The insanity of nuclear deterrence | Robert Green | TEDxChristchurch
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 тра 2024
- When nuclear-armed nations face off, the threat of mutually assured destruction is expected to keep the worst from happening. But is this a rational strategy? Or is it one that is doomed to failure? In this eye-opening and powerful talk, Commander Robert Green shares his experience piloting nuclear-armed aircraft -- and his shift to becoming a staunch opponent of nuclear deterrence.
Commander Robert Green served for twenty years in the British Royal Navy. As a bombardier-navigator, he flew in Buccaneer nuclear strike aircraft and anti-submarine helicopters equipped with nuclear depth-bombs. His final appointment was as Staff Officer (Intelligence) to the Commander-in-Chief Fleet during the 1982 Falklands War.
He chaired the UK affiliate of the World Court Project, which led to the International Court of Justice judgment in 1996 that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be illegal. Co-Director of the Disarmament & Security Centre in Christchurch since 1998, he is the author of Security Without Nuclear Deterrence. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
“It is my firm belief that the infinite and uncontrollable fury of nuclear weapons should never be held in the hands of any mere mortal ever again, for any reason.” » Mikhail Gorbachev
Yeah and it's not. That's why despite all the close calls the guy in this vid presented, we never had a catastrophe, because of the chain of command deciding the decision to launch. So a nuke launch is NOT in the hands of "any mere mortal" it's in the hands of several in a strict chain of command.
@@hrthrhs few imperfect men
@@hrthrhs Actually the US president can, when a warning system goes off decide to lunch nukes without congress or anybody.
@@grafgever What is this warning system you speak of?
@@hrthrhs infa red , satellite imagery, early warning detection systems, interceptors, any nuclear attack, large scale escalatory action.
As Carl Sagan once said about the first nuclear detonation: “Everything has changed except our thinking.”
I believe it was actually Einstein who said that (if Sagan said it, too, then he was likely quoting Einstein). From what I have read, this is what Einstein said in May of 1946:
"The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”
Very true. If they didn't have guns, or other modern weapons, then they would be hacking one another to death with swords.
I have a pale gray dot.
@@greg4852 But Einstein produced the information that allowed a nuclear bomb to be created. He is the FOUNDER of the nuclear bomb.
They are both wrong. It quickly changed our thinking. We all understand mutually assured destruction now. And nobody has launched nukes at each other since. Nor do large wars occur regularly which kill tens of millions of people.
The immediate laughter after he said “when I complained” was priceless & very appropriate in relation to how easily bureaucratic decisions that could hurt others, knowing they’ll never be in their shoes.
Based on the comments I see here and some good arguments, the only conclusion I can draw is: We are all dead. It's just a matter of time.
Its inevitable
Not all, but the Bible clearly states that 2/3 will die from war, starvation and disease. It will happen in less than a 7 year period. The sign that it's about to begin will be the signing of a 7-Year peace agreement between Israel and the "many". WWII saw the deaths of about 100 million. This war will see about 6 THOUSAND MILLION dead.
@@UNKNOWNPERSON-kk9kd As a retired sub sailor MT1(ss) ; who made 19 strategic patrols on 5 ssbns; during the cold war. I can tell all that the concept of MAD works.
@@johnray7636 Wow, this is a really strong argument, well done!
@@ggaggagga4 That text book makes no sense. Religion huge part of the problems of this world! -Jesus just sayin
Real heros safe life, and don't take ehm. I think Commander Robert Green ended up being a real hero. Thank you Commander Robert Green.
what if you save many lives by taking the lives of few others? nothing in life is one dimensional as you portrayed in your statement
Dear RobertMost of my peacebuilding work - with postgraduate students from across Africa - is at the small project level. Your talk has inspired me to think much more at the macro level. I too will be watching it with my students and discussing its implications
Thanks Geoff. We have just had 21 Australian students from Monash here to discuss this talk and question Australian defence policies.
We need more people with inside perspectives speaking what they've learned. This video should be shared!
Disarming countries that have these weapons of mass destruction sounds good on paper, but how can that be done, effectively, and who will police it?
Every weapon that was supposed to make war "too horrible to be ever fought again" was used in the next war to devastating effect from the crossbow to the cannon to the musket to the machine gun to the conventional aircraft bomb.
I dont have very much optimism that nobody will ever try to use nuclear weapons. We havent even been living with nukes for a century yet theres still plenty of time for things to go wrong.
There have already been several near misses too.
You statement is simply wrong regarding nukes. There have been MANY wars since WW2 involving countries with nuclear weapons yet none of them have used them. They were not used in the next war or the war after.
Ya, look where we are now🙏
They HAVE already been used, so your sentence is dangerous and grammatic nonsense. It is also dangerous and actually denial of history and facts.
@@SchgurmTewehr
Of course I know about Hiroshima and Nagasaki ffs. I meant other than those. Modern nuclear weapons are orders of magnitude mote destructive than the only two nuclear weapons to be used in war.
