Thanks to HelloFresh for sponsoring today's video. Go to strms.net/CovertCabalHelloFreshOctoberYT and use code POGCOVERT65 for 65% off plus free shipping on your first box!
Simple answer no. Russia can deploy the Poseidon in a box on the bottom of the ocean. And it can sit there for months, years until given the activation command. There could be dozens of Poseidon's pointed at the East and West coast of the USA. Just sitting dormant and the USA would never know or find them. And Russia can activate them remotely. There's no stopping the Poseidon's especially after they denote. You'll have a 1600 ft radioactive wave coming at you. This is how you take out the USA.
You mentioned the US "not sending own troops", the US has boots on the ground in ukraine so does the UK, thats a fact. So does that mean they are provoking ww3
I just checked out the link. I have to pick a plan and pay BEFORE I can even see what meals they offer. What a garbage company. Shame on you for working with them!
I found the sponsor too funny, as not too often you see add of grocery on a video discussing the usage of weapons of mass destruction, totally a humanity moment😂💀
Honestly it's the same feeling if I watch cable news. I have family that watches fox and one second it's talking about some tragedy and then it's pillow commercial time baby.
@@thelovewizard8954 I don't see the problem. I am about to eat dinner, and then take a shower. I do have a coupon for at-home food groceries delivery. Maybe I'll use it before the 31st.
You should’ve segued to Hello Fresh at the end. “…and if you find yourself in a bunker after a nuclear exchange, Hello Fresh can deliver food directly to your vault door.”
for reference, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were between 13 and 21 Kilotons yield. the Iskandar equipped with a 'tactical' nuclear warhead is more powerful than Fat Man, of 21 kt yield, dropped on Nagasaki on August 9th 1945. let's keep that in mind, it's still got the ability to level a relatively large city.
And lets not forget the russians, and americans, have conventional bombs and bombers that can level entire cities. More deaths occured by the firebombing of tokyo than the atamic bombs of the era. That's stil true today if there's a will to level cities.
@@LeePatekar I belive 4 planes where sent to Hiroshima with one weapon used vs hundreds sent to Tokyo dropping what would likely be a damn near uncountable amount of firebombs and normal bombs.
I am highly, *Highly* doubtful of their use in this war, there have been more dire conflicts in the world post Nagasaki where they haven't but couldve. And besides they wouldn't actually provide any tactical or Battlefield advantage, short of nuking Kiev, and Russia is being attacked by ukraine and they haven't changed their stance but no matter what it would Warren NATO intervention.
In a lot of ways your right but the big concern is not the reality but the perception of Putin. The more of a corner he is shoved into the bigger the appeal and the smaller the consaquences of use become for him.
Their actual usefulness isn't important, their usefulness is the threat of escalation. Ukraine is only afloat because of NATO supplies and if using nukes will force NATO to decide between cutting-back or escalation, NATO outside of the US will probably pick cutting-back
I really appreciate you going the extra mile and including satellite imagery in recent videos. Really gives an extra perspective, no matter how useful they are to the specific topic.
I'm really glad you're making these types of videos, I being a Veteran myself. It's helps to cool the room and lower the panic. I see some civies supporting Russia cause they think the West should stop helping Ukraine fight Russsia (Russia being the ones who started the war). They think Armageddon is going to happen if we don't settle for Outins demands. Its a ashame really that people (civies buy some current/ex military) believe in the mis/disinformation and the panic from ignorance.
honestly, nothing new as brinkmanship exist ever since cold war. also some people just support Putin but supporting him outright make bad visual, so they also will use that nuclear scare strategy. some, just support Russia because its not US. Whether the US = bad, US now = globalist = bad variety
In regards to the trains moving I’ve heard Ukrainians say Russia always moves them regularly like that so no one will know when they’re legitimately moving them.
That's one thing this video made me question. If the system is really like it's described in this video isn't that kinda bad? Giving your enemies advanced warning of the use of nuclear weapons doesn't seem like a smart thing.
@@Jehty_ Not really considering the main purpose of nuclear weapons is deterrence not actually shooting them and moving them is pretty far up the chain from actual usage
@@rammusannus5364 it's been a while since I watched the video, but iirc the video is talking about tactical nuclear weapons. And that type of nuclear weapon is not meant as a deterrence. It's meant to be used on the battlefield.
I think sending more powerful weapons to Ukraine wouldn't be enough as a reaction for using nuclear weapons. I am pretty sure the US would do an Air Campaign of some sort, either attacking russian targets in Donbass and Luhanks or attacking crimea and destroying all bases there. The cost for Russia to use nuclear weapons has to be higher than just giving Ukraine better weapons to defend themselves.
i agree 100% . what better weapons could we give ukraine ? other than nukes i don't see anything that's on a grand scale. if we do basically nothing that means putin can just nuke more.
You should read your comment again. That kind of offensive would result in many russia deaths. Just one russian base being attacked by nato would 100% result in russian nuclear retaliation, since its the only way to retaliate against Nato.
@@zjpdarkblaze Nuclear deterrence is all about demonstrating either through force or diplomacy that the cost of using those weapons is too great a cost to pay. So, no, sitting on your ass and doing nothing for fear of escalation would not be an effective response to Russian nuclear weapon deployment. They would use even more, because they no theres no consequences. Targeted strikes on the military infrastructure Russia needs to wage war would be an effective deterrent though, because it makes Putin choose between using those weapons and losing the war or not using them and maybe winning. And Russia has barely managed to handle the Ukrainian military. How well do you think they could handle NATO strikes?
It makes zero sense to mobilize 300k men just to then use nukes. It would've made way more sense to use them when they were pulling back from Kharkov and northern areas of Kherson regions.
The whole war doesnt make sense. But i also dont think they will use nukes. And also it makes no sense to back off just because someone threatens to use nukes.
Your channel came a long way. Much better written, the pictures and videos are selected more carefully to actually reflect the topic in question, etc. Good job on staying factual, doing your research and putting out useful information. Thank you!
A nuclear strike by Russia will most probably force NATO and the wide international community to respond. I doubt that NATO or even the EU would stand for that line to be crossed without a physical response of some sort. It's really interesting as a UK resident to watch all the comings and goings of non UK ships and subs in our ports and Faslane at the moment. Never seen so many foreign ships in and out of Pompey!
My main concern about nuclear strikes is the possibility of the accidental escalation. The only thing which prevented use of nukes by the soviets during Cuban missile crisis was a decision of one soviet officer Vasily Arkhipov. I don't want to guess whether we will be lucky this time
Both the Biden administration and the Kremlin have confirmed that the famous direct line is operational and being routinely tested so either one can initiate the call and make the split second decision to trust the other person or see who has the quicker draw.
11:29 what I imagine the US is saying to Russia about using nukes in Ukraine...."That's a nice fleet you have there in the Black Sea, it would be a shame if something happened to it."
Most are stored underground in case folks with google earth shows what looks to be a storage site. Also, tunnels adjacent to bases makes transportation less vulnerable.
@@hendrikdependrik1891 yeah there’s always subs about, what I know from watching former submariners is the Russian subs are super loud, and both countries subs usually follow each other around. Of course you won’t know they launch until they do most likely, but still it’s highly likely we know where most of them are at
Is it just me or the video is broken? The audio is normal but image just looks like thumbnail and doesn't change. Other videos are fine so it's not my yt being cursed. Anyone has the same issue?
