If you enjoyed this video about Nuclear Weapons, you might also want to check out the other videos which are part of ATOMIC AUGUST. Atomic August Playlist: ua-cam.com/video/1H4y5sYQYEc/v-deo.html Waldzkrieger’s channel: ua-cam.com/channels/VHO4lNW4gZ1abc8o-yedpA.html Arken the American’s channel: ua-cam.com/channels/0jhtpmmIwPVIgdfpz5c3yw.html Rahil Siddiqi’s channel: ua-cam.com/channels/1sviW20Udx3XZio5H3FowQ.htmlvideos
Thats risky ..... Every country are not stable securitily nad regime change is another issue... If those wepaons end up in wrong hands they are most likely goona get used
They exist, That is not a good thing but they exist, yea they prevent war, but the price may be way too high, that is a very high price for peace maybe that's what it cost's maybe not. Hopefully nobody uses them, and if they do than hopefully someone responds to it well.
The key to MAD is that nobody owns a viable countermeasure against nuclear warheads. However, in recent decades there has been lots of progress in this department. As soon as one side thinks it can avoid being struck by the warheads of the other while delivering their own payload, nuclear war suddenly appears "winnable".
Even before that happens, it is not certain that a state will respond. If the North Korean government launched a nuclear weapon, would you kill millions of their people who have no say in that government, all while the leaders who made the decision hide in a bunker...?
@@Jay_Johnson difference being Kim jung un is no idiot (even though US media like to portray him that way) he has nukes to basically prevent another US invasion because as we bomb literally everything that stand higher than 2 stories that and their were still recovering from the abuse the Japanese imposed on them as well
@@manleyaccmanley617 Yes but Countries like the US or Russia there isn't a "No first use" philosophy. They could decide to drop a bomb even in response to precieved imminent threat. Other countries like India would refrain from using the bomb unless one were used against them first.
Preventing nuclear weapons is a noble cause - but it needs to be done by everyone starting with USA, Russia, UK, France and China who also happen to be permanent members of the UNSC. Otherwise the others will never agree to this NPT and it will just remain a piece of paper.
"Yeah guys, nuclear weapons are so terrible don't get them, ever" "What do you mean get rid of mine? I'm the world police I need to be able to bully states into submission" America has been led by massive hypocrites for the last 100 years
@@dylan__dog the US had 31,255 warheads (1967). Since M.A.D they now have 5,000 (2021) It’s the same with all 5. Everyone has been slowly getting rid of there nukes for decades.
@@dylan__dog Russia has 6,000. And as I’ve already stated, everyone is reducing there amount of nukes. But if Iran gets nukes for example, Saudi Arabia would follow. And India/U.K./France/ Israel will start to produce more nukes, which will cause Russia/Pakistan to build more nukes, which will cause the US to build more nukes, which will cause China to build more nukes.
@@joshbentley2307 no that's alright. I see the domino effect as if iran gets more nukes, Saudi Arabia will get more nukes and since Saudi Arabia gives tons of weapons to terrorist groups (not the actual government but high ranking officials) terrorist will have nukes and terrorist are crazy.
@@alioshax7797 "Stop sending people to kill me. We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle (...) If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow, and I won't have to send a second." doesn't sound like friendship indeed lol
No it's still the worst weapon it's just possessed by more. Doesn't make it any less dangerous. That is until someone comes up with something more deadly than a nuke.
a 14 year old boy scout "David Hahn" enriched uranium out of his garage in Michigan in the 1980s using florescent lightbulbs... technology becomes more available over time, its inevitable everyone will have nukes at some point
This isn’t even mentioning how, during the fall of the Soviet Union, dozens of nuclear weapons disappeared as they were being transported out of the former Soviet republics. To this day, nobody knows where those weapons went. So yeah, sleep well.
@Félix Sánchez nope. Nuclear weapons are heavily monitored. And all of Soviet arsenal was counted to the letter. The best thing bad guys could hope to get their hands on is custom made dirty bomb, but without scientific and intelligence help it's is also just a fantasy.
@@ontheline3077 US army officially lost 6 nuclear weapons and Russian army officially lost 2 nuclear weapons. These are official numbers. I would bet that no army would like to admit to losing nuclear weapons, so there may be more
Your the channel from when i see a video uploaded im like oh Another high quality video thank you! Countryballs look better this time keep up the work!
We should remember that analytically or historically All deterrence eventually fail. We should just hope that in time warfare for BMDs changes enough so that the eventual failing of nuclear deterrence is not too catastrophic.
As long as nuclear weapons continue to exist, the risk of them being used increases especially with more and more viable countermeasures. Nuclear weapon accidents, nuclear terrorism, etc. In the early cold war there was a terrible line of thinking that the U.S. could conduct a first strike on the Soviets because at the end of WWII until the mid 50's the Soviets had no to few nuclear weapons. This line of thinking was thankfully rejected when it came up a couple of times (Korean war) and eventually the Soviets gained relative parity with the U.S. after the Cuban missile crisis. As countermeasures become better this line of thinking can be revived. Then you're left with two options; create new ways to deliver nuclear weapons to get around these countermeasures (hypersonic cruise missiles) or diplomatically reduce nuclear weapons step by step in tandem between major nuclear powers and to diplomatically agree to forego countermeasures. The second option I believe is best, the less functioning nuclear weapons on this planet the better. It reduces the chance of an accident, they are easier to manage by states, but even if there's say 100 per nation that is still enough to even deter nuclear war between nuclear states until the day that avenues of diplomacy becomes the primary way humans solve conflict.
That's true, when you have a weapon that can blow up millions of people instantly, do you really need all that many? In addition to it being overkill, the weapons themselves are expensive to maintain to prevent an accident from happening on your own territory. That's probably why the US and USSR agreed to the disarmament of so many nuclear weapons, because they wouldn't need all that many to destroy each other in the event of a war, so might as well save money before that, right?
