A nuclear cold war is far better than a nuclear winter.

@@brettminer1079 good one

It's really scary how easy it is to destroy earth. Or at least humankind. I think it will happen by 2050. I hope I'm wrong.

Lmao

You know I think your on to somting!

USA, Russia, China, India and isreal are the countries with capabilities to intercept ICBM with there multiple layer shield and yes they all have those cool looking Radars and missile systems on both ground and sea.

@@sourabhgupta4853 haven't russo-ukranian war teach you anythung ? that modern armies can fail mesirably ? never say someone has this or can do that , we all said russian would anter kiev in two days and look how its ending .

@@algeriapower7242 Russia obviously would not win quickly, even though they will eventually win.

It is only as scary as Russia wants to make it. They back down, and there is no issue. They don't, the US will make full use of it. Simple as that. It is in Russia's hands when the world ends. Remember that when you think Russia is not the bad guy.

they look like the base in World Trigger

The MAD doctrine only works with reasonable people in charge. With Putin's erratic imperialistic demands on former Soviet States, Japanese Islands and Alaska, Biden's advanced age or Trump's advanced age and fascist tendencies, this is not a given balance.

But I wouldn't think that. I wouldn't even think that if it stopped 99 out of 100.

99 out of 100 would be phenomenal. The damage from 1 nuke isn't that bad compared to like 50... well, unless it hits you

@@joshuacheung6518 You can only hope for the best.

Yeah I was thinking that. Unless you consider that interception as part of the enemy's game plan, and why they aim multiple warheads at each target. Then the target is still destroyed and what the interceptor has actually done is make the enemy spend more on extra warheads and missiles. Assuming they do that. This stuff is complicated..

@@UncleKennysPlace even the Israeli Iron Dome rocket defense which is one of the best ever made only has a 90% hit rate meaning out of 10 rockets (statistically) 1 will get through which is still phenomenal in terms of how complex that technology is

You think the u.s. is just now pursuing hypersonic weapons? Lol. That's old news my man

@@lukebalderose334 what ever they say theyre starting research on, theyve already their homework nearly a few decades ago. If anything they’re saying they might start producing

@@user-ox4bv3it4i the x-15 went mach 6 in 1967 with a pilot.

@@lukebalderose334 That doesn't mean that hypersonic weapons are totally old news. We may have done it experimentally then with tech we had at the time, but that doesn't necessarily mean we went straight into making a weapons system like the ones we're developing today. To be clear, we did do lots of work on hypersonic ICBM defense systems like the Sprint program, but modern systems are very different and use many innovations that came about since then. (If you haven't seen the videos of the Sprint tests I recommend checking them out, they're really cool) It's a bit like how the Wright brothers flew in 1903 and the first commercial airports opened in the late 1910s and early 1920s, but modern air travel uses massive jetliners with technologies that only started coming about in the last 40 years or so.

Hypersonic attack missiles cannot be intercepted. Radars don't detect them, and by the time you have a visual it's too late.

Every reasonable being has to conclude that it is safer to reduce the number of nuclear weapons further considerably and to recognize the sovereignty of all other nations.

@@christophmessner6450 Tell russians about it and hear the reaction.

Hey, come to think of this, anyone here knows why the US never makes a group of satellites armed with KVs and deploys them over Russia 24/7? ... Tracking ICBMs in this way would be more responsive and effective than the conventional methods.

@@JohnKickboxingthat’s basically what Star Wars was going to be. Was going to be stupidly expensive, and also risked a preemptive strike since if it worked, it would have been way too expensive for the USSR to replicate. But it’s also not clear it would ever work, because the soviets could’ve just built another 1000 ICBMs for less cost.

@@JohnKickboxing And what do you do about the submarines? Do you really think Russia or China or India is going to let the US place missile defense systems above their territoty and just clap?

The Russian Gazelle ABM has a speed of 12,900 mph.

Right!? Tell me again, how many conflicts has the U.S. lost again? I mean versus the rest of the worlds powers. *Maybe that optimism is deserved*

@@Darkmattermonkey77 More importantly, how many has its military been defeated in. People can split hairs all they want and point at failure to achieve objectives meaning they lost, but was their military defeated in any of those split-hair cases? No.

