China's nuclear arsenal is now catching up with the US one. Here's how.

Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, Android or iOS:
💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/ChineseNu...
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days
A year ago, the US DoD estimated that China might have 700 warheads operational within the next five years. And up to a thousand by 2030. But this past summer, those estimates have gone up even further. So how many warheads might China really right now? And how many might it be aiming for in the near future? Watch the video to learn more.
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com​
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov​
If you want to buy a Binkov plush doll, get it here!
crowdmade.com/collections/bin...
You can also browse for other Binkov merch, like T-Shirts, via the store at our website, binkov.com
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / @binkov
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com

[@Binkov]

Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, Android or iOS: 💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/ChineseNuclearA Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days

[@prezmrmthegreatiinnovative3235]

do a vid about a modern Operation Barbarossa with both german wehrmacht and red army having modern tech and equipment with also more manpower and population and etc

[@debobratasaha6170]

Talk about India

[@didyoumissedmegobareatersk2204]

Please make one of zuhai air show

[@dr.chopper9302]

you noted at 15:42 that russia has specialized warheads for SAM systems. I am not aware of any such system. As such Id like to request more info. Because that would be bat shit crazy

[@HiReeZin]

@@dr.chopper9302 Also USA had nuclear warhead equipped SAMs to late 1980s. Nike Zeus/Hercules. Appears Russia still has them operational in A-135 missiles. But they are and were meant against adversary's ballistic missiles, so should be called nuclear ABMs. Possibly there was a time when they were meant against bombers, at the time before ICBMs came and took the nuke carrying role from airplanes. One reason to use nukes has been the difficulty to hit a ballistic missile or it's re-entry vehicle. With nuke it's not so point-precise and a near miss will do fine.

[@GraniteStateofMind]

I have a morbid curiosity to see how capable China’s military really is. However, considering the circumstances in which we would likely find out, I’m perfectly fine not knowing.

[@DuoTheGodOfDeath]

Well considering they haven't fought a conventional war since what the 50's they probably wouldn't be too capable yet. The days of huge numbers running across open fields are over as the Ukraine war has shown.

[@bro918]

That would be KINO!!!

[@madensmith7014]

@@DuoTheGodOfDeath It's likely gonna be a naval war so we're gonna see PLAN ships fresh out of the dockyard with green sailors, and somewhat aging USN ships with tons of exercise experience, and has time to simulate war games with China as the hypothetical enemy. My bet is on the US It's funny to find out the the USN actually simulated the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor during one of these war games before WW2 even started. How much they've analyzed the Chinese today, only they know.

[@PhiloSurfer]

@@madensmith7014 Yes, the US aircraft carriers will be greeted by the carrier killers. The carrier battle group will be greeted by swarms of armed drones and under water drones. And don't forget the hypersonic missiles.

[@Sone418]

US don't encourage/start proxy wars challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)

[@donhuang9855]

China needs to ramp-up its nuke arsenal, say 2500, to match the US's nuke stockpile for good measure, given that the USA only respect the power of the gun, in this case large numbers of nuke arsenal. The fact that Russia has more nuke warheads than the USA has pre-empted the US-led NATO from waging a full scale direct war with Russia, even though Russia has a much weaker conventional military force than China. Therefore, maintaining large number of nuke arsenal has become a necessary means to keep the US's aggression in check because a war with China can only means MAD, which is unacceptable to the rulers in DC.

[@darrylmuse9948]

There’s a problem with those missiles they say Made in China 😂😂

[@donhuang9855]

@@darrylmuse9948 That's the real reason why the USA is so frightened of China as these missiles can be manufactured enmass in large quantities, very cheaply, and of super sonic speed.

[@darrylmuse9948]

@@donhuang9855 man you smoking some good stuff if you think we are scared of China.And the USMC isn’t scared of shit we always looking for a fight and our enemies fear the Marines in combat because they know what we are capable of doing we bring hell with us when we go to combat

[@donhuang9855]

@@darrylmuse9948 Of course, people on Earth are very scare of the Devils (US Marines) because they are always bringing HELL with them where ever they are roaming the world looking for more Humans to slay. However, thus far, these evil US marines had been fighting many 3rd world rag-tag militia forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Algeria, Africa, etc. But fighting the Mighty Chinese Army is a different ball game because it will only means MAD, if shove comes to push. You have been warned, and it's time to CAP the shenanigans of US Marines around the world. I wasn’t saying BOO, I am saying BOO-URNS!!!!

[@darrylmuse9948]

@@donhuang9855 We go where there’s trouble.And we are devil dogs .And you talk about those countries they start shit with America we finish it our job is to kill and we are damn good at it .And as for China not combat proven hell there a video showing Chinese troops crying .China want some they can get some and we are quite capable of handling them on the battlefield and will hand them their asses.

[@georgekostaras]

Nobody wins a nuclear war. Best case scenario sees the loss of 5000 years of human cultural and technological progress

[@Curly_Horse]

Also if humanity manages to survive and rebuild from a nuclear war, there's a high chance they won't be able to re-industrialize since all the easily accessible natural resources like coal and oil deposits close to the surface would have already been consumed.

