How Many Nuclear Missiles Can the United States Intercept?

[@RS-jp7fq]

“The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.” ― Carl Sagan

[@Crimson.S.57]

A nuclear cold war is far better than a nuclear winter.

[@Pablo_the_hedgehog]

@@Crimson.S.57 good one

[@charlylucky7508]

It's really scary how easy it is to destroy earth. Or at least humankind. I think it will happen by 2050. I hope I'm wrong.

[@andypozuelos1204]

Lmao

[@damaddog8065]

You know I think your on to somting!

[@SALEENS7GTR5]

The US and Russian radar and missile bases architecture look like things out of sci-fi movies. It's quite cool to see, but also incredibly scary at the same time.

[@sourabhgupta4853]

USA, Russia, China, India and isreal are the countries with capabilities to intercept ICBM with there multiple layer shield and yes they all have those cool looking Radars and missile systems on both ground and sea.

[@algeriapower7242]

@@sourabhgupta4853 haven't russo-ukranian war teach you anythung ? that modern armies can fail mesirably ? never say someone has this or can do that , we all said russian would anter kiev in two days and look how its ending .

[@lagavr4693]

@@algeriapower7242 Russia obviously would not win quickly, even though they will eventually win.

[@tygonmaster]

It is only as scary as Russia wants to make it. They back down, and there is no issue. They don't, the US will make full use of it. Simple as that. It is in Russia's hands when the world ends. Remember that when you think Russia is not the bad guy.

[@UltrafalconVX7]

they look like the base in World Trigger

[@fenseti3793]

I'm editing this so no one will know why it get many likes

[@BlueShiny]

Sus

[@LawNeu]

LOL 😂

[@Pablo_the_hedgehog]

@@BlueShiny uwu

[@promax1st]

:)

[@GuestUser18]

LOL 😂

[@callumhall967]

If one side has effective protection against a nuclear attack it can upset the balance of the mutually assured destruction doctrine. It sort of makes it safer that there is very little defence, or at least makes a strategic nuclear exchange less likely.

[@HighFlyer96]

The MAD doctrine only works with reasonable people in charge. With Putin's erratic imperialistic demands on former Soviet States, Japanese Islands and Alaska, Biden's advanced age or Trump's advanced age and fascist tendencies, this is not a given balance.

[@mjp152]

... IF we assume rational actors and 100% accurate information on both sides.

[@HailAzathoth]

Never really understood this. If one side doesn't have defense capabilities it just forces them to not piss the other side off.

[@HighFlyer96]

@@HailAzathoth It also enables the side with the defense capabilities to do whatever they want and become the bully. See Russia. Putin thought the west and NATO was so much in shambles after Trump and Covid, that he could just walk into Ukraine and take the country in about two weeks. In the year before, he sent his mercenaries to Kazakhstan. In 2023/24 he started interfering in Georgias politics more heavily again. Russia is surrounded by it's former Soviet States who all can not defend themselves, have done nothing towards Russia and still get manipulated, attacked or invaded. Ukraine returned the Soviet nukes with an agreement to never be the target of Russian aggression. It was likely the only weapon that kept Russia away from attacking. They didn't attack for 2 decades as they basically run Ukraine through corrupt politicians, but when Ukraine wanted a change in 2014 and started fighting corruption, Russia started attacking and invading Ukraine... So no, if one side doesn't have defense capabilities, in reality, it just makes them vulnerable.

[@callumhall967]

@@HailAzathoth If only one side has adequate defence then yes, they become the big bully that nobody can mess with. The side with defence may start to think "It's OK we can nuke them and even if they fire back we can defend ourselves" - they may be more willing to fire the first missile and use that power to threaten or exert force over others. If both sides are equally undefended it keeps them in balance. It becomes as much of a risk to attack as to defend, the casualties will be the same in both eventualities. Only rational choice is neither side attacks and never begin a nuclear war.

[@TR-zx1lc]

It's amazing to think that if only one GBI ever stops a single nuclear strike, it will have more than paid for its entire development and operation.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

But I wouldn't think that. I wouldn't even think that if it stopped 99 out of 100.

[@joshuacheung6518]

99 out of 100 would be phenomenal. The damage from 1 nuke isn't that bad compared to like 50... well, unless it hits you

[@ecstaticroque5803]

@@joshuacheung6518 You can only hope for the best.

[@Norsilca]

Yeah I was thinking that. Unless you consider that interception as part of the enemy's game plan, and why they aim multiple warheads at each target. Then the target is still destroyed and what the interceptor has actually done is make the enemy spend more on extra warheads and missiles. Assuming they do that. This stuff is complicated..

[@TheDoctorsGaming101]

@@UncleKennysPlace even the Israeli Iron Dome rocket defense which is one of the best ever made only has a 90% hit rate meaning out of 10 rockets (statistically) 1 will get through which is still phenomenal in terms of how complex that technology is

[@dannjrad2109]

If I remember correctly, the U.S is currently pursuing around three hypersonic weapons programs and one of those programs is specifically catered to ICBM interception and homeland air defense.

[@lukebalderose334]

You think the u.s. is just now pursuing hypersonic weapons? Lol. That's old news my man

[@9000k4]

@@lukebalderose334 what ever they say theyre starting research on, theyve already their homework nearly a few decades ago. If anything they’re saying they might start producing

[@lukebalderose334]

@@9000k4 the x-15 went mach 6 in 1967 with a pilot.

[@DJ_Level_3]

@@lukebalderose334 That doesn't mean that hypersonic weapons are totally old news. We may have done it experimentally then with tech we had at the time, but that doesn't necessarily mean we went straight into making a weapons system like the ones we're developing today. To be clear, we did do lots of work on hypersonic ICBM defense systems like the Sprint program, but modern systems are very different and use many innovations that came about since then. (If you haven't seen the videos of the Sprint tests I recommend checking them out, they're really cool) It's a bit like how the Wright brothers flew in 1903 and the first commercial airports opened in the late 1910s and early 1920s, but modern air travel uses massive jetliners with technologies that only started coming about in the last 40 years or so.

[@solaroid4442]

Hypersonic attack missiles cannot be intercepted. Radars don't detect them, and by the time you have a visual it's too late.

[@toveychurchill6468]

"never-fail weapon system" sometimes the optimism of the American government could put a smile on one's face

[@Darkmattermonkey77]

Right!? Tell me again, how many conflicts has the U.S. lost again? I mean versus the rest of the worlds powers. *Maybe that optimism is deserved*

[@tremedar]

@@Darkmattermonkey77 More importantly, how many has its military been defeated in. People can split hairs all they want and point at failure to achieve objectives meaning they lost, but was their military defeated in any of those split-hair cases? No.

[@shlokkesarwani801]

@@Darkmattermonkey77 Vietnam

[@silky_merkin]

@@Darkmattermonkey77 We lose because, even with all our foreign policy criticism and missteps, of our tendency for war weariness and ultimate respect for democratic "liberal" values and other country sovereignty not because of strength. We try to "contain", "nation build", "occupy" and then clumsily hand the reins over, not just stomp the shit out of a country and completely annex or take it over permanently. If we were a dictatorial conqueror nation, with low war weariness and no respect for political boundaries, the world would be a much different place.

[@jackfactotum9374]

@@shlokkesarwani801 yep the mission failed but we shouldn't've been there in the first place. If that happened in 2022 we would be the war criminals instead of Russia.

[@mavfin8720]

The physics and speeds involved make the actual engagement window very small, as well as making it very hard to hit, again, because of the speeds involved. It's not an easy thing at all. The problem with ship-based interception is where the ship is relative to the target path. Ground-based can usually be assumed to be somewhere on or near the inbound missile path, so you don't have to worry about cross-range issues. (i.e. crossing targets are almost impossible...)

[@christophmessner6450]

Every reasonable being has to conclude that it is safer to reduce the number of nuclear weapons further considerably and to recognize the sovereignty of all other nations.

[@alexmin4752]

@@christophmessner6450 Tell russians about it and hear the reaction.

[@HailAzathoth]

​@@christophmessner6450yeah tell that to Russia and China

[@arinxxx_6621]

​@@alexmin4752tell that to west

[@arnavnair9628]

Tbh i agree with the last part. I don't think NK's nuclear missiles are advanced enough as compared to China or Russia so the defense system would have a higher chance of working on Nk's missiles

[@lucaskp16]

the problem is the number. all he talked about is what takes to stop 1 icbm not 200. and china anounced las year 250 new silos. NK alone has tens of them of unkown quality. and they may not be able to hit the US but for sure they can hit japan.