If the goal of nukes is to Militarily neutralize the enemy, only a few hundred should ever be needed for the landmass the size of Russia. If instead the goal is to halve the enemy’s populace and cripple their food production to halve the populace again, then keep thousands of nukes. Nukes will still act as a deterrent if there are a couple hundred or couple thousand, but maybe it doesn’t have to kill so many in case of a war, but to just neutralize the enemy government’s ability to organize into a fighting force.
One thing is for sure. Any proxy war that has happened since WW2 would've been prevented from happening if the country in question had nuclear weapons. This is also why North Korea has worked hard to get them. Once you have them, you're quite uninvadeable.
Yeah, no. Most of the proxy wars were fought in former colonies with superpowers backing preexisting militant groups. Superpowers backed certain factions, but they didn't invent them, and violence would have occurred anyway. And who's giving newly independent states their own nukes? In Vietnam for example, would the French have given them nukes? Of course not. So would they all get nukes? That would've meant no Vietnam war, but they might not have been to happy about that. And countries with nuclear weapons can still have coups and revolutions, can still be economically pressured, and still can be interfered with.
@@雷-t3jit makes it far far more dangerous though, who is to say the country's high command who know they will get killed in a potential civil war that is funded by some great power, just launch all their nukes once that civil war happens ?
@@etherospike3936 The video this comment is under gives many very good arguments: (1) Humans are flawed and may misjudge a situation to fire off a nuclear weapon when they were not under any real threat (see Korean Air Lines Flight 007 the fallout of which the soviets thought they saw nuclear missiles approaching and were just moments away from firing nuclear weapons at American cities) (2) Humans are flawed and can accidentally set off a nuclear weapon. To this list I would add (3) nuclear weapons maintenance is very expensive, in the billions of dollars, many times the GDP of the majority of third world countries, and reducing the maintenance budget by cutting corners would make an accidental nuclear blast inevitable. Humans are prideful creatures and I think many would create a nuclear weapons program without the proper safety requirements and damn their citizens to an accidental nuclear blast due to criminal negligence.
@@jmoreland4 OK, you have pretty solid arguments on why we shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but now they are here, why only some countries should be in this "select " club? I mean nobody send UN observers in the Soviet Union or in China when they developed nuclear technologies , not to mention in the US , nobody told them that having nuclear weapons is dangerous ! So why Iran or North Korea aren't allowed to have something other countries already have and they didn't have to accept any inspection from world Atomic Energy Agency ?
@@robbieaulia6462 I imagine - Soviet Union had nukes , it was pretty unstable, I mean it cracked in many republics, back in 1991 afterwards many of the nukes disapeared , especially those situated in central Asia republics and in republics other than Russian Federation, where those weapons are now? Nobody knows ! Maybe they went to the highest bider ! What make you think that China for example is stable ? Or USA ? No country is stable, but still, only some countries are allowed to develop their nuclear technologies according to what discriminatory law ? My question is : What gives the right to let's say United States to posess nuclear technology, but for example Iran dosen't have the right to do the same ? I'm not saing Iran is good, or evil, but why international laws forbids some countries to do things other countries did unckecked ?
There nukes can’t reach the US or Europe yet. So North Korea can’t even use them. They could blow up South Korea or Japan but then there entire country would be wiped out. They’d get levelled by nukes from the US and then invaded by every major country to try and seize their nukes.
@Andrea B no they couldn’t. 1. They don’t have the capability to launch a nuke from a submarine. 2. There submarines are shit (we would be able to detect them on a radar if they went anywhere).
@@abduking. it is but we could still easily detect North Korean submarines tho, there incredibly loud and can’t go very deep with terrible radar jammers/scramblers.
The problem with nuclear peace is that many nations today shouldn't be nations. They just a mix of people squished together. So many civil wars can still happen. And civil wars are known to be pretty nasty. ...so with nukes...
@@ayushkumar-bg1xf That’s not a civil war that’s two political groups trading blows, it always happens A civil can only occur when there are clear sides, and BLM and The Proud Boys aren’t exactly cohesive
@c0ya1 Well technically no, as they do actually do stuff like rallies and protests (though I’m not sure how often the Proud Boys do that) BLM and (maybe?) the Proud Boys are not necessarily dedicated to hurtful action
Nuclear reactors use uranium with a much smaller enrichment percentage compared to nuclear weapons, so you can have nuclear energy without the capabilities of making a nuclear weapon.
@YAMERO CAT That's not my logic, I think you misunderstood the point entirely. Nuclear energy is the best available energy source we have and it should be promoted over all others, yes. But it's wrong to say "instead of nuclear weapons"... *precisely* because it is different and doesn't have a direct correlation with nuclear weapons. My point is the same as yours.
the dude inventing the gatling gun also thought that these weapons would safe lives since no one would want to fight in the first place (and because you need fewer soldiers) people building drones and are on to war-bots argue that you need fewer soldiers on the battlefield and that you are able to safe lives by that too, together with fewer mistakes made arguing that there will be fewer crimes (robberies and murders and such) if everyone is armed because no one would dare to do such a thing if everyone could shoot them down... yeah, turns out they are wrong, all of them with atomic weapons is the same as with guns, killing gets too easy and too quick, the only way to make sure that you don´t get shoot is to shoot first. to avoid any conflict in the first place would be a good approach but you cannot avoid every conflict and as it turns out, people feel too self secure with a gun on their side (on the street or at the store, etc) and are much more willing to "stand their ground" even if they know they are in the wrong. they are much more likely to seek conflict too
Remember machine guns and WW1? Someone said that machine guns will end all wars simply because it can mow down a shit ton of soldiers easily making war too costly and require too much sacrifice. we all know that war kept going on even after that, with a huge spike of dead bodies lying around the battlefield.