Thanks for analysis. There is also a nuclear warhead storage site in Foros (Crimea), which is close to Sevastopol. Also, you didn’t mentioned possibility of usage of nuclear charges for heavy artillery like “Peony” (“Pion”) SPA.
@@vyros.3234 maybe we have to wait an see if putin will use nukes or if China does eventually invade Taiwan or if North Korea decides to do something other then blowing the ocean up
You should look into the "Tritium/Deuterium Dichotomy" To maintain the Warheads a country has to change the Tritium/Deuterium Charge every few years. And the Production of 2H/3H is expensive, combined with the Corruption running wild in Russia
Whether Russia is or isn't going to use nukes is irrelevant. The West has a defensive nuclear weapon policy, and therefore has basically given up the initiative when it comes to nukes. Because of this, the West has to be prepared to receive the first blow as well. The West's military capability has to be built on the assumption that Russia will strike first with nuclear weapons, so the key thing is that operations must continue despite the attack. Putin needs to be made to understand that he won't get what he wants even with nuclear weapons. No matter how hard his forces hit the West or allied countries, there will be resistance and a response, and he will never be able to gain the upper hand.
What are you smoking? The USA has never renounced First Strike. US nuclear strategy has always been reliant on the country's ability to detect USSR/Russia preparing to launch nukes. With news of an imminent Soviet/Russian launch, US strategy would be to launch first in order to catch Soviet/Russian missiles and bombers on the ground.
Truth in that. America would definitely try and intercept what they could(if possible) and if a tactical Nuke is used, it would result in American and other counties physically taking on Russia in some sort of ways. Which definitely would lead to WWIII eventually. We wouldn’t respond with nukes ourself unless they nuked Us or another NATO ally. And even then, I can only really see us nuking back if they nuked the continental US. But it’s hard to tell.
@@realnapster1522 Yes. It's MAD. I was just addressing the twaddle in the OP of "The West has prepared to receive the first blow." Putin should know the MAD is still very real and to keep his nuclear weapons in their bunkers where they belong.
One thing to add. Russia started attacking power infrastructure for two reasons. Salty for military setbacks and you kill power, you reduce communication. People need to charge their drones, phones, access internet, listen to TV, Radio and share location of enemy and for military to coordinate attacks. Russia didn't do that before which made open source info too easy against them. It's too late though, something like should be done on the eve of attack, not ~7 months in.
Hi, William Spaniels channel recently had a video where it was postulated that Russia could use a low yield tatical weapon to deescalate the war (exploding the device in a low casualty area (such as over the Black Sea)) to "force" negotiations by the implied threat, how do you think Ukraine and the West would respond to this (is this a checkmate move)?
No because NATO and/or the US could counter with a demonstration nuclear detonation of their own and even detonate 2 bombs for every 1 Russia uses as its "demonstration" THAT IS "CHECKMATE" right there !
Every nuclear weapon is a powerful emp when detonated in the upper atmosphere. The problem is you don't know if that rocket is targeting upper atmosphere or ground radar when it's launched. And with only 20-40 min to decide you aren't going to wait and see
@@CDSAfghan Agreed, if you see an incoming nuke, you have no idea what it is. A counter weapon (nuke), will be in the air long before it can strike. Codes sent out to sub, and bombers in the air. Can't risk not being able to respond if an EMP takes everything out.
@@CDSAfghan short term it could take active defense systems offline and blind you to further attacks. Orders will go out long before that can happen. It would be war.
@@CDSAfghan If small EMP was used on Ukraine, maybe wouldn't provoke a response, but I honestly don't think it would have much effect on them either. Most of the equipment is old russian equipment that likely has very little advanced electronics in them. They would run fine.
9:45 if you have a space program (with say a dedicated airforce minature unmanned space shuttle) you CAN test your nukes, just do it on the far side of the sun where nobody without a space program can see you.
With NATO's comments about a "physical response" made yesterday, the issue with just ramping up supplies to Ukraine with more powerful weapons would be perceived as weak by Russia, and an indication that they can get away with nuking Ukraine. So in a very real sense, both Putin and NATO have painted themselves into a corner, where the only way out is to escalate.
If NATO had any sense they would start terror bombing Moscow in the event of a nuclear attack. Yes, they're civilians - but in this case i'd be willing to bet the people of Russia would get the message.
@@caesarsalad1170 No, I don't think so. We can't rule out the possibility of escalation, but neither side will gain. I feel that NATO will pull out support for Ukraine before they risk World War 3. Or NATO is suicidal.
@@KimJungGooner exactly as Russia can nuke entire EU within minutes and continental US will be destroyed in an hour. It’s suicide to go against Russia or China.
I disagree, I think NATO would have no choice but to respond with strikes on Russia if they used a nuke. How far those strikes would go, whether it would only be on russians forces in ukraine +/- the black see fleet or if it would include targets in russia is the question. Allowing russia to use nukes without a kinetic response runs the risk that the nukes work, and allow russia to consolidate their gains and force a negotiated settlement. That would set an incredibly dangerous precedent that nuclear states can use their bombs to annex territory without consequences. That risk is too great. I suspect a nuclear strike would result on NATO air strikes on all russian positions in ukraine, and the conversion of the black sea fleet into an all submarine force. Im not sure if NATO would send in ground troops though, or even if it would need to.
Agreed. The idea that NATO could a) discourage tactical nuclear weapon use with nothing more than threats of sending more weapons to ukraine and b) would be concerned that striking russian targets to avoid escalations post-nuclear war is one of the most uninformed and brain dead takes ive ever seen. If everyone knows the only response to a nuclear weapon is increased weapon sales to their enemy, countries like North Korea will just start blasting.
I personally think that the west’s response to Russia using a nuclear weapon would be a lot more aggressive. The biggest reason for this is the concern that if they don’t start driving the tanks eastward at least to kick Russia out of Ukraine and the black sea then it would normalize the use of the atomic bomb, and before long every country would realize that using it wouldn’t necessarily mean their destruction. If that happened, you might start getting Saudi Arabia and other countries that we don’t normally associate with being great powers like turkey, and Brazil attempting their hands at nukes. However, if Russia used a nuke and got so thoroughly thrashed by NATO in Eastern Europe, it would reinforce the nuclear taboo without actually having to respond with a nuke.
One thing I would point out is that escalating the war by way of using nuclear weapons would be disadvantageous for Russia on diplomatic level the most. If they would have any hope in hypothetical WWIII they would absolutely need China on their side and India at the very least staying out. China does seem to be lossing patience with Russia and would be unlikely to support it directly even if the war escalated in other way, but definitely not if the escalation came from Russia using nuclear weapons. Heck, China might even see Russia as a liability in this case and stand against it!
The war between Russia and Ukraine has nothing to do with China. Because of this war, China has attracted a lot of investment from Europe, and many German companies are about to move to China. But at a time when Russia is divided, China will not stand idly by. If Russia itself is invaded by NATO, China will assist Russia. This will be the 2.0 version of the Korean War.😅
Haha. Gotta pay the bills. I never liked talking about nuclear war, as at that point all bets are off. But with tactical nuclear weapons... hopefully we can still get our Hello Fresh order delivered lol
I don't see why Covert Cabal would have a better understanding of what the US response to the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine than General Petraeus. His assessment of the likely US response was not backed up by any sort of evidence or documentation. That's just sloppy. And the estimation of the probability of their use; he's just inventing numbers. You cannot make these sorts of estimations without some sort of model. This is just all bad.
