The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five. I think Carl Sagan said that.
@@4TheFellas on one hand yes, but also hell no. It doesn't do justice to the psychology of the thing. Nuclear weapons are distant, as is the enemy. You have bunkers for politicians who light the fuse. The actors have a false sense of security while it is millions others who die before them having never seen or personally held one of the matches.
Carl Sagan also sent earths home coordinates into the vastness of space for any potential alien fleet to find and come wipe us out. Not exactly who I’d be quoting.
@@anatomicallycorrectmuppets8180 And past great men have done horrible things, it doesn't make them good people, yet it doesn't erase the good they've done or said. Essentially, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
@@anatomicallycorrectmuppets8180 yeah like alien's couldn't track radio waves regardless of what message they were containing. I doubt Carl Sagan will be the downfall of humanity. More likely people who struggle with logic...
" The assurances included the promise to have all sides respect the indepence, sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine " Wow, I am sure everyone respected this rule and Ukraine was never attacked by any country after this .
also let me stop this in its tracks. If ukraine joined nato that would give nato a foothold right at Russia's doorstep. This is the standard excuse for war-criminal apologists. Hello!? Russia has over 6000 nukes ensuring NO ONE EVER invades them. In fact no one has ever attempted to since ww2. Not even after the union's collapse. Also. ICBM's are a thing. (Intercontinental) what does that mean? means you can strike from far away, you don't need to be right next door but again as stated above: Russia's nuclear shield already ensures they're protected from invasion.
Seeing Wargame: Red Dragon gameplay when showing the Russians conducting an unsupported Airborne assault damn near made me spit out my coffee. 60% of matches in that game was Heli rushes lol
@@HairyTrigger Oh right, I forgot, you live in a fantasy world where the Ghost of Kiev took out the VDV that captured the Hostomel airport. Stick to video-games in that case.
I seriously love how timely your content has been of late. I like to think I have a better-than-average understanding of things. You always give things I do know more context... along with filling in lots of gaps in my knowledge and certainly, making me realize some things are indeed not what I think! Peace.
@@garyp4374 I do think for myself. Nobody tells me what to think, especially no know-it-all like yourself in the comment section of a video. I am just always open to learning more. I do not care where or how I learn, I just like to learn. NWYT always teaches me things. That is a good thing. Why are you here? To tell people like me what I should think? Seems you are but a hypocrite. Just saying.
As a Ukrainian, I can say that most of the video is true, and the decision to give up strategic nukes was a good one. But the tactical nukes should have been kept, as they are not that expensive and are still an amazing threat to Moscow.
@@TechMasterRus I know better what is best for us. Zelenskyi knows better too. Our people know better, and he was chosen. We have the most powerful and competent military on the continent. We are a 40 million nation, we are richer, smarter and much more free than muscovites. We have, and will fight for our rights to decide what to do, even about nuclear weapons. So better focus on yourself and your country, as the only clown here is you.
This might be your best video yet. Just one clarifier on security guarantees, they weren't worth anything in the end as during the first invasion of 2014 the UK and US did little to nothing to militarily help Ukraine. At that point the agreement was effectively dead, this new assistance cannot be considered as being made because of the original security guarantees.
If you read the Minsk agreement, you'd find the security guarantees were protection against NUCLEAR war. Nothing written about conventional war. Lesson: read before you sign.
@@danielheckel2755 Seems like you are correct, kind of. It's actually only an agreement to make _the UN_ provide security assistance to Ukraine, and since Russia has a UN veto... Wow, what a worthless agreement. (It does say Russia is supposed to not attack Ukraine with _any_ weapons as well, which Russia clearly broke, but there is no enforcement mechanism).
That was one hell of a bloodbath. Decades of suppressed hatred exploded onto the face of the planet. I'll never understand that kind of thing. Don't get me wrong I am very much a hawk. I believe in being prepared for anything no matter what the cost. I don't want to see another Holocaust in this world and I don't want to see another Pearl harbor. That means you have to have a strong defense. I know it's one of the few times in modern history that a country broke up with the death of leader then proceeded into a violent civil War. Even during World War II there was a civil war going on. Broz Tito by his indominable will brought Yugoslavia together in post-war Europe and to force of his will alone kept it together until his death. The relative peace in which people lived was lost as they forgot the lessons that he taught them. Don't get me wrong I'm not a strict fan of his but I do respect the man. His negatives are outweighed by his positives during his lifetime that I'm aware of especially in the realm of politics in Yugoslavia.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Yugoslavia was only together because of Tito, he was a good leader, especially in a time a lot of crazy commies running around killing millions of people. However it's just not a self correcting system, it's always going to collapse.
Actually, Ukraine didn't just gave up its nuclear weapons, we were forced to do it. Nobody asked us if we want to keep nukes. We had to choose: nuclear weapons or independency. In case if we disagreed with giving up on nukes, we would transform in new North Korea under terrible sanctions
great video, it was indeed not what I thought. I didn't know the ballistic missile had a minimum range, even though it makes total sense if you sit and think about it for a few seconds.. so yeah pretty on point on everything as usual
Going down a rabbit hole of nuclear-weapons related videos, so I’ll say my thoughts here too. It is honestly quite frustrating to me, knowing that the end of it all is far out of my control and instead in the hands of whatever maniac may be in charge. And seeing how we are growing ever closer to our world ending up like a game of DEFCON, it’s only a matter of time before someone who is actually insane enough takes charge. It is what it is, I guess. But hey, enjoy things as they are now instead of worrying about nuclear armageddon. There’s no need to get sad about these things, you know?
Think yourself lucky I’m not in control of a nuclear arsenal…….I can guarantee you that there would be no human life left on Earth 🤣. Even worse…..What if an animal rights/vegan activist get their hands on nukes. They would 100% Nuke us all to save the broccoli and cows.
only 1 country has every used a nuke on another. It was not done on a purely defense purpose either. I trust the other country far more with their nukes than this one. Next time a nuke goes up everyone is sending theirs.
@Hans Eriksson You're a🤡 the control computer codes that could unlock the operation of those ICBMs placed in Ukraine 🇺🇦 could only be accessible by top military officials who were bases in Russia 🇷🇺 (Moscow)
Ukraine give up it's nukes because they had russia. the West overthrow the Ukrainian Government. starting this shit today. if Ukraine had nukes the west wont be involve in Ukraine.
