The explosion in Beirut was a good example how fast the shockwave moves. Since there was fire and smoke before the explosion a lot of people were filming.

People learn things on this channel. What a GREAT channel.

The Making of the Atomic Bombwritten by Richard Rhodes is the single best accounting of the atom bomb before, during, and after WWII I have ever read.

wow. That's actually terrifying. Our propensity to whip out our phones to film everything was put on display in the port explosion in Beirut. Got some really good cell phone videos of the shock wave.

If you read just one book on this topic, Hiroshima by John Hersey is brief but powerful. Hersey was both a novelist and journalist who spent several weeks interviewing six (very different) survivors of the Aug. 6, 1945 bombing, within the first months of the aftermath, when memories were still excruciatingly fresh. The book is a rare piece of jounalism written with a novelist's sense of character, detail, structure, pacing, and humanity. It contains multiple scenes that will be permanently etched in your memory. It has been acclaimed as one of the best and most important pieces of 20th century journalism. Hersey also returned to Japan some 40 years after the original interviews and revisited his subjects, producing an update that is now included as an afterward in modern editions.

Unfortunately one cannot un=invent nuckear weapons, so even if every country gets rid of these weapons there is no guarantee that they could not remake them at any point. the threat of mutual destruction is the only thing that has ensured they have not been used in anger since the 1940's. The threat is the only deterent we have.

"reckon i'll lay down for a nap" "ooh a new No Protocol video to relax to" *everyone within 500km^2 will be set on fire within seconds* 😵‍💫 ok nvm on that nap

I think what I like most about this channel is I get reminded of videos, channels and topics I've not thought about for a good long while.

Also the idea of "no one has nuclear weapons" is like giving up your stick and trusting no one else will hit you with one. It would be nice if no one needed weapons at all, but if one country builds one, they can do whatever they want with the rest of the world. It is impossible. If you want another bad video, Shoddycast does a video on creating the fallout universe and it turns out it wasn't too far off. 'Fallout' is a video game franchise. I'm not sure if his video is on his channel or Gametheory.

The general advice is to shelter somewhere as air-tight as possible. The "fallout" that is always talked about is the irradiated dust and ash that was sucked up into the mushroom cloud as it formed a few seconds after the blast. That debris isn't just obvious "ash and dust", but includes microscopic particles, and because of how light it all is, how far the fallout spreads is very dependent on geography and weather. The mushroom cloud sucks it all well up into the atmosphere, where the winds are very strong and pretty constant, and that's how you end up with fallout spreading for hundreds or thousands of km/miles from the blast. So if you were outside a city that was nuked, you need to seal up your windows and doors, and try and filter/mask all the air vents/sources. Remember too that all the water sources are going to end up full of fallout, whether supplied from reservoirs or from your own roof collection. I read a study where a large amount of the illness from fallout etc happened to people who were close to the blast, but not enough to be affected - so just outside a major city etc. These people of course then all take off to get away, and once traffic grinds to a halt they all start walking, so you have tens of thousands of people fleeing the blast city, but they can't outrun the atmospheric winds, and they just end up getting covered in fallout. The other thing to bear in mind is this video is describing a single bomb going off, whereas a major conflict of course has up to dozens of warheads targeting major cities - so n x 10 or something 😐

Peter Watkin's 'The War Game', while commissioned by the BBC to document what a limited nuclear strike would do if it targeted Kent (UK), was censored for 25 years, because he took his commission very seriously, and no-one wanted to see that. Scenes where police officers shoot fatally injured survivors as an act of mercy (because the country runs out of ran out of pain killers) really brought home the impact of these things. Gruesome, and recommended watching.

Always lovely when informational videos start preaching to you. Reality is - no government that has nukes will willingly give them up. At BEST they will pretend they do. This is like asking a bully to stop hitting you because you don't like getting hit.

Whenever I feel stuck on how to proceed and find myself desiring some sort of proven method or a series of steps I could perhaps take ... I find the best course of action is to have "No protocol"

There is a movie from the 80's called Threads that covers this subject. It is well researched and very sobering.

Shes the kind of girl you would take violin coarses just to be in class with her ...i really do love her content Its like an all i can eat buffet for ppl who like brain food

Alas, Babylon is an excellent book. I read it in high school and have read it probably half a dozen times since then as well. I was a rabid reader in elementary school, but I stopped mostly in 6th grade. It was that book recommended to me by my English teacher who I was close with during my sophomore year, and I credit her and that book recommendation for re-sparking my love of reading that I’ve carried to this day.

