We Are On The Brink Of (Another) Nuclear Proliferation.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- 🎞 invideo.io/i/G...
📽 You can get started with InVideo AI for free and can create up to 4 videos for free but with a watermark, but if you’re serious about video creation and want to publish videos without a watermark (which I highly recommend), you should upgrade to a paid plan which starts at as low as $20/month.
📌 Support GTBT on Patreon! / gtbt
➡️ Paypal: www.paypal.com...
Production: Hubert Walas
Research & analysis: Hubert Walas
Video production: Łukasz Jastrzębski
Voiceover: Hubert Walas
Music: Simple Thieves - Mists of Yunnan instrumental
Sound realisation: Dominik Kojder
Business inquiries:
office@gt-bt.com
🗺️ Maps: aescripts.com/...
⚪ GTBT Polish - / @goodtimesbadtimespl
🟤 GTBT на русском: - / @goodtimesbadtimesru
🟣 GTBT France - / @goodtimesbadtimesfr
⚫️ GTBT Deutschland - / @goodtimesbadtimesde
🟡 GTBT Україна - / @goodtimesbadtimesua
🟢 GTBT Brasil- / @goodtimesbadtimesbr
🔴 GTBT Español - / @goodtimesbadtimeses
🐦Twitter - / hubertwalas_
📘 Facebook - / good-times-bad-times-1...
Sources - on request: office@gt-bt.om
#nuclearweapon #poland
🎞 invideo.io/i/GoodTimesBadTimes
📽 You can get started with InVideo AI for free and can create upto 4 videos for free but with a watermark, but if you’re serious about video creation and want to publish videos without a watermark (which I highly recommend), you should upgrade to a paid plan which starts at as low as $20/month.
📌 Support GTBT on Patreon! www.patreon.com/GTBT
➡ Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/GoodTimesBadTimes
The first nuclear weapon was not "DROPPED" or dropped into the MEXICO DESERT. It was stuck up on top of an open lattice tower (pylon) in the NEW Mexico Desert i.e. within the territory of the United States. I don't think that the Mexicans would have been very pleased if the Americans had committed such a terrible crime on Mexican territory.
5:14 What independence? Does Poland have Uranium mines and a fuel processing industry? Does Poland power heaters with electricity? No?
Why in the hell would you advertise a company that generates crappy AI videos? Seems counterintuitive to what you do. AI MIGHT STEAL YOUR JOB!! Hahaha
I should add, other than the slip highlighted above, an excellent analysis of the current state of play. Allow me to elaborate on my original reply. The bomb was moved on a trolley on rails directly under the pylon. Then, using a pulley and cable, the bomb was pulled up into the head of the pylon. It was detonated still dangling from the cable, the detonation mechanism triggered from an electric pulse similar to explosions in quarries, the cable, of course, several miles long, back to the control bunker.
Why tf would you advertise for a soulless AI video generator? You just lost a viewer.
The convincing argument is "look at Ukraine , if it had nukes it would not have been in a war today ".
Worse “Ukraine gave up its nukes and look what happened”
Look at Africa today, if the black Africans had nukes they would have never been invaded.
Same argument can be used by north korea to never let go of its nuke
Nahh, it would have remained a proxy war…that much is true!
Barbara Tuchman (The March of Folly): “Wooden-headedness…plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts.”
Any Ukrainian attempt to possess and deploy nuclear weapons would have led to extinction.
Merely Zelenskiiy's threat to acquire nukes led immediately to Russia's SMO.
The stupidity of the above 'argument' assumes nukes may be acquired, and pose a significant deterent, without Russia noticing.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956): “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents… the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
Stephen Biko (1946-1977): “It is better to die for an idea that will live, than to live for an idea that will die.”
The unfortunate part too is that you can’t even really blame some of these countries for wanting nukes..
If their allies can’t/won’t help them..
Your comment is as wrong as it gets
When you look at history we had several armsraces out of fear to compete against foreign threaths.
The most famous one is the naval armsrace after the launch of HMS Dreadnought in 1906.
All previous classes of battleships became "obsolete" (read dreadnought scare) overnight so a worldwide armsrace to develop/build dreadnought type battleships occured.
Now we are heading to "a nukes are us" scenario were every country and village idiot wants nukes
This is why the Republicans are undermining long standing US foreign policy. If you have the US as a trustworthy moderator on the global stage there is no need for individual countries to have nukes, since you can rely on the 'the big guy' to keep the order. But this is no longer the case. As is shown in Ukraine.
Every governemnt that isn't at least considering an independent nuclar program is doing it's citizenry a disservice.
And further strain on EU and US relationship is makeing an EU nuclear program more likely by the day.
I don't know why people in the US vote for these people, but it seems the American public has decided the US has been to powerful for to long and they are putting a stop to it now.
I completely disagree, any arming with such weapons is vile of its self, any political, national or cultural reasons, genocides none of them warrant such a weapon to exist. 'You don't poor napalm on a small fire to put it out'
It is a shame but your comment is about as RIGHT as it gets. Trumperty-tumperty-tump-tump has made it clear that should the American people be so stupid as to elect him president, he intends to abandon all of America's friends around the World.
This channel should go ahead and change to "...Bad Times."
Bad and worse times.
It could be a lot fucking worse times, so there is that at least
Know the history of your region. of Ukraine. I can say that now are good times.
But these are still the best of times for the world.
It is doubtful that the future will be better.