The cost of nuclear weapons only begins with their manufacturer. Afterwards you have maintenance, security, safe storage, upgrades and repair, Ukraine could not afford this. That's why they gave up the aircraft too.
I still think that they should have kept them. Probably downsizing the arsenal to a manageable number, and dismantling the nukes that they didn't have the codes for, even refurbishing them as conventional bombs. While ICBM's are the deadliest, any nuke is still a big threat. Tho, after watching this vid, maybe it was for the better. Nukes or not, a nation should have the means to defend itself.
"dismantling the nukes that they didn't have the codes for," meaning ALL THE NUKES. So, they become hazardous waste as their shelf life expires. But, the Ukraine is the industrial site in that they make all the armaments' for Russia. So maybe the barrels for Russia should have a crooked barrel or something like that. A ship that dissolves when placed in water. It won't right away because it has a new coat of paint...so dey never know.
But Ukraine had none of the codes for the nukes, meaning those nukes were useless to them regardless. Furthermore, nuclear weapons are expensive and constantly need to be maintained as its fissile material does not last as long as we might think. The Ukrainian economy is essentially non existent at independence. I don't blame the Ukrainian government having to prioritize other things rather then maintaining nukes that they don't even have control over.
Counter opinion: India was Similarly poor and corrupt in 1990s. Yet it developed nukes, tested them, suffered from crippling US sanctions and yet didn't budge to US pressure. Fast forward now, we're one of the fastest growing economies, soon will be 3rd largest economy and a major military power (more spending than Russia itself). And we still have those nukes (far less in number than Ukraine ever had). And, China or Pakistan never dared to invade us. This subcontinent no longer sees tank battles. All conflicts are now localised skirmishes which are de-escalated within days. Ask us Indians. The risks involved in keeping nukes is worth it. About the codes: if one tries hard enough, he can circumvent them. If Ukraine "couldn't" use their bombs, then Russia/West wouldn't have been so anxious about disarming them so quickly.
@@obscureoccultist9158 how long do you think it'd take for a bunch of really clever people to make new pals and replace the ones they didn't have the codes for? 5 years?
yes but it was far far from mainland of Israel no one gonna use nuke over siani and maybe if Israel didn't kick back egyptians and crossed the canal then maybe they would consider using
1:20 what a great comparison ! Both comedians bounced right back without problems. They are used to hecklers ... no matter what weapons are used against them..
I hope Ukraine will start investing more money in military and modernization after that war. Otherwise, it would seem like they didn't learn the lesson.
@@NotWhatYouThink not quite. Moskva was rather old ship and didn't have modern Calibr missiles. It had to be retired in 2018 but they prolongated its service. Soon Admiral Nakhimov will finish its modernization and it will be more powerful than the whole Black sea fleet. I hope it will be a new flagship.
@@Gtmz53fxt56zxc Russia said it evacuated all the sailors on the vessels while in tow, before it sank. They had the time for some evacuations, given the vessel caught fire 'mysteriously' several hours before it sunk. It's doubtful all 500 sailors onboard perished
The video does not represent a full picture of the nuclear situation. In regards to UA's inability to use and maintain its arsenal this only refers to strategic missiles which would be useless to fight russia anyway. However, tactical arsenal which could be preserved would surely eliminate a war threat from russia's side and would not be a problem for the USA unlike ICBM. Thus I think that UA was actually robbed in 1994 due to a corrupted government and bad planning in the US for the future of Ukraine. There are many aspects worth mentioning and disscussion but not enough text area space to dwell on here.
Ukraine's conventional armed forces were so underfunded that by a Ukrainian general's words, they were the LAST priority in allocating funding. "who are we gonna fight, Russia? LOL!" was the prevailing logic. Unless Ukraine also had a fully-fledged space program with foreign funding flooding in, it's unconscionable for a nuclear arsenal to persist against their financial woes for three decades.
Ukraine could probably be a nuclear power with modest effort. It's kind of crazy that they did not at least keep some plutonium. It would not take very many weapons to have kept Russia in check. Mariupol for a Moscow suburb? Sounds like a trade. Kiev for the Kremlin? No takes backsies. Russia is acting this way only with the belief that nuclear deterrent keeps them safe
@@Sanseye you realize that's not something you just do. It takes time. The plant they are occupying probably isn't plutonium production capable. That shit RBMK at Chernobyl definitely is made just to make Plutonium and you see they abandoned it. The Russians say one thing do another. Me personally I would have sunk cobalt rods in my reactors the day Crimea was invaded. When I got done with it, nobody would get to have that grain. But what can I say I'm a little more German. And a little less Egalitarian
Not only usa, russia and europe too. And now basically everybody screwed ukrainians. Russians by invading them and usa / europe by not helping ukraine and throwing them under the bus, where they had moral and legal obligation to do so.
I kinda feel like even if Ukraine had nukes, Russia still would have invaded. It comes to mutual destruction. No one is going to launch a nuke bc they know what will happen... One or more will be coming to visit them too. After seeing the total devastation of Hiroshima atomic bombs, everyone stood in awe of how disgusting it was. That level of negativity will never be used again. Besides we all like conventional war better.
Not to mention, Ukraine likely wouldnt have been able to launch them anyways, since they wouldnt have the launch codes, nor be “in control” of the nukes.
@@TheT-90thatstaresintoyoursoul they just need the warhead but since they were corrupt and poor as fuck they still wouldn't have been able to launch them except for the tactical nukes
@@augustuslunasol10thapostle Good thing Ukraine is a major exporter of well educated immigrants. With people like you we definitely could not maintain the western way of life. Ukraine has as much knowledge of nuclear physics as Russia does, too bad the corruption was just as bad.
I think they should gave kept a few dozen modern strategic ones with electronic neutron generators. They easily had the know how to keep them maintained, as they have for years and replenish the fuel if necessary. Plenty of plutonium making know how and reactors. I don't think they would have been sold. Tanks is one thing, H-bombs another.