A pretty good book on the subject is Tom Clancy's The sum of all fears. Lots of technical details on the subject plus good character writing.

The name of the book is "Alas Babylon" written by Pat Frank 1959. Another good book is "One Second After" written by William Forstchin. It's about the devastation of a high altitude nuclear air burst EMP.

To answer the question ‘if a person is under ground when this happened, as a former military and member of the decontamination team, 30 day would be needed to go outside, but outside of the blast zone. The blast zone is contaminated for a couple thousand years.

Kurgzesagt make the most brilliant videos. I like the way you just get on with watching the content rather than plug yourself and all that. Just keep doing what you're doing.

For an excellent look at the effects of radiation, check out the miniseries, Chernobyl. Surviving the initial blast only to receive lethal doses of radiation would be much worse than dying instantly. (Sigh) Just the light hearted stuff we considered as kids in the 80's when the Cold War was still a preeminent fact of life. I remember reading "Alas, Babylon" in 7th grade. Right between "One Fat Summer" and "The Hobbit". Crazy world.

Another comforting thought: the same government we rely on to protect us from this horror has hollowed out mountains to hide in if the unthinkable were to happen. Seems like they should fry like the rest of us if they fail to protect us. I've felt this way since the Cold War.

there are weapons that are equally destructive but are not nuclear. MOAB for example or the Thor programm that has not been realized but would be possible (its basically tungsten rods dropped from satellites)

I'm not an expert exactly on the topic of nuclear weapons, but I studied nuclear engineering and have worked in nuclear energy field since. I would say, if you survive nuclear explosion somewhere underground and you have enough food and water, stay there for at least couple of days. Until ash and rain stops falling. Then move quickly outside of the disaster zone. But you have to absolutely cover your mouth and nose with several layers. It might be hard to breathe, but external contamination cam be washed off, internal contamination is a different beast. Ideally I would try to cover myself as much as possible - rain coat, or something like that, that I would discard later.

This video always makes me cry when he says that you won't be saved, you're on your own, you'll be evaporated, burden, burried, poisioned and filled with glass shrapnel. So many gruesome deaths to those underserving of it. And the futile effords of those trying to offer help, and the little impact it has on those who caused it all. Truely the best video out there to envision what such an event would be like. The Beirut explosion often makes me think of this video and vice versa.

9:14 One could argue that nukes are why we haven't seen a WW3 or a war between 2 major powers yet.

The whole "filming the explosion from your window" thing was in evidence for the 2020 Beirut explosion. Lots of videos of people getting great footage and then getting wrecked when the shockwave hit.

There was a really cool show from 2006 called Jericho, basically it focuses on a small town know for it's salt mine after a coordinated attack on the US takes place. Essentially like 6 nukes are detonated, throwing the country into disarray and the show is about how this town is trying to survive. It's one of those shows that should have made it to another season (like firefly) but for "some reason" never did. Maybe it was too acurrate? LOL

your channel is the best. great message

The thing about it is they can be replicated if we all give them up. It's not feasible anymore.

OMG.... Alas Babylon is one of the few books I've read. It was in highschool. VERY GOOD.

Such a nice encapsulation and reminder of the consequences of detonating a nuclear weapon at a local level and the risks of this continuous proliferation of nuclear arms.

I wish I had the study name, but someone did an economic assessment of various courses of action following a specific sized dirty bomb released in London England (a hypothetical scenario to be clear). The least expensive course of action when they considered the costs of cleanup and medical care for long term exposure to ionizing radiation, was surprisingly to abandon the city. It would apparently be cheaper to build a new city than to clean the old one up to a level where it wouldn't make people sick. I doubt that's the action people would actually take, but it was interesting from a cost benefit analysis.

1917 Halifax, Canada was the world's largest non nuclear explosion(up to that point anyway). It would make an interesting reaction video for sure.

She has the best intros of all time 😂 the intros I didn't know I needed

They have forgotten about the EMP that the nuclear detection would send out so everything electronic that is beyond the blast radius would just stop working so there would be no mobile/cell phones working to take pics of the blast

For a post apocalyptic book, you can read Malevil from Robert Merle. It's setup in rural France late XXth century.

An excellent book about nuclear war and its aftermath is “Warday,” a novel by Whitney Streiber and James Kunetka. It’s similar to “Alas Babylon,” but written in a documentary format. Max Brooks took inspiration from the writing style when he penned “Worldwar Z.” It would be nice to abolish nuclear weapons, but nobody will. They are easier to handle and cheaper than other WMD’s.

