Its a slippery slope, he's a history channel. First he starts talking about current events, and before you know it, he'll be doing documentaries on how aliens saved hitler from his bunker in 1945.
@@scott3462 The only ones that can save the humans from atomic nuclear self destruction are the aliens known as extraterrestrials: in the past people believed in the magical god, but nowadays god is either dead or obsolete and out of date, while an advanced civilization somewhere in this universe is a better hope.
@@geedon1 if we had focused our efforts as allies instead of rivals (US/Russia) during the latter half of the 20th century I feel like we woulda been had Moon colonies, while Mars would have camps set up for further construction...
Many younger people didn't live during the Cold War under the constant concern of mutually assured annihilation. This is why so many do not view the war in Ukraine as a big deal to them. Also most don't study military history and how an accident, miscalculation, or one wrong incident could escalate rapidly into a bigger and broader conflict. WW1 for example.
Had the same attitude when I was in grade school. But then I actually lived during the 70s, 80s during the height of the cold war. So what's happening brings home all the lessons of history. And that what I've lived through is considered history to today's kids. To paraphrase my parents and grandparents, kids today do not have a clue. Wow.....full circle.
Russia does not want a nuclear war. They just want a gang of bullying globalist nations, aka NATO, to back the heck off and show them some respect. Instead they keep trying to topple legit governments that are historically friendly to Russia and replace them with liberal EU wannabes. They caused this all in Ukraine doing that, and now via Ukraine they are trying to do this in Hungary, the only good European country left, which minds its own business and looks out for the interests of its own people.
The majority of people werent afraid all the time, atleast my parents and grandparents in West-Germany. Which is quite suprising to me since the RAF ( a east german financed and trained terror group) went on a rampage in west germany, killing countless politicians/succesful people and tried to sabotage and spy on the West. They got a little concerned tho when chernobyl happened and they werent allowed to eat any of their homegrown vegetables and the sour rain of the radioactive clouds came down. Even today in bavaria and former east german states you cant eat mushrooms or sometimes even hunted wildboars because of chernobyl.
@@davidpowell3347 US military doctrine then was nukes are just another weapon. Atomic Annie, Sgt. John, both produced battlefield weapons. Army testing north of Los Vegas. B 36s, B 52s all ready and in the air waiting to go. McAurthur flaunting civilian authority and wanting to nuke China.
Russia deploys nuclear weapons in 4 ways strategically actually and 3 ways tactically. Also you just mentioned balance, what’s balanced about the American anti-ballistic missile system? The truth of the matter is the American anti ballistic missile capabilities(GBI) number 44 total missile launchers in Alaska and California with a success rate of ~50% you can expect maybe 20 warheads/decoys to be shot down out of the 5,000 warheads and decoys that will be deployed from the RS-24, Topol-M, bulava, and sinva missiles currently in use by the Russian armed forces. They all have 3-4 decoy re-entry vehicles per missile. So I’m not sure why you even mentioned ABM it will be almost completely ineffective against a Russian attack. It was originally designed to go against low tech North Korean missiles, not to do anything regarding Russian nuclear weapons.
The days of nuclear disarmament are over. Welcome to the next (hopefully) cold war. Next step will be a Russian madman against the reelected Orange ape.
Yeah, it's the first of Mark's videos that smacked of fearmongering to me. We all know the superpowers can end the world with an all-out nuclear exchange. That was true before these new ICBMs, and it's still true now. We've had this sword of Damocles hanging over our heads all our lives. I still think it's better than world wars every few decades.
Former Air Defense Artillery Officer here. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense or GMD system is much further along than the testing phase, it was just never intended to defend against a peer threat like Russia. It is intended for “rogue” states capable of launching only a few ICBMs. The issue isn’t the technology, it is the cost. Each interceptor is very, very, very expensive. The program to which I believe Dr. Felton refers is the Next Generation Interceptor program, which seeks to improve upon the 50% probability of kill of the old system.
When Reagan spoke of his "Star Wars" defense system many in the world spoke of a side of MAD that few thought about. If one side had a technology that created and imbalance it then justified a first strike by the opponent before the said technology could be fielded. it was so much of a concern at the time that Ronald Reagan added and addendum to Star Wars that the tech would be fully shared with the Soviets to keep the balance.
@@jmstudios5294 he never called it that it was the Media that hated him that pushed it. Either way the Soviets realized they could never compete and they crumbled at the cost. RR and George Washington on the Dollar doomed the USSR
If you intercept an incoming nuclear warhead there will no nuclear explosion because you need fission to trigger the chain reaction. It would be advantage for the one side who develops the technology.
Well posidon program isn't finished the bomb definitely is tho but it's the stealth plating or whatever Russia is still trying to to develop and man that thing is one hell of a weapon
I love that Mark approaches the current events with the same pragmatic factual demeanour he brings to historical debates. His channel isn't about hyping one side or the other, just the facts as plain and simple as they can be presented.
I do not think so. You know why he is relatively pragmatic in ww2 history? There are plenty of sources from both sides to corroborate. You know why he can not be in this conflict? There is a massive propaganda campaign being won by the west. Think about how unclear or vague he is explaining the context for those missiles. It makes it look as: "...and then for no reason at all Putin, had a display of ego with a hypersonic missile." That is just not how you get to understand warfare.
I like how all of a sudden everything becomes factual when US is perceived to have some deficit, if it were the other way round, this would be peppered with troll comments
Britain's nuclear policy is based on "The Letter of Last Intent" which is that if Britain is nuked, the nuclear submarines would be able to respond without needing direct orders. Ukraine crisis has changed my view of nuclear weapons have changed to the fact that Russia thinks it is acceptable to threaten the world with nukes. Britain should maintain a full deterrent
Russia isnt threatening whole world with nukes Russia just said that any nato member that attacks Russia will face retalitory response. Ofcourse if Estonia attacked Russia they wouldnt use nukes but if USA attacked things would get ugly pretty fast.
It's all staged theatre to get us through Klaus Schwab's 4th industrial revolution. Putin is probably in on it, he's a member of the WEF and played a vital role during operation polygon. It's about time people opened their eyes, they've had two years to do so, it's like instinct has been shut down as fear takes hold which results in rationale going out the window. Sheep everywhere. Baaaaaahhh!
Greetings from Papua New Guinea, Mark. I've long enjoyed your presentations on all aspects of WWII, but I must say your recent ones are just as enlightening. We certainly live in 'interesting times'. I never thought I'd see a full scale war between two major European nations in my lifetime! What we saw in the 90s and 00s were mere skirmishes compared to this. Do keep up the topical presentations.
I remember worrying about nuclear war as a kid. I wonder what the mental health effects are for all the people of Earth living with this threat their entire lives. For me, at this point in life, it's just tiresome and disappointing. Disappointing that humans can't seem to evolve past the war crap.
I understand your frustration (and it is mine too), but I wouldn't just say "Humans can't seem to evolve past the war crap" in regards to nuclear weapons. I dislike US empire, but they did not threaten to end the whole world if they don't get it their way. I disline China empire even more, but they did not threaten the whole world with nukes. All other countries with nukes didn't. It is only Russia that brings this back again and again and again (just watch Russian state TV - they threaten to nuke Europe every 3rd day - seriously!). Russia is extremely irresponsible with their nukes and end of Humanity. So I wouldn't lump all countries into one bag - it's just Russia. The others may be just as evil, but they are at least SANE.
Globalization will solve this but it wont work without freedom/democracy... changes are happening and you're witnessing them now. It's just that it takes time and that, unfortunately, nuclear weapons exist in an era where major powers are Autocracies/Kleptocracies. As people world wide gain access to the internet and see how the West lives, they will be more inclined to overthrow regimes, so this fight between the West and the East will just intensify overtime.
In capabilities, yes. In the minds of some strategists, maybe not. Personally, I think the advent of precision weapons greatly reduces the utility of nuclear weapons.
@@flagmichael not if you’re hell bent on ensuring MAD, that’s the point. In the theatre of general war, you are right, but if you’re trying to ensure your enemy who has launched a first strike on you does not survive, then Satan II is your missile.
Ppl are ignorant, the U.S. Military budget last 10yrs $7.2trillion, ppl are to dumb to fathom that into, what has that budget got them. It's got them, Laser weaponry, Antigravity Craft the Uranium/Plutonium from their dismantled Nukes, would be, fueling their, fisson reactor, propulsion systems.
As a teenager I followed the SALT talks never once believing that the Cold War Warriors would ever use them. I live 2 nautical miles from Faslane Nuclear Submarine Base. At least if nuclear war arrives, I will see the flash and hear the sizzle, no pain, no worries. Best of luck one and all. It has been a blast!
@@iitzfizz I live like 35miles away from the center of downtown Chicago and I’m tweaking thinking about how Im too far to be given a merciful death, my skins probably gonna get horribly burnt and I’ll slowly melt into a puddle of goo from extreme radiation poisoning. .. Think I might just OD on fentanyl tonight. Was a good run folks
Liquid fueled ICBM's come with their own set of problems. The fuel is so corrosive, the missile can not be stored in a "fueled" state. The missile has to be fueled before launching. This can be a slow and very dangerous procedure.
Russia deploys in four ways, not three. In addition to subs, aircraft and silos, they have mobile ICBM launchers spread around its vast land mass that are very difficult to locate.
Dudes, you forgot something. In russia every citizen, in addition to tame bears and an endless supply of vodka, has missile silos in their backyards and a nuclear warhead workshop in the basement of every house.
@@Made_in_USSR_Limited_Edition and so? don't worry it will be a MAD for sure, you and me will die, even the "lucky" people with a bunker will die because of the nuclear winter. Let's pray that Putin won't be so stupid to start WW3
Nukes are horrendously expensive to maintain, so it wouldn't surprise me if few of their weapons actually still work. Something that's expensive and unlikely to ever be used is a great place to embezzle money.
I'm not worried about the nonoperables. Even if one srrategic artillery colonel is honest that leaves a score or so of weapons ready to end the world as we know it.
He also helped start America's research into nukes, even tho they didn't let him work on it cuz they thought he was a commie or something, thanks Einstein
Hoot hoot or they don't use nukes out of cowardice and after the end of the third world war decide to sign a mass denuculerisation pact that means nukes can only be used to protect humanity from interstellar threats. And if this does fall true world war four will more than likely be a world at war
Bluff has also been part of the Russian playbook. Khrushchev was a master of it, flying bombers several times around the block, the quantity of 1st generation ICBM's, to name but two. Russia had an economy the size of Italy, the existence of such a weapon, I do not doubt, the question is how many? and now with war in the Ukraine, are there the financial / technological resources to roll out the full replacement program?
The only concerning thing is that Russia can be as dirt poor as Africa, but if they have a few dozen ICBMs pointed at our great cities like DC, New York, and LA, that's more than enough. Having 6000 nukes is just a dick waving contest. You fire thousands of decoys and need just a few dozen to get though and it's over.
Putin's conventional military is a hollow shell. Maybe the strategic rocket force is maintained properly- something Putin has to ask himself since it seems that all of his generals tell him happy lies.
Mark, as you know, Stanley Baldwin said "the bomber will always get through"! Nothing has really changed, anyone launching a nuclear strike against anyone with nukes is just committing an exotic form of suicide.
Russian invading Ukraine is already the most exotic form of suicide. They are weak now. We can attack. Have you seen our cheap missiles pick off their best planes? Their missiles were constructed during the Soviet Union. Our nukes ar every modern and high tech. We can win the nuclear exchange and save millions of lives.
If Russia ever launched any nuclear weapons then NATO would undoubtedly use it's weapons too. The production of new nukes is scary but the idea of MAD is still the same. Many Russian's would be killed along with everyone else in a nuclear war and no one would gain anything.
he said that in 1932, a time before effective AA, Radar, Missiles, Jet engines, advanced communications. Nuclear bombers and silos are yesterday's tech, the only viable ICBM launch platforms are Ballistic Missile Subs. The UK being all Subs, has in effect a far more effective force than say double the numbers but Aircraft launched only. In theory those Sub's can launch 100%, while how many Aircraft will get through to a target. the other thing to note is Bomber formations used to be a 1000 big, even if you knew they were coming it took a lot to shoot down a fraction of that, in WW2 it just was''nt viable considering the average flight time for missions, say France-UK. Now replace Bombers with 1000 Drone's with Nukes, now your talking. So while a bomber might get through you might have an effective 20% of your total available package getting through, seems very wasteful.
@@davidrenton I think the deeper meaning of his speech was that technology had changed the face of war and that in any future conflict, England could expect it's cities and industries attacked and it's civilians killed.
Of all the features mentioned.. the most concerning to me is the use of the missile for conventional warhead strikes. That could be easily mistaken for a first strike if utilized. All the other features mentioned simply reinforce the MAD principal.
That's what I was thinking. "Oh, it's OK. Those ICBMs we launched at you are just armed with hypervelocity, conventional warhead MIRVs." It's not like you could tell the difference before the warheads are deployed, and it's only a matter of time before you have hypervelocity re-entry vehicles carrying nuclear warheads. You've also got frog-boiling strategies, where you start out using them as theater artillery, launching non-nuclear strikes against neighboring states, gradually expanding the range you use just to degrade the willingness of the US (or whoever, really) to act against launches. Especially since they're most vulnerable during initial boost; predictable path, bright target, and the warheads haven't separated yet.
One of the reasons that Trump and Putin withdrawing the USA and Russia from the intermediate ballistic missile treaty in 2019 was such a bad event. Now both nations are free to build up on weapons that can easily be MISTAKEN for first strike nuclear missiles, further increasing the chances of nuclear war breaking out "on accident".