@@Darkmattermonkey77 Vietnam

@@Darkmattermonkey77 We lose because, even with all our foreign policy criticism and missteps, of our tendency for war weariness and ultimate respect for democratic "liberal" values and other country sovereignty not because of strength. We try to "contain", "nation build", "occupy" and then clumsily hand the reins over, not just stomp the shit out of a country and completely annex or take it over permanently. If we were a dictatorial conqueror nation, with low war weariness and no respect for political boundaries, the world would be a much different place.

@@shlokkesarwani801 yep the mission failed but we shouldn't've been there in the first place. If that happened in 2022 we would be the war criminals instead of Russia.

Sus

LOL 😂

@@BlueShiny uwu

:)

LOL 😂

Hence "radiation enhanced" warheads for interceptors.

Yeah, I'm no rocket scientist but I thought of tactically using nukes vs nukes right away. Maybe I play too many video games. lol

@@filth_nasty That's basically the premise of Missile Command which was an Atari game released in 1980.

They have to be within 300 feet to be effective. It is really not anything to rely on. As they said the warhead free falls to target at about 15 thousand mph.

neutron weapons?, but they can kill anything below the explosion site, they would make large portions of the oceans dead zones

the problem is the number. all he talked about is what takes to stop 1 icbm not 200. and china anounced las year 250 new silos. NK alone has tens of them of unkown quality. and they may not be able to hit the US but for sure they can hit japan.

@@lucaskp16 the hard thing is knowing if some of these nations have the teeth to back up the threat. China for instance, could literally be building dummy silos to appear stronger, but a wise man would not treat it that way. Let’s just hope it is only and remains only, theatre on the world stage.

NK doesn't have thermonuclear weapons, unlike the US, Russia and China. I don't believe they have independently targeted warheads either.

@@ApolloTheDerg you cant underestimate a $18T China and a space power unless you dont believe in US's technology and weapons too. The two are the only defacto superpowers.

@@ApolloTheDerg Yep look at how the US tricked the USSR with the STARWARS program. The USSR had to treat it as legitimate even if the tech was suspiciously advanced, because the US had many sectors of tech that was more advanced than their own.

No it's not. They have different mass and momentum. You can do things to tease out that information.

​​@@ElessarUSMCa decoy is supposed to have the same mass. Its a decoy.

@@ElessarUSMC Dude, you don't have that much time. ICBMs travel close to 9 times as fast as the F-22 using after burners. So less than 45 minutes, most Russian ICBMs from mainland Russia, in the HUNDREDS, plus HUNDREDS more decoys... would be landing all across the US (same shit happening across Russia, too). SLBM (ICBMs launched from nuclear subs roaming close to the coasts of the enemies) only need ~15 to 20 or so minutes to reach many of their targets. As said, by others, most ICBMs contain MIRVs... a few to as many as 14 or so per ICBM. MIRVs split from the "mother" ICBM roughly half way on their parabolic flight. If they travel up to Mach 26, and if each of the THOUSANDS ICBMs launched (by the US, France, Britain, Russia, India, Pakistan, China) contain a few to a dozen plus MIRVs ---- plus the thousands of CHEAP but equally fast pieces of metallic decoys flying alongside them ---- you are talking about THE END OF HUMANITY ON EARTH.... you're NOT talking leisurely using super computers to help you track real MIRVs from decoys, for the purposes of you zapping the real MIRVs out of the sky above your head, as some 4th grade Hollywood movies and stupid CGI games have been doing. Each ~450lb MIRV --- as well as the many dozens of 750lb B61-12 small gravity thermonuclear bombs carried by F-15, F-16, Super Hornets, F-22, F-35, B-52, Lancer, B-2, etc. ---- has up to 20 times the power of the crude 10,000lb FAT MAN dropped on Nagasaki, 1945. You don't need more than 2-3 little MIRVs --- not 2-3 ICBMs but 2-3 MIRVs, of which ONE ICBM may carry up to 14 or so ---- to wipe out much of a city like San Diego, SF, LA, Washington, New York, Beijing, Moscow, London, Paris, Berlin. The radiation from the blast will kill off the rest, a few hours to a few days/weeks later. No foods are good to eat and NO FIELDS can grow safe foods, as deadly radiation fall-out's will cover much of the world. Even for the few end-time crazies in deep, well stocked bunkers who could survive in there for a few weeks to a few months.... they will die horrible deaths, a bit later, after some cannibal activities among themselves, in their bunkers... Earth wouldn't be back to "normal" for another 5,000 to 10,000 to 50,000 years...

