What Would a Nuclear Strike Inside the U.S. Look Like?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- The U.S. is quietly beginning an ambitious, controversial reinvention of its nuclear arsenal. The project comes with incalculable costs and unfathomable risks.
- Наука та технологія
This genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
This is a completely wrong way of looking at things. We've gone a LONG time since Nukes came into existence and we'll go a long long long time before they're ever used, if at all.
Precisely. You can ban them, outlaw them, destroy all evidence of their existence and how to make them - but we'd be able to re-invent them fast.
Even if the USA never produced a nuke someone would and the nuke is the one thing that has kept us from WW3 for 80+ years but it is also the only weapon ever produced to be able to destroy humanity in the single push of a button.
Misleading title. This video is NOT about a nuclear strike inside the U.S.
Well what's it about? Save us the 24 minutes man!
@@likeggs6465 Nuclear weapons bad & they leave out all the reasons they are a necessary evil. Not a nuanced presentation.
@@likeggs6465😂😂😂😂
@@likeggs6465 It's about a bunch of environmentalists whining about picograms of plutonium in the soil everywhere as a result of us keeping the Soviets from blowing us to hell in the 50's through the 90's and more whining about the fact that our military is upgrading our bombs to be sure MAD happens if the Ruskies or chinks get brave and push the button. That MAD keeps us safe, but, as with all people who voted for Biden, they cant see the forest through the trees.
Click Bait 🪤
When I was just a kid back in the 60s, we learned the safest place to be in a nuclear attack was under our school desk, we even had drills! Ahhh the good ol' days!
There is a thing called proximity. It would still give you some cover from glass or debris flying through the air.
😂 I think those days were the height of cold War era, maybe cuban Missile crisis
Not 1960s - 1950s
@@Sherbud
IF The Bomb Was Close,
This Is Ridiculous And Fake News!
I would have been much more engaged after the video if the video from Scientific America did not engage in the click bait title. less than 1% of the video was dedicated to what the actual title was purported to be about. What would a nuclear strike inside the US look like just turned into a Anti-Nuclear propaganda film with very little information or data on an actual case study. I understand the wind pattern argument but that does not take into the account water shed nor time of year of a strike nor any other details such as dispersed launch facility vs. dense pack (which we have now). It also did not address the role of deterrence in geo political sense in non hysterical terms. Yes. Nuclear weapons are bad. So is Biological, chemical, and some modern conventional weapons. I came here for data and got a 1970's hippy dippy anti nuke film. BTW I am a 70's hippy dippy dude (and a downwinder to some extent...being from Kansas/Colorado). I just want facts and data, not propaganda and BS. There were factual mis-statements, sprinkled with pseudo science claims. I expect more from Sci-America.
I don't see it as anti nuclear propaganda.
It's like saying "fire burns, so let's abolish fire".
What the video shows, is both sides. If you see it as anti nuclear, then you understood everything that comes with owning and using Nuclear weapons. It's bad, it's like bringing a grenade inside a glove, for a boxe fight.
They gave both parties their best arguments, and leave the spectators as the final judges for all the info.
You can't deny the facts of everything you have seen, just because you are in favor of said weapons. This is all true.
Iam all out for controlled nuclear energy. But these kind of weapons are called WMDs for a reason, and they are deterrence weapons for a reason. It's the weapon you own but don't use.
The problem is, it's the only one to use if one is used agaisnt you.
Killing the world gets you no victory at all.
Preemptive strikes aren't possible with the kind of advanced tech you have today.
It's the final war 🤷♂️
Nonetheless, you can't expect all the info to align to your views. And this is very unbiased on the matter.
You had various people defend their views on both sides. Carrying strong arguments.
Maybe it's not as pretty as you though.
Weapons should be precise, not dirty and uncontrollable collateral thresholds.
Why do I feel like this was sponsored by the CCP?
I expect 90% of UA-cam videos are clickbait. I don't like it either but that's the way they get suckers like us to click. But Sci-American is a very partisan group, they also reported that certain gatherings that supported their agenda did not spread Covid, while gatherings with an agenda they did not support did spread the virus. That's when I lost respect for them.
Nuclear weapons are the only reason America and the USSR didn't go to war.. and no, nuclear war absolutely would not wipe out humanity. @@ricardolourenco3707
I agree. Very disappointing. I made it 2 1/2 minutes before I decided to pause and look at the comments. Thanks for saving me ~20 minutes. ☮
What would it look like??? You’d never find out because you wouldn’t be around to check it out…..And if you still were around after the first 3 days….The living would envy the dead…..
