How the Russia-Ukraine War Could Turn into a Nuclear Nightmare

[@Gametheory101]

17:02 Over-analysis of politicians on chairs

[@Ghettofinger]

That is a criminal act! I believe there is a section in The Hague about such depravity.

[@camilledouglas7991]

great

[@rogerpennel1798]

How many times have nuclear weapons been used during a war since WWII? None! That's because everyone who has joined the nuclear club realizes that they are a weapon of absolute last resort and the ONLY thing they guarantee in times of war is the basic survival of the country that owns them. A country can still be beaten badly in a conventional war, but nukes are the ace card that allows the owner to say this is as far as you can go and no further. Now if China, India, Great Britain, France, Pakistan, and North Korea know that there's no way they can use nukes without dragging the entire world into the abyss what special strain of megalomania does Putin have that would lead him to believe he could destroy Ukraine and get away with it without any losses to his own country? The answer is he doesn't believe he can get away with it any more than the USA believes it could get away with nuking Russia and surviving. Do not underestimate the willingness of the world to legitimize any successor regime in return for the security of Russia's nuclear weapons. In short, the world tolerated the rise of Putin and the oligarchs because they guaranteed the custody of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons. This time around custody should take a back seat to disarmament. Do not transfer the risk, eliminate it!

[@Old-ded-memes]

Perhaps they should negotiate a better arms deal

[@Fish-ub3wn]

imho it's a medieval custom of showing supremacy.

[@MatthewLuigamma032]

That paper tear at 7:39 scared the shit out of me

[@hipfirehippie3474]

And that was just a tactical paper tear.

[@Bumbaclartios]

@@hipfirehippie3474 LMFAO

[@jakeaurod]

ASMR this is not.

[@watrh]

@@hipfirehippie3474 it was a "special paper dissasembly operation"

[@YouTubeExplore777]

Putin had to rip lined paper for his butthole because toilet paper cost too much there. 🤔

[@warmongeir8427]

I am U.S. 20 years retired military person and have been a member of SAC most of my career, including SAC Hq. in Nebraska. I have lived through the "Missiles of October" and I see no comparison here. This has turned into something much more serious, and I have been following "LIVE" most of the problems in Russia including the mobilization conflict from individuals living in Russia who have departed their country. There are a lot of things going on here that are quite unique to the situation that leave the feeling of grave unrest.

[@copiumdealer1]

Good that traitors are leaving, they are not even 1% of the population. I hope nuclear war starts before 2023. Let's decide what is what for once and for all. During Cuban missiles crisis we missed the chance.

[@aaronliu1394]

Can you explain more? What are the details that are so worrying?

[@warmongeir8427]

@@aaronliu1394 Back when Russia was trying to put nukes in Cuba, the Russian economy was somewhat on par with the rest of the world and a leader in space technology. Their goal for the most part was to take as much advantage of the West and the United States as possible, not that the U.S. wasn't doing the same and the Russian population was more patriotic with the actions of the government then. Today on the other hand, there is a lot less of that patriotic commitment. The population has grown accustom to the benefits of being part of the world economy. Now they are losing things that the younger generation seems not to be able live without. Conscription was something of the past, and they feel that have too much to lose. The rumors of the Front are not favorable showing a good survivability outcome. Putin is backed into a corner and with the hardliners pushing their agenda and the population becoming more at unrest. Soldiers searching for non-existent Nazis. The truth eventually comes out in the long run, i.e. "No Weapons of Mass Destruction" the U.S. claimed, which was found to be untrue. Putin will have no choice but to show strength even if he has to use his untrained mobilized troops as cannon fodder. If there is no benefit shown with the mobilization the use of tactic nukes may be the most viable alternative. With this action opens up a huge can of worms to which no one will be able close pandoras box. This is just my opinion and hopefully nothing but hot air.

[@markrattenbury9924]

I think you are 100% correct! Not being an alarmist but the feeling of...this isn't going to end well.. is getting "stronger by the day"!

[@lollypop2413]

@@GordonTechno i agree with you...putin is loath to destroy ukranian civilians because they are brothers...the nazis need extracting and neutralising

[@DJtheLoungeLizard]

I think the risk of nuclear war will exponentially increase after this war is over and when the Russian Federation begins to fracture. Every small region will try to hold onto those weapons on their land because they have seen the dangers down the road. That is, twenty years later Russia will treat them the same as they are treating Ukraine now.

[@Spinexus]

Best case szenario. A country fighting themselfs isn´t fighting us.

[@whoisme678]

How about Ukraine swallow up Russia, ? They can annex it and tell Putler " Russia is Ukrainian", 😂😂

[@Razta_S]

@@Spinexus do you want ISIS? cos this is how you get ISIS.

[@Snoil]

Honestly this cannot be said loud enough. Ukraine's situation has basically told the world 'Get nukes and keep them, or you are us soon'

[@luipaardprint]

If russia fractures it's unlikely what's left will be able to support and maintain nuclear weapons, they're expensive and finicky.

[@prim16]

Never thought in 2022 I'd be waking up daily to news about potential nuclear war. This is doing wonders for my mental health

[@tomhern5463]

On the flip side, if they do launch then you don't have to worry about your mental health as you've become a shadow on the wall

[@prim16]

@@tomhern5463 oh yeah it's big brain time 🧠

[@softshoedancer]

it's just one thing after another. Whoever thought covid would be the good old days

[@jjunbeatable9522]

@Jacques De Molay eh probably, but technology is getting better every day and depending on your age, you might see a time where people live so long that death is Optional or immortality in general

[@falcon127]

AREN'T GOVERNMENTS GREAT!?

[@abcd-jr5ek]

Thanks!

[@Gametheory101]

Thank you!

[@IbisGuy]

What really concerns me about the use of 'tactical' nuclear weapons is that they appear deceptively low impact but are a convenient way to gently ease the world into total nuclear armageddon. Once the nuclear threshold is crossed for the first time (since WWII), I worry about how small a jump it would be to progress from 'tactical' nukes to bombing entire cities. I truly hope we never cross this threshold.

[@loder8592]

Also much akin the broken window theory. Once it is accepted as an acceptable means it becomes more normality and that would be quite scary...

[@calebdavis1323]

Yeah there lies the problem with using tactical nukes. The genie is out of the bottle and on his way to fucking Narnia at that point. A full exchange becomes almost inevitable within the next few years. Because either you respond tit-for-tat and immediately escalate into a full scale global exchange or you give no-proportional response and tell the Russians they can, in fact, use nuclear weapons with impunity; which, once again, will almost certainly lead to a full exchange further down the line.