The most important part of the warhead - its explosive radioactive core - naturally decays over time. The official estimate had been that plutonium should hold up for at least 45 years.
it would be clear. Russia would be pushed back. They would feal very threatened. This is what could trigger nuclear war. Nato may supply equipment, but I think it end there. Now is the CIA sitting in Taxes flying drones with advanced sensor and sat/gps guidance systems attacking Russia in Ukraine? I would put money on it. Nordstream USA sabotage? No way to know, but sadly odds are yes. if proven, A heft fine the USA should have to pay. Other side of that is what was the Eu thinking in the first place? Maybe don't buy national security assets from your potential enemies in the first place? German people are sadly going to pay the price for this foolish choice. What if this was WWIII what would they do without gas?
NATO would spend several weeks systemically destroying Russian aircraft, air defenses, command and communication centers. After achieving air dominance, major centers of tactical gravity would be attacked. NATO combined arms brigades would sweep into West Ukraine under the cover of strike aircraft and helicopter gunships. Deep precision strikes against reserve marshaling spots, logistical centers, and transportation hubs would isolate Russian front line forces. Two armored pinchers would race to sever the Donbas from Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson from Zaporizhzhia. Upon reaching the Black Sea, the Russia Army would be split into thirds. Meanwhile the Russian Black Sea Fleet would all join their flagship after a series of massive anti-ship missile attacks led by US Naval Aviation.
@@Rob_F8F I don't think they would even need boots on the ground. A massive air campaign destroying Russian Air Defenses, Military Bases, and the Black Sea Fleet. The Ukrainians would be Thunder Running the whole front. I give it a week or two.
Your very intelligent, logical, and thoughtful. Kherson "retreat" sounds like nuclear threat too.. I also heard a thing today that said that Russia taking those regions and illegally annexing them, was just a way for them to overwhelm for a moment and then concentrate their troops in the area that they truly wanted. I'm just trying to say, who the hell knows what's going to happen next. That's why it is so important to anybody who doesn't just care about cell phones and food here in America.
Finally a civilian that gets it, everyone should really listen and pay attention to this video, it's almost right on the money. I salute you sir, great job, I'm going to forward this and show this to those people that think Russia will use nukes and are just fear mongering. Thank you so much. I'm a US Army 74D CBRN (NBC) specialist, nukes and nuclear warfare's my specialty and I endorse this message.
@@Nedula007 the next day and now it plays lol, wtf... and theres a warning at the top saying "includes a paid promotion" which ive never seen before. Weird.
Correct, the odds of tactical nuclear weapons use is low, however the administrator is incorrect in speculating on the type of delivery platforms used, and dismissing their effectiveness. Their potential use would be devastating, and would lead to an overwhelming Ukrainian defeat in a matter of days, through the fear factor alone on massed conscrips. In the unlikely event of their use, say to prevent a Ukrainian invasion or retaking of Crimea, their deployment would come in the form of 152mm and 203mm artillery shells, as well as from standoff ordnance. Again their use is highly unlikely, the use of nerve agents represents a far greater risk for use in repelling massed counterattacks, and leave much less of a contamination legacy on the environment.
Nah I’m 100% sure force would definitely be used. Doesn’t mean we’d nuke back(that would be a dumb decision unless an ICBM was used) but we would attack and some NATO countries including the US have already publicly said they would. Article 5 is a bit misinterpreted tho. If one country is attacked, it doesn’t mean all of the other countries have to actually use physical force to help. It could be anything from simply sending in supplies to using an army(they could even use 509 troops if they want). Ukraine isn’t apart of NATO but if things escalate that Is one way for someone to use an excuse.
Ironic thing is, Putin probably would’ve gone down as one of Russia’s greatest leaders and one of the most influential and popular on the world stage if he’d settled for Crimea and retired in 2018. But, in Russia its always go big or go accidentally fall out of a balcony…
@@realnapster1522 More than that He's reset the board, with most of the world against the West. The West's leaders are morons and their populations are uninformed.
If Russia uses nukes it will most likely increase the likelihood of a surrender. Common sense is that it will increase Ukraine Moral and resolve. But the japan case has demonstrated what happens when it occurs in real life.
Japan stood alone against the United States. Ukraine doesn't stand alone against Russia, because NATO and many other countries are supporting it. I don't think that NATO could just watch Ukrainian cities being vaporized with nukes. An intervention would probably take place at that point.
@@Tuppoo94 wait,people were saying Ukraine was small and weak and fighting alone holding the big Russian bear But they are being backed up by almost 30 countries,so in reality,it isn't that small or weak
@@stevenortiz9008 Ukraine alone is much smaller than Russia, but the point is that they're not alone, unlike Russia, which is steadily losing the few friends it had before the war. Soon Russia's only ally will be the mighty country of North Korea.
The one aspect which I think you missed here is Russia's great power identity and Putin's actual identity. I'd move that risk percentage to at least 40%. There's this strong feeling within me that Putin and his bravado wants to use nuclear weapons and put his name in the books. This is likely to be one of if not his last opportunities.
Agreed. He knows the jig is up. No more jollies around the world, being feted as a respected world leader. It's a case of - if I have to go, I'm going to take as many people with me. Reminds me Ivan the Terrible.
Talk about the major shift from talking about war and nuclear weapons to Hello Fresh. Definitely would not have ever expected that ad with this type of video haha. Good video though
Hypothetically question: If the war in Ukraine leads to a regime change by internal forces within the Russian Federation, what happens to the nuclear and chemical weapons. Would the US/NATO or other countries take steps to make sure they didn't find their way to the non-state actor or rogue states? When the USSR fell a lot of Soviet conventional weapons (gun and tanks) found their way into the black market.
@@piotrd.4850 If there is a regime change there might be a lot of countries that will want out of the Russian Federation and that invites chaos and what will Moscow do if they have chemical or Nuclear weapons in those areas. My greatest fear is what happened in the Balkans.
I am curious what it would take for Ukraine to stop Russian oil production, does anyone know? In other words, where are the oil and gas wells and the important infrastructure, like ports for example, that are used to export the oil? If Ukraine could disable these, they can end the war. The Russia economy is mostly just a gas station. If you stop the production, there is no more Russian economy and they can only print money (with high inflation) in the short term to sustain it. After that, there will be a complete collapse and significant social unrest that they won't have the financial resources to mitigate.
Honestly its moot point to discuss about location of Russian ICBM nuclear warheads Coz most of them are truck based, heavy bomber based, and submarine based launcher platforms which s mobile platform Perhaps only few portions are site based
@@noway57 NATO is not advancing . Country's ask to join NATO mostly due to russian aggression and because they dont want to be under the russian boot again.
Putin is wrong, but the USA and NATO are just as wrong. This would have never happened if the USA never got involved with the Ukraine coups and propping up western friendly regimes in Ukraine. This isn't all on Russia. There were big missteps under the Obama, Trump and of course Biden administration. And NATO flirting with Ukraine also inflamed things. Its not about letting go of the past. Russia and the west had an agreement and the west went back on their word by accepting former Soviet states into NATO.
I'm not worried about their tactical nukes, since I haven't seen any signs they're going to use those yet. What I have seen though are videos of them moving their strategic RS-28 into position. If you're easily scared, don't look those up on Wikipedia...