[@georgekostaras]

@@Curly_Horse all the more reason not to do it

[@richardscathouse]

Exactly

[@AckzaTV]

Nah someone always sirvives with solar panels batteries and starlink and some cheap factories. China needs to make factories around the planet that can make anything fast and cheap with tesla like tesla chkna gigs factories that can make anything

[@Tethloach1]

I guess we have nothing to worry about. Nobody will ever use nukes. No wins.

[@iandoyle3695]

Just a small word of advice from someone who's briefed weapon systems capabilities in the past. Try to incorporate a different color or line type (dashed/non dashed) for each weapon system when you are visually presenting them to viewer. It helps make things clear. I had a hard time seeing what weapon system had what range on the last slide there. Very good video though. Thanks for the work on it!

[@kirtcobijn6200]

For Fallout fans it is both terrifying and interesting to watch the world follow the timeline of the game, largely. I wonder if the devs will adapt the lore to fit in current wars and developments, to make the timeline seem more rooted in real life. Until now everything makes sense. Onward to 2077. But i fear 2077 is an optimistic year for the end. Sooner seems more realistic

[@George-2002]

try to count how mane times @Binkov said plausible in this video. Great job keep going mate!!!✊✊

[@kleuafflatus]

When I saw the title saying the chinese nuclear arensal exploding, for a second I didn't realize it is exploding in the metaphorical sense... As a Chinese (hker) you can guess how unnerving it sounds lol

[@johnh8615]

Whether you have 10 or 10,000 it ant squat unless you use them. And if you use it, it’s your death 15 minutes later. So its just a big bluff because no one would be alive to argue otherwise. 🔥🤣

[@lostcontact601]

If world war 3 started goodbye internet goodbye youtube etc.

[@kevinw2592]

the internet was first built to ensure communications in the event of a nuclear war

[@taichitao85]

Russia and china will rebuild the internet once the demon in the west perish

[@kevinw2592]

@@taichitao85 Russia can't build roads and bridges, how are they going to build something technical?

[@florinivan6907]

@@kevinw2592 The internet might survive but it will be a mostly southern hemisphere led project. After a nuke war all out chaos would break out in the North. Governments would either collapse or become north korean in behaviour. So a heavily regulated borderline impossible internet would emerge. I know what postnuke countries would be like. Democracy dies the day the nukes fall.

[@Lam_MieuMieu]

如果美国只有一百枚核弹，我觉得大家都可以减少，如果美国依然有这么多却指责别人是威胁，那你最好有和美国同归于尽的能力

[@chrisdoulou8149]

A lot of the data you’re using and the assumptions you’re making are quite old. The DF-31AG is a MIRV version with 3 warheads fitted and the DF-41 can carry up to 10 warheads although 3-6 is the standard, with the rest of the space taken up by penetration aids. I’d also be very surprised if the PLARF is producing any more DF-5 missiles, the B & C models being upgrades of existing missiles to improve accuracy and offensive power, as the missiles themselves still have enough service life in them to make an upgrade worthwhile.

[@commanderminh7402]

Fallout is real boy,prepare building shelter everybody!

[@notshowing6428]

I have an idea for a youtube channel where a puppet speculates about complex military matters. Thoughts?

[@ericlee5515]

love how everyone in this comments section is now a expert in chinese relations and a professional military tactician

[@davidmoss2576]

The world renowned China expert, and military genius septenza said China nukes doesn't work.

[@Jagonath]

Only a fool would underestimate China, but globally it's a stalemate. No one can invade China. China can't invade out of the box it's in. I'm happy to keep things that way.

[@iBlindPanic]

@@Jagonath nobody wants to invade China..... only after threatening Taiwan and other neighbors the Americans started looking into this. There is not an Asian country that trusts the ccp.

[@joshuabonilla3491]

@@iBlindPanic then why do almost all of them do a lot of trade with china?

[@iBlindPanic]

@@joshuabonilla3491 what has trust to do with trade? Besides you dont trade with the CCP you trade with a Chinese company. Why dont you check your facts, nothing I said you cannot find on the internet yourself: nobody likes the ccp.

[@gigaforce1]

Showing minute 6:25 is an Russian s505 and s550. And 7:10 are Bulava test near by Norway to Wladivodatock.

[@cmonman85]

The fact that we get free videos on KZbin by Binkov's Battlegrounds is truly a gift. 👍👍👍

[@longtsun8286]

Thank you for the detailed report. Why were the Chinese captions censored in the images where the missiles were on parade? To avoid a copyright strike from the Chinese news network the images were taken from?

[@maeton-gaming]

yes I can get you a McDuh with a side of Obviously Fries, is there anything else? perhaps an Obvious Soda?

[@Binkov]

Binkov's Chinese is not so fluent these days.