US: Iraq has WMDs Iraq, doesn't have WMDs: Gets invades, destroyed and left in ruins US: North Korea had WMDs North Korea, had nukes: Doesn't get invaded
WMD ≠ Nuclear Weapon. Iraq openly used WMD (chemical weapons) against the Kurds and Iran. It's not as risky attacking a nation armed with chemical weapons compared to a nuclear armed one.
@@Emanon... Information coming from some random on a RUclips comment section is worth less than a stinking turd. Also, no... its not important to the point he was making; he was suggesting Iraq didn't have WMD which is blatantly false.
@@EasyAL_YT Buddy, I'm not the one hurling scatological insults in the hope that something sticks (pun intended). At least I try to contribute with factual information - which you can easily look up. You didn't even bother to do that, did you? I didn't provide any sources or links because I assumed it was common knowledge. My bad. Secondly, where were the WMD's then when the US invaded in 2003? You know, the _entire reason_ for going to war against Iraq? Do me the favor of minimal due diligence and either confirm or deny my statements based on factful findings before replying and making a fool of yourself.
Russia is also helping Ukraine's to rearmament, due to all functioning heavy and light weapons left behind them after leaving the Northern part of Ukraine.
You know the sad part I feel more comfortable with zelinsky having his hand near the button then Putin. I have a sneaky suspicion that Putin has the same mindset as Adolf Hitler. If I can't win I'll take everyone with me.
But nuclear weapons everything he has, and he have place to live after nuclear war. His children live in Europe and USA, so usage of strategic nuklear weapons seems unlikely
@@dmitryhetman1509 The things you and I care about is what is called normal. A narcissistic personality, putin, only cares about himself. Normal people don't start wars like this. I had high hopes for Russia when the Russian Federation arose from the former communist state, only see it slip back into a dictatorship. I truly hope the Russian fight to be free and stand vigilant against tyranny.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer It's not putin, it's russians. They repeat things they did in WWII, and many times before and after. Normal people start wars like Hitler, and fight against military forces like normal war, but rusians like to fight with civilians more.
@@dmitryhetman1509 based on intercepted radio calls they've been told to do these things. So I would put it more on the high command. However each individual is responsible for their own actions in my view so if someone gets hold of them and does something nasty to them, too bad so sad
Well, even if the won't explode without a code, strapping it onto a working missle and dumping into your enemy and let radioactive contamination spread over their land is a scary enough deterant.
Not really, actually not at all. The exclusions zone would be less than Chernobyl and much easier to clean up. There's a huge chance that the payload never escapes the housing anyway. Its encased in soft charges anyway.
Are you aware that the US accidentally dropped nuclear bombs from aircraft multiple times without them exploding? Dropping them from aircraft was pure luck none detonated. Oddly a socket fell down the missile silo shaft and came closer to detonating than the aircraft incidents. I'm glad we finally learned to leave our toys locked up unless we intend to use them.
In short: Because they were not ukrainian nucelar weapons, they were owned by soviet union, sponsored by them and developed together with russian engineers.
It all boils down to the fact that Ukraine simpy couldn't afford to maintain nukes at the time, I hope when war ends Zelenskyy will figure something out.
@@colRobinOlds I hope when the war ends he will get arrested and held accountable for all war crimes, civilian casualties, and civilian bombings with Tochka-U involved. If he really cared he would use all his stolen money to evacuate civilians, and provide food and medical care to them, so they dont need to live in metro. Same with putin, 2 clowns
How things change, ill bet you a drink of choice that this is the last "classic" conflict. By that i mean with man operrated machines. a ~30-40k usd rocketlauncher can and will outperform a 1-2 mio usd tank. The next conflict where ever it will be, will be RC Drones and stuff. more like a video game....
@@Gtmz53fxt56zxc Did you not watch the video? 1. Ukraine don't have the launch code for the nukes, the codes were in Russia so they can't use them anyways. 2. They had no money to maintain those nukes and thus having better connection to the World seemed like a better choice. 3. Had Ukraine still have it's nuke today, sure it wouldn't be invaded, but it sure as hell going to be poor AF
@@fullerlink379 1. Irrelevant. Could be reprogrammed in month or two, only applies to strategic nukes. 2. Maintaining some already made tactical nukes costs basically nothing. 3. It's the opposite. One option that was actually negotiated was getting rid of strategic nukes for NATO membership. USA/Russia decided that buying off Kravchuk was better. it wasn't. Even without NATO it wouldn't be worse off than losing tens of thousands Ukrainians for some probable long term improvement.
That's true until it isn't. Using nukes even defensively might not be worth it even if you're invaded. Would you rather defend your land conventionally, or turn everything in a nuclear wasteland? That might be the options we face in the future, and idk how many nations would actually pick the latter.
@@SimonNZ6969 it happened already three times. Yom Kippur War, Falklands War (though it was overseas possession) and most importantly Kargil War in 1999 where two nuclear armed powers fought with each other conventionally. Nobody fired a nuke.
The government failed its people by failing to maintain a strong deterrence. After Crimea was taken, Ukraine should have gotten wise and armed up, but no. They allowed themselves to appear weak, and thus opened itself to attack.
Democracy with a big gun works far better than just democracy alone - proven by USA. Also some statemets are missleading, like ICBM argument. As a part of USSR Ukraine was equipped not only with ICBM's, but also with tactical missles for nuking Europe, which Russia and Uk are a part of. Thus all rockets and cruise misseles with extended range capability were a part of the deal. And this is one of the reasons Ukraine can't properly defend itself even in a conventional war - it doesn't have missles with range over 120km and thus can't reach russian airfields and ships in the Black Sea.
I mean Ukraine could, if they wouldn't have been so corrupt to sell out their whole military equipment. Corruption always prevent a nation of having a thriving economy and wealth. And without enough wealth there are no reliable modern military and weapons.
The explanation assumes there was no amount of nukes Ukraine could have maintained while that MAY be the case the real issue was the vastness of the resources left behind and poor/unimaginative negotiating on both Ukraine’s and Russia’s part.
The conclusion is 1000000% true. i was living in Ukraine just right before it got attacked and I’ve never seen such a high level of rotten systemic corruption, prostitution and addictions. Even though I use to live in Nepal and I traveled to many countries including Afghanistan, I was shocked everyday. Even without the Russians, that country was going full speed towards a disaster. They don’t need weapons. They need to fix their state.