Yes, I've been to the Trinity site via UH1 helicopter shown around the White Sands missile range by the Commanding Officer of Holloman AFB in 1986. We flew over the mountain peaks to the East of Trinity, where buildings with concrete ramps extended to the edge; they filmed the release of weapons from aircraft. A friend who built nuclear weapons at Rocky Flats has said those weapons produced in the seventies or eighties have depleted cores, but they will still function. The yield will be less, but not significantly. A forty MTon device may yield thirty-nine point nine six five Mtons.
Yes, production of nuclear weapon pits has begun with a projected rate of thirty per month at both Los Alamos and Oak Ridge. These weapons are to replace the older nuclear weapons and improve the design. The driving factor is China, Russia, and the instability in the Middle East and Pacific, namely Taiwan.
It should also be noted that should just one nuclear weapon be detonated in the USA anywhere, panic and anarchy would ensue from coast to coast.
Which is probably why the US government is pursuing stupid and reckless foreign policy, ensuring exactly the nightmare scenarios in the video will occur. Don't forget, the globalists want to eliminate 95% of us, and they don't seem to care how.
the manhattan project wasn’t an american project - it was an american, canadian and british project. the british abandoned their own nuclear project effort to work jointly and contribute to the manhattan project.
The US Military got the land based nuclear program 100% backwards. Placing them in sparsely populated areas seems like a good idea.....at first. But, is it? These silos are also in some of the most productive farm and ranch lands in the country. Sure, you may initially save more lives in the heavily populated areas but you're gonna kill the ground needed to support them. I'm not sure the goal of saving the most lives outright is forward thinking. There simply will be many more lives to slowly die by starvation and anarchy in the aftermath. The missile silos should be housed in the major coastal cities. House 'em in a highrise. The planet may survive a nuclear war but saving as many people as possible who'll need supported is absolutely counter to what really needs to be done. Fewer people on life-sustaining land will be mankind's best chance at survival. Although after a nuclear Holocaust I'm not sure he deserves it.
it also kills most of the Canadian Prairies, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and eastern Alberta
@@lilclip6134 Yeah but that's in Canada.
@@helloyes2288 the US and Canada still trade a lot of energy and agricultural products. There would be a large effect on many imported and exported products and services.
@@lilclip6134 Canada's agricultural production is valued at about 90 billion to the US's 1.26 trillion USD. We export about 200 billion of that. None of that ill be relevant in the midst of a nuclear WWIII which can only be fought with mindset of placing statistics before any regard for life. These market concerns will become secondary to military consideration. Nations will be crushed as collateral damage, billions will die, and Canada will be fighting that war with the rest of NATO. The economic system in which your argument is based will not survive that war.
The real reason for their location there is not the small population, but the geographical depth between them, and any enemy lauch platform that may attempt to knock'em out. Coastal bases are susceptible of sneak attaks by well concealed subs, but to reach North Dakota you have to cross thousands of kilometers inland from ay direction. There is no way that those silos can be reached by enemy missiles quickly enough before a counterlaunch is issued and the silos emptied. Depth of territory is their main defence.
This video is not about a nuclear strike in the U.S. It is about nuclear waste and contamination from Rocky Flats which was a plutonium manufacturing plant.
The associate professor is wrong about the ability to terminate an ICBM in flight. It's hard to believe they let that go in the video without a fact check. I wonder what her security clearance is to be so sure she knows things like that when a simple search of the news shows evidence that they have been terminated in flight numerous times.
I had a feeling that was bs when I heard it. it wouldn't be that hard to give it that capability, there's no way they haven't.
a nuclear icbm has never been launched. Therefor the validity of security is not there. If nukes had been launched and successfully defended against then what you say would make sense. There is no way to know if when the nukes are launched we can stop them. Ya crazy if you think otherwise
Thank you.
What’s your clearance? I’ve heard that from multiple sources.
And thereby basically rain it's plutonium core all over everyone below, contaminating the world... which includes you. Which reminds me, the first time something similar happened was when the Snap9A sattelite that used a thermal reactor as a power source failed to reach orbit, and burned up in Earths atmosphere. That was 1962, look it up.