[@ApolloTheDerg]

@@lucaskp16 the hard thing is knowing if some of these nations have the teeth to back up the threat. China for instance, could literally be building dummy silos to appear stronger, but a wise man would not treat it that way. Let’s just hope it is only and remains only, theatre on the world stage.

[@666Blaine]

NK doesn't have thermonuclear weapons, unlike the US, Russia and China. I don't believe they have independently targeted warheads either.

[@paullnetinstitute4799]

@@ApolloTheDerg you cant underestimate a $18T China and a space power unless you dont believe in US's technology and weapons too. The two are the only defacto superpowers.

[@Awrethien]

@@ApolloTheDerg Yep look at how the US tricked the USSR with the STARWARS program. The USSR had to treat it as legitimate even if the tech was suspiciously advanced, because the US had many sectors of tech that was more advanced than their own.

[@666Blaine]

All anti-ballistic missiles used to carry nuclear warheads. Setting off a small nuclear explosion near incoming warheads can cause spontaneously fission. This causes the warheads to "fizzle".

[@-szega]

Hence "radiation enhanced" warheads for interceptors.

[@silky_merkin]

Yeah, I'm no rocket scientist but I thought of tactically using nukes vs nukes right away. Maybe I play too many video games. lol

[@pseudonymous1382]

@@silky_merkin That's basically the premise of Missile Command which was an Atari game released in 1980.

[@tomdecuca3627]

They have to be within 300 feet to be effective. It is really not anything to rely on. As they said the warhead free falls to target at about 15 thousand mph.

[@williamfowler616]

neutron weapons?, but they can kill anything below the explosion site, they would make large portions of the oceans dead zones

[@apocsoviet3813]

I think it's more than ok if you start using "it's exactly what you think" more often.

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Ok, but we will also use this emoji more💩

[@tiloslouighee1087]

I think the term NOT WHAT YOU THINK is better in my opinion

[@BlueShiny]

@@NotWhatYouThink okay

[@Kiyoone]

Sometimes its EXACTLY what we think.... and its always the worst case scenarios 😂

[@Joze1090]

@@NotWhatYouThink 👀👀👀

[@sisyphusofephyra7801]

That interceptor test done inside the cage has to be the angriest machine ever caught on video

[@puckerbutton7025]

pretty scary to have a weapon that you will either never use or use them all at once

[@dbasiliere]

If it goes nuclear the planet will die. MAD

[@lugardboy]

@@dbasiliere Planet will leave, Man will do We came to meet the planet

[@wolfswinkel8906]

this is why NATO should be focusing on deescalation, not pushing for stronger actions in Ukraine. This is not WW2!

[@Tankpacqikcao]

@@wolfswinkel8906 if you look in the bigger picture, the push is just to borrow money from federal reserve so that the rich and hidden hand stay rich and war efforts require funding. Illuminati.

[@watterztrail7870]

@@wolfswinkel8906 I don’t think Russia will listen to de-escalation talks

[@thykingdomcome7238]

I'm honestly impressed by the time and effort you put into these videos. Keep it up! 🤚

[@davecarsley8773]

Reading Wikipedia?

[@markluhman8940]

@James Stocks All ICBM are supersonic.

[@alphaomega1351]

@@markluhman8940 Supersonic hedgehog will save us! 😶

[@BillAnt]

This guy's voice exudes total inhalation "Hide your kids, hide you wifes(s), we're all fuqed!" hahaha

[@Jay-xh6py]

The fact that you think we would shoot one of these missiles down to stop it makes me belly laugh. Applauding ignorance though is pretty saddening.

[@brianmi40]

I spent 5 years having ICBMs fired at my location when I worked at Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Test Site in the Marshall Islands (Kwajalein Missile Range back then). We used to stand on the beach and watch them appear over the ocean at the horizon in the east as the test firings were launched from Vandenberg AFB. These were the quarterly tests of actual missiles pulled randomly, warhead removed, and fired both to show the Soviet Union they still worked, but also to test myriad Star Wars era programs to shoot down ICBMs. The largest number of MIRVs I witnessed was 5 as these were dispersed as the ICBM was getting close to Kwajalein, so you could easily see the launch of each MIRV and its new trajectory towards its target. Kwajalein is shown at 6:53, all the way over to the left. At 7:00 it displays an intercept launched from Kwajalein on a test flight from Vandenberg, however, when I was there, the intercepts were closer to Kwajalein at point of impact as we had a number of large cameras that would take photos at the moment of impact. I would imagine the LRDR shown being built is constructed similarly to the radar on Kwajalein that is designed in an attempt to survive a relatively close nuclear blast (obviously not a direct hit). The inside is filled with steel cross beams so much that you can hardly walk without having to constantly duck your head. It has a huge blast door that covers the radar, where the intent would be to re-open after an attack and be able to "see" other launches. Lots of memories and fascinating stories from my time there!

[@zk2399]

Interesting stuff. But you were not affected from the radiation?

[@MRIPETCTSupportEngineer]

@@zk2399 “warhead removed” so no nuclear payload

[@travisgoesthere]

Too bad its just bullshit and a ridiculous attempt for attention from random people on the internet lol

[@OctavMandru]

@Radio OH2DX Either you are not entirely complete in your brain wiring, or you are a drunk russian

[@Don-qb1vi]

@Jesse Champagne all the stuff we got now is a direct result of those tests. Space is the next military frontier. We're way ahead of others in this regard.

[@Evan_Bell]

The answer: About 25 warheads. The US operates 44 GBIs, each with a demonstrated intercept rate of 57%. This is against relatively short range and thus slow ICBM class targets, with only unitary warheads and no penetration aids. Against the ICBMs fielded by Russia, we can expect the number of successful intercepts to be even lower. This is out of 1200+ warheads that the US would be attacked with.

[@goarmysleepinthemud.]

Great post. I would be surprised if they were even that effective in reality. Missile Defense may become credible in 20 years. Currently it is absolutely worthless against ICBM class missile systems.

[@user-qq6rr2je4q]

No system has been successful under "realistic" conditions but only in very highly scripted, coordinated and planned scenarios under ideal conditions. Even a nighttime launch has been proven to render defense totally useless. 😅

[@Dwendele]

Wrong

[@Evan_Bell]

@@Dwendele How so? Which part was wrong?

[@Dwendele]

@@Evan_Bell the US doesn't just have 44 of one system. We've got SHORAD, HIMAD and THAAD systems. All with their multiple weapons systems. And you can't forget the AEGIS system. It's not just a missile launcher on a specific ship. It's a fleet wide (including aircraft) system for hunting and killing airborne threats. We shot down one of our own satellites... From a boat. You want some really good, semi technical info on air defense, check out Habitual Line Crosser on KZbin. Air defense is his profession.

[@keenanlarsen1639]

The test footage of the EKV was very cool to watch. Similar to how I felt first time watching the SpaceX boosters that return and land. So amazing how we can get stuff to basically levitate with precision jets.

[@blackstonpoetrymusic8744]

puke

[@alijankhan3330]

I like to watch footage of cats biting people.

[@maheshrathod5593]

Time stamp please

[@altacalifornia2580]

@@maheshrathod5593 Yeah I can't find it either

[@Donovaan]

7:06

[@Henry-dt9ht]

At the Battle of Gettysburg apparently a bullet intercepted a bullet. An individual found this extremely rare object and we are lucky enough to have a video of the conjoined bullets.

[@rocketman3285]

What does that have to do with Nukes?

[@libtardgunlover762]

@@rocketman3285 6:19 Watch the video before commenting.

[@badape9227]

That was WW1 not gettysburg

[@budsbunny5610]

Russia is nothing but a pepper Tiger as same as China , North Korea and Iran So what you have to rely on is America The inventor and franchiser of 98% of World modern and future Technologies and about interception Haven't you already heard about Tr3b Black Manta or Starship Cargo or mobilizing Starlink futuristic satellites with Super advanced Laser System from Space BTW I'm not biased I'm actually Iranian and most of the people here says the same thing so let alone the world

[@SvenSon44]

I mean it's not that unfathomable that two bullets collide in a War..