​@@kiabtoomlauj6249Some of your information is inaccurate.

​@kiabtoomlauj6249 Lmao a full scale nuclear war would be far far from the end of humanity. We do not have enough warheads on the planet for that. There would be a lot of health concerns but it'd be very underwhelming

If it goes nuclear the planet will die. MAD

@@dbasiliere Planet will leave, Man will do We came to meet the planet

this is why NATO should be focusing on deescalation, not pushing for stronger actions in Ukraine. This is not WW2!

@@wolfswinkel8906 if you look in the bigger picture, the push is just to borrow money from federal reserve so that the rich and hidden hand stay rich and war efforts require funding. Illuminati.

@@wolfswinkel8906 I don’t think Russia will listen to de-escalation talks

Yeah isn't it incredible? Only planet within lifetimes that can sustain us and we spend more money (we as in HUMANS) inventing ways to kill eachother than can be measured. It's mindblowing. Especially considering, 80% of the planet wouldn't do this and 5% are the ones consistently pushing this agenda in every country on this rock. We have, insane people at the wheel. Insane.

The likelihood of a full-scale Nuclear war is extremely unlikely as there hasn’t been a singular Nuclear test (besides North Korea) for any major power within the last two decades since 1992 and by then, most Nuclear Missiles would be unusable due to corrosion, aged components that are irreplaceable or too expensive to afford a total rebuild, or the Warhead is at this point too old and is relatively less effective; therefore we can believe that a good 75% or more unusable and the rest would probably be intercepted. And seeing how the Russian military is performing in terms of their vehicles, we can also guess pretty well that Russia pretty much has very expensive underground paperweight. Don’t let fear get to you, you’ll have a long prosperous life, however with the recent events, only good can come out of it, if Russia wanted to nuke us, they’d already have done it starting with Ukraine from the very get-go.

They have ALWAYS had decoys.

@@evolvedego673 Most major powers probably do simulation tests. France stopped doing live nuclear tests in the Pacific after the fall out contaminated French Polynesia and islands near New Zealand. France switched to simulation tests for their M51( and probably M46) missiles, which got commissioned in 2011

The video from decoys are like 50 years old. It's just that people are always misinformed about the missile defense. In the news they just say: "Oh we have missile defense jippie, nukes are outdated haha". But at no point in history could a nuclear attack be stopped. This video is still too optimistic even. But despite there being no defense, no one launched the nuclear weapons. Because it's suicide, also for the people who order the attack. They wage war to gain power. Nuclear war only has losers, so it's not good to use them, even for the most selfish leaders. A real danger would be a crazy (idealistic/ religious/ indoctrinated) leader who does not care for people live's in his country, including his own life. Remember nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent and threat. If no one believes they will be used, even during war, then they loose their deterring property, basically rendering them useless. This could escalate war more easily, and make their actual use more likely. So countries threatening to use their nukes is not crazy, that threat *is* the nukes' main use. Being perceived as crazy *is* the leaders' intention. Otherwise the nukes don't deter, since no rational person would ever use them. So probably we won't have nuclear war. Putin says "Put the nuclear weapons on high alert" on TV. That doesn't even mean anything for the Russian forces probably. But it scares (the public in) the West and makes them support Ukraine less, to avoid angering Putin too much. This enables Russia to wage their war in Ukraine more effectively. It gives them an advantage. That threat from Putin on TV makes a lot of sense right. On the other hand, if Putin had said "This is just between Ukraine and Russia, we are not thinking about nuclear weapons", the west would feel safe to support Ukraine a bit more maybe, which could cause accidents and more hate and escalate the war, so suddenly NATO is really involved, then WW3 really happens and nukes really get used. So probably we won't have nuclear war.

Ok, but we will also use this emoji more💩

I think the term NOT WHAT YOU THINK is better in my opinion

@@NotWhatYouThink okay

Sometimes its EXACTLY what we think.... and its always the worst case scenarios 😂

@@NotWhatYouThink 👀👀👀

You won't have any bills to pay if there's a nuclear war

A nuclear war will create a post apocalypse where you don’t have to pay bills and can just get radiated food from the local ruined grocery store

It wouldn't matter, run em up🧾💳

Wonder if elites (like those credit card companies owners) would survive in their bunkers... Imagine? You survive a nuclear war to still have to pay the bills after all

If even a single particle of fallout lands on your property, you can probably sue the aggressor.

