Causes, Procedures and Aftermath of Nuclear War - Mercer Island High School

Achih from Mercer Island High School reached out to me to answer some questions about the Causes, Procedures, and aftermath of Nuclear War.
Answers to his questions are below:
1. What events do you believe could trigger a nuclear first strike, and how could the ongoing war in Ukraine specifically spark an exchange?
I think there are two scenarios. First would be a tactical strike on a Ukrainian unit that has broken through Russian lines. Although I think this would only happen if Russian lines were collapsing. The second would be if Russia wanted to breakthrough Ukrainian lines. Using a nuclear weapon to attrit forces before an attack was practiced by the US in the 1950s and the Soviets had similar tactics.
Also remember that precision guided munitions have capabilities we could only dream of back in the 1950's. Back then you might use a nuclear weapon on a bridge because bridges are so hard to destroy. Today use a few PGMs and call it a day. So in some senses, nuclear weapons are less useful, though they could be used in tactical attack or defense, or for destroying underground bunkers or naval targets like carriers.
2. Are there any known or believed Russian plans/procedures for a nuclear first strike outside of those outlined in the Army's Opposing Force Tactics from 2011?
We don't really know,. It can be assumed that they would use nuclear weapons for the above reason.
3. What parts of the United States, if any, would be the most likely to survive in a nuclear war?
The FEMA Map from 2015 shows a good example of likely targets. Although I don't see a full strike as a possibility. Remember you have two purposes to a nuclear strike - counter force and counter value. Counter force attrits your enemy's capability to fight. Counter-value attrits the economic ability of a country to wage war. I could see a single nuclear weapon being used on a target like WalMart's headquarters or datacenter. Or perhaps a port facility like New Orleans or Long Beach to snarl gas or shipping. Would the US respond in kind to one first strike? Maybe. But I don't see total commitment.
4. What are some commonly held beliefs or misinformation surrounding the possibility of a nuclear war?
I think the first is that nuclear war means total commitment. That might not necessarily be true. It is possible that nuclear weapons may be used on a tactical level in a limited capacity.
Second, one nuclear bomb does not mean that the world will end. We've detonated 2100 nuclear weapons since the Trinity test and we're still here.
Third, radiation is not the boogieman people make it out to be. For every 7 fold increase in time there is a 10 fold decrease in radiation. It would be safe to go outside for short periods after a few days.
Forth is EMP. People look at EMP like it is a world-ending weapon... but the truth is that we really don't know. The modern electrical grid deals with EMP all the time - it's called lightning and we are still around.
For uncensored video, check out my substack at:
ryanmcbeth.sub...
Like my shirts? Get your own at:
www.bunkerbran...
Want a personalized greeting:
www.cameo.com/...
Watch all of my long form videos:
• Military Equipment, Ta...
Twitter:
@ryanmcbeth
Instagram:
@therealryanmcbeth
BlueSky
@ryanmcbeth
Reddit:
/r/ryanmcbeth
Join the conversation:
/ discord
Want to send me something?
Ryan McBeth Productions LLC
8705 Colesville Rd.
Suite 249
Silver Spring, MD 20910
USA

[@RyanMcBethProgramming]

Achih from Mercer Island High School reached out to me to answer some questions about the Causes, Procedures, and aftermath of Nuclear War. Answers to his questions are below: 1. What events do you believe could trigger a nuclear first strike, and how could the ongoing war in Ukraine specifically spark an exchange? I think there are two scenarios. First would be a tactical strike on a Ukrainian unit that has broken through Russian lines. Although I think this would only happen if Russian lines were collapsing. The second would be if Russia wanted to breakthrough Ukrainian lines. Using a nuclear weapon to attrit forces before an attack was practiced by the US in the 1950s and the Soviets had similar tactics. Also remember that precision guided munitions have capabilities we could only dream of back in the 1950's. Back then you might use a nuclear weapon on a bridge because bridges are so hard to destroy. Today use a few PGMs and call it a day. So in some senses, nuclear weapons are less useful, though they could be used in tactical attack or defense, or for destroying underground bunkers or naval targets like carriers. 2. Are there any known or believed Russian plans/procedures for a nuclear first strike outside of those outlined in the Army's Opposing Force Tactics from 2011? We don't really know,. It can be assumed that they would use nuclear weapons for the above reason. 3. What parts of the United States, if any, would be the most likely to survive in a nuclear war? The FEMA Map from 2015 shows a good example of likely targets. Although I don't see a full strike as a possibility. Remember you have two purposes to a nuclear strike - counter force and counter value. Counter force attrits your enemy's capability to fight. Counter-value attrits the economic ability of a country to wage war. I could see a single nuclear weapon being used on a target like WalMart's headquarters or datacenter. Or perhaps a port facility like New Orleans or Long Beach to snarl gas or shipping. Would the US respond in kind to one first strike? Maybe. But I don't see total commitment. 4. What are some commonly held beliefs or misinformation surrounding the possibility of a nuclear war? I think the first is that nuclear war means total commitment. That might not necessarily be true. It is possible that nuclear weapons may be used on a tactical level in a limited capacity. Second, one nuclear bomb does not mean that the world will end. We've detonated 2100 nuclear weapons since the Trinity test and we're still here. Third, radiation is not the boogieman people make it out to be. For every 7 fold increase in time there is a 10 fold decrease in radiation. It would be safe to go outside for short periods after a few days. Forth is EMP. People look at EMP like it is a world-ending weapon... but the truth is that we really don't know. The modern electrical grid deals with EMP all the time - it's called lightning and we are still around. For uncensored video, check out my substack at: ryanmcbeth.substack.com Like my shirts? Get your own at: www.bunkerbranding.com/pages/ryan-mcbeth Want a personalized greeting: www.cameo.com/ryanmcbeth Watch all of my long form videos: kzbin.info/aero/PLt670_P7pOGmLWZG78JlM-rG2ZrpPziOy Twitter: @ryanmcbeth Instagram: @therealryanmcbeth BlueSky @ryanmcbeth Reddit: /r/ryanmcbeth Join the conversation: discord.gg/pKuGDHZHrz Want to send me something? Ryan McBeth Productions LLC 8705 Colesville Rd. Suite 249 Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA

[@JPF123]

No Ryaaan! This isn't how you get views! You gotta make people watch the video for the info! /jk

[@KC98561]

No, the power grid is not resilient to an EMP because its resilient to lightning. Emp's will at the very least saturate for an extended period every IC transistor circuit in every piece of hardware in the power grid. At worst it will outright fry every chip that is used to run it. Yes, the cables can run electricity but if the computer circuits used to generate and control switching are fried then it wont work. IC chips run everything. Shutting power off FIRST to IC chips can help protect them and just saturate them but its not a guarantee.

[@Chuck59ish]

Very informative video even without videos.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Isn't cyber warfare a more likely scenario today? And how secure are Russian systems from rogue command use? Do they use a code system with keys and stuff?

[@ianmurray4081]

Wolverines!🫵🤟

[@Kevan808]

Fun fact: it's not a high school kid asking these questions. It's an analyst from the NSA trying to find answers for his Monday morning PowerPoint. 😂

[@RyanMcBethProgramming]

wouldn't be the first time.

[@mikecamps7226]

@@RyanMcBethProgramming DIdn't get the EMP Memo ??

[@mikecamps7226]

@@RyanMcBethProgramming The vacuum tube devices need some warm up time...latency....blue glow

[@JohnDoe-vy5hh]

Pfft.

[@stevechance150]

Definitely not a high school student. They would just ask ChatGPT. It's much easier to cut & paste the reply into a term paper than to transcribe everything Ryan says.