Commander Robert Green, thank you so very deeply. Very well done. You not only "witnessed" 122 nations work hard this past summer to adopt finally a wonderful legal document to make the threat of these weapons illegal, but it was a honor to have you daily an active contributor and presence throughout the conference. Your NZ Ambassador was one of the great and consistent stars of the deliberations. NZ, your efforts to blockade our nuclear submarines in the 1970's was a huge inspiration to all of us concerned around the world. Thank you NZ. Thank you Comdr. Green for your dedication, your service, and your constant courage in standing up. Thank you for your profound, greatly brave, riveting, informative book "A Thorn in Their Side". This recent Nobel Peace Prize goes to your dear aunt Hilda, yourself, and your heroic wife Kate, and many of you in NZ who've been pushing back on this omnicidal industry. Onward, together. Thank you TEDx Talks for this.
Thank you for this brilliant talk, sir! I was only six years old during the Cuba middle crisis, and that memory has been burned into my brain. I remember it as if it happened yesterday. It still provokes such extreme anxiety, and fear whenever I think of it. Such a shame this talk hasn't been seen by millions of souls.
It was very impressive to listen to your talk and I would like to share it with my students studying Peace Studies (about 150). A photo of the International Court of Justice in 1996 including Robert and others is exhibited at the Kyoto Museum for World Peace at Ritsumeikan University in Japan. Visitors learned your great efforts for peace watching the exhibit. Please take good care of yourself.
I'm waiting for a proposal.... I've seen a number of these anti-nuclear weapons TED talks explain how terrible they are, but no one has proposed how we realistically give up nuclear weapons. As long as any other nation has a nuclear device, the US and Russia will maintain nuclear weapons. Deterrence is real.
Good point, Braden. The only real solution that can work is for us grass roots humans to learn about the hidden, sacred Natural Laws which immutably govern the consequences of our individual and aggregate human behavior. Mark Passio makes a compelling Natural Law proposal, but getting people en masse to listen to and evaluate his work won't occur until at least one nuke has detonated somewhere. Most humans are spiritually confused and mentally conditioned from childhood to be divide-and-conquer oriented according to a country of origin as well as a regional set of religious beliefs, and they willfully accept faulty principles of illogical behavior based on self interest in order to survive even though they unconsciously know what they are doing is universally immoral and wrong and puts our entire planet at risk for starvation, cannibalism, and even total annihilation. If for no other reason, once one truly understands that Natural Law is sacred, that person will change their destructive behavior because they will fully understand that it is not a matter of if, but only when a nuclear event will occur if they don't respect and obey its two sacred principles. Knowledge instead of belief is required. Thanks for your comment.
We don't give them up.......in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
Okay, here's one: Instead of investing trillions in the worst organization to man known as government how about people invest those dollars in the free market instead?
The free market prevents and reduces convict. It allows people to meet their needs and wants without violence. The nukes are just fighting instability with instability. If someone wants to detonate those nuclear paperweights despite the "deterrence" factor it's gonna happen anyway! So much for wasting people's money to build bombs to protect people from other people do the exact thing!
People should be investing in businessmen and workers of the world. To creates jobs, goods and services, businesses, infrastructure and other good stuff to truly help the world.
Not some drooling callous morons in suits that couldn't care less about a real solution to ANYTHING, and just use taxpayers to further their greed and power.
The government doesn't do peace the free market does so can we please invest in the latter for a change?
What is rational about giving the power of world annihilation to 9 countries?
A nuclear weapon in the hands of the americans is a credible deterrent because they have demonstrated their willingness to use it. Will russia actually ever use their nukes? Who knows?
This is nice and all, but what exactly are we supposed to do? The total removal of nuclear weapons is impossible. The knowledge of how to make them is out there, and should the major powers rid themselves completely of nuclear arsenals, a bad actor will eventually get their hands on nukes. Don't get me wrong, nuclear powers should work together to reduce their arsenals, but total denuclearization is not practically possible.
“It may well be that we shall by a process of sublime irony have reached a stage in this story where safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation.”
- Winston Churchill
, 1955
What we do is refine anti-missile technology to such a degree that it’s not even worth making nukes anymore
I've heard this a lot. First of all, you cannot accurately intercept an ICBM, and it will not be possible for a long time. They fly far into the stratosphere before falling back to Earth, so pinpointing exactly where they will be at any given moment is practically impossible. Second, if it were possible, it would screw us even more. Removing nukes as a perceived threat kills the MAD doctrine, and what this means is that in the event of some kind of flare-up, world leaders would be much more prone to war. Ignoring the hundreds of millions of people that such a war would kill, it would only take a few nukes getting past anti-nuke defenses to cause incalculable damage.
@@MrDanChandler That will always be impossible. It is always easier to defeat anti-missile technology than to intercept nuclear bombs. Think about it. There are thousands of nuclear bombs, their targets are huge cities, factories that don't go anywhere. There is nothing easier to hit than that.