In conclusion, Ukraine had one of the best military in the world. Us didnt like that so they tried to weaken ukraine. ukraine was forced against their weapons that they inherited from soviet unions. Politicians were mad at this so they started selling it in the black market through unconventional means like robbery. Ukraine was forced to sign a non-nuke pacts because they wanted peace and being neutral to avoid of facing NATO politicians and russian politicians every morning. Ukraine got so weakened to the point they dont have enough ammunitions and now russia is taking advantage of that. I would like to thank the world for everything they did, thank you for your support.
So that's why we're willingly sending them tons of weapons! I had no clue, I thought it was for the sole purpose of weakening russian defense capabilities.
I always wonder if you are a Pentagon asset, Russian prop or simply a stuge. What is ironic is how your docus are incentrated in the Russian military might and US military might. Still, a part of me hopes you are just a bystander like me thinking: Cooooooooool
@@NotWhatYouThink You do an outstanding job! Keep up the good work. Carry on as you do. I am impressed by your balance (pointing out weaknesses of any side, and strengths). I also like the occasional hints at humor.
Russia held onto the the launch codes because they were afraid of proximity to their border. Ukraine got the shaft in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Signed by Ukraine, Russia, UK and USA. Side deals with China & France.
I think that the argument that maintaineing the bombs would be to expencive dosen't count, because if money would be the biggest problem the numbef of warheads could be reduced or only the tactical wapons would be keept.
It's lies. It would have been expensive, but totally worth it. More importantly ukraine has the industry and engineering capacity to do so. They have been screwed big time.
The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five. I think Carl Sagan said that.
fantastic analogy
@@4TheFellas on one hand yes, but also hell no. It doesn't do justice to the psychology of the thing. Nuclear weapons are distant, as is the enemy. You have bunkers for politicians who light the fuse. The actors have a false sense of security while it is millions others who die before them having never seen or personally held one of the matches.
Carl Sagan also sent earths home coordinates into the vastness of space for any potential alien fleet to find and come wipe us out. Not exactly who I’d be quoting.
@@anatomicallycorrectmuppets8180 And past great men have done horrible things, it doesn't make them good people, yet it doesn't erase the good they've done or said.
Essentially, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
@@anatomicallycorrectmuppets8180 yeah like alien's couldn't track radio waves regardless of what message they were containing. I doubt Carl Sagan will be the downfall of humanity. More likely people who struggle with logic...
" The assurances included the promise to have all sides respect the indepence, sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine "
Wow, I am sure everyone respected this rule and Ukraine was never attacked by any country after this .
Also, "Ukraine will be a neutral state and would never join any block". Both sides to be blame
@@yahhoo69 Ukraine was only considering
Devil's advocate: they were attacked because they were forming military alliances with the west when part of the agreement was to remain neutral.
@@yahhoo69 Ukraine is *NOT a part of Nato. Hence why they were attacked. Were you not paying attention?
also let me stop this in its tracks. If ukraine joined nato that would give nato a foothold right at Russia's doorstep. This is the standard excuse for war-criminal apologists. Hello!? Russia has over 6000 nukes ensuring NO ONE EVER invades them. In fact no one has ever attempted to since ww2. Not even after the union's collapse.
Also. ICBM's are a thing. (Intercontinental) what does that mean? means you can strike from far away, you don't need to be right next door but again as stated above: Russia's nuclear shield already ensures they're protected from invasion.
It is what I think
yes
ok
Only anyone with a brain and an interest in world politics would know and to utterly oblivious "pray-for-ukraine" types would be surprised about.
😵
@@notarmchairhistorian7779 ok
"Lets face it, no one has tried to liberate nations that have Nukes" 😅
Couldn't have been said better 0:12
Doesn't mean no one will!.
Case in point : North Korea.
@@ashenshield1712 Do you think anybody would invade north korea?
the West would of never overthrow the Ukrainian with this puppet.
Only thing is that this is not true, 1972 war, Egypt attacked Israel while they knew Israel had nukes.
"You can't scare comedians, even with aggression" 😆😆😆
This gonna have thousands of likes
GUYS REMEMBER WHEN WHEN AND FELL OFF THE RESTAURANT WITH ME AND DROWNED WHEN YOUR MOM'S TV?! 😂🤣
made me spit my beer out all over my laptop
@@SomeRandomUserrr1r23. ?
you're right
best way to do so
is turn a blind eye
Seeing Wargame: Red Dragon gameplay when showing the Russians conducting an unsupported Airborne assault damn near made me spit out my coffee. 60% of matches in that game was Heli rushes lol
best tactical strategy ever though
"Unsupported Airborne assault" isn't an issue for VDV, as they win battles regardless.
@@johnmackenzie3871 in game? Maybe. Real life? Lmao no.
@@HairyTrigger Oh right, I forgot, you live in a fantasy world where the Ghost of Kiev took out the VDV that captured the Hostomel airport. Stick to video-games in that case.
Usually with same result too. The VDV got cut off from the rest of the team
I seriously love how timely your content has been of late. I like to think I have a better-than-average understanding of things. You always give things I do know more context... along with filling in lots of gaps in my knowledge and certainly, making me realize some things are indeed not what I think! Peace.
We try 😅👍🏼
you'd be better off thinking for yourself then letting everybody tell you what to think
@@garyp4374 I do think for myself. Nobody tells me what to think, especially no know-it-all like yourself in the comment section of a video. I am just always open to learning more. I do not care where or how I learn, I just like to learn. NWYT always teaches me things. That is a good thing. Why are you here? To tell people like me what I should think? Seems you are but a hypocrite. Just saying.
@@hamentaschen don't feed the trolls
@@hamentaschen calm yourself a mate I am not telling you how to think . with your overwhelming intelligence you have misunderstood what I was saying
As a Ukrainian, I can say that most of the video is true, and the decision to give up strategic nukes was a good one. But the tactical nukes should have been kept, as they are not that expensive and are still an amazing threat to Moscow.
@@TechMasterRus I know better what is best for us. Zelenskyi knows better too. Our people know better, and he was chosen. We have the most powerful and competent military on the continent. We are a 40 million nation, we are richer, smarter and much more free than muscovites. We have, and will fight for our rights to decide what to do, even about nuclear weapons. So better focus on yourself and your country, as the only clown here is you.