There is no way that Russia or China would just go after the silo's. They would go after the Ohio Class sub bases, and major military installations around the country among many other targets. It would be massively more destructive than the worse case scenario outlined here. That being said - we still need (and will for the foreseeable future) a viable nuclear deterrent.
Less than 10 min and North America goes boom...😢
@@SexyLeaForYouso does China and Russia remember its mad
China would not target silos. They don't have enough nukes for that. There are 450 silos so a minimum of 900 nukes(2 per silo). If you include stockpile maintenance actually 1800. There is another reason they would not target the silos that I don't feel the need to mention. The chinese would go after military bases.
@@florinivan6907 that's idiotic. if they nuked anything but our nukes we would annihilate their nation completely. Targeting our nukes means they won't get blown up as badly.
@@florinivan6907China would probably prioritize command and control links to ensure the silos, bombers, and submarines couldn't receive orders, or at least not know where exactly to fire and end up launching missiles to, and dropping bombs on, the middle of nowhere.
Looks like Kansas will be safe since it is labeled as Colorado on all of your maps.
5:29 Oh my goodness, you're right!
Wisconsin is also Minnesota! 😂
It is so naive to think US can afford not developing new nuclear capabilities. As if Chinese or russian or iranian regimes or even the north korean one will doubt on using nuclear capabilities during a conflict.
Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind? Something like that, maybe? I understand the need for 'em, but it's profoundly sad that we live in a world that necessitated this arms race in the first place. Our options seem to be eventual armageddon or uneasy nuclear proliferation. God forbid some rogue actor set one off. I for one am more scared of my own country's arsenal. Given America's response to other attacks (no doubt frequently justified), whoever leverages a nuke against America is voting for more than their own obliteration.
The weapons themselves are mature for the most part, 2 point implosion by fiber optics is as safe and reliable as it gets. Also the nukes need a redo anyway because the stuff gets brittle from helium causing micrograms making the pit shatter instead of implode. Also delivery methods need to be upgraded and improved. Nukes are not going away for the foreseeable future and as long as they exist a need for deterrance exists.
Thank you for this! One of my family members worked to clean up Rocky Flats. Glad to learn some history about it.
@5:36 your map has Kansas(KS) listed as CO
I clicked on this out of my respect for Scientific American. Apparently that respect was misplaced.
Obviously nuclear weapons are bad but it’s disingenuous to act like getting rid of them would do anything but put the American people in danger and grant power to some of the worst regimes in the world. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to threats against the U.S and while it’s far from an ideal one, as long as our adversaries have them we need to have them and maintain/improve our arsenal to be as good or better then theirs. China’s hypersonic missile program is ahead of America’s right now and that should be viewed as an existential threat and is a prime example of why we indeed need to improve our capabilities not defund them.
Hypersonics get too much attention tbh. They are far less of a threat than we give them credit for. That said, this doesn't take away from your argument in the slightest. Disarming maybe might have made sense within the past 30 years, but that was before Russia and China started another cold war.
@@snowcat9308 I appreciate your respectful critique of my comment. Why is it you aren’t that worried about Hypersonic weapons?
@@kurtwagner350 2 trillion dollars of military budget :)
Right, mutually assured destruction. Do you realize how close we came to nuclear war due to mistakes in thinking there was an attack? It does seem the jinni is out of the bottle, and there is no going back. That doesn't bode well for the future of civilization.
I agree... the genie is out of the bottle, so to say.
I guess this means Skynet will have complete control of the usa nuclear arsenal after the upgrade
The planet will be better off when Skynet is in charge. I'm gettin' in good now, I suggest you do the same.
"There is no fate, but what we make for ourselves."
they're a necessary evil, but the risks are obviously large. i think the biggest danger is that we'll elect some morally vacant man child who will greatly facilitate an accidental incident or war with his installation of loyalist cronies and his gangster style posturing. let's hope such characters never wander onto the political scene
Hm that sounds suspiciously familiar. I wonder which US President in the last 10 years has done something like that!
So, moral of the story for me: if a limited exchange occurs and I don't want to get irradiated, go to Fresno. Looks like the fallout leaves a nice pocket of refuge.
congratulations to this phenomenal crew! big up to Jeff DelViscio!
The best case scenario in surviving a nuclear attack is to not to. If you don't die in the initial fireball ... you are only gonna wish you did.
