Can Nuclear War Be Won? Nuclear Strategy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Go check out kommandostore....
Sign up for their mailing list and get 10% off first order!
For Business Inquires - CovertCabal@Ellify.com
If you'd like to help support me continue to create videos, you can do so here...
Patreon (Monthly) - / covertcabal
PayPayl (One Time Donations) - www.paypal.me/...
Discord - / discord
Names at the end are of supporters at Silver Level on Patreon, and $10 or more on PayPal
If you would like to have your name kept private, feel free to send me an email, or contact me through Patreon
Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
----------------------------------
Credits:
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommon...
The NATO Channel
Ministry of Defence of Estonia
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
KCNA - North Korea State Media
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
creativecommons...
I heard an interview with a military person who was involved with the targeting of these weapons back in the fifties and sixties. Some of the reasoning of why they were targeting 69 weapons in one radar installation was because they had nothing else to do with the extra weapons so they just doled them out across the target lists. Madness.
No since in letting them go to waste.
I remember where I heard this. Hardcore History podcast by Dan Carlin. If you like military history (and a lot of you probably do if you’re subscribed to this channel) then you owe yourself a listen to Dan.
@Will Bailey
Don-2 radar is a key part of A-135 anti-missile system. It's obvious that the system supposed to hit some number of warheads. That is the cause of large number of warheads targeted to it.
And it was built only in the 1980s. So your version sounds like an urban legend.
@@Noname_NoID perhaps, if I remember right he was quoting some guys book from the Rand Corp but my memory is hazy. I’m also sure some of the targets sure did require multiple warheads. It also sounded like they had more warheads than targets? But I’m just an armchair lover of history not an expert.
No it’s because the president said I want you to choose a number of nukes to f**k up their radar. 69 was the only sexual number they could think of.
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play..."
"Shall we play a game?"
But that is wrong though. Only winning move is being able to play and choose to not to.
More like, "There is no winning move, but if you don't play, you've already lost."
old ref... I wonder how many people know where it come from....
The greatest victory in battle is one without injury - Sun Tzu.
Nature uses intimidation all the time.
well this did age well
It just got interesting.
Not really it’s just been empty threats from deluded wannabe dictators
What a great time to get this in my recommended.
French nuclear strategy doctrine during cold war was fairly simple. Any invasion on the french soil by the USSR (or any other nuclear power) would simply be answered with nuclear retaliation.
Is the maginot line nuclear proof?
...you know, that's not a bad policy. If you know the USSR's military is bigger than yours and conventional war/diplomacy is all but hopeless, might as well get straight to the point.
It's like a bee with a stinger -- they've got one credible deterrence, they know they'll die if they use it, so they're brightly colored to deter attacks in the first place.
That’s sooo stupid, if France was invaded, at most 20% of the French population would die, but if they did their little suicide pact ‘strategy’ would cause 90% casualties on the French side, not to mention the rest of the world. What is it with the French and absolutely terrible military strategies.
Except America they have American bases there
@@tomsoki5738 It's not. Would you risk invading them knowing that they are going nuke you in retaliation? I wouldn't.
Weird that this video was recommended to me at this very specific time
Same..strange it is.
Last time I was this early Operation Unthinkable was still considered as a valid option
The problem with deterence is currently shown in Russia, nuclear countries can be as aggressive as they want and invade other non nuclear nations. This is going to unleash a nuclear arms race and the weapons will fall into the wrong hands for sure. Nuclear weapons are aggressive not just deterrence.
Building nuclear weapons isn't cheap and isn't easy. Even if you have everything to create them you still need to enrich the Uranium or other radioactive fuels to the point that they can be used as weapons. Biggest part of nations don't have money and technology to create them at all.
U.S. pretty much has full immunity for all our human rights violations.
Fun fact: During the 60s, the US strike plan involved so many targets in the USSR, PRC and NK and so many warheads that military planners actually named the plan "Wargasm".