@@TechMasterRus your a russian troll posting pro russia everywhere.
Funny how US told Ukraine to give up their nukes and now US not giving the protection that was promised.
@@numbawan9527 I think it was a independent guaranteed from the US and Russia but it does suck.
Especially since Ukraine had TU-22M.
This might be your best video yet. Just one clarifier on security guarantees, they weren't worth anything in the end as during the first invasion of 2014 the UK and US did little to nothing to militarily help Ukraine. At that point the agreement was effectively dead, this new assistance cannot be considered as being made because of the original security guarantees.
The US and UK did nothing? Watch the video again. They sold tons of equipment to Ukraine and were forcing it into Nato.
@@BaSiC47 The first time Russia invaded, in 2014, they basically did nothing.
I 109% agree!
If you read the Minsk agreement, you'd find the security guarantees were protection against NUCLEAR war. Nothing written about conventional war. Lesson: read before you sign.
@@danielheckel2755 Seems like you are correct, kind of. It's actually only an agreement to make _the UN_ provide security assistance to Ukraine, and since Russia has a UN veto...
Wow, what a worthless agreement. (It does say Russia is supposed to not attack Ukraine with _any_ weapons as well, which Russia clearly broke, but there is no enforcement mechanism).
"this might be the bloodiest active combat since ww2 in europe"
Jugoslavia: Am I a joke to you?
(about 200k deaths for comparison)
Well it's still ongoing, it's very likely it can go over this number.
That was one hell of a bloodbath. Decades of suppressed hatred exploded onto the face of the planet. I'll never understand that kind of thing. Don't get me wrong I am very much a hawk. I believe in being prepared for anything no matter what the cost. I don't want to see another Holocaust in this world and I don't want to see another Pearl harbor. That means you have to have a strong defense.
I know it's one of the few times in modern history that a country broke up with the death of leader then proceeded into a violent civil War. Even during World War II there was a civil war going on. Broz Tito by his indominable will brought Yugoslavia together in post-war Europe and to force of his will alone kept it together until his death. The relative peace in which people lived was lost as they forgot the lessons that he taught them. Don't get me wrong I'm not a strict fan of his but I do respect the man. His negatives are outweighed by his positives during his lifetime that I'm aware of especially in the realm of politics in Yugoslavia.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Yugoslavia was only together because of Tito, he was a good leader, especially in a time a lot of crazy commies running around killing millions of people. However it's just not a self correcting system, it's always going to collapse.
@@oscarshen6855 yeah just senseless waste of life
It's already worse than Yugoslavia and Syria.
Actually, Ukraine didn't just gave up its nuclear weapons, we were forced to do it. Nobody asked us if we want to keep nukes. We had to choose: nuclear weapons or independency. In case if we disagreed with giving up on nukes, we would transform in new North Korea under terrible sanctions
So basically its not only Russia to blame but US too? They forced you to give up on nukes while giving next to nothing in return?
Well one thing is for sure. Nobody will give up nuclear weapons now.
Laughs in Iranian
great video, it was indeed not what I thought. I didn't know the ballistic missile had a minimum range, even though it makes total sense if you sit and think about it for a few seconds.. so yeah pretty on point on everything as usual
Zа Россию
@@volox5586 zaлупина твоя роися
Going down a rabbit hole of nuclear-weapons related videos, so I’ll say my thoughts here too.
It is honestly quite frustrating to me, knowing that the end of it all is far out of my control and instead in the hands of whatever maniac may be in charge. And seeing how we are growing ever closer to our world ending up like a game of DEFCON, it’s only a matter of time before someone who is actually insane enough takes charge.
It is what it is, I guess. But hey, enjoy things as they are now instead of worrying about nuclear armageddon. There’s no need to get sad about these things, you know?
Think yourself lucky I’m not in control of a nuclear arsenal…….I can guarantee you that there would be no human life left on Earth 🤣.
Even worse…..What if an animal rights/vegan activist get their hands on nukes.
They would 100% Nuke us all to save the broccoli and cows.
only 1 country has every used a nuke on another. It was not done on a purely defense purpose either. I trust the other country far more with their nukes than this one. Next time a nuke goes up everyone is sending theirs.
ukraine did give 1600 nuclear to Russia under an agreement that Russia did leave ukraine alone. they shouldn't have done that.
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦 ♥️
I don’t think there was such agreement
@@loneronin7299 look it up and see for yourself
@Hans Eriksson You're a🤡 the control computer codes that could unlock the operation of those ICBMs placed in Ukraine 🇺🇦 could only be accessible by top military officials who were bases in Russia 🇷🇺 (Moscow)
I'm guessing the intended question was "WHY did Ukraine give up it's nukes?" But maybe its not what I think.
Ukraine give up it's nukes because they had russia.
the West overthrow the Ukrainian Government. starting this shit today.
if Ukraine had nukes the west wont be involve in Ukraine.
Why? Guess who told Ukraine to give up their nukes.
The cost of nuclear weapons only begins with their manufacturer. Afterwards you have maintenance, security, safe storage, upgrades and repair, Ukraine could not afford this. That's why they gave up the aircraft too.
I still think that they should have kept them. Probably downsizing the arsenal to a manageable number, and dismantling the nukes that they didn't have the codes for, even refurbishing them as conventional bombs. While ICBM's are the deadliest, any nuke is still a big threat.
Tho, after watching this vid, maybe it was for the better. Nukes or not, a nation should have the means to defend itself.
"dismantling the nukes that they didn't have the codes for," meaning ALL THE NUKES. So, they become hazardous waste as their shelf life expires. But, the Ukraine is the industrial site in that they make all the armaments' for Russia. So maybe the barrels for Russia should have a crooked barrel or something like that. A ship that dissolves when placed in water. It won't right away because it has a new coat of paint...so dey never know.
But Ukraine had none of the codes for the nukes, meaning those nukes were useless to them regardless. Furthermore, nuclear weapons are expensive and constantly need to be maintained as its fissile material does not last as long as we might think. The Ukrainian economy is essentially non existent at independence. I don't blame the Ukrainian government having to prioritize other things rather then maintaining nukes that they don't even have control over.
Counter opinion: India was Similarly poor and corrupt in 1990s. Yet it developed nukes, tested them, suffered from crippling US sanctions and yet didn't budge to US pressure.