[@MK_ULTRA420]

According to most nuclear war games...within 1-24 hours.

[@ivanoranrof9577]

"gently ease the world into total nuclear armageddon" Well put. We should definitely "gently ease" into WWIII, the long awaited sequel to WWII. Well done.

[@ahyaok100]

When it comes to the nuclear problem, it's easy to understand that there is a point where escalation can easily get out of control. And I mean quite literally out of control. Nobody knows where that point is. But one thing is for certain, NATO will escalate a lot more if Russia used any type of nuke.

[@Ifraneljadida]

Man, the past 5 years or so I'd really gotten into learning about war and geopolitics. Stalingrad was my favorite battle to read. Wars from Alexander the Great, to the Great Northern War to the US Civil War It's still somewhat surreal that a European land war, for territorial conquest, has broken out

[@softwhiteund3rarm0r]

I was enthralled by stalingrad. Insane loss of life. Slava ukraini 🇺🇦

[@filanfyretracker]

I have found the US Civil War interesting just for the fact of it was in many ways a preview of the coming world wars, It was a proto-industrial war. Where the factory had become just as important as the army it sent the weapons and supplies to.

[@Ifraneljadida]

@@filanfyretracker ahh I see and yes that is a great opinion on it ! The North was able to use its somewhat industrial capacity. Great perspective on it. The Civil War one is just so odd because I am so acquainted with the areas in which they were fought. I've driven from Cleveland to Miami and back probably 20 times. I have a family cabin in the Appalachian Mountains. I spend time with family in the Carolinas. Sherman's march on Atlanta is just surreal to think about - it was not all that long ago. I also have a great great uncle (something like that) who died fighting in the Union. I have watched the Ken Burns documentary on it so many times. Admittedly I have not read books on that war yet. But the Ken Burns one has so much nostalgia and "american" old timey feel to it. I grew up essentially on a farm in Ohio and its just so relatable the stories from the war; unlike wars during Rome or WW2 which are not at all relatable to my experiences. But being a farm boy, trusting your government and being super defensive of your local community ? Going through the trees or farms of PA to fight ? All so relatable It also makes it seem so impossible for the same thing to happen today. Sure the democrats and republican hardliners have some beyond peaceful protests but to imagine half the nation versus the other half .... and that it could drag on for so long with such little action at times.. Last thing: I have a portrait of Abe Lincoln in my room. Easily the best president besides George Washington. How he managed to hold it all together, perform under pressure and then heal the nation together with no lasting violence? Remarkable

[@Ifraneljadida]

@@softwhiteund3rarm0r Stalingrad is really hell on earth. Absolutely insane battle and one of the most important battles, if not the most important, of the 21st century.... Imagine if the Nazis had taken Stalingrad, Volgagrad and Moscow ? Could the allies have one? Would there have been a cold war?

[@pugdad2555]

Why is it surreal? Because the territories are not overseas?

[@Nick-mc9et]

I think you also have to consider the possibility that if the weapons are handed out to commanders on the front lines, the risk of them just selling them to a buyer for a massive sum. We've seen how corruption has been rampant in the military, I would not write off something like that happening.

[@MiamiMarkYT]

I doubt it. Selling equipment or vehicles is one thing, but if you sell a nuke, you’ll never be able to use that money for anything other than trying to outrun the rest of the world chasing you down. Nukes are just too hot of goods to try and sell.

[@harleyb.birdwhisperer]

What makes you think that hasn’t already happened?

[@lentlemenproductions770]

@@harleyb.birdwhisperer only reason they haven’t used a nuke yet

[@PORRRIDGE_GUN]

No doubt the CIA already has a broker working on a deal. And the weapons will end up owned by a drug cartel or Wahabist lunatic in the Middle East

[@good7saint]

You make a very good point

[@brihath0805]

Of the risks you described in your video, the use of tactical nuclear weapons scares me the most. There is a precedent for this. In October 1962, General Issa Pliyev, the Soviet Commander in Cuba had full release authority for the 98 tactical nuclear warheads under his command. Dr. Thomas Reed in his book "At the Abyss" describes the situation where Pliyev had full release authority in the event he could not communicate with Moscow. Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, the USSR developed a very robust, hard-wired command and control system for the Strategic Rocket Forces known as "Signal". I am not sure such a level of command and control over tactical nukes exists. It is my hope that Putin and the military command authority will do everything in their power to avoid releasing tactical nuclear weapons to subordinate commanders.

[@cav4290]

While any of these scenarios are discomforting, the question that needs to be asked if we want to live in a world where a single person has the power to make these kinds of threats. I believe that now that the nuclear "Pandora's box" has been opened, it will only be solved once it has been closed. Russia merely opting to not use it (now) may prove to be insufficient.

[@debbielwilliamson8546]

Seems to me that the "leaders" of the US seem to enjoy bragging about their readiness to use nuclear weapons.

[@TheGravityShifter]

I remember learning about the Mini Nuke (Davy Crockett) from Because Science. Even though that bomb is super tiny compared to City Busters and even Little Boy back in '45, the distance you have to be from Ground Zero to be considered safe from the blast is still super dang far. Mainly to avoid radiation poisoning. You'd have to be at least half a mile away to be relatively safe from it and even then it's not guaranteed.

[@_7-7-7_]

Yeah the Crockett always amazed me. The fact it would have been utilised for its radiation content more than explosive power.

[@TheGravityShifter]

@@_7-7-7_ Yeah, might as well call it a Rad Bomb.

[@andymay4883]

GIVE UKRAINE ROCKETS TO FIRE ON RUSSIA THE RUSSIANS WILL SOON TURN ON PUTIN & THE GANG

[@whoisme678]

Thats why some individuals have dosed up on iodine. As I understand it there are different types of radiation and iodine only protects so much against the one type. Let's face it, its governments and politicians who make wars, not the people. If there are no people left, and they are, then any disputes will have to be sorted amongst themselves. The world will be one 💩 place to live anyway so ide definitely be looking for the 🚪

[@softwhiteund3rarm0r]

Yeah that's a crazy thought. A nuke bazooka pretty much.....

[@theterminaldave]

Many analyses of the Russian annexation fail to mention that by doing that, allowed Putin to send a segment of conscripts to fight in those areas, as their doctrine states that certain conscripts aren't allowed to fight outside of Russian soil.

[@robomonkey1018]

I haven't seen any that left it out maybe your watching the wrong folks.

[@shymike1196]

you really think Russia gives a damn about doctrine?