Not really an issue as the opponent can simply rely on his second strike capability. There is no need anymore for "oh, we gotta react before the missile lands" like there was in the 60s, taking the chance of accidents way down. A sub can be ordered to launch only after it got the "yes, we are all dead, the nukes have gone off" signal and still glass all of russia no problem.
In the 80's dual-purpose ballistic and cruise missiles were supposed to be really scary...Russians did it all the time _(SS-1, SS-12, SS-20 et al),_ but then when we introduced the PERSHING II missile and the BGM-109 TOMAHAWK cruise-missile in the '80s and the Russians start crying like little baby
@@aenorist2431 -- I got a feeling that our submarines and ocean surveillance/containment abilities are advancing at a much faster pace compared to Russia's over the last 30-years. Hopefull, soon they will lose the know-how to even fab basic parts & maintenance for a nuclear submarine. Eventually, I think the undersea arm of the Russian nuclear triad will fail and combined with crazy old-man Russian hermit dictators waving nukes around every time they wanna beat up on their neighbors will cause the old first-strike scenarios to be dusted off and seriously re-examined as being a safer bet for humanity rather than allowing a recurring cycle of Russian Nuclear-Brinksmanship every 30-years; each cycle only waiting for a new generation that doesn't remember the last time to fill the army.
As scary as these strategic weapons are, what really scares me now a days are the tactical weapons and their doctrine on using them. Even more so now that Russia invaded Ukraine.
Thanks Professor Felton!! MAD was indeed a deterrent but quite horrific in nature of course. The Soviet, or rather now, Russian mobile launchers are the most difficult of offensive weapons to target unless there are tactical forces in relative vicinity to respond
It still very much is a deterrent. All-out nuclear war ends the world, including Russia, the Kremlin and Putin. He would have to be mad to ignore MAD. Being able to kill the planet more times over than before doesn't change the final outcome.
Anyone else here ever wake up and wonder what year is it sometimes? As much as I love reading history there's some things I wish, well we d leave it in the past. Thanks again for the insight Dr Felton
We can't leave it in the past because the powerful countries won't leave the rest of the world alone, this is the reason for these conflicts, hegemony, control over others. US, NATO, Russia, they are all bad actors and guilty of same.
30 NATO countries have nukes pointed at Russia putin knows it will be the end of the Russian empire if he strikes or even if he uses chemical or nuclear weapons in Ukraine
Satan II does not fundamentally alter MAD, but, as you correctly point out, the West still has tremendous second-strike capability with boomers, even more so with the new Colombia class coming online in the coming decades (as well as new British and French boomers). The Poseidon, however, is more of concern, especially in terms of conventional warfare and its ability to take out Naval strike groups.
In some respects it is maintains the MAD doctrine. The US employment of ABMs makes Russia more vulnerable to a first strike. The conventional capability is worrying. If US aircraft flying over the Ukraine took out SAMs and airfields in Russia how would the US respond when they get hit in the continental US by a conventional Satan 2.
@@johnclements6614 This is where I had a bit of a problem with how its stealthy first strike was portrayed in the video. The US has a tremendous ability to detect launches from space (assuming our satellites are still intact.)
@@johnclements6614 America will never launch a first strike. That is Putin's paranoia to justify his threats. Same as his excuse for invading Ukraine. Paranoia.
This is all speculation. My personal thoughts on this are that if his staff have performed to their usual standard the money has gone else where and Putin is bragging about the match the cat pissed on.
Lived with them in West Germany at a hard site for 3 years. But they were low yield. The code word Lariat Advance among others caused a lot of us a lot of anxiety. But a nuke is a nuke.
Mark, Thank you for your continued AMAZING content. I look forward to new stuff everyday. Love the tie-in too current geopolitical events. Please keep making these great videos. Thanks Mark Marcus
That moment when it pops up out the silo then the main engines starts... i wanna see the blooper where the main engine fails and it drops neatly back in then explodes.
I've read about the Satan 2 and what it is supposed to do, but your report sheds new light and perspective on its place in Russia's nuclear inventory and the longstanding balance of nuclear power between East and West. May cooler heads prevail; there will be no turning back if this nuclear genie gets out of the bottle. Thanks Always, Dr. Felton.
Maintaining nuclear weapons is expensive. Designing and building new weapons is also expensive. The US spends 60 billion a year on maintaining and upgrading nuclear weapons. The defense budget of Russia is about 69.2 billion a year. America's annual defense spending is about 766.58 billion. Russia has an annual GDP on par with Mexico. Can the Russians really afford to maintain nukes, and design and build new nuclear weapons? Corruption is rampant with Russian military contractors as well. My theory, is that Russia has very few actually working nukes, due to neglect. Now, we are talking about a super weapon, that would cost the Russians billions by itself? Does Russia really have the financial means to build this? One look at the state of their military as it invaded Ukraine might be a clue.
The prices in Russia and America are different, your comparison have nothing with reality. You are raring Russian economy in USD ($), but this is not the real indicaror of the scales of production
@@arty5876 While a straight comparison is difficult due to the different currencies, the US still has a massive advantage in spending no matter what currency you use to measure it. A ruble doesn't go nearly as far in Russia as a dollar does in the US. If you could come up with an exact unit of value to compare, Russia would get slightly more for each unit, but that's more attributable to lower labor costs and few regulations than to difference in currencies. (Same reason we buy things from Russia and China that we can easily make ourselves.) But I have a feeling that is offset by all of the theft that goes on in the Russian munitions industry. Putin and his buddies have to stay rich, after all.
Truth is that Russia has nukes all around the world that are fully operational. I think its crazy to think Russia to only have nukes only in Russia 🇷🇺.
The MAD theory doesn't only refer to kinetic superiority of either nuclear arsenals. Regardless of who fires first, or who's megaton yeilds are larger. And neither quantity nor anti ballistic defense system that successfully intercept a significant number of warheads on both sides. There still exists more than enough megatonage that will reach their targets and release enough energy to destroy every major city in in the northern hemisphere with only the first salvo. The second salvos will be even more catastrophic rendering everything north of Chile uninhabitable from the explosions and the nuclear winter lasting perhaps decades. No plant growth, no human survivors an no animals So, it really doesn't matter who's are bigger, or who has more and who strikes first. once they push those buttons none of it matters anymore. It is good bye to almost every human being on earth....have a nice fkn day.
What does kinetic superiority have to do with a thermonuclear initiation? You're using the wrong warmongering jargon. I think you are wildly over-estimating the effects of nuclear weapons, and their numbers. There are most certainly not enough deployed warheads to "Destroy every major city in the northern hemisphere." Most will be expended on major military and infrastructure targets, not cities. This is not 1990. Furthermore, the southern hemisphere will barely even be affected.
@@Bee.Holder There are people whose job it is. Most of the predictions were based on a cold war era 4000 mega ton exchange. However any exchange now would be a fraction of the size, and the weapons would generally be much smaller and more accurate. So less are needed anyway.
Nuclear weapons take an astonishing amount of maintenance sitting completely still in climate controlled staging location. The US spends BILLIONS on maintaining our arsenal. Russia has even more nukes than us. Based on this, and the the condition of their easily maintainable equipment in Ukraine that is all falling apart, I would not be surprised in the least if most of the Russian nuclear arsenal are duds by now. The cores of these corrode and rot over time if ignored. The US spends almost as much on nuclear weapons maintenance than Russia does for it's entire military operations. It really only takes 1 functional nuke to kill a lot of people so its still probably not worth risking, but at the same time it may help some sleep at night. I am sure the CIA is all over assessing this at the moment.
The US spends about 30 billion USD annually just to maintain the nuclear arsenal. That's a little less than half the entire Russian Defense budget for their entire military. If we've seen anything over the last month is that Russia doesn't maintain their vehicles to any real degree of readiness, I doubt their nuclear arsenal is much better
That's still a _huge_ gamble. What if the reason their conventional military is so pathetic is because it's an afterthought to their real investment, their nukes? Assuming it's a bluff and taking a direct motion against Russia is literally playing Russian Roulette with the human race; what if the whole time, most if not all of their arsenal is in working condition? Then we just made the wrong bet. Never underestimate the enemy. Hitler too thought Russia was a joke because they did so badly against little Finland, which had little to no support from the west, and because he thought Russia was a joke, his "thousand-year Reich" was raped, pillaged, and burned by the Reds.
@@BasedHadrian Yep. To expand my point: All of the below can cause a poorly maintained nuke to not detonate: 1: Microsecond drifts in the timing of the implosion explosives 2: Know water vapor driven corrosion causing 10s of microns defects in the pit of the plutonium. 3: Electronics failures of any kind from the lockout mechanisms to the triggering electronics that control when the bomb goes off. 4: Water contamination of the chemical explosive compound that triggers fission. 5: Defects in the shape of the chemical explosions. This can be from mechanical shaking or just cracking from heat/cold. 6: Decay of the nuclear core products that power the nuclear chain reaction. 7: Failure of the launch vehicle. This can be rocket failure, guidance failure, re-entry guidance and warhead deployment etc. Russia does not have a functioning GPS system as the war in Ukraine proved, so these would all be inertial guidance systems with gimbals and motors, all of which are extremely prone to failure by not being solid state, and have to be constantly calibrated. 8: Physical defects in the core fuel or tampers, Any failure leading to a failure of fission will cause the nuke to fail and just explode like a smallish conventional bomb with some very local radiation contamination that would be easy to clean up. Also, with no fission there are no fusion stages.
Incredible work once again Mark. Now, how tragic is it that humans have arrived at this place? The irony that the “developed” world could be turned to ashes. I may relocate my young family to the most remote part of the African continent.
I’m not discounting this weapon system by any mean (in fact I give the Russians credit as they appear to be ahead of the US in this field currently) BUT I have a hard time believing anything based on Kremlin / Putin press releases. They also claimed to have the most powerful military in Europe but have had an extremely poor showing in Ukraine
Their GDP is also lower than South Korea's(roughly on par with Mexico). The US defense budget is $773 billion compared to Russia's $69.2. These ICBM systems are simply unsustainable as we've seen with the production of T-14 Armata and the Su-57 but a corrupt lunatic like Putin wouldn't mind pouring all of his country's economy into nuclear weapons development. Reminds me of a certain Korean madman.
Even if the Russian Nuclear arsenal is still early 70s vintage it's more than sufficient to destroy every worthwhile target in the US many times over including our cities. Against that backdrop the war in Ukraine is academic .
Thank you Mark for this sobering reminder that at any minute our beautiful world as we know it,could vanish in the blinking of an eye.The people who would be left in the hell after the blast would have to deal with starvation,radiation sickness,and the nuclear winter fallout for decades.Before any global conflict happens,where the citizens of each country are used as pawns,I say put the war mongering leaders into a ring,and let them fight it out to the death.The winner would then stabilize the earth back into love and respect for thy fellow man,the original way it was designed to be,in ☮️.
I fear it will happen with the mental patient currently occupying the Oval Office right now. He is obssessed with war in Russia and he WILL escalate things.
The question is, have the Russians been maintaining their nukes? No one realized just how much money was getting skimmed off until the Russians invaded Ukraine. With the Nukes we have a weapon that nobody expects to actually be used, so just how much of the maintenance budget has remained intact? It's better if we act as if they are fully functional, but the question still remains.
Extremely unlikely that they have been able to maintain even a significant portion of their arsenal. But no doubt they have worked hard to keep enough prepared.
I'm sure that since the collapse, they've gone out of their way to see to it that, if ANYTHING, the nuclear triad is THE thing that continued to be upkept no matter what.
"In the nuclear world. The true enemy is war itself." From the film Crimson Tide. But here's a question. With what we've seen of the Russian ground forces. What sort of state are their nuclear weapons In?
Congrats Mark on such a successful UA-cam channel. I always look for your videos but when I saw this one had been out there for 6 minutes and once I was in there was already 636 likes I told myself "Wow Mark, you've finally made it my friend to the big chair !" Congrats. We all love this channel. It's amazing. Keep up the great work.
Chimpanzees on both sides throw rocks, and try to kill the rival group. Ants make war, and destroy other colonies. We don't have the patent on destruction.
I remember the Cuban missle crisis. Going to the basement of our sand stone built grade school just outside Philadelphia every day for 10 days as a second grader, practicing a futile CD drill!
I was also in 2nd grade and remember the crisis quite well. We lived only about two miles from the headquarters of Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, NJ. It was a center for top secret military communications and tracking radars. Some what later we learned the Bell Labs complex was one of the targets assigned it's very nuclear missile. We might have lasted, two seconds?
remeber, duck and cover! your little school desk will surely save you from the blast lol. although, I get that some action is still better than hopelessness.
I was in 6th grade, in a school 23 miles from Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix. For a couple of weeks we did daily air raid drills in which we huddled under our tiny plastic desks. I thought the bombs must not be as powerful as we were told. I didn't understand we were there to prevent panic and to make identification of our remains easier. An air burst well above Luke, to maximize the "sanitized" area, would have flattened the school very handily and ignited anything that would burn.
Bloody hell you people are far gone. lol. Why would Russia strike first? Who destroyed the Middle East based on LIES? Who KILLED 11 MILLION civilians in the last 25 years?
MAD relies on attacking cities. If they nuke a bunch of missile silos in the boondocks, do we destroy their cities, knowing that will only get our cities destroyed too?