Same lmao

The US used to have a system called NIKE that did just that was basically phased out in the late 70's and shipped to Europe and japan and was in service till mid 80's only reason I know about it was my Dad was a techinican on the weapon system and Missed being stationed in Europe by a few months

Russia loves solving problems with nukes - closing oil/gas wells with nukes, intersepting nukes with nukes and projecting power with nukes. Pitty you can't eat nukes and wear them otherwise life wouldn't be that harsh in Russia

Yup, thought the same. ^^

Would that not create massive emp over the area that they exploded over. I guess you won’t die but you’ll be living in the 1800s after

Interesting stuff. But you were not affected from the radiation?

@@zk2399 “warhead removed” so no nuclear payload

Too bad its just bullshit and a ridiculous attempt for attention from random people on the internet lol

@Radio OH2DX Either you are not entirely complete in your brain wiring, or you are a drunk russian

@Jesse Champagne all the stuff we got now is a direct result of those tests. Space is the next military frontier. We're way ahead of others in this regard.

They even named one the long range discrimination radar!!!💀💀💀

They don't look at it as wasting money quite the contrary, they look at it making money, psychopathic psychology!

It was like that prior to WW2. Nuclear missiles have counter intuitively reduced conflict between the nuclear armed nations. No longer do they engaging directly with each other in fullscale war, instead engaging in smaller proxy/cold wars.

I'd say, the nuclear threat prevented the outbreak of a third/fourth worldwar. The second took approximately 50 - 60 million lives with conventional weapons in a limited area. You really think, mankind needs nuclear weapons (doomsday devices) to annihilate each other? I think not.

After seeing Russia invade Ukraine (which gave up its Nukes post separation from Russia) and the atrocities on civilians you can imagine what would happen in a world without Nukes !!

When will Russia nuke Ukraine?

What does that have to do with Nukes?

@@rocketman3285 6:19 Watch the video before commenting.

That was WW1 not gettysburg

Russia is nothing but a pepper Tiger as same as China , North Korea and Iran So what you have to rely on is America The inventor and franchiser of 98% of World modern and future Technologies and about interception Haven't you already heard about Tr3b Black Manta or Starship Cargo or mobilizing Starlink futuristic satellites with Super advanced Laser System from Space BTW I'm not biased I'm actually Iranian and most of the people here says the same thing so let alone the world

I mean it's not that unfathomable that two bullets collide in a War..

Just plan your vacation to Rio to coincide with all out nuclear war, and you can watch it all on tv while sipping a margarita. Better brush up on your spanish though, it'll be an extended stay.

@@kathrynck Portuguese would be more useful.

watch less media and your fear will disappear

@@farlonfudpucker6640 good point

@@kathrynck Portuguese will serve you better as will a Caipirinha instead of a margarita, but we get the idea.

I'd argue that in the modern day, with the looming threat of small salvos, while nuclear use is unthinkable, it may become that having ABM is the only useful choice for an up and comer. Think about it. If you cannot or do not have nuke, but face the threat of that, then all considerations of this go out the window.

The interceptor can be nuclear tipped too and it don’t have to be that accurate. Back in the Cold War, Soviet Union explored this idea because the lack of accurate guidance systems, leading to the aforementioned A135. At the same time, the Chinese even proposed nuclear cannons to intercept missiles…

The attacking systems probably don't cost less. The real reason there are substantially fewer in interceptors than offensive missiles is primarily due to the history around ABM treaties. The US only left that treaty a few years ago and began to dramatically scale up its ABM efforts. That's partly why there is such a large gap between interceptability and offensive weapons. The dramatic improvement of the SM-3 and SM-6 families, the spreading of Aegis Ashore batteries and THAAD batteries, and the development of new programs... is going to narrow this gap significantly in the next 20 years.

@@KoishiVibin Nukes have value if they are not used. They are used to threaten and deter. But interceptors have no values if you do not get attacked. You cannot say: "Do this or we will use our defense.." And when you are attacked by a nuclear force, you basically have 0% chance you can defend yourself anyway, like this video illustrates (video is still too optimistic). So interceptors have no value basically, they are just a waste of a lot of money.