Sorry Covert unless you can explain, it's a deeply bad assessment to think the US wouldn't respond kinetically to nuclear weapons use. They have nearly outright stated as much. It's also a 50-50 probability in that scenario that Poland, and thr Baltic states press the article 5 button.
It's worth remembering that Ukraine has access to the worlds supply of highly radioactive dust at Chernobyl and plenty of capable delivery systems (Tochka-U for example). Vlad might not want to go down that path.
Those propagating the information about Russia using nuclear weapons are simply distracting you from the reality of worsening economies and increasing high costs of living in most countries while giving you other things to start worrying about. Why all of a sudden would Russia want to use nuclear weapons when no one wins in a nuclear war? Tomorow if they manufacture another headache for you to worry about, will you still accommodate it rent free in your head? What if Russia used nuclear weapons what would you as an individual do to make your situation any better?
The american NRO satillites can see nuclear weapons being transported on trucks by detecting the nuclear decay of the warhead. Removing a warhead from storage then transporting it would set off sirens in washington dc.
Great video. Thanks. I’d say the odds are extremely low. And if Russia used them over in Ukraine, I hope all the western leaders including, President Brandon, would have the good sense not to escalate with nukes. This would be bad.
Imagine if we had a president that didn't disparaging a bunch of foreign leaders as soon as he was elected maybe we wouldn't be talking about nuclear war not even half way through his term. Just a few days ago he called the new Italian PM Giorgia Meloni a fascist.
'One of the most startling facts that I discovered by application of grid mathematics was that an atomic bomb is a device based on the geometrics of space and time. To be successfully detonated, the bomb MUST be geometrically constructed, placed on, under, or over a geometric position in relation to the Earth’s surface, and activated at a SPECIFIC TIME in relation to the geometrics of the solar system. I found that it was possible to precalculate the time of various bomb tests, and the locations where it was possible to explode a bomb. According to the mathematical complexities of unlocking the geometric structure of the unstable material constituting a bomb in order to create a sudden release of energy, I realised that an all-out atomic war was an impossibility. Both sides could precalculate well in advance the time and positions of atomic attack. Plus the fact that only certain geometric locations could be devastated anyhow. A logical war cannot be considered under these circumstances. This could be the explanation for the proliferation of conventional weapons in modern warfare.' Bruce Cathie - The Harmonic Conquest of Space Point being, the people who calculate these things already know when and where, far in advance. A strike overnight isn't unlikely, it's impossible.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks to HelloFresh for sponsoring today's video. Go to strms.net/CovertCabalHelloFreshOctoberYT and use code POGCOVERT65 for 65% off plus free shipping on your first box!
Simple answer no. Russia can deploy the Poseidon in a box on the bottom of the ocean. And it can sit there for months, years until given the activation command. There could be dozens of Poseidon's pointed at the East and West coast of the USA. Just sitting dormant and the USA would never know or find them. And Russia can activate them remotely. There's no stopping the Poseidon's especially after they denote. You'll have a 1600 ft radioactive wave coming at you. This is how you take out the USA.
You mentioned the US "not sending own troops", the US has boots on the ground in ukraine so does the UK, thats a fact. So does that mean they are provoking ww3
You will of course just like Nazi Germany be proven wrong🤡
I just checked out the link. I have to pick a plan and pay BEFORE I can even see what meals they offer. What a garbage company.
Shame on you for working with them!
Hello fresh killed some peoples kidneys. do some research yourself.
0:20 "Oh T-90 of the lake, what is your wisdom?"
The red forest is not the place to dig for burried treasure
@@Stuck_In_The_Ice_Box Get out of here, Stalker.
@@marco8414 All praise the Монолит
"if a huge weird looking industrial building is on fire and you see chunks of hot graphite on the ground, don't play with them"
Don't cross the Dnieper without proper air support.
I found the sponsor too funny, as not too often you see add of grocery on a video discussing the usage of weapons of mass destruction, totally a humanity moment😂💀
Was going to say the same thing. Let's talk about the possibility of the end of mankind - but first, a word from our sponsors.
thats hillarious)
Better pay for the service
Capitalism at its finest. ❤
@@Balazs227 Best happiest commercial ever 🤩🤩🤩🤩
An ad for home food delivery while Russia's use of nuclear weapons is discussed. We live in truly a silly age.
Honestly it's the same feeling if I watch cable news. I have family that watches fox and one second it's talking about some tragedy and then it's pillow commercial time baby.
@@thelovewizard8954 I don't see the problem. I am about to eat dinner, and then take a shower. I do have a coupon for at-home food groceries delivery. Maybe I'll use it before the 31st.
Capitalism, my dude! Missile on its way? Order now for delivery before it hits!
Can't wait to hear a knock on my bunker door only to see a man in full NBC gear delivering the food I ordered
@@TacticalBaguette could even be the guy from vault tec? :P
You should’ve segued to Hello Fresh at the end. “…and if you find yourself in a bunker after a nuclear exchange, Hello Fresh can deliver food directly to your vault door.”
Missed opportunity for sure 😆, but also would be false advertising cuz there is no way in hell they'd actually be able to deliver.
Just gotta fight the radroaches for it.
for reference, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were between 13 and 21 Kilotons yield. the Iskandar equipped with a 'tactical' nuclear warhead is more powerful than Fat Man, of 21 kt yield, dropped on Nagasaki on August 9th 1945. let's keep that in mind, it's still got the ability to level a relatively large city.
And lets not forget the russians, and americans, have conventional bombs and bombers that can level entire cities. More deaths occured by the firebombing of tokyo than the atamic bombs of the era. That's stil true today if there's a will to level cities.
Hmm,but would it make it slower ? You can see the bids of iskanders crashing on the ground
Nagasaki was only partially leveled.
@@Deadassbruhfrfr The mountains shielded parts of the city from the worst of the blast.
@@LeePatekar I belive 4 planes where sent to Hiroshima with one weapon used vs hundreds sent to Tokyo dropping what would likely be a damn near uncountable amount of firebombs and normal bombs.
I am highly, *Highly* doubtful of their use in this war, there have been more dire conflicts in the world post Nagasaki where they haven't but couldve. And besides they wouldn't actually provide any tactical or Battlefield advantage, short of nuking Kiev, and Russia is being attacked by ukraine and they haven't changed their stance but no matter what it would Warren NATO intervention.
As Putin said this is a war against the west
In a lot of ways your right but the big concern is not the reality but the perception of Putin. The more of a corner he is shoved into the bigger the appeal and the smaller the consaquences of use become for him.
Russia or Putin, who has been in a more dire situation?
Which dire conflict do you speak of?
Their actual usefulness isn't important, their usefulness is the threat of escalation. Ukraine is only afloat because of NATO supplies and if using nukes will force NATO to decide between cutting-back or escalation, NATO outside of the US will probably pick cutting-back
I really appreciate you going the extra mile and including satellite imagery in recent videos. Really gives an extra perspective, no matter how useful they are to the specific topic.
I'm really glad you're making these types of videos, I being a Veteran myself. It's helps to cool the room and lower the panic. I see some civies supporting Russia cause they think the West should stop helping Ukraine fight Russsia (Russia being the ones who started the war). They think Armageddon is going to happen if we don't settle for Outins demands. Its a ashame really that people (civies buy some current/ex military) believe in the mis/disinformation and the panic from ignorance.
People like that in the 40s sat back and allowed Hitler to grab land.