[@shabdikacharyya2516]

Bring back country vs country analysis

[@christopherlau566]

just love to see how media exaggerate things

[@KG.372]

🔥🔥🔥

[@felixleong61]

"Time to put on your lead underwear!" General Tsing Shi Tao From C & C Generals

[@arniciaurelian6767]

It is normal. The same for the US is not catching up with Russia.

[@donm5354]

Maybe if they changed the name from WARHEADs to PEACEHEADs it would help the negative image of WARHEADS.

[@Jagonath]

It all seems so pointless. Who cares who is "ahead"? What leader would even be willing to sacrifice a single city, let alone dozens or hundreds, and somehow think you have won an exchange like that? Even if you obliterate the enemy and only lose half your own country... you've lost half your country. You can't just reconquer it, it's gone forever.

[@mm-hq4qh]

china russia n. korea etc

[@mef12727]

Russia and North Korea don't care about their people

[@bryanwilson8652]

I certainly hope it’s not exploding!

[@edisonone]

The word here is *hundreds*… *”People's Liberation Army General Zhu Chenghu, a professor at China's National Defense University, admitted that his view was not official policy. Even so, he was speaking before a group of foreign journalists. "If the Americans are determined to intervene [in China's internal affairs] we will be determined to respond." According to the Financial Times he also said, "We ... will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of the Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds ... of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."* a clear give away, *my opinion*, of what China’s arsenal really is… In addition, in the turn of millennium, a U of Singapore study suggested the Chinese should have a stockpile of 2400 units. Similarly, a George Washington U study (2010 I think) also suggests China arsenal should be in the neighbourhood of somewhere between 2500 to 3000 warheads while… A recent report by Russia suggests China’s arsenal should be what both the U of Singapore and the George Washington U suggested… .

[@mathetes7759]

Great catch! Knowing the fact that the Chinese military s patterned after the Russian military with EVEN more corruption, such as pay for rank in the PLA etc...how operational are the nukes they have should be the main question?

[@pisablavatski4876]

@@mathetes7759 operational? Western regimes have the habit of overestimating itself and underestimating others. This is well known to the world.

[@Tonymontanayayo]

A good way to measure a country’s potential power to deliver missiles is their space program. A space rocket is an ICBM that’s used for civilian purposes. So far in history, there’s been two countries that have decades of experience launching into space, to orbit earth or to reach other planets. Those countries being the US and Russia. China has a very young space program, but I’m sure they’re learning as they go further into space.

[@stevemrayz357]

It's naïve to call China's space program '"very young" considering they launched their first satellite 52 years ago. 13 years after Sputnik

[@Tonymontanayayo]

@@stevemrayz357 ok wrong choice of words, then I would say delayed? The US and Russia have sent rovers to Mars and Venus in the 60’s and 70’s. I don’t believe China has sent a rover that far yet, although technically all 3 nations started their space program at the same time.

[@stevemrayz357]

​@@Tonymontanayayo Delayed would be a better term. The Chinese have an active Martian rover, "Zhurong". There have been no rovers sent to Venus by anyone, only landings

[@sadiqahmed4143]

@@Tonymontanayayo Apparently you don't know that China just landed it's rover on Mars on it's first try A Year ago

[@Tonymontanayayo]

@@sadiqahmed4143 I know very well of their recent achievements…. I meant historically, the US and Russia have a longer history of space exploration, landing rovers on Mars and Venus back in the 70’s….

[@The136th]

The number of warheads is misleading. China may have 1/10 the number of warhead of USA, but has 36% of the USA if you compare the total yield of their nukes. USA: 820 megaton total China: 294 megaton total China simply have fewer larger yield warhead.

[@quoccuongtran724]

yea because a lot in those ~6000 warheads possessed by the usa (and russia) are low yield tactical warheads china goes all in for strategic nukes, and for retaliation alone (no first strike policy)

[@ratkomladic7314]

JL-3 is already in service, it's not in testing.

[@ld871111]

DF-41 is not a replacement for DF-5. DF-5 (C variant) will continue to form the core of China's silo-based ICBM in the future, as it can carry higher yield warheads in greater quantities.

[@aboveparanormal723]

instead of being afraid of Russia and China, look into our own streets.

[@dpt6849]

A lot of lunies in western cities yes. Only in traffic and the way people drive🤦‍♂️

[@nicobruin8618]

Find another youtube channel if you want to focus on that.

[@TylerSolvestri]

Shitholes with LGBT flags, abortions as a sex protection tool and a dying infrastructure, welcome to the almighty west!!!! 😎😎😎🤣

[@richardscathouse]

Exactly

[@Daltastar2012]

*Marine eating crayon noises*

[@smling11]

To complete the video, check up the declaration on the use of neutral weapon by the neutral powers.

[@jackma1548]

China now has 947 nuclear warheads in stockpile and it has plan to build 1000 new warheads in five years from now on, so it will have around 2000 nuclear warheads in stockpile in the year of 2027.

[@miguellines5907]

@Jack 1200+ more precisely but "Silence is Gold" said by confucius.