@@kedrednael They can make attacking a full attack only option. Plus it can protect you against countries like NK. They have value. And if properly used they could stop hundreds of heads.. This is why the chinese are moving from a few hundred heads to thousands.

Some of this is newer than what i was aware of 7 years ago

I think people romanticize the US military a little too much. It is not as sci-fi as you would think. It is just an extremely capable military with a huge budget.

and equipment from the 60s

@@redox4088 I mean everyone thought we were still years behind on hypersonic missiles until like a week ago when the gov quietly announced that we tested one. The Ukraine news had completely made that news fizzle out pretty quick but the hypersonic system we tests is so much more robust than Russia’s which is mainly designed for taking out aircraft carriers and nobody really bat an eye so while I usually would honestly agree with your statement I don’t think you should underestimate it either

@@TheDoctorsGaming101 Russia was only ahead because they took advantage of the US actually adhering to the START treaty, which banned testing and producing hypersonic weapons between the two nuclear powers. The United States pulled out of the START treaty when Russia refused to stop developing them. The entire situation is actually hilariously hypocritical when you hear the reaction from Putin after the United States tore up START.

puke

I like to watch footage of cats biting people.

Time stamp please

@@maheshrathod5593 Yeah I can't find it either

7:06

I'm assuming your talking about the titanic and not the Bismarck

Exactly

“Strongest economy in the world”

@@typicalwatcher1557 There was a cat which survived the sinking of the Bismarck that was called "Unsinkable Sam", not the vessel itself, so far as I know.

I assume you are talking about the S.S. Minnow

Fact’s. I’m a veteran. Trust we have some shit people don’t even know about. You never show your entire hand.

@@robertbrooks3007 The us has alien force fields that work by using anti-gravity that they reversed engineered from an alien power unit from a spacecraft that crash landed.

@@TheBestestOne Uncle Sam your drunk go to bed

​@@ThisHandleIsTakenTryThishe's not far off. The US certainly have anti gravitational weapons.

@@LTC366 na

Do you understand what first strike is?? Launching 100+ nukes is first strike... North Korea can't launch first strike.. It will be just case of aggression... First strike can't be stopped.. The moment first strike is launched the targetted nation must do a retaliatory strike within minutes before the country gets doomed..

Like it would matter enough to make nuclear war a viable option.

if US intelligence notices that the enemy is going to use nuclear weapons, then it will hit its nuclear facilities so that the enemy cannot use them, because of the satellites, the US knows the location of the nuclear facilities of its enemies, and distinguishes fake objects using X-ray satellites and synthetic aperture satellites. And these interceptors are like insurance, if suddenly the enemy manages to launch a couple of dozen ICBMs

Sci-fi-fan? force fields are far beyond human tech.

I really hope it doesn't involve psychics.

hitting a fired rifle bullet with your own bullet - and now 7,5 times faster.... sounds.... not doable.

HONKY! THE! (ICBM)! HONKY! 🙂*MIKE! SPENCE! THE! (G,O,A,T,B)! HA! HA! HA!

Reading Wikipedia?

@James Stocks All ICBM are supersonic.

@@markluhman8940 Supersonic hedgehog will save us! 😶

This guy's voice exudes total inhalation "Hide your kids, hide you wifes(s), we're all fuqed!" hahaha

The fact that you think we would shoot one of these missiles down to stop it makes me belly laugh. Applauding ignorance though is pretty saddening.

of course it is its probably coming from the white house. the l.o.c. can do anything even trademark phrases. anything they want.

Yeah.. sure. Missile warning systems don't work at all... Please let Isreal know when you get a chance.

I think they're mainly a defense against NKs and countries with smaller nuclear arsenals.

@@davecarsley8773 "Please let Isreal know" Israel's Iron Dome is pretty effective at blocking the not-ICBMs launched at it. But if you have a special line with Israel let them know that bombing hospitals makes them look like Putin.

@@davecarsley8773 Iron Dome System is dogshit lmao, it's inferior

@@davecarsley8773 My lord, your comment is the kind of nonsense I come out with after half a gram of ketamine.

You want the technology to be known but the quantity to be secret. If your enemy knows you're capable of intercepting missiles they're less likely to launch, but that is useless if your enemy knows they can overwhelm the defense with shear numbers.

I bet both are shitting themselves. Nobody will win in nukes war.

