It's of the utmost importance to remember that there were times when the "experts" completely dismissed as nonsense the idea that N Korea, Pakistan, India and even China could become nuclear capable. Look how that turned out.
To be fair the Chinese literally begged the Soviet Union to give them that capability And then the Pakistanis did the same thing groveling to the Chinese
What I find most interesting about that is that rather than lead to anyone actually using the bomb once a nation gets the bomb they tend to act less aggressively than before. Odd dynamic, to be honest.
"I have never doubted an American solder. But I would be foolish to place my nation's security in the hands of an American politician." That line goes hard
@@jpoeng I wasn't alive during the Cold War so I cannot attest to such fondness, though my mother in law does miss the DDR. It was a strange stalemate that kept the world in balance.
@@jpoengI do not miss those balances because I'm not worried about balances of geopolitics at all In fact I'm more worried about accidental detonation and mishaps As the more Nations that have access to this type of weaponry increases the chances of mishaps and accidental detonations The United States had one such mishap in 1961 in Goldsboro North Carolina A near miss that was so extremely lucky the secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara was quoted as saying later in 1963 By the literal chance miracle of two wires not crossing the US was spared the disaster of an accidental nuclear detonation
@@rejvaik00 The balance of geopolitics reduced proliferation as well. With the US retrenching, the return of naked aggression, and the deference granted to muscovy’s nuclear terrorism, everyone who can make nukes will very much want to do so.
Owning a nuclear weapon is like owning a firearm. It's a power dynamic and insurance. And like a firearm, in the wrong hands, it's used as leverage over others...
It might be beneficial for Iran to consider a similar approach to Israel in developing nuclear capabilities without publicly announcing them, and this might be the route Iranian leaders have already taken. Considering that regimes like Israel have obtained the bomb, I don't see any reason why Iran shouldn't do the same.
Fr, I'd be surprised if they werent doing this already and honestly who can blame them. Iran is mot an ideal nation in how they operate but with the constant the threats to their existence I camt say they're wrong to go the nuclear route. Only thing that'll keep them safe
Iran does not have nukes. Israel and the US can freely operate inside Iran networks as they have showed with tens of sabotage operations (a lot more that we don’t know too), and they would surely know if they got one. The reason Iran should not have one is because you cannot trust a theocratical regime who calls for the complete destruction of Israel and the US with a nuclear weapon. On top of that, there is high risk that extremists might get a hand on the weapons, given how many islamic terrorist groups there are in the world (both shia and sunni). Iran getting a weapon would be catastrophic and saudi arabia and others would pursue them too, which increases the risks of extremists getting hands on them. Pakistan is enough to worry about already for the intelligence community
So ... the IDF airstrike on the complex in 1982 did what? Nothing? Also, ZERO mention of the Saudi/Pakistan deal done FOUR years ago that gives the Saudi kingdom Pakistani nuclear technology. Including a working bomb. Bad research and script writing all over this one. BOO!
How interesting that. Only you have the right to be powerful and bully, and if a country wants to defend itself so that it is not occupied like Iraq, suddenly it is a rabbit and should not have anything to defend. We don't want war, but we respond to everything at the same level and to every threat.
Given that Israel has publicly stated many times that evidence of Iran acquiring nukes would result in immediate attack they don't have the same motive of deterrence and the claim they were only months away from getting the bomb has made without evidence since the nineties. Many have concluded that the desire just isn't there given the drawbacks.
Israel have consistently (tacitly) stated that they will break international law to achieve their goals as long as they remain even tenuously credible to their backers. Slinging a nuke at Tehran, loses this credibility; similarly, Iran developing nuclear weapons is not an overt act of hostility, and with the precedent set by Israel can easily use the "well they don't exist, but if they did they're for our protection" motif.
Since the 90s? Did you forget about the dozens of times they have been slowed down? Kids in Syria have longer average lifespans than Iranian nuclear scientists
They have the capabilities to build one within a couple of weeks at this point. They just need to put the components in one place then assemble them. They dont do this because they know how the world would react, and that would be economically/strategically/diplomatically bad for them, but they could do it.
Canada could also build nuclear weapons. There is obviously no need, as the US is their neighbor. They also don't have bombers or rockets to deliver the warheads.
@@kirinrias6912 Yep! Germany is another example. I bet it wouldn't take much for Poland to build one either. They are quite industrious and have been investing a lot in their military.
If I'm not mistaken CAN is the world leading developer in nuclear technology and they also have a top notch military so it shouldn't surprise anyone if they do but ofc they don't have the need
It has long been the policy of the US. Tell everyone how dangerous the person you don’t like is, and then commit atrocities against them and then justify them by saying they were going to kill us.
Cos they and some other very rich very old families run the world. And if other nations outside their influence have nukes, they can't be as easily controlled without risking them nukes being aimed at them for meddling in other nations' affairs. US imperialism is devastating and terrifying, tbh as fucked up as a many of these outlier nations are I can't at all blame them for wanting nukes cos it's the only thing protecting them
This comment should be pinned.. Because they are so called big daddy of the world, if you look around the world conflicts, you will get to know its the europe who put the wars seeds in the nations by doing wrong border calculations. And made the "independent state" And then selling their own weapons to rival countries..
@va818 he's not talking about the video mentioning it ofc, he's talking about the fact that the US and UK in particular are very against other nations gaining nukes, especially nations that are outside or against their sphere of influence like Iran which is clearly unfair
@@thomaslove6494 thats a stupid statement as nukes arent offensive. They are defensive. using it as an offence is a surefire way to destroy the world. However, it effectively stops a largescale invasion of ur nation. Not only does an invasion give a valid reason for a country to use its maximum capabilities(as they are being invaded. Every country has the right to defend itself and if they dont use everything they wont exist), but it poses a scenario where a country can nuke itself to decimate invading populations. It doesnt call for nukes to be used, as a country has the ironic right to strike itself if it wants, but it also creates a wall of doom where no invading force can actually reasonably cross anymore. Ofcourse this is so extreme it would only happen if a country is on its knees, but it is possible especially for large areas like russia and the USA. TLDR; nukes are defensive not offensive purely due to how they effectively make a largescale invasion on ur homeland impossible in the current political climate
Iran is an Islamic country who have faith on their supreme leader and their leader forbid them on such satanic weapons. But current situation in world shows nuclear weapon is like an Insurance certificate may be they will make it as a self-defense security for their country because they have many enemies who possess nuclear bombs. Still they have faith on the supreme power of universe God Almighty who's universe is such big and powerful even most intelligent people are bewildered and he is omnipresent.
@@dannyquilter8366 no he’s right. Their nuclear threats mean nothing. Ukraine has crossed the “Red line” and invaded Russia in the Kursk region. Putin still hasn’t used any nukes despite threatening he would. Nuclear annihilation just isn’t worth it.
This is a stupid take and russia can nuke whenever it wants. They'll only do it if the regime is backed into a corner, which you guys unknowingly root for. Hitler did not have nukes and if he did.... We can't keep comparing these conflicts to ww2. The nukes truly change the game and the rules.
It's not that many countries WANT nuclear weapons- they NEED them to survive. Countries that give up their advantages like Iraq or Libya end up paying for it later.
In my opinion, so long as a nuclear armed state is at least somewhat rational, and isn't completely hostile to other nations, I see that as a net benefit for the world overall. I personally think that the threat of nuclear war has arguably resulted in far less wars than would have otherwise happened. However when countries like North Korea for example have access to Nukes, that's when it becomes a problem, but again, that's just my opinion.
That's what keep them safe. If they're not armed with nukes, they'll be like Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan. Tbh, they've been very rational compared to the west and it's allies. They haven't even invaded land for the past 50 yrs. Meanwhile US... which you call rational, have been instigating war for the last 30 years.
@@Real_Person_Not_A_Bot Yeah but what about developing countries with regular coup attempts? Like Turkey gets coupled every 10-15 years ish. Imagine a psycho military dictatorship having nukes.
I'm surprised Poland wasn't mentioned. They have been on a defense spending spree even before Putin attacked Ukraine and they have changed their stance on hosting NATO nuclear weapons as a bulwark against Moscow. IMO, Poland would be one of the ones looking into building one of their own especially since Poland has the largest army in Europe.
Where would they get the uranium from without triggering The United States? The reason why Iran is getting away with this is because they are already sanctioned to high hell. They have nothing to lose just like N Korea. France And The UK are the only one's in Europe with nuclear weapons everyone else host US nuclear weapons which is why Russia is mad. That's going against the treaty from the Cuban Missile crisis. The US has broken many treaties with Russia but Russia is the one being aggressive.
A nuclear bomb requires expensive infrastructure to keep, money can be spent improving military, besides nuclear weapons won't be used in case the Russia army invades. Besides US will respond negatively to Poland nuclear program.
@@nicholasswaim2835 They don't have the technology, also it's freakishly expensive to build and maintain all that infrastructure and their only delivery system will be the F-35 which means it's not going to happen
Inside NATO, I would rate the Turks as more likely than Poland. Poland may be on a spending spree, but it has yet to be shown if they can actually pay for everything they want.
This would be so cool! I was on a South African political instagram page talking about it because I had read a lot about it. My comments were gaining traction when, all of a sudden, some guy started conversing with me who turned out to be the son of one of the people who worked on the SA nuclear programme. He had some suuuuper interesting insights, and my new curiosity has never since been quenched!