Is it? I think it's safe to say that Russia does not have the money nor the technical expertise to modernize and maintain their stockpile of nuclear weapons. They may have 5,500 to 6,000 _SOVIET ERA_ warheads, but those things degrade over time. The high explosives, the timing mechanisms, the electronics etc. Not to mention the money and effort it takes to keep your silos, subs, and airforce in good working order + the crew training. Given what we've all witnessed in Ukraine, the vast scale of incompetence and lack of predictable foresight that everyone but Russia seemed to notice, I suspect the current capabilities of the Russian nuclear stockpile are vastly overrated. I think a generous estimate would be that 10% of their weapons would be in launchable status, and that doesn't exactly mean that 550 to 600 of their warheads would reach their targets. ABMs, technical difficulty, or other factors would mean that even fewer would reach their destination or have the accuracy required to render US silos inoperable. This does not mean Russia is not a threat. They still have the ability to have 55 to 60 warheads land on US population centres in a last-ditch, scorched Earth scenario. As to whether or not the commanders in charge of the nuclear weapons would ever follow such a suicidal order from a madman like Putin is another story. But it would mean the death of Putin, Putin's family, all of the oligarchs and his inner circle, etc. And I doubt they'd all be on board with a full committal of their entire nuclear arsenal knowing the deficiencies I've highlighted and the resulting tsunami of horror that would be imminent should they decide to do something so foolish as order a full strike on America or even a tactical strike upon NATO. The high likelihood of failure must surely be part of every conversation that goes on behind Putin's back.
@@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 NOTHING you saw in Ukraine is a good metric to measure Russia's capabilities. Russia is trying to minimize casualties and their goal is NOT occupation of the whole country.
From what I could understand from this video there are three capabilities of this missile that do indeed threaten to upset the nuclear balance. Which is indeed very disturbing. The first capability is that it can fly lower than normal ICBMs which means it will be detected later by its intended target-country which means it will give that country less time to react (launching its own missiles) to the attack with Sarmat missiles. The second such capability, which is even more worrisome is that it can launch hypersonic glide vehicles in which case its trajectory would be even lower, right at the end of the Earth's atmosphere actually which means this missile can be used to take out the adversary's nuclear missile silos before they can even be launched. The third such capability is that it can attack over the South Pole too which means there are no chances of detecting it if it will attack in such a manner because the US doesn't even have radars at the South Pole. Of course all of these capabilities require extremely sophisticated technical features which are very difficult to make to work. But theoretically at least, this weapon will indeed pose a huge unbalance to the current nuclear balance.
Yeah , Im trying to connect the biblical predictions of the future and how this might connect with it. Majority say the USA will burn to ashes. If they did a first strike and were successful with this weapon, they could get us. However , as part of the triad , the subs would still be around..and most certainly would strike back. If so , would it be effective enough?
@@Dan.a.k.a.bradpitt Yes, I should've pointed out that this missile's threat (if it works in its intended parameters which is another aspect that is doubtful about it because it's a very complex system) would only pose a threat to the LAND BASED component of the US 's nuclear triad. The US would still have its bombers and more importantly its submarines. Regarding your question, if that were enough, man each of those subs carries 24 missiles with each of those missiles capable of carrying up to 8 warheads each with a yield of either a 100 Kt or 475 Kt. 24x8 = 192 nuclear warheads on just one sub pal. The US has 10 or 12 of these out there at any given time. I'll let you be the judge if that's enough or not... LOL.
@@JDA2185 2 concerns regarding if you only have the subs left. One is , Putin's New Poisidon - artificial intelligence drone operated nuclear powered nuke .. which are capable of evading detection interfere with the subs , and Two..the Northern arctic shelf is now fully circumferenced with a line of some sonar detection that is fully capable of tracking . So if they cannot hide in Northern arctic what areas does that leave them and how the Poisidon would then work more effectively?
@@Dan.a.k.a.bradpitt I'm not sure the Russians were ever able to develop such a very effective and vast submarine tracking and detection network. Also, the submarines can launch their missiles from any ocean not just the Arctic. Now, regarding the "Poseidon" nuclear torpedo, from what I've read about it, it was not designed to attack submarines or even surface ships. It was not designed for naval warfare. That torpedo was designed to carry a multimegaton nuclear warhead and strike coastal areas especially in the US. It is a strategic weapon, not a weapon of naval warfare. But that torpedo too is still in the development and testing stage and nobody knows exactly how well it will function under battle conditions. And lastly, I never made the case for keeping just the submarines. The triad is a must because in nuclear war redundancy is a must. It also created an increase in the deterrence effect of these weapons against the enemy. If the enemy knows you have more options of obliterating him, the chances of him attacking you drop even more.
I wanna go back to the days when we settled things on the ice. Some of the best hockey I've ever seen came from the Red Army Team. They spanked us a few times.
@@anon-fq3ud they definitely have it and its operational as we speak. I don’t mean to be doom and gloom but I don’t take Putin as a man that loses . I feel like if he thinks he’s going to lose the Ukraine then instead of looking weak. He’ll go scorched earth .
@@christainmarks106 The Russians have done scorched earth for 800 years, that hasn't changed. But in terms of military hardware we know they overstate their capabilities a lot, Ukraine proved that; chances are the new missiles are way overrated by Western observers
Thank you very much for your reports, Dr. Mark Felton. I wish you all the best from Belgrade, Republic of Serbia. Thank you also for presenting the truth about the war in Kosovo*, very concise and excellent research on it. Thanks a lot. Best regards from Belgrade, Peter.
I think we are giving Russia a little more credit than they deserve. They are having trouble driving across the border to invade Ukraine. We have always Trembled with fear at the latest Russian wonder weapon only to find out later that it less capable than first thought. That being said let’s hope we never find out just how capable this ICBM is……….
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and (my opinion) if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, I don't think that the differense is huge. Probably the fighting capability of an Ukrainian is ~125% of Russian + the advantage of defensive side in casualities. Also, Ukrainians have drones and modern Western AT weapons. The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed in first few weeks: 1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland. Also, civillian deaths would demoralize Russians and rise the morale of Ukrainians. 2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation. Russians were invading Ukraine by moving in columns, very dangerous for ambushes. Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians. After 3 weeks Russians had stopped their invasion, and at now they are reinforcing and forming the frontline, they made a pause. I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war. I think that casualities ratio between Russia and Ukraine is ~2 to 1 in favour of Ukraine. The popular comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Bro!!!!! I see you've put some thoughts into this, but one of the major reasons the Russian invasion of Ukraine stalled in the early phases is they couldn't drive across the border due to Flat tires and break downs on vehicles because of lack of long term maintenance. Combat and supplie chain support vehicles were put in vulnerable positions because inexperience and lack of training of front line and secondary support troops in the Russian military. The mighty Russian military can't subdue a country the size of Texas in Air superiority. All in all no matter the excuses, it a bad bad look for the Russian Military and the political structure supporting the Country. Not to mention that the US military always have their hands tied by idiot politicians with nonsensical rules for combat and hundreds of different agendas. The Russian Government is not supposed to be handicapped with the idiotic woke agendas we the west have to deal with........u do envy that !
I agree. Are the Russians really skilled at developing cutting edge strategic weapons or are they merely skilled at making us *think* they have developed cutting edge strategic weapons? It is hard for me to believe after seeing their pitiful effort in Ukraine that they really have these wonder weapons and even harder to believe that their weapons actually work.
Thank you very much for this informative video to sum up the nuclear threat. Both for my own general knowledge, and to help explain it to others. Well done sir. God bless and guide you. Hello from Ireland. ☘✝️🕊🇮🇪💚🤍🧡
Thanks for the video. great information. But to say the R36m was a product of Ukraine is misleading in my view. The Missile was designed in by Mikhail Kuzmich Yangel at OKB-586 based in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine at the time part of the Soviet Union. Mikhail Kuzmich Yangel was the Chief designer and was Russian, born in Zyryanov, Irkutsk, Russian Empire. This is the same problem people face when they claim Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union broke up. No, those were owned by the Soviet Union and while they were based on Ukrainian soil they were always under the ownership and control of Moscow and Russiann as the successor state of the Soviet Union
@david render No that is untrue. Once Tritium boosting was discovered in the early 50's, it became possible to change the yield by varying the amount of H3 injected into the trigger. Selectable yield tactical weapons like the B-57 and B-61 were introduce in the early 60's. The bomb loaders can set the yield from a control panel on the bomb. (old navy flyer).
@@Dan.a.k.a.bradpitt Left out the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty which started all this escalation. Bad idea in hindsight, I guess all those people who argued against it were right.
One thing that scares me more than these is the fact that we have two leaders past their retirement age at the red buttons, and none of them seems in very good shape🙄
This weapon is just another form of posturing and makes very little difference in the final analysis. Let's say the U.S. and NATO allies don't manage to land a return single salvo on Russian territory. Let us further suppose every Russian weapon detonates as intended. (Both of these scenarios are extremely unlikely.) The amount of radioactive fallout pumped into the atmosphere by Russian weapons alone would almost certainly kill everyone - and everything - in the Northern Hemisphere. Including most of the Russian population. At the very least, blow back from contamination would make large swaths of Russian territory uninhabitable - agriculture and surface industries - untenable. Any victory earned by such a weapon would be a Pyrrhic one, indeed.
@King Brilliant It would be interesting for a future sentient race discovering us the way we discovered the dinosaurs. They would have great fun trying to decipher all the many human artifacts they come across.
My late father spent three decades dwelling on and fretting about "the inevitable nuclear war, nuclear winter and MAD." He wasted his life. I won't - have some fun.
I know that the military was talking about using nukes as a missile defense weapon in the past, so I wouldn't be surprised if that idea has been refined to counteract MIRVs, though that would probably be beyond classified.
I've seen the nuclear missiles and our nuclear weapons on the Iron Curtain during the 1970s. It was a sobering experience that has followed me my entire life. As a kid doing Duck and Cover drills in school during the Cuban missile crisis to this day. The Cold War has never been a consideration for many that were born after the Cold War. It never ended for me or my adversary putin . It is madness, madness..
19 / 5.000 Übersetzungsergebnisse THAT'S ME TOO, 1980 American troops lost a minuteman Rocket in front of my house, luckily it flew in the other direction on a meadow and exploded there.
I heard a military expert being interviewed on the radio recently. He said that if you'd asked him three months ago what the chances are of Putin launching a nuclear attack on the UK were, he'd think you were insane. Now, he said, he thinks it's a perfectly reasonable question. Interesting times.
The real problem with the war in Ukraine is that its not an intentional use of a nuclear weapon that is really scary in this scenario, but that there are 15 nuclear power plants all around the Ukraine, each with enough fissile material to render half of Europe AND half of Russia uninhabitable for a 100 years. It does not take a missile or a bomb to blow one off, rather it takes an idiot officer to try and shut down the power to the Ukrainians and while doing so also shut down the power to the pumps which supply coolant to the core. Or some dizzy worker who didn't have a night sleep in three weeks to make a mistake. Once this chain of events takes off, the China syndrome will do the rest, no need for an explosion.. Though it will explode, once the core drips down to the ground water level.. And then the world will have a real refugee problem on its hands. This will be orders of magnitude worse then the original Chernobyl disaster, as in this disaster there were teams of liquidators to seal the leaking reactor as quickly as possible, but in this scenario not only there will not be such teams available, there will not even be anything to seal. It will all basically get dispersed as one huge putrid cloud covering much of Europe and Russia. Scary thought.
@@LeandreTexier "A pro-Kremlin Russian TV network is planning to air a mini-series about Chernobyl, one suggesting a CIA saboteur was behind the 1986 Soviet-era nuclear disaster in Ukraine, which left up to a million people exposed to radiation. The Kremlin was angered by the recent, highly acclaimed HBO five-part mini-series on Chernobyl, which lauded the self-sacrificing bravery of those who battled to contain the fire and mitigate the effects of a reactor meltdown, but also detailed Soviet-era mismanagement, the delayed response and the denial for years by Soviet officials of a design fault." "According to media reports, Russia’s culture ministry is helping to fund the NTV show with a $460,000 grant. Marketing literature for the NTV series details a plot revolving around a CIA agent infiltrated into Pripyat and tasked with gathering intelligence on the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The hero of the drama is a Russian counterintelligence agent dispatched to track him down." "The HBO Chernobyl mini-series was not broadcast by any of Russia’s television outlets but was available online to paying viewers"
@@Edax_Royeaux well thanks for the qutation of an article, but i thought that your first reply was on actual event. Sadly, nowadays anyone can shoot anything blaming anyone. And not much people want to research on their own.
Mark, as always, most scintillating presentation. Your "take" on history and history in the making is noteworthy and world class. Why the U.S. National Education Association does not mandate showing your works is a mystery. Young minds should see every foot of film you've assembled. Perhaps then, we'd take a turn toward peace and goodwill. God bless you, brother.
Darlene, the "enemy" is really something most people do no believe in: the Devil. And you are 200 percent correct that the Devil works through deception. Deceit is the only avenue through the goodness that we all harbor but too often deny for sake of something that inevitably means nothing.
John, young minds are extremely malleable and capable of being psycho-sculpted into exactly what the "architect" desires. About this, you are absolutely correct. One additional important consideration is that brainwashing the young minds also returns the most long-term dividends in that it affords a generation's worth of subservience to a specific agenda.