@@brettminer1079 While the general idea is correct, I'd like to add something: if the enemy knows you can beat them, they wouldn't attack, however a cornered animal will almost always bite back if that means a chance at survival or at inflicting damage

I really believe if such technology existed, tensions already would've broken and we'd be in a full scale global conflict. Nuclear deterrence is literally the only thing that has prevented WW3

@@brettminer1079 If you have the technology, they probably have something similar. You know how many resources they are using thanks to espionage, so if you can make it, you can infer how much effort it would take for the other guy to do it too. So no you don't want to come out and just announce it, because you'd need to provide some sort of evidence that you aren't just bluffing. And then the enemy could engineer ways around it. It is best to keep it as secret as possible.

Lol in addition, think of the unbelievably crazy scenario of the United States utilizing it’s reserve currency status in order to create mountains of debt, that is, fiat currency that virtually never before in history could be done to the level we have since 1971 post Nixon gold standard. All of this unprecedented ability to essentially get most other countries, including many of our enemies!! To basically pay for the development of our crazy nuclear projects that ultimately keep said countries under threat of annihilation . The United States ability to utilize its federal reserve to manipulate financial markets and control market incentives(to a point) combined with the world’s largest military and nuclear umbrella will probably go down in history as the most ingenious way to control the world geopolitically. But like all good “things” , this amazing display of “strength “ and dominance over the world for better or worse, will undoubtedly end spectacularly and explosively. Just hopefully not literally😅

I hope that day will be soon.

As we can say an unexploded nuke is as simple as garbage.what a waste of money getting rusty..😁😁😁😇😇

Conservatives: Working towards goals for the common good is communism!

This video is full of mis information check into HAARP tech,, it's the SDI success were not told about

There is virtually zero chance the US doesn't have laser platforms in orbit, precisely to intercept any ICBM before it leaves Russian airspace... And if there is one, you can bet there is a constellation of them.

@@MegaMeaty This is bullshit. lol

@@MegaMeaty the 'Starfish Prime' nuclear test, of 1962 seemed to work ok.

@@MegaMeaty Look up old soviet experiments with EMP's. You will find it very interesting. Shutting down those multi layer systems is a piece of cake. The only real defense in nuclear warfare is EXTENSIVE self sustainable underground infrastructure.

@slam slam That was sarcasm, but can't control your idiocy. It is actually well known all across the internet.

Reminds me of Reagan's _Star Wars_ speech.

ha ha...it's a big joke. If enemy want to attack, they will attack.

Russia has more than 5 ICBM so still MAD is assured !!non will live to tell the future generations that they won a nuclear war .

@@ayat5483 the big joke is russias performance in Ukraine. Your name is an oxymoron.

@@four_20hitman___97 the problem is when you start believing your own bullshit

Figures... I was worried about some double speak charlatan at one of these "defense companies" basically fleecing the gov't for everything it's worth and the damn thing goes up and farts out a Folgers coffee can.

HONKY! CORRECT! HONKY! THE! MINUTEMAN! (NUCLEAR)! MISSILE! IS! (COMPLETELY)! SAFE! HONKY! HONKIES! AREN'T! SAFE! HONKY! NOW! YOU! KNOW! HONKY! 🙂*MIKE! SPENCE! THE! (G,O,A,T,B)! HA! HA! HA!

​@@codemiesterbeats Cynical much? You have to crawl before you can walk.

Ace Combat Zero also

Hope is not a plan....

Those are chechyen and contract soldiers, Russia is not at war with ukraine

nukes are expensive to build and maintain, there military budget goes towards the nukes

@@picasoj5944 There is no war in Ba Sing Se

And what about Russiam ground operations? Russia with disadvantage in numbers ( around 120k russians vs approximatly 250-300k ukranian soldiers ) are getting more and more ukranian soil. At the same time not a single one ukranian soldier get to even russian border. Not to mention tremendous amount of weapons send by NATO to help Ukraine. Its a proxy war of whole nato by hands of ukranians versus russia. Which is not good for ukrainians that they let themself in that situation. The very first mistake of any war is underestimate your enemy.

@@Alpanzai Russia has lost almost half of the ground they had taken, also Ukraine has been carrying out air attacks on Russia bases on the Russian side of the border.

Maybe the west should of thought twice about the whole " I stand with Russia thing"

@@todgerx what "I stand with Russia thing"?

Hardly, all of that is nuclear hardened. Do you really think the engineers just missed that requirement? There were missiles and guidance systems done in the 60's that would survive a CLOSE nuclear EMP.