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

In the USSR we had a saying, "In case of a nuclear war, hold your AK in your outstretched arms, so that molten steel won't damage your government-issued boots."

[@jed-henrywitkowski6470]

As an American, who grew up in the post-Cold War years, I like seeing sayings from the other side of the "Iron Curtain" that show that most folks had similar atuudes towards the futility of a type of warfare that... so far has never came.

[@spvillano]

I started my career with Pershing Ia and II missiles. One of our NCO's was a hard charging type, who infamously predicted, "If those missiles fly, your next job is infantry". Having enough one day, I replied, "Sergeant, if those birds fly, our next job is to be a brief bad odor in the air after the missiles pass each other". That shut that NCO down hard and I got back to work with one less annoyance that day.

[@alexroselle]

Maybe you’ve heard the one I heard quoted by Gwynne Dyer in a 1980’s documentary: when you hear the attack siren, go outside and start walking slowly toward the cemetery. Why slowly? So you don’t cause a panic!

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

@@alexroselle yeah, it's "crawl towards the cemetery in an organized manner - so as not to cause panic."

[@artisan002]

Heh. Growing up in the '70s and '80s in the USA, a lot of teachers overseeing nuclear drills at school would quietly add that it didn't matter, and that we'd all be dead no matter what. Of course, the city I grew up in apparently was on the first strike list for a few different reasons.

[@NigelDeForrest-Pearce-cv6ek]

I Grew Up In Tucson, Surrounded by 18 Titan 2 Silos. You Learn to Be Comfortable With Nukes!!!! Great Video!!!!

[@billh230]

Similar here in San Diego- no missile silos I'm aware of, but: 1 Camp Pendleton 2 32nd Street Naval Station 3 Coronado Island (SEALs) 4 Naval shipyards at National City 5 a whole host of military contractors small and large We're right there with you, Tucson. Say, are you old enough to remember those drills in school where, in case you saw the "flash", you needed to get under your desk and cover your ears?

[@user-McGiver]

a nuke in a country... is just like a crazy dude with an AR in a school... ppl will die until the ''crazy guy'' dies by the authorities... the town will moan, and life will go on... but you guys have nukes already../ so you're off the hit list!... a crazy dude with an AR is more of a concern than a nuke. it's all political... we from the outside can see it clearly... the scare is fake!

[@fuffoon]

Yes. Stop worry and love the bomb. 😊 I'm powerless to make change so I fascinate myself with the physics.

[@billh230]

@@fuffoon "Mein Führer.......... I CAN WALK!!!"

[@loschwahn723]

get a german as guest to push the button for german defence: _" we have the right to destroy the own country "_

[@matthewsmith2078]

He’s a high school kid asking questions for school. You could have just ignored him, and most people probably would. The fact you not only responded, but made an entire video really shows your character. I’m glad I’m subscribed to you, keep making great content.

[@csonracsonra9962]

I'm really not buying it because I think kids are being taught nothing or whether they're a boy or a girl or a they or an it🫡

[@eweaoea1]

@@csonracsonra9962nah ur wrong

[@mikeblair2594]

@@csonracsonra9962 Im an IT and I didn't have to go to school to learn that. You should claim out of your bubble and talk to people. Don't be aggressive and don't be defensive, just ask questions and listen to the answers. If you treat folks like a dick that's all you'll get back and then you won't learn a thing.

[@gufredd9675]

Vloggers always need content ideas.

[@catalindeluxus8545]

Ryan is great and. I agree, but to do the devils advocate, we don't have data for how many hs students he didn't answer to

[@GameyManatee3]

7:45 Depends on the nuclear doctrine. What Ryan is talking about is called Counter-Value where you strike economic targets and places of mass population to cripple the state’s ability to shift to a War Economy. The other doctrine is called Counter-Force where you strike military targets such as the State’s Command and Control Centers and opposing nuclear assets. Essentially, Counter-Force is to knock out the enemy’s ability to quickly retaliate. For the most part, the U.S. follows the Counter-Force doctrine. Military bunkers are often designed to withstand one direct nuclear explosion, so the U.S. plans to send two or more to guarantee the military target is destroyed. It’s why we have so many nuclear weapons. However, other nuclear weapon states like Russia and China have a hybrid doctrine where they incorporate both Counter-Force and Counter-Value. The total commitment idea Ryan is talking about is the thought behind Counter-Force. If you know the enemy is targeting your nuclear arsenal, then you have a small window to use your weapons before they can be destroyed. So, I disagree with Ryan here that total commitment is no longer feasible. My point is that the fear of total commitment is what deters actors from nuclear war.

[@alansnyder8448]

@@florinivan6907 I am being a little facetious, but "societal collapse" is already happening in some of our cities. i.e. rampant drug use that causes what people call "homelessness" in an attempt to mislabel why it is happening.

[@spvillano]

There's also a mixture, counter-value on military assets, essentially crippling them without destroying them and inviting the same back home. Think hitting comms nodes, such as Site R and a few less hardened sites that are colocated within medium urban centers.

[@spvillano]

@@alansnyder8448 if you want to see what a collapse looks like, I'll happily take you on a tour of Somalia or a few other garden spots of the world. And having been homeless, suffice it to say that not only rampant drug use causes homelessness. A pandemic and the loss of my wife of over 41 years did the trick for me, took a VA "entitlement program" to get me housed again. BTW, a pet peeve, "entitlements" are things that are merely minor, like Constitutionally guaranteed rights under the Section 8 Welfare clause. So, people griping about entitlements are griping that we're guaranteeing Constitutionally promised rights, equal in all ways with what's in the Bill of Rights.

[@greghenrikson952]

I agree with your assessment. I think we'd have to throw everything we have out as soon as it was clear Russia was hitting us and it wasn't some freak error. Besides, the idea of a calm tit-for-tat exchange after US cities are burning with nuclear fire is absurd. Of course we'd launch everything. Just out of pure rage we'd do it, logic aside.

[@sammiller6631]

@@alansnyder8448 "societal collapse" is not happening. Rampant drug use has been happening for decades or have people forgotten about the 1980s crack epidemic? Or Prohibition from 1920 to 1933? Or the Gin Craze in the UK? Homelessness has more causes than drug use. Mental illness can cause problems even if they never drink.

[@Werrf1]

Twenty-some years ago, I spent a few nights working in a backup centre for Sun Alliance (big insurance company in the UK). Picking out the necessary tapes from the archives and loading them into the machines, that kind of thing. It was a perfectly normal office building, with open-plan desks and cubicles around a central core. Only after walking all the way around the core did you realise that the core was the data centre. It was partially underground, with concrete walls three feet thick, a massive blast door, and a faraday cage built into the walls. It was, in fact, a nuclear bunker, designed to allow insurance payouts after a limited nuclear exchange. I would be very surprised if Walmart and Amazon didn't have similar redundancies, probably multiple ones, for exactly this reason.

[@spvillano]

Be surprised then, as I've saw one of those data centers, they're more like a common warehouse in structure than a bunker. Everything is backed up to a hot site. Sort of like, how does one back up a full SAN? To another SAN. Tape ain't quite cutting it at a certain scale.

[@chrispeterson4058]

The fact that the old warehouses converted into office buildings that make up Walmart HQ are that critical to national security/infrastructure is so hard to imagine (even though you’re 100% right)

[@johnpublic6582]

I hope they don't have any Russian exchange students smoking around that place.

[@spvillano]

@@johnpublic6582why? Google Earth has coordinates available to more than sufficient precision, as does the Russian mapping birds. As for value targets, I'd go for fiber nodes and power distribution nodes. Hard to replace switches, collapse conduits entering the switching center for the fiber, etc. Data centers aren't worth very much if they can't communicate, as McDonald's found out globally recently.