[@theterminaldave]

@@shymike1196 Every population under authoritarian rule still requires some level of believeable propaganda, that's what that was, that's why they announced the annexation.

[@megalonoobiacinc4863]

Perun got your back on that front, supply stuff is his bread and butter. However this channel has good information as well, along with Realifelore

[@robomonkey1018]

@@megalonoobiacinc4863 yes don't sleep on perun. Despite his vids being hour long PowerPoints he's smart as hell and don't sell bs.

[@khaledadams4329]

I think you're absolutely right. The risks, although potentially higher than ever, are still not incredibly high. However, the downside is so extreme, it raises the importance of the current situation and should place it on, or near the top of our immediate concerns.

[@doomerbloomer6160]

I think the biggest immediate concern is if the west as a whole lets russia get away with nuclear coercion, for fear of a potential nuclear conflict. This would set the most dangerous precedent in human history. If a state can threaten nuclear war for geopolitical gains, well... The world would function much differently. And caving to these nuclear threats would maybe make us safe from nuclear war for a few years or decades, but it would be just a matter of time before nuclear war broke out, and a global one at that. Really. Caving to nuclear threats would be more dangerous for the world in the long term than Russia launching nuclear weapons, tactical or strategic, in ukraine today. Whatever the case may be, I think we can all agree that nuclear weapons are the most terrifying and evil invention in human history. And the problem is that I don't think we'll ever get rid of them.

[@Calbeck]

I agree. Russia should get out of Ukraine so no one has a nuclear war.

[@jeremy5602]

The highest the risk of nuclear war has been in history is literally one Planck length below nuclear war. We are not at that point again, yet.

[@rogink]

It's hard to see the benefits of using tactical nukes. They seem to belong to a bygone age before precision missiles of the conventional kind. True, the Russians don't have such goodies as HIMARS or NLAW but they have cruise missiles, and as Kiev experienced today, they can send fleets of suicide drones over major cities. The downside of using any kind of nuke was explained by William.

[@toanoradian]

This is one of those moments where I wish I had a statistical point of view. The risks aren't high, the video said 'you shouldn't probably lose your sleep over it', but I lost sleep over 'meaningless' worries all the time! No matter how I tried, it all kept coming back to worry a lot or don't worry at all', and all my billions of neurons are leaning towards the former.

[@berkovichify]

One of the best channels out there. Thanks for keeping us updated as the situation evolves.

[@rickoshay545]

"Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain." - 1954, George Wald, Scientific American. As much as this quote had to do about the very spark that created life on this planet, the quote also applies to our ability to end life on the planet as well.

[@cardwitch91]

The idea of Putin “relinquishing control” over the weapons is pretty unthinkable. It’s the guy who follows him I’m worried about…

[@PRubin-rh4sr]

The guy who topples Putin would be even worse than him, thats what concerns me. Unless Putin unexpectedly dies of genuine natural causes (he's pretty old), Russian dictators dont get voted out of office, they get couped or killed in a revolution.

[@TheCitroenman1]

🤣🤣🤣

[@janhansen554]

I ask the question, if Biden order a Nuclear attack on China because of something goes wrong with something, im pretty sure that US military will not obey this order. Likevise, i dont think russian military will obey order to nuke ukraine at all. Russia have the risk to nuke countries like egypt or india because of lack of maintance of all their equiements.

[@jeremy5602]

What's that saying? Something like "Eliminate a terrible dictator only to have someone worse take his place"?

[@johnroach9026]

@@jeremy5602 Honestly, I hope the CIA are as capable as Russian propaganda portrays them as and just installs a level headed reformer

[@evilpoon951]

I don't Know if anyone else has mentioned this but once the nukes go out to the local commanders; I wonder how long it would be until someone tries to sell one. You could say that this is sort of a joke but it sort of isn't, as well.

[@TheLampini]

Good point - no, it’s no joke and a seriously big risk.

[@GalacticTommy]

I genuinely did not think of this and now it is a genuine concern of mine…

[@richbattaglia5350]

Sells them to Western buyers…

[@johnroach9026]

@@richbattaglia5350 thats the best case scenario, worst case is that it falls into the hands of some terror group or upstart rogue state

[@Sekir80]

LOL! I haven't think about it even though it's pretty obvious. Made my day, thanks!

[@Canoby]

William "William Spaniel" Spaniel: respected academic and educational youtuber by day, hard hitting Crimean bridge bombing chad by night

[@Gametheory101]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rH-xZYWPjctjbMU

[@tomlxyz]

@@Gametheory101 I thought this comment was made by a bot mimicking the channel at first

[@TheDasHatti]

@@tomlxyz Me too. Wasnt expecting him to react just with a link. Sus

[@rositasultana3958]

@@TheDasHatti Hahaha! "IT Wasn't Me" by Shaggy!

[@neilrusling3438]

To be fair its genius. No one would suspect the man that spends all his time publicly commenting on his crimes.

[@phincampbell1886]

Putin: "I'll rattle the threatening saber that threatens to bring about the threatened rattling of the threatening saber if you don't heed my not a bluff threat! Anders Anderson sums Putin up quite well on this: whatever Putin says he's going to do is the thing he's not going to do, and what he's going to do is what he never says ...

[@lore6803]

I was looking for this explanation. Great video.

[@5erase]

I love you guys, keep trying your best and make everyday count, we don't know how much time we have left

[@PadelManiaZzZz]

Sir you are amazing! Your videos are always very informative! I just ordered the kindle version fo your book "What Caused the Russia-Ukraine War". Can't wait to read it. Greetings from Greece!

[@johanngaiusisinwingazuluah2116]

Except Khruschev never said "We will bury you" and the proper translation for what he said was actually "We will outlast you".

[@facilegoose9347]

_"We will leave you in the dust [behind]."_ a more 1:1 idiomatic rendering.

[@Olaus_]

I just read in our local news that Norway reports that Russia have moved up Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-95 Bear-H to a airbase 200km from the Norwegian border. The planes are usually stationed 720km south of Moscow, so that's a big redeployment. The planes have the capacity to reach all parts of Europe, and even USA, and they are made to carry nuclear weapons. So Russia is actually moving up their nuclear threat, even if it's only to deploy the weapon carriers to the front.

[@FNproject]

There are no threats and there were no threats. It was clearly stated, and it is written everywhere, that in the event of a threat to the Russian Federation, nuclear weapons will be used.

[@PORRRIDGE_GUN]

People keep overlooking this. It's not Tactical weapons or battlefield losses that determine whether this turns into a nuclear war, it's international strategy. Putin will never use nukes in Ukraine because he considers Ukraine as his own country. He will use them on a NATO country. But then he can expect a response in kind that he won't be able to shrug off.