[@Ali-fx6jd]

Good video you just gotta fix that potato mic tho LMAO

[@kggoh]

USA has 6k plus nuclear weapons. China only in hundred. In what way the American think they are catching up?

[@ggjj8870]

？

[@chubascomohd2688]

Rich countries are capable of making more nukes. China is rich now and they have the technology to manufacture easily and quickly.

[@Mycatsbirthdayparty]

Lol

[@justhitreset858]

There becomes a point at which more doesn't yield any benefit. Have enough to survive a few covert sub kills, and any missle defense systems. A hundred beyond that is more than enough. Any more is just for show.

[@javiercorreapr9977]

If any given country has, say, 500 fixed targets, between major military assets and major cities then 1500 effective warheads will suffice as deterrent. You can have 5000 warheads but then you can kill your enemy only once. Focus should be in making the warheads unstoppable and having a reliable dead hand trigger. Hopefully, we will never know.

[@elijah_9392]

Greater numbers allow for a simple solution to enemy defense capabilities. Simply put, if China can produce several thousand, they could satirate their enemies defenses by sheer numbers.

[@weizhang3391]

The highest military expenditure in the world is the United States, and it is also the United States that has the most military bases in other countries, but why has no one come to point out the American threat to the world? Is the United States in a different world? It's really ridiculous

[@darrylmuse9948]

You mad bruh? 😂😂

[@deveryhenderson8335]

lol what? the U.S. is a beacon of freedom and hope. the chinese steal others' technology, execute its citizens for the most mundane of crimes, and has a gdp per capita of 13,000 vs 70,000 for each american. cry

[@joshuabonilla3491]

@@deveryhenderson8335 lmao beacon of freedom and hope? Who helped Pakistan against India in the 1960s? Who started the most wars? Tell that to all the people killed in America’s wars overseas. Beacon of freedom as long as it benifits Uncle Sam.

[@Karthagast]

@@deveryhenderson8335 Hahahahahahahaha You must be high on something. Congratulations to your dealer.

[@Jagonath]

How is the USA a "threat to the world"? The USA has loads of allies. Why? Because they know the USA *protects them*. Do you think anyone in Asia is worried about being invaded by the evil USA monsters? The USA has had the power to conquer and claim almost anyone for 50+ and didn't do it!

[@totoybato8206]

woooww those are very pointy rockets now that's scary sharp too

[@prasanth2601]

So the DF-41 missiles which are shown in Chinese military parades are as capable of 70s US missile technology?

[@user-wr8sm6jp6j]

However, the intercontinental ballistic missiles in active service in the United States are also the technology of the 1970s and have not been updated. This is true whether it is the Trident or the Minuteman 3 missile. And Minuteman 3 can only rely on fixed silos, which is very inconvenient, similar to DF5

[@samvelsafaryan4698]

I am very happy that it will be.

[@chungkitlam3406]

China hypersonic ICBM carrying multi-nuclear war heads has inches weaponry edge

[@TheGrindcorps]

In terms of Nukes it’s Russia 1, China 2 and USA 3. Russia has beat delivery systems and by far most nuclear weapons in serviceZ. Russia pulled out of STARTII. Russia has over 2000 strategic missile delivery systems and 6000-1000 tactical nukes. China has 500-1000 strategic weapons likely and better ICBMs. USA basically has Trident and shitty minute man 3 with over 1000 weapons.

[@alanfinch8763]

Being that nuclear is a last resort/self defence weapon its no big deal. The M.A.D. doctrine stands no matter if they have 100 or 10000.

[@JukemDrawles87]

If they launch at us they go too, regardless. So it doesn't matter.

[@joemammon6149]

if China and Russia can shoot down incoming US nukes, and US can't shoot down incoming Chinese or Russian nukes, that's a game changer. then the MAD doctrine no longer applies.

[@JukemDrawles87]

@@joemammon6149 that's fantasy thinking if you think anyone could intercept nukes

[@joemammon6149]

@@JukemDrawles87 things are possible if you put your mind to it. Communist countries place heavy focus on education, unlike US that's more focused on being woke and using the right pronouns.

[@richardscathouse]

When I was in the US army Depleated Uranium was considered last resort. And a war crime. Times change. Not always for the better.

[@stevenwong345]

When the US have more than 5000 What a joke 5000 is not a threat

[@imreallynoob8311]

Ofcourse it isnt a threat to themself, but when other country have it, it is They fear everything not under their control

[@jamesmacfarlane3196]

What’s the back ground music used?

[@surryan]

As I grow older it becomes more interesting of a question to me, will WW3 happen first or will we as a species come together and actually work toward the collective continuation of our species. As of November 2022 I am sure that is a stupid question. However I still have a small sliver of faith in humanity, we might actually look outward and understand this little rock really should not be our end. Collectively we have the capacity to at the very least make this solar system a reality, we just need to stop thinking so small. We shall see...