That would be awesome. Its amazing how many people have never heard of it. The unique methods they used to get there, the only country to BOTH develop and give them up.
It is a very interesting story, dovetails nicely into how Isreal got their nukes. Could be a double feature. Probably the only example of someone getting the ultimate trump card and throwing it away out of racial pettiness. Can't have black people playing with atomics, after what the apartheid government did I am not surprised they made sure to be the only country to dismantle their own nuclear program.
@@thejayj None of these countries are colonized, Japan's ethno homogeneity alone throws in the face of that. The fact countries share values and alliances with one another is not the same as being a hand puppet, that's how Russia operates, Japan has the world's second largest navy and could have a nuke tomorrow. South Korea has a modern standing military with homemade NATO quality hardware and similar nuclear possibility. The fact more atomic weapons equals bad things happening and a power like China being the main threat means allying with the west is common sense, not dependancy.
@@enderiskender2977 I heard it was that they allegedly jointly developed them with South Africa and when South Africa volunteered to disarm the Israelis got the tech and a few of the warheads. I would be interested in seeing a video on it, if only to hear all the allegedlys
It's alleged that Kennedy knew of them wanting nukes and was attempting to stop them and launch investigations into it as well war crimes against Egyptian POWs. Months later he was assassinated and the investigation went nowhere. Next thing u knw Israel is a nuclear nation
At some point any tool created will always get abused to some degree, that much has never changed and never will. The boundaries will always be pushed.
Some people are saying that Pakistan will give Iran a nuclear bomb, THIS IS FALSE. Pakistan is not on that level of alliance with Iran, also we would not do it because we value our relationship with the US
This doesnot make sense also because what can Iran do with nuclear missiles . Keep them in Museum ? Until you dont know how to make your own they willnot be useful
Like it or not. Iran, despite being a muslim country is a geopolitical rival. Also the fact that they have had good relations with india and their penchant for weaponising sectarianism through shia proxies in other muslim countries is well known.
I did hear the idea that Saudi Arabia might buy some bombs from Pakistan. Also it is possible that there is an arrangement between Iran and Putin that Russia will provide Iran with some relevant technologies in return to conventional weapons it is using in Ukraine. Britain basically did this with the US in WW2.
Funny how the West's attempt to isolate all these nations have simply made them band together now. But then again that's always been the west's plans, create the problem and provide the solution
I love your videos but i realized i havent seen any for a while. RUclips stopped recommending them. Keep up the amazing work and high quality honest videos
@@Nathan-vt1jz ruclips.net/video/fHEsGKZm4C8/видео.htmlsi=9-xGl1x1MluPmzwe I was only going to mention one of the examples shown in the video. And that's just between a few countries. And that doesn't include the incidents we've had handling our own nukes, which there has been too many. Do you honestly think not one of these psychopathic leaders is capable and totally possibly willing to use these things
It seems more like a situation of being pressured into pursuing it rather than a genuine desire. If there had been a true interest, the development could have happened long ago, especially given the resources available to acquire the necessary technology. The media along with actions taken by Israel, have played a significant role in shaping this narrative. It's intriguing that, amidst the current turmoil, there is now a push to finally develop it.
Developed? Iran is a tyrannical theocracy, the supreme leader interprets allah’s will and acts accordingly - thereby making Iran an irrational actor who possesses nuclear arms.
Comment 1: "Owning a nuclear weapon is like owning a firearm." No, it's not. A firearm's destructive capacity is limited to the immediate vicinity-what the user can see and aim at. It doesn’t have the potential to obliterate life on Earth or cause a chain reaction of destruction that extends far beyond the user’s control. However, launching a single nuclear weapon affects everyone on the planet, with consequences that are almost guaranteed to escalate far beyond the initial explosion. Comment 2: "States are to individuals what nukes are to firearms." Absolutely not. If you had read Annie Jacobson’s book Nuclear War or had even a basic grasp of how nuclear weapons work, you’d understand why this analogy doesn’t hold up. A state's influence is confined by its borders-you can always move to another place. But once an ICBM is launched, there’s no escape; the fallout is global. It cannot be stopped or called back. It’s also not just about one nuke; it’s about the inevitable retaliation. For example, if North Korea fired a nuke, the U.S. would respond with 82, potentially triggering a catastrophic global conflict. This isn't speculation but information from someone who actually participated in the WarGames simulations conducted over the years. Comment 3: "Nuclear bombs don’t kill people." Are you serious? Have you forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The idea that nuclear bombs don’t kill people is beyond absurd. __________________ It’s alarming to see comments like this being liked just because they sound good, without any consideration for the reality of their implications. The ignorance displayed here is truly mind-boggling. Instead of advancing our understanding, we're actually regressing in intelligence by reading some of these comments. It’s frustrating to see these kinds of comparisons because instead of advancing our understanding, we're actually regressing. We’re reducing complex, world-altering issues like nuclear weapons to simplistic and misleading analogies. This isn't just unhelpful-it's dangerous. When we compare nuclear weapons to firearms, or states to individuals, we’re ignoring the immense scale and consequences of these things. A single nuclear bomb has the potential to devastate the entire planet, far beyond what any conventional weapon could do. And once a nuclear conflict starts, there’s no turning back-it’s a global catastrophe. These kinds of arguments don't just miss the point; they actively hinder meaningful discussion. We need to be raising the level of conversation, not lowering it. Please focus on understanding the real dangers and complexities of these issues, rather than oversimplifying them into sound bites. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to do better.
According to the UN charter if a nuclear power threatening a country, that country can have nuclear to defend itself... now izl threatening Iran but US regime doesn't like it
Things changed in a practical sense when Israel "allegedly" assassinated Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on the night of Pezeshkian's inauguration violating the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which is just one of a plethora of crimes that have been paraded in full public view...but that's something you already knew.
I don't disagree but understand Ukraine had no recourse as a nation to ever utilize those nukes they only inherited them because they were a part of the Soviet Union All procedures and launch codes were kept within the Kremlin and were never given Kiev at the time of Ukraine independence they only had physical control over the storage sites that's it they never had any capacity to utilize them at all And that's the main reason why Ukraine wanted to get rid of them there were nothing more than expensive paperweight storage facility gobbling up electricity and other resources and manpower
Japan, S Korea and Taiwan can build them within a few years. Taiwan already had them in the past. They are restricted from doing so in exchange for their US defense guarantees.
I don’t know about Taiwan, but Japan is said to be within hours of small nuclear bombs capability. S.Korea is said to be within several days of few nuclear bombs. They both have huge radioactive material. S.Korea has SLBM capable submarine already. US has special nuclear umbrella agreement with S.Korea. Is it realistic agreement, or is it like promise given to Ukraine?
Sweden is another country with both the know how and that has the materials to make a bomb within a short period of time. Sweden was very close to getting the bomb in the early 60s but gave up the project due to threats and pressure from the US at the time
Missed one. Ukraine has the technical capabilities, the uranium, and the delivery systems. Everyone seems to think Ukraine is nothing in the post Soviet era, but these things remain. Ukraine is also no longer bound by the Budapest memorandum to the NPT, which has clearly been violated, certainly by muscovy and, arguably, by the US lackadaisical self-deterrence.
Making the bomb is expensive and Ukraine doesn't have the economy to sustain it nor the infrastructure. The reason why they were able to create the bomb in the first place was because they were part of the Soviet Union. They don't have the capacity to create conventional weapons to sustain themselves in this war what makes you think they could do this? They would be sanctioned if they created one only country that can get away with creating nuclear weapons without Sanctions is Israel.
@@rashadt2706 Ukraine was the center of the USSR’s missile programs and literally manufactured nuclear weapons there. The likely sanctions are the limiting issue, but if the west abandons Ukraine anyway after disarming her, there will be nothing to lose. Even if it’s just a single device in red square on a special day.
@@Wile-.E.-Coyote no you can't they have already been sanctioned and North Korea has had the bomb for years and they don't care about sanctions they have trade deals with China and Russia along with other Asian nations. Iran has oil and they don't depend on international community they've been sanctioned to high hell. They've gotten the infrastructure and expertise to build the bomb as well. They make conventional weapons for 4 other countries they launched satellite and have intercontinental ballistic missiles. They build their own ships and they can hold their own and as well as help others. Ukraine is dependent upon everyone just like Israel they both are dependent states. That's the difference between these situations y'all keep saying these countries that are dependent are formidable. When their supply line gets taken out like Israel did during the Yum Kipper war then what?
Imagine thinking the world needs more nuclear weapons in it I don't want to be living in a Fallout style post-apocalypse. I'm already scared that the current nine nuclear Nations could get a leader that doesn't care about mutually assured destruction let alone more countries that may get a leader that doesn't care about mutually assured destruction
@@MaskedDefiant Difference being Iran constantly threatens to use one against Israel while Israel doesn't even confirm it has one let alone make threats.
It's important to acknowledge that while Iran has engaged with United Nations agreements concerning its nuclear program, Israel has refused to participate in similar international frameworks. Israel, a nuclear-armed state, presents a profound threat to peace in the Middle East, particularly as we witness the tragic and devastating events unfolding in Gaza. The ongoing suffering in Gaza serves as a stark reminder of the harsh realities imposed by Israel's policies, causing immense human loss and suffering.