[@johnpublic6582]

@@spvillano Seems like you have not heard the hundreds of Russian news reports where their critical infrastructure next to Ukraine burned down and they say someone was smoking where they shouldn't.

[@wesleytownsend8214]

Great on this content creator for helping out a HS student! Respect. This is a “big deal” creator and he could have easily ignored this. Honestly nobody would have blamed him or really cared but this shows integrity by doing something to help. I’ll be honest, sometimes I watch his content but I’ll make a point to never miss anything he does now. I wish the very best of health and happiness to you all and your families!

[@shloomyshloms]

10:25 as a former IT guy when we went to put our stuff in a major datacenter in my city. We went on a tour. we saw servers with wraps and logos on them for companies like mozilla, and many others. The data center people told us that major companies spread their data centers all over the country because of threats like war, and natural disasters. KZbin as example has servers in almost every major city in the world and traffic relevant to that area is mirrored at these locations.

[@gordonwedman3179]

Good point. I once worked for a major oil company and I know we had a backup data center. It was in the same city though...

[@spvillano]

@@gordonwedman3179I know of a few Philadelphia data centers that are located within the city - across town. The likelihood of a specific disaster taking both out is a lot lower than the risk of one building to fire, flood, tornado, hurricane, my farting inside the data center, etc. A few had their hot sites in places like Reading, still fairly close by so that workers could get to them, but far enough away that a major disaster that could paralyze the entire city would be outside of their area.

[@orterves]

Small companies tend to use three or so availability zones in one region over spreading it across multiple due to simplicity of deployment and because if all those AZs go down, people are probably thinking about bigger issues (like that funny mushroom looking cloud over the city) than your website being offline

[@jeffreydrake4876]

My understanding of the book 1 Second After was it used data from The EMP Commission report to Congress in 2001. That was where he got the casualty figures from. The mistake people make is comparing EMP to lightning. EMP is more like an extremely powerful RF burst that is also extremely fast. Surge protection fails because the EMP peaks faster than the breakers. Note I am not an expert I’ve just read a lot about the subject.

[@jakeaurod]

The mistake people make is thinking EMP is like one of the known types instead being like all of them at the same time.

[@arminiuschatti2287]

Correct. Operates in the picoseconds. I reviewed war college documents and the SMEs, in 2011, didn’t change their casualty numbers.

[@arminiuschatti2287]

@@jakeaurodCorrect. There are three radiations and many don’t realize the extent that each could present to your home and electronics.

[@everettputerbaugh3996]

I remember an insurance repair of a 25" console TV where the entire chassis failed in order to protect the fuse from the lightning that came in on the power line. There is also the line-of-sight effect that will fry the P-N junctions in solid state electronics -- your phone has millions of them.

[@arminiuschatti2287]

@@everettputerbaugh3996 Just about anything with a closed circuit is vulnerable.

[@jamesbohlman4297]

The equation goes something like this: number and types of weapons used gives you a fall-out patern over a certain geography, affected by season but minus time. In a major exchange the relationship between decantaminating crop land before planting will decide who eats and who dies in the fall.

[@buscadiamantes1232]

The EMP misconception also comes from Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 (2009), a huge part of the plot involved a nuclear bomb detonating in the atmosphere and destroying tons of hardware in space, but also causing an EMP in Washington (that was being attacked by Russian forces... yeah.)

[@arminiuschatti2287]

While an EMP may be over exaggerated, it’s still wise to prepare and mitigate as a precaution.

[@SCH292]

Talk about EMP. Remember back from 2016 to 2018 when..well..I don't like politics but..I'm gonna have to say it. Remember when THE DEMOCRATS were scaring everybody in the US over the Russian EMP strike? Lol.

[@DrymarchonShaun]

​@@SCH292mhm, don't like politics, but still had to use all caps like you were making some huge argument-ending point.

[@ownage11445]

Not just any Nuke but a Russian one launched fron a Typhoon class Submarine by the hands of Captain Price. The story was bonkers .

[@buscadiamantes1232]

@@ownage11445 yeah I skipped over these details cuz my message wouldve been too long

[@erikkovacs3097]

That Walmart datacenter has no exposed generators or chillers. It has berms surrounding it. Not even Amazon goes to such lengths to harden its facilities.

[@MyFiddlePlayer]

If they have any brains (and I assume that they do), these big corporations have off-site back-up systems and fail-over plans. The primary site doesn't need to be that hardened if their fail-over system works properly and if the system is physically dispersed.

[@erikkovacs3097]

@@MyFiddlePlayer This kind of hardening is real cold war era stuff. This is what telecom and satellite relay sites looked like from the 50's -80's. Amazon uses redundancy spread accross a geographic area so if any one datacenter goes down, no data is lost.

[@dannydetonator]

As a non-American, i can understand that supplying 40+% of US groceries etc. is no mean feat. I just don't completely get why exactly Walmart has the biggest and most importand data centre/target in US, instead of something like Pentagon, Alphabet, National Power Grid or telecommunication hubs. Is most of them more dispersed and redundant, like YT servers in Iceland?

[@erikkovacs3097]

@@dannydetonator People think of high tech targets but never the food supply.

[@jed-henrywitkowski6470]

My dad up until recently was a truck driver in and out of the Army (yes, he has had government loads. Uncle Same prefers that the civilian CDL holders that transport it stuff, including junk be vets), and one day he was at a DC (Distribution Center) for WalMart. Well, there was an administrative error and if I recall correctly, he was not allowed to leave the property to it was cleared up.

[@jakeaurod]

