nike program but some missiles mainly conventional A2A like the Ajax and later ABM Hercules were deployed around pretty much all major cities from the mid 50s to mid 60s, but I get your point for the Zeus and the Sprint, they were technically deployed but not enough and not long enough to make any impact whatsoever to the US defense capability I was just taking the piss ^^
@@UmbraHand
They were. They were operational for several months before being defunded/cancelled.
Adam O
yeah i live near that place to, talcott mountain i think
Dude, what a high-quality content?! keep up the great work!
I've seen that airborne laser, its sitting over at the boneyard in Tucson.
Good analysis! Thanks for putting the video up.
How to not get nuked: Have more nukes than your enemy
Unless both nations launch simultaneously
How to not get nuked: Have enough nukes to be able to cause severe damage to your enemy. It doesn't matter if you have 500 or 5000 missiles. 500 missiles are enough to cause extreme damage to your country. Enough to destroy major parts of the infrastructure, kill a lot of people or attack atomic reactors to increase the damage exponentially. Even if you have 50000 atomic bombs you wouldn't want a nuclear war with a country with even "only" 500 bomb. Having more bombs than your enemy won't help you. You wouldn't want a nuclear war nonetheless.
You don't need more
You just need to have enough to threaten your enemy
@@CaptainChromUse 500 warheads on your enemy. Wait a few weeks for the fallout and freezing temps to slowly kill your people at their job and in their homes. There is no reason to strike back. 500 nukes is worldwide destruction. For you budding young dictators on a budget, you could cause world-wide havoc with a 90% death with 100 well placed Nukes. Think about the poles and what all that ice is going to look like radioactive and thawed. I bet you could melt it all, and yet still have 50 or so left to hit the world's desert areas. Pay special attention to the central Saudi Desert. It's sand is exceptionally fine and dusty, they have to import sand for construction purposes. Cluster a few together in that desert, spread the rest around the other deserts, you will have an ash cloud that will pretty much block out the sun for 10 years. The last people to die from radiation will be followed by the first of the ones to die of starvation. When countries beat their chests and say, "look at me, I have nuclear weapons". They are really saying, "look at me, I'm an asshole".
Putting a mirrored finish on planes and missiles would defeat lasers.
9:15 bet StyroPyro would have a laser built within a week that could shoot down anything lmao.
Dustin McElveen giving that guy even a fraction of the militaries money would be a bigger problem than mere nuclear bombs
@@tj9959 lol for real though!!
@Rasa Khosrofar and if he Robs bill gates, then mathematically, he fan build 97 more.
Wow, that last realisation that having no means of stopping a nuclear warhead is the best way of preventing war sums it up perfectly.👍
MAD: A TL;DR by me:
“If you launch one nuke at us, we’re going to launch out entire arsenal at you to not only intentionally destroy your country, but to also ensure that you will never be capable of hurting us or anyone else ever again. Capiche?”
Fortunately, it doesn’t quite work like that. A small scale launch would typically be met with similar force. Granted, it depends on our tech to accurately see what is coming our way, but a few nukes launched by north korea or china would not mean the usa would throw everything it has. Then we would have nothing left for russia, who could take advantage of the situation.
However, the russian dead hand system would most likely launch all their icbm’s if enough damage was sustained to their military infrastructure.
Excellent video. The only problem that I have is that you seem to have not mentioned the role railguns could play in stopping ICMBs.
you know those videos you watch at 3am when you should be sleeping because u got shit to do in the morning ? Well here we are
LOVE your content. Thanks a lot
Few remember when the spectre of nuclear armageddon, didn't hang overhead.
Never enough warheads to “destroy” the Earth. Just most life on it.
You could power the laser with a rtg
A nuclear thermo electric generator
You’d need more radiators obviously
RTGs aren't actually that powerful. The one on the curiosity rover only generates abut 110 watts of electricity, and yet produces about 2000 watts of heat. Any RTG powerful enough to power a space based ABM laser would be obscenely hot and heavy.
Nuclear pumped x-ray lasers.
Yes, using nuclear detonations to power lasers. Not cost effective, pretty insane, very difficult, very expensive... but we have done work into them and proved that they are possible and can work. And would be, if done correctly, insanely powerful.
@@matchesburn My laser gatling cannon is laughing so hard. ;-)
tsar bomba wasn't a weapon....it barely fit on the aircraft carrying it. it was a demonstration of power, from the start. it was never meant to be seen as a real weapon.
Spend the money from defence on gifts to the people of opposing powers. People would have a hard time trying to hate a nation that kept donating funds for building, schools, and hospitals and life enrichment.
Love is the answer haha, yeah people would likely be against the war, but there's still obstacles, propaganda from warmongers and the reducing need for soldiers (people with moral) at the war fields.
sadly that's not how politics work
@@farlandduck4463 Technically it is, while not exactly gifting one of the main things nuclear war gets into the way of is trade - which is exactly what causes things like building schools, hospitals and other entertainment options.