@@johnhenni2808 what are you talking about miserable fool. Brainwashing occurs only when you cover up the truth and start teaching people lies but once the truth is revealed, the vast majority of people will follow it and no one can deceive them. So such programs by Mark Felton are greatly welcomed and appreciated as they present the bare facts. Save yourself the embarrassment and don't come to watch videos that are way beyond the white jello in your skull that they mistakenly call brain to grasp or understand or else you will start hallucinating deliriously as you have done in your laughably stupid and foolish comment. What a miserable waste of human existence you are. How pathetic
This is a great video, but fails to mention that the basis of Nuclear deterrence (MAD) is the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty of 1972. Where US and Russia can only maintain 100 missiles able to intercept nuclear missiles. In essence meaning if one side uses nuclear weapons there would be no defense, hence stopping preemptive first strike. This treaty was basis of nuclear Parity. However, US pulled out of the agreement in 2002 and started building anti ballistic missiles (ABM) systems. that's is why Russia has felt compelled to build Multiple Reentry Ballistic Missiles (the Satan 2) which can't be stopped by the ABM systems. It's not escalation in essence it is a return to nuclear Parity. Russia does this since ABM are much harder to build than Satan 2. It is in essence the easier path for Russia to return to nuclear Parity with US. Which they themselves unbalanced in their favour. However, from US point of view it pulled out of the treaty to build ABM against Iran and North Korea's nuclear threat
I agree with you to some extent. US military overall is more power then Russia military it in terms of nuclear equality both US and Russia are equal when it comes the nukes. I don’t think US is ahead of Russia when it comes to nukes. I don’t think Russia is ahead of US when it comes to nukes. I think they are both equal. Russia and USA nukes are just built differently. USA focus more on precision and master it while Russia had a hard time mastering precision so they made their nuke bigger and more powerful. All we know is that USA and Russia each have enough nukes to destroy the world over and over and over again.
No I'm afraid you are incorrect Russian nukes are hypersonic otherwise if launched its goodnight Vienna.They don't fly like the US ballistic or nuclear weapon which Russia can now destroy with S400 and S500 missile defense batteries.Russian missile flies so fast and changes direction it's impossible to predict it's flight path even if they told you it's destination. US made a terrible blunder withdrawing from the two non nuclear agreement's.Iran can't have Nuclear energy but Israel has Nuclear weapons and are never told to open up for inspection
@@davidprice633 Russian Hypersonic missiles were developed after 2006 which was long after the ABM treaty. It is in essence a similar version of multiple reentry missiles like I described before. It is also a similar way to reach nuclear parity since hypersonic missiles are easier to build than entire anti ballistic missiles systems which is what the ABM treaty is. And the hypersonic missiles were only developed as a response to US pulling out of ABM treaty since they can't be shot down by ABMs.
A French pro-Russian analyste concluded in his graduation works that Russia was still in MAD state of mind. I don't know if Sarmat is as good as Russia says, they seem to be a lot lying about their real capability lately.
Very good video, but the R-36 variant that carried a 20MT class warhead was retired in the 80s. Also the Minuteman III today only carries one 300-350kt warhead, not 3 475kt warheads. RS-28 is not operational. It won't be until Autumn this year. It can carry no more than 5 HGVs, not 24. It's maximun warhead yield is almost 25 times that of the Minuteman III, not 35. Previous versions of the R-36 had ranges up to 16,000km.
@@AMOUREDD Yes, Russia has stated the details of Russian systems I recounted, except for two which are Western estimates, one of which I now happen to disagree with.
No matter their delivery methodology, the explosions of a few hundred nuclear missiles in the atmosphere whether or not they reach targets would likely doom the world anyway.
No, it wouldn't! The russian Tzar Bomba was a 50 megaton device set off in the atmosphere. That is the equivalent to approximately 3300 Hiroshima bombs and we are all still here.
Seeing the sheer incompetence in Ukraine, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia's nuclear arsenal is rusty and rotten, while the military staff reports "perfect working condition" to the top.
@@forbiddenknowledge210 You seem a little on edge friend. Please try to lower your blood pressure. I don't want to be responsible for any cardiac arrests.
You're not far off. Check their GDP and defense budget as well as some of their most advanced military hardware and compare it to the US. Russia is just posturing. Their nowhere near NATO. Nukes require insane amount of money and R&D capability which Russia seems to lack.
Brotha @MarkFelton!!! I follow your YT Channel and is perfect, beacouse dear colague journalist, you Speacking the TRUTH, in all your video's. Congratulation, your Channel is good. Continue your work, and I wish you more followers, and ho loocking an reconize the truth. God bleased you, dear brotha Felton. All the best from Belgrade, Serbia. Ciao.
Hi Mr Felton. Great content and very educational. I'm a 1960 baby and live in and a Australian. So worked along ww2 veterans and in my working life seen the many wars after ww2 eg; Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, just to name a few whilst the big powers to be had and could have pressed the button. To me, after Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic war crime, no power wants to see suffering on a scale like that, but it did end that war with Japan whilst Germany got carpet bombed into submission. So what I'm trying to say is to me and my opinion is it is design a war that hopefully no buttons are never pressed that can wipe out world population. Living in the southern hemisphere it will be a slower painful death with the nuclear fallout. Hi everyone, sorry about the doom and gloom 🤨
Given Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine & the ensuing sanctions combined with the general poor performance of most Soviet/Russian military equipment, can we really believe this monster is as effective as proclaimed? Russia is unable to rebuild or manufacturer new tanks die to a shortage of computer chips, if they can't build relatively "simple" MBT's could they currently produce any effective higher technology weapon's?
You should not be fooled by war in Ukraine. They are using very light force and resources to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. After all Soviet era weapons and Russia is known for rugged, cheap production that in case of war can be produced by untrained civilians in large quantities. They are behind with high tech that US possesses but you can't underestimate them. In the recent history they ended Syrian war in a few months that NATO was fueling and fighting for years
@@willallen7757 They do because they are getting shot from some of the buildings because Zelenskyy encourages civilians to shoot at army. It is not that bad as media makes it.
Anyone remember that Cold war game from back in the day called " Nuclear Escalation " . It had all those nukes in it, Punk Rock overthrow card and the Zombie outbreak was always the coolest. It was like an 80's table top game..... I loved playing that one as a kid
You know you're living in interesting times when Mark Felton starts talking about current events.
Its a slippery slope, he's a history channel.
First he starts talking about current events, and before you know it, he'll be doing documentaries on how aliens saved hitler from his bunker in 1945.
@@hello7533 lol what?? stretch bigger than Sarmat range
@@hello7533 Last second's """current""" events are already history
on related note NATO is Installing nukes in Poland as we speak on the low low.
Or the End of time ?
"The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five." -Carl Sagan
I've never heard that one, thanks for sharing.
Underrated quote.
@@scott3462 The only ones that can save the humans from atomic nuclear self destruction are the aliens known as extraterrestrials: in the past people believed in the magical god, but nowadays god is either dead or obsolete and out of date, while an advanced civilization somewhere in this universe is a better hope.
Sounds like Carl Sagan. It would have been so much better to spend year money on space travel and tech
@@geedon1 if we had focused our efforts as allies instead of rivals (US/Russia) during the latter half of the 20th century I feel like we woulda been had Moon colonies, while Mars would have camps set up for further construction...
Many younger people didn't live during the Cold War under the constant concern of mutually assured annihilation. This is why so many do not view the war in Ukraine as a big deal to them. Also most don't study military history and how an accident, miscalculation, or one wrong incident could escalate rapidly into a bigger and broader conflict. WW1 for example.
Had the same attitude when I was in grade school. But then I actually lived during the 70s, 80s during the height of the cold war. So what's happening brings home all the lessons of history. And that what I've lived through is considered history to today's kids. To paraphrase my parents and grandparents, kids today do not have a clue. Wow.....full circle.
@@olternaut I think the danger is greater today than at any time during the Khrushchev era with the possible exception of the Cuban missile crisis.
Russia does not want a nuclear war. They just want a gang of bullying globalist nations, aka NATO, to back the heck off and show them some respect. Instead they keep trying to topple legit governments that are historically friendly to Russia and replace them with liberal EU wannabes. They caused this all in Ukraine doing that, and now via Ukraine they are trying to do this in Hungary, the only good European country left, which minds its own business and looks out for the interests of its own people.
The majority of people werent afraid all the time, atleast my parents and grandparents in West-Germany. Which is quite suprising to me since the RAF ( a east german financed and trained terror group) went on a rampage in west germany, killing countless politicians/succesful people and tried to sabotage and spy on the West. They got a little concerned tho when chernobyl happened and they werent allowed to eat any of their homegrown vegetables and the sour rain of the radioactive clouds came down. Even today in bavaria and former east german states you cant eat mushrooms or sometimes even hunted wildboars because of chernobyl.
@@davidpowell3347 US military doctrine then was nukes are just another weapon. Atomic Annie, Sgt. John, both produced battlefield weapons. Army testing north of Los Vegas. B 36s, B 52s all ready and in the air waiting to go. McAurthur flaunting civilian authority and wanting to nuke China.
Russia deploys nuclear weapons in 4 ways strategically actually and 3 ways tactically. Also you just mentioned balance, what’s balanced about the American anti-ballistic missile system? The truth of the matter is the American anti ballistic missile capabilities(GBI) number 44 total missile launchers in Alaska and California with a success rate of ~50% you can expect maybe 20 warheads/decoys to be shot down out of the 5,000 warheads and decoys that will be deployed from the RS-24, Topol-M, bulava, and sinva missiles currently in use by the Russian armed forces. They all have 3-4 decoy re-entry vehicles per missile. So I’m not sure why you even mentioned ABM it will be almost completely ineffective against a Russian attack. It was originally designed to go against low tech North Korean missiles, not to do anything regarding Russian nuclear weapons.
If you are trying to scare me, Dr. Felton, you're doing a bloody fine job!
Don't be scared of the Russians
The days of nuclear disarmament are over. Welcome to the next (hopefully) cold war. Next step will be a Russian madman against the reelected Orange ape.
Yeah, it's the first of Mark's videos that smacked of fearmongering to me. We all know the superpowers can end the world with an all-out nuclear exchange. That was true before these new ICBMs, and it's still true now. We've had this sword of Damocles hanging over our heads all our lives. I still think it's better than world wars every few decades.
@@davea6314 Joe Biden can't even save his drawers from getting skid stains on them, let alone run the US government.
I was papping it when I just read the title.
Former Air Defense Artillery Officer here. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense or GMD system is much further along than the testing phase, it was just never intended to defend against a peer threat like Russia. It is intended for “rogue” states capable of launching only a few ICBMs. The issue isn’t the technology, it is the cost. Each interceptor is very, very, very expensive. The program to which I believe Dr. Felton refers is the Next Generation Interceptor program, which seeks to improve upon the 50% probability of kill of the old system.
thank you!
I was in a ADA battalion in Germany in the mid 90s. I was just a truck mechanic tho.
Thank you for adding your knowledge here...appreciated...
@@jelly7310 Thank you for your service!
How much for each interceptor?
When Reagan spoke of his "Star Wars" defense system many in the world spoke of a side of MAD that few thought about. If one side had a technology that created and imbalance it then justified a first strike by the opponent before the said technology could be fielded. it was so much of a concern at the time that Ronald Reagan added and addendum to Star Wars that the tech would be fully shared with the Soviets to keep the balance.
also to make life harder for those pesky space nazis
the fact that the fake program was called the stars wars project is so funny to me.
@@jmstudios5294 he never called it that it was the Media that hated him that pushed it. Either way the Soviets realized they could never compete and they crumbled at the cost. RR and George Washington on the Dollar doomed the USSR
If you intercept an incoming nuclear warhead there will no nuclear explosion because you need fission to trigger the chain reaction. It would be advantage for the one side who develops the technology.
@@Bk6346 On the other hand, scattering weapons-grade uranium over a huge area from stratospheric altitudes is still pretty bad.
Russia also has Poseidon nuclear torpedoes, and Topol mobile ICBMs.
And Flying Aircraft Harriers with Stealth coating
@@gansior4744 Crushed the best army in NATO. LoL
Well posidon program isn't finished the bomb definitely is tho but it's the stealth plating or whatever Russia is still trying to to develop and man that thing is one hell of a weapon
@@philliplumpkin6369 Operational. Doesn't need expensive stealth. With nuclear power, it can evade all western defenses.
@@ViceCoin Then Russia really needs to be stopped.
I love that Mark approaches the current events with the same pragmatic factual demeanour he brings to historical debates. His channel isn't about hyping one side or the other, just the facts as plain and simple as they can be presented.
This is clearly a "wake-up call" for the US Empire, demonstrates much bias.
well, he is by far not so "pragmatic factual " when he talks about Japanese or Germans, I can assure You.
Yes, if only more of the world's mainstream journalism was like this!
I do not think so. You know why he is relatively pragmatic in ww2 history? There are plenty of sources from both sides to corroborate. You know why he can not be in this conflict? There is a massive propaganda campaign being won by the west. Think about how unclear or vague he is explaining the context for those missiles. It makes it look as: "...and then for no reason at all Putin, had a display of ego with a hypersonic missile." That is just not how you get to understand warfare.
I like how all of a sudden everything becomes factual when US is perceived to have some deficit, if it were the other way round, this would be peppered with troll comments
"You fire yours
I fire mine
Everybody dies"
That's great way to start/end a story 😂
A very succinct way to describe the MAD doctrine.
The END.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 i like
nuclear war is two men waist deep in a tank of petrol.
one man has 5 matches the other has 6 matches.
MAD
@@geoffdeath2590 Great analogy! Of course, it only takes one dropped match to end it for both.
@@geoffdeath2590 they both trying to fire up opponents tank. However they are too close for 1 tank to burn without ignition of another.
Britain's nuclear policy is based on "The Letter of Last Intent" which is that if Britain is nuked, the nuclear submarines would be able to respond without needing direct orders. Ukraine crisis has changed my view of nuclear weapons have changed to the fact that Russia thinks it is acceptable to threaten the world with nukes. Britain should maintain a full deterrent
I still want to believe its Putin not Russians themselves.