Decent video, but I would have mentioned more myths, like the overblown threat of Fallout, Firestorms, and Nuclear Winter. However, you undersell the threat of EMP a little. Fallout tends to be exaggerated because people think that everything will be radioactive everywhere forever. First, generally speaking, the longer the half-life, the safer the isotope, from a radiation perspective. Second, fallout can be bad locally with surface strikes intended to hit hardened targets hard, but those strikes tend to be lower yield that limit the size and buoyancy of the fireball and tends to prevent it from reaching the stratosphere and spreading farther. Third, higher yield weapons tend to be used as air-bursts to maximize the destructive radius, but these create less fallout because they suck less dirt and debris into the fireball, and while they do tend to reach the stratosphere, the smaller particles float longer and farther, which means they are dispersed into low concentrations and take so long to fall to Earth that they decay significantly while at altitude. Firestorms are unlikely. Period, full stop. Nuclear weapons can cause mass fires, but that's not the same thing as a firestorm. First, firestorms need more than a spark, they need fuel, specifically fuel loading per square area. Modern cities don't have this. Tokyo, Dresden, and Hiroshima did. Second, the heat from a nuclear thermal pulse tends to be too short to start many fires directly. The fires in Hiroshima are now believed to have been caused by charcoal braziers used for cooking breakfast when the attack took place. Third, wooden structures burn best when they are erect, because air can get to the fuel. The blast wave from a nuclear weapon will tend to collapse wooden structures at the distances where the thermal pulse may start fires, essentially putting them out. Fourth, the video of smoke you may see on wooden structures used in nuclear tests is not necessarily smoke, it may be the volatiles used in paint being vaporized, which - ironically - creates a cloud that blocks the thermal radiation from reaching the wood. This effect was investigated for civil defense uses in schools and other civil buildings, if I remember correctly. Even if wood is scorched, it takes more than scorching wood to create a fire, as anyone who has tried to build a campfire using a big log without any tinder and kindling can tell you. Nuclear winter effects are likely overblown, and what could happen is of a lower degree of severity, and that's even less likely because a large exchange is unlikely. Some of the processes assumed for a nuclear winter require many large firestorms, which have just been shown to be unlikely (above). These processes also assume mass injection of particulate matter into the stratosphere, which is unlikely for several reasons. First, the mechanisms of injection may not be as robust as assumed. Second, weapons yield and burst height may play a large role and there may be (some claim is) a mismatch between worst-case scenario use cases, actual war plan use cases (as far as we can surmise or has been declassified), and likely use cases based on a more probably exchange ratio and type. Third, there may be a mismatch in the type of particulate injection assumed, as many reports refer to soot (carbon), which may not actually be a significant component of air pollution from certain types of weapon and target combinations - because they assume wooden structures instead of modern cities made of concrete, steel, and glass. As far as EMP goes, there are a lot of unknowns and assumptions. a Nuclear EMP can be divided into 3 components, known as E1, E2, and E3. The E3 component is similar to a solar Coronal Mass Ejection in that it causes Geomagnetically Induced Currents in long conductors, like powerlines, communications lines, and pipelines. This can be disconnected to avoid mass damage. The E2 component is similar to a lightning strike and can be arrested with surge protectors to some degree. The E1 component is the one that scares people, because it can happen too fast for normal surge protectors to arrest. It might also couple to smaller electronic components and shut down cars and cell phones. This is the one that people suggest putting radios in Faraday cages to protect against, but there's still a lot that's unknown and untested. The fear among many is a cascade, that the E1 shuts down computers and systems that prevent countermeasures for E2 and E3 being used, allowing those assaults to cause more damage. As far as Russia using a nuke in Ukraine, I still think it is plausible. I don't think it would be used primarily for battlefield advantage. I suspect it will be used to "escalate to de-escalate". In other words, they will use it to show their willingness and determination, in order to cause Ukrainian allies to back away. (Are these threats already working? Ask your Congressperson.) Moreover, Russias military is being degraded while the west may start rearming. This would reduce Russian parity even further, increasing their fear. If there were to be a nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO in Europe, Russia may lose less, meaning the result may bring Russia closer to parity again. I know it sounds stupid and counter intuitive, but the _Theory of Realism_ in International Relations, suggests that states, especially unitary actors (like Putin), seek comparative advantage, even if it means a loss of absolute advantage. In other words, it's better to be king of a small hill instead of sharing a big hill. Good luck.

[@davedixon2068]

All very well but when there are 6-7000 nuclear explosions not just 1or 2 the events will play out differently, will there be areas people can live safely ...probably, will they be able to live comfortably...no, every group of survivors will be back to living in the middle ages. no medicines worth talking about, subsistence farming, if someone in a group is reasonably well educated then they may be able to get some simple machinery/electrical generation going but as people die the information disappears, so there will be a lot of kings of little hills. As for the west backing off if Pootin uses a nuke in Ukraine they cant afford to back down, because if he does it once and nothing is done against him he will do it again until someone does do a return gig

[@RudolphoAqui]

Thanks, I think we will need it! Way over my knowledge base, be interesting to read more comments on this. Perhaps Macron has come to the same conclusion in regards to putin and is posturing and preparing for that possibility?

[@RudolphoAqui]

@@davedixon2068Agreed, although most unfortunate

[@JarrodFrates]

​@@davedixon2068The US and Russia each have about 1550 strategic warheads in the field. The rest are stored either for later activation or awaiting disassembly. Those stored for later activation cannot all be quickly reactivated as that process takes significant time and, more importantly, tritium, which due to its short half-life isn't just sitting around. Both countries also have several hundred warheads effectively unavailable at any given time because they're assigned to submarines that are undergoing maintenance or overhaul. The number of warheads used by both sides would be significantly lower than 6000-7000.

[@jakeaurod]

@@davedixon2068I can imagine even a moderate nuclear exchange of a few dozen resulting in a collapse of civilization due to cascading failures of technology, economics, and society, with an ultimate reduction in global population by 50-80% in years to decades. I can see larger exchanges of hundreds of nuclear weapons cascading to 95% reduction of population. However, I suspect books will allow a for the maintenance of technological level of knowledge closer to WWI or greater in many localities, even if they are not competently able to replicate technology above mid-to-late 1800s for decades or centuries. Many localities may regress further. If Putin uses a nuke, things might get squirrely. I suspect the west might attempt a massive disarming first strike using conventional PGM. If they're smart, they won't wait for him to use a nuke first and will hit him when he's not expecting it.

[@dx-ek4vr]

To me, surviving the initial nuclear blast is the easy part, relatively speaking, although alot of it would undoubtedly be based on luck. The hard part is how to survive the aftermath. Where are you gonna get food and other supplies from? What about medical treatment? Important questions IMO, especially in the event that the distribution and logistics networks get disrupted due to multiple other places getting hit...

[@spvillano]

Actually, the hardest part is surviving the utility triggered fires. Downed power lines, broken gas mains, even broken water mains that undermine gas mains causing a delayed leak and explosion.

[@m2hmghb]

@@spvillano If you haven't prepared your landscaping for a wildfire you're not thinking too well.

[@spvillano]

@@m2hmghb if a wildfire causes me problems here, I've worse problems than landscaping, as the river is right outside of my window and concrete surrounds the building. I'd obviously have a major superoxidizer spill that caught the water and concrete on fire. The hydrogen fluoride alone would create problems, what with massively etching my windows and all. But, I'm well prepared for a metal-fluorine fire, I've a pair of good running shoes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride#Rocket_propellant I'll see myself out...

[@markymark9740]

I’m gonna highly suggest everyone to watch youtube’s favorite defense economist: Perun on his videos that cover nuclear weapons and proliferation strategy. He uses game theory and known doctrine to show how limited nuclear strikes are the usually the least likely scenario considering the insane risks of them escalating to total strikes.

[@gregorysmith3341]

Calm, insightful analysis.

[@Kevin-rz6lm]

To give any answer some meaning, tactical nukes have to be separated from strategic nukes. Application, result, response, complexity and a whole raft of other considerations are in different universes.

[@qp1659]

loved this informative, easy to follow, free talk! we want more of it, give us your wisdom!

[@jayrarick4513]

The rise time of an emp pulse is an order of magnitude (or more) faster than the response time of lightning protection. The grid/electronics would burn out before the protection had a chance to operate.

[@jakeaurod]

Yes for the E1 component. Maybe for the E2 component. No for the E3 component. That's my understanding, anyway.

[@saratj1]

Love the content, So interesting hearing your thoughts on these problems we face and your modern take on things.

[@xxFxDx]

Hey Ryan, your generally awesome content aside - I really love that you take your time to answer even these kinds of questions from a highschooler. It shows that you don't think of anyone as beneath you, and I'd love to see more people act like you do!

[@wesleyashley99]

Im afraid that the first intention may be limited strikes but it would start a back and forth chain reaction that wouldn't stop until things get very bad.

[@jimsanderson9020]

The major risks of even limited nuclear war are fallout and logistical and communications interruption. Too few people understand how crucial a steady supply of food and medicine is; modern communications are central to Western Civilization. Cyber-weapons are equally threatening to logistics, but fallout can render areas uninhabitable for decades. Ports, rail yards, and potable water are dangerously vulnerable. One can rebuild NYC, but the port there can't be moved. While much of communication is wireless, virtually all wide area communication goes through fiberoptic cable, and there are a surprisingly few locations that serve as major fiber 'hubs.' Cyber attacks can cripple communication; nuclear attacks will cripple rebuilding efforts.

[@asherwiggin6456]

I don’t believe that a modern fusion bomb would leave a significant level of radiation behind, at least not after a few (like, 5) years. Remember, more people died from the stress at Three Mile Island and Fukushima compared to those that died from actual radiation.