@@Ghenghis_1 The cruelty we witnessed on October 7th is not an isolated incident; it has roots that go back nearly 70 years. The stories of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons, the ongoing seizure of Palestinian land, and the killing of those who resist, particularly in the West Bank, have been a tragic reality for a long time. In the months leading up to October 7th, many people were killed in the West Bank, highlighting the continuous violence in the region. The apartheid regime poses a grave threat to everyone living in that land. As the United Nations has repeatedly affirmed, a two-state solution is essential. Israel must free itself from the apartheid system and move towards a secular democracy or, at the very least, a more just and inclusive regime. This would benefit not only Palestinians but also Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike.
@@Ghenghis_1Really?! Have you confused yourself? Or do you really not understand? This case would not have started if Israel had not occupied Palestinian land and imprisoned them in the largest open-air prison in the world.
@@SnakeRoot271 it is very very quiet. Things seems to be going again to the every day run of the mill routine but we might see what happens. Apparently nothing.
Please let me edit the audio, Simon. I’m an audio engineer and I will do it for free. These vocals are way too harsh. The highs are way too present and your “S” and “T”s are overpowering. I am going to keep commenting and die on this hill until the audio is fixed because I care about the quality of your content and want it to be as good as possible.
@@yk-tl3oi Clearly not. I have no idea about what either of you are talking about, but props to OP, I don't know if he just wants a job or I dead serious but he consistently posts this comment without fail.
The main reason why I support non proliferation of nukes isn't because I fear any war in which they're used its because I fear an nuclear mishap and accidental detonation The 1961 Goldsboro incident in North Carolina is proof of this: In 2013 Lt. Jack ReVelle, an EOD officer on the scene, recalled the moment: "Until my death I will never forget hearing my sergeant say, 'Lieutenant, we found the arm/safe switch.' And I said, 'Great.' He said, 'Not great. It's on arm.'" Parker F. Jones, a supervisor at Sandia, concluded in a reassessment of the accident in 1969 that "one simple, dynamo-technology, low voltage switch stood between the United States and a major catastrophe" He further suggested that it would be "credible" to imagine that in the process of such an accident, an electrical short could cause the Arm/Safe Switch to switch into the "Arm" mode, which, had it happened during the Goldsboro accident, could have resulted in a multi-megaton detonation Secretary of Defense Robert S. Macnamara in a Top Secret January 1963 meeting with representatives from the Departments of Defense and State, as well as the White House, used the Goldsboro accident to argue against the delegation of authority to use nuclear weapons to SACEUR, citing the possibility of accidental nuclear war. According to declassified meeting notes, McNamara "went on to describe crashes of US aircraft, one in North Carolina and one in Texas, where, by the slightest margin of chance, literally the failure of two wires to cross, a nuclear explosion was averted"
Oh come on. If you found yourself fighting with another person, but you had a knife and they had nothing, would you give them a knife to make it fair??
@@supernenechi and if u found urself close to fighting someone who has a knife in ur hand and u see one close by u can grab ur gonna grab it right? Idk why ppl fall for propaganda and think only the west has the moral right to have nukes and act as they wish by bullying smaller nations
Honestly, as an American, we want our allies be able to be self sufficient. Doesn’t mean abandoning them, just that they pay their fair share of defense as well. The United States is far away from a majority of our allies. They ought to be able to at least be strong enough to protect themselves until reinforcements arrive. There is pros and cons to everything.
If only your country and government weren't such raging hypocrites, that likely would happen! However with the massive conflict of interest between your country's weapons industry and your politicians, the likelyhood of most countries firmly standing on their own two legs is just a fantasy. After all for proper self-sufficiency and self-defense, a country also needs a strong and independent defence industry, and as I mentioned your politicians don't like that. Having a potent military is fine, just as long as all those weapons were made in- and bought from the US... It's why fenominal interceptors and bombers like the Canadian Avro Arrow and British TSR "suddenly" had the plug pulled on them, and instead were replaced with inferior US weapons systems. Or why so many European nations went with the expensive hangar queen better known as the F-35, instead of much more suited and vastly more affordable JAS Grippens.
Yeah, it's aerospace industry is almost as good as their skill in famine, sorry I meant farming. Of course they're rivalled by the famous Gambia Space Program.
They did, in partnership with the Israelis. Isreal still has theirs, South Africa only disarmed near the very end of apartheid to keep from handing the bombs over to the native Africans.
If anybody thinks I ran was gonna abide by Obama’s deal, I got a bridge to sell you. I can’t stand Trump, but he pulled out of that shit because he knew I ran couldn’t be trusted.
Theres no evidence that Iran broke the deal and countless different sources said they followed it fully. Unless you are the *Iraq has nukes type* its safe to assume they were following it
Do you think that Israel and America, which do not adhere to international laws and have nuclear weapons, are stable and truthful ? Especially Israel, which constantly threatens its neighbors with the use of nuclear weapons. The fact is that now the most unstable nations have nuclear weapons. Maybe if others have these weapons, peace will be established. The interesting fact is that in the last hundred years, America has started a war every two years on average, in every corner of the earth.
"We need to get self sustaining habitation off planet as soon as possible", someone said. The trillion dollar question is: Who are "we" gonna be? Ain't gonna be you. Ain't gonna be me.
The only one in the middle east that threatened to nuke someone was Israel they did in the Yum Kipper war they've threatened Iraq Egypt Iran like theyve been the unhinged ppl in the middle east since 1948. Western countries exacerbated these issues they sanctioned North Korea and Iran for going nuclear but not Israel.
Lol tell me where did Iran invade another country or killed any other people like the us and isreal is doing in the middle east for decades Your delusional muslims have every right to fight back after what you did to their countries
South Korea has nuclear processing technique which was tested and reported to IAEA utilizing laser to process plutonium to weapon grade fissile material about a decade ago. Some of SK scientists think they can produce few bombs within days to 6 months. Japan also seems to have material and infrastructure ready to go. Their scientists have said Japan can have small nuclear arms within hours.
To paraphrase: "It's BAD, but it's probably not that bad. But it could be BAAD! But it's probably not. But it might already be REALLY bad, but it probably isn't. Or is it?"
That's the difference between European and African rule. Just look at Zimbabwe, who supplied much of southern Africa with food, untill they ran off the white farmers. In just 1 or 2 years the famine grew so bad that they had to beg the whites farmers to please come back and do what they do best.
I mentioned this before… there’s a market for investment of countries that aren’t supposed to have access to nuclear materials. You cant give Iran a nuclear reactor but you can build.s US or allied military base and provide nuclear power to Iran . There’s other countries like this . Billions in revenue from clean energy.
@@edwardcunha1629 Iran was going to achieve nuclear power regardless of any deals, just like every other country has done in the past, and what any other country would do given the chance, much like Israel.
@@edwardcunha1629 well, considering I’ve worked for the DOD for 20+ years and have spent more time in and around the Middle East than you have doing anything productive in life, I’m more than confident in my statement 😉
Worth noting that if breakout time is for a suitable amount of weapons grade Uranium, and not weapons grade plutonium, the whole "sophisticated explosive device" thing goes out the window. There are 3 major types of nuclear bomb, 2 of which are relevant here: The thermonuclear/hydrogen bomb is the irrelevant one. You need a plutonium bomb to to trigger it, so if you're building it, you're already a nuclear power. Plutonium bombs require 2 things: weapons grade plutonium, and a highly sophisticated implosion charge. Plutonium is relatively easy to get from civilian nuclear power plants - a lot of them make it as a byproduct, that's part of why uranium reactors have been the standard all this time (most of the history of nuclear power development is either Manhattan Project or Cold War era, both of which are times when the people operating these plants (the US, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies and puppet states) see having more weapons grade fissile material as a good thing. There's enough of it around that it's kinda hard to control access (hence North Korea having enough to run a nuclear program despite everything North Korea doesn't have.). Fortunately, there's also the implosion charge tech, which takes a rather complex bit of engineering to balance a bunch of explosive charges such that they properly implode the plutonium core. This was the biggest problem the Manhattan Project had to overcome, and I think most if not all countries that have used plutonium bombs since are believed to have at least some level of help stemming from that project (Soviet spies in the project itself getting them a jumpstart on their nuclear weapons project, and the US and Soviets both helping out allies, etc. Uranium bombs also require 2 things: weapons grade uranium, and a trigger mechanism. The latter is quite easy to implement: unlike plutonium, weapons grade uranium already has the density necessary for the bomb to go off, you just need a big enough pile of it in one place. (I forget the exact mass, but it's somewhere on the order of 20-40kg.) For Little Boy - the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and the first uranium bomb to be detonated (ie: it was entirely untested, it's so simple they didn't need a full scale test), this was a gun type mechanism - a hollow cylinder of weapons grade uranium in the back of the device is shot at a cylindrical target at the front, which fills the hole in the hollow uranium "bullet". When the two meet, it goes boom. Fortunately, weapons grade uranium is an extremely high purity of U-235 (that's the fissile version of Uranium), which takes a considerable amount of work to appropriately refine. Hence Iran's centrifuges (the mechanisms used to refine uranium into higher-than-natural concentrations of the U-235 isotope) being enough of a concern to prompt a move as dramatic as creating STUXNET. But...yeah, if you have the U-235, I'd be willing to bet most hobbyists with a metalworking shop would be able to build at least a scale model of the triggering mechanism you need. Heck, if you've got suicide bombers as a delivery mechanism, you can just have two people carry a block of uranium around, meet up, press their blocks together and everything within several miles is gone. (All of this is public info, I'm just a Canadian who's watched a few documentaries and read some Wikipedia articles on the subject. Anything like details on how one makes an implosion charge beyond "you stick explosives around the thing and blow them up just so" is not, and is therefore not something I know.) Both of these are fucking terrifying ideas, but fortunately nature has it arranged such that either the fuel or the triggering mechanism is extremely difficult to get, so as long as the people who have them are appropriately cautious about both using them and ensuring nobody else can access it from them, then nobody else gets them without doing it the hard way.