Time to brush up the knowledge
Can you imagine observing a civilization that detonates weapons of mass destruction on their one & only planet? That’s probably why UFOs started popping up after these nuclear tests.
the market with popcorn in local stellar neighborhood probably skyrocketed
Whoever uses them could be in some serious trouble, possibility we are being monitored and it's possible they reside here on earth living in Earth's oceans, and their technology is far superior than ours and if they showed themselves we would realize how horse and cart we are compared to them.
@@robertlangley687 By that logic all the underground nuclear tests must have really pissed them off...enough to never show up.
Seriously.. I think they actually stopped us from destroying ourselves
"General, how many missiles should we use?"
"......69....."
Nice
"......Nice General, Nice...."
I love your videos. Thorough and informative but not boring. Keep up the great work
He repeats the same info in every video that is about nukes.
How is that informative?
Basic history
Biden right now:
WRITE THAT DOWN, WRITE THAT DOWN!!!
literally LOL-ed, now I'm depressed again
I think if there was a possibility that nuclear warfare would begin, bro I would just leave, go down to Australia, Africa, South America, wherever, I’m out.
We have seen very few wars between nuclear armed states. That said when you look at India and Pakistan, you could argue their nuclear weapons have prevented a large scale war, it has not prevented small battles between them. One could argue the fear of a nuclear war is now so strong, that two nuclear armed countries could fight a conventional war of considerable scale without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons, the fear of what the other side would do, being enough to convince both sides not to use their nukes.
It is also possible that a first use might not result in a large scale nuclear response. The question that is hardest to answer is how would you response to an enemy you used just one nuke against you. Their is no easy answer to that question.
I think that the use of nuclear weapons would be more and more likely as the war went on and one side gained an advantage over the other. A dramatic shift in one side's fortunes (a catastrophically lost battle or the loss of a key logistics route) could push one side to use a nuclear weapon in order to stem the tide
@@ashesofempires0404 I do not see nuclear weapons as a war ender. People will point to Japan, but the reality is that the war was already over at the point, as we now know negotiations for surrender were already underway.
I am not a big believer in the idea that using nukes will change the course of a war. If you are already losing, it is unlikely that setting of a few nukes will change that. The threat of use maybe, but not the actual use. Actual use is more lightly to inflame the situation than calm tensions and remember you might be on the receiving end of a nuclear response as well.
It is more likely that somebody would use nukes as an opening move, for example a modern-day Pearl Harbour would be a nuclear strike. Using a nuclear armed sea mines to take out a carrier battle group would also make sense as an opening move as you would have none of the civilian casualties you would associate with a strike on a major naval base.
@@marktucker8896 Agree.
Aye, all that is necessary is that both sides have more desire to wage conventional war than to nuke the opponent. A conflict that takes place on the soil of a third party is prime example.
@@DzinkyDzink The proxy war will always be conventional, as the political cost of using nukes will always be substantial. The history of countries following conventions of war does not give me much confidence nukes would never be used.
8:46 We still have hot was between the superpowers, it’s just done by proxy.
Conflicts such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan involve so many nations that they are close to being world wars.
This comment aged well :/
Who's watching this after the Putin has ordered military command to put nuclear deterrent forces on high alert?
Me
Me
This aged like fine wine
I know the point of launching 69 warheads at one single target is to ensure that at least a few are not shot down, and actually make it. But I cannot even imagine what 69 nuclear detonations on one single location would even look like. We've all seen one single detonation in one location, but never multiple on top of each other, one after the other.
In a nuclear war Moscow would likely be turned into a lava lake.
One deep ass crater
One "wins" a nuclear war by ensuring that the greater part of the population doesn't perish in one. Obviously the winning move is not to play, but if your alternative is complete capitulation to the threat of a nuclear exchange, then you've already lost everything that matters anyway. Avoiding target rich environments, and evenly distributing your population and productive capability ensures that the number of bombs required to "wipe the slate clean" is simply insurmountable. Architectural choices that are naturally hardened to the overpressure blast and fires that result from a nuclear detonation further reduces the effective range of warheads to only close or direct hits. Extensive use of underground shelters protects from fallout. Well provisioned shelters preserve life until normalcy can resume. A well prepared and resilient population can not only endure a nuclear exchange, but can render it a largely ineffective means of waging war, which will do more to eliminate vast nuclear arsenals than diplomacy ever will.