On the other hand: the nuclear bombs are small, move many times faster than a bullet, are made to withstand incredible heating from the air when they reenter: they move at 8km/s=18000mph. There is nothing more difficult to hit and destroy than that. Even if only one bomb explodes missing its target by kilometers that's still the biggest disaster ever, since each bomb is many times more powerful than the bombs that were dropped on Japan.
Missile interceptors need to be insanely maneuverable, accurate, and always ready, making them not much cheaper than nuclear bombs themselves.
America made some missile interceptors. In perfect conditions these had ~50% chance of hitting an incoming missile. But the interceptors can be destroyed or blinded by detonating one of incoming nuclear bombs in space before an interceptor gets too close. The nuclear bombs could get a cooling system, so they are harder to detect. Hundreds of decoys can be released along side nuclear bombs. Communication and radar can be cut by large nuclear detonations in space. The nuclear attack could go paired with hacking that causes some disarray on the defenders side.
Now I just talked about ICBMs which go in a simple ballistic arc through space to their target. But hypersonic missiles that go through air and are maneuverable are already being developed. These are harder to detect because they are low and in the air, they are even more impossible to intercept.
Finally, even if you miraculously have perfect anti-missile technology, bombs could get smuggled in cars, shipping containers or submarines/ torpedo's.
@@kedrednael Just destroy the incoming missiles with nukes -- no need for accuracy anymore.
@@MrDanChandler The accuracy needed isn't the only problem.
If your idea works perfectly some radioactive debris would rain down on the defending country, because the attacking nukes are already on their trajectory. That's still not very nice.
The fact that nuclear warheads are sturdy objects, capable of reentering the atmosphere at 8km/s is quite a bummer for the defender. You'd need strong nuclear bombs to destroy them, the bombs need to be closer than you think. And you'll be exploding those interceptor bombs nearly above your own country..
I think the first detonations would destroy communication and detection abilities. So a second wave could still come in very easily.
Ideas for the attacker:
- spread missiles out further, so the defender needs (at least, since there is a chance of failure) one nuke per attacking nuke.
- Harden electronics.
- Add reflective layer to the nuclear bomb, thicken the heat shield.
Nuclear bombs do damage on earth by creating intense light & heat which create a shockwave and fireball. In space the shockwave and fireball won't occur. Only the intense light will occur (and radiation, that gets trapped by earths magnetic field, which fries electronics and jams radar). This is not effective against reflective things, with heat shields (and hardened electronics). You will take out all regular satellites and people's eyeballs who have a line of sight to the explosion though.
Again I only talked about ballistic missiles, hypersonic or other delivery methods are also still not stopped.
I believe what Antares said is one of the most concised and exact description of the situation.
Russo-Ukrainian War and Putin brought me here.
Me too
Me 3... Glory to Ukraine
Your work is keeping us Alive! Thank you
Looks like we already went down this road. Soviet submarine B-59 (Russian: Б-59) was a Project 641 or Foxtrot-class diesel-electric submarine of the Soviet Navy. It played a key role in the Cuban Missile Crisis, when senior officers - believing they were under attack - considered launching a T-5 nuclear torpedo.
Close doesn't count. They either did or they did not.
Big Applause👏actually we should be greateful for these people for making world a safe place. This is no simple task
The last commander of the Strategic Air Command Lee Butler was for rationalizing the targeting criteria he was NEVER for abolishing nuclear weapons. He didn't believe you had to flatten ever city in Russia to have a credible deterrent less targets means less weapons. The UKs nuclear weapons were never designed to deter Argentina they were to deter the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons don't deter conventional war. Giving McNamara credit for anything after being the father of Mutual Assured Destruction seems like arguing against yourself.
Oh and ballistic missile submarines are the only leg of the nuclear triad that cannot be killed in a surprise first attack. So they have deterrence value therefore military value. And as others have stated on here like every other abolitionist he gives no alternatives. The US or the UK or France abolishing nuclear weapons will not stop other countries from developing them.
false- he repeatedly says that he is not against conventional defense forces eg his discussion about PM Thatcher's decision to acquire Trident at the cost of conventional ships. Try to keep up.
@@rd264 Keep up? I made that comment 3 years ago LOL Just in case I reread it to be sure and no where did I mention the word conventional.
Deterrence has been far more effective at preventing nuclear war than non-proliferation. At the time the U.S. nuked Japan in WW2, the first nuclear war (NW1), there were less than 5 nuclear weapons in existence. Would the U.S. have nuked Japan if Japan had a similar capability to nuke the U.S.? Yet, during the Cold War, when the hostile nations had 10s of thousands of nukes, no war occurred, except for proxy conflicts.
Even, the India-Pakistan border disputes and China-India border disputes and China-Soviet border disputes never escalated into all out war when they could have if the prospect of nuclear war wasn't so horrible.