Counter argument: Assuming all states have nuclear weapons, what is stopping states from commiting horrible warcrimes against people within it's borders, like what China is currently doing with it's Muslim populations? War to save them wouldn't be an option, and aggravating them through economic restricts will either cause them to use the nukes anyways or make their warcrimes worse and more rampant, and that's only considering if every single country in the world agree to stop trading with the aggressive state.
To me the problem with this is that it's genuinely impossible for the world to not have any wars for hundreds if not thousands of years, particularly considering how much the balance of power between nations has shifted in just the past 40 years. Meaning that when wars will occur, the odds of massive destruction occurring is far more likely.
Nuclear peace theory is basically similar to a prisoner's dilemma: both not using it is good, but using while the opponent does not use create substancial advantage, and both using it creates a apocalypse in which crazy countries may like.
South Africa owned Nuclear weapons, which they told the UN about after they disarmed the 6 they created in 1989. I guess those predictions were right if some countries could just sneak under the radar.
The thing that nullifies all previously mentioned critiques is that non-proliferation is DOOMED. Such a treaty relies on nations wanting to seek peace, something that, of course, happened after the devastation of WW2. But as the memories fade away war is all but inevitable as seen in the modern day. And furthermore in our contemporary era, as war ramps up states will seek nuclear weapons & currently do as seen with Iran, because of their power. As long as there is no unbrearable cost for war, countries will continue it & seek the advantage, nuclear proliferation may have been slowed but it'll still happen. Hell, in the past few weeks it seems a "non-proliferation war" is on the horizon as Israel seeks to stop Iran from completing it's nuclear program. Kind of unproductive. Meanwhile, nuclear treaties are starting to break down & stockpiles are growing between the pre-existing nuclear powers. Non-proliferation is a pipedream, there can only be nuclear inequality. And inevitably, moves towards building the weapons. However, one last thing is the advancement of missile defense technology & AI reaction times, it's possible in the future nuclear weapons will be nullified. Who knows what will happen next. Could AI warfare continue to be a sufficient deterrant? Or will a new age of total war begin?
Ballistic missiles aren't the only way to deliver nukes, they can be delivered the same ways as any other weapon. So long as any form of physical warfare is possible, nukes cannot be really countered
The argument of "humans are irrational" is irrational, as it fails to consider how many humans are needed to detonate nukes and how no country has used nukes irrationally after ww2
Believe it or not, the first country(UK\USA) to propose nuclear weapons research and development is actually the United Kingdom. But with the outbreak of World War II, the UK could only integrate its local R&D personnel into the US Manhattan Project. However, after the end of World War II, the United States did not intend to share the research results of nuclear weapons with Britain. Even the British proposal to lease nuclear weapons from the United States has also been shelved. After being treated as a clown by the Americans for two years, British Prime Minister John Attlee finally recognized the reality, and then restarted the "alloy pipe" project.
I always felt the biggest problem was non-state actors. How does nuclear deterrence work on an idealogical group with no territory? You can't hit them with a nuclear strike, the most you can do is a global genocide. Which is too difficult, whereas them performing a nuclear strike is easy.
Yes I agree with you. Terrorism is based purely on ideas. The only state is the state of the mind. No matter how many militants are eliminated there are always more that replace them.
The answer to above question is one and if no then no one should have it......Neither America or any other country has the right to make rules regarding having nuclear weapon or not
There is a better and less potentially fatal solution. An attack against one is an attack against all, meaning, if one country is attacked, all other countries gang up on the aggressor. You get the same benefit of war deterrence, while avoiding the threat of nuclear annihilation.
The main problem about using nuclear weapons is that the earth is too small. In space, the side effects of nuclear explosions are much more manageable, since space vessels already demand a high standard of radiation shielding and airtightness.
There's also one problem that you didn't even mention: If all states (countries) get nuclear weapons, but nobody else gets them (for example no NGOs with Nuclear Weapons), how do we define a state? Is Taiwan a State? What about Kosovo? The Sovereign Military Order of Malta? Transnistria? ISIS? How do we treat Independence Movements - at what stage of Progress do they need to be for them to get Nukes? Is Scottland a State? Catalonia? Again: Kosovo?
The original creator of the Gatling gun, Richard Jordan Gatling, hoped to end wars with his creation by lessening exposure to battle, thus requiring less men in an army. Instead, he revolutionized warfare. This theory will have the same effect.
No major power with a nuclear arsenal will give up their power so I think the nuclear peace theory is the best way to avoid war. At least if everyone has nukes, they won't worry about war and worry more about the potential accidents allowing for the proliferation of better safety regulations. Even the incidents that did occur still had a good amount of safety checks with very little consequences generally speaking. Regardless it's better to have a controlled accident than large scale war with nukes, it's simple triage.
The doctrine of 'M.A.D.' is truly an important sight to be hold and realize and can be used to one's advantage. However, Kenneth Waltz's idea of slowing giving out more nukes to countries as a way of a 'nuclear peace' does not sound very plausible in my opinion. For instance, it is important to bring up the Cuban Missile Crisis. That event happened because of fear and strange the fact that two enemies were right at each out other's door steps. Giving out more nukes would possible increase the odds of these kind of events.
Much like that scale adding more bombs would provoke more people to make careful decisions, but if someone pushes it wrong just slightly then boom. However, taking bombs of the scale would make things safer, but people will grow comfortable and make more rash and violent decisions free from mutual destruction
Nukes are also kinda terrible weapons for fighting the kind of wars we wage now, when countries go on the offense, its usually to depose a leader they see as problematic, or the other country has something they want, nukes don’t help with either of these goals because they destroy SO MUCH
I understand the concept but I think we should look to India and Pakistan when thinking about this both countries have nuclear weapons and still have been in a brutal border dispute for decades so this logic is flawed.