Fast forward now, we're one of the fastest growing economies, soon will be 3rd largest economy and a major military power (more spending than Russia itself). And we still have those nukes (far less in number than Ukraine ever had).
And, China or Pakistan never dared to invade us. This subcontinent no longer sees tank battles. All conflicts are now localised skirmishes which are de-escalated within days.
Ask us Indians. The risks involved in keeping nukes is worth it.
About the codes: if one tries hard enough, he can circumvent them. If Ukraine "couldn't" use their bombs, then Russia/West wouldn't have been so anxious about disarming them so quickly.
Agreed. Nothing signed on paper by Russia should be believed
@@obscureoccultist9158 how long do you think it'd take for a bunch of really clever people to make new pals and replace the ones they didn't have the codes for?
5 years?
You forgot when Egypt tried to attack Israel at 1972, they knew damn well they had nukes.
yes but it was far far from mainland of Israel no one gonna use nuke over siani and maybe if Israel didn't kick back egyptians and crossed the canal then maybe they would consider using
@@Mr.Cool628 Yup you're right, Egyptans stood no chance either way tho.
Maybe nukes are fake
You mean when Israel said that it was attacked by some rebels or terrorists and then attacked Egypt?
@@igor_pavlovich Finish reading your history book before you talk bud
1:20 what a great comparison ! Both comedians bounced right back without problems. They are used to hecklers ... no matter what weapons are used against them..
I hope Ukraine will start investing more money in military and modernization after that war. Otherwise, it would seem like they didn't learn the lesson.
The USA and European Union Already wasted billions there to cause the war and not to make Ukraine and Russia have peace
With our corrupt president its, unfortunately, impossible
The sinking of the Moskva must have been quite embarrassing for Russia.
@@NotWhatYouThink not quite. Moskva was rather old ship and didn't have modern Calibr missiles. It had to be retired in 2018 but they prolongated its service. Soon Admiral Nakhimov will finish its modernization and it will be more powerful than the whole Black sea fleet. I hope it will be a new flagship.
@@Gtmz53fxt56zxc Russia said it evacuated all the sailors on the vessels while in tow, before it sank. They had the time for some evacuations, given the vessel caught fire 'mysteriously' several hours before it sunk. It's doubtful all 500 sailors onboard perished
liking this longer form content my dude
The video does not represent a full picture of the nuclear situation. In regards to UA's inability to use and maintain its arsenal this only refers to strategic missiles which would be useless to fight russia anyway. However, tactical arsenal which could be preserved would surely eliminate a war threat from russia's side and would not be a problem for the USA unlike ICBM. Thus I think that UA was actually robbed in 1994 due to a corrupted government and bad planning in the US for the future of Ukraine. There are many aspects worth mentioning and disscussion but not enough text area space to dwell on here.
A very excellent analysis of a very complex issue.
"Had Ukrainian leaders worked as servants of the people." I see what you did there.
Could be applied equally to leaders of other world-dominating countries...
What government works as servants of the people?
@@algrayson8965 glorious leader of North Korea works only for his people well being!
I would love to see your naration in a big Hollywood movie/series. Man your voice is sooooo soothing for that 🍻🙏🤟
The code works not as you think. It could be easily cracked with physical access to the rocket
This war has to of made more yt channels popular, glad to see your content tries ho help people understand
“has to of made”??
Nothing is ever as simple and straightforward as it seems. Great video.
BEST ending line on any of your videos! BRAVO!
Ukraine's conventional armed forces were so underfunded that by a Ukrainian general's words, they were the LAST priority in allocating funding. "who are we gonna fight, Russia? LOL!" was the prevailing logic.
Unless Ukraine also had a fully-fledged space program with foreign funding flooding in, it's unconscionable for a nuclear arsenal to persist against their financial woes for three decades.
Thanks again NWYT, you always do a great job on your stories.
You cannot scare comedians, even with aggressions.
Goes to show will slapping Chris.
Love that
“UK, US, and Russia respect Ukraine’s sovereignty”
Russia on February 24th, 2022: *sike, i lied!*
The west funded the coup in 2014 and was the first to infringe in sovereignty
actually it was February 2014
What an excellent, well-written essay. Great!
A moment for the SS-18 Satan... The most metal name for a weapon of all time 🤘😈
Ukraine could probably be a nuclear power with modest effort. It's kind of crazy that they did not at least keep some plutonium. It would not take very many weapons to have kept Russia in check. Mariupol for a Moscow suburb? Sounds like a trade. Kiev for the Kremlin? No takes backsies. Russia is acting this way only with the belief that nuclear deterrent keeps them safe
This is why Russia targeted to control their nuclear power plants first, to ensure that no nuclear weapons were produced
@@Sanseye you realize that's not something you just do. It takes time. The plant they are occupying probably isn't plutonium production capable. That shit RBMK at Chernobyl definitely is made just to make Plutonium and you see they abandoned it. The Russians say one thing do another. Me personally I would have sunk cobalt rods in my reactors the day Crimea was invaded. When I got done with it, nobody would get to have that grain. But what can I say I'm a little more German. And a little less Egalitarian
So basically US negotiated the "nuke give up agreement" because *the US* was in danger from those nukes!!
Not only usa, russia and europe too. And now basically everybody screwed ukrainians. Russians by invading them and usa / europe by not helping ukraine and throwing them under the bus, where they had moral and legal obligation to do so.
Yes, because they were afraid that they might get sold to Iran or other crazy governments.
The last sentence was very poetic
I kinda feel like even if Ukraine had nukes, Russia still would have invaded. It comes to mutual destruction. No one is going to launch a nuke bc they know what will happen... One or more will be coming to visit them too. After seeing the total devastation of Hiroshima atomic bombs, everyone stood in awe of how disgusting it was. That level of negativity will never be used again. Besides we all like conventional war better.
The Russian troops kind of liked the red forests near Chernobyl so took home some dirt and other souvenirs. Kids will be kids.
Not to mention, Ukraine likely wouldnt have been able to launch them anyways, since they wouldnt have the launch codes, nor be “in control” of the nukes.