If you were underground and survived, assuming it wasn't an enhanced radiation warhead like a cobalt bomb, you'd only need to "hunker down" for about 1-2 weeks depending on the weather to avoid lethal radiation poisoning.

I was surprised to hear that you would go blind for at few hours. I'd always assumed the blindness would be permanent. If I was able, I would try to acquire a sailboat, stock it with food and water and move 50-100 km away from the coast, in case of a nuclear attack.

I had never truly considered how it would play out but seeing it explained this way seems truly horrifying... not sure I'd want to survive such an event if I was in the city where it happens! While I'm sure there are emergency plans to at least try and help the survivors, this only works in a scenario like this where it's only one hit and not an all out war. I don't know that it's possible to live in a world free of nukes, or any weaponry for that matter, I think it comes with being who we are. As humans and living beings like any other, I think it's part of our nature to seek an advantage over others even if you could argue that it's no longer needed today since our survival isn't really threatened anymore like it might've once been the case ages ago.

0:00 .. well.. that right there earned my like and sub, respect points all the way

Just re-read "On the Beach". Great anti-nuke book. Plus, there's always "Dr. Strangelove"' for a chuckle

You said "un-realising", thank you for reminding me I'm not alone 😂

My job in the military was to prepare bases for all types of disasters, including nuclear attacks. I don't remember if this video mentioned this or not, but the yield of the nuke would also play a big part in the size of the fireball and the resulting shockwave. 100 megatons, for instance, is catastrophic and will have a much greater blast radius. I mean, that's speculation as there has never been a 100 megaton detonation, thankfully. Also, the direction and speed of the wind would determine which way the fall out and radiation would affect. You could theoretically be okay if you're far away enough from the explosion and shockwave, and the wind isn't blowing your way, but you should probably evacuate quickly regardless.

When the meteor exploded in the upper atmosphere near Chelyabinsk, Russia in 2013, the flash that was momentarily brighter than the sun, drew everyone to the windows, and this was in the middle of the day. Of course the shockwave arrived a short time later and over a thousand people were injured by shattered glass. Despite the altitude, the 60' diameter meteor packed a punch, exploding with between 25-35 times the force of the Hiroshima bomb. In addition to the human injuries, it damaged over 7,000 structures across 6 cities, doing an estimated $33 million in damages. There are plenty of videos of this event on KZfaq. Ironically the day this happened the world was watching the close flyby of another asteroid passing between the Earth and the Moon, a near miss, that was being hyped by the media. The one that hit us in Chelyabinsk is an example of the dangerous ones that really scare astronomers as it came from the direction of the sun where telescopes can't see them coming from. As such we would have no warning until it was too late.

There’s a great movie from 1964 called FAILSAFE. Difficult to describe in a few sentences. Keeps your attention throughout.

4:02 Almost 3% of the population of my hometown was blinded in 1917 when a burning cargo ship loaded with explosives, ammunition and extremely flammable fuels blew up in the city's harbour. The fuel barrels stored on the deck caught fire when the ship collided with another ship which caused a massive fire with the barrels burning off and exploding. People hearing the explosions naturally went to their windows to see what was happening and stayed to watch the show until the 500 tons of TNT stored in the hull went off, shredding glass and eyes.

I feel like this is why Roman concrete took so long to "duplicate" because this may have happened many times before when people caught up with truth through technology. And then we start over again...

''Hey, no long intro, we'll just start.'' *me, used to reactions videos having a long intro* ...i dont know what to do with myself now

Need more from this channel 💯

Well thank you for this wonderful video to brighten my day. 😬

The difficulty is that the how-to of making a nuke (albeit an inefficient, low-yield one) has been out in the wild (i.e. anyone can read it) for at least forty years. In a denuclearized world, it just takes one bad actor to gain their advantage -- the same is true of nerve gases and biologic weapons. It's very much the, "On a planet of the blind, the sighted man is king," scenario. Studies have indicated this is, in part, a fallacy, but you'd still be playing some long odds with cold dice. As an old-timer, there were some useful things that were taught during the Cold War. First is that surviving a nearby nuclear event will probably be worse than dying in one -- depending on distance and yield. If you are near a high-priority target, your worries will be over in a millisecond. If, however, you are in a structure and survive the initial blasts, stay inside, if at all possible, for a minimum of three days (two weeks would be better). This is to let any of the initial fallout dissipate -- many isotopes have short half-lifes (hours and days), and the dust will have had time to settle. While sheltering in place, try to avoid being near any outside walls, especially if not brick/concrete (below ground level is best). Water is life. Gather as much as you can and use it frugally. The jury is still out on whether to answer when people come a'knockin' -- sort of depends on how risk-averse you are and how much you love thy nuked neighbors. And many more, some more helpful than others -- most are the same as for natural disasters. Me, I've long abided by the ground-zero option, but with travel for life's various wants and needs, that's not always possible.