[@kalle1689]

@@asherwiggin6456 Problem is when nukes hit nuclear plants who contain 1000+ more radioactive material than a nuke it self. All that waste with long half-life is thrown away and ruin soil long away. Like you said fusion bombs dont leave that much radiation behind. Most of it becomes high energy after the blast. First 48 hours after a nuclear blast is most critical, after 1 week the radiation is much lower and you can walk close to the blast site. However a nuclear plant have many isotopes who dont have super high radiation but long half-time so then it can be dangerous to live in areas for 100s of years.

[@57thorns]

Considering TMI was 100% contained, and as you say, Fukushima is more of a refugee problem than a radiological problem. Not what Japan is restarting their nuclear reactors, radioactive contamination from burning fossil fuel will be greatly reduced. Even if both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are safe (on the surface at least, there might be a reson the Hiroshima Metro/subway was not extended as much as originally planned) now, those 4-5 years (or ten) an area is off limit would be a problem. On the third (or so, lost count) hand, a nuclear bomb is mostly leaving highly radioactive substances that decay quickly, while a nuclear reactor using longer lasting fissionable elements.

[@JarrodFrates]

New York would be hit by an airburst, and while those in line of sight of the blast would be vulnerable to prompt radiation, the fireball would not reac the surface. It's the fireball, created by the most intense gamma rays, that causes the most irradiation. When it happens entirely in the atmosphere, the radiation disperses pretty fast. Even the akyskrapers of NYC are too low to be encompassed by the fireball. The thermal and blast damage is another story. Buildings would be gutted, and some would collapse. Reconstruction could begin soon after, but it would take years or even decades to complete the cleanup, and 9/11 Syndrome would be rampant with all the asbestos and lead paint dust that would be in the air. That's setting aside the humanitarian toll, as emergency services could not hope to keep up with the demand of hundreds of thousands of people needing immediate care.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

Extremely thorough and well presented information Mr. McBeth. I have two small crtiicisms. I think for the first question, and to a lesser extent the second question, you are focusing to much on the tactical or battlefield use of nuclear weapons, whereas I feel that the questions were implicitly more concerned with the use of strategic (counter value) nuclear strikes. My second point is of minor disagreement with your line of thinking. I would contend that in a post nuclear or any other plausible apocalyptic scenario, most of North America would probably be reduced to a technological level from some point in the 20th century, perhaps the 1910’s-1940’s. I base this on stories I’ve heard from various older relatives who grew up on the Canadian Prairies, particularly interesting tidbits on how many farms did not get full electrical connectivity until after the second world war.

[@dvm590]

You're very knowledgeable and bright. I hope that people working to defend this country as as bright and brighter.

[@Don__]

I can't remember where, but I think I read that ground burst produces more fallout, not less, than an air burst, because it throws a lot of irradiated material into the atmosphere.

[@nickyevdokymov5526]

Well, when top-1 KZbin war analyst start describing the beginnings and aftereffects of a nuclear war, maybe this is time to start prepping like no tomorrow

[@davidsoulsby1102]

If you listen to what he says, then its the opposite.

[@nickyevdokymov5526]

@joshuagrahm3607 Lead wallpaper can't help if you are currently living in drywall house)

[@NLTops]

Nah. Putin won't start a nuclear war over Ukraine. I think even if we put boots on the ground in Ukraine, Russia wouldn't be able to escalate based on that. Because they were already publicly claiming NATO troops were in Ukraine in the first year of the war (pointing at Western volunteers).

[@frankthetank6558]

Yep everyone just ignore the raised terrorist threat posted by the DOD

[@who2u333]

One can always find a reason to prep.

[@bernarrcoletta7419]

Infragard sponsored a couple of presentations about EMP, they spoke to a number of sources including a GAO report on EMP. One of the devices, most susceptible to EMP are those little wall warts that charge your electronic devices. Surprisingly, early 2000’s cars were surprisingly resilient (the report was released in the early 2000’s)

[@MyFiddlePlayer]

I'm not surprised about the cars. Not so much the modern made-of-fiberglass cars, but older cars are essentially a Faraday cage, which is the best protection against both lightening and EMP.

[@spvillano]

Wall warts, PC power supplies, modems on POTS lines, phones on POTS lines, radios with antennas connected would be most vulnerable. Least vulnerable, my spare notebook that's happily in its bag, taken out once a month for charge top-off and patches.

[@edc1569]

I thought ground strikes causes a lot more fall out.

[@paperburn]

surface strikes

[@tomarsandbeyond]

They do. A lot more. Even the weapons people somehow mistakenly think are "clean" will produce a lot of fallout in a ground strike, and a lot less up if detonated up in the air.

[@campbellmorrison8540]

Great questions and great answers. Its obvious you are not a politician, you answered honestly and unequivocally and not a single weasel word was used :)

[@robertferguson3023]

Ryan: [this video] Everyone at Wal-Mart Data Centre: 😳

[@SerenityMae11]

Lol! Totally underrated comment 😂

[@davidwagner9644]

Los Angeles has one of the largest oil fields in the United State. It has 7 refineries. It has over 200 oil storage containers. The number of secondary explosions would be massive. I am talking just using conventional weapons.

[@tenchotenchev5606]

Im not American but the number of secondary explosions would be mind boggling just with the minor detail it's going to be on the attacker's land.

[@Rob_F8F]

​@@tenchotenchev5606 True, but they could never compare to the number of primary and secondary explosions on the defnders' lands.

[@ravenward626]

A lot of modern military equipment is fossil fuel dependent. Until someone manages to find an alternative replacement for jet fuel it will always be a strategic resource. Aviation aside, some tanks even guzzle jet fuel, that can put a limit on how long they can keep working before supply chain disruptions lead to empty tanks. (No pun intended). It makes defending that sweet Saudi crude a strategic interest.

[@ravenward626]

@@Rob_F8FAssuming they have land to bomb. It gets trickier when the culpable are domestic or come from an allied nation. Or against the angry and dispossessed with nothing left but their hate to lose in life. The world is far from a monolithic utopia. Disparity and desperation can form its own sort of borders along lines that are much less clear than national ones. We assume our citizens wont attack national assets because they too are harmed by the act; that, and law enforcement to threaten punishment. But strictly speaking that's not really true. There are many examples where people will actively sabotage companies and financially pillage from the public for profit. I would posit that given the correct opportunity to exploit a strategic disruption, some borderline sociopaths could be convinced to put personal wealth and power over the potential risks to national security. Although it need not be framed in such a manner. The American dream is morphing into to the avoidance of poverty. Planning for societal futures could be taking a back seat to dreams of making it big in order to escape the perils of destitution.

[@Rob_F8F]

@ravenward626 Defending Saudi Arabia is critical for Europe and Asia, but not for North America. The US & Canada are net oil exporters. The US has a general interest in global stability, but it has not needed to wage war for oil in over 10 years.

[@dylanlowers5236]

If a country or faction was to launch a nuclear missile at the continental United States they would not hit the corporate HQ of Walmart. They would pick the most logical target that would probably be our command and control structures OR our own nuclear silos. I also am skeptical of a one off strike, America might be able to use one missile on say North Korea, but nobody is going to get away with firing a single nuclear missile at the US. Yes, it would cause mass chaos and breakdowns, but if the nuclear triad still works whatever nation hit us will be hit back tenfold. Same with Russia, if they are hit with just one missile they will use overkill back. The only way I can see nuclear exchange with Russia is in the tactical sense, as it is still in Russia’s doctrine. Striking troop concentrations and depots like you said, sure Ukraine and Eastern Europe would suffer but neither side themselves would be hit. Pretty grim, regardless

[@jakeaurod]

Assuming perfect intelligence and attribution?

