Brit Reacts to How would the United States Fight a Nuclear War?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
- 🎬Other Channel: / @l3wglive
Please subscribe, like and turn on notifications if you enjoyed the video!
How would the United States Fight a Nuclear War Reaction!
📺 Support me on Patreon: / l3wg
🕹️LIVE EVERYDAY on Twitch: / l3wg
✨Patreon: / l3wg
🎥More Channel: / @morel3wg
Become a channel member and have a channel badge next to your name!❤️💥
/ @l3wgreacts
Original Video: • How would the United S...
Socials:
twitch: / l3wg
twitter: / l3wg_
Insta: / l3wg_
Discord: / discord
Tiktok: / l3wgreacts
MASSIVE THANK YOU to my amazing patreons!!
Matthew Passuw,Joseph Boyce,Lora Moellenberndt,Tom Levi,Melissa Koesel,Chase Taylor,ygnubbs,Kelly Patterson,Jordan Geier,Chrissy Hanson,Monty Ferguson,Ryan,Christina Streiff,Drew Evinger,Jeffrey Butler,Alex R,Gerri,Sheley Harp,Steven Cryar, Kenneth Hammond, Ashley Graham,Bri, Pitviper_7, sharon satterfield, Mac Funchess, Elliot Kolmeister, Annette Anderson, klycan, Incursio 23, Bob Smith, Frank Schmitz, Kelby Farley, Angela Engele, Sheli Wynne, Cliff, Blossom,Garth Hill, Eric Gray, Vallary Groda, Nan Peebles, Donna, Larsen,Vertetciel, Pamela Trautmann, Barbara L - Розваги
Thanks!
THANK YOU!!
Always remember...
Whenever you see "what the US has" its always... ALWAYS less than what is really there. You only hear what's "declassified"
Not really, nuclear weapons are inspected by international agreement. Nobody wants nukes going missing.
and you know this....how?
@@inkey2its only logical with how secretive the US government is
@@inkey2 Common sense
@@inkey2you think UAPs. Are aliens or classified us military hardware? Remember. Which ever is more probable is likely the truth.
'You don't arm yourself after war has been declared. You build your army so big that no one dares pick the fight.' - Klaus
Atomic Weapons don't exist.It has been over 70 years now.70 years are a long time for a mortal.Given Human Nature if Atomic Weapons really existed;Someone would have used them to take over The World by now.Just stop and think for a moment.You have a Invention - The Atomic Bomb,which is capable of demolishing Entire Cities,which can crush The Human Spirit and which has "The Power" to literally enslave/conquer The Whole World and No One All Of This Time has tried to take over The World???It doesn't make any sense.Some people might say this is because of "Mutually Assured Destruction",but my devastating point is this:The Americans were "seemingly" the first to develop Atomic Weapons years before Anyone else,so if The Americans were the first to develop Atomic Weapons and had Atomic Weapons,then why didn't they use them to take over The World.They could have bombed every other Country in The World and then enslaved the survivors.No Army in The World could have stopped them at the time.People will say what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?What about All the pictures,photos,videos,destroyed buildings and dead bodies?When I look at those pictures and videos of destroyed buildings;they look "burned","scorched" and "incinerated" to Me;not by "One Giant Brutal Super-Bomb",but by Thousands,Tens Of Thousands maybe even Hundreds Of Thousands of "Mini-Firebombs".To Me those devastated buildings don't appear to have been "Crushed" by "One-Single Mega-Brutal Crushing Super-Force",but by "Innumerable Smaller Burning-Forces".Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like burned Towns/Cities instead of Towns/Cities that were completely wiped out by "One Enormous Force".Now this is only Theoretical.I could be very-wrong,but if Atomic Weapons truly existed - by My estimates a Atomic Bomb would have not only "Completely Flattened" a Entire City to a pancake,but it would have also left "A Giant Crater" in the ground.The sheer "Monstrous Crushing Force" of a falling Atomic Bomb would have not only flattened The Entire City to ground-level it would have also "Torn-Apart The Very Ground From The Ground Itself".The Entire City would have been "Grinded Into Dust"- there would be Absolutely Nothing and Nobody left except "A Enormous Crater".There would be no clue that a City even existed.Example:If You build a Sandcastle on The Beach ( The Sandcastle is The City and You are The Atomic Bomb ) and then jump and stomp on it or punch it with All of Your might;it will Completely Flatten and You may even carve a Deep Hole in the ground.The Demons and The Fallen Angels who rule over this World need "Human Life Blood".Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "Satanic Human-Sacrifice Rituals".All of those Hundreds Of Thousands of people were being sacrificed to Demons and Fallen Angels for their blood.Many Ancient Civilizations from The Past were also sacrificing people for their blood,because The Demons and The Fallen Angels told them so.The Wars in The World are Human Sacrifice Rituals.Nothing has changed.Atomic Weapons are a monstrous deception designed to frighten The Public out of their Minds in order to create a Future situation where A False Saviour or False Saviours can rescue them.If Atomic Weapons truly existed;Someone would have used them to take over The World by now,but Nobody has and maybe this is because Atomic Weapons don't exist!