Your first foray into cardigan territory? Greetings from Macclesfield.

After a Nuclear explosion it is advised to stay and bunker down in a place that has a positive pressure (the air inside is at or above 15 psi which keeps the irradiated airborne material out) in order to get the lowest possible RAD dosage. If you don't have a airtight bunker any kind of shelter is better than standing outside, though it is difficult to seal a shelter to such an extent unless it was built to be airtight. This is how the New Safe Confinement for Chernobyl is setup except reversed (14 psi or lower), keeping the radioactivity inside and not spreading to the environment. After the initial explosion (id say a week maybe two if your supplies last that long for the radioactive dust to settle) you should get out of whatever city you are in while avoiding as many hotspots as you can. Perishable foods are worthless in under 24hrs if the electricity is cut (I've had it happen to me when an earthquake cut the power for 2 days and every unsealed item went bad, then the sealed items went bad after 36hrs due to the fridge being room temp)

Answering your question about the subway; if you are down there when a weapon is detonated - it would be best to stay there - but there are some issues: food/water supply for long term, and also you will still probably be irradiated as the air you are breathing is likely being brought down from the surface - but if this is done electronically (via air-con); you are likely to suffocate as there will be no power to move/ventilate the air. Sorry, wish it was better news ;)

Why you seems actually quite smart and likable. Did not expect that.

I'd rather be in the blast zone and die instantly, instead of being blinded from the flash, deafened from the shockwave, and poisoned from radiation, only to suffer then die later.

Nuclear weapons will eventually have to get erradicated at some point, but it cannot be done quickly at all. A lot of things will have to change, especially in the Trust department before any significant reductions should be attempted.

Fallout (a videogame) it's a post-apocalyptic game that explores what level of destruction something like a full nuclear war can cause. Despite thr fact that it has some fifty-ish sci-fi stuff like mutants amd robots, the war itself it's pretty realistic and the geopolitical scenario that ends up destroying everything is terrifyingly similar to ours. There are some lore videos exploring the great war that are fun and interesting

I find it hard to imagine any world leader being capable of talking North Korea out of their nukes. And that alone will prevent the larger countries from disarming because what are they gonna do? Be without nuclear weapons while N.Korea sits pretty on their own arsenal? Its just an all round bad situation we've landed in.

When a nuke is detonated it pushes out all of the air for miles. A second shockwave hits everything as the air rushes back in. Something the video didn't bring up.

Literature Recommendation: “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy. I think one of most terrifying things that would happen would be the weeks after the disaster. All of those horrible traits of humanity will all come out.

Oiiii question: Would you ever react to shows or movies?

I'm crying. I grew up under this terror. It was a living threat in my childhood. That it's mostly forgotten baffles me.

Kurzgasat has a video called "the egg". And it's a really dope story! Kind of left field, for their content. But I think you would like it!!

This doesn't mention thatthe blast damage is wider than the actual blast. When things explode, the ruble goes somewhere. Being rained on with trees, cars, and pieces of houses would probably be fatal as well.

Regarding the mention of de-nuclearization scenarios... various intelligence agencies have a pretty good estimate of how many nuclear devices there are in the world, a small percentage of which are known to be missing. There would need to be set up an international consortium overseeing the process. It's only viable as long as everyone can agree on the terms. We all know how impossible that is!

The movie called "The Day After" shows the horrors of a nuclear exchange. As bad as it portrays it, experts said it would be much worse.

My social studies teacher advised that if you can see the majority of the mushroom cloud's column, you're probably going to die. He was a retired anti-nuke hippie, so take that as you will.

It's "Alas, Babyon", not "Atlas Babylon". It's an excellent book, and I think you got the author right.

You're pretty much screwed if you're in the blast radius being underground will probably help you survive the initial if you're not real close to the actual blast site but you would have to be under there for a really really long time you need food water are all of that

As you said, it is impossible in our society. The reason is that the masses have been educated to fear the government, directly or indirectly, and unless the cause is something that's immediately beneficial, the interest of those in power will prioritize over the overall well-being. The United States Health Care system is a good example of how the masses won't do anything even when something is clearly wrong and affects them deeply on a personal level. Nukes, something even more abstract to the general populace than the ability to afford medical help, will not get enough attention. Especially when the top superpowers rely on them as a way to gain influence and advantage against each other.