[@heatherligiffen6053]

Bought your book (paperback). You really are proficient and excellent in explaining in terms everyone can understand. Keep the videos coming . They are needed. 👏👍🏼😊

[@oliviergrieder5263]

Again an exellent Video. The problem is, as you partially pointed out, the number of different factors interfering. Especially the fact as we don’t know what’s happening inside the Kreml. What if Putin is put aside by nationalist? This risk is in decreasing with the wins of the Ukrainian army and opens space to further unexpected nuclear threats. Anyway, we are in a state of disruption and it is not foreseeable which it will go. One thing seems, on the other hand clear, the West cannot rely on any actual official statements of Russia.

[@jayxeno]

How "forward" do you think nuclear warheads would have to be deployed? Russia likely does not have any remaining nuclear artillery systems leaving only gravity bombs, air launched cruise missiles, and short-range ballistic missiles as delivery systems. That gives 150-3,400+ miles of range. While Ukraine has made some tremendous breakouts, it is highly unlikely that nuclear warheads would be under threat of capture.

[@oohhboy-funhouse]

I don't think you understand the point of forward deploying nukes. Putting the nuke in potential danger is the goal. It's a nuclear trip wire, bomb shaped flag screaming "MINE". Having them on a ship, sub or in Russia proper doesn't do this as it is not about the delivery method. Should they deploy, given how poor Russian security is, I wouldn't be surprised if the Ukrainians stole one as evidence and trash the rest on site just to prove a point.

[@jimmcintosh184]

I think everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath, close their eyes and exhale slowly

[@la1sk203]

The best option is to not care about nukes and just live as if you know they will get used. In that case it doesn't matter if they get used or not.

[@soulman4292]

This channel is so god damned good. Your analysis, and delivery of information is very impressive. Do you have any other books available on Amazon, or even Apple Books? If they are half as good as this content, I sure they will be damned good reading.

[@peterrabbit4695]

William Spaniel has several books available all strongly viewed from a perspective of game theory.There are Game theory, Ukraine Russian war, Bargaining , Rationality of War and Bargaining over the Bomb. I have read most of them and as you would expect they are insightful and informative.

[@JourneyDestination]

You lack the vocabulary or the ability to articulate yourself. I hardly doubt you have a reliable opinion as to what constitutes “good”.

[@gabrielchinzz3332]

I don't think international backlash is gonna to anything to influence Putin whether he deploys the tac nukes or not,he has received alot of backlash already unless that response is that Nato "physically" respond to the use of tactical use....that's the worrying part,the guy is already nuts enough to use the nukes

[@youtubeuser1993]

It has to be recognized that Russia is scoring good hits in the information war, in mainstream media instead of talking of Ukrainian successes the main topic is nuclear war, that has been threatened countless times and never materialized. It's kinda nonsense to talk about it so much, if it gotta arrive, it will arrive. But this is a good topic to be talked about for Russia because it creates fear, puts doubts about supporting Ukraine and distracts from Russian failures. Good vid though!

[@xz9662]

Using nuclear weapons against a non nuclear state is quite pathetic, really shows how Russias military is a complete failure right now.

[@psycho.9656]

It's a disgusting situation, where no one choice it's good. If we give Putin what he wants now, how do we know, that in the future, we won't be next? Because - HEY, I GOT NUCLEAR HEADS, GIVE ME YOUR HOUSE OR I'LL NUKE U.

[@ishotuknok]

supporting ukraine is a terrible idea in the first place. Its clear that the main goal of the war is to pressure russia and harm their economy in the long term, this happens at the cost of ukrainians who get their buddies shot on the field and their houses bombed in the cities. With enough support ukraine might win after a few years of war but at what cost? A victory would not mean them having beaten russia, all they could hope for is getting "back" what they previously had, in the process losing the rest they previously had but got destroyed now. In a classic democratic vote the people would not sacrifice their houses to harm russias economy. The idea of reparation payments from russia after such a "defeat" is not realistic. Compared to the starting position, they will win be worse off. But yeah america is clapping their hands how cool it is to get russia finally in a proxy war with a country of 40Mio habitants that they can throw at them. Not much to loose for america.

[@justshokh]

I’d rather Ukraine lose some of its territory with chance of getting it back after Putin reign ends rather than facing nuclear apocalypse in my 20s🤷🏻‍♂️

[@bronzebackbassing18]

@@justshokh I rather not let Russia get away with imperialism before they become bold enough to attack a nato ally, thus ww3.

[@marykinuthia6067]

Sad, no win situation 😢.

[@jimmyarmijo792]

I remember as a kid, seeing models at hobby shops the Atomic Cannon. 60s and 70s. Kinda wish I could go back to those days.

[@BradSchmor]

I think the chances of Putin ordering a nuclear strike of any kind are somewhat low - perhaps 25%. In the event he does, I say a 90% chance that his orders are not carried out and his inner circle removes him. So overall, a 3% chance. I hadn't considered the idea of Putin putting them under the control of local commanders and washing his hands of it. That's much scarier to me.

[@NorThenX047]

no idea where you get your idea or your math but its looking more probable every day.

[@cameronpatterson130]

Insane

[@David-gj6dc]

I'd argue for something as consequential as a nuclear strike of any kind, 25% is frighteningly and unacceptably high. I think most of the risk comes from incompetence, not malice. It just takes one misunderstanding to effectively end civilization. You can search about false positive detections in the past to get a sense of this.

[@cameronpatterson130]

@@David-gj6dc Ukraine getting nuked isn’t going to end civilization

[@loder8592]

How is 25% considered low? 😄 I'm with you on the overall odds, just a gut feeling that it just won't happen.

[@Sigismundism]

Maybe greater than all the risks you mentioned is simply that of accidents and misunderstandings happening. These risks increase dramatically as nuclear forces move into high alert, as Ellsberg and others have argued.

[@DoloresJNurss]

The problem I see is that every time we've said, "Putin wouldn't be dumb enough to do that," he's done it.

[@tokyo.peking]

Look who's dumb today.

[@aadishgoel]

*People need to realize this* 8:00 * Europe is paying 10 times more than India. * India cares about its poor people more as they get very badly hit because of every single penny increase in oil prices. * US has one of the largest reserves of crude oil that they are not using * US ready to use emergency oil reserves are so big that they could run for years and years.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

That last part isn’t true. The American strategic reserve could maybe run america for about *2 weeks* in current consumption rates.

[@og_zkittlez2673]

Calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki strategic lmao it was one of the biggest war crimes in history they could win without nukes…..