Shame, Some people really want to give in to bullies😔
honestly, nothing new as brinkmanship exist ever since cold war. also some people just support Putin but supporting him outright make bad visual, so they also will use that nuclear scare strategy.
some, just support Russia because its not US. Whether the US = bad, US now = globalist = bad variety
@@TheGrace020 yes Elon musk
@@bigbadlara5304 That or he just likes money, either way horrible.
In regards to the trains moving I’ve heard Ukrainians say Russia always moves them regularly like that so no one will know when they’re legitimately moving them.
That's one thing this video made me question.
If the system is really like it's described in this video isn't that kinda bad?
Giving your enemies advanced warning of the use of nuclear weapons doesn't seem like a smart thing.
@@Jehty_ Not really considering the main purpose of nuclear weapons is deterrence not actually shooting them and moving them is pretty far up the chain from actual usage
@@rammusannus5364 it's been a while since I watched the video, but iirc the video is talking about tactical nuclear weapons.
And that type of nuclear weapon is not meant as a deterrence. It's meant to be used on the battlefield.
@@Jehty_ Yes it is
@@rammusannus5364 what is yes?
I think sending more powerful weapons to Ukraine wouldn't be enough as a reaction for using nuclear weapons.
I am pretty sure the US would do an Air Campaign of some sort, either attacking russian targets in Donbass and Luhanks or attacking crimea and destroying all bases there. The cost for Russia to use nuclear weapons has to be higher than just giving Ukraine better weapons to defend themselves.
i agree 100% . what better weapons could we give ukraine ? other than nukes i don't see anything that's on a grand scale. if we do basically nothing that means putin can just nuke more.
You should read your comment again. That kind of offensive would result in many russia deaths. Just one russian base being attacked by nato would 100% result in russian nuclear retaliation, since its the only way to retaliate against Nato.
@@zjpdarkblaze Nuclear deterrence is all about demonstrating either through force or diplomacy that the cost of using those weapons is too great a cost to pay.
So, no, sitting on your ass and doing nothing for fear of escalation would not be an effective response to Russian nuclear weapon deployment. They would use even more, because they no theres no consequences.
Targeted strikes on the military infrastructure Russia needs to wage war would be an effective deterrent though, because it makes Putin choose between using those weapons and losing the war or not using them and maybe winning.
And Russia has barely managed to handle the Ukrainian military. How well do you think they could handle NATO strikes?
R u ready to for the US to get totally leveled by Russia? They can do that. They can erase the US whenever they want, never forget this.
Russia would retaliate with a strategic nuclear strike on AmeriKa 😁😁😁
It makes zero sense to mobilize 300k men just to then use nukes. It would've made way more sense to use them when they were pulling back from Kharkov and northern areas of Kherson regions.
They need 3 million men to stand a chance.
The whole war doesnt make sense. But i also dont think they will use nukes. And also it makes no sense to back off just because someone threatens to use nukes.
How about this? Putin retreats entirely and pretends the 'special operation' is a success ... or never happened.
It also made 0 sense for Putin to double down on a losing effort. You can never predict the behavior of a maddening dictator
@@hamzamahmood9565 when your actions are motivated by money and whispered by Jewish investors, sense of everything gets lost
Your channel came a long way. Much better written, the pictures and videos are selected more carefully to actually reflect the topic in question, etc.
Good job on staying factual, doing your research and putting out useful information.
Thank you!
A nuclear strike by Russia will most probably force NATO and the wide international community to respond. I doubt that NATO or even the EU would stand for that line to be crossed without a physical response of some sort. It's really interesting as a UK resident to watch all the comings and goings of non UK ships and subs in our ports and Faslane at the moment. Never seen so many foreign ships in and out of Pompey!
If you think there is a western country that will physically attack Russia because Russia use tactical nukes in Ukraine then you are really crazy
My main concern about nuclear strikes is the possibility of the accidental escalation. The only thing which prevented use of nukes by the soviets during Cuban missile crisis was a decision of one soviet officer Vasily Arkhipov. I don't want to guess whether we will be lucky this time
I don't know if we'll be so lucky this time, especially with how brainwashed the russians are now...
But they weren't ordered to by the USSR. A fellow officer assumed an attack was taking place. If they were ordered to, they would have.
Both the Biden administration and the Kremlin have confirmed that the famous direct line is operational and being routinely tested so either one can initiate the call and make the split second decision to trust the other person or see who has the quicker draw.
11:29 what I imagine the US is saying to Russia about using nukes in Ukraine...."That's a nice fleet you have there in the Black Sea, it would be a shame if something happened to it."
I don't think the US would do anything if Russia used nukes. They wouldn't wanna escalate. The next nuke could hit the US itself...
"And Washington would look lovely with a second sun on it"
*Black Sea.
@@danielelombardo8196 Using a nuke to reply to a conventional punitive strike is the biggest L.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD i'm sure everyone will be making memes about it in the afterlife
Most are stored underground in case folks with google earth shows what looks to be a storage site. Also, tunnels adjacent to bases makes transportation less vulnerable.
And then there are the nukes in submarines. They always have a few subs having them onboard, right?
@@hendrikdependrik1891 yeah there’s always subs about, what I know from watching former submariners is the Russian subs are super loud, and both countries subs usually follow each other around. Of course you won’t know they launch until they do most likely, but still it’s highly likely we know where most of them are at
Is it just me or the video is broken? The audio is normal but image just looks like thumbnail and doesn't change. Other videos are fine so it's not my yt being cursed. Anyone has the same issue?
Thanks for analysis. There is also a nuclear warhead storage site in Foros (Crimea), which is close to Sevastopol.
Also, you didn’t mentioned possibility of usage of nuclear charges for heavy artillery like “Peony” (“Pion”) SPA.
WW3 has made for some great content.
But WW3 won't happen😒
@@vyros.3234 maybe we have to wait an see if putin will use nukes or if China does eventually invade Taiwan or if North Korea decides to do something other then blowing the ocean up
@@vyros.3234 decent chance. It's a 🤡world out there.
Nuclear War and Hello Fresh. Perfectly balanced content 😂
lol right
You should look into the "Tritium/Deuterium Dichotomy"
To maintain the Warheads a country has to change the Tritium/Deuterium Charge every few years.
And the Production of 2H/3H is expensive, combined with the Corruption running wild in Russia
weird, my browser cant play this video
Also: range with nuclear wahread is quite possibly larger, as these are typically half of a weight of their conventional payload.
Thanks man, you are always mu go to source for this kinda information
Wow. Tried to watch this vide and it ha a message stating “we’re processing this video check back later “
Who's here from Ryan Mcbeths video on the upkeep of nukes? Lol
Whether Russia is or isn't going to use nukes is irrelevant. The West has a defensive nuclear weapon policy, and therefore has basically given up the initiative when it comes to nukes. Because of this, the West has to be prepared to receive the first blow as well. The West's military capability has to be built on the assumption that Russia will strike first with nuclear weapons, so the key thing is that operations must continue despite the attack. Putin needs to be made to understand that he won't get what he wants even with nuclear weapons. No matter how hard his forces hit the West or allied countries, there will be resistance and a response, and he will never be able to gain the upper hand.
France doesn’t last time I checked
What are you smoking? The USA has never renounced First Strike. US nuclear strategy has always been reliant on the country's ability to detect USSR/Russia preparing to launch nukes. With news of an imminent Soviet/Russian launch, US strategy would be to launch first in order to catch Soviet/Russian missiles and bombers on the ground.