Eventually, after the Cold War ended,the U.S. and Russia negotiated large reductions in their nuclear arsenals. Nations and people will lay down their arms when there is no longer a necessity to have them.
But think about it. If no one had nuclear weapons, no one would have been nuked in the first place.
Also, how do you think WW2 would have ended, if Japan did in fact have nuclear weapons??
@@rarabang3584 you are forgetting that warfare existed for centuries without nukes
Anubhav Ghosh
I’m not talking about war in general, I’m talking about a nuclear war. Without atomic bombs such a war could never happen. Without guns, people can’t shoot each other. Yes, they can still stab each other, but we all know what has the larger destructive power.
@Kyle Farren I do man, believe me I do, but I also know that if both sides didnt have nukes , we wouldn't be calling it a cold war.
@Kyle Farren Close doesn't count. Fact is, in all those cases, people were VERY reluctant to launch.
Wow that really makes one think about the horrors of politics and warfare, let alone nuclear warfare!
The nuclear weapons "arsenal" is an example of the real insanity of the human being.
Excellent ! Most enjoyable ! More please !
Great explanation of nuclear deterrence, not many experienced so much nonsense from it as mr. Green. I'm thankful for his work.
The USA and Russia agreed to get rid of all their chemical weapons and Russia got rid of theirs, but in a Congressional Hearing it was discovered the USA still has their stockpile, even Lindsey Ghram was upset to discover it was not done.
At least we know where ours are. Russia made enough smallpox to kill everyone on earth 2000 times over, and then lost several truck loads worth of the stuff.
If even Lindsey Graham gets upset on a weapons issue, it must be very serious indeed.
why does this not surprise me? These mothers couldn't lie straight in bed...
@@mosesmarlboro5401 you've missed the "Russia got rid of theirs".
I imagine that the answer will be "they always lie" cliche.
In the 50s Britain unilaterally disarmed of chemical weapons. Within the Cold War period it did not lead to any reciprocation from the Eastern bloc.
Libya and Iraq surrendered their WMD programs and were subsequently invaded by or with the support of those same nations who had demanded and then overseen the dismantling of their WMD programs, and their leaders executed (with Gaddafi being horrifically tortured before his brutal murder).
Possessing and threatening the use of WMDs may not always serve as an effective deterrent against military aggression, but surrendering them certainly seems to serve as an invitation to it.
But! Libya and Iraq have huge oil reserves, and it fits in with Israel's geo-expansionist ambitions... Watch out Venezuela!
Barded Wyrm false. Iraq did not surrender its wmd's in fact contrary to liberal propaganda thousands of chemical weapons were in fact discovered in Iraq in the 2000s. Get educated.
@EPLURiBusUNUM Recently on the issue of Venezeula, John Bolton admits on live television that the invasion of Venezuela would be for the oil. Consequently admitting that every regime change war we have fought is for the same purpose. So yeah, those oil reserves.
Iraq and Libya had WMDs??? Where???
Agreed. The price of true sovereignty in the modern world is nuclear weapons.
very well said
it maybe illegal to launch a nuclear attack but which court is going to prosecute a country's leader after an attack? There wouldn't be a court left after an nuclear exchange we would all be dead
you have a point.
please watch ’Unaknowedged’ on UA-cam. it's a documentary by Dr. Steven Greer.
I'm on a trident and I sleep next to the missle tube I love them they keep me warm
Bruh
it worked because theres been no nuclear attacks since japan and no nuclear nations are attacking each other theyre just fighting little proxy wars
Would you call the Vietnam conflict a little proxy war?
This is an uninformed comment. There is no way you could believe what you said if you watched the whole video.
@@Nightman2152 as compared to a full-scale war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, yes.
So we traded large scale invasions for smaller scale but equally damaging conflicts? Sounds about right. Eventually things will reach a boiling point, soon or later
This is classic American pipewaxing.
Just because x has yet to happen, the probability of x happening isn't nullified.
Because of the overhaul of neoliberal globalism, the world had more economic and purely political ties. If nuclear proliferation is allowed, more nukes will spread.
In this day and age, if someone were to hit the big red button, immediate retaliation would be instant. Because in the anarchic landscape of country-based politics and interactions, another country could and would retaliate alongside one of the launchers, at which point multiple players could be introduced. I don't even need to go into how prolifically dangerous that is.
@@Nightman2152 Oh, right. Better demonstrate where nuclear weapons have been used since 1945.
Outstanding!
Ridiculous. Dont disarm yourself before disarming the potential threats. We only can move forward on this all together.
Superb speaker.
Thanks 👍
Personally I do not want to live in the only country without nuclear weapons.
Only 15k views so far. I think this man has a message that we all should hear. Thanks for doing this talk and for the efforts for nuclear disarmament.
Guy1: 'The smoke from our nukes, will blot out the sun!'
Enemy of guy1: 'Then we will die in the shade'
Everyone else: ...
me sitting in Kashmir: *nervous sweating
So, if nuclear deterrence does not work, what does? Unilateral nuclear disarmament certainly does not work, as U just told.