It would be feasible to enforce and ensure a nuclear free world, because everything about nukes is relatively obvious and highly visible - to those whose job it is to watch and monitor such things. The problem would be a country trying to get around it - Iraq after the first Gulf War in the 90s would spend months going back and forth with UN inspectors who would make unannounced visits to facilities that the intelligence communities had identified - and Saddam would deny them access, even having signed up to allow inspections as part of not being forced from power. There's also a reasonable argument that without nukes there would be a lot more conventional conflicts. It's a lot easier for a country to decide to start a conventional conflict when the threat of nuclear escalation no longer exists.

This is one of those "great filter" situations any student of the Fermi Paradox should recognize.

My flavo-rite Kurzgesagt vid. Guess I'm a fatalist : ). My SAS survival book says that you should try to wash the radiation off immediately and ditch your clothes. But really there isn't much you can do. Too much fear to ever de-nuclearize. I think it's pretty much endemic that who ever is in charge will want the biggest weapons.

NP going back to back days with a vid, not complaining :)

video request/suggestion: 'Mr Mythos inner earth conspiracy theories #7'

Here I was thinking I wouldn't get to sleep tonight...

This is the definition of pandora's box that can never be closed.

It’s both sad and ironic that the only thing worse than governments have a nuclear weapons is not having nuclear weapons. When more and more countries get nukes over the past several decades there have actually been fewer wars as governments have resorted to everything else that they could think of before going to war. Take India and Pakistan for example. In the 50s and 60s they went to war with each other several times before both of them got nukes. They haven’t fought a single war with each other since even though it’s been very tense between them. The fact is nukes prevent war.

I think Kurzgesagt's message is good but a bit naive. Game theory wise it doesn't make sense to completely eliminate nukes because if nobody has nukes then all it takes is one secret organization or expansionist regime to develop them and then they can take over the entire planet. It doesn't make sense to leave yourself vulnerable like that, and that goes for every advance military device or technology. Plus we can look on the bright side, nuclear bombs could be used for good. Look at the Project Orion from NASA. The plan was to make interstellar ships that are pushed by nuclear explosions, kind of how little explosions push the pistons in your car to get it to move, but on a much larger scale. Even though theoretically these spaceships are capable of speeds between 1-10% the speed of light it's unfortunate that the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty led to the cancellation of this research. This was back in the 1950s and 60s btw, which is crazy to think about but at the same time a nuclear ban during the Cold War unfortunately seems like it was the right call to make, but who knows. We might've already colonized the Moon and Mars if we didn't. Definitely something to think about.

There have been hundreds of times throughout history where humanity has almost destroyed themselves through misunderstandings and incompetence. I recommend watching “Grazed By The Apocalypse” by Lemino. It’s a video on how close we have come to extinction.

If you can watch the Hills have Eyes they show you what a Nuclear town would look like from the 1950's. The Children cutouts adults they would put livestock in the blast area to see what happened to them lambs pigs were the most common. Pigs because they are the nearest mammal to a human skin and organs. Also some really good Nuclear footage from the military channels. They show off a wide range from Boxcar to subs, and more.

For the aftermath of a nuclear strike it is recommended that survivors stay inside for two weeks to avoid fallout.

It's scary how close we are to nuclear war. Perhaps we all need to get along better.

I want to start a concrete helo pad laying company....im depending on megaphone companies to install alarms loud enough everywhere...shoutout to chopper companies

The MAD paradox of nuclear weapons: If every country has lots of nuclear weapons, the probability of their use is lower. If only one or a few has nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear use is higher. If no country has nuclear weapons the threat of their use is zero. However, to get to no country having nuclear weapons, we must pass through the situation of few or one country having nuclear weapons - when their risk of use is highest. So the threat of use of nuclear weapons would be at is highest during the latter stage of global disarmament when the last countries to denuclearize might gamble on using them against their enemies who have already disarmed and therefore cannot retaliate in kind. The last country to disarm would have a military advantage over all other countries. The first to disarm would be most vulnerable. Who would want to be first to denuclearize?

I kinda dislike that they never discussed what type of nuke it was. Megatons rather than kilotons clearly. So probably fusion rather than fission being the main source of energy. Radioactivity is also rather dependent on what type too, uranium or plutonium based?