@@carlszczerski829thank you no matter how bad it get it can get worse. Except hell I'd suppose mabye not even that. Super hell!!!
@@yurik8468This way of viewing thing's explains a bit more than most. In the current year people largely lived in peaceful stable times. On average historically speaking. Now that the stable world order established 100 years or so ago is in question some area's are destabilizing badly an most are in general less stable.
The signature states of the Budapest memorandum, namely, Ukraine and Kazakhstan should seek to build nuclear weapons in order to deter Russian and Chinese expansionism, since the great powers didn’t hold their end of the deal.
Russia basically burglarized the house(Ukraine) it signed and agreed to protect.
Kazakhstan is just too tumultuous to satisfy western concerns that it would be responsible and secure enough to hold nuclear weapons.
I’d think the west would allow nuclear weapons to arrive in Ukraine but only after the war is won.
Oh Kazakhstan actually has enough stockpiles to build them in a blink of an eye. The Alpha subs ran on 90% enriched material, they just have dig those cores up, dust them down they dont even have to care about some implosion design.@@brendanhickey4955
Should then African countries, Americas and Middle-east get those bad boys too? You know, just to make sure than no military alliance would invade them? Oh wait, they would get invaded by some alliance or a specific country the moment they would show the signs of determination on getting nukes, unless another nuclear power guarantees their security and already has troops stationed there.
Would really love to see what would happen if Mexico or Cuba were to produce a nuke for, you know, security reasons.
Ukraine has plenty of pro russians or neutral people that wouldnt pass
As an American, I'd say the US and it's allies have some responsibility in setting the new precedent as well, namely with Libya and Iraq. Both Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein had nuclear development programs, but either agreed to end said development (Gaddafi) or never successfully created nuclear weapons (Hussein). And so in the end, neither had that deterrent when the US and Co. directly or indirectly overthrew them. Hence why Kim-Jung-Un won't consider disarmament and Iran is so interested in acquiring their own nukes.
Well said
Iran already agreed to stop its nuclear program when the incompetent, reckless trump administration drew out of the agreement. As the great deal maker trump according to himself is, he should have known that nobody trusts someone who breaks deals.
That’s debatable
Gaddafi was complying with the US before Obomber decided to go for broke with the "Arab Spring." Pretty childish of him and Clinton to think the Arab world would suddenly turn into liberal democracies all at once.
@@G-Man-half-life its not
Ukraine ascended to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1994, in return for security assurances by nuclear powers. In 2014 Russia violated by invading, and US, UK violated by looking the other way.
Then, in 2022, the West played to Russian nuclear blackmail. And in 2023, Russian announced it placed nukes in Belarus, to no consequence.
So, US/NATO literally did the opposite of what is required by the NPT when faced with the necessity to enforce it. RIP NPT.
What? So was the west supposed to drop nuclear bombs on Russia because they were invaded? I don’t know exactly how the treaty works but I highly doubt it means that if country that was invaded, they would be protected with nuclear weapons. Maybe if the invading country used weapons of mass destruction they would be protected with equal force.
what kind of security assurances specifically?
@@peaceplayinsumgames The Budapest Memoranda 1994... there were several, for instance, the memorandum between China and Kazakhstan, all negotiated at the same time. At the heart of all of this was the big one ..... Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Before 1991, there had been just one nuclear power covering all 4 of them, namely, the Soviet Union. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there were suddenly 4 nuclear splinters, one of which, Kazakhstan could have gone BANG at any time. This terrified the Americans. A deal was done to try to put the rabbits back in the box. The deal was that Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus should surrender their nuclear weapons to Russia and in return, all 4 of them made solemn undertakings to respect each others' territorial integrity. In my view, the governments of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine were naive to say the least.
Contrary to common belief, the USA and UK governments, also party to separate memoranda, did nothing more in their memoranda, than to undertake to respect the territorial integrity of the 4 main players. There was no undertaking to come to the aid of any of them who may come under attack from one of the others. As it happens, we have come to the aid of Ukraine, quite rightly, as the country is suffering terrible losses fighting World War III on our behalf. The least we can do is supply them with equipment .... not enough .... the Americans have provided 3 Patriot systems .... they could have provided 100 and not missed them.
In short, the "security assurances" were in the Budapest Memoranda 1994. I warn you, the English language versions are NOT light bedtime reading, there are complicated footnotes all over the place but, as it turns out, in the words spoken by Humphrey Bogart, they did not amount to a hill of beans.
@terryhoath1983 the assurances were the other way round though.
Russia would extend nuclear protection to Ukraine etc from the west.
It wasn't an assurance that the west would nuke russia if it invaded ukraine etc.
Am I wrong?
I think you are forgetting that Ukrainian government since 2014 has been pro west, and with removal of Viktor Yanukovych the Ukrainian revolution entirely sponsored by NATO so that they can spread eastwards. NATO should never have existed beyond USSR they broke their own clauses just because they had the power and money to do so. Ukraine's independence and Crimea was itself a gift from Russia and by choosing the west the gift is no longer a gift. You can't threaten your neighbour after they did much for you. Hitler also tried using Ukraine to attack USSR look what that got him.
Here in italy we had in the 70s the "alpha program" to develop a nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately the non nuclear proliferation treaties arrived first and we were forced by the americans to stop the program (italy was the last western nation to sign). The missile part of the program was converted to the missile civilian industry and italy was the third nation to launch a satellite in space .