Missile silos being hit does not cause the nuclear bombs to go off. Detonating a nuclear bomb is more complicated than igniting an explosive.
Far more difficult. It would actually de activate the warhead most likely.
@@m2hmghb Exactly
@@zeuso.1947 Would still spread all the plut around.
It still wouldn’t be a dirty bomb though.. I feel like you would have to have the raw nuclear material being scattered
@@m2hmghbMost of the Silos, especially the old ones were made to withstand a nuclear blast. They feared a few getting hit and it causing a longer lasting problem than the bombs themselves.
As a former US Army combat veteran, I can say with confidence; you'll never know what we have. I had no idea when I joined. But the rabbit hole goes deep, I can tell you that.
Not in the military and don't wanna know what we have but I'm assuming at least a couple decades ahead tech wise from the Civilian market
@@sleeplessking4717 At least ten years. More in some areas.
@@douglascampbell9809 indeed, i still think the US Government have some top secret aircraft that would seem out of this world to anyone who does not know the truth, and i could be wrong, but i would not be surprised, also i am not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, i just think we have some stuff that would have little to no explanation except to those who worked on them and/or knows about them, hell, those "tic tac" UAPs could be ours, but again, no confirming or denying it
Anything we know about and is public, rest assured, we have something better that's operational and won't be public till we have something better than that
'deep' implys there's a bottom to the rabbit hole..lol.seems more like an abyss🕳️
As an American I can honestly say that I wouldn't even want to be alive to witness the aftermath if we were ever nuked. I am sure many feel the same.
we all know there is no winning nuclear war
As American the one thing I’ve never feared is nukes we have a better chance of bein invaded in the homeland
I might stick around for 3 mins
I guess in a way I sort of understand the Preppers minds and the view of survival and wanting to live longer but the world will be a dark and desolate nightmarish reality of nothing. What are you surviving for??
Imagine if we’re Nuked which scares the SHIT out of me but this being said I’m not that worried since I trust my Country about something this very deep especially our homeland and the ones that still survive or alive or both and far from it imagine what the rest of us Americans we’ll do when we find out who’s responsible my GOD and I could promise u this us Americans we’ll be pissed off badly and when Americans are pissed off badly and come together is the most dangerous thing a Country never ever wants to see
The silos are where they are because it's harder for foreign countries to reach them.
Correct. That and in the case of a war with Russia those puppies are going over the North Pole and not over the Pacific Ocean so having them on the coasts wouldn't shorten delivery time. Fastest way is over the Pole.
Aaaannnd, they force enemies to divert assets away from population centers.
Exactly. Plus the availability of large areas of uninhabited land.
@@ThunderBallz87 They travel so quickly where they are doesn't matter when it comes to launching them.
That's wrong. They are where they are because they're in the middle of nowhere, but they'll take the first round of attack.
Do you really think it's harder for a ballistic missile to reach Denver than San Francisco?
Keep in mind this is based on the info publicly available, which is DEFINITELY not the entire arsenal, and likely downplays the capabilities the US actually has.
💯
That's always the game plan. I wouldn't be surprised to know we have a lot of hypersonic nukes already on standby
Not really. It's more useful for the United States to have that knowledge publicly known, to make nuclear disarmament/restriction treaties easier. It's a whole lot harder to get other nations to disarm if they think you're lying. And the primary goal is to _avoid_ nuclear war, trying to 'win' one is a last resort
That’s absolutely correct. I’m just some random on the internet, but I definitely have my info on very accurate authority… We don’t share our coolest shit with even the American public.
No one wins a war like this.
I disagree, we have nato, as long as we destroy enemies, it would probably be ok
I prefer Einstein's take "I know not with what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"
@@DopeDuoYT No, we wouldn't. If the ground is contaminated it's over. If the electrical grid is destroyed the estimates I've seen are 40-90% of people will be dead in the next 10 years.
@DopeDuoYT unfortunately that's not how nuclear war goes.
If an all out conflict broke out, and nuclear munitions were used en masse there is no shot for civilians. The sheer number of strikes would leave lasting radioactive fallout and an unfathomable amount of destruction to all vital infrastructures.
Except the scumbags that murdered us, living it up in their bunkers.
If I’m not mistaken, these are the plans from the 1970s and 1950s. I’m pretty sure our strategic nuclear priorities have changed considerably.