Truth in that. America would definitely try and intercept what they could(if possible) and if a tactical Nuke is used, it would result in American and other counties physically taking on Russia in some sort of ways. Which definitely would lead to WWIII eventually. We wouldn’t respond with nukes ourself unless they nuked Us or another NATO ally. And even then, I can only really see us nuking back if they nuked the continental US. But it’s hard to tell.
@@Rob_F8F it doesn’t matter. World will end even if one country launches.
@@realnapster1522 Yes. It's MAD.
I was just addressing the twaddle in the OP of "The West has prepared to receive the first blow." Putin should know the MAD is still very real and to keep his nuclear weapons in their bunkers where they belong.
One thing to add.
Russia started attacking power infrastructure for two reasons. Salty for military setbacks and you kill power, you reduce communication. People need to charge their drones, phones, access internet, listen to TV, Radio and share location of enemy and for military to coordinate attacks.
Russia didn't do that before which made open source info too easy against them. It's too late though, something like should be done on the eve of attack, not ~7 months in.
Russia struck infrastructure since the start, but Starlink brought comms back.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Yeah, but not power stations
@@SashaFoxfort Ya, not sure why. maybe they don't want to rebuild it if they win?
@@rogersmith573 they expected local support for some reason? Most likely bad info due to massive corruption.
Hi, William Spaniels channel recently had a video where it was postulated that Russia could use a low yield tatical weapon to deescalate the war (exploding the device in a low casualty area (such as over the Black Sea)) to "force" negotiations by the implied threat, how do you think Ukraine and the West would respond to this (is this a checkmate move)?
No because NATO and/or the US could counter with a demonstration nuclear detonation of their own and even detonate 2 bombs for every 1 Russia uses as its "demonstration" THAT IS "CHECKMATE" right there !
I only see thumbnail through the whole video for some reason.
Great video covert cable!
It says "Your Browser can't play this video." It's like that on all browesers. What's going on?
yeah
Same for me on multiple browsers/devices/locations
Seems fixed now
3:58 golf course. 5:00 crazy golf course
What if they use a powerful EMP device air burst. Can you theoretically analyze that option ?
Every nuclear weapon is a powerful emp when detonated in the upper atmosphere. The problem is you don't know if that rocket is targeting upper atmosphere or ground radar when it's launched. And with only 20-40 min to decide you aren't going to wait and see
And emps have no effect on military equipment. We've known about Faraday cages and EM shielding since the 50's.
@@CDSAfghan Agreed, if you see an incoming nuke, you have no idea what it is. A counter weapon (nuke), will be in the air long before it can strike. Codes sent out to sub, and bombers in the air. Can't risk not being able to respond if an EMP takes everything out.
@@CDSAfghan short term it could take active defense systems offline and blind you to further attacks. Orders will go out long before that can happen. It would be war.
@@CDSAfghan If small EMP was used on Ukraine, maybe wouldn't provoke a response, but I honestly don't think it would have much effect on them either. Most of the equipment is old russian equipment that likely has very little advanced electronics in them. They would run fine.
9:45 if you have a space program (with say a dedicated airforce minature unmanned space shuttle) you CAN test your nukes, just do it on the far side of the sun where nobody without a space program can see you.
With NATO's comments about a "physical response" made yesterday, the issue with just ramping up supplies to Ukraine with more powerful weapons would be perceived as weak by Russia, and an indication that they can get away with nuking Ukraine. So in a very real sense, both Putin and NATO have painted themselves into a corner, where the only way out is to escalate.
Indeed - this is same as in paradocumentary "Looking Glass".
So, we fuccd? 😬
If NATO had any sense they would start terror bombing Moscow in the event of a nuclear attack. Yes, they're civilians - but in this case i'd be willing to bet the people of Russia would get the message.
@@caesarsalad1170 No, I don't think so. We can't rule out the possibility of escalation, but neither side will gain. I feel that NATO will pull out support for Ukraine before they risk World War 3. Or NATO is suicidal.
@@KimJungGooner exactly as Russia can nuke entire EU within minutes and continental US will be destroyed in an hour. It’s suicide to go against Russia or China.
I love that video clip of the soldiers walking towards the mushroom cloud.
WILL THE WORLD END? first a word from our sponsors
2:25. What year was that from?
I disagree, I think NATO would have no choice but to respond with strikes on Russia if they used a nuke. How far those strikes would go, whether it would only be on russians forces in ukraine +/- the black see fleet or if it would include targets in russia is the question. Allowing russia to use nukes without a kinetic response runs the risk that the nukes work, and allow russia to consolidate their gains and force a negotiated settlement. That would set an incredibly dangerous precedent that nuclear states can use their bombs to annex territory without consequences. That risk is too great. I suspect a nuclear strike would result on NATO air strikes on all russian positions in ukraine, and the conversion of the black sea fleet into an all submarine force. Im not sure if NATO would send in ground troops though, or even if it would need to.
Agreed. The idea that NATO could a) discourage tactical nuclear weapon use with nothing more than threats of sending more weapons to ukraine and b) would be concerned that striking russian targets to avoid escalations post-nuclear war is one of the most uninformed and brain dead takes ive ever seen.
If everyone knows the only response to a nuclear weapon is increased weapon sales to their enemy, countries like North Korea will just start blasting.
If NATO responds then it will be WW3.
Europe aould be wiped out in less then 24 hours..
I personally think that the west’s response to Russia using a nuclear weapon would be a lot more aggressive. The biggest reason for this is the concern that if they don’t start driving the tanks eastward at least to kick Russia out of Ukraine and the black sea then it would normalize the use of the atomic bomb, and before long every country would realize that using it wouldn’t necessarily mean their destruction. If that happened, you might start getting Saudi Arabia and other countries that we don’t normally associate with being great powers like turkey, and Brazil attempting their hands at nukes. However, if Russia used a nuke and got so thoroughly thrashed by NATO in Eastern Europe, it would reinforce the nuclear taboo without actually having to respond with a nuke.
My family in Poland said reports are in the Russia is retreating.. I am HOPING that they are not going to use nukes.
Well, don't live anywhere near Rzeszow in that regard!
They're likely retreating because the Ukrainian forces are closing in and they know their days are numbered if they stay.
Russia is retreating because is losing.
5:26 before the title question is even started to be explained.
One thing I would point out is that escalating the war by way of using nuclear weapons would be disadvantageous for Russia on diplomatic level the most. If they would have any hope in hypothetical WWIII they would absolutely need China on their side and India at the very least staying out. China does seem to be lossing patience with Russia and would be unlikely to support it directly even if the war escalated in other way, but definitely not if the escalation came from Russia using nuclear weapons. Heck, China might even see Russia as a liability in this case and stand against it!
China and India won’t get involved. Europe will be destroyed with parts of US also destroyed.
How in the world is China losing patience with Russia?
By not winning.
The war between Russia and Ukraine has nothing to do with China. Because of this war, China has attracted a lot of investment from Europe, and many German companies are about to move to China.
But at a time when Russia is divided, China will not stand idly by. If Russia itself is invaded by NATO, China will assist Russia. This will be the 2.0 version of the Korean War.😅
Неймовірно гарна робота!! Дякую!!
0:20 whoever took that photo knew exactly what they were doing, getting it from that specific angle 🤣
oh panzer of the lake
@@about47t-rexes12 Ah yes, a specimen in its natural habitat. Rarer in the past, but more prevalent today. Can be admired...and laughed at.