[@Gonzo_-zb5mf]

Thank you for this excellent video. Tactical nukes were developed for use in the battlefield against a group of tanks, trucks and armored vehicles, a small enemy battle group heading towards front lines. Originally the radioactive fallout of these weapons was so high that this option was off the table on both sides during the Cold War. However, modern developments, like the advanced US B83 tactical nuclear bomb and it´s Russian counterparts come with much less radioactive fallout, so the option of limited exchange of "tiny" loads in contested areas became much more feasible. A limited exchange with tactical nukes in a limited area (for example along the present boundaries between the 2 enemies in the very eastern part of Ukraine) would not inevitably lead into nuclear extinction, but rather establish a new and much more violent and dangerous kind of warfare among major fault lines of world powers, which would likely become state-of-the-art for all high intensity wars for centuries to come.

[@defies4626]

Except that this sort of behavior is unacceptable. Any nuclear warfare carries a risk of escalation. If Russia uses any nukes, things are going to get real bad real fast as everyone makes them suffer for their idiocy. Even China would instantly cut them off in a moment if they did, and the US would be forced to start erasing every Russian asset outside of their borders as a method of protection against the immediate strategic threat to the world. Any use of nuclear devices in an offensive war is hostis humanis generis-marking Putin and the Russian government the enemies of all mankind.

[@Quasiguambo]

No matter how big the bomb, I'm quite certain that such warfare has zero chance of becoming 'normalised' tactically speaking... when compared to the strategy of using drones, and drone/ robotics based warfare. Quite obviously, robotics is the future of warfare. Keep the land and people unharmed. It's expensive, but of course we're talking about the world's richest countries that would be annihilating us in this way.

[@TheAlchaemist]

I would like to add to your comment, that while the US made quite an effort to minimize fallout I am not really sure the soviets did the same. And despite I have tried to find out more info regarding stockpiled models in Russia, I found nothing.

[@johnroach9026]

@@TheAlchaemist KGB good at hiding knowledge about our bomb, yes? So good that we can't even find them ourselves

[@Chirality452]

The B83 is strategic bomb and is the highest yield in the current US arsenal. Perhaps you are thing of the B61 which is what is deployed in NATO? I agree with what you said about the tactical mods. There are also the B61-7 and B61-11 which are strategic versions. The key issue is the fission yield of the weapon. Dirty bombs have Uranium tampers on the secondary with fissions due to high energy fusion neutrons. "Clean" bombs use a non-fissionable element for this such as lead or other high atomic number elements. They all require fission for the primary and spark plug components.

[@petertrudelljr]

'eh... Gen Xer here. Grew up with the threat of Nuclear War until '91. If it happens, we had a good run. Really can't get too worried about one anymore.

[@tomlxyz]

I don't think the soviets threatened using it if they don't get something

[@ItsJoKeZ]

maybe step back to when you were in your 20s and remember the life you've been able to have before comments like this.

[@ItsJoKeZ]

YOU had a good run.

[@jtgd]

TFW you get nuclear nihilism

[@jtgd]

@@ItsJoKeZ 20’s when he started fearing nuclear Apocalypse: AHHHHHHHHHH! 😱

[@Ununpentium]

That was an amazing in-depth analysis. Glad, I found your channel. Keep the great content coming! thanks!

[@OceanGuy808]

Great stuff. A lot of this was fuzzy. Thanks for the reminder.

[@ru.kiddingme]

It is NOT reasonable to expect China and India to "abandon Russia" after a tactical nuclear attack as stated at 08:12 . Rather, China and India will most likely play diplomacy. They will express disappointment at the escalation and call for negotiations to end the war. China and India have a strong economic dependence on Russia. China and India will continue to do such business with Russia as benefits their nations even though, effectively, WW3 is gradually breaking out. The big question in my mind is, how will the group of (~50?) nations supporting Ukraine react? It seems unlikely they will ignore a Russian escalation to tactical nukes, and continue as before. So, will they supply Ukraine with more conventional weapons, or with tactical nukes and associated training, or will they prefer to retain control over tactical nukes they are providing to Ukraine - thus bringing the Ukrainian allies, including NATO, effectively, onto the battlefield.

[@peterryan7827]

Its a complete mess for Putin now and he is in big trouble and panicking all we can do is wait and see what he decides while the brave men and women of Ukraine ,give Putin a good lesson in how to win wars with a properly trained and armed force, properly

[@de4ds1ghtcsgo94]

You mean the international volunteers aka special forces retirees? America has trained troops fighting in russia. It's just not official. Biden backtracking means somethings up with supplying needed resources

[@faelirra]

I'm not sure the "We will bury you." from Kruschev should be listed here. The phrase came from answering a question about what would the communist world do if they won and the phrase was more "We will mourn you." the you being the system that would have been defeated and was more meant to be a somber reply without a means to a threat to others.

[@dblockbass]

thanks for this tempered, informative analysis. I think this situation has already dwarfed the cubam missle crises due to the number of actors, the timeline, geography and potential for destruction. If nuclear annihilation comes,my only fear is not having enough warning to be with my family before we go. thats all. Its a shame the world has to pay the price of the malevolent antagonistic ambitions of megalomaniacs

[@Zach845]

The rogue agent with a briefcase full of cash from the KGB is definitely a scary thought. Warheads on the open market is scarier.

[@bleuemoone8710]

I don’t see many strategic upsides to using nukes for Putin. I really doubt he will use any. Cuba is far scarier than this moment

[@rosburg1528]

Thank you Mr. Joe Biden, for JOINING NATO AGAIN, after Donald Trump rejected the US from NATO IN 2016. NOW the US and NATO are working for PEACE in the WORLD. USA is the best and strongest help for UKRAINE to DEFEAT Russia.

[@jerrycorderoutn2481]

I agree. It's incredible how a handful of psychiatric patients endanger the whole planet in their dreams of glory. It's also incredible how some nations just step aside as conflict neutral as if they had a huge spacecraft to leave for Mars. Shame on all of them. Their names will be written in history.

[@guitarherops31]

Maybe it’s just me but for the most part I’m optimistic that we will be okay. At least for now. The best outcome of this, sadly said, is if Putin wins against Ukraine and overthrows their government & annexes their regions/country itself. Not something I agree but it avoids further human loss. Even if Russia loses, it’ll be unlikely that Putin decides to use nukes, he’s using it as a scare tactic to the West. I’m no military or nuke expert, but I know in the long-run, the radiation and nuclear fallout could spread to Moscow and other regions. What does Putin win there? Even if Putin uses nukes, it’s very unlikely the West would respond, Ukraine is no NATO member and I doubt the United States or any other member would get involved to escalate a nuclear war. In the end, both Ukraine and Russia have already lost this war. The implications and consequences that Putin has caused his own country are beyond repair.