Fun fact about the satellite I hadn’t known
Actually no France was the third nation to launch a satellite in space : "On November 26, 1965, France became the world's third country to launch a satellite, using the Diamant A launcher to place a spacecraft affectionately named “Asterix” (after the French comic book character) into low-xEarth orbit."
@@fireandblood8142 the italian satellite "San marco 1" was launched in 1964.
@@fireandblood8142 the "san marco 1" was launched in december 1964.
Nicely executed victory over "french" argument. Kudos to Italy.
The war in Ukraine demostrates why cowardice dictators should not have nuclear weapons. When their military is shown to be absolutely useless, dictators should not be able to threaten nuclear war if they're not allowed to win.
Yes ... but who is going to enforce this? There is no supranational law enforcement body. My bet is that after WWIII, such a policing force will be attempted. Both the league of nations and UN have proven to be mostly useless outside of humanitarian efforts sadly.
It also demonstrates why giving up your nuclear arsenal is a very bad idea. Ukraine had the third largest stockpile in the world until Russia and America asked them to give them up in return for both sides to respect their territorial sovereignty. Had Ukraine said no, Russia wouldn’t be able to invade without being wiped off the map along with Ukraine.
I agree. Biden having nukes is unacceptable.
@@AmericanAdvancement I am not an expert, but I believe the nukes would have been useless to Ukraine, because the launch codes were held in Moscow. It is more appropriate to say that the nukes were stationed in Ukraine than owned by Ukraine.
@waitwhat1320 no idea tbh. But I agree, it’s just a conventional bomb and some u-239 and some hydrogen usually. So I would think you are probably right but not 100% sure.
Summary: vote Trump to get 5+ new nuclear states
US isolation will be it's downfall
pretty sure it will happen without trump anyway. south africa and Israel were able to develop nukes on their own without intervention or aid from a foreign power.
Aw dude, Trump getting voted in would be wild. Man, I can't even imagine what could happen if that buffoon gets turned loose....
What's the alternative?
Summary: vote Trump to get 5+ new COOKING LESSON IN PRISON FOR THE NEXT 7 YEARS FREE as a next jail partner @@lol !!@
Looking at the impotence of the West and the cost of its reluctance to Ukraine, it's a vital necessity for Ukraine to regain its nuclear status. Because who knows how many 'careful' politicians are there in the future, taking forever to deliver so needed aid.
You get a nuke, you get a nuke, everyone gets a nuke.
This sucks.I wanted less and less countries to have nukes but thanks to Russia attacking Ukraine this brought the nuclear question upso much.
It`s not only because russia attacked Ukraine, it`s also because western countries are pissing themselves in the corner for 2 years when they should oppose russian invasion
If we live in world without policeman, everybody should be ready to protect itself by their own
We need to reclaim our UN policeman. I don't want gangland in my world. "Ukraine War Live Chat w/ Talaria: Russia Isn't Even in the United Nations..."
From certain death. There's nothing we can protect. All life will be gone after nuclear deletion
I would recommend Poland to directly develop powerful EMPs. I think those weapons will be much more effective in an actual war in the future.
EMPs are nuclear.
Crazy that you're promoting a service that makes youtube videos... Why? I can't imagine any other use than flooding youtube with garbage ai generated 'content'. The sponsors you feature are definitely sus
Genuinely, I understand the need for sponsorship but there's quite literally no outcome I can see other than the instead enshitification of the platform
He already used AI generated garbage visuals a while ago, I'm honestly wondering if he already started to offload the script to AI as well.
Would be a shame because his videos during 2021 and 2022 were top notch.
@@WeAreChecking Exactly! What kind of person, a youtuber no less, makes this their sponsor? I am reconsidering this channel to be honest
Nah no worries there. There can be millions of videos more, we will watch quality anyway. If ai is worse, nothing to worry about, if ai videos will be better … which we do not know is the case, even better for him.
lol good luck scrollling through a million videos to find the diamond in the rough. i work for a living i dont have that kind of time its nice that you dont though@@MichalToporcer
I don't want to set the world on fire....
What other real purpose does the CIA have? Not much funding to be gained by peace and prosperity....
Too late already.
well then there is a neutron bomb. Very little fire
Ah phew. Things were getting boring there for awhile.
I think in case of Ukraine, it's not only russia who is to blame, but also US and UK, who signed the Budapest memorandum. Russia is the main perpetrator, but both US and UK were signing that memorandum as guarantors. So in order to stop nuclear proliferation, they should've acted in 2014 strictly and decisively not only to stop the future war, but also to deoccupy Crimea, by force if necessary. Since that didn't happened, that means that their guarantees do not worth the paper they're signed on, and therefore, it's a sign to other countries that they cannot rely on such world order.
US and UK are the main perpetrators equally. They are both lying that Russia is in the UN and can't be "removed". They are accessories to every crime they stopped the UN from preventing.
to be fair, every time someone got rid of nuclear weapons, they got invaded immediately
Ukraine?
Wrong, South Africa got rid of their nukes and suffered no invasion, Sweden also halted their atomic program only shortly before it was due to complete it.
But that's because they didn't really need the nukes AT ALL in the first place.
@@RenéSaussyThey didn't posses them rather than they were under the soviet arsenal deterence
No?
@@moritamikamikara3879South Africa had them so that white Minority government could threaten African countries from trying to invade in support of the black population. The invasion never came, but they only got rid of nukes when getting rid of the White government, so the transfer of power the nukes were meant to prevent did occur.