[@AngDavies]

It seems hopeless tbh, the attacking missile just needs to hit vaguely in the right area, while the demands on the defending missile are so much more. If the attacking system costs less, then ultimately you can afford more of them than the defensive ones, and thus some will get through. Size of the big nuclear arsenal's just seems designed to make defense financially unfeasible as much as anything

[@KoishiVibin]

I'd argue that in the modern day, with the looming threat of small salvos, while nuclear use is unthinkable, it may become that having ABM is the only useful choice for an up and comer. Think about it. If you cannot or do not have nuke, but face the threat of that, then all considerations of this go out the window.

[@kerbodynamicx472]

The interceptor can be nuclear tipped too and it don’t have to be that accurate. Back in the Cold War, Soviet Union explored this idea because the lack of accurate guidance systems, leading to the aforementioned A135. At the same time, the Chinese even proposed nuclear cannons to intercept missiles…

[@Adeldrilda]

The attacking systems probably don't cost less. The real reason there are substantially fewer in interceptors than offensive missiles is primarily due to the history around ABM treaties. The US only left that treaty a few years ago and began to dramatically scale up its ABM efforts. That's partly why there is such a large gap between interceptability and offensive weapons. The dramatic improvement of the SM-3 and SM-6 families, the spreading of Aegis Ashore batteries and THAAD batteries, and the development of new programs... is going to narrow this gap significantly in the next 20 years.

[@kedrednael]

@@KoishiVibin Nukes have value if they are not used. They are used to threaten and deter. But interceptors have no values if you do not get attacked. You cannot say: "Do this or we will use our defense.." And when you are attacked by a nuclear force, you basically have 0% chance you can defend yourself anyway, like this video illustrates (video is still too optimistic). So interceptors have no value basically, they are just a waste of a lot of money.

[@aitorbleda8267]

@@kedrednael They can make attacking a full attack only option. Plus it can protect you against countries like NK. They have value. And if properly used they could stop hundreds of heads.. This is why the chinese are moving from a few hundred heads to thousands.

[@fiftycal1]

The US Military did test a system using a enhanced radiation warhead aka neutron bomb in the mid 60’s. It was called The Sprint - and it’s performance was almost beyond belief: Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 (12,300 km/h; 7,610 mph) in 5 seconds. Such a high velocity at relatively low altitudes created skin temperatures up to 6,200 °F (3,427 °C), requiring an ablative shield to dissipate the heat.[2][3] The high temperature caused a plasma to form around the missile, requiring extremely powerful radio signals to reach it for guidance. The missile glowed bright white as it flew.

[@JohnKickboxing]

Hey, come to think of this, anyone here knows why the US never makes a group of satellites armed with KVs and deploys them over Russia 24/7? ... Tracking ICBMs in this way would be more responsive and effective than the conventional methods.

[@jakejakeboom]

@@JohnKickboxingthat’s basically what Star Wars was going to be. Was going to be stupidly expensive, and also risked a preemptive strike since if it worked, it would have been way too expensive for the USSR to replicate. But it’s also not clear it would ever work, because the soviets could’ve just built another 1000 ICBMs for less cost.

[@j4genius961]

@@JohnKickboxing And what do you do about the submarines? Do you really think Russia or China or India is going to let the US place missile defense systems above their territoty and just clap?

[@kpadmirer]

The Russian Gazelle ABM has a speed of 12,900 mph.

[@PatrickHart-p9w]

@@jakejakeboom I worked for the DOD back in the 80's. We used a space based laser to hit a pepsi can in the middle of the Mojave desert. This was Reagans SDI or Star Wars project. We also developed HARP. A high altitude kinetic projectile made of tungsten. Did the platform get built? The idea was to drop one on an enemy country that would completely cripple the country like an asteroid strike. They seemed to use the idea in Marvel's Age of Ultron. Same idea. Nukes are basically obsolete.

[@peterk7428]

This is also why in Watchmen it was an insanely big deal that Dr. Manhattan was expected to be able to intercept 80-90% of a soviet nuclear attack.

[@Awminn]

Great video! Missile warning systems, while useful for missile interception, are mainly there to remove first strike capability from an enemy. By knowing early on when a nuclear strike is about to occur, we can assure the launch of our own nukes before they're taken out. Its all part of MAD doctrine that has so far kept the nukes in their silos.

[@davecarsley8773]

Yeah.. sure. Missile warning systems don't work at all... Please let Isreal know when you get a chance.

[@tommygun5038]

I think they're mainly a defense against NKs and countries with smaller nuclear arsenals.

[@havable]

@@davecarsley8773 "Please let Isreal know" Israel's Iron Dome is pretty effective at blocking the not-ICBMs launched at it. But if you have a special line with Israel let them know that bombing hospitals makes them look like Putin.

[@shadowkillz9606]

@@davecarsley8773 Iron Dome System is dogshit lmao, it's inferior

[@sonny9493]

@@davecarsley8773 My lord, your comment is the kind of nonsense I come out with after half a gram of ketamine.

[@martinoamello3017]

I've lived with this threat all my life, 63 years and counting. The best I can hope is I don't live long enough for it to happen, but short of that I'll be within the immediate blast area and vaporize before I know I've even blinked my eyes. I certainly have no desire to survive an all out nuclear war for any reason.

[@kathrynck]

Just plan your vacation to Rio to coincide with all out nuclear war, and you can watch it all on tv while sipping a margarita. Better brush up on your spanish though, it'll be an extended stay.

[@farlonfudpucker6640]

@@kathrynck Portuguese would be more useful.

[@amansinha3311]

watch less media and your fear will disappear

[@kathrynck]

@@farlonfudpucker6640 good point

[@richardjohnson8114]

@@kathrynck Portuguese will serve you better as will a Caipirinha instead of a margarita, but we get the idea.

[@acaludi8512]

Intelligent video, rare thing nowadays.

[@joanneharlow6330]

Great video! Missile warning systems, while useful for missile interception, are mainly there to remove first strike capability from an enemy.

[@arkadipmondal5402]

Do you understand what first strike is?? Launching 100+ nukes is first strike... North Korea can't launch first strike.. It will be just case of aggression... First strike can't be stopped.. The moment first strike is launched the targetted nation must do a retaliatory strike within minutes before the country gets doomed..

[@philg4116]

Like it would matter enough to make nuclear war a viable option.

[@Husker513]

if US intelligence notices that the enemy is going to use nuclear weapons, then it will hit its nuclear facilities so that the enemy cannot use them, because of the satellites, the US knows the location of the nuclear facilities of its enemies, and distinguishes fake objects using X-ray satellites and synthetic aperture satellites. And these interceptors are like insurance, if suddenly the enemy manages to launch a couple of dozen ICBMs

[@psychonaut1829]

Imagine a world where countries didnt waste money on these doomsday machines.

[@3-Kashmir]

They even named one the long range discrimination radar!!!💀💀💀

[@robertmalcolm8435]

They don't look at it as wasting money quite the contrary, they look at it making money, psychopathic psychology!

[@2drealms196]

It was like that prior to WW2. Nuclear missiles have counter intuitively reduced conflict between the nuclear armed nations. No longer do they engaging directly with each other in fullscale war, instead engaging in smaller proxy/cold wars.

[@doemis8573]

I'd say, the nuclear threat prevented the outbreak of a third/fourth worldwar. The second took approximately 50 - 60 million lives with conventional weapons in a limited area. You really think, mankind needs nuclear weapons (doomsday devices) to annihilate each other? I think not.

[@thetruthseeker2546]

After seeing Russia invade Ukraine (which gave up its Nukes post separation from Russia) and the atrocities on civilians you can imagine what would happen in a world without Nukes !!

[@PT-91_Twardy]

“Relax, everything will be fine” -Someone shortly before something becomes not fine

[@dougdouglas2112]

...and then there are the nuclear tipped cruise missiles coming in from ships and submarines going mach 2.5 and flying 50' off the ground Good stuff, good video like always 👍👍

[@Truth4thetrue]

"who would have thought, shooting down nukes with nukes" literally me since the beginning of the video just thinking to myself haven't anyone thought of that?!