[@bjbeardse]

If they are on a missile they are called warheads or Re-entry vehicles (RV), not bombs. Bombs are only on aircraft. Get yer nomenclature right.

[@unvl7682]

For me the title was “How the Russia-Ukraine War Could Turn into a Nuclear Nig…” I’m not kidding, it cut off at the worst point

[@landotucker]

Better stock up on Radaway and Rad-X.

[@dancinglizard6034]

xD

[@Shaweweweeewah]

I think the risk is small but for the first time in my life the risk is real. Feels like the stars just keep lining up for it. Its not a tiny statistical decimal anymore, the subtle signs all point to it and personally, id rather be ready and be wrong than be apathetic and be right. I have a backpack ready on my coat rack with water, radio, a pistol, high energy food, first aid, N95 masks, firestarting supplies, clothes, a can of expanding foam to seal up anywhere i may take shelter, a map of my state and a map of my town. I also have a carbureted pull-start ATV that will still run after an EMP. I have a plan A, B and C depending on how much notice we have. I live in a city unlikely to be a first wave target but very likely to be a second or third wave target. My family laughs and says im being paranoid. I hope they are right.

[@loder8592]

Hey I like your Attitude. Instead of getting suicidally depressed like the people commenting above you plan ahead and take it how it comes. Gotta get myself prepared as well. Stay safe

[@irishjay9485]

Any way to figure out if my my city is likely to be hit in the first wave? I thoughts all nukes will fly at once. Pretty sure I'll not have enough time to escape with my family

[@Shaweweweeewah]

@@irishjay9485 most experts think a nuclear war would happen in waves. The first wave would be the biggest and most important cities and targets. DC, New York, Chicago, and major military infrastructure . Then a second wave would hit smaller cities and could be redirected at any missed targets from the first wave. Then a third wave could be kept as a means of maintaining leverage over the situation, or could be used in a similar way as wave 2

[@obelic71]

As a species we are in deep trouble. This could be the most important time ever in human history. Do we survive by using our logic and wisdom or do we perish due to political ego.

[@nickmcgookin247]

The faster we transition from fossil fuels the faster we get money out of hands of dumbasses that want to destroy the world

[@richbattaglia5350]

How do you reason with an ego?

[@obelic71]

@@richbattaglia5350 Thats the milion Dollar/Euro/Pound question. The person who solves this global ego mess gets instant several Nobel prices!

[@cheecharron1244]

Leaders are usually narcissists with gigantic egos. The meek might inherit the Earth eventually.

[@wabisabi6875]

"He [Putin] is quite clearly embarked on a course of a one-man, one-party rule. This is extremely dangerous... It shows that there has been a great chauvinist Russian resentment ever since the events of 1989, a feeling that they are on the losing side, that they are becoming a victim country. This I think is incalculably dangerous." C. Hitchens, 2005.

[@profjoeshow2505]

I love your channel. My opinion on it goes like this... I can't see Putin taking that big of a loss. I can't see him not responding if his army gets pushed back even remotely close to the Russian border. I even thought that perhaps if he was to use a tactical nuke on the battle field it would allow enough time for him to be overthrown, therefore he'd go straight to the strategic option. Like I said my main concern is I just don't see him not responding if he loses much more ground.

[@mrnoodle1906]

Hey putin should just nuke Ukraine and have all his nukes ready to go all at once. There are no war crime if you don't lose.

[@fatty3383]

Good content 👍 brilliant channel

[@rjfaber1991]

Indeed. Almost good enough to make you hope they name a breed of dog after him. 😁

[@kevincrady2831]

A couple more scenarios to consider: 1) If Putin gives "tactical" nukes to his local commanders, there's always the chance that Comrade-General Korruptovich could sell one to some third party, such as a terrorist group hostile to the West. 2) If Putin continues with the nuclear saber-rattling, and Russia also continues to lose on the ground, he would face increasing pressure to "nuke or get off the pot." And one more, darker scenario: The prevailing assumption about the Western response to a Russian "tactical" nuke use is that it will be some form of tit-for-tat, such as a wide-ranging set of conventional strikes, plus more sanctions. The problem with this is that it leaves Russia in control of the escalation dynamic, i.e. they get to decide whether or not to launch a strategic first strike. Once Putin has crossed the nuclear threshold, can the West afford to do that? There are two ways to go about trying to "win" a nuclear war. The first, and by far the best is, "The Only Way to Win is Not to Play." Once that option is off the table, the other one is: "Strike First. Strike Hard. No Mercy." The side that launches a retaliatory nuclear strike is already dead. However, the side that strikes first--especially if it's the one with the Stealth technology, and if the reliability of its enemy's arsenal is in doubt--has a chance to take out most of the enemy's arsenal before they're launched, and can roll the dice on being able to survive the weakened retaliatory strike and recover. Their alternative is to let the other side shoot first, which offers no advantages. Upon the confirmed first-use of a nuclear weapon by Russia, US "nuclear warfighters" would have to seriously consider seizing control of the escalation dynamic by going all-in on destroying Russia's nuclear strike capability. It's arguable that this would be the correct response, since doing otherwise hands the initiative back to Russia, which would have already demonstrated a willingness to use nuclear weapons.

[@richardbell7678]

If Comrade-General Korruptovich was going to make money on the side, by selling nuclear weapons, he would have done it before they came out of storage. Not being an idiot, instead of selling complete weapons, he has sold off the tritium and the switches that precisely control the detonation.

[@fireofenergy]

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis on the pros and cons of limited nuclear exchanges.

[@darrylhubbard931]

Great work William!!!

[@DJDarkGift]

Love your videos brother. They are some of the most researched and thought out ones online today. Thanks for all of your due diligence and hard work. BTW, where where you on the night the Kerch Bridge was bombed? LMFAO KEEP THEM COMING. #WeStandWithUkraine

[@JustArtsCreations]

The two the US launched on Japan were Strategic in use but Tactical in size. Many "tactical" nukes today are larger than them. Its not about size, its about how you use it and your desired outcome.

[@NorThenX047]

giggity

[@Eli-dp9hk]

giggity

[@normanmadden]

Putin's problem with using nukes, is other people ALSO have nukes. This is the only "problem" with using them. The way Russia is currently failing, nukes won't help, they are not getting supplies.