The middle of the country was chosen for Missile bases for multiple reasons: 1. it's less populated and these bases need space around them -- in essence, being in the middle of nowhere. 2. By being in the middle of the country, other Air Defense Systems located in other parts of the country can detect an incoming attack while the Missiles themselves are further away and, since the Missile's speed is go great, can still be launched with certain effectiveness.
Which also makes it more difficult for saboteurs to land and attack.
@@m2hmghb Yep
Also harder for opps to strike out sites
Also it forces the enemy to choose between taking out a silo, and taking out a resource or population center.
As you kept exclaiming “mad . . .” “mad . . .” “ mad . . .” , I wondered if you knew that the weapons system has been dubbed MAD. It stands for “Mutually Assured Destruction”.
It's not the weapons system. It's the wordwide policy. "You use nukes, everyone else will also."
It would be like commiting global suicide!😢😢😢😢
If you have a bomb shelter you would get in it, keep it stocked with food and water.
@@user-vl4fx5wf1q what's a bomb shelter going to do against a nuke? Even after that. The food and supplies you have will run out. Then you will need to go into the radiation.
To all younger folks..... welcome to the Cold War 2.0. If we all make it out of this one, y'all are going to have lots of stories and experiences to tell your kids in about 25 years. All of us older folks went through this from the 1960s through the late 1980s. Gotta love all that progress we've made as a species.
My brother remembers all of this plus WW2
You gotta watch part 2 - that's when you see the full effect
The silos are in the center of the country for three main reasons.
1. They’re far from populated areas, meaning if Russia or China wants to attack the us without fear of a return attack they have to hit the silos and not populated cities.
2. They’re far from the coasts insuring their safety from likely invasion routes and preventing conventional bombers from reaching
3. It allows for more missile defenses to have a chance to take down incoming missiles before they hit
16:49
first strike primary targets are A. military, B. government, and C. infrastructure (like electricity, gas, oil, ect...). secondary targets are major cities.... so the biggest cities WOULD be destroyed, but most smaller cities would have a chance.
This is why I was immediately pulled out of school on 9/11 even though I was all the way in Atlanta. I think a lot of US cities are aware of what would make them targets in the event of war. Living near the CDC was just one reason
I live in Colorado, and as strange as it is to say... You actually get used to the idea that a weapon capable of erasing an entire county is just kinda there. Same as getting used to knowing that if nuclear war did break out, you just happen to live in the part of the US that's likely to be hit early on. It just is what it is.
Same I live in California if we ever get attacked its likely California, Oregon, and Washington are gonna be among the first to see hostile enemy forces
"Ummmm Excuse me??!!" 💀😂
I died with you 🤣
Some short range MERV can carry as many as 14 individual warheads that are approximately 18 inches in diameter and four feet long, weighing between 600-680 lbs each. Most long range MERV missiles carried between 3 & 12 warheads.
Doesn't matter were you live everyone would die.
The only question is how fast
That is incorrect.
@@UpperDarbyDetailing okay, you try surviving the collapse of the economy and government, mass famine, and nuclear fallout..
@@lycheemyusic even if we assume your scenario is correct, which it likely wouldn’t be as the US has VERY good anti missile systems, not everyone would die. A lot of people would die, for sure. Not all though.
This is what America shows but you can believe we have the best well under wraps. Who's going to show their hand with their best, for many reasons you walk softly and carry the biggest stick.
The same principle is why the US sells the F-35 as opposed to the F-22. The principle being: you don’t sell/give away your best stuff, you get rid of your second best or third best(ie your derivatives) to others and keep your best tech for yourself.
Basically, you know full well the DoD, DHS and who knows what acronym groups in the military keep the most important national defense tech wrapped up nice and tight. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there are more advanced subs in the US’s arsenal and more than just 15 or 16 out there.
In the word's of the late Mr. H. Truman.
You should check out the history of America's nuclear weapons testing, some of them are truly scary.
Specifically look up Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands.....It's the biggest war crime the US ever committed in my opinion. What's sad is that it's not taught in American schools and most Americans don't know what their government did.
I was born at Malstrom Air Force Base in Montana in 71. My dad was on officer key holder. I grew up hearing about how bad things will be.
My dad was a crew chief on alert 52s in the 70s - had the same talks growing up in the 90s.
My cousin was a b52 maintainer in the 70s. He said he was never worried because as long as they kept him working on the same 4 planes, it means we weren't headed for annihilation lmao.
@@dusfitz Dad was shuffled around quite a bit so he never got too familiar with the specific birds. A year in Thailand, some in Italy, some in Louisiana, time in Rome NY, Australia, Guam, Rammstein, and other places.
@@m2hmghb my cousin was out of a hanger somewhere in the northwest, I don't remember where specifically. I couldn't imagine being a crewmen on those flight rosters, that's gotta be a stressful job and then some.