Or it will encourage vast amounts of nuclear armament buildup and increase tensions greatly by destroying other nations’ strategic deterrence. If a country can feasibly withstand a full scale nuclear strike, that means that it could essentially wipe any other country off of the map in about 30 minutes to an hour. That tends to make said other countries a bit worried.
thats why the russians have us totally beat in this way. While all their metros in every major cities also serve a role as "sealable fallout shelters" for city inhabitants. Meanwhile, we americans are left on our own because of "capitalism" and we are fucking S.O.L . if we havent built a Fallout shelter in our backyards
6:45 "Hey Dave.. how many missiles should we target for that above ground radar system?".. "ohhhhh I dont know... 69? giggity giggity"
Nuclear war would be the dumbest thing any nation could do
INDEED
Time to start researching
Umm completely off topic but god I wish the HH-53 Pave lows weren't retired. I don't think I've seen a helicopter soo sexy ever.
The winners are the ones who goes quickly with the blast. The survivors are the ones I feel bad for. Worst yet are the one living on some remote island and they witness the world going dark
I did not hear an answer to the question posed in the title. Just an exposition on the history of nuclear deployment.
Yes, nuclear weapons have largely prevented world wars 3, 4, 5, and 6, and this overall is a good thing, but what many fail to realise is that from these wars come many excellent movies. Each war would also be accompanied by its own iconic soundtrack, as was the case for the Vietnam War.
"Strike first, strike repeatedly"!
Oh, 1:57 shows a Danish Civil Defence something (jacket I guess).
I don’t see how 311 nukes would be nearly enough to saturate all the targets that could conceivably need to be eliminated. Especially when you consider naval ships and forward operating bases amongst those targets.
It could be a few things 1. classified Nukes have grown their blast radius big enough to cover Russia and or China with just 311 of them. 2. They are hunting only key targets/counter nukes. 3. it was flawed and that's why we still have thousands of nukes.
311 nukes could be enough if they were all hi-yield AND they all got through the defenses AND all detonated exactly when programmed. Those are a LOT of conditions placed on weapons that aren't tested and are to be used in a sure-to-be hostile environment. That is why the 1959 report listed 69 bombs for one radar site. Very few were expected to reach the target. Bomber attrition, failed detonations, misguided navigation, etc.
MIRV'S
Thanks algorithm, due to recent events I needed this
Nuclear war strategy : dont start a nuclear war
Please do a video on underground nuclear testing!!
What’s the point of attacking a missile silo? The time you launch at them they have already launched all their nukes? Or do they have reload capability ?
There is no reloading in a nuclear war
Very interesting!
Please more on nukes, counter nukes etc.
Greetings from germany
Im curious what your opinion on a Chinese vs American War would be if nukes weren't on the table.
I think this is the most thought provoking video of the series.
This popped up on my recommended at a great time…
Putin has had your notification bell enabled for a while waiting for this
Guess we’re about to find out about that nuclear deterrent 2-25-2022
The more I watch you, the more I’m aware.
It is now opened the Pandora’s box or genie out of bottle, once it it exist you can’t make it not exist.
We do this:
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
They were going to drop 69 nukes on that radar station because they expected 68 nukes to be shot down...
NOBODY WINS, WE ALL DIE, the lucky ones die instantly, the rest die slowly and miserably over the next 2 years. WE ALL DIE.
💯
💯
9:06
Well how ironic
I agree with the argument that a few nuclear weapons cause peace, but we need to get rid of mutual-assured-destruction stockpiles and hair trigger readiness.
Nobody ever mentions the 100+ nuclear plants that will lose coolant and melt down.