We in western europe got a dose recently of radioactive dust from Saharan dust from the Reggane test in, then, French Algeria in 1962 and that test was a tiny bomb.
But it does not have a real health affect because natural radioation is much higher. It is more about that our sensors are very sensitive now, and even an NGO can measure it constantly.
Clickbait title, no actionable information, and incorrectly-labeled states. This video never should have seen the light of day.
Probably a good idea to update them
6:00 Kansas is mislabeled as Colorado
Dr. Rober Webster - thank you for your integrity. "This is why our folks don't get in trouble when they report low level things..."
Those missile sites are quite close to me in Winnipeg...
Better run away. Argentine Patagonia 🌲, the very last pristine land. The far far south.
The silos are no target for a nuclear first strike. Because they will be empty by the time the warheads arrive.
Hopefully in the future, after the world situation has calmed down a bit, the disarmament movement will to start up again. Then maybe we can truly consign these weapons to the dustbin of history. There is nothing unrealistic about it as a goal. These weapons are far more of a security risk then they are a deterrent.
Nuclear weapons are safe and effective
i love how she assumes their nukes would destroy ours. our would have been launched and airborne long before theirs even made impact.
That lady is so SO wrong. Nukes are not just the only target to aim for in a nuke fight, bases, resource hubs, big cities, all are just as vital. And if she thinks nukes are bad wait till she digs into the B and C side of big wars. Bio and Chemical are the new nukes and will do far worse far longer and in many ways a hell of a lot cheaper too ;/.
yes. as an aside; a lot of big us companies transport their waste to south america to dump it and forget it because it's cheaper than dealing with it. The people in those towns have insane rates of cancers and also have no recourse.
There are people dropping like fly's where I live in Saint George Utah. We are directly downwind from the Tonopa test site. We all glow.
When did Kansas become Colorado? see 5:40 there are two states with CO as their initials.
Two Minnesotas also.
5:34 what happened to Kansas? 😅
I can see clearly now the rain has gone
My father was a Operation Crossroads. Like the other Navy personnel, he was irradiated. He died in 1973 of Leukemia. The US government treated him and the downwinders as "acceptable" losses for the nuclear weapons development and build out. Terrible, yes and the downwinders should be provided better support, testing, etc. That said, WE NEED nuclear weapons to deter Russia, China, NKorea, etc. Anyone who believes otherwise, I have bridge in New York I'd like to sell you.
It would be game over for all of us, Earth would become a nuclear wasteland.
It is true that people down wind of test sites were exposed to radioactive fallout and cancer rates are much higher in those communities, and that's very sad. What the government has said is that it is developing new delivery systems, using nuclear material that has already been weaponized to start, but eventually, new nuclear weapons will need to be created. Unfortunately, we live in a world where these weapons exist in vast numbers, as was said in Russia and China. China has just built a large number of missile silos and launch facilities, which is a near equivalent potential land based ICBM force to the USA and Russia. While nuclear weapon use, especially on a large scale is totally unacceptable and would probably destroy life in at least the norther hemisphere, unless all nuclear armed nations agree to disarmament treaties where stock piles are able to be inspected, it's illogical to eliminate the US stockpile. Deterrence does work, and part of deterrence is having a nuclear force that is at least as capable as possible adversaries, ie China and Russia. Until such treaties can be agreed to by the main world powers that have nuclear weapons, we are stuck with this situation and the threat of an international nuclear war involving, at least the potential for the use of many thousands of nuclear weapons being used. Today, we see the power that Russia has used to invade Ukraine, using its nuclear arsenal as a way to prevent a conventional counter attack by European or NATO forces, and this is why the best way that Ukraine can be supported is through supplies, rather than direct action. Direct action could lead, or likely would lead to a Russia v NATO conflict that could escalate into tactical and then strategic nuclear weapon use. Lets pretend the US eliminated it's nuclear force, but Russia did not, can you imagine how much more Europe would be at risk? So, if you ask me, nuclear weapons being held by the world super powers is a necessary evil, and to eliminate most of them to a level where a full on exchange would be say 1/3 as devastating as it would be today, we need verifiable disarmament on all sides, reducing the delivery systems and actual warheads on all sides. Unfortunately, the governments of Russia and China, and other nuclear armed nations aren't seemingly open to that, and frankly, in Russia and China, these governments are not truly democratic, and capable of change in government/policy from within. So while I agree that it would be ideal to reduce our capability in the US, it would actually create vulnerability. Already, in the event that both Russia and China, somehow agreed to both strike NATO nations in a nuclear manner, the counterforce available among NATO nuclear forces would not be equivalent. I think we all want to see our nations do the right thing, we all want to see the risk of nuclear war decline, but we need all parties to draw down those capabilities in parity and in a verifiable way.