[@annonymouslibertairian9120]

EMP fantasy. I work in a cube doing geometry all day. So I am listening to audio books a lot. And you run out of your Orwell, King and Dostoevsky pretty quick. Amazon has tons of series that are survival fantasy, and all of them use EMP as the MacgGuffin to kick off the apocalypse. And the severity of the effect varies from only sum stuff being effected, to every single electronic device on the planet is now rendered useless. And then everything collapses because of it. And the authors of these books make some pretty interesting predictions. It's mostly just an excuse to re-write Mad Max.

[@SvdSinner]

One of the big dangers of the EMP threat isn't the big antenna power grid, but newer microchips. Each generation makes the microscopic wires inside the chips smaller and smaller and smaller. And the smaller the wires, the easier they are to short out by an EMP. Today's microchips are becoming more and more susceptible to EMP with every generation.

[@deanfunk8448]

As usual you are right on target, Ryan. Keep up the good work!

[@jauld360]

A long time ago, I visited a disused nuclear shelter under an old peoples home. The building had many floors above the shelter, which seemed dumb to me. Being buried under rubble did not seem like a good survival strategy.

[@georgejoseph4164]

Appreciate the time you took to answer this persons questions… nice job.

[@williamgreen7415]

Thanks!

[@fR33Sky]

I’d like to add that (as far as I know) more modern nuclear warheads are actually thermonuclear - they’d leave much less radiation after the explosion since they use energy of fusion instead of the fission reaction, so more energy is “extracted” from the mass of the warhead and there’s less material to become a fallout at the first place

[@1caseyk]

Great stuff, Ryan! I'll just add my 2 cents. Thinking about why Russia would use a tactical nuke on the battlefield in Ukraine, my assessment is that they'd have to follow-on with credible infantry-supported armored attacks. So far, although they're learning, I'm observing a lack of that capability by the Russians. If you don't have good infantry, the Tac Nuke ain't gonna fix your problems. You send it at the expense of a lot of political capital, and then it's a nothing burger. On the strategic level, an intercontinental exchange would be nothing like Carl Sagan imagined it to be. The first targets are the other guys' nukes and the launch command structures that go with them - the first exchange will destroy some percentage of the enemies arsenal, and a big reduction in the outcome of the nuclear exchange just happened. Sagan and his cohorts want every explosion available and they ask for it to light the forests on fire. Those of us who've fired big shells know that they also put out fires as much as they start them. The whole Nuclear Winter thing was a pipe dream and not very well thought out. I'm forced to mention here that nukes don't have a sympathetic explosion when destroyed - they are a device that needs to fire, not a package of TNT. Keep up the good work, sergeant! I watch you daily.

[@edwardkuenzi5751]

If a few data center cites are really so critical and not properly backed up, couldn't a conventional strike with a submarine launched cruise missle be equally effective?

[@ScotttheCyborg]

I remember my first grade cohort in Northern Indiana was the last to do the tuck & duck drill due to Russian missiles. We had tornadoes as well, but the procedure for that was different. I'm not aware of any interesting target in the area, at least at the time.

[@91thewatcher23]

I've actually had those misconceptions about EMPs, glad I learned something

[@m2hmghb]

Unfortunately the effect of an EMP from a nuke in modern times is theory on both sides. I'd rather over plan and have it not needed then have it needed and be SOL.

[@dinijalil6107]

I love watching your vids man insightful and down to earth

[@user-ho1yn6ms7y]

Ryan, your subscribers keep growing! No wonder I’m seeing so many ads for the “last guy.” I know you don’t like politics, but algorithms sure do!

[@Naptosis]

Well, thank you kindly Ryan for the middling level of hope that I'll sublimate. It's fun living in London, England. 😅🇬🇧 My vapourised atoms are everyone else's early warning. 💪

[@BlueDutchCigarillo420]

just subbed! hope you hit your mill mark bro👏

[@neilrusling-je6zo]

Looks like its time to dig my old copy of Threads out...Its the feel good movie of the century.

[@hrdknox2000]

This kid better send you a recording of his presentation (if he has to render an oral essay) in response to your efforts!

[@CallieMasters5000]

He'd take $5 on his substacks from the kid's parents instead.

[@pablononpicasso1977]

As a Cold WAr guy I can tell you we only had the SOP's for immediate front line options, wasa about less exposure to radiation based on math and radiation levels. After that some rudimentary wash off and change of everything. Nothing about what may lie behind if it was an extensive exchange. The view in Europe and the world was that everyone would die, hence the themes in songs throughout that time. 99 Luft Balloons, was not about balloons.

[@m2hmghb]

Such a good song though....

[@CCumva]

You should make a podcast with Perun. That would be awesome to hear

[@ThirdCydonian]

Am I the only one who finds the launch procedure that missile crews in the silos follow fascinating but also chilling for what those key turns unleash?

[@ryano7340]

The Russians have also stated they would use tactical level nuclear weapons in a war against China, the doctrine of escalate to de-escalate. Knows that I know war with China. The only way it could win would be with nuclear weapons. The Soviet almost launched nuclear weapons in their border war with China. And went around asking NATO and other countries how they would react to a nuclear strike on China.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Russia has no desire to fight China. That info is pretty out of date.

[@ryano7340]

@@WALTERBROADDUS obviously, they have no desire to fight each other right now. but Russia would be stupid not to have contingency plans for when China stabs them in the back. China has claims on a lot of all stock and Russia and China have multiple boarder disputes.

[@TheMitchellKrueger]

I had a crazy dream last night about nuclear warfare, and I wake up to this?! I'm feeling prescient in all the wrong ways.

[@Rob_F8F]

The Sleeper Has Awakened!!! (Sorry for the Dune Paart 2 tie-in comment [Now Playing in Theaters])

[@ronhemby7656]

Two good novels dealing with aftermath of limited nuclear war ‘War Day’ by Whitley Striber and ‘Resurrection Day’ by Brendan Dubois

[@PBMS123]

FYI Azure isnt AWS. Azure is microsoft's datacenter/cloud/compute system i.e. microsoft's "AWS"

[@rebelcommander7starwarsjur922]

I would REALLY REALLY REALLY love a video like this but going over why and how every other nuclear power or any country trying to become one would use the weapons

[@danwilliams5867]

Can you say the movie "War Games"? Using nuclear weapons against a country that can respond in kind, is like playing Tic Tac Toe. It's always a draw no one wins. Using it violates Clausewitz principals of war. What is the objective, how do we get to it, what do we do when do? Clausewitz made reference to a war of annihilation in his book and said it made no sense. Nuclear weapons are really not useful at all in deciding a conflict

[@Rob_F8F]

That's why they are excellent deterrents.

[@jakeaurod]

Horse-hockey! Big bada-booms make big-bada holes. It may be overkill for any particular target now that we have PGM. but they still have kinetic effects. The problem of annihilation is a problem of human logic, not the effects of these specific weapons.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Tell Iran...

[@MyFiddlePlayer]

As Ryan pointed out, with the advent of better and better targeting, an exactly-placed big conventional bomb is more useful militarily than an inexactly-placed nuclear bomb. I have come to see nukes as a sort of dead-man switch for bad-boy regimes like the ones in North Korea and Iran...if they sense that they are going down, they may try to take a large number of random other people with them.

[@tomarsandbeyond]

Just because it is not totally logical does not mean it can't happen.