Listen, if you want to keep crashing your viewer count every day keep dropping the 'new world order' line every 5-10 minutes as you are. It's noted and no one wants to hear it and the '40k viewers in 1 day vs 100k last season' dynamic you're finding yourself in is a sign. Stop being controlled by sponsorship goons and speak for yourself in your own style or lose the viewer base you made from when you did.
Russia has backed out of the treaties and agreements involving nuclear weapons
a nuclear era, but i have no fear
classic! 👌
Fearing a nuke is pointless. If they drop it, you are dead. We should just be careful and hope that our leaders are just as careful. Too bad I see more cowards than cautious leaders.
Anyone can say that before it actually happens. Reality will very soon change your mind
The biggest mistake we've done was move away from nuclear energy. The more i learn about our power grid, the more i realize that modern nuclear energy options are our best option. Small form reactors, LFTRs, Thorium Reactors, molten salt reactors. Utilizing our advanced technology, Improved engineering & material science. Utilizing our greater understanding of safety & well made designs. We have so much more advanced computer technology & robotics that can be used. It feels like even tho tons of advancement has occurred with engineering designs, safety measures, etc. It still doesn't matter to most people. It's like most people are ingrained with a natural negative response when talking about nuclear energy. It's a bummer because i truly believe that our best option for our future is to start utilizing Modern advanced nuclear energy options in our electrical grid. It's just proving to be challenging to get politicians to get on board.
It will really allow places to be much more energy independent. Less reliant on fossil fuels. They'll have efficient, stable electrical grids and the rest of the grid could experiment with alternative power sources, power desalination plants, etc.
We need to heal from the trauma of our past. See & learn that those things only happened solely from Us not understanding what we were doing when it came to nuclear energy at the time. We didn't have advanced enough technology, material science, engineering, safety measures, understanding of how to go about everything, etc. This source of energy will greatly help the world improve towards the future and lowering emissions. More than anything else could, while also providing a very stable electrical grid system. Currently we have alternative energy options but the majority of our grid is powered off of fossil fuels and emission producing sources of energy. We will be so much better going forward commiting to modern advanced nuclear energy options.
Small form reactors are a utopian concept dating back to the 1950s, great in theory but impractical in our current reality.
Nuclear waste that lasts hundreds of thousands of years on a global expanding scale with no capacity to get rid of it 👍
@@jacobjones630 I understand why you would feel the way you do about this topic. It's understandable. I highly recommend you watch Kyle Hill's Videos covering nuclear energy, nuclear waste, etc. It's such quality content that teaches so many aspects of nuclear science and he also dives into important moments in history and how society has handled nuclear energy. You might end up being really surprised to learn that we've found ways to reuse nuclear waste thanks to modern advancements. Certain techniques use the waste until the waste material becomes way way less radioactive. It's actually fascinating to learn and see how much we've advanced in certain areas that make nuclear energy options a better option then they ever have..
@@supabass4003 I just added it into my list of examples but there are so many better options nowadays that are designed so well, with safety in mind from start to finish. Utilizing modern engineering methods that are only now possible due to our advancements. Also we have such a better understanding of what safety measures are needed and what precautions are to be done in order for things to stay safe
You get a nuclear boomstick, you get a nuclear boomstick, all countries should get one so we can see fireworks.
ye ye, sure buddy cuz only the current nuclear countries can be trusted to never use them :)))))
How often do you shave your skröppel a year? 😭
This is why we have stupid leaders because of people like you
Not a big fan of your sponsor tbh, that kind of tool will lead to a mountain of garbage content and misinformation which will make the current content issues look like a non issue.
@harvardsmithdeangelo6905 it's definitely a major part, but I'd prefer it if that problem would become smaller, not inflated to titanic proportions.
I just find it's a really cynical move by a channel, which (at least to my knowledge) is putting a lot of effort into creating quality informative content, to promote tools which will be primarily used to spread misinformation.
It's like a high quality chainsaw manufacturer who runs ads for "how to make your chainsaw explode in your face"-fuel.
its already everywhere, when looking through youtube shorts especially there are tones of BS videos just like what he showed.
@@dominuslogik484 never said it hasn't already started, I just don't want it to get worse, which it definitely will when credible channels start promoting it.
@@TheLumberjack1987 yeah, it really is one of those situations where I would rather he got sponsored by raid or something than promoting this
This sounds a lot more alarmist than it is. We are not on the brink of nuclear war, but a lot of nations that do not have nukes or are in alliance with nuclear powers will seek to have nukes. Why ? Because the nations that should oppose russia ( that literally does nuclear terrorism ) basically gave a message to others that as long as you have nukes you can invade your neighbours and do horrific crimes with little punishment.
Often the threat of nukes is just used by weak politicians and leaders to not aid Ukraine ( most of them are in west Europe ). So of course nations will want nukes instead at being at the mercy of weak leaders that don't want to get too involved because MuH NuKE5.
I bet you Ukraine will seek nukes soon after the war and many others.
Because autocrats / dictators with nukes are allowed to get away with too much shit.
Yes, absolutely I agree. The UK and the US are responsible for our cowardice in the face of Russian aggression.
What we did in Libya and Iraq did a fuckton more to convince foreign powers that they need nukes more than anything Russia could have done.
The only country ever to resort to nuclear terrorism is the USA. They dropped two on civilian targets - cities, to be exact. No one else has used them even on military targets.
👏👏👏 și România trebuie să-și dezvolte rapid un program nuclear bine ar fi în colaborare cu Polonia.