[@DBZHGWgamer]

Everyone thinks they are right and everyone else is wrong, the same is true of you.

[@fatdoi003]

@@milibao Macross/Robotech

[@multipolarworld8389]

Funny how you're using Russian missile launches to talk about China.

[@theashpilez]

It is only a matter of time. The genie has been let out of the bottle. Albert Einstein.

[@raymondtay3532]

Well done China. 💪💪👏👏👍👍💯💯❤❤

[@angellim9465]

There will be peace without the US. Look what happened to Iraq and Libya. If they only had nuclear weapons. North Korea is one example.

[@DonVigaDeFierro]

Well, move there, go on. Afraid of losing anything?

[@abramhamtantan5219]

Well said, North Korea never disturb Asia countries. North/ South Korea is their internal affairs

[@czl6270]

@@DonVigaDeFierro Move to Iraq or Libya, go ahead.

[@Bassjunkie_1]

Someone used to play EverQuest.

[@janwitts2688]

Total number of functional russian nuclear devices 75.. total number that could be readied within 48 hours 114 ... total number needing remonetised .. 1000s

[@maplered5351]

Proper China threat theory! Ha ha. It is suggested that the host broadcast a video of the United States' nuclear weapons

[@Lukeclout]

Theres one very likely scenario - China can just purchase Russian reserve stockpiles as well as platforms - in return for economic aid to Russia. - Legally as both are already nuclear powers there is much smaller obstacles geopolitically. - It will be mutually beneficial; for China to acquire more capabilities from system such as the SARMAT and Borei class SSBN and for Russia to maintain its military industrial complex - It is relatively available and quick. China can attain thousands of nuclear warheads and multiple new platforms within 2-5 years and Russia fast access to perserve its economy.

[@richardscathouse]

China could start selling staging bus equipment to North Korea. Maybe they upscale their fireworks into something that can reach the US west coast

[@ghostlead6937]

I thought it was a no go to stop making nukes ?

[@janwitts2688]

What about the ICBMs on that container ship .... ooops

[@SaintFluffySnow]

yup. ... the thousands of floating commercial ships offshore on both US West and US East coasts and any in the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes or up the Mississippi River or in ports ... commercial piers nearby US Naval bases (USA) ... or abroad ...

[@Cyberjyuubi]

Why is our timeline looking more and more like the Fallout timeline?

[@richardscathouse]

American writers can't produce anything original. Just squeals and cheap knockoffs

[@auro1986]

it can be every ten years if computer chips were not sanctioned

[@AndriusKamarauskas]

Don't Want to Set the World on Fire - The Ink Spots

[@fuji8103]

Arent bombers pretty much useless nowadays?

[@rogerwilco5918]

I hope not, they're unveiling the B21 in like 2 weeks

[@fuji8103]

@@rogerwilco5918I mean the conventional ones. Stealth bombers are probly the only ones that still have a purpose.

[@timothymiddleton6651]

No, they still serve as range extenders and delivery platforms for various missiles. And for targets without modern air defenses, they are a cheaper alternative to lots of long range missiles.

[@rogerwilco5918]

@@fuji8103 well... That's debatable.. They have big plans for the B-52, but it's days of ArcLight strikes and carpet bombing are over.

[@KennyNGA]

Yes only nuclear Powers still use them for Well nuking

[@yeetian2774]

How? US has 5500 nukes and China only has 350….it will take many years to catch up 😂

[@mohammedkhan2303]

it does not matter 300 to 1000 r more than enough to end earth

[@Djamonja]

Does it even matter beyond a few hundred warheads on 100-200 missiles? That is enough of a deterrent to assure that neither side will risk launching a nuclear attack against the other side (unless they are crazy, in which case the number of weapons doesn't matter either).

[@borghorsa1902]

No, there's a huge difference between 2000 warhead and 200 warheads. Ukraine had 2000 warheads and West made her give them up in 1990s when USSSR was collapsing

[@Djamonja]

@@borghorsa1902 But from a strategic standpoint, does it matter if you have 200 warheads or 2000 warheads, assuming you can deliver some of them to their targets?

[@SS-yv9cq]

@@Djamonja Yes it matters a lot coz Ballistic missile defence systems have improved tremendously. When you are facing a cunning warmonger like the US which uses surrounding countries as meat shields, placing BMD systems and submarine bases on their soils to box you in, you better have thousands of nukes+ ICBMs to deliver them. Even better if you convert 40% of them into hypersonic glide vehicles and Hypersonic cruise missiles. US is ganging up on China, but the gangsters around China are well aware of just how capable China is, barring the stupid Indian call centre scammers, no one else is ready to commit to total war just yet, maybe Japan is crazy enough/slave enough to atleast prepare but when push comes to shove even they will stand down especially when China reaches the magic number of nuke warheads which is 1500.

[@Bk6346]

It does matter. The more nuclear warheads the harder for the USA to shoot down or take out in an pre-emptive strike.

[@Djamonja]

@@Bk6346 You do realize that if two countries shoot several hundred nuclear weapons at each other, we're all screwed right? There is no winner, we all lose.