[@tomlxyz]

But at the same time others don't want to start a nuclear world war

[@harukrentz435]

What, you expect NATO to nuke Russia in retaliation?

[@OhmeinGottVIIC]

@@harukrentz435 No, but the US already announced that They would Attack russian Forces After the use of nukes. And russia cant use nukes against the US.

[@yeboxxx_channel_2505]

@@harukrentz435 most of Russia's population is in the east, Siberia, although less populated, could pose as a territory of isolation and possibly more military bases of Russia and much use, but launching nukes in Siberia couldn't be justified either.

[@normanmadden]

Russia starting a nuclear war, will definitely elicit a nuclear response from NATO. You troll guys can get nuked, along with your Vlad daddy.

[@viktor_v-ughnda_vaudville_476]

These videos are awesome it’s crazy after all this time we have come to this point where once again nukes are on the playing field

[@CrazyGaming-ig6qq]

You dont make a lot of videos, but when you do I thoroughly enjoy the analysis.

[@MichaelJFroelich]

16:00 you are definitely a trusted source

[@ronbeard7526]

Excellent insight as always, Bill. I wonder how the calculus changes if say, Poland invades Belarus? Or Putin is diagnosed with a terminal disease? So many variables to consider but I agree with you that with every day that passes, the threat of WMD use escalates.

[@RaptureBoiX]

Lol what reason would Poland ever have to invade Belarus?

[@ronbeard7526]

@@RaptureBoiX in terms of geopolitics, the threat of such an invasion may be helping to keep Belarus from caving to pressure from Moscow and invading Ukraine from the north already. I guess I should have said "a NATO invasion of Belarus through Poland". Belarus is not within Russia's nuclear ROE and thus is not off the table should they actively join the war, no?

[@Bruneron]

​@@ronbeard7526 I live in Poland and you may not know - but two civilians have already died (in the middle of November, so a few days after your comment it seems) due to a Russian bomb they said. And you see although while it IS true that our government has since started conscription and increased military spending (last march)... the riveting inflation is such that in real terms that's actually less money than pre-pandemic. Also: Germany offered help. First they said "no" of course but shortly backtracked that decision. We have/had (heard *zero* news about this whole thing since then) German troops on our soil. I thought I'd sooner die than then see such a day. What I'm trying to say is - man we are NOT about to invade anyone any time soon.

[@pkjgwoleirjgweo]

Fantastic video, as always. It is so difficult to find truly qualified individuals creating reasoned content on this conflict.

[@GodfatherActual]

I feel like everyone forgot the lessons we learned in the Cold War and now people are finally awakening themselves to these already known realities. Who would’ve thought that two nuclear powers creating friction with each other would get us to this precipice? /s

[@GodfatherActual]

@@RiDankulous but the history and passed down stories of that era are as numerous as they are immense. The Cuban missile crisis was as close as we have gotten to the precipice and we’re at its door once again and we treat the first time as some far gone tale of the past.

[@kennethlandert8350]

I don't see tactical nukes coming out , til after the chemical weapons have been exhausted.

[@foofooerston1974]

khrushchev‘s ”we will bury you“ was actually a mistranslation by a translator of we will be around when you are buried, saying that communism would outlast capitalism.

[@piunernamelo7356]

God bless Ukraine

[@XRP747E]

If there was a god, there certainly wouldn't be a war.

[@eieiojklf712]

I like this channel because it gives real analysis instead of just fear mongering.

[@RockitFX1]

The older I get, the more ridiculous war seems.

[@thomaslehmann5981]

Me too. I'm the same age as Putin. Wtf is this bastard thinking?

[@Allin7days]

Once a tactical nuke is used, NATO has no choice but to respond. Russia isn't gaining anything from that.

[@Nick_SlavaUkraini]

So, William, what's your current assessment of the situation? It seems that things have escalated to an absolute critical level with Putin supposedly moving tactical nukes to Belarus. I'm really curious about your assessment and looking forward to hopefully reading it. Cheers m8

[@GregTheReaper]

In the event of a nuclear war: Forget helmets, just carry a camera. Everyone knows cameramen are invincible.

[@megalonoobiacinc4863]

and they can run faster than a tour de france athlete!

[@pizzagamecube2564]

You goddamn genius!

[@ronstuff6330]

LOL!!!!

[@capastianluna8896]

Gotta out run that EMP blast otherwise your days of camering are over lol, they are only inviceible while the camera is rolling, after that you got a over priced box worth as much than Putin's midday sandwhich lol

[@GregTheReaper]

​@@capastianluna8896 FUCK there's always one smart arse who tries to ruin everything xD I'll just turn it off for a few seconds after the explosion to avoid the EMP then back on. Problem solved

[@uruuphiil8335]

Nuclear war is one of the things that keeps me up at night. that said, at least you come at the whole issue with a level mind. :)

[@seancarroll9849]

Nukes don't worry me. Everyone knows where that road goes. What worries me more are the conditions that lead up to people like Putin getting into power. Politics is never fun to think about; you can't predict what policies will end up biting you in the rump. The bomb, for better or for worse, has moderated our impulses so far. I'd be more worried about bioweapons personally. Those have a greater potential to go out of control, and they have the added benefit of being plausibly deniable.

[@rpgbb]

I think it’s time to watch again “Dr. Strangelove or How I stopped worrying and started loving the Bomb”. If you haven’t watched, it’s highly recommended that you do. “In Freedom with our bodily fluids” “Gentlemen, this is the war room, you can’t fight here!” “Men, I reckon this is it, toe-to-toe Nuclear combat with the Ruskies” “Mein Führer, I can walk!” 🤣

[@neilrusling3438]

Plus "Threads", the feelgood movie of the century. How ever bad you think you got it now rejoice because it can always get worse...a whole lot worse.

[@TheNomadicview]

"Well, how do you think I feel, Dmitri?"

[@PraiseworthyNobleman]

Wow you are really excelence for delivering the topic. Thank you.

[@hotchicsf]

Regarding chairs: That looks like part of a large dining set. In conventional sets like those, only the two ends of the table get armrests. The other chairs do not have them so they will fit better next to each other.

[@enzoist1]

IIRC, "We will bury you" wasn't a threat per se. Rather, it's an idiom meaning, in context, something like "Communism will outlast Capitalism".

[@thorthewolf8801]

Yeah, its just the quirk of the russian language

[@danielpetropolis]

Well I wasn’t going to mention that but since you bring it up yourself I’ll just go ahead and say that I’ve been suspicious of your involvement with the pipeline black ops all the way. Thanks for this confession.