Russia isnt threatening whole world with nukes Russia just said that any nato member that attacks Russia will face retalitory response. Ofcourse if Estonia attacked Russia they wouldnt use nukes but if USA attacked things would get ugly pretty fast.
you dolt
Couldn't agree more. 👏
It's all staged theatre to get us through Klaus Schwab's 4th industrial revolution. Putin is probably in on it, he's a member of the WEF and played a vital role during operation polygon.
It's about time people opened their eyes, they've had two years to do so, it's like instinct has been shut down as fear takes hold which results in rationale going out the window. Sheep everywhere. Baaaaaahhh!
western leaders don"t make putin angry.
Putin will also die from hunger and thirst in a decade long dark winter after he send his weapon , like th e dinosaurus did
Greetings from Papua New Guinea, Mark. I've long enjoyed your presentations on all aspects of WWII, but I must say your recent ones are just as enlightening. We certainly live in 'interesting times'. I never thought I'd see a full scale war between two major European nations in my lifetime! What we saw in the 90s and 00s were mere skirmishes compared to this. Do keep up the topical presentations.
Greetings from Mexico 🌮
Papua New Guinea, nice place to be in WWIII. Not everyone will die.
Where in PNG, i spent time in mt hagen. Is OPM still acitive on the border,?
Ukraine it's not a major European nation
@@wingkeungkong415 ???
I remember worrying about nuclear war as a kid. I wonder what the mental health effects are for all the people of Earth living with this threat their entire lives. For me, at this point in life, it's just tiresome and disappointing. Disappointing that humans can't seem to evolve past the war crap.
Man has never been able to trust his neighbors, never will😐
I understand your frustration (and it is mine too), but I wouldn't just say "Humans can't seem to evolve past the war crap" in regards to nuclear weapons. I dislike US empire, but they did not threaten to end the whole world if they don't get it their way. I disline China empire even more, but they did not threaten the whole world with nukes. All other countries with nukes didn't. It is only Russia that brings this back again and again and again (just watch Russian state TV - they threaten to nuke Europe every 3rd day - seriously!). Russia is extremely irresponsible with their nukes and end of Humanity. So I wouldn't lump all countries into one bag - it's just Russia. The others may be just as evil, but they are at least SANE.
I like that you think of us as evil and insane. That may prevent your leaders from rash decisions.
Globalization will solve this but it wont work without freedom/democracy... changes are happening and you're witnessing them now. It's just that it takes time and that, unfortunately, nuclear weapons exist in an era where major powers are Autocracies/Kleptocracies. As people world wide gain access to the internet and see how the West lives, they will be more inclined to overthrow regimes, so this fight between the West and the East will just intensify overtime.
@@daniser87 - I'm about to wet my pants.
Ah some Mark Felton to chill out.
Then ......
"Putin's Armageddon weapon"
Balanced and thoroughly informative.
How balanced is it? He said Russia had Russia has 5500 to 6000 warhead and compared it with British 250. How about rest of NATO?
I was part of a nuclear artillery team in the 80s in Germany. I didn’t realize until now that those weapons are now just a part of Cold War history.
In capabilities, yes. In the minds of some strategists, maybe not. Personally, I think the advent of precision weapons greatly reduces the utility of nuclear weapons.
@@flagmichael not if you’re hell bent on ensuring MAD, that’s the point. In the theatre of general war, you are right, but if you’re trying to ensure your enemy who has launched a first strike on you does not survive, then Satan II is your missile.
@@flagmichael at the end of the day, do we need logistics? It would basically be the end of the planet, and a brutal end too
Ppl are ignorant, the U.S. Military budget last 10yrs $7.2trillion, ppl are to dumb to fathom that into, what has that budget got them.
It's got them,
Laser weaponry, Antigravity Craft the Uranium/Plutonium from their dismantled Nukes, would be, fueling their, fisson reactor, propulsion systems.
I WAS THERE IN 1981- 1983 ENGINEER BUILD BRIDGES FOR TANKS AND UNITS CROSS RHINE RIVER ,WE TRAINED ALL TIME DUE TO RUSSIA THEN .. COLD WAR ...
As a teenager I followed the SALT talks never once believing that the Cold War Warriors would ever use them. I live 2 nautical miles from Faslane Nuclear Submarine Base. At least if nuclear war arrives, I will see the flash and hear the sizzle, no pain, no worries. Best of luck one and all. It has been a blast!
🤣 and there's always the comfort of knowing you'll die and not survive the nuclear war, possibly the worst fate 😬.
I'm in Manchester so I'll be wipef off the map
They've filled us up with so much stuff we'd probably all survive nowadays. Chances are you'd even survive the blast with enough sunscreen.
@@iitzfizz I live like 35miles away from the center of downtown Chicago and I’m tweaking thinking about how Im too far to be given a merciful death, my skins probably gonna get horribly burnt and I’ll slowly melt into a puddle of goo from extreme radiation poisoning. ..
Think I might just OD on fentanyl tonight. Was a good run folks
@@iitzfizz Besides Putin being envious of your team, what's there?
Ah, at first I thought you were going to discuss the hypothetical “Poseidon” nuclear torpedo, but this is still terrifying nonetheless!
I thought he was going to discuss Russia's "dead hand" system and the possibility of it being equipped with cobalt-60 warheads.
If Dr. Felton wanted to talk about the Cold War, I would be very interested
Hypothetical? I thought the status 6/kanyon/poseidon is pretty much confirmed by now?
all of their 6 weapons are terrifying, thanks to george bush who took USA out of the missile treaty and gave Russia a free hand :(
job done
Mark delivers that glint of hope that we all need to wake up to on a Monday. Everything’s going to be just fine 🥹
Till next October Friday the 13th...
I just absolutely love your channel! Reminds me of the old History Channel I watched growing up! Thank you for the hard work!
Liquid fueled ICBM's come with their own set of problems. The fuel is so corrosive, the missile can not be stored in a "fueled" state. The missile has to be fueled before launching. This can be a slow and very dangerous procedure.
exactly why i made the statement that its russian made if it was china i would worry but not russian.
A lot of ICBMS use solid fuel instead.
Dude this isn't the 1950s. Storable liquid fueled ICBMd have been around for decades.
That was the ild Atlas systems. The Minute Man is solid fuel.
The Titan II missile, which was in the US ICBM inventory until the 90s used storable liquid fuel.
Russia deploys in four ways, not three. In addition to subs, aircraft and silos, they have mobile ICBM launchers spread around its vast land mass that are very difficult to locate.
Which is something the US and China lack.
Would that be the rail based and truck based secret launchers on 24 hour duty to be at random spots ?
Dudes, you forgot something. In russia every citizen, in addition to tame bears and an endless supply of vodka, has missile silos in their backyards and a nuclear warhead workshop in the basement of every house.
@@Made_in_USSR_Limited_Edition and so? don't worry it will be a MAD for sure, you and me will die, even the "lucky" people with a bunker will die because of the nuclear winter. Let's pray that Putin won't be so stupid to start WW3
@@PrimericanIdol China has them too; they don't look that professional, but they have them and are functional.
Mark has remained one of few honest and trustworthy historians and analyzers .
😂😂😂😂😂 he remains on UA-cam, that says everything
I would like to know what goes through the minds of the engineers as they build these weapons.
Gulag
Got to protect my country
I've often wondered that too.
Rent due, baby needs shoes wife wants a necklace
A hammer would be a good idea.
Nukes are horrendously expensive to maintain, so it wouldn't surprise me if few of their weapons actually still work. Something that's expensive and unlikely to ever be used is a great place to embezzle money.
You mean each according to their needs is all BS and the russian gov is doing favors and making a few people super wealthy? Nonsense...
Gotta love russian kleptocracy- the most effective weapon
I'm not worried about the nonoperables. Even if one srrategic artillery colonel is honest that leaves a score or so of weapons ready to end the world as we know it.
If you leave a Lada sitting for 30 years the chances of it still working after without some intervention is low...
@Dr. Buster Cheeks M.D., Proctologist at Stanford I can guarantee you've never even walked by Stanford.
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Albert Einstein
He also helped start America's research into nukes, even tho they didn't let him work on it cuz they thought he was a commie or something, thanks Einstein
Nah! Einstein underestimated human ingenuity. There will also be lances, and bows and arrows.
@@georgetitsworth8919...what an amazingly ignorant statement...
He was very wrong about that.
Hoot hoot or they don't use nukes out of cowardice and after the end of the third world war decide to sign a mass denuculerisation pact that means nukes can only be used to protect humanity from interstellar threats. And if this does fall true world war four will more than likely be a world at war
this channel is the best ...
i will rewach all videos in future
Bluff has also been part of the Russian playbook. Khrushchev was a master of it, flying bombers several times around the block, the quantity of 1st generation ICBM's, to name but two. Russia had an economy the size of Italy, the existence of such a weapon, I do not doubt, the question is how many? and now with war in the Ukraine, are there the financial / technological resources to roll out the full replacement program?
With the Petro Rouble on its Way, why not?
Lets hope Russian corruption has hollowed out their strategic rocket forces, so nothing works, like it has with their army.
The only concerning thing is that Russia can be as dirt poor as Africa, but if they have a few dozen ICBMs pointed at our great cities like DC, New York, and LA, that's more than enough. Having 6000 nukes is just a dick waving contest. You fire thousands of decoys and need just a few dozen to get though and it's over.
@@ottersirotten4290 lol, no. Not happening.
Putin's conventional military is a hollow shell. Maybe the strategic rocket force is maintained properly- something Putin has to ask himself since it seems that all of his generals tell him happy lies.
Awesome video as always Mark! Keep up the good work!
Mark, as you know, Stanley Baldwin said "the bomber will always get through"! Nothing has really changed, anyone launching a nuclear strike against anyone with nukes is just committing an exotic form of suicide.
Russian invading Ukraine is already the most exotic form of suicide. They are weak now. We can attack. Have you seen our cheap missiles pick off their best planes? Their missiles were constructed during the Soviet Union. Our nukes ar every modern and high tech. We can win the nuclear exchange and save millions of lives.
If Russia ever launched any nuclear weapons then NATO would undoubtedly use it's weapons too. The production of new nukes is scary but the idea of MAD is still the same. Many Russian's would be killed along with everyone else in a nuclear war and no one would gain anything.
he said that in 1932, a time before effective AA, Radar, Missiles, Jet engines, advanced communications. Nuclear bombers and silos are yesterday's tech, the only viable ICBM launch platforms are Ballistic Missile Subs. The UK being all Subs, has in effect a far more effective force than say double the numbers but Aircraft launched only. In theory those Sub's can launch 100%, while how many Aircraft will get through to a target.
the other thing to note is Bomber formations used to be a 1000 big, even if you knew they were coming it took a lot to shoot down a fraction of that, in WW2 it just was''nt viable considering the average flight time for missions, say France-UK.
Now replace Bombers with 1000 Drone's with Nukes, now your talking.
So while a bomber might get through you might have an effective 20% of your total available package getting through, seems very wasteful.
@@davidrenton I think the deeper meaning of his speech was that technology had changed the face of war and that in any future conflict, England could expect it's cities and industries attacked and it's civilians killed.
@@davidrenton 20% you’re in dreamworld it’ll be a lot more than that but even just 20% is over 1000 that’s more than e night and that’s just icbms
From Russia with love..
Of all the features mentioned.. the most concerning to me is the use of the missile for conventional warhead strikes. That could be easily mistaken for a first strike if utilized. All the other features mentioned simply reinforce the MAD principal.
That's what I was thinking. "Oh, it's OK. Those ICBMs we launched at you are just armed with hypervelocity, conventional warhead MIRVs." It's not like you could tell the difference before the warheads are deployed, and it's only a matter of time before you have hypervelocity re-entry vehicles carrying nuclear warheads.
You've also got frog-boiling strategies, where you start out using them as theater artillery, launching non-nuclear strikes against neighboring states, gradually expanding the range you use just to degrade the willingness of the US (or whoever, really) to act against launches. Especially since they're most vulnerable during initial boost; predictable path, bright target, and the warheads haven't separated yet.
One of the reasons that Trump and Putin withdrawing the USA and Russia from the intermediate ballistic missile treaty in 2019 was such a bad event. Now both nations are free to build up on weapons that can easily be MISTAKEN for first strike nuclear missiles, further increasing the chances of nuclear war breaking out "on accident".
Not really an issue as the opponent can simply rely on his second strike capability.
There is no need anymore for "oh, we gotta react before the missile lands" like there was in the 60s, taking the chance of accidents way down.
A sub can be ordered to launch only after it got the "yes, we are all dead, the nukes have gone off" signal and still glass all of russia no problem.
In the 80's dual-purpose ballistic and cruise missiles were supposed to be really scary...Russians did it all the time _(SS-1, SS-12, SS-20 et al),_ but then when we introduced the PERSHING II missile and the BGM-109 TOMAHAWK cruise-missile in the '80s and the Russians start crying like little baby
@@aenorist2431 -- I got a feeling that our submarines and ocean surveillance/containment abilities are advancing at a much faster pace compared to Russia's over the last 30-years. Hopefull, soon they will lose the know-how to even fab basic parts & maintenance for a nuclear submarine. Eventually, I think the undersea arm of the Russian nuclear triad will fail and combined with crazy old-man Russian hermit dictators waving nukes around every time they wanna beat up on their neighbors will cause the old first-strike scenarios to be dusted off and seriously re-examined as being a safer bet for humanity rather than allowing a recurring cycle of Russian Nuclear-Brinksmanship every 30-years; each cycle only waiting for a new generation that doesn't remember the last time to fill the army.