[@Rospajother]

Wow

[@Roheos]

Most of the information here is 15 to 20 years old....why use old data?

[@MrAbklee]

Be it real or just paper tiger....do you want China to test it for you to see if real ? Dont regret later

[@bytpokornykareem8897]

I love how Chinese keep talks rather than some real battle.

[@shinei98]

@@bytpokornykareem8897 Lol so are you wishing for real war to happen? You want to experience suffering? You want your loved ones to experience suffering? You want humanity to end as we know it? Because if you do, maybe its just you... Why don't you go to war with China yourself, while we peacefully watch you eat Chinese rubber bullets? That (your foolishness and stupidity) will kill our boredom for a little while 🥱

[@xinyiquan666]

@@bytpokornykareem8897 real battle? since when after ww2 US had real battle、 invading small country is not battle

[@xinyiquan666]

really? so paper tiger US can invade china now, see if it dares

[@sysomphonemanuthong3953]

Kool huh life is now peaceful and com! It's what was needed!

[@justme6275]

some think nuke war is winnable.

[@pahtar7189]

One thing is certain: The next round of Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) talks need to include all nuclear powers, not just the US and Russia.

[@richardgoh8725]

That will never happen.

[@Sammy-be5dc]

How the Serb army escaped Nato 'They came out to villages when they wanted to, they hid when the weather was good' Nato commanders, not to say political leaders, became increasingly frustrated by their inability to destroy Serb units. It was known that Yugoslavia had built an extensive system of underground shelters for its troops, guns and aircraft - a relic of President Tito's era, in preparation for a possible invasion by the Soviet Union. Many of its camouflage techniques, including the use of dummy weapons emplacements, the Serbs had learned from the russians. Critics of the bombing campaign also said mistakes were the inevitable result of Nato's policy of restricting its pilots to bombing from 15,000 feet or above - a policy dictated not least by political considerations, notably Washington's determination to avoid horrified public reaction to the sight of "bodybagsss coming home. Yet when the western media saw the Serb military withdraw from Kosovo in early June, they saw convoys of Serb tanks, armoured cars, guns, trucks and military equipment untouched by Nato's air assault. Nato's bombing campaign, with thousand of sorties and the dropping of tens of thousands of bombs, including sophisticated precision weapons, succeeded in damaging just 13 of the Serbs' 300 battle tanks in Kosovo. The Serbs had 50 marines In their care and that's the reason why it stopped and think USA hid behind NATO for small serbia And still never won.. Have a great day or night depending where you are...

[@swaminathanbalakrishnan1399]

Wish there was some sort of algorithm to filter out all the trolls from the comments, then at least I could see some interesting discussions there.

[@SaintFluffySnow]

you omitted who you define as "trolls" nobody knows who you want silenced

[@swaminathanbalakrishnan1399]

@@SaintFluffySnow Anyone from whichever side who is screaming "other side is shit, other side shit BRUHAHA WE ARE GREATEST" etc. In this comments section they are mostly Americans, but they can vary depending on the video.

[@thulsadoom544]

@@swaminathanbalakrishnan1399 Says you who adds nothing interesting into this comment section

[@jc.1191]

Ikr!

[@swaminathanbalakrishnan1399]

@@thulsadoom544 And you, my friend?

[@dpt6849]

O96. U96. Das Boot😂

[@LOTUG98]

How's it catching up? Us has like 4-6 thousand warheads. China has like 300. 😑

[@atatatatatagsad]

That mentality its one of the worst, yeah today they have 300 but what about 10 years in the future? 2500? 3000? even maybe 3500? ICBM's, never underestimate a crazy paranoid dictator

[@wei270]

@@atatatatatagsad why anyone needs 2500? with just 1000 you already don't need any deliver system, just detonate the nukes where you store them, and the entire earth is gone...................

[@quoccuongtran724]

well yea china could produce more on another note, the recorded ~6000 warheads of the usa and russia included a lot of low yield tactical nukes, so the actual number of strategic nukes are actually lower, probably several thousands less

[@user-sl2eu8ho9y]

@1 CQC Native American

[@jemonicamaylor5606]

@@atatatatatagsad You're acting like the US numbers is frozen?? Tf

[@joekerr9036]

How many nuclear missiles are required to destroy US ?

[@KevinAssalin]

It depends on the definition of "destroy" If you mean the governemmt/high military organization Then just a few houndreds are enough... But if you mean destroy ANY type of politic, military or civilian power, so the country cant reorganize in the next 1000 years... Then it would take thousands of bombs

[@joekerr9036]

@@KevinAssalin I hope China and Russia destroy US for good !

[@bogotnukes379]

@@joekerr9036 China & Russia will be dust even they even tried so keep dreaming clown

[@joekerr9036]

@@bogotnukes379 Really kid ? China and Russia will make US disappear ! Learn something kid instead of moving your stupid mouth ! That's what kids are good for !