@@billyyank5807yes he’s saying Tehran as in the capital of Iran in the same way he says Washington when referring to the United States, Washington of course being the capital.
It's not going to take Iran a year for the weapons development phase. They probably have done that parallel to the enrichment process so that isn't going to take ages. Even if they hadn't made own designs, they wouldn't need them as they can probably convince either Russia or NK to provide some designs to them for a simpler fission bomb. Alone it might take Iran longer to get a fusion (thermonuclear) bomb to work but to get some fission device to work with the possible help from Russia and NK would not take long.
Iran has the right to possess a nuclear weapon that protects it from thousands of American bases in the Gulf and Israel... Why does no one talk about Israel's nuclear program?
Iran could go nuclear today. They have enough uranium for it. The only question is do they want to maintain a latent capability or full blown nuke power?If all out war breaks out then odds are they'll go full nuke. At that point they'd lose any incentive not to.
the fear of the math is infinite regardless what kind of very hateful against a destructive toy, call it a bomb."why please or our way or the highways"
@@av3902yeah because of the “undisclosed” enrichment facilities. Anyone who honestly believes the words of a regime that chants “Death to America” is unconscionably naïve.
Seems to me that Iran is certainly trialing a small swan type implosion primary on the way to a one meter long lightweight 1/3 megaton two stage device. The materials for a secondary are relatively cheap and the overall design is well known. They only need to be informed by one knowledgable weapons designer to bypass the tricky neutron initiation, timing, interstage and x-ray channeling issues.
Radiopharmaceuticals uranium-230/thorium-226 developed in a reactor, US and British big pharma charge up to $50,000 per patient, Iran is sanctioned meaning no cobalt Co-60 units for Radiotherapy, when Iraq was sanctioned of dual use medicine, a estimate 100,000 cancer patients died prematurely(kids), not all reactors are for bombs.
Fuck no. America has presided over the most peaceful period in himan history. The people trying to "restructure" global power are causing all the chaos in the world. Theyre also all authoritarian shitholes
One important factor regarding Saudi Arabia has not been mentioned: they paid at least half if not more of the costs for Pakistan's nuclear programme. And it's quite likely they bought something with all that money. What that "something" might be, I have no idea, it could be that Pakistan would supply Saudi Arabia with a lot of technological know-how, or it could even mean that if a crisis were to happen the Pakistanis would station their own nukes in Saudi Arabia for joint use. But I highly doubt Saudi Arabia paid untold billions to Pakistan's nuclear programme as a case of charity....
Because we benefit the most from the current world order. Ever single foreign aid dollar spent brings us so much more in return that its worth it. Being isolationist is fucking retarded and will cede power to authoritarian shitholes like china and russia. Why are you helping our enemies get the America that THEY want
Isolationism from major world powers during late 30's let two empires that wanted to take over and murder gain momentum, man power , resources and industry then decided to fight them. If you fight little battles you don't have to gather the strength of the half the worlds countries to combat them.
It's of the utmost importance to remember that there were times when the "experts" completely dismissed as nonsense the idea that N Korea, Pakistan, India and even China could become nuclear capable. Look how that turned out.
To be fair the Chinese literally begged the Soviet Union to give them that capability
And then the Pakistanis did the same thing groveling to the Chinese
It’s the Pakistanis that give the know how to the Chinese
Experts like Kissinger were playing for the enemy all along. They should not be glorified but rather treated as the traitors they were.
I remember when NK set off their first one. US intelligence was completely unaware and unprepared
What I find most interesting about that is that rather than lead to anyone actually using the bomb once a nation gets the bomb they tend to act less aggressively than before. Odd dynamic, to be honest.
"I have never doubted an American solder. But I would be foolish to place my nation's security in the hands of an American politician."
That line goes hard
As soon as I heard that, I came down to the comments looking for it. Definitely agree.
I agree with him.
Soo true...Good answer!
How to say "We'd rather burn billions of dollars for our own nukes than pay it to Trump's protection racket scheme" without sounding too political:🤌
Unfortunately, we American have no choice.
We are going to miss this era when it was just nine countries with atomic weapons.
Hah. In 1991 I predicted that we would one day look back fondly on the orderly balances of the Cold War. 😂🤷♂️
@@jpoeng I wasn't alive during the Cold War so I cannot attest to such fondness, though my mother in law does miss the DDR. It was a strange stalemate that kept the world in balance.
😅😅
@@jpoengI do not miss those balances because I'm not worried about balances of geopolitics at all
In fact I'm more worried about accidental detonation and mishaps
As the more Nations that have access to this type of weaponry increases the chances of mishaps and accidental detonations
The United States had one such mishap in 1961 in Goldsboro North Carolina
A near miss that was so extremely lucky the secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara was quoted as saying later in 1963
By the literal chance miracle of two wires not crossing the US was spared the disaster of an accidental nuclear detonation
@@rejvaik00 The balance of geopolitics reduced proliferation as well. With the US retrenching, the return of naked aggression, and the deference granted to muscovy’s nuclear terrorism, everyone who can make nukes will very much want to do so.
Thanks!
Owning a nuclear weapon is like owning a firearm. It's a power dynamic and insurance. And like a firearm, in the wrong hands, it's used as leverage over others...
yyeah minus the fact when you use a fire arm, you don't destroy the neighborhood in the process.
@@Tex_actual Scale matters.
States are to individuals what nukes are to firearms.
And the US and Russia owns most of both 😂
@@Nathan-vt1jz Actually, China & Russia have the most with Russia claiming more than the US and China combined.
@@Tex_actualactually, that again depends on who is using the firearm. Plenty of people ruin whole neighborhoods with them every day....💯
It might be beneficial for Iran to consider a similar approach to Israel in developing nuclear capabilities without publicly announcing them, and this might be the route Iranian leaders have already taken. Considering that regimes like Israel have obtained the bomb, I don't see any reason why Iran shouldn't do the same.
Fr, I'd be surprised if they werent doing this already and honestly who can blame them. Iran is mot an ideal nation in how they operate but with the constant the threats to their existence I camt say they're wrong to go the nuclear route. Only thing that'll keep them safe
Iran does not have nukes. Israel and the US can freely operate inside Iran networks as they have showed with tens of sabotage operations (a lot more that we don’t know too), and they would surely know if they got one. The reason Iran should not have one is because you cannot trust a theocratical regime who calls for the complete destruction of Israel and the US with a nuclear weapon. On top of that, there is high risk that extremists might get a hand on the weapons, given how many islamic terrorist groups there are in the world (both shia and sunni). Iran getting a weapon would be catastrophic and saudi arabia and others would pursue them too, which increases the risks of extremists getting hands on them. Pakistan is enough to worry about already for the intelligence community
America "accidentally" curtailed Iraq's nuclear plans ... lol accidentally
13:27 LOVE that quote
Lol
I assume he means the nuclear lab that we bombed in the first Gulf War was much closer than the US thought when bombing it.
So ... the IDF airstrike on the complex in 1982 did what? Nothing? Also, ZERO mention of the Saudi/Pakistan deal done FOUR years ago that gives the Saudi kingdom Pakistani nuclear technology. Including a working bomb.
Bad research and script writing all over this one. BOO!
Who knew that giving these dipshits money would lead too this, Obama was a fucking idiot!
Imagine if Saddam hadn’t invaded Kuwait 🇰🇼 or waited til he had nukes to keep us out of it
“Ain’t no fun when the rabbit has the gun.”
Love the "Training Day" reference
Exactly😂
@archerynut when you keep shooting the rabbit and learned to fight back you get upset.
How interesting that.
Only you have the right to be powerful and bully,
and if a country wants to defend itself so that it is not occupied like Iraq,
suddenly it is a rabbit and should not have anything to defend.
We don't want war, but we respond to everything at the same level and to every threat.
Given that Israel has publicly stated many times that evidence of Iran acquiring nukes would result in immediate attack they don't have the same motive of deterrence and the claim they were only months away from getting the bomb has made without evidence since the nineties. Many have concluded that the desire just isn't there given the drawbacks.
i absolutely effing hate israel, such a hypocritical bully
if i were iran id take that risk, israel may never attack iran again possibly
Israel have consistently (tacitly) stated that they will break international law to achieve their goals as long as they remain even tenuously credible to their backers. Slinging a nuke at Tehran, loses this credibility; similarly, Iran developing nuclear weapons is not an overt act of hostility, and with the precedent set by Israel can easily use the "well they don't exist, but if they did they're for our protection" motif.
Since the 90s? Did you forget about the dozens of times they have been slowed down? Kids in Syria have longer average lifespans than Iranian nuclear scientists
Lol, you give to israel. Iran is worried more about the USA. The fatwa is also a huge barrier.
They have the capabilities to build one within a couple of weeks at this point. They just need to put the components in one place then assemble them. They dont do this because they know how the world would react, and that would be economically/strategically/diplomatically bad for them, but they could do it.
Canada could also build nuclear weapons. There is obviously no need, as the US is their neighbor. They also don't have bombers or rockets to deliver the warheads.