@@farlandduck4463 but what about the usa covid releif bill,?
@@victormuckleston what about it? It passed, donchaknow?
Thanks for another highly informative and entertaining video, CC! And thanks for working so hard to create an in-depth video about this particularly important (and highly relevant) topic. Most people cannot imagine the true horror and devastation a nuclear conflict would bring, but it's extremely important for everyone around the world to understand this topic deeply, so as to avoid nuclear weapons proliferation and also for people to support *sane* world leaders and oppose candidates who would even consider ordering a nuclear strike. This topic is so powerfully disturbing that most people choose to suppress any critical thought about it and instead avoid thinking about it, enjoying their bliss in ignorance. The more complacent humanity becomes regarding nuclear war, the more dangerous this world becomes and the closer we all are to the "clock" striking midnight. The global clock is slowly but surely continuing to tick closer to zero hour.
Stealth bombers and cruise missiles remain EXTREMELY effective methods of delivery of nuclear warheads. Don't disparage them.
Yeah, especially considering most countries don't have advanced military equipments like the US
Yes you just shoot down any bird flying hundreds of mph as its likely not a bird
@@Mr71paul71 Stealth aircraft are difficult to detect, more difficult to track, and nearly impossible to target due to advanced radar jamming technology. Stealth does not make aircraft invisible, but lowers reflection greatly. This makes jamming much easier. Consider this: An anti-aircraft system sends out pulses containing megajoules of energy, but is looking for return pulses of nanojoules or smaller. When a jammer sends back a huge quantity of energy in a narrow beam into the radar receiver, the jamming signal is millions or even billions of times as great as the radar receiver is expecting. Imagine trying to track a firefly in front of a spotlight. The return signal is washed out. Stealth permits the use of lower power jammers.
Stealth bombers still make up a large portion of America's (and probably Russia's) nuclear defense program
The other two parts are submarine launched missiles and the icbms in silos out in the wilderness
Well Indian rafale jets hare locked on a f22 raptor in indo us war games...stealth is overrated.
Love your videos. So informative.
Problem is: in Russia, atom splits you.
Great analysis, thanks for posting.
at 5:40 he says that only the USSR had nuclear ABM, but what about the US SPRINT missiles?
4:08 problem with multiple warheads and decoys in midcourse phase could be solved by changing hunting approach. Instead of direct hit method, small, tactical grade nuke warhead (10 kilotons or less) should be used, this warhead must be designed to generate as much as possible intense EMP and neutron radiation. EMP will fries warheads electronics, neutron radiation will be able to trigger fission reaction in warhead's U/Pu charges. Such reaction will be able at least cause mechanical damage to integrity of the incoming warheads, so many of them will disintegrate in the atmosphere during reentry.
Quantum computing is going to revolutionaze missile defense
Exactly, it seems good, but it also means that Nations would feel safer and confident starting a Nuclear War. :(
@@HamzaKhan-ky1mt Or a normal large scale war for that matter
The best solution is a 21st Century 'Drone Dome'. The problem with most deterrent/defensive assets, is absentee ratio. A global high altitude drone fleet, could significantly diminish a missile threat, with conventional AA type weapons, or a pre-launch ATG strike, when an imminent launch is detected.
One could argue nuclear weapons and MAD is the only reason we haven’t had WW3.
Paradoxically the most destructive weapons keep the peace.
51HankySpanky I concur, however this might not be a sustainable strategy for the long term, because super powers collapse and are born over the centuries and even decades.
In the future we might need to readjust who should and could own nuclear capabilities to keep this balance going. One could easily imagine a future scenario where one of the current nuclear powers fragments into civil war or collapses socially and economically leading to the possibility of fringe elements will nothing to lose gaining access to nuclear arms. In fact it’s a miracle this has not happened during the collapse of the Soviet Union.
@@ares106
>Super powers collapse
This is the reason MAD is a flawed concept. It's based on only 60 years of history, and a handful of capable nations. Expand either of those variables (Time or capable nations) + actual history of total warfare, and somebody will eventually launch a nuke in anger.
Grubby bum, indeed. Yet I can’t think of a better and more enforceable strategy to prevent a return to the cycle of world wars. MAD is a stop gap that needs to eventually be replaced but total disarmament is also a bad idea imo. Hopefully much smarter people than me will figure something out for the sake of humanity.
Trump pulled out of the INF treaty and I've been testing a few missiles instead of writing love letters. So..
@51HankySpanky yes, it's the fallout which worries me the most too.
I love the effort u put into researching the topic
You defeated ICBM...
Hypersonic missile I'm joke to you?
Yes
Just a.....Paradox....Thanks...This is a Super channel...Thank you very much...!