[@bogotnukes379]

@@joekerr9036 the U.S literally has thousands of more nukes then China but sure kid 😂

[@albertosalamat9754]

Additional destructive tools for dying earth

[@thatoneguy7792]

Can we get another battle grounds video

[@osmanivegen9876]

China is not Iraq or Afganistan ? They have a big power. US must get full NATO support . We have learn that how to live together in peace.

[@iBlindPanic]

Tell that to the ccp.

[@Saichenyang]

Don't worry, China just making toys.

[@junli6577]

The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union plunged the world into serious confrontation and serious nuclear risk for half a century, which was a disaster for other countries. The limited self-defense capability of nuclear weapons is enough to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war. The earth is not only a few nuclear powers such as the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, but also more than 100 other non-nuclear countries. These countries do not want to be involved in a great power confrontation or nuclear war, so nuclear weapons are for self-defense, not aggression. Nor can it be used as a weapon to coerce other nations, merely as a means to avoid the outbreak of a large-scale war between great powers. There is only one earth. It is a home for human life, learning and common progress, rather than a battlefield for conflicts between major countries.

[@zhugeliang3905]

I agree with you. Now tell that to the US regime.

[@paulpowell4871]

regardless if China Surpasses the USA in military production they have basically 3 allies in the world. It would be perhaps NOKO, China and what's left of Russia. Expect Russia to switch sides like they did in WW2.

[@jc.1191]

Russia would be their ally

[@paulpowell4871]

@@jc.1191 yes I added What's left of Russia as an Ally and then they switch like in WW2

[@sleepyjoe4529]

It doesn't matter in a world war scenario how many "allies" you have. Between China and Russia they will have 6000+ nuclear "allies".

[@longtsun8286]

You seem to forget US government leaders spent DECADES antagonizing their Russian counterparts, including delivering outright threats- how else is Putin to interpret Biden's demand he be removed from power? If the US goes to war against China, Russia will AT LEAST offer to sell China munitions at a discount, and "volunteers" to fight against a mutual enemy (which is the US), out of spite.

[@MarvinChenFantasy]

If Americans said you have that many nukes, you'd better have it.

[@qinfugu2816]

China has already nearly 1000 active nuclear warheads, close to US and Russia.

[@shortdog6360]

This is nothing but an estimation . What he don’t to tell you is that China has over 6000 miles of tunnels . I’m willing to bet you that China has over 1500 war head all ready .

[@CrasusC]

your figure of 1500 is also nothing but an estimation.

[@zhoubaidinh403]

@@CrasusC just pulling out numbers from his ass

[@johnsmith1953x]

@@CrasusC 1983 Nuclear Sub Type 092 with 12 nukes x 1 sub = 12 nukes 2004 Type 094 Sub with 12 nukes each with 4 Mirvs x 6 subs = 12x4x6= 288 nukes 2020 Type 096 sub with 18 nukes each with 12 mirvs x 8 subs = 1,728 nukes Grand Total of Submarine Nukes is 2,208 That's 2,208 nukes just in their submarines and they are all new.

[@CrasusC]

@@johnsmith1953x … assuming each silo actually has a missile and associated warhead… a big “IF”. The PLA doesn’t actually publish information about their nuclear arsenal, there is no way for you to know for sure. The Pentagon estimates that China would amass 700 warheads by 2027. You think you know better than US DoD?

[@Mycatsbirthdayparty]

🤫🤐

[@NekzLvL]

We are living in Command & Conquer worlds.

[@weltall7283]

Fallout moment

[@Chevronsam]

Not yet. The amount of nukes required for a Fallout like scenario would be about 50,000-60,000 nukes. I believe the world has around 10,000-11,000 nukes, so thankfully we’re not there, yet

[@richardscathouse]

Know where your towel and bottle caps are 😉

[@user-vw8ex6kn6b]

I am very curious about what the Western media is based on to determine the number of Chinese nuclear warheads

[@alanfinch8763]

who cares, the more they make the more that they has to dispose of in the future, total waste of resource.

[@armyhobo2471]

@@Abhi-ly7nr they definitely have enough slave labor for it

[@davidgriftman3852]

They need a guarantee that no living human would remain in NATO plus Japan plus Australia if an all out war breaks. Well worth the cost.

[@Bk6346]

An American or Japanese factory in China is a Chinese factory because the government can seize it at any time.

[@TK-hr4vh]

@@Bk6346 like what us.a seize Afghanistan 7B usd. 🤔🤔

[@marioncobaretti2280]

May 2nd 2072 armageddon

[@jacqueslee2592]

The future of humanity is bleak and filled with death and destruction due to the excess of power, materialism, and territorial expansion.