This assumes that the countries remain politically stable. Most European countries wouldn’t be an issue but the Middle East, South America, and similar countries? Hell to the no
The most fair in my opinion is that if you have the means (materials) in your own country (without importing anything) and technology ( the scientists educated in your own country) you should have it! This implying as well that you use it as a deterrent in case of aggression against you and nothing else! The problem is not getting it! The problem is storing it safe, man it with competent and councious people and not leve the decision in the hands of irational leaders
Its not based on rationality only. Its based on fear to which is an emotion. I don't agree with Waltz. He thinks states become more restrained but history shows there behaviour either stays the same or in rarer cases becomes more aggressive.
If each country has a 2% of going into a nuclear war with their partner country (a generous estimate it’s probably way higher on avg) then the probability a given country pair won’t is 98%. The probability that at least one pair of countries will devolve into nuclear war is the same as the complement of no country pair going into nuclear war: 1 - (0.98)^97.5 = 0.86. Theres an 86% chance that at least one country pair will devolve into nuclear war. This is not even accounting for countries being able to have multiple risk partners (e.g like india being at risk to go to war with China or Pakistan) or convoluted treaties that would require a non-related country to retaliate on behalf of another country. I don’t know why anyone would ever think arming everyone with nuclear weapons would deter others even assuming rational actors.
South Africa did got nukes. In the 1990s they ended their nuclear program under the supervision of the United Nations and dismantled all their nukes (the only nuclear power to do so)
If you enjoyed this video about Nuclear Weapons, you might also want to check out the other videos which are part of ATOMIC AUGUST.
Atomic August Playlist: ua-cam.com/video/1H4y5sYQYEc/v-deo.html
Waldzkrieger’s channel: ua-cam.com/channels/VHO4lNW4gZ1abc8o-yedpA.html
Arken the American’s channel: ua-cam.com/channels/0jhtpmmIwPVIgdfpz5c3yw.html
Rahil Siddiqi’s channel: ua-cam.com/channels/1sviW20Udx3XZio5H3FowQ.htmlvideos
Fantastic job mate. Well worth the long wait.
Excellent work.
Yes
Thats risky .....
Every country are not stable securitily nad regime change is another issue...
If those wepaons end up in wrong hands they are most likely goona get used
They exist, That is not a good thing but they exist, yea they prevent war, but the price may be way too high, that is a very high price for peace maybe that's what it cost's maybe not. Hopefully nobody uses them, and if they do than hopefully someone responds to it well.
The key to MAD is that nobody owns a viable countermeasure against nuclear warheads. However, in recent decades there has been lots of progress in this department. As soon as one side thinks it can avoid being struck by the warheads of the other while delivering their own payload, nuclear war suddenly appears "winnable".
Even before that happens, it is not certain that a state will respond. If the North Korean government launched a nuclear weapon, would you kill millions of their people who have no say in that government, all while the leaders who made the decision hide in a bunker...?
@@Jay_Johnson Of course it's not 'certain'. At least I hope it's not!
Prolouge to DEFCON lol
@@Jay_Johnson difference being Kim jung un is no idiot (even though US media like to portray him that way) he has nukes to basically prevent another US invasion because as we bomb literally everything that stand higher than 2 stories that and their were still recovering from the abuse the Japanese imposed on them as well
Winnable until the crop failures kick in and you can't feed your own population.
Not going to lie, the idea of nuclear mistakes and accidents scare me a lot more than intentional nuclear strikes
I think its because its random, you may never know when one "accidentally" drops and explode, while in conflict you can evacuate
@@manleyaccmanley617 Yes but Countries like the US or Russia there isn't a "No first use" philosophy. They could decide to drop a bomb even in response to precieved imminent threat.
Other countries like India would refrain from using the bomb unless one were used against them first.
when you think about the fact theres houndreds of nuclear bombs lost at sea
Preventing nuclear weapons is a noble cause - but it needs to be done by everyone starting with USA, Russia, UK, France and China who also happen to be permanent members of the UNSC. Otherwise the others will never agree to this NPT and it will just remain a piece of paper.
"Yeah guys, nuclear weapons are so terrible don't get them, ever"
"What do you mean get rid of mine? I'm the world police I need to be able to bully states into submission"
America has been led by massive hypocrites for the last 100 years
@@dylan__dog the US had 31,255 warheads (1967).
Since M.A.D they now have 5,000 (2021)
It’s the same with all 5.
Everyone has been slowly getting rid of there nukes for decades.
@@joshbentley2307 5000 you know of
And 5000 is still a lot more than 0 and still an absurd number that can cause damage of apocalyptic proportions
@@dylan__dog Russia has 6,000.
And as I’ve already stated, everyone is reducing there amount of nukes.
But if Iran gets nukes for example, Saudi Arabia would follow. And India/U.K./France/ Israel will start to produce more nukes, which will cause Russia/Pakistan to build more nukes, which will cause the US to build more nukes, which will cause China to build more nukes.
@@joshbentley2307 no that's alright. I see the domino effect as if iran gets more nukes, Saudi Arabia will get more nukes and since Saudi Arabia gives tons of weapons to terrorist groups (not the actual government but high ranking officials) terrorist will have nukes and terrorist are crazy.
The easiest way to figure out if a historical content creator is good is if he doesnt paint Yugoslavia as part of the Warsaw pact
Pretty basic knoweldge. Anyone who has some interest in history knows that Tito and Stalin hated eachothers...
for many years i thought yugo was part of the warsaw pact, must have been all those shitty maps that painted them as red.