You know what works ?
Mutually Assured Destruction
Sad, but true!
wow that must be so exciting to watch specially on new year's eve!
"Save the Cheerleader, save the world"
On the other hand, inability to have an all out conventional war stipulates advancement of hybrid warfare - mutual subversion and undermining - which frankly is becoming as destructive as WMD's are.
I'm just here for the Nuclear missile, and Political specialist comments, all of a sudden everyone knows how to run the government and negotiate.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand M.A.D. Any two children with rocks in hand know not to hurt another.
Finally, a new video
this is important to study because there is almost no chance that some jerkoffs who've watched too many movies aren't eventually gonna convince their selves that turning those keys is a "hard decision that most people wouldn't be able to make" and then doom us all in an attempt to impress their emotionally distant fathers
Increased nuclear capable nations, means increased likelihood that q nutcase eventually comes to power, who wouldn't hesitate turning that switch.
You are absolutely correct, it's extremely important for every person on Earth to study nuclear weapons and nuclear war, stay informed about local and international politics, and exercise any and all political influence they have in order to support politicians and other leaders who both fear, respect, and understand nuclear war in depth. Most people cannot comprehend just how insanely devastating even a small nuclear conflict would be, not only for targeted cities, but for every nation on Earth due to radioactive fallout and other large-scale, deadly aftereffects.
People made the same argument in the 1960s. We're still here.
Then you have the disturbing fact that for god-knows-how-long the override code for all Permissive Action Links for American nuclear weapons was "00000000". Meaning any crazy idiot could punch that in and theoretically have access to ending the world. And this was known by the guys in control of the weapons. The people aren't the problem. The system can be, however. Which is why there should always be someone that has to decide whether or not to go along with a legitimate launch or to say, "No." and do so even if it means death. And many have succeeded in that role and made that all. Stanislav Petrov, for instance. But... When you start automating? When you start having "Dead Hands" (which the Soviets supposedly did/still do have and thankfully not even the Soviets were insane enough to automate it like in "Dr. Strangelove" and was kept semi-automatic if it even was operational) and whatnot? ...Then you might as well start counting down the inevitable.
3:01 Look at the launch sequence. Dazzling!
Love this channel. Only person with an American accent who's unbiased
As always you can make rather contentious topic very neutral and unbiased. need more people like you here on youtube
Ironically a nuclear war will end nuclear war
@Jonathan Bowen few years at best
Yep ... pretty darn accurate.
Thanks for educating the public.
16:45 When did Ireland get ICBMs?
Haha they're anti-brexit missiles
These weapons are the physical manifestation of death and the destroyer
God help us, God help us all.
Pretty sure our God is just gonna watch us destroy each other
None one will help us but ourselves.
Large scale countries like Russia or China won't be the cause of a nuclear war if there ever is one. They care about their survival and know every one loses in a nuclear engagement.
But in this age of religion and ignorance fueled nonsensical hate on each other, what will start the war is some dumb extremist country that tried to brainwash their country a little bit too much to the point where the common citizen (and common military guy as a result) firmly believe in the lies of religion to the point of no longer fearing death by nuclear fire (because some bloke told him big man in the sky says burning your neighborhood is the thing to do).
MAD only really works when both sides know and fear the consequences of nuclear fire. But with a regular ideological warfare mostly everyone understand the nature of the arms race and that a nuclear assault is only ever a bluff. But with religions, while the top leadership are basically atheists politicians that use religion as a control tool, the deeper you go, the more people actually believe what they are told, leading to people being actively OK with killing themselves for some guy's word. That adds many more layers of human stupidity on the already extensive layer of things that can trigger nuclear war by accident.
The GBI's at Ft. Greely and Vandenburg AFB are mission designed to intercept before MIRV separation. MIRV separation IS the terminal phase for modern ICBM's. We cold never build enough interceptors to stop an all out nuclear attack, even to just hit boosters. Trying to hit MIRV warheads would be ludicrous for long range intercept.
I liked your presentation anyway.
You didn’t explain why the idea of putting interceptor missiles on satellites was rejected. I would like to know
Aslan Bayramuqlany its because theres a treaty prohibiting the placement of weapons of any kind in space
ILike Mushrooms well fuck all of them
CrabbierBull 391 he spoke about lasers though, which I guess include into the prohibition
"Thus it's possible that the only way to stop nuclear war may is the inability to stop nuclear war"(i.e. incoming missiles) Thank you for that. Makes me think.
13:58 who heard the voice crack 😂
I was wondering if the star wars thing would be mentioned...
Well done guy...
"ICBMs have become much more accurate so we can target specific targets with smaller warheads to reduce collateral damage."
...nuclear warheads, we are aiming to reduce colateral damage with nuclear warheads...riiiiiiight...
I mean destroying a city block is better then the entire zipcode..