Cough* cough* 2003 invasion of Iraq cough*
Babe, grab the popcorn. Cold War 2 dropped
We can't into space, but we can into nuclear war!
Thank revisionist dictators and the cowardly west for that.
Just imagine Japan with Nuclear Weapons...
They could build them in a long weekend and have global range
They have the industry and expertise, they could build them in a week if needed. Though its kind of taboo for them as they were the only country to actually be nuked in a war
Oh that's why the US has infiltrated every single level of their society... Japon doesn't have the autonomy to build anything.
They were given two already.
What they don't have is autonomy.
If I was a leader of *any* country in the world, the *first* thing I would do, would be getting nuclear weapons. Actually, the absence of such weapons in most countries is one of the greatest mysteries that I don't understand.
My understanding is that the Saudi's heavily funded the production of the Pakistani nuclear program, and had access either through transfer or NATO style sharing if Iran gets access.
I think we should work with Russia and China to make sure no other nations get nuclear armed.
If a country can look out for itself, why not a planet??
I never knew Argentina and Brazil had nuclear programs. Why? Who's going to invade Brazil or Argentina? I mean, I guess if the Argentina program was under the same dictator that had the bright idea of trying to invade the Falklands, and Brazil was just reactionary the the Argentina program, then it sort of makes sense.
Also, countries thinking about their own security with the US becoming more and more isolationist makes perfect sense individually. However, together, more countries acquiring nuclear weapons makes the prospect of collective global security less safe than if those options were not pursued.
Argentina has been capable of producing nuclear weapons since the mid 60s, early 70s at the latest. Partly as an insurance against further British aggression begining in the mid 1950s, partly due to doubts over the ability of Buenos Aires to guarantee purely conventional defense against Brazil and Chile. (Which Argentinian diplomacy of the time suspected would cooperate in case of war in South America; in hindsight a mistaken assumption).
I can't speak about the Brazilian program. I have not studied it nor do I have access to information about it.
Argentina and Brazil have an agreement not to pursue nuclear weapons and to oversee one another in all (most?) questions nuclear. Nowadays Brazil has likely closed the technological gap with Argentina. Both states could most likely, given funding and priority, produce nuclear weapons in under a year.
In all honesty, if the world order begins to unravel (further) they should consider going ahead with their acquisition. Brazil wants to be a world power, though they probably won't get that far, and Argentina has been invaded by just about everyone who's ever found them on a map. A South American nuclear umbrella under either of them (or a joint program) would probably be beneficial for the subcontinent as a whole.
How about imagine for a second a life outside of your won perspective eh? Would you care about imaginary things like "collective global security" if your children were at risk of being blown to pieces at your own front lawn? I don't think you would and neither will the rest of the world, especially we in central eastern europe. Biden can say whatever he wants but we know you will not nuke moscow in retaliation for warsaw, you won't risk LA or NYC for some city 90% of your countrymen have never even heard of. And since u won't that means Russia can keep falling back at it's blackmail technique every time they get their asses beaten conventionally NATO or not. And the consequences of it we in central eastern europe know all too well.
@@AussieFlavioThe British Will Never let Argentina Build Nuclear Weapons.
@dt3692 how exactly will the british stop them, only their american masters would be able to do something
@@SilentTraveller21 If you did some research then you would know your boy Putins military has been destroyed in Ukraine by British weaponry such as the storm shadows etc lol
Argentina has already lost a war to the British before they stand no chance of winning now.
The British bow to nobody they literally colonised America bozo
8:39 It was called 'The gadget', the operation of detonating it was given Codename 'Trinity'.
Video about nuclear war. Sponsor is AI.
Ffs man have you never watched terminator?
As an American I would love to learn what Polish brand products I could shop for to help in my tiny corner of the world increase trade between our countries
What nucnlear sharing give Poland? Nothing, as ginger guy won't allow using it against his buddy.
Yah, Poland relying on US nuclear security under a possible Trump presidency would be a foolish gambit. Trump will happily throw Poland under the bus for Putin.
And that InVideo AI thing is what is enshittifying UA-cam.
Don't advertise that shit. Seeing that shit (and the shit it produces) is automatic "nope" for me. Just the video version of using ChatGPT for affiliate marketing, and of roughly the same quality.
I’m remembering that scene from Tombstone when Wyatt Earp says “Oh my God…” just before the shooting starts.
You think that’ll ever happen with nukes
Russia is playing a dangerous game, but not dangerous enough. What happens when Russia sells nukes to cuba and venezuela?
1962 all over again
This is what you get in an anarchic world. Each county wants to make its own decisions, not dictated to by the opinions of other countries. However, in their push back against globalism they forget one thing. In undermining international law, it is not only they that are less beholden to them, it is all countries, be they friend, or foe. Without order there is chaos.
Welcome to the so-called "multipolar world", where autocrats can freely do whatever the hell they want
Canada 🇨🇦 should've kept pursuing Nuclear weapons, we would of had much more sway being on the Permanent Security Council
I don't usually comment on ad rolls, but that "human sounding voice" sounds soooooooo bad. Seriously, if you make a video with those voices, no one will watch that video for long. Plus, if you need A.I. to do ALL the work...just don't do it in the first place.
It's obviously a terrifying development. No matter how "just" defense may be, utilizing nuclear armaments comes in the form of immense death and irreversible damage to the planet. All other things equal, we will lose absolutely everything we hold dear to these exact weapons.
naw
So be it.