The like to Covert Cabal’s discussion is very interesting.
I want to start a food delivery company and call it "too dumb to go to store".
Awesome, thanks!
Thanks for making the video I would love to see more content daily
Thanks for the information
10-20% huh. I guess it's inevitable now.
Yeah, on the big picture 20% isn’t low by any means, that’s 1/4 probability
@@d.olivergutierrez8690 Actually it’s 1/5-5% lower probability
0:20
Oh, T72 of the lake, what is your wisdom?
"Never engage in a land war in Asia..."
The composition of that photo is identical to PotL, it's eerie.
I like your considered discussion. But 20% is REALLY worrisome!
Lol iknow. 10-20% chance is a fuck ton when talking about nuclear war.
Please do a video on underground nuclear testing!! There’s no videos on the subject and I honestly have no idea how they are performed
will they use them... HELLO FRESH!
Love your videos!
"Will the world be ending tomorrow in a violent hellscape of nuclear fire? But first a message from Hello Fresh."
Nice...
Haha. Gotta pay the bills. I never liked talking about nuclear war, as at that point all bets are off. But with tactical nuclear weapons... hopefully we can still get our Hello Fresh order delivered lol
@@CovertCabal my friend works at one of their plants in GA. She absolutely loves it there. They take good care of their employees.
@@mahtoosacks the tactical nuclear plant?
@@Jehty_ yea... she works at the tactical nuclear plant... she gets to sample the new ones out back. Neighbors love watching the tests. 🙄
It doesn't matter what browser I use I can't get this video to play but it will play everything else...... What's going on??
Thanks for the insights.
I don't see why Covert Cabal would have a better understanding of what the US response to the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine than General Petraeus. His assessment of the likely US response was not backed up by any sort of evidence or documentation. That's just sloppy. And the estimation of the probability of their use; he's just inventing numbers. You cannot make these sorts of estimations without some sort of model. This is just all bad.
The most important part of the warhead - its explosive radioactive core - naturally decays over time. The official estimate had been that plutonium should hold up for at least 45 years.
Please do a video about what if US/NATO did intervene directly against Russian Force in Ukraine after the use of a nuclear weapon.
it would be clear. Russia would be pushed back. They would feal very threatened. This is what could trigger nuclear war. Nato may supply equipment, but I think it end there. Now is the CIA sitting in Taxes flying drones with advanced sensor and sat/gps guidance systems attacking Russia in Ukraine? I would put money on it. Nordstream USA sabotage? No way to know, but sadly odds are yes. if proven, A heft fine the USA should have to pay. Other side of that is what was the Eu thinking in the first place? Maybe don't buy national security assets from your potential enemies in the first place? German people are sadly going to pay the price for this foolish choice. What if this was WWIII what would they do without gas?
Russian forces would be annihilated and thrown out of the country
NATO would spend several weeks systemically destroying Russian aircraft, air defenses, command and communication centers.
After achieving air dominance, major centers of tactical gravity would be attacked.
NATO combined arms brigades would sweep into West Ukraine under the cover of strike aircraft and helicopter gunships.
Deep precision strikes against reserve marshaling spots, logistical centers, and transportation hubs would isolate Russian front line forces.
Two armored pinchers would race to sever the Donbas from Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson from Zaporizhzhia. Upon reaching the Black Sea, the Russia Army would be split into thirds.
Meanwhile the Russian Black Sea Fleet would all join their flagship after a series of massive anti-ship missile attacks led by US Naval Aviation.
@@Rob_F8F I don't think they would even need boots on the ground.
A massive air campaign destroying Russian Air Defenses, Military Bases, and the Black Sea Fleet.
The Ukrainians would be Thunder Running the whole front.
I give it a week or two.
@@jascrandom9855 True, just in 2001 in Afghanistan when the US provided sir power and the North Alliance provided the boots on the ground.
13:05 "but in the long run its not the end of the world" it struck me that this was said in the most littoral way 😂
@Covert Cabal
VIDEO WON'T PLAY, shows: Your browser can't play this video. on every devise!!
Your very intelligent, logical, and thoughtful. Kherson "retreat" sounds like nuclear threat too.. I also heard a thing today that said that Russia taking those regions and illegally annexing them, was just a way for them to overwhelm for a moment and then concentrate their troops in the area that they truly wanted. I'm just trying to say, who the hell knows what's going to happen next. That's why it is so important to anybody who doesn't just care about cell phones and food here in America.
Finally a civilian that gets it, everyone should really listen and pay attention to this video, it's almost right on the money. I salute you sir, great job, I'm going to forward this and show this to those people that think Russia will use nukes and are just fear mongering. Thank you so much.
I'm a US Army 74D CBRN (NBC) specialist, nukes and nuclear warfare's my specialty and I endorse this message.
Excellent vid👍🙏🙏
"Your browser cant play this video"....uh, why not? no problem with any other video...
Same here
same here as well
@@Nedula007 the next day and now it plays lol, wtf... and theres a warning at the top saying "includes a paid promotion" which ive never seen before. Weird.
Correct, the odds of tactical nuclear weapons use is low, however the administrator is incorrect in speculating on the type of delivery platforms used, and dismissing their effectiveness. Their potential use would be devastating, and would lead to an overwhelming Ukrainian defeat in a matter of days, through the fear factor alone on massed conscrips. In the unlikely event of their use, say to prevent a Ukrainian invasion or retaking of Crimea, their deployment would come in the form of 152mm and 203mm artillery shells, as well as from standoff ordnance. Again their use is highly unlikely, the use of nerve agents represents a far greater risk for use in repelling massed counterattacks, and leave much less of a contamination legacy on the environment.
Exactly. Nukes have an additional fear factor and radiation effects. They are horrible weapons.
If they do i can only imagine excuses NATO will come up with for doing nothing
Very likely!! Ukraine is not in NATO! You want to end the world over it?
Nah I’m 100% sure force would definitely be used. Doesn’t mean we’d nuke back(that would be a dumb decision unless an ICBM was used) but we would attack and some NATO countries including the US have already publicly said they would.
Article 5 is a bit misinterpreted tho. If one country is attacked, it doesn’t mean all of the other countries have to actually use physical force to help. It could be anything from simply sending in supplies to using an army(they could even use 509 troops if they want). Ukraine isn’t apart of NATO but if things escalate that Is one way for someone to use an excuse.
Its funny how hellow fresh is sponsoring a video about nuclear war!
Imagine if authoritarian leaders knew how to quit. Russia wishes it was possible.
Ironic thing is, Putin probably would’ve gone down as one of Russia’s greatest leaders and one of the most influential and popular on the world stage if he’d settled for Crimea and retired in 2018. But, in Russia its always go big or go accidentally fall out of a balcony…
@@EntertaningAmerica he is still a great leader as he greatly expanded Russian influence.
@@realnapster1522 More than that He's reset the board, with most of the world against the West. The West's leaders are morons and their populations are uninformed.
The Rybar channel has most likely been taken over by the FSB rn.
If Russia uses nukes it will most likely increase the likelihood of a surrender. Common sense is that it will increase Ukraine Moral and resolve. But the japan case has demonstrated what happens when it occurs in real life.
Surrender of Russia after their conventional military is annihilated.