Canada can’t fund its military let alone nuclear weapons lol they’d rather just mooch off the US.
Germany too, but then we realized that it would take 30 years of bureaucracy and paperwork and we thought "nope"^^
@@kirinrias6912 Yep! Germany is another example. I bet it wouldn't take much for Poland to build one either. They are quite industrious and have been investing a lot in their military.
@@brendon9032 Canada thinks it has no need for a military either given its underfunding.
If I'm not mistaken CAN is the world leading developer in nuclear technology and they also have a top notch military so it shouldn't surprise anyone if they do but ofc they don't have the need
"Japan doesnt support nuclear proliferation." Huh, can't immagine why.
Hasnt everyone been saying iran is 4 years away from a nuke since the 80s
It has long been the policy of the US. Tell everyone how dangerous the person you don’t like is, and then commit atrocities against them and then justify them by saying they were going to kill us.
@@shahzebkhan5181smart strategy. It's used to justify the huge military budget
@@shahzebkhan5181 facts
@@shahzebkhan5181 AIPAC precisely..
@@shahzebkhan5181 AIPAC Precisely..
Middle Eastern countries should all build it in order to prevent getting bombarded and occupied from west
Why US and UK have right to own and use nuke but other nations don't?
Cos they and some other very rich very old families run the world. And if other nations outside their influence have nukes, they can't be as easily controlled without risking them nukes being aimed at them for meddling in other nations' affairs. US imperialism is devastating and terrifying, tbh as fucked up as a many of these outlier nations are I can't at all blame them for wanting nukes cos it's the only thing protecting them
This comment should be pinned..
Because they are so called big daddy of the world, if you look around the world conflicts, you will get to know its the europe who put the wars seeds in the nations by doing wrong border calculations. And made the "independent state" And then selling their own weapons to rival countries..
Literally nothing in the video says that. Also, British exceptionalism isn't a thing - so how's the weather in Moscow?
@va818 he's not talking about the video mentioning it ofc, he's talking about the fact that the US and UK in particular are very against other nations gaining nukes, especially nations that are outside or against their sphere of influence like Iran which is clearly unfair
We should be worried about israel having a nuke not iran.
💯
😅... No one is worried about Israel having nukes... It's obvious they won't use them offensively...
Iran on the other hand........
@@thomaslove6494yeah yeah yeah
@@thomaslove6494 thats a stupid statement as nukes arent offensive. They are defensive. using it as an offence is a surefire way to destroy the world. However, it effectively stops a largescale invasion of ur nation.
Not only does an invasion give a valid reason for a country to use its maximum capabilities(as they are being invaded. Every country has the right to defend itself and if they dont use everything they wont exist), but it poses a scenario where a country can nuke itself to decimate invading populations. It doesnt call for nukes to be used, as a country has the ironic right to strike itself if it wants, but it also creates a wall of doom where no invading force can actually reasonably cross anymore. Ofcourse this is so extreme it would only happen if a country is on its knees, but it is possible especially for large areas like russia and the USA.
TLDR; nukes are defensive not offensive purely due to how they effectively make a largescale invasion on ur homeland impossible in the current political climate
Israel has had the bomb since 1967. But yeah we should be concerned with them using it today.
Iran has the right to defend itself
Go ahead 😂
not from its own people.
Absolutely
Was it defending itself in syria, Lebanon, Iraq, yemen, Bahrain?
@@SV7-2100what US, Israel doing in Syria, Iraq???!!!!.... Iran was doing the same thing the west was doing there.
1:10 - Chapter 1 - Iranian dreams
5:50 - Chapter 2 - Crossing the threshold
10:20 - Chapter 3 - K bomb
13:50 - Chapter 4 - Limits & likelihoods
17:25 - Chapter 5 - Desert bombs
20 bucks for this comment
I'm pretty sure your the same guy I keep giving comment likes for doing this for us. Just wanted to say thanks.
Iran is an Islamic country who have faith on their supreme leader and their leader forbid them on such satanic weapons. But current situation in world shows nuclear weapon is like an Insurance certificate may be they will make it as a self-defense security for their country because they have many enemies who possess nuclear bombs.
Still they have faith on the supreme power of universe God Almighty who's universe is such big and powerful even most intelligent people are bewildered and he is omnipresent.
Russia has proven that the threat of nuclear weapons and red lines don't mean anything. MADness
Well the fact that you're alive to type this shows it does. Otherwise it'd be a wasteland already
@@dannyquilter8366 no he’s right. Their nuclear threats mean nothing. Ukraine has crossed the “Red line” and invaded Russia in the Kursk region. Putin still hasn’t used any nukes despite threatening he would. Nuclear annihilation just isn’t worth it.
This is a stupid take and russia can nuke whenever it wants. They'll only do it if the regime is backed into a corner, which you guys unknowingly root for. Hitler did not have nukes and if he did.... We can't keep comparing these conflicts to ww2. The nukes truly change the game and the rules.
The part you don't seem to understand is the mutual part.
It's a two way end.
Russia isn't filled with explosive magicians who can't wait to get to the afterlife
See you in the bunker, don't forget too take your pip boy with you
Id rather go goul. I've read the entries and want bi parts or that.
... BUNKER ?
WERE IS IT ?
Did you bring Dandy Boy Apples? I don't like Blamco Mac&Cheese😅
Cram, salty delicious Cram
It's not that many countries WANT nuclear weapons- they NEED them to survive.
Countries that give up their advantages like Iraq or Libya end up paying for it later.
And don't forget, Syria, they were close too.
@@jess500texasSyria ? When?
In my opinion, so long as a nuclear armed state is at least somewhat rational, and isn't completely hostile to other nations, I see that as a net benefit for the world overall. I personally think that the threat of nuclear war has arguably resulted in far less wars than would have otherwise happened. However when countries like North Korea for example have access to Nukes, that's when it becomes a problem, but again, that's just my opinion.
That's what keep them safe. If they're not armed with nukes, they'll be like Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan. Tbh, they've been very rational compared to the west and it's allies. They haven't even invaded land for the past 50 yrs. Meanwhile US... which you call rational, have been instigating war for the last 30 years.
Leaders change.
@@Chris.Pontius that's why checks and balances are important.
@@Chris.Pontiusin where? Iran or North Korea? Because neither do, they certainly won’t in our lifetime.
@@Real_Person_Not_A_Bot Yeah but what about developing countries with regular coup attempts? Like Turkey gets coupled every 10-15 years ish. Imagine a psycho military dictatorship having nukes.
I'm surprised Poland wasn't mentioned. They have been on a defense spending spree even before Putin attacked Ukraine and they have changed their stance on hosting NATO nuclear weapons as a bulwark against Moscow. IMO, Poland would be one of the ones looking into building one of their own especially since Poland has the largest army in Europe.
They probably already have one tbh.
Where would they get the uranium from without triggering The United States? The reason why Iran is getting away with this is because they are already sanctioned to high hell. They have nothing to lose just like N Korea. France And The UK are the only one's in Europe with nuclear weapons everyone else host US nuclear weapons which is why Russia is mad. That's going against the treaty from the Cuban Missile crisis. The US has broken many treaties with Russia but Russia is the one being aggressive.
A nuclear bomb requires expensive infrastructure to keep, money can be spent improving military, besides nuclear weapons won't be used in case the Russia army invades. Besides US will respond negatively to Poland nuclear program.
@@nicholasswaim2835 They don't have the technology, also it's freakishly expensive to build and maintain all that infrastructure and their only delivery system will be the F-35 which means it's not going to happen
Inside NATO, I would rate the Turks as more likely than Poland.
Poland may be on a spending spree, but it has yet to be shown if they can actually pay for everything they want.
Can you do the South African nuclear bomb story
This would be so cool! I was on a South African political instagram page talking about it because I had read a lot about it. My comments were gaining traction when, all of a sudden, some guy started conversing with me who turned out to be the son of one of the people who worked on the SA nuclear programme. He had some suuuuper interesting insights, and my new curiosity has never since been quenched!
That would be awesome. Its amazing how many people have never heard of it. The unique methods they used to get there, the only country to BOTH develop and give them up.
It is a very interesting story, dovetails nicely into how Isreal got their nukes. Could be a double feature. Probably the only example of someone getting the ultimate trump card and throwing it away out of racial pettiness. Can't have black people playing with atomics, after what the apartheid government did I am not surprised they made sure to be the only country to dismantle their own nuclear program.
Good suggestion
The fact that south Korea is dependent to america for protecting it self is just straight up madness.
Its colonized. Same with Japan and Germany
To be fair they probably have more domestic heavy industry and manufacturing now then the USA. Between Hyundai kia and Samsung.
@@thejayj None of these countries are colonized, Japan's ethno homogeneity alone throws in the face of that. The fact countries share values and alliances with one another is not the same as being a hand puppet, that's how Russia operates, Japan has the world's second largest navy and could have a nuke tomorrow. South Korea has a modern standing military with homemade NATO quality hardware and similar nuclear possibility. The fact more atomic weapons equals bad things happening and a power like China being the main threat means allying with the west is common sense, not dependancy.
@@nickorme8112 Japan shares values with a country that wiped out two whole cities? Okay.
@@thejayj bro its 2024 already not 1945,,, Time flies by and even China used to be ally of the US.
I would love a video on how Israel “allegedly” got the bomb
Allegedly France gave them all the information with Americans silent blessing and they just build it IKEA style.