I'll add a few clarifications. One is that nuclear testing above ground or underground no longer happens in the US. If there was a need for nuclear testing in the future it would be underground at least or in a remote area that would not impact public health, ie a very desolate area in the ocean for example. The fact is that today you can visit the Nevada Test Site, where many hundreds of nuclear weapons were tested, and it wont kill you to do that. The issue is more about being down wind of an above ground test. As for delivery system modernization, people should try to understand that if our nuclear delivery systems continue to decay and age, they will not be a credible threat to our nuclear adversaries. Russia and China are developing new missiles, new warheads, and new weapons. These new systems can fly farther and are more difficult to detect, and some can actually evade detection and get around the radars and sensors that can really help identify what is coming and where it's coming from. Allegedly Russia has developed reentry vehicles that can maneuver in flight, making it difficult to shoot them down with our very small number of interceptor missiles. They can deploy decoys as well that will need to all be hit to ensure that the warheads are destroyed in full. Understand that the US has already been playing nice trying to persuade a drawdown in capability. The US is using ICBM missiles from the 1970s, old 80s tech warheads that cannot mauver, and the US only deploys either 1 or a few warheads on each missile, and they tend to be smaller yield warheads, ranging from say 150 to 350 kt. On the other hand, Russia has new massive ICBMs that can carry many warheads, say at least 8-10 that are very high yield, ie 500kt plus each, and larger. China has many large nuclear weapons and the truth is, we can't know exactly where they are and if they are on delivery systems or not. Multi megaton nuclear weapons are in the Chinese inventory. Now when we watch many of these reports about nuclear weapon yield, the reporter will say that a nuclear weapon is say "20 times bigger than the one used on Hiroshima" however that's a very misleading statement, in terms of what it actually means. It does not mean an area 20x that of Hiroshima would be destroyed. In reality a 150kt nuclear weapon would destroy an area not too much larger than the one dropped on Hiroshima, take a look...nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/. Ultimately, the danger in not having a force capable of destroying both China and Russia's nuclear capabilities is that the free world is vulnerable, and while there are no winners in a nuclear war, there could be those who fare better and are more able to reestablish a future nation, say 10 or 20 years down the road. So, what I support again is that until we are able to create verifiable treaties that NATO at least keep a nuclear force that is as capable and as numerous as both China and Russia. That is the only way to truly deter an attack. Lets hope all sides can agree to reduce their stockpiles and delivery systems to a number where even in a full on nuclear war, we could survive it and rebuild the northern world.
You think we'd be able to have a kill switch so that you could disarm them in the event you made a mistake.
That’s wonderful I deliver three times a week to Los Alamos as a truck driver. It’s awesome to know it’s a big old bull’s-eye.🎉
It's over here it's over there, it's over here, it's everywhere, it's undeniably the absolute balls 🤣🤣🤣😎
Luck is not a strategy for dealing with nuclear weapons. That is why so much money is spent on weapons technology.
Something a lot of these videos, and people in general, get completely WRONG is fallout in general. Fallout is created when a nuclear warhead impacts a target directly in a surface burst. A surface burst kicks up radioactive debris and sediment into the atmosphere and it spreads out over large down wind areas.
BUT - through nuclear testing the world has learned that surface burst munitions are not as effective as air burst munitions. Meaning that nuclear strikes today would almost certainly be detonated directly above a target unless they were trying to take out a bunker of some kind. Air burst munitions don't spew radioactive debris into the atmosphere.
The target and surrounding areas would be irradiated yes. But fallout would be limited. In fact, surrounding areas would be habitable within days as radiation halves every 24 hours.
In short; nuclear war is survivable.
For all of existence, it would be a wonderful thing. Bless the world and make it happen.
as summary nuclear war is bad. Fair point. Deterrence is sadly the best way we know to prevent it. Regarding pollution americas record is night and day compared to Lake Karachay or almost any example from russia or china.
If they are making new plutonium pits, does that mean they can make some new RTG’s for NASA too?