Thank you sir
This was a hugely interesting talk, and never more relevant in the present circumstances with the war in the Ukraine. I would be interested to know how he thinks we should proceed. I've seen comments saying we need deterrence. My feeling is that if you've got a madman, and we seem to have a few, in power, they may use nuclear weapons tactically, as he explained nearly happened during the Falklands conflict, and has been suggested by some American generals. I doubt if the threat of reprisals would be a deterrent, and what good would they do?
Talking about it and repositioning nuclear assets is a LONG way from ‘nearly happening.’ It would have been irresponsible if Britain had not repositioned the sub towards Argentina - geez, they were in a war!
@@ronjon7942 And if the UK had started losing the war, which was definitely a possibility? Do you think Margaret Thatcher wouldn't consider using nuclear weapons when her political career was on the line? Most politicians are just power hungry.
Absolutely shocking information
GOD BLESS YOU! YOU ARE RIGHT ALONG SIDE ONE OF MY HEROS IN THIS WORLD ROBERT Mc NAMARA, I RECOMMEND EVERYONE WATCHES HIS DOCUMENTARY "THE FOG OF WAR" AT LEAST ONCE IN THEIR LIFE!
I'm very grateful I learned a lot today
+Before the threat of Atomic Weapons we had two world wars within roughly 23 years.
+After the advent of nuclear weapons it has been roughly 70 years and still no world war.
Agreed....."would not take a whole lot for a country to actually annihilate hundreds of thousands of people." But as they say "The Atomic Jeanie is out of the bottle'. It's never going back in. Countries can make all the nuclear arms reduction treaties they want but you can bet your bottom dollar that somebody is going to hold on to a few nuke missiles "just in case". That's how humans have evolved and survived...fear..vigilance..fight or flight. If it wasn't atomic missiles it would be some other world ending weapon.
@@banky4943
"Before the invention of nukes , there were two world wars since the birth of the Earth"
This statement is false.
- look at the napoleonic wars, realise there were fights in many theaters worldwide --> jep it was a worldwar
- look at the conquest of Alexander the great, realize there were fights on more than 3 continents --> jep it was a worldwar
- ask a nearby histirician for more
Bonus fact, leaving the realm of humans: ever noticed, how (unrelated) ant colonies reakt to each other? They put even Stalin to shame. (Linepithema humile colonies are currently in a continuing genocidial campaign against each other through europe)
Probably the main reason a third world war did not openly happen was that the immense power of both the Russian and US Army and Marine forces in Europe meant even conventional war would have destroyed Europe and the fact is until 1990 both the US and USSR were prepared for 3 months conventional war in Europe as well as every other nuclear or mixed option.The threat of all out European conventional war was the real terror to the UK, Ger, Fr and mainly why the slow moving, low probability retractable options of the cruise missile and B52 were introduced and maintained for political reassurance. The US strategic sub's and minutemen silos had 3 different roles. 1 pure deference, but MAD was theory, PR and 'theology' (,Kissinger) not ever the policy or targeting 2 war fighting with 20/30k heads 2/x Nagasaki aimed only at military targets inRussia.and a few others and 3 doomsday strategic reserve for 2nd or 3rd strike 6 months after nuclear war
Yeah ironically getting completely rid of nuclear weapons would make it a lot lot easier to have another world war.
correlation =/= causation
Standing congratulations
No. One country disarming will be a serious vulnerability. Either both countries have them or both countries do not have them, that's the only choices...
eyes opening!!!
His ultimate message is very beautiful, yet while it may fall on deaf ears, it may not even mean anything. Nuclear disarmament is a lovely idea that I wholeheartedly support but I feel will ultimately fail for one simple reason, the key players will ultimately boil down to enough warheads to threathen eachother and then sit and say "you first".
How many nukes does it take to utterly destroy modern soceity? Not enough to annihilate it, just enough to completely demolish modern economy such that a majority of people are faced with starvations or worse? 100? I'd say 10 stratigically placed ones is way more than enough, considering retalitation. How many nukes do the big players sit on? 1k? 10K? Who knows, way more than needed to destroy modern civilisation. I'm rambling, my point is nuclear deterrence is irrelevant when the stockpile is enough to devastate the globe 100 times over.
Woah...he sounds like Zero from MGS3....
I love the way he talks
Remember the truthful quote...those who would beat their swords into plow shares will plow for those who have not.....
“Nukes have changed everything but out thinking!” Carl Sagan
“I remember when the whole world held its breath...” feels like this right now with putin threatening to use nuclear weapons.
Very good talk.
Just a comment with regard to the mention of the Falklands war.
The chance of a nuclear strike against Argentina; either the country or it's troops by the UK during the Falklands war in 1982 was virtually zero, regardless of the outcome of the war.
Firstly the UK would have been utterly condemned by every other country in the world. It would have become a pariah. Not only that but it would have affected trade, international standing, its place in NATO and the UN. The international aftermath for the UK would have been unthinkable.