Nuclear weapons have been the only reason why the world hasn’t descended into war as of the writing of this post.
No matter how horrible you make it seem I can't fathom how a nuclear exchange can be considered worse than Russia being allowed to keep Crimea, and the Donbas
@harvardsmithdeangelo6905 You and @user-mm7zi4ue7d underestimate the ability of nature to bounce back from disaster. To put things in perspective for you two, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs had the equivalent energy of 10 billion atomic bombs being detonated at the same time in the same place. Sure, anything larger than a house at on land was gone, but nature recovered to the point that forests covered the globe less than 100 years after impact.
Our total global nuclear arsenal today pales in comparison to that disaster which wasn’t even close to the most devastating mass extinction (look up the great dying to be truly horrified by how close we can to life being snuffed out). Certain regions will be devastated, no question about that, but outside of an area where a ground burst detonation would occur (nuclear sites and critical underground facilities), there would be little to no radiation since all of the radioactive dust would be vaporized in the moment of detonation. Even if there was radiation, Chernobyl and Fukushima prove that nature will quickly bounce back.
I think even Japan should/must possess Nuclear Weapons withiut delay.
it's either we destroy our selves or we finally stop fighting each other... what a cruel twisted fate...
If the option is nobody is safe if everyone isn't safe, then the only option is everyone is safe. The only option is peace. Nobody wants to own nothing.
And just like that, age of pacifism ended in Europe. I will miss past Fukuyama age and hope somehow we manage to preserve our humanity in the wars to come. But then, there is no choice.
If you know European history, then you know that it was never going to last. The only reason why there hasn’t been a European conflict over the last 80 years (assuming you’re like most people who somehow don’t count the balkans as European), is because of Pax Americana. It took an external power to put a lid on the squabbling of Europeans in much the same way the Roman’s put a lid on the squabbling of the Greeks.
@@AmericanAdvancement if you knew European history you'd understand that European are no homogenous society, the EU is no country but an alliance and there have been long periods of peace in many European countries.
On the other hand you'd also know that the US was involved in so many conflicts since its foundation that they didn't have any real peace longer than 30 years in a row.
They even started many of those conflicts themselves.
Who are you to lecture others from your imaginary high horse even though you sit in the same pile of shit as most others do?
@@Squee7eCivilizations tend to follow a three step process before they fade away. The first is barbarism. This is a time where the nation believes that its way is the only way to live and will enforce that way of live on every people it comes across. The Spanish in the new world, the Mongol empire under Ghengis Khan, and modern America are all examples of barbarous societies.
The second phase is civilization. This is the more mature stage where societies still believe that their point of view is correct, but they can recognize that there are some good aspects that they can incorporate from other civilizations. Examples of this are Victorian Britain and empires during their golden ages (see various Islamic, Chinese, Turkish, etc golden ages).
The third and final step is decadence. This is the phase where societies believe that nothing matter, prioritize hedonistic pleasures, and prioritize short term goals over long-term strategy. These are societies that have lost the will to live. Modern Europe, the late stage Roman Empire, and many other nations prior to their collapse and subsequent conquest end up here.
Europe may consist of many nations, but virtually all of them act the same. They prioritize their welfare state and open borders over the long term health of their societies. They also have the cajones to rag on America’s war fighting while they depend on American security guarantees to fund their welfare societies. Should America back away from its role of guarantor then Europe will swiftly collapse since every single nation has demographics in terminal decline. If you exclude France (which doesn’t record demographic makeup), then all European nations are well below the 2.1 birthrate needed to keep its population at a stable level. A shrinking youth pool means no soldiers to fight off an enemy whose set on conquest.
Before you say immigration is coming to Europe’s rescue, no it’s not. The immigrants retain loyalty to their home nations and are having kids at a far greater rate than native Europeans. What that means is simple, they will control Europe in about 30 years.
@@AmericanAdvancement Hard to think of something more cringe than americans larping as rome, you are closer to the British
I'm sorry that you're Polish, dude. That must be really tough.
Worst. Fucking. Timeline. EVER!
I'd refrain from quoting Arestovich, he's a grifter
The U.K, as well as others are developing lasers for weaponry. Dragon fire will be used on future Royal Navy ships. I reckon lasers will be developed further as the technology advances to defend ourselves against nuclear attack. We talk about nuclear proliferation escalating around the world which is why our scientists need to look at defence, as well as building more nukes as a deterrent.
Lasers show fantastic potential for neutralising light-weight and (relatively) slow-moving weapons like drones and cruise missiles. But ballistic missiles can travel in excess of mach 20 on approach, and are designed to withstand the heat of re-entry (which would also give them some innate laser resistance), and even the most powerful hypothetical super-laser has a very short range due to atmospheric scattering. That all adds up to: any laser defence system has about as much time as it takes you to blink to render an incoming nuclear warhead completely inert (somehow), without triggering it in the attempt.
In other words: it ain't happenin', chief.
29:28 The Draconis Combine raises!
Does anyone recognize the location at 1:12?
You can thank Putin for this for sure !
Im disappointed in you on this one. You’re typically fairly reliable with your recounting of facts. The truth is Ukraine was never in a position to call itself a nuclear state. It did not have the infrastructure to maintain those nuclear weapons, much less wield them. They used them the only way they could, as a bargaining chip. Had UA wanted to keep them, it had less than 10 years to set up what would’ve amounted to their own, home-grown nuclear program. Without it, the nuclear cores in those weapons would’ve become unstable and a greater threat to UA itself than anyone else.