[@VVVVV99611]

human ego

[@KevinAssalin]

The us just said it was 400 Edit: with likely 1000 by 2030 And 1500 by 2035... So china is adding some 80 nukes per year

[@user-yw8zm9wn7l]

The U.S. releases various ridiculous reports on the number of China’s nuclear warheads every year to infer the number of China’s nuclear warheads based on China’s response. They deliberately underestimate the number of China’s nuclear warheads every time to test China’s response. The latest report points out that China has 400 nuclear warheads. Good joke, just use basic IQ to calculate that China has at least thousands of nuclear warheads

[@user-yw8zm9wn7l]

We will not allow ourselves to have only a few hundred nuclear warheads, especially against NATO

[@user-yw8zm9wn7l]

@@Abhi-ly7nr You just have to remember the report is hilarious, I'm sure by this time next year the US will say that China has 800 nuclear warheads, do you know why they do it? Because they know that China has at least thousands of nuclear warheads, just to ask Congress for money, they will hype it step by step

[@user-yw8zm9wn7l]

@@Abhi-ly7nr If you want to mobilize production in an all-round way, it can be done, but in fact, these do not need to be concerned by civilians, because the country has many specialized mathematics talents who can calculate roughly how many nuclear warheads need to be produced through reasonable calculations.

[@user-yw8zm9wn7l]

@@Abhi-ly7nr China has a 5,000-kilometer underground nuclear Great Wall. In fact, there are still many unannounced weapons, so what really protects the country is not the weapons you think

[@dddddh1]

What's the use of talking about nukes, 1000 and 2000 have the same effect.

[@JukemDrawles87]

Seriously

[@richardscathouse]

Exactly, China already has enough to sterilize the US three times over

[@Bk6346]

More is better. Tougher for the USA to defend or shoot down.

[@JukemDrawles87]

@@Bk6346 If anyone fires a nuke at us they disappear too

[@Bk6346]

@@JukemDrawles87 That’s why no one fires a nuke at USA. It’s call MAD mutual assured destruction. But for the same reason USA won’t attack Russia or China.

[@nathanielalaburgDelhi]

If so they wouldn't sit their ass down when the us raises a nuclear submarine soo......

[@jebise1126]

5:54 thats so fat fireworks

[@PineappleMaxwell]

day 3 of asking for binkov to make "what if modern day us military went back to 1941"

[@jeremyjansen1932]

Yez please binkov

[@piotrd.4850]

Fu...ed up after supplies run out. I doubt whole US at the time could supply the army.

[@chadgaming8071]

@@piotrd.4850 their modern tech would destroy enemy target very easily

[@Rath_Burn]

They'd win any negotiation they enter. When you have that kind of firepower, and your enemies have no defense for it, after one or two crushing engagements, most people would want to cut there losses and negotiate.

[@JR-gp2zk]

Didn't he already do a "Final Countdown" video? The moral of the story is, yeah a modern US aircraft carrier would initially kick ass, but once all the high tech missiles, ammo, and part runs out , it wound be impossible to resupply using 1940's tech.

[@kiro9257]

The amount of bots from this specific “nation” is appalling. KZbin truly needs to fix this.

[@Evan-iq8hd]

"KZbin, please ban those who disagree with me". There, I fixed it for you.

[@kiro9257]

@@Evan-iq8hdthank you for fixing it, then Evan 😁

[@M_Jono]

Ahhh you mean India

[@DJGuppy321]

@@Evan-iq8hd It is a known fact that China has armies of paid shills and bots. And it's quite obvious they're in these comments.

[@yayayayya4731]

@@M_Jono they have a huge number on twitter too

[@cocopufer5667]

if i lived next to russia i would want a bigger nuclear deterrent too

[@Daniel-rh7kh]

Why are people mocking each other in the comments in defense/attack of X country? Dude, they don't care, and certainly won't even bat an eye when you turn into ashes from a nuclear explosion, let's discuss the military aspects

[@user-wo3wx1fv1l]

Автор рассказывает про Китай, но пуска ракет показывает российские.

[@klardfarkus3891]

Is Binkov aware that submarines could likely launch missiles even when in dock?

[@Zurr-En-Arrh]

That would make it a easy target because wars dont start with nukes

[@ToxicGamer86454]

@@Zurr-En-Arrh How are conventional weapons going to reach US mainland ports?

[@americameinyourmouth9964]

I’ve read that while the Chinese have fewer warheads their average yield is much higher. With US large MIRV warheads having a yield of 300 to 475 kilotons. Where as the Chinese warhead may average 1.2 megatons. Meaning China’s warhead estimate underestimate their total nuclear yield (warheads x average yield). Putting China at around 294 MT and US at between 1300 and 1500 MT total yield (depending on number of low yield tactical nukes).

[@iamreallycai]

It looks like that smaller but more newclear war heads will be more efficient? as if you launch it to cities, the buildings will minimize the kill zone

[@jc.1191]

That's true

[@americameinyourmouth9964]

Binkov mentioned in the video the Chinese miniaturization is closer to the US’s back in the 1960s. So only now are they investing the resources for more warheads and to make them smaller for more effective MIRVs.

[@The136th]

China has 294MT, the US has 820MT

[@americameinyourmouth9964]

Source? Its hard to find anything on this topic given its classified.