Secondly, no one in the UK would have supported such an attack at any level from the government of the time to the regular person on the street. There would have been a massive political backlash, and I would strongly suspect there would have been a coup within her own party to remove her and prevent her using nuclear weapons, and violence on the streets. Thatcher would almost certainly been arrested for a war crime and probably imprisoned had she actually carried out a nuclear attack. Chili and several other South American countries backed the UK during the war, and an attack would have also have affected them, the UK's allies.
Finally, Thatcher knew the backlash would be overwhelming, and she would not want to go down in history as a mass murderer. The damage to the UK would have been irreparable and she (for all of her faults) did genuinely care about the UK. I also imagine that on a human level she would not want to have so much blood on her hands.
Falklands war aside, sadly I see no light at the end of the tunnel for nuclear proliferation, although I would love a nuclear free world. The world is becoming increasingly unstable year after year. With global warming, overpopulation and diminishing resources the future is bleak. NATO, Russia and China can all deactivate their nuclear stockpiles, but the other countries currently developing them will not, and who knows how they will use their new found power?
He is the first I've ever heard to explain the Cuban crisis in full. The US history never mentions that this started because the US had nuclear weapons in Turkey.
Do you read your history from comics books?
True 👍
@@qqqqqqqqqq7488 He is completely correct! This was never brought out in the open about US bombs in Turkey! Please think before being arrogant!
One could argue, in a sense, that a nuclear war has already happened. It is just that the two weapons concerned were used in the last days of the conflict.
"Peace in our time ..."
Yeah. Let's lay down OURS and wait for them to lay down THEIRS. What could possibly go wrong?!
Thank you for the making of this video!
You are right, nuclear deterrence has always been insanity!
All we have done since the formation of the United Nations to replace the League of Nations is.... continually ramp up militarily, conventionally and WMD!
World peace was a marketing tool but has never truly been our "new world order as of 1950!"
As a world searching for and wanting world peace would logically ramp down not up!
Namaste
Peace Love Harmony
Thank you Commander Robert Green, real world logic !!!
You can’t force the genie back into the bottle.
Greatness does not come from fear.
quite convincing stuff
Here Here sir. 👏
His voice is a delight to the senses.
WW1 involved an arms race where everyone decided, "They won't attack, we've got a bigger gun" (yes that's dumbed-down). Accept some poor bigshot got shot, and that was enough to set an arms race, to "If no one else is in the race, we can't loose."
Not really. Every country in Europe before WW1 wanted a war with someone.
It's interesting if we scaled down the nuclear stalemate situation... we have one man pointing a rifle at the head of another man who is in turn pointing his rifle at the first man's head, both have enough distance to pull the trigger against the other if either rifle is fired first. That's a ludicrous argument for maintaining peace.
Much better for both men to put down their weapons, have a conversation, shake hands and exchange trade.
Over simplifying a very complex deep rooted issue
You are forgetting that neither can afford to trust the other so the moment one lowers the gun the other will pull the trigger and kill before they can ready again.
You go to UC Berkley, no? I hope you’re young, bc of you’re that naive you could conceivably still age out of it.
@@ronjon7942 I agree that my point is oversimplified and idealistic, but in principle nuclear deterrence is a hostile stalemate which is a sad way to maintain peace.
I'm not naive or young, but I'd rather be either of those things than rude or confrontational.
Don't retreat from it; overcome, conquer, tame it!
.... A weapon to surpass metal gear ?
His arguments on why a nuclear free world is preferable to a nuclear world are sound, unforunately he fails to touch on how impossible that idea is and how much worse a "hidden nuke" game with the leading nations could be instead of everyone knowing shits over if we mess up.
If you’re reading this after the nuclear war that started from the events of February 2022 then please bring me back to life. Obviously I was smart enough to make this post however something went wrong as far as my bunker goes but please bring me back
we will go to heaven together :)
I think the issue is that anyone would be crazy to use them and so everyone knows no one is going to use them
Thank you for this valuable testimony from a man who should know! The frankness and honesty of it, let alone the revelations, brought tears to my eyes. Cmdr Green puts it so concisely, authoritatively and graphically it should impress everyone except, perhaps, the nuclear arms industry (and Israel)! Will circulate to friends and associated groups. My paper ‘the Samson Option’ may now need revising.
Sadly for Commander Green he is caught within his own paradox . As a servant of the British Ruling class he is by definition a defender of capitalism and nationalism. Yet it is the very contradictions within the global capitalist system that now drive Nation against Nation. 'Competition for profit' has a law governed motion that dictates over time that credit turns to debt and insoluble debt turns to war.
It is only by resolving this contradiction that you change the trajectory of human society. The system of 'competition for profit' can only produce what is organically logical and necessary to it . It cannot resolve what it itself creates.