As scary as these strategic weapons are, what really scares me now a days are the tactical weapons and their doctrine on using them. Even more so now that Russia invaded Ukraine.
When you think you're the biggest and baddest - simply remember that there's always someone bigger and badder
When Mark Felton finds current events more interesting than the past, you know we’re screwed 💀
Thanks Professor Felton!! MAD was indeed a deterrent but quite horrific in nature of course. The Soviet, or rather now, Russian mobile launchers are the most difficult of offensive weapons to target unless there are tactical forces in relative vicinity to respond
M.A.D.'s effectiveness comes from sanity on both sides. Not sure we have enough that now in the East.
Erm, SLBM's?
Russian mobile launchers are hard to respond to because they launch them from third-party nations like Belarusia.
It still very much is a deterrent. All-out nuclear war ends the world, including Russia, the Kremlin and Putin. He would have to be mad to ignore MAD. Being able to kill the planet more times over than before doesn't change the final outcome.
Its ok, just Duck and Cover
Nothing better than being early to a Mark Felton doc. It’s like being let in as a VIP or remembering you’ve still got half a Twix left.
@D-FENS Great comment. 👍
🤣🤣🤣🤣
So that Cretin Putin as power over us all, being the lunatic said don't defend the Ukraine "Or else" duh.
Awesome comment :)
Top half or bottom half?
Anyone else here ever wake up and wonder what year is it sometimes? As much as I love reading history there's some things I wish, well we d leave it in the past. Thanks again for the insight Dr Felton
No. But I wake up wondering if we've already been nuked and are in Heaven or Hell (well or Purgatory since I'm Catholic!).😆😅😂
Everything is a circle. Everything comes back around sooner or later.
We can't leave it in the past because the powerful countries won't leave the rest of the world alone, this is the reason for these conflicts, hegemony, control over others. US, NATO, Russia, they are all bad actors and guilty of same.
@@davidrouse7941 Human does not learn anything from history
This was a scary one Mark! The US needs to play catch up!
30 NATO countries have nukes pointed at Russia putin knows it will be the end of the Russian empire if he strikes or even if he uses chemical or nuclear weapons in Ukraine
Satan II does not fundamentally alter MAD, but, as you correctly point out, the West still has tremendous second-strike capability with boomers, even more so with the new Colombia class coming online in the coming decades (as well as new British and French boomers). The Poseidon, however, is more of concern, especially in terms of conventional warfare and its ability to take out Naval strike groups.
In some respects it is maintains the MAD doctrine. The US employment of ABMs makes Russia more vulnerable to a first strike.
The conventional capability is worrying. If US aircraft flying over the Ukraine took out SAMs and airfields in Russia how would the US respond when they get hit in the continental US by a conventional Satan 2.
I knew the boomers were good for something!
What about when all the "boomers" are dead? They aren't getting any younger you know. Still, the millenials will have to step in and take over....
@@johnclements6614 This is where I had a bit of a problem with how its stealthy first strike was portrayed in the video. The US has a tremendous ability to detect launches from space (assuming our satellites are still intact.)
@@johnclements6614 America will never launch a first strike. That is Putin's paranoia to justify his threats. Same as his excuse for invading Ukraine. Paranoia.
Modern scary subject from the top military historian on UA-cam.
This is all speculation. My personal thoughts on this are that if his staff have performed to their usual standard the money has gone else where and Putin is bragging about the match the cat pissed on.
Excellent Mark! Keep tying history to today's events we need more of these analyses.
Lived with them in West Germany at a hard site for 3 years. But they were low yield.
The code word Lariat Advance among others caused a lot of us a lot of anxiety.
But a nuke is a nuke.
Mark, Thank you for your continued AMAZING content. I look forward to new stuff everyday. Love the tie-in too current geopolitical events. Please keep making these great videos. Thanks Mark
Marcus
Stand with Ukraine. Why aren't you saying you stand with Ukraine?
Lol.. I stand with the people caught in between.
I remember a time when mark felton had only around 300k subs, now he's on his way to 2 million
Day is officially made, granted this topic scares me shitless, but still: new Mark Felton video
...get your mask on dweeb
That moment when it pops up out the silo then the main engines starts... i wanna see the blooper where the main engine fails and it drops neatly back in then explodes.
Mark Felton is on a roll. Some fantastic content, day after day.
You know times are bad when he has recent material to make content from. Kinda scary tbh
I've read about the Satan 2 and what it is supposed to do, but your report sheds new light and perspective on its place in Russia's nuclear inventory and the longstanding balance of nuclear power between East and West. May cooler heads prevail; there will be no turning back if this nuclear genie gets out of the bottle. Thanks Always, Dr. Felton.
there is no genie - this is just a big over built over done, never to be fielded, russian "propaganda".
@@godslayer1415 Nuclear weapons is not a Russian propaganda, they do exist from the year 1945.
wuppas they have to be a troll, it’s too absurd
@@fromthefire4176 Trolls,fake news,disiformation,lies,all rolled up into one,means this male dominated society is a criminal one.
@@fromthefire4176 Nope, us humans actually invest in world ending weapons
Maintaining nuclear weapons is expensive. Designing and building new weapons is also expensive. The US spends 60 billion a year on maintaining and upgrading nuclear weapons. The defense budget of Russia is about 69.2 billion a year. America's annual defense spending is about 766.58 billion. Russia has an annual GDP on par with Mexico. Can the Russians really afford to maintain nukes, and design and build new nuclear weapons? Corruption is rampant with Russian military contractors as well. My theory, is that Russia has very few actually working nukes, due to neglect. Now, we are talking about a super weapon, that would cost the Russians billions by itself? Does Russia really have the financial means to build this? One look at the state of their military as it invaded Ukraine might be a clue.
The prices in Russia and America are different, your comparison have nothing with reality. You are raring Russian economy in USD ($), but this is not the real indicaror of the scales of production
Where is the US space heavy lifting capacity today?
@@arty5876 While a straight comparison is difficult due to the different currencies, the US still has a massive advantage in spending no matter what currency you use to measure it. A ruble doesn't go nearly as far in Russia as a dollar does in the US. If you could come up with an exact unit of value to compare, Russia would get slightly more for each unit, but that's more attributable to lower labor costs and few regulations than to difference in currencies. (Same reason we buy things from Russia and China that we can easily make ourselves.) But I have a feeling that is offset by all of the theft that goes on in the Russian munitions industry. Putin and his buddies have to stay rich, after all.
@@bencarter1666 Vandenberg AFB usually with the Delta IV Heavy, but now also in Texas with the Falcon 9 Heavy.
Do you really believe those numbers? Most of our bloated military budget goes to lining pockets not maintaining rockets
Truth is that Russia has nukes all around the world that are fully operational. I think its crazy to think Russia to only have nukes only in Russia 🇷🇺.
Fact!
Love ya Mark! Thank you for making such quality content on relevant topics like this and the war in Ukraine. Best in the game
The MAD theory doesn't only refer to kinetic superiority of either nuclear arsenals. Regardless of who fires first, or who's megaton yeilds are larger. And neither quantity nor anti ballistic defense system that successfully intercept a significant number of warheads on both sides.
There still exists more than enough megatonage that will reach their targets and release enough energy to destroy every major city in in the northern hemisphere with only the first salvo. The second salvos will be even more catastrophic rendering everything north of Chile uninhabitable from the explosions and the nuclear winter lasting perhaps decades. No plant growth, no human survivors an no animals
So, it really doesn't matter who's are bigger, or who has more and who strikes first. once they push those buttons none of it matters anymore.
It is good bye to almost every human being on earth....have a nice fkn day.
What does kinetic superiority have to do with a thermonuclear initiation? You're using the wrong warmongering jargon.
I think you are wildly over-estimating the effects of nuclear weapons, and their numbers. There are most certainly not enough deployed warheads to "Destroy every major city in the northern hemisphere." Most will be expended on major military and infrastructure targets, not cities.
This is not 1990.
Furthermore, the southern hemisphere will barely even be affected.
These missles need to be banned ASAP!!
@@JohnJones-dg6lb - yes, I completely agree, but we must want ordinary people and elect such governments as to do so
@@Followme556 I very much doubt that despite all technology anyone can accurately predict the effects of Armageddon scenario.
@@Bee.Holder There are people whose job it is. Most of the predictions were based on a cold war era 4000 mega ton exchange. However any exchange now would be a fraction of the size, and the weapons would generally be much smaller and more accurate. So less are needed anyway.
Nuclear weapons take an astonishing amount of maintenance sitting completely still in climate controlled staging location. The US spends BILLIONS on maintaining our arsenal. Russia has even more nukes than us. Based on this, and the the condition of their easily maintainable equipment in Ukraine that is all falling apart, I would not be surprised in the least if most of the Russian nuclear arsenal are duds by now. The cores of these corrode and rot over time if ignored. The US spends almost as much on nuclear weapons maintenance than Russia does for it's entire military operations.
It really only takes 1 functional nuke to kill a lot of people so its still probably not worth risking, but at the same time it may help some sleep at night. I am sure the CIA is all over assessing this at the moment.
The US spends about 30 billion USD annually just to maintain the nuclear arsenal. That's a little less than half the entire Russian Defense budget for their entire military. If we've seen anything over the last month is that Russia doesn't maintain their vehicles to any real degree of readiness, I doubt their nuclear arsenal is much better
That's still a _huge_ gamble. What if the reason their conventional military is so pathetic is because it's an afterthought to their real investment, their nukes? Assuming it's a bluff and taking a direct motion against Russia is literally playing Russian Roulette with the human race; what if the whole time, most if not all of their arsenal is in working condition? Then we just made the wrong bet.
Never underestimate the enemy. Hitler too thought Russia was a joke because they did so badly against little Finland, which had little to no support from the west, and because he thought Russia was a joke, his "thousand-year Reich" was raped, pillaged, and burned by the Reds.
Finally someone who gets it, every damn comment is about this dead hand and the Poseidon, boys and girls those aren’t proven to be real
@@BasedHadrian Yep. To expand my point: All of the below can cause a poorly maintained nuke to not detonate:
1: Microsecond drifts in the timing of the implosion explosives
2: Know water vapor driven corrosion causing 10s of microns defects in the pit of the plutonium.
3: Electronics failures of any kind from the lockout mechanisms to the triggering electronics that control when the bomb goes off.
4: Water contamination of the chemical explosive compound that triggers fission.
5: Defects in the shape of the chemical explosions. This can be from mechanical shaking or just cracking from heat/cold.
6: Decay of the nuclear core products that power the nuclear chain reaction.
7: Failure of the launch vehicle. This can be rocket failure, guidance failure, re-entry guidance and warhead deployment etc. Russia does not have a functioning GPS system as the war in Ukraine proved, so these would all be inertial guidance systems with gimbals and motors, all of which are extremely prone to failure by not being solid state, and have to be constantly calibrated.
8: Physical defects in the core fuel or tampers,
Any failure leading to a failure of fission will cause the nuke to fail and just explode like a smallish conventional bomb with some very local radiation contamination that would be easy to clean up. Also, with no fission there are no fusion stages.
Incredible work once again Mark. Now, how tragic is it that humans have arrived at this place? The irony that the “developed” world could be turned to ashes. I may relocate my young family to the most remote part of the African continent.
Dnt think putin will give you enough time for that
@@john-fr5yd😂😂😂lol
I'm honestly impressed by the time and effort you put into these videos. Appreciate the hard work. Keep it up! 👍👍👍
👍
4:16 what planet is that?
Why its Planet Heinessen from LOGH of course.
Did I just entered the Twilight Zone?
@@areaxisthegurkha O hail, Liberty Bell..
I’m not discounting this weapon system by any mean (in fact I give the Russians credit as they appear to be ahead of the US in this field currently) BUT I have a hard time believing anything based on Kremlin / Putin press releases. They also claimed to have the most powerful military in Europe but have had an extremely poor showing in Ukraine
It's more likely that they don't have as many built as we think they do.
Maybe after spending the trillions on the fancy kit, all that was left in the budget was Chinese tires and raw conscripts?
Their GDP is also lower than South Korea's(roughly on par with Mexico). The US defense budget is $773 billion compared to Russia's $69.2. These ICBM systems are simply unsustainable as we've seen with the production of T-14 Armata and the Su-57 but a corrupt lunatic like Putin wouldn't mind pouring all of his country's economy into nuclear weapons development. Reminds me of a certain Korean madman.
Even if the Russian Nuclear arsenal is still early 70s vintage it's more than sufficient to destroy every worthwhile target in the US many times over including our cities. Against that backdrop the war in Ukraine is academic .
Dude nobody knows who are winning
Thank you Mark for this sobering reminder that at any minute our beautiful world as we know it,could vanish in the blinking of an eye.The people who would be left in the hell after the blast would have to deal with starvation,radiation sickness,and the nuclear winter fallout for decades.Before any global conflict happens,where the citizens of each country are used as pawns,I say put the war mongering leaders into a ring,and let them fight it out to the death.The winner would then stabilize the earth back into love and respect for thy fellow man,the original way it was designed to be,in ☮️.
Don't worry.. aliens won't let it happen
Right on!!!!
I fear it will happen with the mental patient currently occupying the Oval Office right now. He is obssessed with war in Russia and he WILL escalate things.
The question is, have the Russians been maintaining their nukes? No one realized just how much money was getting skimmed off until the Russians invaded Ukraine. With the Nukes we have a weapon that nobody expects to actually be used, so just how much of the maintenance budget has remained intact? It's better if we act as if they are fully functional, but the question still remains.
Sure let’s provoke them and get and settle this question once and for all.
Extremely unlikely that they have been able to maintain even a significant portion of their arsenal.
But no doubt they have worked hard to keep enough prepared.