Covert Cabal does not talk about India at all. Maybe make a video on India's military capabilities, problems and the way ahead? Thanks
I think Afganistan shows just how useful it is to have vastly superior hardware (such as nuclear bomb) to your opponent. Just because you can destroy the world doesn't mean you can rule it.
Vietnam taught us that less than 50 years ago. People had just forgotten it.
I think it would be used early on as tactical weapons against military bases and fleets of warships. Later it might be ICBM time if the war was not ended peacefully. (Atleast in a modern one)
tactical nukes have largely fallen out of favor due to fears of it escalating to a full out nuclear war. Most nations are looking towards conventional weapons with similar tactical yields. Although these are usually much bigger than their nuclear counterpart. I won't rule out tactical nuclear weapons. It might be used in a hypothetical WW3 where one side is losing badly and use them as last resort. But at that point, it will be a slippery slope.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 that foreshadowing
I think it would be the opposite
In a nuclear war, everybody always loses.
A curious game, the only way to win is not to play.
"" ""
Elements all. It is only one solution for peace
I keep thinking about those UAPs which hovered over both US and Russian ICBM sites and deactivated the missiles. Someone was trying to send humanity a message there.
See that radar station?
Yes general
I don't want to.
only if you are a psyco who everyone hates, and the feeling is mutual.
I have to correct you. They didnt call the first world war the war to end all wars because of the devestation. They assumed it would assert dominance for the foreseeable future
Hello everyone, isn’t 2022 amazing so far!
If you died directly from the nuclear blast its self you would be very unlucky most deaths are from radiation sickness which in its self is avoidable if you know wht to do and understand the half lives
Everybody watching this in 2022
👁👄👁
Of course the total global reduction of nuclear arms is a good idea.
Do consider that at one time there were only two functional nuclear bombs on the planet Earth, and they were both used in combat.
POV: Russia’s being naughty and you were just curious.
Great timing algorithm (2-25-22)
We were the aggressor in Vietnam and Korea, so it's not surprising we didn't use nukes during those conflicts (even though there were elements in the US that wanted to). What I do find puzzling, is that we didn't use nukes after 9/11, especially since our enemy was non nuclear without any nuclear allies. Curious.
Who exactly was our enemy? What place would we have targeted? Kabul? Afghanistan? No, only spread out groups of Taliban needed an ass whooping. Saudi Arabia? Nope. Pakistan? Nope. Bin Laden hiding somewhere only required us finding him and eliminating him with a team. Besides, when you look at the big picture Bin Laden just hated the idea of globalization. That's why he attacked the World Trade Center. Because he knew the world was and is marching towards a global governing body, one that influences human rights and behaviors that many countries are not ready to embrace. But through social media and education systems each nation will be well aware of their potential. When we progressed from telegram to radio to television to instantaneous internet many countries had a lot of catching up to do. That's not to say some countries haven't gone overboard with rights but we will find our footing. Can we stop outside influence? A little bit. I'm hoping each country can help construct the best version of humanity and quit having wars over our differences. We must also establish ownership and negotiate values of resources too. That is the other reason for war.
@@mattjaxdad8693 in praxis, the first reason is probably the case. You haven't tried because of the latter two.
@@mattjaxdad8693 knock, knock, knock....knock
Just push the damn button already !☢️⚛️🚀🌎💥
8:00 you said 311 nuclear warheads enough for what? wipe out the entire planet or just russia or china?
so you push THIS video to me at THIS time？
The Netherlands voting against prohibition of nucleair weapons? For me as a Dutch citizen that is hard to believe, since the only nukes in my country are US owned B-61's. However the problem my country has is that the US will not sign a document stating that if something goes wrong during the evacuation of the B-61's, they will be held liable for the damages caused.
No everyone loses, the only victory is to lose less than the others but still to lose.
Nuclear weapons takes the fun out of wars
Even if nuclear war did break out it won't be the end of man kind, just call it population thinking 🚀🔥🧨🌅😈
"The only way to win a nuclear war, is not to play"
They made a movie about this “a peculiar game, the best strategy is to not play”
A good history lesson but hardly any mention of present day nuclear strategy as the title would suggest.