@@alioshax7797 "Stop sending people to kill me. We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle (...) If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow, and I won't have to send a second." doesn't sound like friendship indeed lol
@אלף החרב Albania was part of it until Stalin died
@@JewTube001 1 yr late, but its also the shit history books in school
When everyone has *the worst weapon* is it really the worst weapon, or just another gun?
Dropping truth nukes over here, dude.
No it's still the worst weapon it's just possessed by more. Doesn't make it any less dangerous. That is until someone comes up with something more deadly than a nuke.
It's another gun, which breaks your own arm when you shoot it
Yea, but just think what happens if one of them falls to a terror group... for it it would still be a nuke.
a 14 year old boy scout "David Hahn" enriched uranium out of his garage in Michigan in the 1980s using florescent lightbulbs...
technology becomes more available over time, its inevitable everyone will have nukes at some point
This isn’t even mentioning how, during the fall of the Soviet Union, dozens of nuclear weapons disappeared as they were being transported out of the former Soviet republics.
To this day, nobody knows where those weapons went. So yeah, sleep well.
They came to Russia under international control. Simple.
There are also couple lost by the US
@Félix Sánchez nope. Nuclear weapons are heavily monitored. And all of Soviet arsenal was counted to the letter. The best thing bad guys could hope to get their hands on is custom made dirty bomb, but without scientific and intelligence help it's is also just a fantasy.
oversimplified reference in there even if abit
@@ontheline3077 US army officially lost 6 nuclear weapons and Russian army officially lost 2 nuclear weapons. These are official numbers. I would bet that no army would like to admit to losing nuclear weapons, so there may be more
Sent here by kraut. Great stuff my dude.
Hey I was too
That explains why I found this on my recommended
Carrying the masterpiece brain4breakfast created
@Thorne Nothin' wrong with that.
@Thorne Kraut likes women dude.
Happy to have you back and your animations are getting better keep up the good work
Your the channel from when i see a video uploaded im like oh
Another high quality video thank you!
Countryballs look better this time keep up the work!
The Nuclear Arms race is like a group of people neck-deep in an ocean of petrol competing over who has the most matches
Then seeing who can also bring out their lighter the fastest while so saying "no balls, you won't light it" constantly...
Until a madman climbs to power and then whole hell breaks loose
i think it'll take more than just one mad man, as most higher ups in the military and government know exactly what'll happen once they fire a nuke.
*>Mfw we have no idea how many nuclear accidents the Soviets had*
Or americans
@@imiy We're aware of a lot of them, but a lot are also likely still classified.
@@concept5631 same as russians are aware of the soviet ones.
When I first saw you uploaded I thought it was brain4breakfast...
);
Don’t remind me... I start to miss him again.
RIP
RIP :(
:'(
Keep making quality content, my man
We should remember that analytically or historically All deterrence eventually fail.
We should just hope that in time warfare for BMDs changes enough so that the eventual failing of nuclear deterrence is not too catastrophic.
As long as nuclear weapons continue to exist, the risk of them being used increases especially with more and more viable countermeasures. Nuclear weapon accidents, nuclear terrorism, etc.
In the early cold war there was a terrible line of thinking that the U.S. could conduct a first strike on the Soviets because at the end of WWII until the mid 50's the Soviets had no to few nuclear weapons. This line of thinking was thankfully rejected when it came up a couple of times (Korean war) and eventually the Soviets gained relative parity with the U.S. after the Cuban missile crisis.
As countermeasures become better this line of thinking can be revived. Then you're left with two options; create new ways to deliver nuclear weapons to get around these countermeasures (hypersonic cruise missiles) or diplomatically reduce nuclear weapons step by step in tandem between major nuclear powers and to diplomatically agree to forego countermeasures.
The second option I believe is best, the less functioning nuclear weapons on this planet the better. It reduces the chance of an accident, they are easier to manage by states, but even if there's say 100 per nation that is still enough to even deter nuclear war between nuclear states until the day that avenues of diplomacy becomes the primary way humans solve conflict.
That's true, when you have a weapon that can blow up millions of people instantly, do you really need all that many? In addition to it being overkill, the weapons themselves are expensive to maintain to prevent an accident from happening on your own territory.
That's probably why the US and USSR agreed to the disarmament of so many nuclear weapons, because they wouldn't need all that many to destroy each other in the event of a war, so might as well save money before that, right?
If the goal of nukes is to Militarily neutralize the enemy, only a few hundred should ever be needed for the landmass the size of Russia.
If instead the goal is to halve the enemy’s populace and cripple their food production to halve the populace again, then keep thousands of nukes.
Nukes will still act as a deterrent if there are a couple hundred or couple thousand, but maybe it doesn’t have to kill so many in case of a war, but to just neutralize the enemy government’s ability to organize into a fighting force.
I dunno if I'd trust the economic and military super power of lichtenstein of having nukes.
I am more concerned about sealand owning nuke
You can't be unrecognized if you are the only one left
@@err0rakadeadk4t you can't be recognised if there is nobody to recognise you
The real threat is Iceland
I'm consistently amazed at how few recognize the potential threat posed by a nuclear-armed Belize.
I’m not a person who is really interested in politics, but this Chanel proves to be an interesting one.
Well, mass nuclear proliferation would undoubtedly mean less war, but it also undoubtedly mean that one war is all it would take
A very good video, educational, straight to the point and quite well constructed.
One thing is for sure. Any proxy war that has happened since WW2 would've been prevented from happening if the country in question had nuclear weapons.
This is also why North Korea has worked hard to get them. Once you have them, you're quite uninvadeable.