[@rudysmith1445]

Same lmao

[@madyoukai]

The US used to have a system called NIKE that did just that was basically phased out in the late 70's and shipped to Europe and japan and was in service till mid 80's only reason I know about it was my Dad was a techinican on the weapon system and Missed being stationed in Europe by a few months

[@44WarmocK77]

Yup, thought the same. ^^

[@MarkMiller304]

Would that not create massive emp over the area that they exploded over. I guess you won’t die but you’ll be living in the 1800s after

[@silky_merkin]

Yeah, and I'm no genius rocket scientist

[@thetooginator153]

I remember reading that Reagan’s SDI considered a missile “intercepted” if the ABM got within a certain distance of the target. So, be wary of the word “intercepted” being used instead of “destroyed”. A normal person would consider those terms synonyms, but they aren’t.

[@codemiesterbeats]

Figures... I was worried about some double speak charlatan at one of these "defense companies" basically fleecing the gov't for everything it's worth and the damn thing goes up and farts out a Folgers coffee can.

[@mikespenceTHEGOATB]

HONKY! CORRECT! HONKY! THE! MINUTEMAN! (NUCLEAR)! MISSILE! IS! (COMPLETELY)! SAFE! HONKY! HONKIES! AREN'T! SAFE! HONKY! NOW! YOU! KNOW! HONKY! 🙂*MIKE! SPENCE! THE! (G,O,A,T,B)! HA! HA! HA!

[@jshepard152]

​@@codemiesterbeats Cynical much? You have to crawl before you can walk.

[@untodesu]

"Kaput, Пиздец, Game over" Got me laughing out loud

[@Juicyblack4her.]

When will Russia nuke Ukraine?

[@blueeyecinema5384]

Great educational video on nuclear weapons which provides a more in depth understanding of what to expect in the event of a nuclear attack 😢😢😢

[@ret7army]

with a range of up to 200km the laser would have still been ineffective as ICBM launch sites are located well within national borders. Similarly, no interceptor missile could be in position to intercept an ICBM during its boost phase. The US made Sprint Anti-Ballistic Missile could achieve mach 10 in 15 seconds, and was intended to intercept ICBMs in the latter part of their flight as they descended below 37 miles altitude (59+km).

[@HMan2828]

There is virtually zero chance the US doesn't have laser platforms in orbit, precisely to intercept any ICBM before it leaves Russian airspace... And if there is one, you can bet there is a constellation of them.

[@davecarsley8773]

@@MegaMeaty This is bullshit. lol

[@BonyFingers1969]

@@MegaMeaty the 'Starfish Prime' nuclear test, of 1962 seemed to work ok.

[@henriht1147]

@@MegaMeaty Look up old soviet experiments with EMP's. You will find it very interesting. Shutting down those multi layer systems is a piece of cake. The only real defense in nuclear warfare is EXTENSIVE self sustainable underground infrastructure.

[@MegaMeaty]

@slam slam That was sarcasm, but can't control your idiocy. It is actually well known all across the internet.

[@haleiwasteve8434]

You're only seeing what they want you to see. No way are they disclosing their current defense systems.

[@robertbrooks3007]

Fact’s. I’m a veteran. Trust we have some shit people don’t even know about. You never show your entire hand.

[@TheBestestOne]

@@robertbrooks3007 The us has alien force fields that work by using anti-gravity that they reversed engineered from an alien power unit from a spacecraft that crash landed.

[@ThisHandleIsTakenTryThis]

@@TheBestestOne Uncle Sam your drunk go to bed

[@LTC366]

​@@ThisHandleIsTakenTryThishe's not far off. The US certainly have anti gravitational weapons.

[@ThisHandleIsTakenTryThis]

@@LTC366 na

[@swedhgemoni8092]

"Never-fail weapon system" "Unsinkable" was what they called a certain ship which went down on it's maiden voyage.

[@typicalwatcher1557]

I'm assuming your talking about the titanic and not the Bismarck

[@miciboo9993]

Exactly

[@miciboo9993]

“Strongest economy in the world”

[@swedhgemoni8092]

@@typicalwatcher1557 There was a cat which survived the sinking of the Bismarck that was called "Unsinkable Sam", not the vessel itself, so far as I know.

[@drewgrows7765]

I assume you are talking about the S.S. Minnow

[@andrewjansen9702]

All they need to do is rig it with an impact fuse and we’re screwed

[@joso5554]

Congrats ! This is a rather good, factual and accurate summary of the current situation of ballistic missile defense technologies and capabilities. Also quite easy to understand for the general public.

[@shimmer5315]

of course it is its probably coming from the white house. the l.o.c. can do anything even trademark phrases. anything they want.

[@h-e-acc]

“Reports claim Arrow 3 can intercept ballistic missiles while they are still outside the earth’s atmosphere. … An arrow 3 battery can reportedly intercept salvos of more than 5 ballistic missiles within 30 seconds…”

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Reminds me of Reagan's _Star Wars_ speech.

[@ayat5483]

ha ha...it's a big joke. If enemy want to attack, they will attack.

[@wallingnaga6563]

Russia has more than 5 ICBM so still MAD is assured !!non will live to tell the future generations that they won a nuclear war .

[@four_20hitman___97]

@@ayat5483 the big joke is russias performance in Ukraine. Your name is an oxymoron.

[@AnhNguyen-hr6wh]

@@four_20hitman___97 the problem is when you start believing your own bullshit

[@Fhcghcg1]

I think you are too quick to dismiss the SM-3. Although they may have less range than their ground launched counterparts, they still have a reasonable range at 2,500 km for the newest variant (Block IIa). Considering the US Navy has 69 (nice) Arleigh Burkes, they can afford to cover a lot of the seas. Another thing to note is that ballistic missiles follows a very predictable ballistic path, requiring a relatively small area to defend making range even less important. I am admittedly very biased and am a huge SM-3 fan, but I like to think my love for the missile is well placed.

[@NotWhatYouThink]

You had me at 69.

[@Adeldrilda]

@@NotWhatYouThink Yeah the idea that you need to be moving somewhere near Mach 24 to take out the warhead is just nonsense. The only thing closing velocity impacts is whether your C2 and decision making is fast enough to allow you to close and hit. The physics of the strike do not give one shit how fast you're going, the momentrum transfer is going to be enormous.

[@GIANNHSPEIRAIAS]

literally speaking nothing can stop an icbm if its past its apogee especially if they carry marv the speed difference is just too great for an interception to happen even for gmd there is a video from a russian test that showcases just how quickly things end once the marv hits the atmosphere 13 seconds

[@BlazeByte21]

How can a targeted country identify the country of origin of an incoming missile that has been launch from a nuclear submarine? so that they can retaliate .

[@GIANNHSPEIRAIAS]

@@BlazeByte21 they know where the subs are generally speaking

[@TheGecko213]

I would first launch decoy missiles to fool the defense system to overwhelm them

[@jorgeavalos816]

I think you let out two very big further complications. First, some of the MIRVs could exploit in the space or at the beginning of the reentry phase effectively blinding the radar or infrared camera by outshining the other MIRVs or creating an area opaque to these waves as the result of atmospheric ionization. Second, you could obliterate a first world country with a single warhead without directly hitting a single city, by exploding a nuclear weapon in the space to create an electromagnetic pulse.

[@skyhawk_4526]

Obliterate is not the right word. More like, cripple. A nuclear detonation in space wouldn't even break a single window on the ground below it. What it would do is take out much of the electrical grid and many electronic devices. Although it would bring that country's economy to a stand-still and create chaos (and eventually death to many), it would not stop a nuclear-armed country from retaliating since those nuclear assets are shielded from an electromagnetic pulse by their design and construction. Any nuke possessing country hitting an enemy nuke possessing country with a high altitude EMP strike would (and should) anticipate not just a retaliation in kind, but a retaliation including massive ground strikes. The idea of a strategic nuclear attack involves causing damage that the enemy nation will not be able to recover from - and an EMP strike can be recovered from. So the retaliation would have to be more severe by the second-strike nation. No nuclear exchange would ever be limited to just high altitude EMP strikes unless the target of the strike was a non-nuclear nation who couldn't retaliate and who also wasn't allied with a nuclear nation who could retaliate on their behalf.

[@AORD72]

I don't think so. You won't have enough energy for both of your theories.

[@evilmorty7226]

I really hope that both superpowers have secret ICBM interceptors that are really quick to make them useless which would decrease chances of a nuclear war

[@Crimson.S.57]

You want the technology to be known but the quantity to be secret. If your enemy knows you're capable of intercepting missiles they're less likely to launch, but that is useless if your enemy knows they can overwhelm the defense with shear numbers.