I live about 1 mile from one of silos and when I see the armored Hummers drive by I wave and sometimes I invite them for coffee or bring them coffee. I drive by the silo pretty much every day. I respect the difficult job they do.
IT WAS NICE KNOWING YOU, LEWIS!!! 🤯
11:19 😂
😂
🤣
If you're ever in Albuquerque, New Mexico: They have a Nuclear Museum where they have one of those SLBMs dissected on display. The warheads are surprisingly small, like you mentioned.
Yes. In the Albuquerque area we have nuclear capabilities, research and personnel that have been here for many decades. My dad was XO of the Navy Weapons installation at Kirtland AFB. We're good here. The defense system in place is nearly impenetrable, as well as other places around the country. The concept of "mutually assured destruction" is real. My money is on the US to take out incoming threats, and respond in kind with land, sea and air capabilities.
I live in southern az and I remember going as a teen in the early 90's to the Titan Missile Museum and being amazed on how large the Titan missile was and how small the warhead was compared to the missile. You can tour the missile silo which is mostly under ground. It's an interesting tour if you are into the history of nuclear war.
Um EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!😂😂😂 Laughed so hard. Rewatched about 10 times.
There's a couple reasons the silos are in the middle of the country.
It's less populated, so an attack on them will kill less people. They also hev little other use for some of that land due to the terrain and climate. Nobody wants a silo in a beautiful coastal town. Third, being so far from civilization allowed the silos to remain protected from spies and gawkers.
yep. and the real threat isn't discovery of the location, but catching people trying to learn specifics.
Don't count the UK out! As a American I LOVE MY COUNTRY!!! That being said we are really and proudly"Boastful" about who and what we are. You guys across the pond are it seems .... quite reserved and not near as "Loud and Proud" as our culture is.
You never know what your country may have for it's defence plan. Hopefully we as in all of humanity, will never encounter a reason to be shown .
Many NATO countries and allies have missile defense systems capable of downing an ICBM. Maybe not hundreds of them at once but sure enough plenty. Even IL has Iron Dome, David's Sling and Iron Beam laser defense systems that work. Even the US Patriot can take down some ICBMs.
RU can't even stop a drone from the UA. RU has no real air defense to speak of. Europe does.
Brits are very haughty...not Lewis, but ask any other European.
America is “loud and proud” because it has earned the right to be. It’s economy is what makes it the powerhouse that it is and allows it to have the massive military it does. No other comes close. The UK was the powerhouse for a couple centuries and during that time frame they were also quite the “boastful, loud and proud” country as well. I mean their imperialist ways literally had them controlling a quarter of the world at one point. You anglophiles always love to throw the US under the bus when the UK has shit tonnes of skeletons in its closet as well. Don’t single out the US just because it’s the big guy on the block right now.
It's funny how much Lewis and other Brits put themselves down when they are one of the most scrappiest nation to have existed. Examples, the Vikings, merged with them. The Spanish Armada, obliterated and created pirates as well as the infamous British Empire. The last free European country facing the Nazi alone, never waiver their faith in their country.
As someone who love learning history and culture beyond the US, it breaks me how much our Brits neglect to understand how inspiration their country is. It just makes me want to give them more love to help them understand they are more amazing than they recognize. Their country is the bedrock of the influence of the Enlightenment Age! We Americans are the first of one of the many the products of that period, but much of the concept comes specifically from the British and a few other European countries.
Anyways, I'm always amazed looking back at their history, especially when they defied Hitler when they had the choice to give in and ally with him. Any culture would be honored to have a fraction of the integrity they had.
The middle is further for enemy missiles to reach.
Just saw the first missile strike in this video. It was a good run my dude. We are gonna miss ya😂
Politicians don't think about what's best for the world, or even their country
My oldest nephew serves aboard the USS Maryland. He isn't reinlisting.
He might not be able to leave. It's happened before and it can happen again.
@@m2hmghb he recently got married, wants to start a family with kids. I hope the Navy doesn't screw him over on getting discharged.
@@shawnsparkman7916 Stop loss is a real thing. They used it on a couple buddies of mine during GWOT. He'd also be part of the IRR for 2 years if he's on his first hitch.
My daughter is on the USS Nimitz
The thing about the silo based one is we will know they have been targeted an hour or more before they are hit, and it takes only 5 minutes for them to be launched meaning the enemy just wastes their missiles on empty space at that point as the missiles will be launched before destroyed.
Ohio class boats are essentially the rolls Royce of silent traveling. Whales have collided with them because they can't hear the submarine.
The old joke was you find an ohio by looking for where the water is too quiet. Of course the nickname they got is amusing in a dark way "chicken of the sea"
@@m2hmghbI need context why is chicken of the sea a dark nickname?