Yeah, no. Most of the proxy wars were fought in former colonies with superpowers backing preexisting militant groups. Superpowers backed certain factions, but they didn't invent them, and violence would have occurred anyway. And who's giving newly independent states their own nukes? In Vietnam for example, would the French have given them nukes? Of course not. So would they all get nukes? That would've meant no Vietnam war, but they might not have been to happy about that. And countries with nuclear weapons can still have coups and revolutions, can still be economically pressured, and still can be interfered with.
@@雷-t3jit makes it far far more dangerous though, who is to say the country's high command who know they will get killed in a potential civil war that is funded by some great power, just launch all their nukes once that civil war happens ?
Iam Glad that you got recommended through Kraut, keep it up !
Nice Video. I'll give a "no" to the title question however.
And why is that ? Arguments please !
@@etherospike3936 The video this comment is under gives many very good arguments: (1) Humans are flawed and may misjudge a situation to fire off a nuclear weapon when they were not under any real threat (see Korean Air Lines Flight 007 the fallout of which the soviets thought they saw nuclear missiles approaching and were just moments away from firing nuclear weapons at American cities) (2) Humans are flawed and can accidentally set off a nuclear weapon.
To this list I would add (3) nuclear weapons maintenance is very expensive, in the billions of dollars, many times the GDP of the majority of third world countries, and reducing the maintenance budget by cutting corners would make an accidental nuclear blast inevitable.
Humans are prideful creatures and I think many would create a nuclear weapons program without the proper safety requirements and damn their citizens to an accidental nuclear blast due to criminal negligence.
@@jmoreland4 OK, you have pretty solid arguments on why we shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but now they are here, why only some countries should be in this "select " club? I mean nobody send UN observers in the Soviet Union or in China when they developed nuclear technologies
, not to mention in the US , nobody told them that having nuclear weapons is dangerous ! So why Iran or North Korea aren't allowed to have something other countries already have and they didn't have to accept any inspection from world Atomic Energy Agency ?
Imagine if the unstable countries got nukes, that would be devastating
@@robbieaulia6462 I imagine - Soviet Union had nukes , it was pretty unstable, I mean it cracked in many republics, back in 1991 afterwards many of the nukes disapeared , especially those situated in central Asia republics and in republics other than Russian Federation, where those weapons are now? Nobody knows ! Maybe they went to the highest bider ! What make you think that China for example is stable ? Or USA ? No country is stable, but still, only some countries are allowed to develop their nuclear technologies according to what discriminatory law ? My question is : What gives the right to let's say United States to posess nuclear technology, but for example Iran dosen't have the right to do the same ? I'm not saing Iran is good, or evil, but why international laws forbids some countries to do things other countries did unckecked ?
6:58 that is Murcia not Almería
I love the hidden humor in your videos
Wise man said- "when comes great power comes great responsibility"
why are we randomly a cube lol
Countryball rules. Israel is always a cube, poland is always upside down to hide from germany, kazachstan is a rectangle, nepal has shark teeth, etc
Jewish physics, brother.
Imagine North Korea having nukes, wait..
There nukes can’t reach the US or Europe yet.
So North Korea can’t even use them.
They could blow up South Korea or Japan but then there entire country would be wiped out.
They’d get levelled by nukes from the US and then invaded by every major country to try and seize their nukes.
@Andrea B no they couldn’t.
1. They don’t have the capability to launch a nuke from a submarine.
2. There submarines are shit (we would be able to detect them on a radar if they went anywhere).
@@joshbentley2307 I'm pretty sure radar is shit underwater
@@abduking. it is but we could still easily detect North Korean submarines tho, there incredibly loud and can’t go very deep with terrible radar jammers/scramblers.
The problem with nuclear peace is that many nations today shouldn't be nations. They just a mix of people squished together. So many civil wars can still happen. And civil wars are known to be pretty nasty. ...so with nukes...
usa is top example of that . we saw last year how close it came to starting civil war . proud boys attacking blm may start civil war in USA
@@ayushkumar-bg1xf
I do believe that the chance for civil war in the USA isn't going to happen in this year, and that we've already hit the peak.
@@ayushkumar-bg1xf
That’s not a civil war that’s two political groups trading blows, it always happens
A civil can only occur when there are clear sides, and BLM and The Proud Boys aren’t exactly cohesive
@@ayushkumar-bg1xf worst thing for me as a European was to see the attack on the capitol.
@c0ya1
Well technically no, as they do actually do stuff like rallies and protests (though I’m not sure how often the Proud Boys do that)
BLM and (maybe?) the Proud Boys are not necessarily dedicated to hurtful action
"instead promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy"
As if these things were somehow exclusive, can't have both at the same time...
Nuclear reactors use uranium with a much smaller enrichment percentage compared to nuclear weapons, so you can have nuclear energy without the capabilities of making a nuclear weapon.
@YAMERO CAT That's not my logic, I think you misunderstood the point entirely.
Nuclear energy is the best available energy source we have and it should be promoted over all others, yes.
But it's wrong to say "instead of nuclear weapons"... *precisely* because it is different and doesn't have a direct correlation with nuclear weapons.
My point is the same as yours.
Thank you for such good content!
the dude inventing the gatling gun also thought that these weapons would safe lives since no one would want to fight in the first place (and because you need fewer soldiers)
people building drones and are on to war-bots argue that you need fewer soldiers on the battlefield and that you are able to safe lives by that too, together with fewer mistakes made
arguing that there will be fewer crimes (robberies and murders and such) if everyone is armed because no one would dare to do such a thing if everyone could shoot them down...
yeah, turns out they are wrong, all of them
with atomic weapons is the same as with guns, killing gets too easy and too quick, the only way to make sure that you don´t get shoot is to shoot first. to avoid any conflict in the first place would be a good approach but you cannot avoid every conflict and as it turns out, people feel too self secure with a gun on their side (on the street or at the store, etc) and are much more willing to "stand their ground" even if they know they are in the wrong. they are much more likely to seek conflict too
Great video!!!!