This was the fundamental scientific abstraction found by Marx and the scientific basis of Lenin and Leon Trotsky that in the Russian revolution saw Russia exit the great first slaughter of World War I. As Trotsky correctly deduced later on , if the Socialist revolution did not become a world revolution then competing Imperialist powers would inexorably be driven to a new and greater slaughter as the laws of world capitalist economy would once again play out.
We all know what played out in history. The insoluble crisis that revealed itself in the Great crash of 1928 , became the tsunami that was World War 2 10 years later . What then for the crash of 2008 and the rise of Trump and America first ? Without revolution ( which is merely a term to donate fundamental structural change) history has already provided you with the answer. A nuclear answer that we will not come back from..... and bye the way, we are now ''10 years on''.
Show less
REPLY
Shut up commie. Not even "in practice" likes your theories.
@@mannatuu The real slaughter was how the Russians and Chinese killed their own people by the tens of millions.
Your logic doesn't work in the real world. Or, you do a very poor job of explaining it.
@@jamisojo nobody need dismiss the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism. They were not Marxists in the first place.
You however clearly whitewash the crimes of Imperialism that killed countless millions in 2 world wars.
You by your own words condemn yourself as an apologist for the wars and crimes of capitalism.
It is not the crisis of socialism and communism that we face , for they have never existed. It is the crisis of capitalism and idiots like you are setting a course to repeat it all over again.
The saddest thing will be the untreatable survivors, people don't realize that these victims will have to be annestatized and buried like nuclear waste.
What? Is that what they did to Japanese survivors?
@@andrewwood6285 Some of them probably.
A dangerous conversation that is a nightmare today.
@5.10 -Hilda Murrell was a British rose grower, naturalist, diarist and campaigner against nuclear power and nuclear weapons. She was abducted and found murdered by MI5, five miles from her home in Shropshire.
what if we can colonize other planets,the thing that holding us back is that we all share the same planet what if every nation had seperate planets in the distant future.
It's because we are on the same planet, that it hasn't gotten that bad. The sad truth is that with humanity, comes every other baggage. We have to be mad at someone, place the blame on someone, when things go bad, not just personally, but also economically. We saw it happen to the jews, all in all if we were separated by planets, we'd bomb each other without a second thought.
By the time mankind masters space colonization there will be weapons so deadly that nuclear weapons will look like a child's play compared to it.
If the sight of your country's nuclear powered submarine, bomber or missile makes you proud, you do not fully understand the problem.
Unless in communist dictator country. Hooray the missiles and don't forget to salute.
War doesnt decide who's right, but it does decide who's left.
It may be insane but it worked didn't it - standoff (and no confrontation) for 60+ yrs.
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Albert Einstein
Do I like Nuclear weapons, no; none of us should. But nuclear deterrence is vital until every other nation gives up nuclear weapons at the same time. The US cant give them up unless Russia and China do as well. India cant unless Pakistan gives them up.
But Nuclear deterrence has helped Israel since it become comman knowledge they have them. Islamic nations haven't invaded Israel since then; knowing that if lost they will destroy the middle east with them.
its one thing to speak of nuclear deterrence but it MUST BE preceded by OPEN INSPECTIONS
During the Falklands War Russia had missiles with 25 megaton warheads aimed at western targets. A 25 megaton warhead is 1,667 times more powerful than the bomb that fell on Hiroshima. That is one missile, with one 25 megaton bomb. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction had many symbolic aspects to it. We had reached the point of mutually assured destruction many times over. I read in "Time" magazine that in 1967 then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said he realized we had gotten away from our original strategy for winning the Vietnam War, and we had no coherent strategy to replace it, but he decided we should stay in Vietnam so we could show the Russians we had the resolve to use tactical nuclear weapons if they invaded Western Europe. That was what we sacrificed 58,000 American lives for. Strange, but true. In the case of North Korea we can shoot down their nuclear missiles with Aegis capable cruisers and destroyers in the Pacific Ocean. There is a saying that "When all are mad, it is folly to be wise." Maybe we could amend that saying to, "When your opponent is behaving with madness, you need to be mad too." All things considered, I would bet my own survival and the survival of everything I love on mutually assured destruction. People don't realize that the world is irrational. There is no one thing we can say does rule the world, but reason usually plays a small part in it.
North Korea is working on missiles that US will not be able to intercept, they know that current one's can't reach US , but can still strike seol.
Everything has been implausibly conveniently miraculous.
There was several different times the world almost ended.
There was one guy. Who said no, and that's the reasoning why nuclear war didn't happen. THAT ONE GUY. Had he not been there or been on board, Russia would've shot a nuclear tipped missile at a US Ship.
How about when Russia opened it's nuclear briefcase because it forgot about a weather rocket from Norway or near that direction that decided to launch a research missile. Like total negligence almost ended the world because Russia "Forgot" about a scheduled research rocket launch.
Yes. The people who DON'T think the way things are now is insane are the insane ones.
There is a consistency, clearly more than chance, to how there is always one guy. There is command chain constraint. Without one one guy it would have fallen on another one guy.