Why are you surprised, when he was making clickbait titles last month? This guy's channel is now 'yes man' propaganda for the NATO NGOs.
Add to this, that also the perception of nukes in the world''s populations has shifted away from them being wholesale doomsday for the entire planet, to now a more easyminded outlook on them as not all that bad in effect as ramped up to be, especially the radiation aspect and what it might do to life longterm after a nuclear war is thought to be fairly manageable and be dangerous only for a brief time before having halflifed away - and we got a receipe for a geopolitical disaster era ahead.
If life was a wild west movie, now is the part when the big showdown has become inevitable and is slowly coming on with everyone is getting ready at the windows with each their own gun to add in when it finally goes down.
One clear oversight on the state of play, Well done.
Remember the Trump administration is an awful strategist. and devious at heart.
And if I may add the Heritage Foundation speaks with double tongue. (their goals are at best opaque)
Why Israel allowed to have them, without being sanctioned
The 51st state.
An ally whose neighbors wants to see it be destroyed. Need more arguments?
@@kzsposeidon3121 so being Bias is fine as long as they are with us…
Israel does not have nukes
are you okay there buddy? clown-nuke on the thumbnail? you feeling well, is there perhaps something you wish to tell us?
It's a thumbnail... don't overthink it.
Ukraine is such an important turning point. I am glad this channel devoted a video to this topic as it is one of the more important developments for the entire species that will happen within the next few years, and I cannot blame the nations that will pursue these arsenals. Far from condemning them I would urge them to prioritize that capability as quickly as possible. If Russia is allowed a victory in Ukraine I could see at least a 1/2 dozen new nuclear armed nations before the end of the decade and Taiwan should fast start their capability to make it an Iranian style fait accompli.
I’m also a supporter of nuclear proliferation despite the argument that more nukes around will increase the possibility that someone will actually use it. Nuclear weapons are an old technology that is relatively easy for a nation to produce if they can get their hands on enough Uranium 238. The current war in Ukraine has shown the world that nuclear weapons are the only guarantor of territorial sovereignty. The nation has the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world and chose to give them to Russia in exchange for promises. Now that those very same promises have been voided, it should wake the rest of the industrialized world up to the fact that no nuclear armed nation has ever been invaded by another nation.
You guys prolly didn't notice it but the nuclear explosion has a face of a clown
That's your Face in the mirror
I thought that was gods face
Poland is not under threat. Maybe Latvia and Estonia. I think the greatest danger is faced by Romania. If Ukraine falls, Moldova will follow and then Romania will have a land border with Russia even longer than that of Finland.
It's in the interest of the United States that no other nation acquires nuclear weapons, the nuclear sharing agreement is an integral part in achieving this goal.
In Europe Germany is probably a top contender to acquire nuclear weapons, simply to keep the balance of power on the continent.
Without the US ironclad guarantee to defend the continent even in case of a nuclear attack, this has to happen.
But i will suggest that it will be Ukraine first!
Finland entered to NATO and we have nuclear triad country as neighbour and hostile one so we could have Nukes also."It's end of the world".🇫🇮✌️
Incredibly insightful, well done.
Interesting video, but the irritating, repetitive background noise --- as on so many channels --- is too loud and, hence, distracting.
The list:
Germany (very, very scary)
Iran
Japan
Poland
Saudi Arabia
South Korea
Turkey
Ukraine
Not mentioned but possible AFAIK:
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Egypt
Finland
Hungary (would bankrupt them though)
Indonesia
Italy
Malaysia
Nigeria (as a sharing deal only)
The Philippines (technically possible although they wouldn't have any delivery platform)
Sweden (also pretty scary if you follow their party politics)
Taiwan (worth a separate video)
Uzbekistan
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved.
Acts 16:31kjv
For God so Loved the World, That he gave his only Begotten Son, That Whosoever Believeth in him Should Not Perish, But have Everlasting Life.
John 3:16kjv
For by Grace are ye Saved through Faith; And that Not of Yourselves: It is the Gift of God; Not of Works, Lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9kjv
For Christ is the End of the Law for righteousness to everyone that Believeth.
Romans 10:4kjv
These things have i written unto you that Believe on the name of the Son of God, That ye may Know that ye have Eternal Life and that ye may Believe on the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:13kjv
You don't need nukes, you just need to fight and stop being so flacid.
In hindsight, non proliferation simply served to artificially inflate the risk that current nuclear holders pose to non-nuclear powers. That most of the current nuclear powers are "problematic" at the very least in terms of their actions in the international stage just compounds this. Russia, China, Britain, India, Pakistan and North Korea, even France to some extent, are all nations that nobody in their right mind should trust with nuclear weapons.
The more the international order cracks and international law violations are allowed (or even encouraged from a cost-benefit standpoint) the harder it will be for the international community to justify the existence of non-proliferation as a concept.
In the end, it would be preferable to have controlled proliferation rather than a flood of new nuclear powers whenever a chance for them to spring up unopposed is found.
the concept itself was in truth nothing more than a convinient blackmail technique mascarading as noble agreement of civilised peoples, it's not 2010s anymore everyone with eyes can see it to be the case
Israel is a genocidal state with nuclear weapons and the USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in anger
The USA as only country to actually use nuclear weapons is somehow missing from your list.