[@hoovyzepoot]

@@Crimson.S.57 While the general idea is correct, I'd like to add something: if the enemy knows you can beat them, they wouldn't attack, however a cornered animal will almost always bite back if that means a chance at survival or at inflicting damage

[@robocu4]

I really believe if such technology existed, tensions already would've broken and we'd be in a full scale global conflict. Nuclear deterrence is literally the only thing that has prevented WW3

[@enderoctanus]

@@Crimson.S.57 If you have the technology, they probably have something similar. You know how many resources they are using thanks to espionage, so if you can make it, you can infer how much effort it would take for the other guy to do it too. So no you don't want to come out and just announce it, because you'd need to provide some sort of evidence that you aren't just bluffing. And then the enemy could engineer ways around it. It is best to keep it as secret as possible.

[@Primitarian]

Even if that were true (it's not), such a situation would likely actually increase the chance of a nuclear war. Think about it. If we had ICBM interceptors that were so effective, we might think we could win a nuclear war and thus be tempted to start one. Same with the other side.

[@lorentzcoffin4957]

The general rule of thumb for US based r&d is to assume the publicly available info is about 15 years out of date

[@joshuacheung6518]

Some of this is newer than what i was aware of 7 years ago

[@redox4088]

I think people romanticize the US military a little too much. It is not as sci-fi as you would think. It is just an extremely capable military with a huge budget.

[@joshuacheung6518]

and equipment from the 60s

[@TheDoctorsGaming101]

@@redox4088 I mean everyone thought we were still years behind on hypersonic missiles until like a week ago when the gov quietly announced that we tested one. The Ukraine news had completely made that news fizzle out pretty quick but the hypersonic system we tests is so much more robust than Russia’s which is mainly designed for taking out aircraft carriers and nobody really bat an eye so while I usually would honestly agree with your statement I don’t think you should underestimate it either

[@Horible4]

@@TheDoctorsGaming101 Russia was only ahead because they took advantage of the US actually adhering to the START treaty, which banned testing and producing hypersonic weapons between the two nuclear powers. The United States pulled out of the START treaty when Russia refused to stop developing them. The entire situation is actually hilariously hypocritical when you hear the reaction from Putin after the United States tore up START.

[@Robert-p7c1k]

Simply put, avoid nuclear war at any cost! interceptors won't make any significant deference against a determined and sustained nuclear attack.

[@GegeDxD]

Then Americans should stop voting presidents who are triggering new wars 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@Qossuth]

It would have been worth pointing out that the difficulty with mid-course interception is because in the vacuum of space it is very hard to discriminate between a lightweight decoy and a heavier warhead as they follow the same trajectories. You can even put warheads inside of decoy balloons so they look the same as the actual decoys.

[@Adeldrilda]

No it's not. They have different mass and momentum. You can do things to tease out that information.

[@perishedfirestorm555]

​​@@Adeldrildaa decoy is supposed to have the same mass. Its a decoy.

[@kiabtoomlauj6249]

@@Adeldrilda Dude, you don't have that much time. ICBMs travel close to 9 times as fast as the F-22 using after burners. So less than 45 minutes, most Russian ICBMs from mainland Russia, in the HUNDREDS, plus HUNDREDS more decoys... would be landing all across the US (same shit happening across Russia, too). SLBM (ICBMs launched from nuclear subs roaming close to the coasts of the enemies) only need ~15 to 20 or so minutes to reach many of their targets. As said, by others, most ICBMs contain MIRVs... a few to as many as 14 or so per ICBM. MIRVs split from the "mother" ICBM roughly half way on their parabolic flight. If they travel up to Mach 26, and if each of the THOUSANDS ICBMs launched (by the US, France, Britain, Russia, India, Pakistan, China) contain a few to a dozen plus MIRVs ---- plus the thousands of CHEAP but equally fast pieces of metallic decoys flying alongside them ---- you are talking about THE END OF HUMANITY ON EARTH.... you're NOT talking leisurely using super computers to help you track real MIRVs from decoys, for the purposes of you zapping the real MIRVs out of the sky above your head, as some 4th grade Hollywood movies and stupid CGI games have been doing. Each ~450lb MIRV --- as well as the many dozens of 750lb B61-12 small gravity thermonuclear bombs carried by F-15, F-16, Super Hornets, F-22, F-35, B-52, Lancer, B-2, etc. ---- has up to 20 times the power of the crude 10,000lb FAT MAN dropped on Nagasaki, 1945. You don't need more than 2-3 little MIRVs --- not 2-3 ICBMs but 2-3 MIRVs, of which ONE ICBM may carry up to 14 or so ---- to wipe out much of a city like San Diego, SF, LA, Washington, New York, Beijing, Moscow, London, Paris, Berlin. The radiation from the blast will kill off the rest, a few hours to a few days/weeks later. No foods are good to eat and NO FIELDS can grow safe foods, as deadly radiation fall-out's will cover much of the world. Even for the few end-time crazies in deep, well stocked bunkers who could survive in there for a few weeks to a few months.... they will die horrible deaths, a bit later, after some cannibal activities among themselves, in their bunkers... Earth wouldn't be back to "normal" for another 5,000 to 10,000 to 50,000 years...

[@chesslover8829]

​@@kiabtoomlauj6249Some of your information is inaccurate.

[@bower31]

​@kiabtoomlauj6249 Lmao a full scale nuclear war would be far far from the end of humanity. We do not have enough warheads on the planet for that. There would be a lot of health concerns but it'd be very underwhelming

[@bibleortraditions]

"a whopping $75 million for a nuclear interceptor" sound cheap considering the total cost when that warhead hits a major city or military complex.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

The same logic guides iron dome.

[@alexanderbutler2989]

the actual ICBM is cheaper than the interceptor haha

[@WagesOfDestruction]

@@alexanderbutler2989 So what? What you are looking at here is that the damage caused by an ICBM is much more than the interceptor

[@fabiorodrigo3638]

Yeah, mate, hiring a person bodyguard is, also, cheaper than lose your life. This doesn't mean you can expend the money hiring one.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

@@fabiorodrigo3638 But I pay tax money for a policeman to do that.

[@LemmingRush_]

If it comes down to it, let's hope the Russian ICBM's are as effective as their ground force operations

[@picasoj5944]

Those are chechyen and contract soldiers, Russia is not at war with ukraine

[@myballsitchsomethingfierce6319]

nukes are expensive to build and maintain, there military budget goes towards the nukes

[@retinaturner3284]

@@picasoj5944 There is no war in Ba Sing Se

[@Alpanzai]

And what about Russiam ground operations? Russia with disadvantage in numbers ( around 120k russians vs approximatly 250-300k ukranian soldiers ) are getting more and more ukranian soil. At the same time not a single one ukranian soldier get to even russian border. Not to mention tremendous amount of weapons send by NATO to help Ukraine. Its a proxy war of whole nato by hands of ukranians versus russia. Which is not good for ukrainians that they let themself in that situation. The very first mistake of any war is underestimate your enemy.

[@Thorgon-Cross]

@@Alpanzai Russia has lost almost half of the ground they had taken, also Ukraine has been carrying out air attacks on Russia bases on the Russian side of the border.

[@nmsingh72]

None, they would need to exist in order to intercept them. As they are unable to stop it, that the only likely outcome.

[@leninramos1980]

Great work! Amazing work you have put on this video. Thanks

[@joshmcdonald9508]

What a great video. I already know how all this stuff works, but the illustrations are great.

[@BabakHamedani]

Well made, thank you. Hopefully these nukes just stay as deterance as they are today

[@metatechnologist]

Hope is not a plan....

[@scottstevens2752]

Great video thanks!

[@eon1779]

Makes sense why they're opting for laser weapons instead of the railgun. Faster and could fry inner systems of missiles even ICBMS. Lasers mounted on hypersonic missiles.

[@ives3572]

"We still live with this unbelievable threat over our heads of nuclear war. I mean, are we stupid? Do we think that the nuclear threat has gone, that the nuclear destruction of the planet is not imminent? It's a delusion to think it's gone away." - Kevin Costner

[@alexsalemo9137]

The only country use nuclear weapons in human history is US , they are the only evil country treat for humanity, they are the pushing others countries to be prepared I guess im not troll from any side I’m just citizen of this unfair world

[@xOubax]

As awesome and advanced as some of these anti missile systems are, there just aren't enough of them to save us from a mass launch.

[@m.p.4032]

Not to mention the combination of Russia, China, NK, and a silent partner say Iran, all at the same time!