Murphy's law and also any what unexplainable eventualities sure to result would make me pessimist.
This video is great but I wonder when and where will the nukes will be use? 🤔
Greetings Professor Falken.
A strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.
Brilliant
Anyone else getting these recommended more than the Covid Vaccine since Ukraine?
**In a computerized male voice***: "Shall... we... play... a... game?" -Joshua (aka WOPR), 1983
With love.
9:17 Flat horizon?
Love the kommando store
Covert cabal with snacks.
A cause for concern today is that there is no direct line between Washington and Beijing.
Cold war II: Taiwan Boogaloo...
Why didn't nuclear bombs actually go down with scale? They can be strong enough to destroy industrial sector of city but not fully anhilate it's population.
I don't think that disarmament could actually happen and in some sense it might be preferable to let the great powers maintain a nuclear arsenal that they're open about because then they keep each other in checkmate. However the problem with the lack of clear regulation against nuclear weapons is that it has let smaller states like Isreal and North Korea (and possibly Iran) develop or attempt to develop nuclear weapons and these states are not as safe for the world. We know that all of these states would use nuclear weapons if they were losing a conventional war and that could easily trigger a chain reaction that leads to nuclear war. Of these states two of them are both in immediate risk of having their government overthrown/lose that being Isreal and North Korea and this would not necessarily be caused by an invasion by another state. Isreal being a settler colonial state could easily fall due to a general uprising and if such an uprising happens it might lead to interventions in favor of the rebels by neighboring states and the government of Isreal seems perfectly willing to use the nuclear option if they might lose against such an uprising, considering how insanely punitive their military is in general they might do it if there was just an uprising large enough. North Korea of course being a highly repressive regime which has terrible living standards is also always at risk of rebellion and if one happened like with Isreal neighboring countries would probably intervene in favor of the rebels and if that's the cause the regime would probably be fine with firing nuclear weapons because it is also insanely militarized. Iran if they have nuclear weapons is at least a lot more safe since they mainly want them to deter US invasion and while their population isn't completely on board with the government they prefer it to an invasion obviously.
These two countries being such wild cards is just incredibly dangerous and they probably won't be the last states like this, clearly developing nuclear weapons is a lot easier than it used to be, medium sized states can do it now if they just dedicate themselves to it and that's why it might keep happening. And the more wild card states we have with nuclear weapons the more the risk for nuclear war rises exponentially, imagine a situation like the Iran-Iraq war but both sides have nuclear weapons, with such weapons in play it can easily escalate beyond the two countries. Without an international agreement against nuclear weapons preventing this would be almost impossible, an agreement would have a chance as the major powers would have an interest in enforcing it so they'd use their intelligence agencies and since it's an international agreement they could present their findings publicly and therefore it could be enforced. But this won't work if there isn't an international agreement about this, North Korea would never agree to disarm unless the US disarmed so that kinda puts us in a bind. Unfortunately the whole system is rigged to destroy itself and the only way out of this for the individual is to dismantle the entire system of states and imperialism.
Not to have one ,every one wins
Best way to survive ba nuclear war is not to have one one nuke will mess the entire world up
Now i know why Putin started the war
If Soviet Union Don't create hydrogen bomb, no more Russia in map.
America see Nuke like convenstional bomb but when Russia/ Soviet Union show their Nuke Power ,west start make Nuclear Agreement.
Is all about politic and power
ok but how do i win
Actually, only the nagasaki bomb was testet, the fat man. The hiroshima bomb was so simple they didn't bother to test it
Hi UA-cam algorithm, what the fuck?
If you’ve seen the first nuclear war, you’ve seen them all.
Deterance is still the primary purpose of nuclear weapons.
Smaller nations detering superpowers from invading and conquering them ..... North Korea, Pakistan...ect...
The idea with nuclear weapons is not how to use them as weapons but rather how to use them to deter war.
a limited nuclear war - sure can. whole uncharted territory.
the end !