21:46 The idea that science and human achievement will not solve the problem of nuclear waste long before it becomes a serious problem is completely ludicrous. I would posit that less than 50 years from now, we will have developed a means of safely detoxifying nuclear waste.
If we stop seeing these so called threats to allies of even just other humans, then ,,,,,, WHY ????
Why are they living downwind from a nuclear test sight lol
My opinion about nukes is the same as my opinion about guns. If we can wave a magic wand and make EVERY nuke/gun EVERYWHERE that’s EVER been made disappear at the same time, I’m all for it. But the problem is when you pass a gun law or you commit to a nuclear disarmament deal, you have to deal with the problem of other people having a gun/nuke and you NOT having one. That’s the issue. They can never go away unless it’s all at once and that can never be achieved.
But staged, agreed-upon reductions can happen and have happened. There are now far fewer nuclear weapons in the world than there were at the peak of the Cold War, all because of specific arms limitation agreements.
We need new arms control agreements between the US and Russia, and hopefully China, France, Britain, India, and Pakistan (it is unlikely that ‘rogue’ nuclear powers like Israel and N Korea would be part of any such agreement in the short or medium term). That is the only way to reduce the current danger.
We're in a Race against ourselves
At the end of the cold war, Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power. They were persuaded to give up their nukes in the years following, leaving them vulnerable to attack by Russia who still retains their nukes. If Ukraine still had their nukes, Russia may have been deterred.
How can the govt get away with experiments and not,paying for the damages?
So you guys are talking about picograms of radioactive material per gram. I'm willing to bet that contamination causes considerably lower exposure rates than exposure rates from background. Show me the math or you're just fearmongering.
5:40 This is a perfect example of the failure of our education system. Or just a lack of attention to accuracy. The state directly south of Nebraska and directly north of Oklahoma is not Colorado, it’s Kansas. It’s hard to take a video seriously that can’t even accurately depict the names and locations of states.
Since the end of WW2 we have seen no dirrect conflicts between super powers, and thats because of the bomb .
Something that puzzles me about "mutually assured destruction" preventing any nation using nuclear missiles is that if hidden submarines launch them how would you even know which nation was responsible, and know whom to attack??!?
They have some high tech things, like lately they "found" a satelite from unknown origin, and they analised the spectrum of the painnings reflecting from sunlight and it matched with chinese missile paintings... Also the locations are monitored, the exact size of missile is measured... Sure there is a probability factor.
Justice
The title has nothing to do with the videi
You don't even want to consider it
has anyone gone around to see what the radiation in the fallout area still is? because radioactive materials deep in the earth can still affect those living on the surface. its one reason we have radon detectors for basements and such. water tables for all we know could run through radioactive materials still undiscovered... deep in the earth. so i'm curious on surveys and such in relation to radioactive emmitence may be in the area. being that its 70+ years most of the downwinders would be dead already? more so if radiation exposure sped up their deaths with cancer. so its the generations after the blasts and initial exposure event(s) occurred. it is true that once a nuke is fired it can't be stopped but it can be disabled from going off, it doesn't mean the detonation is 100% going to happen. we designed our nukes to need a smaller charge to cause that reaction. without that secondary charge the warhead is still dangerous don't get me wrong, exposing the materials inside it can still be fatal. so you are telling me they didn't design this as a means to stop them?... or that the missile itself cannot be disabled/destroyed in flight...so if they could not be stopped by disabling the warhead... i'd seriously want to know who was responsible.
They do extensive testing. Radiation levels for an air burst (exploding before it hits the ground) dissipate relatively quickly, off the top of my head I think it's safe to spend time in an area after two weeks. For example radiation levels in Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't higher than anywhere else. Bombs with ground impact are much more dangerous to long term survival.
Oddly enough the plutonium inside a nuclear weapon is rather tame as far as penetration goes despite having radioactivity about half that of radium per gram. If you heald the softball sized chunk you would notice it's slightly warm, roughly the temperature of a warm coffee mug. The piece would have a coating of real gold and that shields all the radiation except a few neutrons which would give an exposure of a single dental x ray if you held the ball to your head 6 hours streight. In the weapon the ball is surrounded by a metal called beryllium, the explosives, and other stuff that absorb almost all the neutrons. The gold protects the surface from oxidation as well as protecting the explosives from being degraded by the weak x rays in a way similar to how sunlight makes some plastics brittle.