[@alanhicks3361]

What this world needs is Ann alien invasion and every country. Has to work together like in many movies . Then the idiots that make theese stupid war decisions would realise that we are all humans that are only short time tenants on this planet that need to live together without borders and greed

[@MrJdsenior]

@@m.p.4032 NK is more of less a no op, why does everyone keep including them? Go look at the numbers.

[@davidallen9371]

Do you honestly think these defense systems showed is all we have? I guarantee you there's secret weapons no one knows about.

[@alanhicks3361]

@@davidallen9371 foil hats in your house then 🤯🤯🤯

[@SGK-r4t]

America cant intercept a frog

[@jasonchiu272]

I've been waiting for this tutorial for such a long time! Now I can successfully intercept an RT-2PM2 «Topol-M» cold-launched three-stage solid-propellant silo-based intercontinental ballistic missile to protect my remaining chess pieces.

[@starleighpersonal]

but what about a battalion of royal ordnance L30a1 120mm rifled gun emplacement loaded with the L31A7 HESH round

[@msallies]

"For what can one nation hope to achieve if the world plunges into conflict and deprivation? Nations of the world are far too interdependent now to choose the path of war and conflict without bringing ruin and deprivation to everyone. United, you have a great chance. Divided, you will fail. And your failure will be longstanding, and it will be extremely costly-greater than any war that has ever occurred in this world will it be, more devastating than any human conflict that humanity has ever known." A quote from the Great Waves of Change book written by Marshall Vian Summers (a must read!)

[@williamburrows]

A great read!

[@johnchapman5125]

Thank you, Mara.

[@user-rg7mv9yo7b]

To be honest, I'm more surprised they actually tried to make a lazer weapon to intercept it, it wasn't practical in the end due to its very limited range of effectiveness, but still, the fact they tried doing something like that at all is a little amusing.

[@ezrakirkpatrick5365]

It actually works surprisingly well in short ranges. They outfitted a couple planes with lasers a while back to protect government officials from missile attacks. One was scrapped though and the other is in storage.

[@threeMetreJim]

It's surprising the lasers can't be used firing up, out of the atmosphere to intercept during the mid course phase. Not much distance left to get out of the thicker atmosphere, and to the target, when already out of a lot of the atmosphere on a high altitude plane.

[@tyleraragon6200]

@@ezrakirkpatrick5365 Look up the new airforce 1 planes coming into service soon, expected to have an early version of the SHiELD laser missile defense system that was "pushed back" in development.

[@specter86fl]

they said it didnt work in atmosphere...... think about that long and hard

[@MrJdsenior]

Why? In space it will probably work fine. You know all those classified missions that used to go up on the Shuttle and do now on Falcon and some other boosters? Could be some of them, just totally speculating though. Could be a LOT of things, probably mostly 'spy' satellites.

[@prestonpittman717]

What a great question to be interested in right now! 🤪👍

[@LoremasterYnTaris]

"How many nuclear missiles can the United States intercept?" Not enough. We really are more vulnerable than we like to think.

[@edwinvargas7969]

Primary reason why the US wouldn’t challenge Russia or China directly, unless they can use Ukraine or Taiwan to place interceptors. Suddenly everything happening today makes sense.

[@RavingFan]

perhaps destroy inbound MIRV vehicle, w/ outbound low yield nuclear warhead? vastly improve probability of kill.

[@LoremasterYnTaris]

Personally, I rather like the idea of adapting the scrapped laser project into a last line of defense to destroy any incoming missiles that manage to make it through the rest of the system.

[@henryfromskalitz8725]

@@edwinvargas7969 that kinda does huh place interceptors as close as possible best to enemies. Launch ur own nukes to annihilate the enemy stop their nukes bam problem solved world domination victory

[@NeostormXLMAX]

@@edwinvargas7969 yeah thats the entire reason why they have been trying to get ukraine and taiwan under their finger tips

[@audieallen9734]

there is a variety of intercept vehicles. hit to kill its just one type, you also have particle dispersing vehicles. deploying a cloud of shrapnel in the path of anything moving that fast will cause damage, this can address the maneuvering war heads because of the area it can cover.. Lazer weapons can now be mounted on a rocket, launching it fast and far above the atmosphere. smart artillery is also an option now days. idk...

[@mjk8019]

Also drones. You could have a swarm of drones around every city that would lift up amid airstricke and do a suicide run towards the missle at high altitude.

[@lgmx-peacekeeper3204]

The surest bet would be to saturate the airspace above known launch sites with concurrent nuclear blasts to create an impenetrable barrier to anything trying to get out of the atmosphere. There's far more ABM technology sitting on the drawing board than exist in the real world when we need them now the most. Air launched nuclear armed cruise missiles would be the ideal platform but there are not enough of them. IRBMs could have dumped huge numbers of warheads into the skies over Russia if they hadn't all been decommissioned. The only available option would be to use SLBMs but doing so would compromise second strike capacity although blunting an enemy first strike would minimize the need for a massive second strike.

[@ownedpilot4324]

X-37b mounted with laser?

[@mikefleek9259]

Charged particle beams. Very different from Lasers. The wildcard is subs , they can launch from anywhere, even under ice.

[@Kiirxas]

@@lgmx-peacekeeper3204 that would literally cause more harm than the actual nuke hitting it's target

[@bryananderson3772]

Please remember everyone... Take this information with a grain of salt. There is a lot more that goes into this than is show in this video.

[@stussymishka]

Whichever nation is the first to master nuclear icbm DEFENSE will truly be the most powerful in the world.

[@roman_fla]

Thank you for staying neutral and educational. I always enjoy the humor that’s thrown in your videos.

[@allblacks4729]

there is no good or bad americans or russians. only good v evil from both sides. we pray the good prevails

[@kenw.1112]

Very interesting the way this guy does his videos. I stayed interested all the way through. Nice job!

[@mikespenceTHEGOATB]

HONKY! THE! (ICBM)! HONKY! 🙂*MIKE! SPENCE! THE! (G,O,A,T,B)! HA! HA! HA!

[@tacticalmanatee]

The Sprint missile was the way to go. Nukes vs nukes. Best when the nukes are backup for sat-based missiles and/or lasers.

[@rumham7631]

I say diplomacy is the way to go, nukes are wack.

[@winfordnettles3292]

As I remember, there was the Sprint system for short range intercept, and, the Spartan system for intermediate range intercept. It was a layered system and redundant.

[@gigachud35]

Agree but stupid environmentalists were concerned about fallout like idc better than getting nuked

[@chrisbrown9071]

“No ship Sherlock”…I’m not that familiar w/ this channel so that was kinda unexpected for me. But so satisfying. & his accent made it even better 😂

[@georgepetkovic440]

I always thought the first target would be the satellites, prior to or shortly before the launch of the icbm. This would obviously make tracking much harder.

[@joshcourt1393]

Russia tested one recently… I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

[@selimvergili7001]

If they hit satellites the other party would have no way of knowing if there's a hundred warheads coming at their way so they would fire theirs too.

[@Head_Coach]

Take in mind that satellites are a pretty easy target: their orbits are well known and they can be disabled just by being hit with hundreds of metal balls. Of course, those need to be delivered to the orbit, but thats no big deal really

[@rooblez9005]

without the satellites They are 100 years back in time

[@ThatGuyInOhio72]

@@rooblez9005 "they"? 🤔🤔

[@peemic12]

Your videos are great. Wonderful explanation with excellent footage/pictures/diagrams. Keep up the great work!

[@DaCamell]

Neat to see a video on this topic as someone who works on this stuff.

[@Physco219]

What do you do? Whom do you work for?

[@Rambogner]

@@Physco219 he's special forces, keyboard warrior and BS division

[@Rambogner]

@@trusttech9942 I'm an astronaut by the way, I recently flew a mission to the ISS, and on the way back I slapped Will Smith for being rude and single handedly defeated Putin's army with a small spatula. What did you do?

[@voidofspaceandtime4684]

@@trusttech9942 why would someone who actually works on these systems right now admit to it on a public comments section? If they are telling the truth they are incredibly stupid and probably breaking NDAs and DOD agreements.

[@JKTCGMV13]

I was thinking the same thing. I always like seeing stuff I work on mentioned by the KZbinrs haha

[@nimruil337]

I just hope we will never need to find out

[@tcarroll3954]

It's amazing how so few seem to be concerned with a possible nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. Only a few years ago people would be freaking out.