@@SteveIsNumbToThisWorld Basically the boomer is the most important submarine out there - in some ways more important a vessel then an aircraft carrier. To the point an attack submarine may sacrifice themselves to keep it alive. It happened during the cold war where attack subs would intentionally screw with other attack subs to scrape them off the boomers. If it had been a hot war they would have taken hits for it. They're also on their own once they get to a patrol area.
@@SteveIsNumbToThisWorldi also need context. Im going to youtube search for chicken of the sea and hope to find a fat electrician video on it
No, they are not. Get your head out of the 1980s.
The quietest submarines are those running on battery power - either diesel-electric or AIP boats. Submarine technology has progressed significantly since the Ohio-class was designed, and there is no reason to believe that they are better or quieter than the new Columbia-class boats.
They're in the middle because the shortest route to their targets in the former Soviet Union is north over the pole; and it would be harder for anybody to get to them and mess with them in the middle of the plains where you can see for 30 miles in every direction.
The silos would be targets, they are out in the middle of nowhere away from the highest populations.
It's in the middle because of the coastal weather and the locations where they are is more temperature controlled due to the rock base.
Being raised in the 70s and 80s in the height of the cold war, for some reason, it's not as scary now. Don't get me wrong, it's scary AF, but I think the difference is technology and the fact that in the 80s, the movie The Day After came out and scared the shit out of everybody. Some even think that the movie played a part in cooling down the attitudes of the nations.
I always think it's hilarious when people react to how powerful the United States is. Because you know we have way more than just what we tell you. I heard a story once about a man who was at a military function and overheard an unnamed (for obvious reasons) US military General say something along the lines of "if we've shown it to the world it's already obsolete". Now I don't know how accurate that really is but you better believe with how much money we spend on our military, it's probably not very far off from the truth.
13:12 Im pretty sure the UK also has the Trident missiles on their Vanguard subs.
I love how the guy who made the original video can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly. It just gives you so much more confidence in the rest of what he says.
It's new--clear, not new-Q-lar.
Doh!
Great video my brother,war is scary, but we’ve got 🇬🇧 UK’s back and that goes both ways
Being at the edge shortens the “time to target”, - thus centering give added time to respond
The silos are in the middle because it has more air defense. Basically more obstacles in case an enemy tries to take them out
We keep the missles inland to help prevent water damage to the silos/missles as well as give a buffer between a strike because they have to get past all other missle defense systems first
remember these are thermonuclear weapons, so the bombs on japan were fission weapons, thermonuclear bombs use fission to start a fusion reaction. increasing the yield massively. the largest bomb we made was an accident. it was castle bravo. it was supposed to have 6 megatons, it blew up with over 15 megatons. a megaton is 1 million tons of tnt. and our biggest yield weapon now is 1.5 megatons. we could easily make 15mt weapons that fit one trident missile. watch kyle hills castle bravo video. all of his nuclear videos are insanely good.
There are a few reasons for silos being located in the middle of the U.S. Low population density; launch facilities would be heavily targeted by enemy attacks. Also, a few hundred miles of additional distance traveled is largely irrelevant when its traveling at 15,000mph. They don't send them over the oceans, they send them over the the arctic circle to their destination.
The single war heads are around 4 feet long and about 2 feet in diameter. They are perfectly shaped for reentering the atmosphere at orbital velocities and a lot of the warhead is just heat shielding for going Mach 26 in the air.
For reference, the warheads/re-entry vehicle on ICBMs and SLBMs are about the size of a person
I live in southern Arizona and for anyone that visits the Tucson area we have the Titan Missile Museum where you can tour a decommissioned nuclear missile silo. As a teen in the early 90's I went on a school field trip there. It's an interesting tour if you're into the history of nuclear war. If you go be prepared for stairs because the silo is underground.
4:15 Mostly because of defense. It's easier to defend against all threats (ground or air) is it has to cross half of America to get their first. Also, there is less out there. That means they can spread out, and that it is easier to keep them concealed. It would be hard to keep a launch silo concealed in downtown LA after all
The icbm missel silos are inland vs the coast because it makes them harder to hit plus less people live in those areas compared to coastal regions so if they are targeted you have less civilian casualties.
In the middle for defensive strategy. Usually in mountain ranges with fighter squadrons near-by
I was told the silos in the midwest, Minot and Malstrom, North Dakota and Minnesota, was a strategic spot for a retaliatory attack against the soviet union. If you look at a map of the U.S., then locate Alaska, Russia isnt that far from where we we're looking, the minute man silos just south east of Alaska/Canada. I live here in Arizona, we have minute men silos here down south. We have them everywhere.
left side is the rocky mountains which is 4,000 - 7,000 feet but can go up higher, look up pomp peak
Love watching your reactions. Cool video, but much more fun with your narrative.