Remember machine guns and WW1? Someone said that machine guns will end all wars simply because it can mow down a shit ton of soldiers easily making war too costly and require too much sacrifice. we all know that war kept going on even after that, with a huge spike of dead bodies lying around the battlefield.
The same was said about the tank in WW1
I believe the venerable Tom Lehrer had some wise words to say on this topic... "Who's Next?"
Counter argument: Assuming all states have nuclear weapons, what is stopping states from commiting horrible warcrimes against people within it's borders, like what China is currently doing with it's Muslim populations? War to save them wouldn't be an option, and aggravating them through economic restricts will either cause them to use the nukes anyways or make their warcrimes worse and more rampant, and that's only considering if every single country in the world agree to stop trading with the aggressive state.
What about sex trafficking civil wars, thoughs can cause wars two.
Lol what is China doing to Muslim population? Nothing, so taht is not a good example,
@@alexzhangdragonn3438 yeah, bad example. Everyone is too nervous about ruining trade with China to do shit now days, since China makes everything.
To me the problem with this is that it's genuinely impossible for the world to not have any wars for hundreds if not thousands of years, particularly considering how much the balance of power between nations has shifted in just the past 40 years. Meaning that when wars will occur, the odds of massive destruction occurring is far more likely.
another great video, just good info/analysis no politics 👍👍👍👍👍
Nukes need to internationally illegal. And amyone who tries to create them should face military action from tge international community
AND IM AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN...I HATE NUKES.
Your content is amazing, I love it.
Nuclear peace theory is basically similar to a prisoner's dilemma: both not using it is good, but using while the opponent does not use create substancial advantage, and both using it creates a apocalypse in which crazy countries may like.
Great video!
South Africa owned Nuclear weapons, which they told the UN about after they disarmed the 6 they created in 1989. I guess those predictions were right if some countries could just sneak under the radar.
The thing that nullifies all previously mentioned critiques is that non-proliferation is DOOMED. Such a treaty relies on nations wanting to seek peace, something that, of course, happened after the devastation of WW2. But as the memories fade away war is all but inevitable as seen in the modern day.
And furthermore in our contemporary era, as war ramps up states will seek nuclear weapons & currently do as seen with Iran, because of their power.
As long as there is no unbrearable cost for war, countries will continue it & seek the advantage, nuclear proliferation may have been slowed but it'll still happen.
Hell, in the past few weeks it seems a "non-proliferation war" is on the horizon as Israel seeks to stop Iran from completing it's nuclear program. Kind of unproductive. Meanwhile, nuclear treaties are starting to break down & stockpiles are growing between the pre-existing nuclear powers. Non-proliferation is a pipedream, there can only be nuclear inequality. And inevitably, moves towards building the weapons.
However, one last thing is the advancement of missile defense technology & AI reaction times, it's possible in the future nuclear weapons will be nullified. Who knows what will happen next. Could AI warfare continue to be a sufficient deterrant? Or will a new age of total war begin?
Ballistic missiles aren't the only way to deliver nukes, they can be delivered the same ways as any other weapon. So long as any form of physical warfare is possible, nukes cannot be really countered
Pretty sure you're gonna have a million subscribers soon... 👍👍
The argument of "humans are irrational" is irrational, as it fails to consider how many humans are needed to detonate nukes and how no country has used nukes irrationally after ww2
Only 1 person has to give an order - the president and all those people involved in lunching the nukes are required to obey wichout question
great work!
American: Nuclear Test Site: No Tresspassing
Soviet: Nuclear Test Site: No Kapitalist Pigs
Lol
Believe it or not, the first country(UK\USA) to propose nuclear weapons research and development is actually the United Kingdom.
But with the outbreak of World War II, the UK could only integrate its local R&D personnel into the US Manhattan Project.
However, after the end of World War II, the United States did not intend to share the research results of nuclear weapons with Britain.
Even the British proposal to lease nuclear weapons from the United States has also been shelved.
After being treated as a clown by the Americans for two years, British Prime Minister John Attlee finally recognized the reality, and then restarted the "alloy pipe" project.
"We should remember from time to time that nuclear weapons are still a reality"
don't worry, we won't forget anytime soon
1:33 why is Israel a box and not a circle like all the others?
Countryballs rules And pyramids
0:01
*[Laughts in hydrogen bomb]*
Great video
*The biggest NOOOOOOOOOO I could ever scream at the top of mount Everest*
In response to the video's titled question
1:48 proves flat earth theory!
collab with countryballs explained
Wow. Imagine LOSING A NUCLEAR BOMB and having to explain that one to your superior.
I always felt the biggest problem was non-state actors. How does nuclear deterrence work on an idealogical group with no territory? You can't hit them with a nuclear strike, the most you can do is a global genocide. Which is too difficult, whereas them performing a nuclear strike is easy.
Yes I agree with you. Terrorism is based purely on ideas. The only state is the state of the mind. No matter how many militants are eliminated there are always more that replace them.
Well here comes the Metal Gear Solid story line.
"lil boi"
Yeah "little".
Yup little by comparison of devastating power of later nukes
The answer to above question is one and if no then no one should have it......Neither America or any other country has the right to make rules regarding having nuclear weapon or not
There have been so many nuclear accidents it's considered a broken arrow
It is actually M.A.D. to give all countries nukes. 😉
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (plz stop)
The rest of the world: Panicking from nuclear weapons
South America and Africa: MISSION PASSED----RESPECT+
There is a better and less potentially fatal solution. An attack against one is an attack against all, meaning, if one country is attacked, all other countries gang up on the aggressor. You get the same benefit of war deterrence, while avoiding the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Glad India didn't signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.