@@enderiskender2977 I heard it was that they allegedly jointly developed them with South Africa and when South Africa volunteered to disarm the Israelis got the tech and a few of the warheads. I would be interested in seeing a video on it, if only to hear all the allegedlys
stolen from america, till I journalist found out
Read "The Samson Option" by Seymour Hersh..It's a long read but very thorough I think..
It's alleged that Kennedy knew of them wanting nukes and was attempting to stop them and launch investigations into it as well war crimes against Egyptian POWs. Months later he was assassinated and the investigation went nowhere. Next thing u knw Israel is a nuclear nation
Excellent video. Thanks for feeding my unhealthily morbid fascination with nuclear weapons :)
At some point any tool created will always get abused to some degree, that much has never changed and never will. The boundaries will always be pushed.
Some people are saying that Pakistan will give Iran a nuclear bomb, THIS IS FALSE. Pakistan is not on that level of alliance with Iran, also we would not do it because we value our relationship with the US
Lol
The rocket exchange you guys had reinforce you guys are not friends. Wishing you and your family well
@Guildelin Thanks man, God bless you
This doesnot make sense also because what can Iran do with nuclear missiles . Keep them in Museum ? Until you dont know how to make your own they willnot be useful
Like it or not. Iran, despite being a muslim country is a geopolitical rival. Also the fact that they have had good relations with india and their penchant for weaponising sectarianism through shia proxies in other muslim countries is well known.
I did hear the idea that Saudi Arabia might buy some bombs from Pakistan.
Also it is possible that there is an arrangement between Iran and Putin that Russia will provide Iran with some relevant technologies in return to conventional weapons it is using in Ukraine. Britain basically did this with the US in WW2.
Saudi arabia probably has the ability to build their own nuclear weapons. They probably already have and just hide them like Israel has.
Funny how the West's attempt to isolate all these nations have simply made them band together now. But then again that's always been the west's plans, create the problem and provide the solution
iran is a highly educated and fairly advanced society . Dont fool yourself
Last time I was this early, fact boy had hair on his head and none on his face.
ahahha fact boy, that's a new one
Makes you wonder why billionaires are suddenly building bunkers.
Not suddenly
Suddenly? 😂
Billionaires been building bunkers since the invention of the nuke anybody that’s had money and an actual brain has built a bunker
Bunkers are worthless when the world ends
@@GDTRFBthe world doesn't end instantly...
“Do as I say, not as I do” - America
I love your videos but i realized i havent seen any for a while. RUclips stopped recommending them. Keep up the amazing work and high quality honest videos
We can't keep going on like this
Why not? We got through the Cold War.
... THE CHANGE HAS ALLREADY BEGAN.
NEXT STEP: THE SHIT WILL HIT THE FAN.
@@Nathan-vt1jz ruclips.net/video/fHEsGKZm4C8/видео.htmlsi=9-xGl1x1MluPmzwe
I was only going to mention one of the examples shown in the video. And that's just between a few countries. And that doesn't include the incidents we've had handling our own nukes, which there has been too many.
Do you honestly think not one of these psychopathic leaders is capable and totally possibly willing to use these things
What do you propose then? What would you do?
@@Nathan-vt1jz the next war won't be Cold but Hot
It seems more like a situation of being pressured into pursuing it rather than a genuine desire. If there had been a true interest, the development could have happened long ago, especially given the resources available to acquire the necessary technology. The media along with actions taken by Israel, have played a significant role in shaping this narrative. It's intriguing that, amidst the current turmoil, there is now a push to finally develop it.
That's whys Israel assassinated Iran's Nuclear Director, which they did claim to do. The hit was on Iranian land
I believe this happened around 2020
And no one took responsibility. Check Google.
You can’t tell another developed country to not build the bomb while you have a stockpile.
You can tell whatever country not to do whatever you tell them when you’re the most powerful nation on earth
Developed? Iran is a tyrannical theocracy, the supreme leader interprets allah’s will and acts accordingly - thereby making Iran an irrational actor who possesses nuclear arms.
Well yeah you can
This world runs on hypocrisy
@@skip1383 How did that work out with North Korea?
Comment 1: "Owning a nuclear weapon is like owning a firearm."
No, it's not. A firearm's destructive capacity is limited to the immediate vicinity-what the user can see and aim at.
It doesn’t have the potential to obliterate life on Earth or cause a chain reaction of destruction that extends far beyond the user’s control.
However, launching a single nuclear weapon affects everyone on the planet, with consequences that are almost guaranteed to escalate far beyond the initial explosion.
Comment 2: "States are to individuals what nukes are to firearms."
Absolutely not. If you had read Annie Jacobson’s book Nuclear War or had even a basic grasp of how nuclear weapons work,
you’d understand why this analogy doesn’t hold up. A state's influence is confined by its borders-you can always move to another place.
But once an ICBM is launched, there’s no escape; the fallout is global. It cannot be stopped or called back.
It’s also not just about one nuke; it’s about the inevitable retaliation.
For example, if North Korea fired a nuke, the U.S. would respond with 82, potentially triggering a catastrophic global conflict.
This isn't speculation but information from someone who actually participated in the WarGames simulations conducted over the years.
Comment 3: "Nuclear bombs don’t kill people."
Are you serious? Have you forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
The idea that nuclear bombs don’t kill people is beyond absurd.
__________________
It’s alarming to see comments like this being liked just because they sound good,
without any consideration for the reality of their implications.
The ignorance displayed here is truly mind-boggling.
Instead of advancing our understanding, we're actually regressing in intelligence by reading some of these comments.
It’s frustrating to see these kinds of comparisons because instead of advancing our understanding, we're actually regressing.
We’re reducing complex, world-altering issues like nuclear weapons to simplistic and misleading analogies.
This isn't just unhelpful-it's dangerous.
When we compare nuclear weapons to firearms, or states to individuals, we’re ignoring the immense scale and consequences of these things.
A single nuclear bomb has the potential to devastate the entire planet, far beyond what any conventional weapon could do.
And once a nuclear conflict starts, there’s no turning back-it’s a global catastrophe.
These kinds of arguments don't just miss the point; they actively hinder meaningful discussion.
We need to be raising the level of conversation, not lowering it.
Please focus on understanding the real dangers and complexities of these issues,
rather than oversimplifying them into sound bites.
We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to do better.
😓
2:00 "accidently" lol
Iran may already have nukes!
According to the UN charter if a nuclear power threatening a country, that country can have nuclear to defend itself... now izl threatening Iran but US regime doesn't like it
American “accidentally” curtailed Iraqs plans.
Thanks for working as insanely hard as you do
Things changed in a practical sense when Israel "allegedly" assassinated Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on the night of Pezeshkian's inauguration violating the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which is just one of a plethora of crimes that have been paraded in full public view...but that's something you already knew.
gotta get your hands dirty sometimes... and Israel is still cleaner than all its enemies
Just look at Ukraine for an example of why a nation should never unilaterally give up its nukes
I don't disagree but understand Ukraine had no recourse as a nation to ever utilize those nukes they only inherited them because they were a part of the Soviet Union
All procedures and launch codes were kept within the Kremlin and were never given Kiev
at the time of Ukraine independence they only had physical control over the storage sites that's it they never had any capacity to utilize them at all
And that's the main reason why Ukraine wanted to get rid of them there were nothing more than expensive paperweight storage facility gobbling up electricity and other resources and manpower
Japan, S Korea and Taiwan can build them within a few years. Taiwan already had them in the past. They are restricted from doing so in exchange for their US defense guarantees.
I don’t know about Taiwan, but Japan is said to be within hours of small nuclear bombs capability. S.Korea is said to be within several days of few nuclear bombs. They both have huge radioactive material. S.Korea has SLBM capable submarine already.
US has special nuclear umbrella agreement with S.Korea. Is it realistic agreement, or is it like promise given to Ukraine?
Sweden is another country with both the know how and that has the materials to make a bomb within a short period of time. Sweden was very close to getting the bomb in the early 60s but gave up the project due to threats and pressure from the US at the time
@@vberl9573 thanks for pointing this out. the more you know :)
Taiwan never had them, although they were very close to it in the 90's.
I don’t know about south korea and taiwan but japan need less than one week to test the first one
10:26 K-Bomb. Sounds it will down with a bang, just like K-Pop.
Oh thanks for the video Simon and basement team.
Missed one. Ukraine has the technical capabilities, the uranium, and the delivery systems. Everyone seems to think Ukraine is nothing in the post Soviet era, but these things remain. Ukraine is also no longer bound by the Budapest memorandum to the NPT, which has clearly been violated, certainly by muscovy and, arguably, by the US lackadaisical self-deterrence.
Making the bomb is expensive and Ukraine doesn't have the economy to sustain it nor the infrastructure. The reason why they were able to create the bomb in the first place was because they were part of the Soviet Union. They don't have the capacity to create conventional weapons to sustain themselves in this war what makes you think they could do this? They would be sanctioned if they created one only country that can get away with creating nuclear weapons without Sanctions is Israel.
@@rashadt2706You could say the same of North Korea or Iran. And yet...
@@rashadt2706 Ukraine was the center of the USSR’s missile programs and literally manufactured nuclear weapons there. The likely sanctions are the limiting issue, but if the west abandons Ukraine anyway after disarming her, there will be nothing to lose. Even if it’s just a single device in red square on a special day.