The United Kingdom being smaller has one major advantage: it's a whole lot easier to defend using anti-missile interceptors. Each implacement has a limited range/area it can defend, so the UK can more densely pack it's defenses.
At least, if it had any.
Yeah right there at that dot - King's Bay Georgia. I get turned to radiated dust too.
Brother I'm from NYC and I'm telling you that America has the UK's back 100% your our biggest alliance in the world! Someone fucks with you guys they fuck with Us! We got your back Brother!
Like 2 siblings.
We bicker... we fight...
Nobody gonna mess with one or the other without catching both.
He doubts the UK’s strength in such a situation. However, there was a reason why we saw such a large scale attack on the Uk and that reason is because they’re an extremely formidable force, despite Lewis being surprised by it. Just their SF alone is top notch and one of the best, if not the best. Their naval fleet is impressive as well and they’ve basically always been that way. The British naval fleet has been scary for a very long time, even as far back as when they were still fighting with swords and cannons lol. Things have somewhat changed in style but they still remain a force to be reckoned with and our greatest ally.
@@ThatSoonerGuy the few British soldiers I did training ops with were all class act dudes. They were well disciplined, strong, and worked exceptionally well with any group they got put with. They definitely wouldn't cower as shit went down.
ICBMs have essentially infinite range- they're basically shooting a missile into space and then having them come back down from orbit where you want them. It's therefore beneficial to have them spread out in low-population, hard to reach places like the mountain west, where there's not many people around to be harmed if enemies try and target them, and they're not at risk from enemy attacks trying to strike population or manufacturing centers. Having them on the coasts doesn't really provide a benefit, since the couple hundred miles of range is inconsequential, but any attacks aimed at the coasts have far greater casualty potential than rural Montana/Wyoming/Colorado.
7:02
it's almost impossible for one missile to hit another one. it's like shooting a bullet out of the air with another bullet from a mile away...
Additionally, the U.S. HIGHLY tracks ANYTHING from nearly EVERY country on Earth and ANYTHING that would go into the air is quickly identified. even the HINT of a nuclear missile being shot towards the U.S. would create an immediate response and an immediate launch of a return strike. and since it's unlikely that an enemy would ONLY use one missile to attack the U.S., the ENTIRE arsenal of nuclear missiles would be launched as a return strike, as it would be assumed that a first strike on the U.S. would be enough to kill the entire population, so the return strike FROM the U.S. would be a retaliatory strike to kill off whatever country attacked us first.
So the assumption is that IF the U.S. were to be attacked by a nuclear strike, there wouldn't be anyone left to be able to do anything after the strike hits, so we would immediately strike back before their missiles hit us. BUT there is a HIGHLY secure system in place to insure that a false strike doesn't set off our own strike and because of this, the missile silo soldiers are highly trained and psychologically conditioned for this possible event. and they will only 'push the button' if they can confirm through this secure system that they orders to strike are genuine...
we literally have the patriot missile which does do that. wee seen idf using theirs very successful from Iran's attack.. just the other day lol
Except "weather balloons" 😂
The truth is, no one trusts anti-missile interception against nuclear ordinance, because if your wrong about how effective it is the consequences beggar comprehension.
When you come to the states you'd enjoy a visit to Wright Patterson Air force base in Ohio. It has a great museum showing military air craft through history. Some of your questions about how big things are and what they can do would be answered there.
As a child of the 80s, I remember watching the movie The Day After, now that movie scared me a kid, beacuse were very living in the Cold War era. This also why we don't want crazy people having keys to nuclear weapons.
Also you have think that if something were to happened like this, you can survive the blast but then you have to deal with the fall out afterwards, and sometime that much worse then the bomb being dropped.
That freeze frame pic at the end of the video was just the 400 ICMB's, that didn't include the thousand or so individual MIRV warheads or air launched cruise missiles.
Also keep in mind these are only the weapons that are declassified and have been known about for the last 30 or more years. If you think the US isn't adjusting it's arsenal to counter new threats like China, Iran and North Korea, you haven't been paying attention. The F-35 just got approved to use internally carried nukes...and good luck finding the numbers on how many of *those* missiles exist
Can't wait to see part 2.
Our missiles that are located in the middle of the US like Colorado for example are because those bases are in the mountains which is strategically located for defensive
Thanks for reacting to this video, there is actually a part 2 to this video.
As a former US Airmen I'll give you a fun fact. One single B2 bomber could destroy the entire east coast with the nukes it can carry and still have a few bombs left over.
They may avoid the coasts to prevent damage or interference from fault lines and hurricanes.
I live in Nebraska 15 minutes away from Straatcom which is a major target for any nuclear strike against the US, I'd be gone in the first strike. Unfortunately the entire planet would fry because once one is launched every nuke on the planet would follow.