@@PradedaCechIt was necessary to end WW2. Either that or hundreds of thousands of additional casualties would have occurred to invade mainland Japan
So everyone else should give up their nukes except america? How convinent, do you think the rest of the world trust only america to have nukes and not abuse it?
15:15 But nuclear missiles left in Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus after fall of Soviet Union was under control of Moscow. AFAIK calling those countries nuclear is like calling Turkey nuclear, just because USA host their nuclear warheads there.
I like the old order. Money, wealth, security. Nice!
Greed , racism and destruction of the middle east
And to think, so many disliked Globalisation and Pax Americana
@jimbodimbo981 Many disliked it because they never really enjoyed the benefits of globalization to the same degree as others. If you were a globetrotting American buisness person, it was great. If you were a poor factory worker where your job was outsourced to a cheaper country, it was a disaster.
How about all cou tried get nuclear weapons? Wouldn't that be the end if wars? Or will we destroy ourselves with nuclear prolifération. If that is the case wouldn't it be better to get rid of nuclear weapons and all weapons ?
Most human beings only want peace! now the imperialists use weapons to conquer. 😢😢😢😢😢😢
The Budapest Memorandum should be a lesson to any nation that a security guarantee from Russia, United States, United Kingdom or France is worthless.
99 Red Balloons 🎈
If you want to stop this just enable atmospheric testing again.
We were on a trajectory for a renewed nuclear proliferation for quite a while.
Another country often not talked about is Japan - which doesn't have nuclear weapons technically, but they have all the components and expertise to make them fast if they wish to.
Sounds much like fallout has another chance to become true...
Probably Krieg
Lol its not that easy to breach NPT as some would expect. First of all, not a single state would ship uranium anymore, the moment IAEA inspectors arent let to check every suspicious site, so Poland would need an own domestic uranium mine. Then they would need the enrichment facilities just to run the reactors. From that point on the situation is quite easy, but the results are basically useless, if a first strike can render the capability moot, so there would be a need for submarines, and excessive miniaturisation in order that the endproduct is not that big that a rocket cant handle it. Oh yeah,a rocket program needed as well plus more enrichment facilities to make a reactor small enough to fit into the subs, precision engineering, sot that it will be silent enough so the russians dont find it. I would say 20 years if noone helps, while something with any actual combat value can be aquired.
Israel has never let IAEA inspectors in and they have hundreds of nukes.
just so happens we DO have uranium in Poland :) Also i can't wait to see how well will your international treaties work after Trump makes NATO in it's current iteration utterly irrelevant :))))
One of the biggest jokes in Turkey is that we have nukes in secret or easy access to Pakistan's due to relations as well as supposed clandestine cooperation for them to acquire in the first place. Jokes aside, it wasn't too long ago that for example a ballistic missile was unveiled to the public, apparently having been in service for more then 10 years at that point. Good questions to raise about said ballistic missiles, bit much for just conventional warheads. I also recall a German intelligence report about the topic, though I cannot recall the conclusions. It also wouldn't be the first time that military secrets in Turkey were well kept, after WW2 instead of scrapping as demanded by the US, Turkey decided to hide the German made planes in their arsenal for a rainy day. Lastly it wasn't too long ago that our biggest enemy, that being Erdoğan, said something along the lines that it's unacceptable for a country like Turkey to not have nukes. Curious to what's really going on considering Iran and Russia certainly aren't friends of Turkey, we can wipe the floor with them conventionally, but I like my country not being a nuclear wasteland.
I dont think anyone wants Ukraine to help them build a chernobyl.
I have to say I am disappointed in the sponsor you chose for this video...also there seem to be some inaccuracies in the video
sigh... we have not yet passed through the Great Filter of Nuclear War
wrong map of india show westen map why showing pak Chinese one
Poland will never get nukes. 😂 But Japan will.
You have put in this video some ideas I already had with the details and proficiency I couldn't have. And I'm not even speaking about the superb production qui quality. Thanks.
The British are currently leading in the field of SMR Tech at the moment
Thanks for the update
Turkey joined American nuclear umbrella 70 years ago and have been a host to US nukes since 1960s. We had our own nuclear program at the time which was discontinued. Today, American nukes still reside in Turkey, against Russia. But after Syrian civil war where US left Turkey to fend for itself and even allied itself with a group Turkey considers its enemy, and Iran being closer than ever to a nuke; the moment Iran shows they have a nuke, Turkey will restart its own nuclear program, like Saudis. It is inevitable and there's nothing anyone give us to not do it as a nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Turkey.
Only on the 4th rock-Y planet from our Sol,,,
im trying to start the conversation about getting nukes in Australia.. we depend on the USA for safety but with trump i dont think we can keep doing that
I wonder if France has an "export" ready version of its nuclear weapons?
always an interesting watch from you. and yeah, im polish, i could watch the polish version of these videos, but these sound more professional to me. :)
12:56 Sixty hundred thousand nukes?? ;)
Great video, thx for your analysis.
It was bound to happen sooner or later. Can't really put the cat back in the box once everyone knows about it.
Good! Time to flush the toilet!
Poland and Sweden: yes, Ukraine: no. Romania, big maybe. I dont think Ukraine is politically or militarily stable enough to be trusted with a nuke, at least not in this decade. To move the nukes more to the east is only logical.
But do you think the US is stable?lol
@@TheStormtrooper00 yes
US Allies such as South Korea and Japan reduces the risk for my home state, North Dakota, where many of the intercontinental ballistic missiles for the USA are based.
Superb work well done