Japan stood alone against the United States. Ukraine doesn't stand alone against Russia, because NATO and many other countries are supporting it. I don't think that NATO could just watch Ukrainian cities being vaporized with nukes. An intervention would probably take place at that point.
@@Tuppoo94 wait,people were saying Ukraine was small and weak and fighting alone holding the big Russian bear
But they are being backed up by almost 30 countries,so in reality,it isn't that small or weak
@@stevenortiz9008 Ukraine alone is much smaller than Russia, but the point is that they're not alone, unlike Russia, which is steadily losing the few friends it had before the war. Soon Russia's only ally will be the mighty country of North Korea.
@@stevenortiz9008 They decimated Russia's forces even before they were supported, try harder.
1st class ...thanks for sharing
Amazing content!
The one aspect which I think you missed here is Russia's great power identity and Putin's actual identity. I'd move that risk percentage to at least 40%. There's this strong feeling within me that Putin and his bravado wants to use nuclear weapons and put his name in the books. This is likely to be one of if not his last opportunities.
Agreed. He knows the jig is up. No more jollies around the world, being feted as a respected world leader.
It's a case of - if I have to go, I'm going to take as many people with me. Reminds me Ivan the Terrible.
Talk about the major shift from talking about war and nuclear weapons to Hello Fresh. Definitely would not have ever expected that ad with this type of video haha. Good video though
Hypothetically question: If the war in Ukraine leads to a regime change by internal forces within the Russian Federation, what happens to the nuclear and chemical weapons. Would the US/NATO or other countries take steps to make sure they didn't find their way to the non-state actor or rogue states? When the USSR fell a lot of Soviet conventional weapons (gun and tanks) found their way into the black market.
I have been hearing about the lost nukes myth and nobody has used any. They'd have gone bad by now.
Why would new regime got rid of ONLY remaining military capability?
@@piotrd.4850 If there is a regime change there might be a lot of countries that will want out of the Russian Federation and that invites chaos and what will Moscow do if they have chemical or Nuclear weapons in those areas. My greatest fear is what happened in the Balkans.
@@fullfrontal2860 they may do what Ukraine did and give them up. It takes money to keep them in working order.
The US would certainly take steps, just as it did when the USSR collapsed.
Ryan McBeth brought me here.
I am curious what it would take for Ukraine to stop Russian oil production, does anyone know? In other words, where are the oil and gas wells and the important infrastructure, like ports for example, that are used to export the oil? If Ukraine could disable these, they can end the war.
The Russia economy is mostly just a gas station. If you stop the production, there is no more Russian economy and they can only print money (with high inflation) in the short term to sustain it. After that, there will be a complete collapse and significant social unrest that they won't have the financial resources to mitigate.
Honestly its moot point to discuss about location of Russian ICBM nuclear warheads
Coz most of them are truck based, heavy bomber based, and submarine based launcher platforms which s mobile platform
Perhaps only few portions are site based
Pretty sad we all have to worry about this because Russia can't get over the past and refuses to let go of 1980
Too bad nato can't stop advancing towards Russia when they said they wouldn't. Do you want bases of a foreign power right by your border?
@@noway57 counties near Russia are only seeking to join nato because Russia can’t stop invading ex USSR countries
@@noway57 NATO is not advancing .
Country's ask to join NATO mostly due to russian aggression and because they dont want to be under the russian boot again.
@@noway57 You mean just like what it did in the Baltics?
Putin is wrong, but the USA and NATO are just as wrong. This would have never happened if the USA never got involved with the Ukraine coups and propping up western friendly regimes in Ukraine. This isn't all on Russia. There were big missteps under the Obama, Trump and of course Biden administration. And NATO flirting with Ukraine also inflamed things. Its not about letting go of the past. Russia and the west had an agreement and the west went back on their word by accepting former Soviet states into NATO.
I'm not worried about their tactical nukes, since I haven't seen any signs they're going to use those yet. What I have seen though are videos of them moving their strategic RS-28 into position. If you're easily scared, don't look those up on Wikipedia...
Why? If they use those, they invite a total retaliation from the West. Mutually assured destruction means those weapons will never leave their silos.
Sorry Covert unless you can explain, it's a deeply bad assessment to think the US wouldn't respond kinetically to nuclear weapons use. They have nearly outright stated as much.
It's also a 50-50 probability in that scenario that Poland, and thr Baltic states press the article 5 button.
They can’t and wont respond as it will escalate to nuclear war. Russians are not afraid to die.
I hope they use them simply to spite redditors, shills and discord troons
Agreed,and i hope one of those land in Israel
@@stevenortiz9008 I hope they wipe it completely off the map.
Your Sponsor is loving you. Most comments are about Hello Fresh.
It's worth remembering that Ukraine has access to the worlds supply of highly radioactive dust at Chernobyl and plenty of capable delivery systems (Tochka-U for example).
Vlad might not want to go down that path.
Those propagating the information about Russia using nuclear weapons are simply distracting you from the reality of worsening economies and increasing high costs of living in most countries while giving you other things to start worrying about. Why all of a sudden would Russia want to use nuclear weapons when no one wins in a nuclear war? Tomorow if they manufacture another headache for you to worry about, will you still accommodate it rent free in your head? What if Russia used nuclear weapons what would you as an individual do to make your situation any better?
The american NRO satillites can see nuclear weapons being transported on trucks by detecting the nuclear decay of the warhead. Removing a warhead from storage then transporting it would set off sirens in washington dc.
They are smart enough to evade detection by US. But they don’t need to. Russia is winning this war with conventional weapons.
Stop living in Hollywood
Great video. Thanks. I’d say the odds are extremely low. And if Russia used them over in Ukraine, I hope all the western leaders including, President Brandon, would have the good sense not to escalate with nukes. This would be bad.
Imagine if we had a president that didn't disparaging a bunch of foreign leaders as soon as he was elected maybe we wouldn't be talking about nuclear war not even half way through his term. Just a few days ago he called the new Italian PM Giorgia Meloni a fascist.
@@Peizxcv Kamala muttdog has more sense than him
*NOT really.*
We are talking about tactical shells/missiles. They look the same as normal ones. Though any use of even that is still highly unlikely.
'One of the most startling facts that I discovered by application of grid mathematics was that an atomic bomb is a device based on the geometrics of space and time. To be successfully detonated, the bomb MUST be geometrically constructed, placed on, under, or over a geometric position in relation to the Earth’s surface, and activated at a SPECIFIC TIME in relation to the geometrics of the solar system. I found that it was possible to precalculate the time of various bomb tests, and the locations where it was possible to explode a bomb.
According to the mathematical complexities of unlocking the geometric structure of the unstable material constituting a bomb in order to create a sudden release of energy, I realised that an all-out atomic war was an impossibility. Both sides could precalculate well in advance the time and positions of atomic attack. Plus the fact that only certain geometric locations could be devastated anyhow. A logical war cannot be considered under these circumstances. This could be the explanation for the proliferation of conventional weapons in modern warfare.'
Bruce Cathie - The Harmonic Conquest of Space
Point being, the people who calculate these things already know when and where, far in advance. A strike overnight isn't unlikely, it's impossible.
You like the fact that hello fresh delivers direct ti your door. Hmm, where else would you pay them to send it?
Nothing’s more canny than an ad for consumer packaged foodstuffs in the middle of an infographic about a nuclear arsenal. Really nostalgic.
Hey, food is important! Haha
Wow how do you see the last time a photo was updated?
That ad placement got me good lmao
Great Video