Yup. That's what makes nukes a net null in strategic planning. Aside from shutting down the full elimination of any nuclear power from the world stage. Because at some point, a desperate nation is going to open that box, and then everyone else will. Worse, knowing who fired what at who is extremely difficult relative to how important knowing is. If your the UK for example, and see launches starting, how do you know they're not targeted at you? That first leg of launch trajectory looks near identical no matter the target. So in the event anyone fires ICMBs, everyone is likely to start firing their own for fear of not getting the chance.
Pet peeve - saying with word Nuclear as “new-kyu-lar” with 3 syllables instead of the proper two syllables, “New-Clear.”
Coming from way eaten Montana, almost to the ND border. I cringed whenever the original video guy mispronounced Minot, ND. It's pronounced mine:ought.
You should watch how close nations have come to launching. In the cold war i think it was Russia that picked up something on radar and the guy to fire them waited just a moment to find out it was some other anomaly but i think he was told to launch. Nukes don't explode like that. Fusion has to take place, so if the warhead is never engaged, it's basically inert
4:00 No it wouldn’t really make sense. The reason why is because when these ICBM facilities were built, the American government knew it would be well-known where they were located. So, in the event of a nuclear attack, ICBM facilities would be the #1 target.
With all this being said, the middle of the country is where the least amount of people live.
Alot of missle silos are decommissioned. Ther are some being used for homes.
Nuclear warheads require a specific mechanical action for the actual chain reaction to work so blowing up a warhead with another missile wouldn't necessarily activate the warhead.
We have them in Europe to protect your ass, they are over there for NATO 😂
That only makes them a target also!!
We'll get you over here before the happens, dint worry bro. We need more like you so we can't lose you! Love ya bro! ❤
7:00 The explosion would have to come from directly under the missile to have any small chance at pushing the core of the bomb into the shell (the core is pushed into the shell with explosive force to get enough radiation in one place for the radioactive materials to go supercritical (make nuke). Unless the threshold of supercriticality is passed a nuke won't go off, which is the reason the core and shell of the plutonium (and other radioactives) are separate to begin with.
It would make the area more radioactive though, not a bigger explosion just a more radioactive crater afterwards
If you put the GLN-ICBMs on the coast, theyre also easier for the enemy to attack
If you want to see some truly impressive military tech look into the defense systems.
New sub here! 🙋🏼♀️ Your reactions are priceless.
"I'm around here" lmao
Dude! If this ever goes down, where all fu*ked!!! Lol
BTW. Don't be fooled by this video. If this would ever to come off, both russia,china usa, or whomever has nukes, will be targeting big metropolitan areas.
4:05
keeping the missiles in the center of the U.S. makes them harder to attack from coastal ships. also, they are in the middle of nowhere and there is nearly flat land around them, with almost no large land masses or forests, so ANY threat from saboteurs can be detected from VERY far away across the land, and dealt with quickly and totally...
They put all the missiles in the middle middle of no where as a tactic its called The Nuclear Sponge. The enemy has to decide do they want to attack the missiles location, population centers or other military bases.
Yo L3WG! (sorry if this is too long) In response to your video @6:55 : You'd get an insane amount of radioactive fallout (one of the reasons they put them far away from most population) but the bombs getting hit would, themselves, BARELY explode. If a nuclear weapon gets destroyed by anything other than its own proper detonation sequence, it will explode with ~little~ more power than an ordinary bomb (well...plus a release of nasty nasty plutonium or uranium dust) The term for this is a nuclear "fizzle". Nukes require insane precision to set off the full nuclear reaction. This is one of the main reasons its sooo hard for various nations/terrorists to make their own nukes. You have to get the design exactly right or the nuke's either a dud or a lot less powerful than it should have been (like maybe 1/10th or 1/100th or something). Hence the need for HIGH-level technology + nuclear testing to see if your design even works. ...one exception is the "gun design" which uses 2 sub-critical masses of weapons-grade uranium-shoots one mass of uranium through a tube into the other mass to combine them and go boom. Still wont go off if you just blow it up but is a lot simpler/easier to make. But you still need enough weapons-grade uranium and its a LOT less powerful. I think "Little Boy" one of the 2 dropped on Japan in WW2 was this kind. Maybe only destroy a few city blocks vs a few square miles or more for the advanced-waaaaay-harder-to-make-thermonuclear type of nuke. Also, you may have a chance in a nuclear war. The complete-death-and-destruction only goes out a couple/few miles for all but the MOST powerful nukes. If you're 5, 10, 20 miles from the nearest hit you and even your house may be ~okay~ (especially if your indoors when it goes off: the flash of light can burn exposed skin...not to be too weird but maybe wear a white hoody/jacket outside if things get super iffy: in WW2 Japan there were cases where the color of a person's clothing affected the skin-burns underneath-light colors do deflect