Evensong a 300 kiloton warhead would destroy much more than just a city block.
...You do know that nuclear weapons scale, right? We have nuclear weapons that can destroy most of a major city instantly or be only a few kilotons and maybe destroy a city block or two. Stop trying to give witty commentary to point out oxymorons when there is none. Yes, you can reduce collateral damage with nuclear warheads by having better targeting and Dial-A-Yield capabilities. Which many countries with advanced nuclear programs have.
@@matchesburn All this "destroy entire city" nuke thinking comes from Nagasaki and Hiroshima remains, right? This photo?
Most cities that are counter-value targets in nuclear warfare are megacities and modern megacities are built out of RCC, not wood like in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Yes nukes have gotten much stronger, but not strong enough yet. Go play on nukemap to see how much of the city would be "destroyed" by a nuke. And don't use Tsar Bomba. That thing was the size of a bus and would not fit onto modern Ballistic Missile. Even Russian heavy ICBM don't have the throw weight required for Tsar Bombas.
Of course. How are you supposed to occupy conquered territory and render first aid to refugees/survivors if you've turned your target into a radioactive wasteland?
Best bet is a type of space cannon which can reuse excess heat produced as an energy store what could do more is a tracking system to keep it on course
I feel like my generation will be the ones to launch the missiles when we’re old and in power. Millennial btw.
Because the history of what happened after will be forgotten. Not all things in life are a Video game.
G Belanger....
Merry Christmas again
I'm 66 years old, when I was a kid, age 6, we were aware and frightened of Russian Nuke attack. Duck and cover scared us. Today there seems to be no concern, that scares me more.
Great video!
Title should be: how to stop ICMB’s
The only problem with M.A.D. and hypothesizing that if one nation had the capability to defend against another's nuclear strike, or if all nations had defense capabilities from other nuclear strikes, that conventional warfare would once again become the norm is that every nation is in a constant pissing contest with another. If we made nuclear weapons obsolete, we'd simply find another way to kill each other. In fact, it's one of the things that we're really good at doing for a variety of reasons. I don't think we'd see conventional warfare ever again as we're developing machines to do the fighting for us, working hard on A.I. and the like. War is nothing but another business opportunity for the world's elite... and war... war never changes.
Banning nuclear warheads is like putting up a sign saying "knives and guns strictly forbidden inside store" and expecting to not get robbed.
how to end all war:
make politicians fight the war alone themselves.
It's virtually impossible to prevent a massive nuclear saturation attack.
In theory it can be stopped but in practice it is extremely difficult. The most effective way of interception would be to use a laser or rail gun.
55% is a good start.
"World war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones".
Guess who said it?
Putin
Don E C US me .and i was wrong there will be badass lasers and tie fighters!
Its rubbish !!! Ww4 will be fought by conventional weapons against sticks and stones uses by the nations that aren't able to rebuild quickly enough to defend themselves
Bill Cosby
That Poseidon torpedo looks very mean! It probably is one of the meanest things around. I wonder how it sends information back to base. Maybe its just laying in wait for the attack. You cannot send radio messages back underwater when you are deep. You can however receive very low frequency messages.
Very interesting!
Greetings,
Jeff
Sometimes your curiosity reaches a point where you want to magically reach into the future to know when your impending doom is scheduled. Great video but also very depressing to see where human innovation has reached a point too greater than its ability to comprehend.
There's an Arabic proverb of warning that goes " you are fattening/feeding a wolf that will eat you". This is that.
@MATHA NOSHTO-MAN I'm sure that dogs are the animal with one of the highest number of instances of injuring humans every year today.
Also, Arabs don't think dogs are impure and proverbs usually are meant to convey a meaning in abstract and higher level thinking.
What's meant here is that you think that you are feeding a loyal subject that will grow and not discriminate you from your enemies. In the nuclear context, humans think they are making these weapons to protect themselves against the "enemy" when in reality the weapons will wipe out the human race equally well regardless of who the "firer or aggressor" is.
Thank you.
Rebuilding civilization from scratch wouldn't take very long. We'd be rebuilding the old and building the new at the same time. Eventually, the only time lost would be the actual fighting time and nothing more. 😁
Hello to every country. In war everyone looses,(THE ENTIRE WORLD WILL BE GONE..WHY
Kaspar Baggott aka the rise of the cockroachs
Love your point at the end of the video! Very well said!
I feel like I’ve watched this already. .
I don’t know, I get that same feeling
curious droid?
glitch in the matrix
We just fired a 100 petawatt laser in the lab and you can buy 2.3megawatt commercial lasers. I have been thinking for a few years that there is more going on than they are telling us cause this shouldn't be that hard anymore.
Internet: there is no war anymore
Trump: lets start the war
How to stop a Bomb : just don‘t build Bombs..
Make Love and Peace, no War