It's a sad sad world that we are ruining
Atomic warfare is like two armies, neck deep in gasoline, arguing over who has the most matches.
Pretty much. That is why the concept is called MAD. Nobody wants to light up and make the world burn.
Open, reliable, constant, and easily accessible lines of communication are the best means of averting a nuclear war. Nations are going to disagree and have rivalries. That is inevitable and conflicts may also be inevitable but all sides should be invested in making sure conflict with nuclear weapons is prevented. As other have pointed out, right now the US is in competition, rivalry, and conflict with adversaries that are either flaunting first use of nuclear weapons to promote aggressive acts (Russia) or have chosen to wall up their leadership from both internal and external sources of information (China).
This area is enormously complex and enormously important so folks should make themselves knowledgeable as best they can, but honestly, the wisest and best course we in the US and other western nations can stick to is continue to attempt to and encourage to have open communication with these other governments and at the same time continue strengthening our deterrence by modernizing our stockpiles of weapons and capabilities, both nuclear and conventional.
I got an idea why not make a video so our adversaries can learn exactly what will happen to usa when they drop a nuke on us
Thank U in South Eastern Colorado We Knew to this HORROR LaJunta Rocky Ford Kim Colorado areas of HIGH Cancer Rates that killed so many !
It's better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them
1:10 Quite the start to this video, suggesting it was the criminally insane nuclear attack on a nation in the process of surrendering that " ended the war". FY.
The land based leg of American nuclear weapons are not meant to be used in retalliation of a nuclear strike. For better or worse, they are meant to act as a nuclear sponge; to absorb as much of a potential nuclear attack as possible, and thus allow the US navy submarines and USAF nuclear bombers to respond in kind. The best way to ensure that the US is not endangered by nuclear weapons is to ensure a robust and comprehensive international treaty that eliminates them, recent history unequivocally bares this out.
Nuclear weapons will never be abolished
0:18 "They are nuclear terrerists." 🤣
It appears Minnesota annexed Wisconsin during the ensuing nuclear attack. I, however, will refuse to cheer for the Vikings.
If the good and honest drop their weapons, the evil will prevail.
The yield of modern nuclear weapons are orders of magnitude lower that those deployed in the 1980s.
Vast majority of nuclear warheads in the modern US and Russian arsenals are 400-800KT. Not only that, mass assured destruction is an outdated strategy for nuclear war. The threat of nuclear war is so enormously overstated because it's low hanging fruit for the mass media
Individually, yes, but most missiles have multiple warheads in the 100-200kt range so while in decades past it was one missile and one multi-megaton warhead, today it's one missile with a dozen or so warheads that produces a total yield greater than a single missile from the past.
Be interesting to find out how much of Nuclear waste through the years has been dumped into the Marianas Trench the deepest part in the ocean. No different than the Oil companies dumping their 55 gallon oil waste drums into the Pacific, prime example there are a bunch off the coast of Catalina Island off of California that they can't remove for fear of leakage, seems like the World's Oceans are one big dumping ground but yet we all eat the fish that comes out of these contaminated waters, next time you are at a grocery store look for the cans of Tuna if they are not glowing double check with your Geiger counter.
After WW2 British RAF dumped remaining aerial munitions into Beaufort dyke, a trench in the Irish sea 30 miles long and 1000ft deep.
They also added all the leftover phosgene shells from WW1.
Several thousand tons.
The site has been remotely surveyed routinely by camera RV subs.
The bomb casings are not holding up too well.
A lot. The cesium and strontium from Fukushima made several seaweed products a bit extra spicy after the fact. Measured Cs137 as the primary one.😢
5:23 Theres no way that those are the only silos in the US. Surely its a massive risk if they're all public knowledge.
I know atleast 1/3 of our nukes are in submarines.
Those are the only active ICBM missile fields in the US. Not my opinion or supposition - those are all of them. There are no “stealth” or covert ICBM fields anywhere else in the US. This is an enormously complex area with enormously complex topics, but basically, the reason why they are public knowledge is 1. Open knowledge promotes the deterrence factor to enemies 2. Legacy of Cold War treaty obligations 3. The enormity of the infrastructure & logistical support is just about impossible to hide 4. Accountability to the local communities due to our open society and form of government.