"Alas, Babylon" is the name of the book, by Pat Frank. Though not a nuke, I would also recommend Lucifer's Hammer. As for disarmament? I think it's insane. I think the only chance I have of not being nuked is if not only my nation but all of my allies have enough nukes so that even if an enemy were to take me out completely there are still enough nukes on our side to completely eradicate the enemy and their friends. It has to be a guaranteed outcome that if you nuke any of us all of the enemy is going to be nuked to act as a deterrent. I likewise think it's the duty of the military first and the population in general second to remove from power in an abrupt and final way any leader insane enough to try to start picking a nuclear fight. We need a few "leaders" to FAFO and go look at the rabbits with Lennie. Right now, politicians around the world are not terrified of crossing their people. They need to be, they need to know that if they put us in such a vulnerable position by their rhetoric they and theirs will be the first to go. This isn't the case at the moment, "leaders" are sheltered from the consequences of their actions in a way unimaginable to the normal population. "Leaders" have more in common with the "leaders" of "enemy nations" than they do with their own people. And then, of course, should deterrence fail, I will get a bullseye tattoo on my forehead and walk to ground zero because the hellscape nuclear war would create is not one I want to try to survive in.

You need to be at least 30’ underground to have a chance of not suffering radiation effects. Stay in place, get as much water collected as fast as possible before the pipes are emptied, take iodine salt, wait at least 30hrs before going above ground for a quick check (under 2minutes), you don’t see or hear military or emergency personnel, now the real survival starts…

You absolutely must look up Stanislav Petrov there are tonnes of videos about him in youtube.. but the TLDR is he stopped a nuclear world war in 1983

literary suggestion. : On The Beach - Nevil Shute

Interesting video for newbies I guess because 2 cities have been nuked, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the same thing that happened there would happen in any city that gets nuked only more devastating because Hydrogen bombs. Also nuclear reduction acts don't really reduce nukes like one might think, it really just looks good on paper, the problem is MIRV's "Multiple Independent Reentry vehicle". Nuclear missiles use to have one warhead on one missile, Now one missile can have 3-12 warheads on it. if we have 100 missiles(100 warheads) and we agree to reduce them by 50% but we change the warheads to the 3 MIRV's variant's then we end up with 150 warheads, an increase of 50%. If we use the 12 MIRV variant we have 600 warheads on 50 missiles.

There's a BBC movie about the aftermath of a nuclear attack... and it's shocking... ABC TV did a watered down movie after that shocked the nation.. both done in the early 80s... if I'm ever in a nuclear attack... I pray that I'm gone in a few seconds and never knew what hit me....

Tacky sculptures?

The thing that ticks me off about all this is... when I was my nieces age (13) the Cold War had ended and disarmament had begun... we thought, we humans did it were gonna ditch the nukes and get on with at least a road to peace... 32 years latter... we're back to the days of when i was a child, only even worse... this close humanity, this close.

As someone who's stood guard ensuring these weapons didn't fall into the wrong hands, I think I can speak with some authority on a few of the questions presented by the video and by you. 1. You can't uninvent a weapon. Even if the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Germany, Netherlands, France and England all agreed to give up their nukes and countries like Iran and N. Korea agreed to stop pursuing their development, the science is still out there and any half-brained physicist with access to Uranium and centrifuges can build one. It really is basic science. To build safe nukes requires a higher bit of skill. But regardless, the real threat are the terrorists who'll take a backpack nuke and blow themselves up in Time's Square, etc. 2. The damage these devices do is real and overwhelming. The best solution is not to be near a major city. Historically, the USSR built higher yield weapons and would target major US cities because their rockets were less accurate (this may be propaganda, but it's what we were told and rings true with nuclear weapon testing from back in the day.) I still remember doing nuclear detonation drills in elemetary school because even at 90 miles away, we were considered close enough to Boston to be effected if they were targeted. 3. Any current leader who threatens the use of nuclear weapons, really ought to be taken out of office, by force or assassination if necessary. 1 Cold War was enough, let's not create a second.

This is a great channel, love your reactions. I was born in 1962, one month before the Cuban missile crisis. So my entire childhood was full of stress from being told by the government and educations system that we could be nuked at any moment. I still have 2 or 3 dreams every year about nuclear explosions. I recommend the book Hiroshima, by John Hersey. It recounts the personal experience of survivors of the Hiroshima bomb. It's harrowing. 😢

Okay, but when we open this Pandoras box there is no way back.