@@TheT-90thatstaresintoyoursoul they just need the warhead but since they were corrupt and poor as fuck they still wouldn't have been able to launch them except for the tactical nukes
@@augustuslunasol10thapostle Good thing Ukraine is a major exporter of well educated immigrants. With people like you we definitely could not maintain the western way of life. Ukraine has as much knowledge of nuclear physics as Russia does, too bad the corruption was just as bad.
@@TheT-90thatstaresintoyoursoul And... during those 30 years they could not replace the keys/control system, right?
That last line was the most beautiful line I have ever heard in my life.
Great upload. Thank you.
false
I think they should gave kept a few dozen modern strategic ones with electronic neutron generators. They easily had the know how to keep them maintained, as they have for years and replenish the fuel if necessary. Plenty of plutonium making know how and reactors. I don't think they would have been sold. Tanks is one thing, H-bombs another.
US: Iraq has WMDs
Iraq, doesn't have WMDs: Gets invades, destroyed and left in ruins
US: North Korea had WMDs
North Korea, had nukes: Doesn't get invaded
WMD ≠ Nuclear Weapon.
Iraq openly used WMD (chemical weapons) against the Kurds and Iran.
It's not as risky attacking a nation armed with chemical weapons compared to a nuclear armed one.
And who supplied the chemical weapons to Iraq? France and the US.
Very important tidbit of information, wouldn't you agree?
@@Emanon... Information coming from some random on a RUclips comment section is worth less than a stinking turd. Also, no... its not important to the point he was making; he was suggesting Iraq didn't have WMD which is blatantly false.
@@EasyAL_YT
Buddy, I'm not the one hurling scatological insults in the hope that something sticks (pun intended).
At least I try to contribute with factual information - which you can easily look up. You didn't even bother to do that, did you?
I didn't provide any sources or links because I assumed it was common knowledge. My bad.
Secondly, where were the WMD's then when the US invaded in 2003?
You know, the _entire reason_ for going to war against Iraq?
Do me the favor of minimal due diligence and either confirm or deny my statements based on factful findings before replying and making a fool of yourself.
1:30 Finland spotted
Your best video (and insights) yet. Thank you.
Russia is also helping Ukraine's to rearmament, due to all functioning heavy and light weapons left behind them after leaving the Northern part of Ukraine.
you do mention the strategic ICBM having a minimal range, but the tactical ones dont have such limit...
@@metanumia nah
You know the sad part I feel more comfortable with zelinsky having his hand near the button then Putin. I have a sneaky suspicion that Putin has the same mindset as Adolf Hitler. If I can't win I'll take everyone with me.
Putin is pathetic subhuman and has nothing to do with Adolf Hitler which was WWI veteran, artist, and capable leader and commander.
But nuclear weapons everything he has, and he have place to live after nuclear war. His children live in Europe and USA, so usage of strategic nuklear weapons seems unlikely
@@dmitryhetman1509 The things you and I care about is what is called normal. A narcissistic personality, putin, only cares about himself. Normal people don't start wars like this. I had high hopes for Russia when the Russian Federation arose from the former communist state, only see it slip back into a dictatorship. I truly hope the Russian fight to be free and stand vigilant against tyranny.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer It's not putin, it's russians. They repeat things they did in WWII, and many times before and after. Normal people start wars like Hitler, and fight against military forces like normal war, but rusians like to fight with civilians more.
@@dmitryhetman1509 based on intercepted radio calls they've been told to do these things. So I would put it more on the high command. However each individual is responsible for their own actions in my view so if someone gets hold of them and does something nasty to them, too bad so sad
Good video. Well said
Well, even if the won't explode without a code, strapping it onto a working missle and dumping into your enemy and let radioactive contamination spread over their land is a scary enough deterant.
Not really, actually not at all. The exclusions zone would be less than Chernobyl and much easier to clean up.
There's a huge chance that the payload never escapes the housing anyway. Its encased in soft charges anyway.
Without reaching critical mass, the radiation from the resulting explosion could be cleaned up with a tractor.
Are you aware that the US accidentally dropped nuclear bombs from aircraft multiple times without them exploding?
Dropping them from aircraft was pure luck none detonated. Oddly a socket fell down the missile silo shaft and came closer to detonating than the aircraft incidents.
I'm glad we finally learned to leave our toys locked up unless we intend to use them.
0:23 the missle that james may tries to light with a lighter
Correction, the nukes were Russian nukes… red button was controlled from Moscow not from Kiev.. they eventually would have to return them
EVERY country on this planet can be blamed for unsavory decisions the past. what matters is where they are NOW.
In short: Because they were not ukrainian nucelar weapons, they were owned by soviet union, sponsored by them and developed together with russian engineers.
It all boils down to the fact that Ukraine simpy couldn't afford to maintain nukes at the time, I hope when war ends Zelenskyy will figure something out.
In short Ukraine didn’t have the money.
@@colRobinOlds I hope when the war ends he will get arrested and held accountable for all war crimes, civilian casualties, and civilian bombings with Tochka-U involved.
If he really cared he would use all his stolen money to evacuate civilians, and provide food and medical care to them, so they dont need to live in metro.
Same with putin, 2 clowns
@@Gtmz53fxt56zxc Ukraine was corrupt, ... period. Corrupt politicians were robbing the country blind. That's the real story. They didn't hide it.
@@apex_blue North korea is poorer and most of its population is in starvation, but they still can make and maintain nuclear weapons
I absolutely love this channel.
How things change, ill bet you a drink of choice that this is the last "classic" conflict. By that i mean with man operrated machines. a ~30-40k usd rocketlauncher can and will outperform a 1-2 mio usd tank. The next conflict where ever it will be, will be RC Drones and stuff. more like a video game....
That hit those choppers shot out the sky
Interesting , Thank You
0:59 Wargame Red Dragon
"What Did Ukraine Give up its Nukes for?"
@@Gtmz53fxt56zxc Did you not watch the video?
1. Ukraine don't have the launch code for the nukes, the codes were in Russia so they can't use them anyways.
2. They had no money to maintain those nukes and thus having better connection to the World seemed like a better choice.
3. Had Ukraine still have it's nuke today, sure it wouldn't be invaded, but it sure as hell going to be poor AF
@@Gtmz53fxt56zxc I'm really sorry. Actually I wrote that comment not actually asking that question but correcting the title of the video.