[@MrInovasoft]

It's not that people are not concerned but the russians threatened to use nukes so many times that it became a joke! On the other hand, we can't constanly submit to new demands and new territorial theft of a bully because they have nukes.

[@enigma1000]

Probably lots concerned but also feel powerless to affect the risk in a meaningful way.

[@pkurz3288]

Groupthink

[@colinstewart1432]

Fiction. Never happen.

[@colinstewart1432]

@@medved3027 I know about the Russian officers refusing to launch as I'm a Cold War obsessive. It's for this reason that I think it unlikely. I'm also familiar with the weapons themselves and their supposed strategic use. Thanks for the info though. It's appreciated. 👍

[@charlespk2008]

Ya, no, you can not convince me that the US only has 44 interceptors. Just no. I can totally see 95% of the defense systems being hyper-classified.

[@ismaelrangel4595]

The u.s is connected very well with rich elites like the Rothschilds bloodline who basically funded almost every war. If a nuclear war starts the u.s will totally pull out some super hyper classified defense system or weapon..there is a high chance some major cities or parts of the U.S. and NATO territory will be left untouched, after the bombings it looks like they are going to try to gather all survivors and that's the start of the new world order

[@braedonlock3359]

We most definitely have some stuff nobody has any clue about. That’s why these videos become kinda pointless.

[@charlespk2008]

@@braedonlock3359 not quite. you can apply some logic and deductions to reason it out. for instance, an ICBM buss loaded with interceptors instead of warheads. that completely subverts the idea that the nuclear ICBM buss would be high impossible to intercept. ... ...naturally no one thinks of that and makes the most dramatic conclusions.

[@m1leswilliams]

Or they have less and that fact is classified.

[@dreadtrain2846]

@@khamjaninja. Black budget dude. Congress doesn't get to look at it.

[@hanswurst6712]

"Never-Fail Weapon System"? Does it work as good as "unsinkable" ships? 🥺

[@arthuravagyan4066]

Better, as unpickable locks👌🏻

[@perniciouspete4986]

Much better. I have sources.

[@CakePrincessCelestia]

Sounds like "It'S uNhAcKaBlE!" to me :)

[@SteveWright-oy8ky]

Hypersonic is a misunderstood term in most cases. The U.S. was flying the X-15 at Mach 6.7 by 1967 with a pilot and winged with landing gear that flew 199 missions between 3 planes ! The U.S. had developed from the 50's to the mid 70's, Sentinel and Safeguard interceptor missiles with Spartan, exo-atmospheric , and Sprint, a short range Mach 10 interceptor for inter-atmospheric hits. Both systems worked but had shortcomings with the outlook that it only increased the nuke race ! So Sprint at Mach 10, ( 2 times hypersonic ) overcame the problems of radar tracking thru a plasma shield . However, detonating a nuke to take out an incoming warhead would blind our radars to any further inbound targets ! So it was good for only 1 hit then we were blind ! Not a good option. Intercept KILL VEHICLES now were cutting edge and worked but susceptible to decoys and other defenses. Time and again, all sides create measures and counter-measures which leads us all down a non-stop path of BANKRUPTCY ! Everyone should watch the video , " WHY WE FIGHT " by Eugene Jariky and learn how the , "MILITARY, INDUSTRAL, CONGRESSIONAL MACHINE " manipulates us into believing in foreign threats that most often, we ourselves create !

[@sam-bj3so]

These weapons work fine, but what can they do when there is another weapon that damages the communications system, disabling the defenses?

[@aceofspadesguy4913]

Redundancy. EVERYTHING (at least in the US military) is made to have redundancy and redundant redundancies to prevent our entire system from going down if just one part of the kill chain is rendered inoperable. Be that a specific weapon system or an entire network of systems. Your point is valid though. A big reason the US Navy doesn’t see China’s anti-ship missiles as formidable as outside observers do is because they have a very long, easily exploitable kill chain.

[@Hank520Tube]

such as EMP (Electro-magnetic Pulse) bursts??

[@miciboo9993]

Do you know George Carlin?

[@brainiac1890]

Nuclear Rain the fallout has to go somewhere. 🔻 They have a few months to work on it. There goes the green deal ☠️AOC was right, the earth will end by the end of their term they've made sure of it!! Joe is still on stage talking to the Flag 🤧🏴‍☠️ shaking hands with the devil.

[@aceofspadesguy4913]

@@Hank520Tube most military hardware is insulated from EMPs

[@wolf-o-man9318]

Love your videos keep it up

[@NotWhatYouThink]

🥇

[@lucyfyre6126]

"who woulda thought of shooting down nukes with nukes" Missile Command, a great game from the 80s...

[@VGMvega]

For the short-range strategy, i'd bet on laser systems. Their reaction is quite fast, and the laser beam travels at speed of light. Also, Patriot and THAAD interceptors should be added on the combo. To intercept an ICBM in the orbital phase, it is better to launch a nuke against it. The EMP wave should be enough to disable all the MIRVs. It would fry all the electronics in a huge area below, but it is worth it.

[@ninjabiatch101]

Super on point, and without even going into the ferocity and scale of nuclear bombs. Which could've been interesting. Such as how do we know which ones are carrying 14 70 KT warheads, or which are carrying 5 10 MT warheads. Or that the satellites and ground vehicles may be inoperable in the case of a single warhead detonating on the rim of the atmosphere. Moral of the story when regarding nukes is always, "Lets just not, please?"

[@todgerx]

Maybe the west should of thought twice about the whole " I stand with Russia thing"

[@ninjabiatch101]

@@todgerx what "I stand with Russia thing"?

[@MrJdsenior]

Hardly, all of that is nuclear hardened. Do you really think the engineers just missed that requirement? There were missiles and guidance systems done in the 60's that would survive a CLOSE nuclear EMP.

[@ninjabiatch101]

@@MrJdsenior I mean theres only so much you can harden certain things. Especially satellites because hardening them would make them heavy as hell. Also I wasn't necessarily saying the vehicles carrying the the missile systems, just vehicles in general.

[@MrJdsenior]

@@ninjabiatch101 You are misunderstanding, I am talking about electronics hardening to nuclear EMP, answering a specific question. And yes, general vehicles, cars, trucks, etc would definitely get whacked within a certain range. You put enough volts/meter in a small enough circuit feature size, and it probably won't be happy.

[@kappaspinning4832]

The twist is that the fact that you try to develop effective interception system is what ultimatly lead to an increase in nuclear threat, if a dozen of nukes doesn't work, the enemy will surely make a dozen more. If any country A has a system that can intercept all country B missiles, it means that country A is in condition of attacking B without suffering retaliation. That would be a fatal national security danger for country B, so they would develop more nukes and more dangerous systems to avoid being in that situation. 100 nukes and 1000 nukes makes little diference if the enemy can't defend it, but if they can intercept 90% of it, then it is a huge difference and those extra numbers are what assures you that they don't want to mess with you with a full scale war. So countries not able to intercept a full scale nuke launch should be the norm and not a fault in the eyes of humanity, because that means the likelihood of full scale war is small.

[@asasas9146]

Countries that can't defend themselves wouldn't exist for long and thus can't be the norm. If these countries still exist today is because there are 3 superpowers independent and hostile to each other. If 2 of them were to disappear, the remaining 1 would take all earth unopposed.

[@NLozar22]

US does not actually have a layered missile defense system, though their public releases do sometimes alude to that. What is actually meant is that US has different systems for different targets. GBIs and Aegis SM3 are for ICBMs (superpowers can ofc easily saturate GBIs, but not states like North Korea, on the off chance they even come out of the silo successfully), THAAD is for intermediate and medium range ballistic missiles, and Patriot is only for in-theater or tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs), think Russian Iskander-M. SAMs like Patriot, S300, S400, S500, which are primarily designed to go after air breathing targets (even if they are hypersonic) are completely powerless against ICBM RVs flying at near orbital velocities. There the terminal phase doesn't last "about 1 minute", but about 12 seconds. Just think how utterly insane Nike's Sprint ABM was, and even that was ineffective and canceled after a few months (cost was also a problem).

[@off_grid_javelin]

you proved your own argument wrong, the fact that systems like s400 and s500 can shoot down ramjet weapons which are maneuverable, much more predictable target like an icbm is a fish in a barrel, although saturation could still be achieved, but only by Usa, no other nation has that much nukes, still much better than mim patriot though, which often took their own guys out of air.