@@andrewwood6285 How are we provoking them account created during the us midterms who only spreads soft russian propaganda?
I'm sure that since the collapse, they've gone out of their way to see to it that, if ANYTHING, the nuclear triad is THE thing that continued to be upkept no matter what.
exactly they won't work .
"In the nuclear world. The true enemy is war itself." From the film Crimson Tide. But here's a question. With what we've seen of the Russian ground forces. What sort of state are their nuclear weapons In?
Thunderfoot did a great video on this as well.
sekret dokuments comrade
Please consider other news sources. Ukraine will be under Russian control very shortly.
Old ones maybe fudged... Hopefully but new ones have been made... With newer tech. Even if one worked it would be catastrophic.
Are you feeling lucky???
Congrats Mark on such a successful UA-cam channel. I always look for your videos but when I saw this one had been out there for 6 minutes and once I was in there was already 636 likes I told myself "Wow Mark, you've finally made it my friend to the big chair !" Congrats. We all love this channel. It's amazing. Keep up the great work.
This channel is a godsend
Love the series and especially the intro music!
It never ceases to amaze me that mankind seems hell-bent on it's own destruction...
Chimpanzees on both sides throw rocks, and try to kill the rival group. Ants make war, and destroy other colonies. We don't have the patent on destruction.
That’s because his spiritual father has a mission statement that says he comes only to steal, kill, and destroy. John 10:10b
I remember the Cuban missle crisis. Going to the basement of our sand stone built grade school just outside Philadelphia every day for 10 days as a second grader, practicing a futile CD drill!
I was also in 2nd grade and remember the crisis quite well. We lived only about two miles from the headquarters of Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, NJ. It was a center for top secret military communications and tracking radars. Some what later we learned the Bell Labs complex was one of the targets assigned it's very nuclear missile. We might have lasted, two seconds?
remeber, duck and cover! your little school desk will surely save you from the blast lol. although, I get that some action is still better than hopelessness.
It was not futile if you were within the "light damage" radius of a detonation.
@@scruffysstash Not futile, If you are outside the blast zone, the desk could protect you from light burns and debries
I was in 6th grade, in a school 23 miles from Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix. For a couple of weeks we did daily air raid drills in which we huddled under our tiny plastic desks. I thought the bombs must not be as powerful as we were told. I didn't understand we were there to prevent panic and to make identification of our remains easier. An air burst well above Luke, to maximize the "sanitized" area, would have flattened the school very handily and ignited anything that would burn.
Terrifying, but it doesn’t seem to change all that much. They could hit us before. We can still hit them. MAD is still a fact of life.
Bloody hell you people are far gone. lol. Why would Russia strike first? Who destroyed the Middle East based on LIES? Who KILLED 11 MILLION civilians in the last 25 years?
MAD relies on attacking cities. If they nuke a bunch of missile silos in the boondocks, do we destroy their cities, knowing that will only get our cities destroyed too?
Is it?
I think it's safe to say that Russia does not have the money nor the technical expertise to modernize and maintain their stockpile of nuclear weapons. They may have 5,500 to 6,000 _SOVIET ERA_ warheads, but those things degrade over time. The high explosives, the timing mechanisms, the electronics etc. Not to mention the money and effort it takes to keep your silos, subs, and airforce in good working order + the crew training.
Given what we've all witnessed in Ukraine, the vast scale of incompetence and lack of predictable foresight that everyone but Russia seemed to notice, I suspect the current capabilities of the Russian nuclear stockpile are vastly overrated. I think a generous estimate would be that 10% of their weapons would be in launchable status, and that doesn't exactly mean that 550 to 600 of their warheads would reach their targets. ABMs, technical difficulty, or other factors would mean that even fewer would reach their destination or have the accuracy required to render US silos inoperable.
This does not mean Russia is not a threat. They still have the ability to have 55 to 60 warheads land on US population centres in a last-ditch, scorched Earth scenario. As to whether or not the commanders in charge of the nuclear weapons would ever follow such a suicidal order from a madman like Putin is another story. But it would mean the death of Putin, Putin's family, all of the oligarchs and his inner circle, etc. And I doubt they'd all be on board with a full committal of their entire nuclear arsenal knowing the deficiencies I've highlighted and the resulting tsunami of horror that would be imminent should they decide to do something so foolish as order a full strike on America or even a tactical strike upon NATO.
The high likelihood of failure must surely be part of every conversation that goes on behind Putin's back.
@@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 NOTHING you saw in Ukraine is a good metric to measure Russia's capabilities. Russia is trying to minimize casualties and their goal is NOT occupation of the whole country.
@@psychohist Good point.
From what I could understand from this video there are three capabilities of this missile that do indeed threaten to upset the nuclear balance. Which is indeed very disturbing. The first capability is that it can fly lower than normal ICBMs which means it will be detected later by its intended target-country which means it will give that country less time to react (launching its own missiles) to the attack with Sarmat missiles. The second such capability, which is even more worrisome is that it can launch hypersonic glide vehicles in which case its trajectory would be even lower, right at the end of the Earth's atmosphere actually which means this missile can be used to take out the adversary's nuclear missile silos before they can even be launched. The third such capability is that it can attack over the South Pole too which means there are no chances of detecting it if it will attack in such a manner because the US doesn't even have radars at the South Pole. Of course all of these capabilities require extremely sophisticated technical features which are very difficult to make to work. But theoretically at least, this weapon will indeed pose a huge unbalance to the current nuclear balance.
Yeah , Im trying to connect the biblical predictions of the future and how this might connect with it. Majority say the USA will burn to ashes. If they did a first strike and were successful with this weapon, they could get us. However , as part of the triad , the subs would still be around..and most certainly would strike back. If so , would it be effective enough?
@@Dan.a.k.a.bradpitt Yes, I should've pointed out that this missile's threat (if it works in its intended parameters which is another aspect that is doubtful about it because it's a very complex system) would only pose a threat to the LAND BASED component of the US 's nuclear triad. The US would still have its bombers and more importantly its submarines. Regarding your question, if that were enough, man each of those subs carries 24 missiles with each of those missiles capable of carrying up to 8 warheads each with a yield of either a 100 Kt or 475 Kt. 24x8 = 192 nuclear warheads on just one sub pal. The US has 10 or 12 of these out there at any given time. I'll let you be the judge if that's enough or not... LOL.
@@JDA2185 2 concerns regarding if you only have the subs left. One is , Putin's New Poisidon - artificial intelligence drone operated nuclear powered nuke .. which are capable of evading detection interfere with the subs , and Two..the Northern arctic shelf is now fully circumferenced with a line of some sonar detection that is fully capable of tracking . So if they cannot hide in Northern arctic what areas does that leave them and how the Poisidon would then work more effectively?
@@Dan.a.k.a.bradpitt I'm not sure the Russians were ever able to develop such a very effective and vast submarine tracking and detection network. Also, the submarines can launch their missiles from any ocean not just the Arctic.
Now, regarding the "Poseidon" nuclear torpedo, from what I've read about it, it was not designed to attack submarines or even surface ships. It was not designed for naval warfare. That torpedo was designed to carry a multimegaton nuclear warhead and strike coastal areas especially in the US. It is a strategic weapon, not a weapon of naval warfare. But that torpedo too is still in the development and testing stage and nobody knows exactly how well it will function under battle conditions. And lastly, I never made the case for keeping just the submarines. The triad is a must because in nuclear war redundancy is a must. It also created an increase in the deterrence effect of these weapons against the enemy. If the enemy knows you have more options of obliterating him, the chances of him attacking you drop even more.
I wanna go back to the days when we settled things on the ice. Some of the best hockey I've ever seen came from the Red Army Team. They spanked us a few times.
Mr Felton is a legend 🙌 keep the videos coming.
The Poseidon torpedo is one of the weapons they have that I’m scared of the most. I watched documentaries on it and I couldn’t believe it 😳
Deadhand is the one that sends a chill down my spine. Now that's a proper doomsday device.
Assuming the Russians can actually build and operate the thing, it's scary yeah
@@bigal3055 Cobalt-60 is no joke
@@anon-fq3ud they definitely have it and its operational as we speak.
I don’t mean to be doom and gloom but I don’t take Putin as a man that loses .
I feel like if he thinks he’s going to lose the Ukraine then instead of looking weak. He’ll go scorched earth .
@@christainmarks106 The Russians have done scorched earth for 800 years, that hasn't changed. But in terms of military hardware we know they overstate their capabilities a lot, Ukraine proved that; chances are the new missiles are way overrated by Western observers
Thank you very much for your reports, Dr. Mark Felton.
I wish you all the best from Belgrade, Republic of Serbia. Thank you also for presenting the truth about the war in Kosovo*, very concise and excellent research on it. Thanks a lot. Best regards from Belgrade, Peter.
I think we are giving Russia a little more credit than they deserve. They are having trouble driving across the border to invade Ukraine. We have always Trembled with fear at the latest Russian wonder weapon only to find out later that it less capable than first thought. That being said let’s hope we never find out just how capable this ICBM is……….
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and (my opinion) if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, I don't think that the differense is huge. Probably the fighting capability of an Ukrainian is ~125% of Russian + the advantage of defensive side in casualities. Also, Ukrainians have drones and modern Western AT weapons.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed in first few weeks:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland. Also, civillian deaths would demoralize Russians and rise the morale of Ukrainians.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation. Russians were invading Ukraine by moving in columns, very dangerous for ambushes.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
After 3 weeks Russians had stopped their invasion, and at now they are reinforcing and forming the frontline, they made a pause.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
I think that casualities ratio between Russia and Ukraine is ~2 to 1 in favour of Ukraine.
The popular comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Bro!!!!! I see you've put some thoughts into this, but one of the major reasons the Russian invasion of Ukraine stalled in the early phases is they couldn't drive across the border due to Flat tires and break downs on vehicles because of lack of long term maintenance. Combat and supplie chain support vehicles were put in vulnerable positions because inexperience and lack of training of front line and secondary support troops in the Russian military.
The mighty Russian military can't subdue a country the size of Texas in Air superiority. All in all no matter the excuses, it a bad bad look for the Russian Military and the political structure supporting the Country. Not to mention that the US military always have their hands tied by idiot politicians with nonsensical rules for combat and hundreds of different agendas.
The Russian Government is not supposed to be handicapped with the idiotic woke agendas we the west have to deal with........u do envy that !
@@arty5876 "Ukraine have far more tanks" well, yeah. Obsolete tanks
I agree. Are the Russians really skilled at developing cutting edge strategic weapons or are they merely skilled at making us *think* they have developed cutting edge strategic weapons? It is hard for me to believe after seeing their pitiful effort in Ukraine that they really have these wonder weapons and even harder to believe that their weapons actually work.
@@turdferguson4124 well said.
Thanks Dr. Felton. Despite the disturbing context (and depressing), informational and enjoying as always.
Thank you very much for this informative video to sum up the nuclear threat. Both for my own general knowledge, and to help explain it to others.
Well done sir. God bless and guide you.
Hello from Ireland.
☘✝️🕊🇮🇪💚🤍🧡
Thanks for the video. great information. But to say the R36m was a product of Ukraine is misleading in my view. The Missile was designed in by Mikhail Kuzmich Yangel at OKB-586 based in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine at the time part of the Soviet Union. Mikhail Kuzmich Yangel was the Chief designer and was Russian, born in Zyryanov, Irkutsk, Russian Empire. This is the same problem people face when they claim Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union broke up. No, those were owned by the Soviet Union and while they were based on Ukrainian soil they were always under the ownership and control of Moscow and Russiann as the successor state of the Soviet Union
There's also the B61 (US) "dial a yield" bomb which can be delivered via a number of aircraft, including the F-35.
NrW: The B-61 is a small yield tactical weapon. It is not a strategic weapon and should not be part of this discussion.
@@KB4QAA Regardless Mark did leave out a few keypoints regarding the new s500/550s and the poisidon in regards to their contribution to cancel mad.
@david render No that is untrue. Once Tritium boosting was discovered in the early 50's, it became possible to change the yield by varying the amount of H3 injected into the trigger. Selectable yield tactical weapons like the B-57 and B-61 were introduce in the early 60's. The bomb loaders can set the yield from a control panel on the bomb. (old navy flyer).
@@Dan.a.k.a.bradpitt Left out the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty which started all this escalation. Bad idea in hindsight, I guess all those people who argued against it were right.
One thing that scares me more than these is the fact that we have two leaders past their retirement age at the red buttons, and none of them seems in very good shape🙄
Will you settle down a bit if you consider Biden a puppet and actually no one knows who really pulls the strings?
@@charlescoulon7336
Thank God.
@@charlescoulon7336 at least one of them seems to be...
This weapon is just another form of posturing and makes very little difference in the final analysis. Let's say the U.S. and NATO allies don't manage to land a return single salvo on Russian territory. Let us further suppose every Russian weapon detonates as intended. (Both of these scenarios are extremely unlikely.) The amount of radioactive fallout pumped into the atmosphere by Russian weapons alone would almost certainly kill everyone - and everything - in the Northern Hemisphere. Including most of the Russian population. At the very least, blow back from contamination would make large swaths of Russian territory uninhabitable - agriculture and surface industries - untenable. Any victory earned by such a weapon would be a Pyrrhic one, indeed.
There isnt a victory in MAD...
Yup. Not much point in going overkill. You'd still have nothing left of Planet Earth either way.
@King Brilliant It would be interesting for a future sentient race discovering us the way we discovered the dinosaurs. They would have great fun trying to decipher all the many human artifacts they come across.
The elites and generals living like animals in bunkers for years, whilst the world suffers a nuclear winter and a radiation wasteland.