NPT is biased towards Non P5, so we can only option is not to sign.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate all the little jokes in every slide?
Ideally, no one should own nuclear weapons. Realistically, yes everyone should own nuclear weapons.
The main problem about using nuclear weapons is that the earth is too small. In space, the side effects of nuclear explosions are much more manageable, since space vessels already demand a high standard of radiation shielding and airtightness.
Kenneth Waltz clearly did not know Putin
4:20
Why take A and B as an example
There is a live example right now
It's Pakistan and india
Or China and India
@@skirata3144 Nah
They aree not on that level like Pakistan and India
Make a vedio on India China conflict
That is definitely on my to-do list, probably after the Nagorno-Karabakh video
@@PoliticswithPaint ok
This comment aged like wine.
Do you play Wargame: Red Dragon perhaps? I see that you are using the font of that game.
8:17
Por que no los dos?
What I find scarier is who we don’t know has nuclear weapons
" balanced as all things should be "
i was overcome by a short wave of excitement when he showed Bangladesh's flag and talked about giving it nuclear weapons
There's also one problem that you didn't even mention: If all states (countries) get nuclear weapons, but nobody else gets them (for example no NGOs with Nuclear Weapons), how do we define a state? Is Taiwan a State? What about Kosovo? The Sovereign Military Order of Malta? Transnistria? ISIS? How do we treat Independence Movements - at what stage of Progress do they need to be for them to get Nukes? Is Scottland a State? Catalonia? Again: Kosovo?
I had no idea it was only 9 countries that owned a nuke
The original creator of the Gatling gun, Richard Jordan Gatling, hoped to end wars with his creation by lessening exposure to battle, thus requiring less men in an army. Instead, he revolutionized warfare. This theory will have the same effect.
No major power with a nuclear arsenal will give up their power so I think the nuclear peace theory is the best way to avoid war. At least if everyone has nukes, they won't worry about war and worry more about the potential accidents allowing for the proliferation of better safety regulations. Even the incidents that did occur still had a good amount of safety checks with very little consequences generally speaking.
Regardless it's better to have a controlled accident than large scale war with nukes, it's simple triage.
The doctrine of 'M.A.D.' is truly an important sight to be hold and realize and can be used to one's advantage. However, Kenneth Waltz's idea of slowing giving out more nukes to countries as a way of a 'nuclear peace' does not sound very plausible in my opinion.
For instance, it is important to bring up the Cuban Missile Crisis. That event happened because of fear and strange the fact that two enemies were right at each out other's door steps. Giving out more nukes would possible increase the odds of these kind of events.
Much like that scale adding more bombs would provoke more people to make careful decisions, but if someone pushes it wrong just slightly then boom. However, taking bombs of the scale would make things safer, but people will grow comfortable and make more rash and violent decisions free from mutual destruction
Nukes are also kinda terrible weapons for fighting the kind of wars we wage now, when countries go on the offense, its usually to depose a leader they see as problematic, or the other country has something they want, nukes don’t help with either of these goals because they destroy SO MUCH
I understand the concept but I think we should look to India and Pakistan when thinking about this both countries have nuclear weapons and still have been in a brutal border dispute for decades so this logic is flawed.
Yeah if a war starts then it would be a nuclear war
This assumes that the countries remain politically stable. Most European countries wouldn’t be an issue but the Middle East, South America, and similar countries? Hell to the no
The most fair in my opinion is that if you have the means (materials) in your own country (without importing anything) and technology ( the scientists educated in your own country) you should have it!
This implying as well that you use it as a deterrent in case of aggression against you and nothing else!
The problem is not getting it! The problem is storing it safe, man it with competent and councious people and not leve the decision in the hands of irational leaders
🇮🇷🇮🇳🇮🇱
🇷🇺🇮🇳🇺🇸
.
From India, this looks good❤️❤️
Its not based on rationality only. Its based on fear to which is an emotion.
I don't agree with Waltz. He thinks states become more restrained but history shows there behaviour either stays the same or in rarer cases becomes more aggressive.
Issue is that if any terrorist got there hand on nuke ,they can hold whole world hostage 😂😂😂😂😂
Nice!
why is israel a box?
If one is afraid of something or another, there is only one feeling that overpower that feeling... Anger.
“Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.”
Neclear wepan is very dengraus wepan in earth.😎😎😎😎, thanks for video 🇮🇳🌹🇮🇳
No but if US wouldn't destroy it's own then it has no business in other countries affairs and yes others should own their own nukes in response.
Create a ai who has nukes and will nuke anyone who starts a war. There can’t possibly go wrong
If each country has a 2% of going into a nuclear war with their partner country (a generous estimate it’s probably way higher on avg) then the probability a given country pair won’t is 98%. The probability that at least one pair of countries will devolve into nuclear war is the same as the complement of no country pair going into nuclear war: 1 - (0.98)^97.5 = 0.86. Theres an 86% chance that at least one country pair will devolve into nuclear war. This is not even accounting for countries being able to have multiple risk partners (e.g like india being at risk to go to war with China or Pakistan) or convoluted treaties that would require a non-related country to retaliate on behalf of another country. I don’t know why anyone would ever think arming everyone with nuclear weapons would deter others even assuming rational actors.
Even albert Einstein is regretting building the a nuclear weapon
Taiwan and South Africa attempted to make nukes but stopped. Just imagine if they went further
Taiwan is a county that definetly should have nukes pointed at Xi Jinping and his power clique.
South Africa did got nukes. In the 1990s they ended their nuclear program under the supervision of the United Nations and dismantled all their nukes (the only nuclear power to do so)
@@quisqueyanguy120 They only use nuclear technology for civilian purposes. It is located in Pretoria West.