Shadow, in regard to your first point, four nuclear armed Russian subs were in the waters off south FL during the missile crisis. Their torpedoes could have been destined for US ships, or Miami. US ships were dropping depth charges on these subs in international waters. It was one Russian sailor who argued to not launch unless the sub was hit or damaged. The Americans were in the dark about what they were facing. Intermediate range nukes would have wiped out the whole invasion fleet coming across the FL straits, and the ready to fire SS18's would have reached any US city within range (2/3 of them)
This is now extremely serious.
May lady luck always watch over us. Since assholes with scary weapons still rampage our beloved earth
This Commander ignores the reality that M.A.D. increased the bargaining margin for Nuclear Powers so much that it allowed for almost anything short of nuclear war to prevail and seem reasonable to nations preferring self-preservation. This key fact enabled relative peace to exist between all the Nuclear powers and has succeed magnificently for the last 60 years.
60 years is nothing in historical terms.
Historical terms?? A solid 3/4 century record confirms that MAD works logically and in its application. Global Adoption of MAD Policy is also evidence.
The reason it works and will continue to work is simple comeback to the MAD Question (Will you survive a second strike and will that mean anything if the second strike hits? ) that question strategically prevents nuclear holocausts.
@@LTirishkeg
See the problem is that the other side has to care about surviving. Soviet communism was many things but suicidal it was not.
We already see examples of people who willingly turn themselves into bombs and who think that it is good to die if it means killing an enemy/defending the group and its ideology. If a group that believed seriously enough that it was worth it to anihilate their enemies even if they die in the process ever got ahold of nuclear weapons it would mean MAD goes out the window. It wouldnt even take an entire suicidal nation either just suicidal leadership that keeps it's people in the dark about how far it will go.
We either need nuclear disarmament or the development of a technology that could reliably destroy nuclear weapons in flight. Anything else relies on hoping the limitlessness of human stupidity doesnt take over.
@@user-xg8yy7yl1d Thanks for your great insights in human nature!
Nuclear deterrence exists to deter the use of other nukes, not all war, BUT if you want to take that path...
War deaths as a percentage of total population fell SHARPLY after 1945 and has remained exceptionally low as compared to history, I wonder what event caused that
You make it sound like a party....lets get started!
In nuclear war, there are ONLY loosers no WINNERS. The only winners are fear 😫
is anyone else here because of MGS? anyone seeing the resemblance to the story?
I am not a fan of metal gear, I think the gameplay is very counterintuitive but the story on peace walker made up for the suffering of having played that game. Very interesting that topic.
OH yes, great to put a face to a name. Some years ago I read the book Enemies of the State, which focuses on the murder of this gentleman's aunty
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The world knows about these destructive weapons and many are already built and ready to be used. Because of their terrible destructive potential, countries will not disarm for fear that their opponents will keep their weapons. The U.S. would not disarm entirely and believe Russia was doing the same, or vice versa. Deterrence doesn't prevent conflict, but it does make far less likely the worst kind of conflict. Only a madman or a losing side on the verge of non-existence would use such weapons. It would be nice to just erase these arms from the world, but that is not a realistic goal. It simply will never happen. A better strategy at this point is simply working on defenses to ward off the madmen of the world.
The very fact that countries have not gone into another war though being pulled on multiple occasions to the brink of one, proves that nuclear deterrence hss worked.
doomed failure, yet, has kept us from MAD. to quote rick, "everyone wants to get knocked out, nobody wants to be dead"
I think I just came up with a Nobel Peace prize solution to stop global warming!
Nope. Conservatives already came up with the soloution years ago using nuculear par and instead of taxxing fuel tax emissions. You demonrats stopped us. As you want destruction.
@@saynototerrorism9617 Really? someone in government already suggested dropping nuclear bombs to stop global warming? Who?
Nuclear winter! yeah.
Truth.
To think that Putin has made a Nuclear threat in 2022 could be testimony to the possibility of his irrationality.
We should send food to north Korea instead of a blockade of imports
Stay out of wars in foreign foreign countries that do not involve us. Make peace instead of enemies. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.
Money will not buy back the loses with could suffer if we do not change tactics. We need a skilled negioateor to lead us. Or you can forget about great grandkids. There will not be any. The Peacemaker.
Food not bombs!
The Kim dynasty has refused international aide several times. Collapsing their regime is the only way North Korean people will never know a quality of life above their current one.
You dont send food to a ruthless dictator moron, they'll just ration it out to the obedient "good" citizens and gain more control
Every year the UN gives them huge food donations. As does S Korea and other countries including the USA. One year the US mentioned this publicly and N Korea actually refused their aid. They’d rather starve their people than admit weakness and help publicly.
IMO the only to change NK is to let Kim step and and live out his days in his villa. He and his family would have to agree on a bar from politics for at least 6 generations but you have to not charge the family with any crime that they did. That's the only way to get them to peacefully step out.