Dude these are nuclear bombs not powerplants leaking.
Keep it real Mark ...love it !
My late father spent three decades dwelling on and fretting about "the inevitable nuclear war, nuclear winter and MAD." He wasted his life. I won't - have some fun.
I know that the military was talking about using nukes as a missile defense weapon in the past, so I wouldn't be surprised if that idea has been refined to counteract MIRVs, though that would probably be beyond classified.
I think so and I hope so
Tried, first explosion creates a plasma/emp field that makes it impossible to track following MIRVs. So that idea is a no-go
Lots of laser testing, rail guns and stuff we don't know about.
I've seen the nuclear missiles and our nuclear weapons on the Iron Curtain during the 1970s. It was a sobering experience that has followed me my entire life. As a kid doing Duck and Cover drills in school during the Cuban missile crisis to this day. The Cold War has never been a consideration for many that were born after the Cold War. It never ended for me or my adversary putin . It is madness, madness..
Funny how governments feel they have the right to kill half the worlds population. Bunch of peckerheads.
19 / 5.000
Übersetzungsergebnisse
THAT'S ME TOO, 1980 American troops lost a minuteman
Rocket in front of my house, luckily it flew in the other direction on a meadow and exploded there.
@@siegfriedlechler7412 thankfully. Damn, that's bad.
Yeah - an awful lot of kids / under 40's saying "Well lets just risk nuclear war and get NATO into Ukraine..."
@@mwnciboo Most of them never have learned what Russians made in Kuba und do not know, that Chruschtschow and Breschnew have been Ukrainians.
This is so awesome! Everyone knows in a pinch you can never have too many nuclear bombs.
history is being made and I'm so glad mark is covering it ✌️
History is constantly being made, there are ongoing conflicts all over the globe.
The end of history is closing fast.
I heard a military expert being interviewed on the radio recently. He said that if you'd asked him three months ago what the chances are of Putin launching a nuclear attack on the UK were, he'd think you were insane. Now, he said, he thinks it's a perfectly reasonable question. Interesting times.
I don't think the Kremlin would ever let that happen, Putin may be insane but i doubt they all are
Didn't all these "experts" and "analysts" also predict the fall of Ukraine within the first week?
USA made a mistake by not nuking Moscow in 1945. Alot of European countries would heve been a lot better off.
@@petr7694 Well, even Putin did so, that was his mistake
@chris TV He wouldn't have launched an invasion if he didn't think he could resolve the worst of it within a month.
The real problem with the war in Ukraine is that its not an intentional use of a nuclear weapon that is really scary in this scenario, but that there are 15 nuclear power plants all around the Ukraine, each with enough fissile material to render half of Europe AND half of Russia uninhabitable for a 100 years. It does not take a missile or a bomb to blow one off, rather it takes an idiot officer to try and shut down the power to the Ukrainians and while doing so also shut down the power to the pumps which supply coolant to the core. Or some dizzy worker who didn't have a night sleep in three weeks to make a mistake. Once this chain of events takes off, the China syndrome will do the rest, no need for an explosion.. Though it will explode, once the core drips down to the ground water level.. And then the world will have a real refugee problem on its hands. This will be orders of magnitude worse then the original Chernobyl disaster, as in this disaster there were teams of liquidators to seal the leaking reactor as quickly as possible, but in this scenario not only there will not be such teams available, there will not even be anything to seal. It will all basically get dispersed as one huge putrid cloud covering much of Europe and Russia. Scary thought.
And like with Chernobyl, Russian State Media will blame the CIA for it.
@@Edax_Royeaux what? Any proofs?
@@LeandreTexier "A pro-Kremlin Russian TV network is planning to air a mini-series about Chernobyl, one suggesting a CIA saboteur was behind the 1986 Soviet-era nuclear disaster in Ukraine, which left up to a million people exposed to radiation.
The Kremlin was angered by the recent, highly acclaimed HBO five-part mini-series on Chernobyl, which lauded the self-sacrificing bravery of those who battled to contain the fire and mitigate the effects of a reactor meltdown, but also detailed Soviet-era mismanagement, the delayed response and the denial for years by Soviet officials of a design fault."
"According to media reports, Russia’s culture ministry is helping to fund the NTV show with a $460,000 grant.
Marketing literature for the NTV series details a plot revolving around a CIA agent infiltrated into Pripyat and tasked with gathering intelligence on the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
The hero of the drama is a Russian counterintelligence agent dispatched to track him down."
"The HBO Chernobyl mini-series was not broadcast by any of Russia’s television outlets but was available online to paying viewers"
@@Edax_Royeaux well thanks for the qutation of an article, but i thought that your first reply was on actual event. Sadly, nowadays anyone can shoot anything blaming anyone. And not much people want to research on their own.
I don't think the average person in the West, or indeed in the East, has any real concept of these weapons and the danger that the world faces . .
Mark, as always, most scintillating presentation. Your "take" on history and history in the making is noteworthy and world class. Why the U.S. National Education Association does not mandate showing your works is a mystery. Young minds should see every foot of film you've assembled. Perhaps then, we'd take a turn toward peace and goodwill. God bless you, brother.
That exactly right. If everything were laid bare there would be peace. The enemy works through deception to the folly of mankind.
Darlene, the "enemy" is really something most people do no believe in: the Devil. And you are 200 percent correct that the Devil works through deception. Deceit is the only avenue through the goodness that we all harbor but too often deny for sake of something that inevitably means nothing.
Young support minds are the quickest to uptak e info. easiest to convince that the Info is Absolutely correct.. Easiest to brainwash.
John, young minds are extremely malleable and capable of being psycho-sculpted into exactly what the "architect" desires. About this, you are absolutely correct. One additional important consideration is that brainwashing the young minds also returns the most long-term dividends in that it affords a generation's worth of subservience to a specific agenda.
@@johnhenni2808 what are you talking about miserable fool. Brainwashing occurs only when you cover up the truth and start teaching people lies but once the truth is revealed, the vast majority of people will follow it and no one can deceive them. So such programs by Mark Felton are greatly welcomed and appreciated as they present the bare facts. Save yourself the embarrassment and don't come to watch videos that are way beyond the white jello in your skull that they mistakenly call brain to grasp or understand or else you will start hallucinating deliriously as you have done in your laughably stupid and foolish comment. What a miserable waste of human existence you are. How pathetic
This is a great video, but fails to mention that the basis of Nuclear deterrence (MAD) is the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty of 1972. Where US and Russia can only maintain 100 missiles able to intercept nuclear missiles. In essence meaning if one side uses nuclear weapons there would be no defense, hence stopping preemptive first strike. This treaty was basis of nuclear Parity. However, US pulled out of the agreement in 2002 and started building anti ballistic missiles (ABM) systems. that's is why Russia has felt compelled to build Multiple Reentry Ballistic Missiles (the Satan 2) which can't be stopped by the ABM systems. It's not escalation in essence it is a return to nuclear Parity. Russia does this since ABM are much harder to build than Satan 2. It is in essence the easier path for Russia to return to nuclear Parity with US. Which they themselves unbalanced in their favour. However, from US point of view it pulled out of the treaty to build ABM against Iran and North Korea's nuclear threat
i reckon home them back in to where they came from system tm.
I heard the US also pulled out of the INF treaty a few years back. I guess that really freed Russia up to deploy new nuclear icbms.
I agree with you to some extent. US military overall is more power then Russia military it in terms of nuclear equality both US and Russia are equal when it comes the nukes. I don’t think US is ahead of Russia when it comes to nukes. I don’t think Russia is ahead of US when it comes to nukes. I think they are both equal. Russia and USA nukes are just built differently. USA focus more on precision and master it while Russia had a hard time mastering precision so they made their nuke bigger and more powerful. All we know is that USA and Russia each have enough nukes to destroy the world over and over and over again.
No I'm afraid you are incorrect Russian nukes are hypersonic otherwise if launched its goodnight Vienna.They don't fly like the US ballistic or nuclear weapon which Russia can now destroy with S400 and S500 missile defense batteries.Russian missile flies so fast and changes direction it's impossible to predict it's flight path even if they told you it's destination. US made a terrible blunder withdrawing from the two non nuclear agreement's.Iran can't have Nuclear energy but Israel has Nuclear weapons and are never told to open up for inspection
@@davidprice633 Russian Hypersonic missiles were developed after 2006 which was long after the ABM treaty. It is in essence a similar version of multiple reentry missiles like I described before. It is also a similar way to reach nuclear parity since hypersonic missiles are easier to build than entire anti ballistic missiles systems which is what the ABM treaty is. And the hypersonic missiles were only developed as a response to US pulling out of ABM treaty since they can't be shot down by ABMs.
A French pro-Russian analyste concluded in his graduation works that Russia was still in MAD state of mind.
I don't know if Sarmat is as good as Russia says, they seem to be a lot lying about their real capability lately.
Врут ваши политики иначе вы бы давно уже обивали бы пороги белого дома😂😂😂наше оружие на порядок обходит ваше 😂😂😂так что вам смерть
Very good video, but the R-36 variant that carried a 20MT class warhead was retired in the 80s.
Also the Minuteman III today only carries one 300-350kt warhead, not 3 475kt warheads.
RS-28 is not operational. It won't be until Autumn this year.
It can carry no more than 5 HGVs, not 24. It's maximun warhead yield is almost 25 times that of the Minuteman III, not 35.
Previous versions of the R-36 had ranges up to 16,000km.
Really huh your source is your spy
@@AMOUREDD Everything I said is publicly available. Do you think the maker of the video got their info from a spy? No.
@@Evan_Bell publicly available,who made it available,the so called enemy?as much as u don't work for "enemy" so let's say all info are assumption
@@AMOUREDD Yes, Russia has stated the details of Russian systems I recounted, except for two which are Western estimates, one of which I now happen to disagree with.
@@Evan_Bell good, adjusting truth and fiction is important when putting such comments so u don't get attacked
No matter their delivery methodology, the explosions of a few hundred nuclear missiles in the atmosphere whether or not they reach targets would likely doom the world anyway.
No, it wouldn't! The russian Tzar Bomba was a 50 megaton device set off in the atmosphere. That is the equivalent to approximately 3300 Hiroshima bombs and we are all still here.
Not the world, but humanity. The Earth will live on, whatever we do here, she will heal herself in time.
Us? We would just be dead
@@PRubin-rh4sr I think the radiation would pretty much take out everything but cockroaches. Remember "Damnation Alley?"
@@craigfarber4614 it's not yield, it's the number of detonations in different locations.
@@jamesphilip6737 How does that work? (Genuinely asking)
"In the nuclear world, the true enemy is war itself"....Commander Hunter.
Seeing the sheer incompetence in Ukraine, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia's nuclear arsenal is rusty and rotten, while the military staff reports "perfect working condition" to the top.
Then putin should test satan 2 on ur country to see whether it's capable or not then inform us if you still had internet
@@forbiddenknowledge210 You seem a little on edge friend. Please try to lower your blood pressure. I don't want to be responsible for any cardiac arrests.
You're not far off. Check their GDP and defense budget as well as some of their most advanced military hardware and compare it to the US. Russia is just posturing. Their nowhere near NATO. Nukes require insane amount of money and R&D capability which Russia seems to lack.
@@EnnoMaffen bah
I hope you're right. That would be great.
Brotha @MarkFelton!!! I follow your YT Channel and is perfect, beacouse dear colague journalist, you Speacking the TRUTH, in all your video's. Congratulation, your Channel is good. Continue your work, and I wish you more followers, and ho loocking an reconize the truth. God bleased you, dear brotha Felton. All the best from Belgrade, Serbia. Ciao.
Hi Mr Felton. Great content and very educational. I'm a 1960 baby and live in and a Australian. So worked along ww2 veterans and in my working life seen the many wars after ww2 eg; Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, just to name a few whilst the big powers to be had and could have pressed the button.
To me, after Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic war crime, no power wants to see suffering on a scale like that, but it did end that war with Japan whilst Germany got carpet bombed into submission.
So what I'm trying to say is to me and my opinion is it is design a war that hopefully no buttons are never pressed that can wipe out world population.
Living in the southern hemisphere it will be a slower painful death with the nuclear fallout. Hi everyone, sorry about the doom and gloom 🤨
If there is a war between NATO and Putin then yes, a quick death will be preferable.
Given Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine & the ensuing sanctions combined with the general poor performance of most Soviet/Russian military equipment, can we really believe this monster is as effective as proclaimed?
Russia is unable to rebuild or manufacturer new tanks die to a shortage of computer chips, if they can't build relatively "simple" MBT's could they currently produce any effective higher technology weapon's?
You should not be fooled by war in Ukraine. They are using very light force and resources to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. After all Soviet era weapons and Russia is known for rugged, cheap production that in case of war can be produced by untrained civilians in large quantities. They are behind with high tech that US possesses but you can't underestimate them. In the recent history they ended Syrian war in a few months that NATO was fueling and fighting for years
@@Russa37 dude they are causing as much unnecessary damage as possible . Mariupol looks like Dresden .
@@willallen7757 They do because they are getting shot from some of the buildings because Zelenskyy encourages civilians to shoot at army. It is not that bad as media makes it.
@@Russa37 I'd shoot at them too, ironically with combloc weapons . I understand it's a civil war and I wish we weren't involved .
@@willallen7757 Too many nazis hiding in those buildings.
Anyone remember that Cold war game from back in the day called " Nuclear Escalation " . It had all those nukes in it, Punk Rock overthrow card and the Zombie outbreak was always the coolest. It was like an 80's table top game..... I loved playing that one as a kid
that thing fit New York very well.