@@MrJdsenior I mean theres only so much you can harden certain things. Especially satellites because hardening them would make them heavy as hell. Also I wasn't necessarily saying the vehicles carrying the the missile systems, just vehicles in general.

@@ninjabiatch101 You are misunderstanding, I am talking about electronics hardening to nuclear EMP, answering a specific question. And yes, general vehicles, cars, trucks, etc would definitely get whacked within a certain range. You put enough volts/meter in a small enough circuit feature size, and it probably won't be happy.

Primary reason why the US wouldn’t challenge Russia or China directly, unless they can use Ukraine or Taiwan to place interceptors. Suddenly everything happening today makes sense.

perhaps destroy inbound MIRV vehicle, w/ outbound low yield nuclear warhead? vastly improve probability of kill.

Personally, I rather like the idea of adapting the scrapped laser project into a last line of defense to destroy any incoming missiles that manage to make it through the rest of the system.

@@edwinvargas7969 that kinda does huh place interceptors as close as possible best to enemies. Launch ur own nukes to annihilate the enemy stop their nukes bam problem solved world domination victory

@@edwinvargas7969 yeah thats the entire reason why they have been trying to get ukraine and taiwan under their finger tips

You had me at 69.

@@NotWhatYouThink Yeah the idea that you need to be moving somewhere near Mach 24 to take out the warhead is just nonsense. The only thing closing velocity impacts is whether your C2 and decision making is fast enough to allow you to close and hit. The physics of the strike do not give one shit how fast you're going, the momentrum transfer is going to be enormous.

literally speaking nothing can stop an icbm if its past its apogee especially if they carry marv the speed difference is just too great for an interception to happen even for gmd there is a video from a russian test that showcases just how quickly things end once the marv hits the atmosphere 13 seconds

How can a targeted country identify the country of origin of an incoming missile that has been launch from a nuclear submarine? so that they can retaliate .

@@panthergaming732 they know where the subs are generally speaking

I say diplomacy is the way to go, nukes are wack.

As I remember, there was the Sprint system for short range intercept, and, the Spartan system for intermediate range intercept. It was a layered system and redundant.

Obliterate is not the right word. More like, cripple. A nuclear detonation in space wouldn't even break a single window on the ground below it. What it would do is take out much of the electrical grid and many electronic devices. Although it would bring that country's economy to a stand-still and create chaos (and eventually death to many), it would not stop a nuclear-armed country from retaliating since those nuclear assets are shielded from an electromagnetic pulse by their design and construction. Any nuke possessing country hitting an enemy nuke possessing country with a high altitude EMP strike would (and should) anticipate not just a retaliation in kind, but a retaliation including massive ground strikes. The idea of a strategic nuclear attack involves causing damage that the enemy nation will not be able to recover from - and an EMP strike can be recovered from. So the retaliation would have to be more severe by the second-strike nation. No nuclear exchange would ever be limited to just high altitude EMP strikes unless the target of the strike was a non-nuclear nation who couldn't retaliate and who also wasn't allied with a nuclear nation who could retaliate on their behalf.

I don't think so. You won't have enough energy for both of your theories.

problem is: really effective lasers with a high effective range need such amounts of energy a satellite could never produce. and even then you would need several thousand satellites.

There will be survivors. The Us will be again unprepared.

Not to mention the combination of Russia, China, NK, and a silent partner say Iran, all at the same time!

What this world needs is Ann alien invasion and every country. Has to work together like in many movies . Then the idiots that make theese stupid war decisions would realise that we are all humans that are only short time tenants on this planet that need to live together without borders and greed

@@m.p.4032 NK is more of less a no op, why does everyone keep including them? Go look at the numbers.

Do you honestly think these defense systems showed is all we have? I guarantee you there's secret weapons no one knows about.

@@davidallen9371 foil hats in your house then 🤯🤯🤯

Russia tested one recently… I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

If they hit satellites the other party would have no way of knowing if there's a hundred warheads coming at their way so they would fire theirs too.

Take in mind that satellites are a pretty easy target: their orbits are well known and they can be disabled just by being hit with hundreds of metal balls. Of course, those need to be delivered to the orbit, but thats no big deal really

without the satellites They are 100 years back in time

@@rooblez9005 "they"? 🤔🤔