[@johndunne7900]

In the 1960s the M 28 or M 29 Davy Crockett weapon system was deployed to fire a M388 nuclear projectile, great stuff as long as you’re not on the firing end or on the receiving end both were subject to various amounts of blast and radiation. The weapons were deployed by the third armor division in Germany during the 1960s. West Germany expected to be overwhelmed by Russian armor and infantry so the use of these tactical nuclear devices would have a place and use in such a situation..

[@ruben3305]

If I die, I die. I ain’t going to be living in fear and hiding in a bunker waiting for them to drop. I want to enjoy life to the fullest.

[@dannydetonator]

Yeah most of us do.. But most of us wouldn't die stright away even if all of the Earth's nukes were used at once. For most on the Northern Hemisphere in that unlikely scenario, death would be slow, painful and horrific, in many stages. Both from 2nd and 3rd blast zones in shorter term from direct exposure, fallout contamination, and worst of all: nuclear-hunger-winter lasting something around 10 years from the latest simulations. The latter suggest ~99% of people in US, Russia, Europe and part of Asia would die, just slowly and very uncomfortably. Average temperatures would fall by 8C* or more in US to 35-40C* around Russia. You wouldn't see clear sunshine for years and most of deaths would be from hunger, cold - or probably cruelty of competing, starving people. MadMax would look like picnic in comparison. That's a scenario where most living would envy the dead. Yes, human race wouldn't go extinct, but i doubt the loveliest and kindest would continue it. That's what our current models say anyway, they might not predict everything or be just wrong too. The only living trough that with any reasonable comforts or security in countries hit would be the negliagable fraction of top 1% of super rich, powerful and prepared during that scenario. The most will suffer those fighting for survival on the brink of life and death. Thankfully that's why no sane person - even in most goverments - would go for it. Emphasis on sane.

[@tuvoca825]

They have some cheap real estate if radiation doesn't bother you. And most people would avoid it except for instaspammers and tourists.

[@meansofproduction4213]

Ryan I think you have some of this wrong. A deep ground burst is the greatest radiation producer. All the vaporized rock products will agglomerate and fall to earth rapidly full of highly radioactive products. Airbursts generally speaking consume their fissile Materials in the initial fireball and radioactive materials are generally minimal and spread over a broad area, minimizing their hazard.

[@rowanhaigh8782]

Thanks to Achih for the excellent question and to Ryan for the video. ❤

[@carlbecklehimer1898]

Any exchange of nuclear weapons with Russia would more than likely end up in an all out exchange because of the "use it or lose it" point of view.

[@stephenselby4252]

I think you may be wrong about the effect of EMP on the power grid compared to lightning. My understanding is that the timing of alpha and beta phases are faster than the normal lightning protection can deal with.

[@CallieMasters5000]

Mercer Island is a very wealthy suburb of Seattle. Very nice place to live & visit.

[@Laminar-Flow]

Ryan, might be worth making a video on HEMP. Induced currents from these can be.. massive. Fry integrated circuits massive. In all likelihood, within the effects radius, a HEMP (something like ~200,000 Kv/m) would overcome the defenses of most if not all small electronic devices, the civilian power grid, etc. I’m not sure if military-spec shielding (I’ve seen the docs) is up to this standard either. But either way, transformers and some of the other critical components of the grid would take months to replace and that is not considering the fact we would need many, many of them. In all honesty, I’m a computer engineering student, and it’s a topic I am quite interested in. I think generally people overestimate EMP, but when we start talking about HEMP weapons designed with the intent of maximized gamma radiation (and therefore more induced voltage due to the Earth’s magnetic field) it’s very different. Look at the Army’s paper on China and HEMP; they pose that China could hide one in a satellite, etc. Good paper.

[@didiersavard6809]

The problem with Nuc is allway the same. You know when it start, but to get disengagement after a first exchange is where the problem is. Escalation is very easy with bad leader or lost of C&C.

[@djohanson99]

To avoid fallout run perpendicular to the direction of the wind. If you survive the initial blast.

[@davidgoulding1386]

Always love listening to your videos! Thanks!

[@deanfirnatine7814]

Just an FYI some of those purple triangles on the target map are almost a hundred miles from the actual site.

[@myriadcorp]

Not Bentonville!! The Mountain Bike Trails!!!

[@davidhanson8728]

Something I learned recently is that modern nuclear weapons have little release little radiation. Older fission bombs create radiation but fusion reactions do not create the radiation. Bombs use a fission explosion to trigger the fusion reaction. It is not radiation free but is not creating the massive amounts of radiation as is popularly thought. Not a good thing but it does need to keep it in perspective.

[@timlinzinger]

Love ya work Ryan! Big ups from the UK.

[@DougWedel-wj2jl]

I haven’t heard much about the topic of nuclear weapons and appreciate you giving it a shot. This was my take a day before watching your video. It’s particularly relevant for people who want to see the war in Ukraine end sooner, aka asap. It breaks down to physically stopping nuclear weapons and politically/culturally convincing people not to build them. Stopping them physically has 2 parts: Knock down a nuclear tipped missile before it reaches us. Use terrorist interventions to stop them from being brought to friendly soil and stop people from building a nuclear bomb here (listen to everyone to learn who is interested in or carrying out a terrorist style attack). And convince hostile nations not to be so hostile and convince them not to build nuclear bombs. Once a nation has the knowledge and builds nuclear weapons, I don’t know how this can be reversed, so they no longer have the completed bombs; they don’t have the necessary materials; they no longer have the knowledge to do it. It must be possible, I just don’t know how that would happen, especially if a nation is determined to keep this capacity. Your presentation surprised me how you talked about a nuclear bomb destroys small areas. I was thinking it would knock down all the buildings in a big city. It also never occurred to me the scenario where soldiers take their iodine tablets because their own side is using the bombs.

[@stevenschnepp576]

The people arguing for disarmament never really seem to grok that MAD is why we live in one of the safest and least violent stretches of human history.

[@pavementsailor]

Thanks for dispelling the myths. Some I held myself. Would the "Prepper" movement and the " We can't do anything but die " ideas be so prevalent if not for our desire for gruesome stories in popular culture?

[@stevenschnepp576]

Your idea of preppers comes from reality TV, not reality. More people prep for things like hurricanes, extended blackouts, fires, earthquakes, or job loss than nuclear war.

[@oDIRECTORo]

Mind doing a video on "Does Russia Have Working Nukes". I'm sceptical from what ive seen. Thanks. I'm your biggest fan!

[@RyanMcBethProgramming]

Already done. kzbin.infooCOA1aDXU4w?feature=share

[@killman369547]

Having studied Russia and the way Russians think for over 5 years i can give you the answer in two words. "Strategic Interest". Russia knows it's conventional forces aren't much of a threat to NATO collectively. They're not dumb, so that leaves their nuclear arsenal as the last truly threatening thing about them. And that gives them every incentive in the world to keep that arsenal maintained, they don't care about the economic cost of doing this because to them the strategic benefit is far greater. So in conclusion if it ever does come down to it i'd advise going with the assumption that Russian nukes do indeed work as intended.

[@kungfreddie]

​@@killman369547well... a strategic nuke is probably much only used as a threat... if they were ever used life as we know it is probably over. So if ur a general in charge of updating the strategic nukes its much safer to steal that money than anything else... bcoz they will never be used! And if they ever break the testban treaty the evidence is destroyed in the fizzle. If I were a general in charge of this I would see it as pretty much safe money to steal!