more light=heat). If that happens, try to stay indoors at least a few days (weeks if possible...consider storing up some gallons of water and some food that you could eat without cooking)-the most intensely-radioactive kinds of fallout sorta "burns" itself up relatively quick (super unstable=intense isotopes have a short half-life like seconds to days) and the longer-term stuff (like radioactive isotopes of cesium and strontium) isn't *as* bad: you'd hopefully live with just a higher *chance* of getting cancer instead of a painful radiation-death over the following hours/days. Then again your mostly right: moving to a more open country like America is a good idea. In fact I'd suggest moving someplace kinda rural and getting a couple acres of land if possible (...I know, $$$ right...). ...and maybe plant a garden with some nice fruit trees, vegetables (Your own fresh broccoli and jalapeños for example?), staple crops, herbs etc. ...These days there's a lot of things that could go wrong, not just nuclear war and for most of them its better to be in a small town where there's more space, not too many people and hopefully less crazy if the utilities stop working. If you're in a big city and the system goes down how would you even get food? ...these days even loss of internet might have people going crazy... #getoutofcities
I had to watch "War Games" immediately after I saw this... Great flick
To answer your question, "why in the middle?".... 1. the rocky mountains along the western coast serve as a shield for low flying missiles that would target these silos. 2. having them on the coast would leave them vulnerable to surprise attacks and we'd have less time to defend them with our own air defenses. 3. Any attack on them would have to go through multiple waves of air defenses and thousands of miles of harsh terrain (massive mountains and massive deserts) 4. Those places where the silos are have very little population near them, which makes citizens safer in the case of a nuclear attack coincidentally. 5. It is easier to move maintenance parts to them since they are in the middle.
Nuclear warheads cannot accidentally go off, even if they get blown up, lit on fire, or smash straight into the ground. It requires a very, very exact and controlled detonation of a shaped charge surrounding the fissile components to initiate a fission reaction, which then initiates a fusion reaction. A nuclear explosion wouldn't set off another nuclear warhead, it would just destroy it. The reason for the huge increase in explosive power since WWII is that the first nukes where purely fission weapons. Modern nukes use an initial fission stage to set off a fusion stage, which is much more powerful. These are known as "thermonuclear" weapons.
Lewis, you're thinking of nuclear bombs like regular explosive bombs. They are not at all the same. Regular bombs use chemical explosives to make a big bank. Nukes are very technical and take advantage of advanced physics to cause atoms to release enormous amounts of energy. You can put a nuke in a suitcase that could take out a small city. So, anything you do to a nuke , like setting off a bomb next to it, beating with a hammer, etc., will not detonate it. It will probably disable the bomb although if you blow it up hard enough you might have to deal with the radioactive material inside contaminating the surrounding area.
The U.K. has an arsenal at least one-third as big. I worked on three of those systems during my Army career.
You’ve got to think E=mc^2. It doesn’t take a whole lot of fissile material converted to energy to make a very big bang. The actual war heads are not that big. The W88 warhead is rumored to weigh 175-360 kg and are 5 ft long by 18 inch diameter. Also remember there are or were nuclear artillery shells for tactical use.
Look up "broken arrows". It's the term for when a nuke is lost.
As an American…I pray we don’t have to go to these lengths. War sucks for all involved. Yo Lewis, you’re welcome to stay with me and family. I’m here is Southern California. 👍🏻
We have a West Coast defense with missle silos in the hills.
The silos are where they are for two reasons. They are easier to defend there and to draw fire away from major cities.
The missiles can travel 6,000 mi in 30 minutes. Being closer to the coast would not make anything any easier for the missile, it would just be more vulnerable to other enemy attacks.
The US to the UK
"HOL' MA POCKIT"😂
Back in the early 60's we had Titan 1 Intercontinental ballistic missiles in our hometown. My mother would tell us that she could look out our back window and see the missiles at our municipal airport a mile and a half away. Our property backs up against the mandatory flight path crash zone where no housing developments are allowed in order to give air craft a place to ditch with fewer fatalities. It gave us a perfect and unobstructed view of the airport facility. The missiles were ultimately removed out of our Northern CA town a few years later, but the missile silos where they were housed still remain to this day!
I live in southern Arizona where until the late 80's we had a Titan 2 Missile silo. It has become a museum since it's decommission in 87. As a teen in the early 90's I remember going there for a school field trip. It was .... interesting. Lol.
We put them in the middle because its lower population density.
Combined with the fact that an enemy has to target them, its basically presenting a target to an enemy to hit with little cost to us.
We actually call it the "nuclear sponge" as it would absorb hundreds of Russian missiles in the event of war.
The reason there is the middle is because if something tried to shoot the sites we have time to shoot it down