@@Wile-.E.-Coyote no you can't they have already been sanctioned and North Korea has had the bomb for years and they don't care about sanctions they have trade deals with China and Russia along with other Asian nations. Iran has oil and they don't depend on international community they've been sanctioned to high hell. They've gotten the infrastructure and expertise to build the bomb as well. They make conventional weapons for 4 other countries they launched satellite and have intercontinental ballistic missiles. They build their own ships and they can hold their own and as well as help others. Ukraine is dependent upon everyone just like Israel they both are dependent states. That's the difference between these situations y'all keep saying these countries that are dependent are formidable. When their supply line gets taken out like Israel did during the Yum Kipper war then what?
If Ukraine had kept their nuclear capability instead of trusting the US, Russia would NEVER hav attacked them!
Top drawer as usual
Imagine living in a country that has the bomb bullying other countries for pursuing the same thing.
Israel in a nutshell.
Imagine thinking the world needs more nuclear weapons in it I don't want to be living in a Fallout style post-apocalypse. I'm already scared that the current nine nuclear Nations could get a leader that doesn't care about mutually assured destruction let alone more countries that may get a leader that doesn't care about mutually assured destruction
@@MaskedDefiant Difference being Iran constantly threatens to use one against Israel while Israel doesn't even confirm it has one let alone make threats.
@@ghosthunter0950laughs in iraq invasion
@@MaskedDefiant I'd say the good old USA is just as bad if not worse. Imo.
Would you guys be willing to put your sources in your description?
It's important to acknowledge that while Iran has engaged with United Nations agreements concerning its nuclear program, Israel has refused to participate in similar international frameworks. Israel, a nuclear-armed state, presents a profound threat to peace in the Middle East, particularly as we witness the tragic and devastating events unfolding in Gaza. The ongoing suffering in Gaza serves as a stark reminder of the harsh realities imposed by Israel's policies, causing immense human loss and suffering.
They're a much more stable country though. In terms of nuclear risk stability is 80%
They wouldn't have caused "suffering in Gaza" if Hamas hadn't attacked them on Oct 07 right?
@@Ghenghis_1 The cruelty we witnessed on October 7th is not an isolated incident; it has roots that go back nearly 70 years. The stories of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons, the ongoing seizure of Palestinian land, and the killing of those who resist, particularly in the West Bank, have been a tragic reality for a long time.
In the months leading up to October 7th, many people were killed in the West Bank, highlighting the continuous violence in the region. The apartheid regime poses a grave threat to everyone living in that land.
As the United Nations has repeatedly affirmed, a two-state solution is essential. Israel must free itself from the apartheid system and move towards a secular democracy or, at the very least, a more just and inclusive regime. This would benefit not only Palestinians but also Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike.
Exactly 👌
@@Ghenghis_1Really?! Have you confused yourself? Or do you really not understand? This case would not have started if Israel had not occupied Palestinian land and imprisoned them in the largest open-air prison in the world.
Cheers from Venezuela Simon!
What is it like in venezuela currently I have so many questions
@@SnakeRoot271 it is very very quiet. Things seems to be going again to the every day run of the mill routine but we might see what happens. Apparently nothing.
@JCGomez-f2e is it an uneasy feeling of quiet at all I'd assume you are relatively close to the action
@@SnakeRoot271 meeeh not really as there isn't much action going on now. Street protests have been shut down by a terrible repression.
@@JCGomez-f2e I guess things are quickly winding down from the election blunder then
Please let me edit the audio, Simon. I’m an audio engineer and I will do it for free. These vocals are way too harsh. The highs are way too present and your “S” and “T”s are overpowering. I am going to keep commenting and die on this hill until the audio is fixed because I care about the quality of your content and want it to be as good as possible.
😂😂
I stopped listening to him bcoz of that
@@yk-tl3oi Clearly not. I have no idea about what either of you are talking about, but props to OP, I don't know if he just wants a job or I dead serious but he consistently posts this comment without fail.
Canada is another one. We have the weapons, rocket, and nuclear tech.
Yea but ever since that peace movement back in the 60s, it ain’t happening.
If North Korea can do it.....
Great report
The main reason why I support non proliferation of nukes isn't because I fear any war in which they're used its because I fear an nuclear mishap and accidental detonation
The 1961 Goldsboro incident in North Carolina is proof of this:
In 2013 Lt. Jack ReVelle, an EOD officer on the scene, recalled the moment: "Until my death I will never forget hearing my sergeant say, 'Lieutenant, we found the arm/safe switch.' And I said, 'Great.' He said, 'Not great. It's on arm.'"
Parker F. Jones, a supervisor at Sandia, concluded in a reassessment of the accident in 1969 that "one simple, dynamo-technology, low voltage switch stood between the United States and a major catastrophe" He further suggested that it would be "credible" to imagine that in the process of such an accident, an electrical short could cause the Arm/Safe Switch to switch into the "Arm" mode, which, had it happened during the Goldsboro accident, could have resulted in a multi-megaton detonation
Secretary of Defense Robert S. Macnamara in a Top Secret January 1963 meeting with representatives from the Departments of Defense and State, as well as the White House, used the Goldsboro accident to argue against the delegation of authority to use nuclear weapons to SACEUR, citing the possibility of accidental nuclear war. According to declassified meeting notes, McNamara "went on to describe crashes of US aircraft, one in North Carolina and one in Texas, where, by the slightest margin of chance, literally the failure of two wires to cross, a nuclear explosion was averted"
didnt the US lose a couple of nukes?
@@nolga3569 yes the Goldsboro one is still buried under 30 feet of mud
I heard that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a deal to buy half a dozen nukes from Pakistan if and when Saudi Arabia needs them?
As an American and a veteran I don't think it'd be uncalled for at all for the ROK to obtain nuke simply to maintain parity with the north.
Iran has the right to own Nuclear weapons same as any other nation, all who deny them must first get rid of their own bombs first.
Oh come on. If you found yourself fighting with another person, but you had a knife and they had nothing, would you give them a knife to make it fair??
@@supernenechi and if u found urself close to fighting someone who has a knife in ur hand and u see one close by u can grab ur gonna grab it right? Idk why ppl fall for propaganda and think only the west has the moral right to have nukes and act as they wish by bullying smaller nations
i’m so addicted to these bloody videos
Honestly, as an American, we want our allies be able to be self sufficient. Doesn’t mean abandoning them, just that they pay their fair share of defense as well. The United States is far away from a majority of our allies. They ought to be able to at least be strong enough to protect themselves until reinforcements arrive. There is pros and cons to everything.
Israel has no problem with that point of view!
If only your country and government weren't such raging hypocrites, that likely would happen! However with the massive conflict of interest between your country's weapons industry and your politicians, the likelyhood of most countries firmly standing on their own two legs is just a fantasy. After all for proper self-sufficiency and self-defense, a country also needs a strong and independent defence industry, and as I mentioned your politicians don't like that. Having a potent military is fine, just as long as all those weapons were made in- and bought from the US...
It's why fenominal interceptors and bombers like the Canadian Avro Arrow and British TSR "suddenly" had the plug pulled on them, and instead were replaced with inferior US weapons systems. Or why so many European nations went with the expensive hangar queen better known as the F-35, instead of much more suited and vastly more affordable JAS Grippens.
The common geopolitical assumption is that if Iran openly declares for Nukes, the Saudis will try to follow to maintain regional parity.
Yes, that is indeed what he says in the video
@@coconutsmarties Ha-ha, yes, I wrote the comment while watching. Oops.
Zimbabwe for sure. They already have an amazing aerospace industry!
Maybe if the capital was still known as Salisbury.
Yeah, it's aerospace industry is almost as good as their skill in famine, sorry I meant farming. Of course they're rivalled by the famous Gambia Space Program.
South Africa used to have nuclear weapons but voluntarily de-armed themselves in the...70s, I believe?
They did, in partnership with the Israelis. Isreal still has theirs, South Africa only disarmed near the very end of apartheid to keep from handing the bombs over to the native Africans.
Luxembourg is next to go, then who knows, maybe Monaco
Not before Liechtenstein or the Vatican goes thermonuclear.
Wonderful introduction...thanks for sharing
If anybody thinks I ran was gonna abide by Obama’s deal, I got a bridge to sell you. I can’t stand Trump, but he pulled out of that shit because he knew I ran couldn’t be trusted.
Theres no evidence that Iran broke the deal and countless different sources said they followed it fully. Unless you are the *Iraq has nukes type* its safe to assume they were following it
Do you think that Israel and America, which do not adhere to international laws and have nuclear weapons, are stable and truthful ? Especially Israel, which constantly threatens its neighbors with the use of nuclear weapons. The fact is that now the most unstable nations have nuclear weapons. Maybe if others have these weapons, peace will be established. The interesting fact is that in the last hundred years, America has started a war every two years on average, in every corner of the earth.
"We need to get self sustaining habitation off planet as soon as possible", someone said. The trillion dollar question is:
Who are "we" gonna be?
Ain't gonna be you.
Ain't gonna be me.
Best RUclips channel when it comes to geo politics and modern warfare.
The idea of an extremist Islamic nation with a nuke is honestly terrifying.
Why, an extremist Jewish nation already does
... LET US NOT FORGET: THE U.S IS THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, THAT HAS DESTROYED 2 CITIES FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY.
AND THAT IT IS NOT NICE !
Alrdy got Pakistan
The only one in the middle east that threatened to nuke someone was Israel they did in the Yum Kipper war they've threatened Iraq Egypt Iran like theyve been the unhinged ppl in the middle east since 1948. Western countries exacerbated these issues they sanctioned North Korea and Iran for going nuclear but not Israel.