I was stationed for 3 years in ND and had a chance to make myself well acquainted with them. You can literally drive past within a stones throw of a MMIII Launch Facility sitting between farmer’s fields. They are being monitored 24/7 and you can bet many heavily armed young men and women will be rushing to that spot if you try to break into one of those little compounds. Every once in a while you will see a convoy with a large tractor trailer protected by armored vehicles and helicopters possibly hauling away a MMIII. Folks are at stop on the highway and wait for the convoys to pass through.
Russia and China know where our silos are located. We know where theirs are located. The Russians do keep a relatively smaller number of road mobile missiles and those are harder to track.
They are a deterrent
I dunno, let's find out!
bottom line is they need to not use them .
What a mish mosh of ideas: Safety of pit production, eliminating nuclear weapons, downwinders of above ground testing etc. What do any of these issues have to do with each other? If you assume we need nuclear weapons then we need a reasonably safe way of maintaining and renewing them. We don’t do above ground testing any more so the only large radiation exposures would come from the use of nuclear weapons. Unless everyone nuclear disarms that risk is never going away. If the US unilaterally disarms will all other countries / groups disarm as well? Lots of wishful thinking about how the world really works.
About Global Fallout
Before 1963, the United States and other countries conducted more than 500 nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere. During these tests, radioactive particles and gases were spread in the atmosphere. Depending on the size and type of weapon that was exploded, some of these particles and gases traveled great distances before falling to earth (called fallout) where people could be exposed to the radiation.
Radioactive fallout was deposited all over the world, so many people were exposed to it. Even today, radioactive fallout is present in all parts of the world in small amounts. CDC and NCI, in their study of global fallout, looked only at fallout in the contiguous United States (the 48 states between Canada and Mexico). The study found that any person living in the contiguous United States since 1951 has been exposed to some radioactive fallout, and all of a person’s organs and tissues have received some exposure.
All it'll take is one critical mistake among daily unlimited mistakes.
This petty game of nuclear chicken that humans have been playing is going to end up costing us our existence, that's our intelligence, that of a f****** chicken
Best for 'normal' people in the 'civilized' north to connect with those of the southern lattitudes, as we see refugees today we may be next.
The movie Sum of all fears shows a good example of a nuke being snuck into the US...POOF
I doubt the veracity of this video. Scientific American has slid downhill a long way from the technically accurate articles it used to produce. This is a real shame. All our nuclear missiles have the ability to be destroyed enroute to their target. There are numerous failsafe that preclude uncommanded detonation, as well as launch.
The issues with the nuclear production plant West of Denver are greater than what was covered in this video. This video is replete with shoddy research and slap-dash reporting. It's very sad to see a once great name of a highly technical magazine being associated with such a poorly produced "work".
Time for new leadership
minus the obnoxious Frenchman's accent this is great
Every other nuclear power has the mirvs on there icbms maxed out thanks to general security obumer the USA has now only one mirv on our minuteman icbm so yeah we need to modernize
Ok one thing your map at 5:53 shows Kansas as CO fix your map. Also the new upgraded Minutemen missles have a self destruct function. Now yes an all out nuclear war is terrifying and it will/would be horrible. But you need to look at what has happened since there creation. if you go back to the Roman era and look up deaths by war up to today it peaked in WW2 at 84 million people died in WW2. since 1945 it has dropped below a million since then. There has been no major conflict since then and that is because of Nuclear weapons being a deterant. Now the nuclear industry has polluted numerous areas in the US. and they need to be cleaned up. now they created a depository in Yuca mountain depository to store the most dangerous materials. but the same people that complain about the contamination ,fought to keep the us from using the depository. Alos its not just the Nuclear industry thats polluting our contry its every major corporation.
It would look like Texas!
They will hit a lot more than just silos. Hitting nuclear power plants makes each one of those a spewing supply of Chernobyl type radiation for hundreds of years
This world is doomed
The far far south wii will survive. Argentine Patagonia 🌲
This vodeo needs a different title, it is not accurate.
They are they are used for a fuck around find out event.
It doesn't show the hits on military bases. I live less than 1 mile from JAX NAS; I won't suffer. I won't even see the flash or be aware that it happens. I will absolutely not feel any pain. I don't live in any fear for myself, what, an instant, painless death that I am not even aware of? The horror! 😱😅🤣😂😜🤪🙄
I think every country should give up it's nuclear weapons.
Your country first comrad,
Hibakusha on Japan 😢
I'm for nuclear programs
With countries like Iran in the picture, we need this technology. It’s unfortunate, but that’s life.