[@Kevin-rz6lm]

@@killman369547 I agree with some of your comments. But regardless of what I don't agree with, I do agree with your conclusion in principle. I won't elaborate on technical details or my substantial credentials. Make no mistake, the scientific competence is there. I taught some of their graduate students and I was surprised at what my students brought out of their libraries to show me and get my approval. They don't have the computers we have, but they have all of the knowledge that we have. Slide rules worked fine for the job in WW2. But reasons to doubt the efficacy of their nuclear arsenal are summed up In a nutshell : corruption, QA/QC, weapon deterioration, distraction, greed, and a complexity that demands success at critical node. Aside from all of that, the reason I agree with you in principle is that we cannot afford even a low success rate given the size of their arsenal. If 30% of their nukes work, and 10% can be delivered to the intended target, and 90% are destroyed in-flight that is still a 2.7% success rate. Pretty bad success rate, right? This is published: "At present, Russia maintains the highest number of nuclear weapons, with an estimated 6,257 total warheads. Of these, 1,458 are actively deployed (current START II treaty limits both the U.S. and Russia to 1550 deployed total), 3039 are inactive but available to be made active, and 1,760 are retired and awaiting dismantling. " 0.027x 1458 = 39. That is 39 successful first strikes assuming the entire first strike is launched. Sorry to the doubters, that is 39 strikes too many. So I have to agree with you in principle. My estimated numbers could be off by 50% and Russia is still a dangerous opponent regardless of how wonderful we think we are.

[@QALibrary]

7:35 Ryan talking about Walmart... Did the family spend 1.5bn or 15bn (I forget which) building a bunker for the company - it was a write-off against tax due to what happened after 911 and the Bush government changed the tax rules or permissions for companies to build stuff like that. They and many other big companies were thinking they were at risk of domestic or international terrorism hence the spending spree to build nuclear bunkers and redundancy to operate in such an environment.

[@MyFiddlePlayer]

Redundancy is more effective than a bunker.

[@IILunchTraeII]

Sending love from Destiny. Big fan of him and liking the content you put out comrade. Can you tell me more on what vital spots would be good for a nuclear war?

[@Rolf-farmedfacts-supervisor]

Wildly needed update,Ryan! Things are going StayBehind in Norway🇳🇴🇺🇦

[@spvillano]

And Finland.

[@Rolf-farmedfacts-supervisor]

@@spvillano Yes, I know the Finns also got a working network👍👍👍 Those protocols were made for exactly these unstable times.

[@spvillano]

@@Rolf-farmedfacts-supervisornot quite. The protocols were made for after a successful invasion. Only Ukraine has been invaded thus far and Russia is having a difficult time with that invasion. Makes sense, Vlad is no Oleg the Wise or Vlad the Great, let alone Yaroslav the Wise. More like Vlad the Aba. At this stage, one leaves caches alone, undisturbed, but checked and simply makes ready in most other respects. One doesn't "vanish into the woods" until invasion had begun. Messing with hidden resources these days invites their destruction, as drones and satellites see all sins.

[@Rolf-farmedfacts-supervisor]

@@spvillano That last sentence has haunted me since 2022. One of Norways defensive strategies were to abandon Finnmark, since that county borders NewSoviet and their north fleet command in murmansk is just a few clicks away from the crossing. (IOW; The successful occupation-part is alot more viable regarding Finnmark county, its the SB-network that will direct targeting for consolidated NATO-operations that will turn Finnmark into a killbox for soviet forces) Vlad the impaler is watching how we react to his new "hybrid" warfare using imigrants and energy. The "vanishing into the woods" -part is almost surreal to bring up, but its WILDLY up in the air!

[@Matt-xc6sp]

Galveston is one of the targets in Admiral Stavridis’ novel about WWIII

[@redspec01]

May we never have to experience this possibility.

[@207tex]

Great questions

[@jerryvanderwier2310]

As an emergency planner and auditor for 50 years for some of the largest corporations in the world and at the state and federal levels, I can tell you that Wallmart not only has effective - not perfect - contingency plans and will be able to provide groceries pretty much unimpeded with the sudden loss of Bentonville; at least for locations outside of that city. That is not to say their wouldn't be some hick-up's particularly with some of its product lines and busines to business logistics and finances, but getting groceries will not be an immediat problem either from Wallmart, nor food shopping in any US location outside of possibly a few isolated towns, islands, or unique locations.

[@stevenschnepp576]

They keep the groceries coming even after the nuclear apocalypse, I _might_ considering shopping there again.

[@kennethfisher1564]

Should I ever overcome the impossible and become the leader of the Earth, you will surely be summond to be my military advisor. I love your knowledge. More important tho', I love the place your heart is settled in human society. I love you.

[@jewittm]

I was not expecting Mercer Island and this channel to overlap

[@goofyduder2604]

LOL i was thinking the same thing

[@Talon12Whitey04]

Lightning protection doesn't protect from an EMP. The protections themselves can result in a cascading failure leading to a "black start" which can take devastatingly long to recover from. See also NE blackout.

[@dx-ek4vr]

I don't think he was saying that lightning protection can guard against EMP. I think he was just giving an example on the kind of protections we place on our power grid. We've also apparently made efforts to make our power grid more resilient against Solar Flares as well, which could blunt the effects of a nuclear EMP

[@jec6613]

Some lightning protection does protect against EMP, others won't help, but in no case would it hurt. The Motorola hardened communication facility guide gives a lot of information on this, but you're correct that the biggest vulnerability of the US electrical grid is that everything in an interconnect is fully synchronized and spinning in unison and restarting that is a non-trivial exercise.

[@olivere5497]

Julien Spencer Churchill has some very ling and detailed lectures on this topic. I highly recommend listening to them.

[@andrewbaillie7417]

Ports seem a prime target...Boom 💥

[@mariaantoniettapelo4028]

Thanks a lot from Italy ❤ your videos are always interesting 👍🏻

[@SCVIndy]

Amazing in 2024 we’re having to have this discussion

[@yabboracer]

Was always told in case of civic emergency, you stay home, black out windows and doors, and stay quiet. The most dangerous thing to you in a real emergency is the person who did not stay home.

[@ephphatha230]

Recommend the movie Threads

[@crazycressy7986]

And "the day after" from the 80s

[@user-jk2zm7uq5s]

"The Day After" isn't even on the same level as "Threads". One is PG 13 whereas the other one is so scary that even "Texas chainsaw massacre"-aficinados can't sleep afterwards for weeks.

[@cholten99]

I watch Threads when it came out in 1984 and I still occasionally have nightmares about it even now 40 years later.

[@crazycressy7986]

@@cholten99 same lol

[@crazycressy7986]

@user-jk2zm7uq5s still sacred after watching it in the hight of the cold War and not living far from a big government complex knowing you are a target

[@missilewhistle]

great videos but Mr. McBeth please process the audio a bit, a compressor and some EQ'ing would do wonders for intelligibility, anyway thanks and keep the good work ;)

[@gunningopher]

3:00 - If a nuclear weapon is detonated near the ground surface (above or below), there will be massive fallout as the fireball mixes with the earth and brings it into the atmosphere, where it will rain down on down-wind areas. I don't think there are nuclear weapons that are air dropped deep enough to have the same impact of an underground test, where the fallout is contained underground. Luckily, if you want to call it that, most nuclear destruction is caused by the shock wave over-pressure, and the impact is maximized by detonating well above ground, where the fireball picks up a limited amount of debris, limiting fallout, even at the detonation site. Some counter-force strikes are intended to detonate near the ground, especially for hardened targets, but those will always have a lot of fallout, which will carry towards Russia.

[@ryano7340]

Is radiation still a factor in the use of nuclear weapons or have hydrogen bombs made radiation no longer a threat in a nuclear exchange or use tactical nuclear weapons

[@nathanfisher1826]

Thanks Ryan

[@stevewagoner9894]

I’m pretty close to the front gate of an air force base. If air raid sirens go off, I think I’ll try to get even closer because I don’t think I’ll be able to get far enough away