Did The Cold War's Conclusion End The Threat Of Nuclear Armageddon? | M.A.D World | All Out History

The Cold War is perhaps the closest humanity has come to a true apocalypse. How did this conflict come to an end and did its conclusion mean that the threat of nuclear annihilation was over or does it still loom over humanity?
If you're a history fan who loves binge-watching, this is the channel for you! From the pyramids of Ancient Egypt to the Trenches of WW1, we'll be publishing the best history documentary series for you to sink your teeth into.
:european_castle: Discover the past on History Hit, with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly and presented by world-renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Matt Lewis and more. Get 50% off your first 3 months with code 'ALLOUTHISTORY': historyhit.com/subscription

[@frankknudsen842]

There's really nothing like watching a wonderfully done documentary series that is virtually redacted of anything offensive or disturbing. The only upside is like any kind of trained or schooled whatever as a historian or archivist knows, I know what is blurred out for the most part. But i can also understand y ppl would b pissed if they don't know what they are looking at. You're missing the single principal reason for presenting history if it's censored,so why bother. Thanks ever much

[@John.Flower.Productions]

_Did The Cold War's Conclusion End The Threat Of Nuclear Armageddon?_ The threat ceased to exist decades before, with the proliferation of nuclear arms across the globe. In other words, _'Nuclear Armageddon'_ was only possible when one nation (America) held a nuclear arsenal.

[@brendadion7868]

Clearly no!! Its not the weapons themselves...its the guys with the codes!

[@user-yy9hk9od9u]

Clearly no. Russia has more nukes now than in 1989.

[@user-cj5bz1sj3c]

Well said 👍

[@josephsmith6777]

They have no wherecnear as many today as they did in the late 80s early 90s we both checked to make sure we were drawing down nuclear weapons we openly in a field chopped in 3rds 450 b 52 bombers so they could see it by satellites The US and russia both have less than 10 thousand nukes a piece we both have a nuclear triad ours is technological superior But russia has a superior mobile icbm launcher, making it hard to get a fire solution on it we both have static icbms and we both have planes to deliver and the 3rd leg of the nuclear triad the subs our are far better but russia will work just fine they also have something we don't a dead man's switch and a tactical nuke that can be used on a battlefield like Ukraine it's a small yield nuke another thing is not all nuclear weapons have nuclear fallout hydrogen nuclear weapons don't have the radioactive after effects

[@josephsmith6777]

No, not even close. Both the US and russia both had over 30 thousand nukes a piece we now both have under 10 thousand, not bc it's somehow safer its just we have cheaper better ones with 15 to 20 bombs in each missile they are cheaper stronger and instead of one per shot they have many and cost and maintenance is cheaper

[@J-SH06]

Very wrong. 1986 was the peak in the number of nuclear weapons on Earth.

[@adrianabreu7874]

Russia and allies hold nukes