Lol tell me where did Iran invade another country or killed any other people like the us and isreal is doing in the middle east for decades
Your delusional muslims have every right to fight back after what you did to their countries
South Korea has nuclear processing technique which was tested and reported to IAEA utilizing laser to process plutonium to weapon grade fissile material about a decade ago. Some of SK scientists think they can produce few bombs within days to 6 months.
Japan also seems to have material and infrastructure ready to go. Their scientists have said Japan can have small nuclear arms within hours.
To paraphrase:
"It's BAD, but it's probably not that bad. But it could be BAAD! But it's probably not. But it might already be REALLY bad, but it probably isn't. Or is it?"
Modern south Africa can't even maintain a power plant let alone the bomb. What a difference a few decades make 😂
That's the difference between European and African rule. Just look at Zimbabwe, who supplied much of southern Africa with food, untill they ran off the white farmers. In just 1 or 2 years the famine grew so bad that they had to beg the whites farmers to please come back and do what they do best.
I mentioned this before… there’s a market for investment of countries that aren’t supposed to have access to nuclear materials. You cant give Iran a nuclear reactor but you can build.s US or allied military base and provide nuclear power to Iran . There’s other countries like this . Billions in revenue from clean energy.
What? No mention of Israel??
Shhh nothing to see there.
They aldready ahvw them
It’s still doesn’t make them invincible to threats.
This Just in : Iran is only a few days away from acquiring a nuclear bomb
They been saying this for ages
This wasn't going to happen until Trump cancelled the Iran nuclear weapons deal.
@@edwardcunha1629 Iran was going to achieve nuclear power regardless of any deals, just like every other country has done in the past, and what any other country would do given the chance, much like Israel.
@@GDTRFB LMAO. You clearly don't know shinola about Iran
@@edwardcunha1629 well, considering I’ve worked for the DOD for 20+ years and have spent more time in and around the Middle East than you have doing anything productive in life, I’m more than confident in my statement 😉
@@GDTRFB Not a single word of that comment made even the vaguest notion of sense.
Iran has the right to defend itself.
Perfect timing fact boi just got the boards set up for some cornhole practice 😂
8:00 , They Know, thats why they have been keeping it under wraps
Iran has all the right to own a nuclear weapon
Worth noting that if breakout time is for a suitable amount of weapons grade Uranium, and not weapons grade plutonium, the whole "sophisticated explosive device" thing goes out the window. There are 3 major types of nuclear bomb, 2 of which are relevant here:
The thermonuclear/hydrogen bomb is the irrelevant one. You need a plutonium bomb to to trigger it, so if you're building it, you're already a nuclear power.
Plutonium bombs require 2 things: weapons grade plutonium, and a highly sophisticated implosion charge. Plutonium is relatively easy to get from civilian nuclear power plants - a lot of them make it as a byproduct, that's part of why uranium reactors have been the standard all this time (most of the history of nuclear power development is either Manhattan Project or Cold War era, both of which are times when the people operating these plants (the US, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies and puppet states) see having more weapons grade fissile material as a good thing. There's enough of it around that it's kinda hard to control access (hence North Korea having enough to run a nuclear program despite everything North Korea doesn't have.). Fortunately, there's also the implosion charge tech, which takes a rather complex bit of engineering to balance a bunch of explosive charges such that they properly implode the plutonium core. This was the biggest problem the Manhattan Project had to overcome, and I think most if not all countries that have used plutonium bombs since are believed to have at least some level of help stemming from that project (Soviet spies in the project itself getting them a jumpstart on their nuclear weapons project, and the US and Soviets both helping out allies, etc.
Uranium bombs also require 2 things: weapons grade uranium, and a trigger mechanism. The latter is quite easy to implement: unlike plutonium, weapons grade uranium already has the density necessary for the bomb to go off, you just need a big enough pile of it in one place. (I forget the exact mass, but it's somewhere on the order of 20-40kg.) For Little Boy - the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and the first uranium bomb to be detonated (ie: it was entirely untested, it's so simple they didn't need a full scale test), this was a gun type mechanism - a hollow cylinder of weapons grade uranium in the back of the device is shot at a cylindrical target at the front, which fills the hole in the hollow uranium "bullet". When the two meet, it goes boom. Fortunately, weapons grade uranium is an extremely high purity of U-235 (that's the fissile version of Uranium), which takes a considerable amount of work to appropriately refine. Hence Iran's centrifuges (the mechanisms used to refine uranium into higher-than-natural concentrations of the U-235 isotope) being enough of a concern to prompt a move as dramatic as creating STUXNET. But...yeah, if you have the U-235, I'd be willing to bet most hobbyists with a metalworking shop would be able to build at least a scale model of the triggering mechanism you need. Heck, if you've got suicide bombers as a delivery mechanism, you can just have two people carry a block of uranium around, meet up, press their blocks together and everything within several miles is gone.
(All of this is public info, I'm just a Canadian who's watched a few documentaries and read some Wikipedia articles on the subject. Anything like details on how one makes an implosion charge beyond "you stick explosives around the thing and blow them up just so" is not, and is therefore not something I know.)
Both of these are fucking terrifying ideas, but fortunately nature has it arranged such that either the fuel or the triggering mechanism is extremely difficult to get, so as long as the people who have them are appropriately cautious about both using them and ensuring nobody else can access it from them, then nobody else gets them without doing it the hard way.
Is it just me or he is actually saying tiran and not iran?
Or maybe it was Tehran?
@@billyyank5807yes he’s saying Tehran as in the capital of Iran in the same way he says Washington when referring to the United States, Washington of course being the capital.
It's not going to take Iran a year for the weapons development phase. They probably have done that parallel to the enrichment process so that isn't going to take ages. Even if they hadn't made own designs, they wouldn't need them as they can probably convince either Russia or NK to provide some designs to them for a simpler fission bomb. Alone it might take Iran longer to get a fusion (thermonuclear) bomb to work but to get some fission device to work with the possible help from Russia and NK would not take long.
Everything your stating Iran needs to complete a weapon they already have !
Iran has the right to possess a nuclear weapon that protects it from thousands of American bases in the Gulf and Israel... Why does no one talk about Israel's nuclear program?
Israel has never threatened to wipe out a country. However Iran did and we all know what's the quickest weapon for such a task.
If you're constantly bullied by a nuclear psycho and there's no other option, eventually you become one too.
Iran could go nuclear today. They have enough uranium for it. The only question is do they want to maintain a latent capability or full blown nuke power?If all out war breaks out then odds are they'll go full nuke. At that point they'd lose any incentive not to.
If trump gets elected, he'd probably sell a few to the Saudis if they spent enough at Mar a lago
the fear of the math is infinite regardless what kind of very hateful against a destructive toy, call it a bomb."why please or our way or the highways"
Iran isnt going to stick to any deal. 😂
US broke the last one
@@av3902Trump's dementia 'genius' at work as usual
@@av3902because Iran didn't keep their end of the bargain.
@@av3902yeah because of the “undisclosed” enrichment facilities. Anyone who honestly believes the words of a regime that chants “Death to America” is unconscionably naïve.
How did iran break the deal ???@@kingofcards9
Seems to me that Iran is certainly trialing a small swan type implosion primary on the way to a one meter long lightweight 1/3 megaton two stage device. The materials for a secondary are relatively cheap and the overall design is well known. They only need to be informed by one knowledgable weapons designer to bypass the tricky neutron initiation, timing, interstage and x-ray channeling issues.
I need a weapon
me too
The new weapon must be protected at all costs
It's muh God given right as foreseen by the founding fathers! USA USA USA
Radiopharmaceuticals uranium-230/thorium-226 developed in a reactor, US and British big pharma charge up to $50,000 per patient, Iran is sanctioned meaning no cobalt Co-60 units for Radiotherapy, when Iraq was sanctioned of dual use medicine, a estimate 100,000 cancer patients died prematurely(kids), not all reactors are for bombs.
A restructure of global power needs to be changed
I'm sure the Ayatollah would love your profile pic
No thanks
Fuck no. America has presided over the most peaceful period in himan history. The people trying to "restructure" global power are causing all the chaos in the world. Theyre also all authoritarian shitholes
One important factor regarding Saudi Arabia has not been mentioned: they paid at least half if not more of the costs for Pakistan's nuclear programme. And it's quite likely they bought something with all that money. What that "something" might be, I have no idea, it could be that Pakistan would supply Saudi Arabia with a lot of technological know-how, or it could even mean that if a crisis were to happen the Pakistanis would station their own nukes in Saudi Arabia for joint use. But I highly doubt Saudi Arabia paid untold billions to Pakistan's nuclear programme as a case of charity....
Trump was right about us defending other countries though. Why should be spend all the money to defend the majority of the world?
We should do that, but we shouldn't do it for free 🤷
Because we benefit the most from the current world order. Ever single foreign aid dollar spent brings us so much more in return that its worth it. Being isolationist is fucking retarded and will cede power to authoritarian shitholes like china and russia. Why are you helping our enemies get the America that THEY want
why? to maintain strategic depth
@@ritterdererdehis point was those countries need to raise their own defence budgets
Isolationism from major world powers during late 30's let two empires that wanted to take over and murder gain momentum, man power , resources and industry then decided to fight them. If you fight little battles you don't have to gather the strength of the half the worlds countries to combat them.