@@fullerlink379
1. Irrelevant. Could be reprogrammed in month or two, only applies to strategic nukes.
2. Maintaining some already made tactical nukes costs basically nothing.
3. It's the opposite. One option that was actually negotiated was getting rid of strategic nukes for NATO membership. USA/Russia decided that buying off Kravchuk was better. it wasn't. Even without NATO it wouldn't be worse off than losing tens of thousands Ukrainians for some probable long term improvement.
@@Gtmz53fxt56zxc no issue haha
Did not expect that will smith joke
It’s not what you think!
Alternate history hub would like to talk to you
Russia would have invaded someone else instead then, maybe Finland?
Winter war 2: electric boogaloo
It tried that once and Russia got trounced by Finland. The Vikings are a mean bunch of fighters.
give em 20 years
I played the USSR anthem at my window...Now it’s an Iron Curtain
It would gave already helpe the ukrainians if they keep the Strategie bombers
“Cannot scare comedians even with aggression”😂
Nuclear weapons are actually a good thing as they prevent wars, but also bad as they are the most dangerous towards mankind.
That's true until it isn't. Using nukes even defensively might not be worth it even if you're invaded. Would you rather defend your land conventionally, or turn everything in a nuclear wasteland? That might be the options we face in the future, and idk how many nations would actually pick the latter.
@@SimonNZ6969 it happened already three times. Yom Kippur War, Falklands War (though it was overseas possession) and most importantly Kargil War in 1999 where two nuclear armed powers fought with each other conventionally. Nobody fired a nuke.
The title is wrong?
The government failed its people by failing to maintain a strong deterrence. After Crimea was taken, Ukraine should have gotten wise and armed up, but no. They allowed themselves to appear weak, and thus opened itself to attack.
Your statement is not accurate, during the 2014 Invasion by Russia UKRAINE was not prepared but 2022 it’s a bit different
You just earned a sub
Democracy with a big gun works far better than just democracy alone - proven by USA.
Also some statemets are missleading, like ICBM argument.
As a part of USSR Ukraine was equipped not only with ICBM's, but also with tactical missles for nuking Europe, which Russia and Uk are a part of. Thus all rockets and cruise misseles with extended range capability were a part of the deal.
And this is one of the reasons Ukraine can't properly defend itself even in a conventional war - it doesn't have missles with range over 120km and thus can't reach russian airfields and ships in the Black Sea.
I mean Ukraine could, if they wouldn't have been so corrupt to sell out their whole military equipment. Corruption always prevent a nation of having a thriving economy and wealth. And without enough wealth there are no reliable modern military and weapons.
Shouldn't "what" in the title be "why"?
Leave poor Will alone :c, he's married to a demon and was forced to birth those two strange homunculus with that demon.
The explanation assumes there was no amount of nukes Ukraine could have maintained while that MAY be the case the real issue was the vastness of the resources left behind and poor/unimaginative negotiating on both Ukraine’s and Russia’s part.
Or just Russia's treachery in not honoring their agreements over Ukraine's immunity.
The conclusion is 1000000% true. i was living in Ukraine just right before it got attacked and I’ve never seen such a high level of rotten systemic corruption, prostitution and addictions. Even though I use to live in Nepal and I traveled to many countries including Afghanistan, I was shocked everyday. Even without the Russians, that country was going full speed towards a disaster. They don’t need weapons. They need to fix their state.
You have almost certainly never been there 🤣
@@timonrenault5893 Maybe…
In conclusion, Ukraine had one of the best military in the world. Us didnt like that so they tried to weaken ukraine. ukraine was forced against their weapons that they inherited from soviet unions. Politicians were mad at this so they started selling it in the black market through unconventional means like robbery. Ukraine was forced to sign a non-nuke pacts because they wanted peace and being neutral to avoid of facing NATO politicians and russian politicians every morning. Ukraine got so weakened to the point they dont have enough ammunitions and now russia is taking advantage of that. I would like to thank the world for everything they did, thank you for your support.
What was the game shown in the beginning?
Excellent.
they didnt have delivery capabilities
So that's why we're willingly sending them tons of weapons! I had no clue, I thought it was for the sole purpose of weakening russian defense capabilities.
I always wonder if you are a Pentagon asset, Russian prop or simply a stuge.
What is ironic is how your docus are incentrated in the Russian military might and US military might.
Still, a part of me hopes you are just a bystander like me thinking: Cooooooooool
We just make videos on topics we find interesting (and that there is footage for!)
@@NotWhatYouThink You do an outstanding job! Keep up the good work. Carry on as you do. I am impressed by your balance (pointing out weaknesses of any side, and strengths). I also like the occasional hints at humor.
they could work on disabling PAL, use the warhead / modify it in other way than ICBM. It's not impossible
as a air force member I salute your service fallen 10k +soldiers
What is that ENORMOUS reentry vehicle at 6:36?
@@Gtmz53fxt56zxc No- I'm talking about just the RV...the big cone.
Probably satan-ii
Russia held onto the the launch codes because they were afraid of proximity to their border.
Ukraine got the shaft in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Signed by Ukraine, Russia, UK and USA. Side deals with China & France.
And guess who broke the Budapest Memorandum 20 years later?
I think that the argument that maintaineing the bombs would be to expencive dosen't count, because if money would be the biggest problem the numbef of warheads could be reduced or only the tactical wapons would be keept.
It's lies. It would have been expensive, but totally worth it. More importantly ukraine has the industry and engineering capacity to do so. They have been screwed big time.
What’s the game that was in the first part of the video
0:22
James may with a lighter: "must be damp"
anyone else recognise the location? or just me?
Awesome 😎
Wargame reference thump up
They didn’t have the launch codes or keys
NWYT never fails to add good humor on videos lmao 1:18
1:51 о, Команданте! Здрасте
half of Europe would be annexed by them.
11:56 Ah yes, servants of the people. I see you're a man of culture. 😏
2:34 one of thr soliders is sliding on the ramp
What if is a big ? If only Ukraine did not denounced their Nuclear weapons , this war would never taken place.🤔
The Will Smith part killed me🤣🤣🤣🤣
8:00 how come the “security assurances” in the trilateral process not been activated now?
I don't think it's ever not been what I thought