[@beveik]

Summary of video: "i don't think it should keep us up at night until russia actually deploys the tactical weapons. But it should worry you."

[@Manny-kn2fk]

Looks like it will happen. It's a matter of when?

[@heatherligiffen6053]

Thank you for the video. Liked and subscribed. 👍🏼😊🇨🇦

[@ZoragRingael]

Another thing, if stunt "I'll occupy part of your territory and nuke you if you try to take it back" goes unpunished, it'll give birth to a lot of not very pleasant developments Like most of countries getting their hands on nuclear weapons. And if I understand correctly, the current nuclear club countries don't want it to happen

[@OscarCuzzani]

Thank you William for a great analysis on the nuclear conflict. As you mentioned, Zelenskyy is probably not sleeping well, and all depends on his psychology and stamina. I still think we’re not that crazy to start a nuclear war. Fingers crossed 🤞

[@lollypop2413]

Biden is mentally challenged we all know. Zelensky is a coke head we all know on video. Putin is the only sane player atm. I would cross more than fingers and begin making your peace with God. The 2 maniacs lead the escalation towards nukes because they have both said they want to nuke first. Unfortunately putin has more nukes and a dead hand button. Thats when usa will be dissapeared. The bible says babylon will fall in 1 hour. You are living in babylon

[@eirinym]

It really would be great if people stopped fanning the flames of fear regarding this. The odds are not very high, it's just people who thrive on endlessly analysing it. Strategically, there's nothing to gain by doing it and everything to lose.

[@StRanGerManY]

Strategically, there was nothing to gain when starting the war with Ukraine, and everything to lose. Putin did It anyway

[@paulgaskins7713]

One of the frustrating things about this conflict as an amateur historian is the fact that everyone keeps talking about violated norms whether it’s surrounding territorial integrity and sovereignty or the map of Europe being set in stone but I’m sorry the global norm is not and in fact is far from what the world has been able to maintain since the fall of the soviet circle jerk. Apart from the 99 year ‘concert of Europe’ ,which was more an inevitable by product of the industrial revolution than it was a standard of norms held up by a power of will, the last time the level of global stability and usable wealth that existed from 1991-2020 was during the Roman ‘golden age’ which was the 50 year period of antoninus pious and Marcus Aurelius

[@dougerrohmer]

I keep thinking about the Russian military guy that get's the phone call and now has to push the button. Back in Soviet days, there was that one instance when the radars mistook birds for a massive pre-emptive launch from the USA. A Soviet colonel took the call, and just said "Nyet" and not too long afterwards he took the "Oops! Hope you haven't launched yet?" call. I'm hoping that today's version of that colonel will have the wisdom to also not push the button.

[@dougerrohmer]

@@gaborrajnai6213 Only if you are talking cryogenically fueled rockets, and those went out of favour yonks ago. ICBM's have solid-fueled rocket motors, much like the space shuttle booster rockets, which are basically a button push away from getting launched.

[@SauceT.V]

I think it's a matter of 'when' not 'if' (unfortunately). Seems like we are destined for nukes at some point. The media will try to normalise nukes over the coming months. They'll try their best to keep the general population calm and to keep the planet spinning. Most people haven't got a clue what's going on over there it's actually kind of terrifying. Good luck to you all

[@ripwolfe]

Putin is a textbook megalomaniac - I say he'd rather nuke than play nice if his 7 year old child brain can't get what it wants and his 70 year old adult brain doesn't have a gram of humility in it to back down. Loved the end video observation about the Swiss!

[@EhEhEhEINSTEIN]

Fucking well said lol

[@mackenziel1266]

He's a man child with cultish followers who believe the man is superhuman. I've seen some of them say he can't get sick or stressed and the effects of aging do nothing to him. It reminds me of how North Koreans are trained to see the Kims

[@cameronpatterson130]

Nonsense

[@michaelcoulter714]

Tactical nukes will almost certainly turn into a strategic exchange and it will happen very quickly...to believe it wont is foolish. From start ( the first deployment off tactical nukes ) to the launch of ICBM's will take no longer than 72 hrs I believe.

[@nathancarter8137]

Awesome channel. Thank you for the great work!

[@jimsimpson2393]

As a young army officer deployed to South Korea the year (1968) North Korea captured the American Navy Intelligence ship Pueblo, I was assigned to the nuclear demolition battalion on the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ). During training, we learned about chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities and their consequences to people, places and things. Nuclear weapons were the least desirable to use because they denied the attacker the use of things and places after detonation. Chemical and biological weapons were much more "effective" in that the people were efficiently eliminated and the things and places were immediately available to utilize. I have always been amazed by the degree to which nuclear weapons overwhelm the news coverage of war risks. Technology was available in 1968 for delivery of biological or chemical weapons that would kill ~ 98% of a population over thousands of square miles and could be dispersed out of a private airplane. I have not formulated a personal opinion yet whether it would be more desirable for Putin to create a radiation swept DMZ by detonating the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and/or tactical nuclear weapons, or clear-cut human occupation through a large, well-defined swath of Ukraine. He has clearly demonstrated his lack of concern regarding human life just as most of Russia's past leaders. Pushed to his limit, he is capable of either path. As a side note, while in Korea our training clarified that for the US forces, authority to implement chemical, biological or nuclear weapons required the president's approval. My Authentication Training was intense, timed and often repeated. For North Korea and Russia, approval was held at the Battalion level - meaning my battalion commander's peer could have initiated a nuclear demolition event. We paid a lot of attention to our training...

[@Mypromiselive]

The end was great

[@Kriegter]

You'd think at some point self preservation kicks in an even an avid supporter of Putin would try to oust him to save their own ass.

[@tomlxyz]

I think you don't understand political ideology

[@ItsJoKeZ]

unfortunately that is what they think they are doing.

[@belldrop7365]

It already did kick in, and not opposing putin is how they save their own ass. All those that did has died and is dying.

[@jtgd]

May just happen if he tries attacking nato

[@richbattaglia5350]

Hence the recklessness of the move to deploy forward nukes to salvage a failed invasion.

[@MDCDiGiPiCs]

I'm worried. One of Putins former KGB bosses did have a fairly interesting critique about his personality, he said that he was inclined to take unnecessary risks, why would we assume anything has changed? Thanks again William.

[@PunmasterSTP]

Even if you had done stuff to rack up clicks, I think your content would still have been phenomenal. I’m really glad you’re bringing awareness to things.

[@Spectacurl]

This guy is not “any other KZbinr”. He was a Stanton Nuclear Security Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation… he would not say “wear a hamlet” if the situation is not very serious