[@DigitalRX2r]

I'm fairly convinced the US government took the Rods from God concept and scaled it down into an anti ICBM system. It lends itself perfectly to interception tactics when scaled-down, and even the best ICBM will have difficulty maneuvering fast enough to avoid a projectile flying at Mach 27.

[@off_grid_javelin]

@@DigitalRX2r First off bro, Icbms don't maneuver, I'd suggest you grasp rudimentary Knowledge of the topic, secondly, Us dominance is through stealth tech and not Missile defence systems, it's pretty obvious that Us could attack russia and the other way around, but Russians clearly have better measures to intercept icbms, not just by quantity, but quality too.

[@NLozar22]

​@@off_grid_javelin Ramjet and even scramjet powered hypersonic weapons, although we think of them as fast, flying at Mach 5-10, they are only fast in comparison to typical cruise missiles. That's still snail's pace for ICBMs. ICBM RVs will fly at about Mach 23-25, that's 7-8 km/s... 7-8 KILOMETERS PER SECOND. Your intercept window is AT BEST 12 seconds (which is unrealistic, because it discounts tracking, identification and decision time, not that it would matter either way). Not even Sprint was able to achieve interceptions in these conditions. Worse yet, at these insane speeds RVs will be engulfed into a 3000 degree ionized plasma cloak which blocks radar waves, making it impossible for radars to track them in the thickening atmosphere, which will also decelerate the reentry vehicle, meaning you can't just rely on ballistic trajectory. So no, for foreseeable future (and probably never) there will be no way to stop ICBMs in terminal phase.

[@off_grid_javelin]

@@NLozar22 Still much more predictable than Hypersonic glide vehicle and missiles, the plasma cloak is added to the maneuvering these things have. And Icbms aren't any thing new, interceptors based on glide vehicles and hypersonic missile defenses like s500 have shot down Icbms in midcourse and early terminal phase with proximity fuse explosions, hypersonics are the real problem, Usa wouldn't have been worried about lagging behind in hypersonics if Icbms were so good, it's obvious that icbms are nearly obsolete upto almost 50% stoppable. Hypersonics ensure a 100% kill at present, whether at a carrier or a city.

[@ElenaRoach-ji7es]

The US missile defense for CONUS is obviously and unfortunately not intended to counter a peer threat. It is almost exclusively dedicated against the North Korean threat. To offset the Russian arsenal would require 15-20 launch sites, 6-8 discrimination radars, and 1000+ interceptors in multiple layers.

[@mariofan1ish]

That Laser Interceptor idea is actually kinda neat, and, in my very limited knowledge of the situation, might actually be a viable option. The old Star Wars Program never rally went anywhere, but I'm wondering what could possibly come of a similar idea nowawdays.

[@zokotodosiev6650]

What if nuclear missiles have very reflecting surface,did you thing laser then will be efective...reflective enough to prolong the duration of the laser action, if not to render it ineffective

[@silverrain530]

@@zokotodosiev6650 While this is true, if most missiles are not reflective (I'm not sure if they are, but hypothetically) then this would be effective against the majority or maybe even all current missiles. The issue then would be how expensive it would be to make the missiles reflective enough to negate said lasers. The answer to this would determine the viability of lasers

[@ryanspencer6778]

I'd be shocked if it wasn't being thought of, or even secretly implemented. the laser is scattered by the atmosphere, but there isn't a substantial atmosphere to worry about once you're past a minute or so. Satellites based laser systems make too much sense to not be pursued, and are probably the only practical way to avoid being hit in a doomsday scenario.

[@andreatosi342]

@@ryanspencer6778 You cant put weapons on space. There is an international treaty. Russia, China, USA, every country simply cannot do it.

[@Shaker626]

@@zokotodosiev6650 The most viable concepts used an x-ray pumped by a nuclear explosion. However, with nuclear testing banned, this will be very difficult to do.

[@GSpotter63]

The financial cost of an entire interceptor program pails in comparison to the damage of even one nuclear detonation over a major city.

[@aoeu256]

Imagine how much American GDP is wasted on military O_o

[@GSpotter63]

@@aoeu256 Imagine how dead you would be if a foreign tyrannical government took control of the US? Unless you playacted to their demands of course....

[@informalchipmunk5775]

"Intercepting an ICBM in the boost phase is impractical" Ace combat 7: hold my beer.

[@RealNameNeverUsed]

Ace Combat Zero also

[@Hax0rZ1]

Well done video. All mostly old public domain info and some new public info. There is a ton more that is not known and will never be released.

[@truocleb]

The A-135 russian nuke rockets seem to be a good idea. They pretty much act like AA shells that are meant to explode near enemy planes and disable them with flak. But using a small nuke instead.

[@BillAnt]

They've got some smart cookies working at their defense department. ;D

[@MrJdsenior]

@@BillAnt Hilarious, look up SPRINT missile, from the 60's. Now WHO had that idea? And who developed the atom bomb, and about 100,000 other things first? The Russians STILL have nothing remotely like that missile, just as they have never developed a missile that has taken and returned several people from the moon, and all safely, at that. though it was touch and go a few times, not surprisingly. Look at that stupid POS they keep showing that is 100 feet above the launch location a second and a half later, still spitting maneuvering jets out of its ridiculous nose, while at the same time SPRINT is about a mile high and a mile downrange, going half the speed of a rifle bullet, and accelerating at about 10X that Russian turd. You guys break me up.

[@FactCheckerGuy]

@@BillAnt Yeah, look how well they've handled the Ukraine invasion.

[@BillAnt]

​@@FactCheckerGuy - I don't think they've unleashed their best yet, more like their expandable army so far. War strategists always have something better saved for later as a last resort, and let's hope it's not nukes. Besides, I don't think they want to take the entire country, just the Dombas regions with a majority of Russian population, and strategic ports like Mariupol and Odessa.

[@kawanzaii8698]

@@BillAnt What are your thoughts now?

[@MrArcadia2009]

I had a dream that me and my family were going on vacation when I saw 3 or 4 nuclear detonations, and immediately gave up on life. That's more of a nightmare, that's my greatest fear.

[@Ljosi]

Why do you consider that bad? Life is just static

[@User-jr7vf]

It's more likely that a shark suddenly appears out of nowhere and bites you causing your death on the beach than it is for a nuclear Armageddon to happen.

[@newbyclive]

Now to fix the nuke defense problem: - Each interceptor should be at least hypersonic, even in their boost phrase they should be reaching or at mach speeds in the double digits. - Each interceptor should have dozens (40+) of maneuverable retargetable kill vehicles, each with their own sensors that can aid in the interception. - U.S should take a page out of SpaceX's book when it comes to their rocket launches. But instead of Satellites it would be thousands of dormant interceptors in LEOs. in this case they can provide protection not only to the U.S but all of NATO and their allies. Not an expert, obviously but just splitting out random ideas.

[@manuelfriend4060]

There is a truce between multiple countries that bans weapons of any kind in space. Weaponizing space would cause anti satellite missile tests and other anti orbital defense weapons to cause so much debry it could trigger the Kessler syndrome.

[@josephvanpraet1400]

I know a guy going into space force heard from another person in SF that we'll have personnel stationed in space craft and in satellites for the purposes of missile defence supposed to a few years down the road but supposedly we HAVE the ships and the space platforms are under construction right now....star wars has begun. The space forces are known as the guardian corps. How sci-fi is that? Crazy

[@fk4410]

It’s not allowed to have weapons in space bro otherwise we will have not only defensive but also offensive weapons in space. Also the best is when both sides know they can’t risk to start firing… not a US that knows it can destroy anyone any time. They already behave like they are the world police imagine if there was no nuclear threat to them anymore

[@josephvanpraet1400]

Weapons in space are absolutely a thing satellites with nuclear weapons exist and countries shooting down satellites (there own) does happen as far as laws are concerned the U.N. describes space as the "common heritage of man" and btw how the fuck would you enforce that shit?

[@manuelfriend4060]

@@josephvanpraet1400 No, weapons in space are not a thing. Unless some governments have some super secret nuke satellite programs, which I highly doubt. Some countries have conducted anti sat missile tests as a show of force and to make sure they can shoot down spy sats if needed. Most of the space capable countries have an explicit agreement to keep space neutral.

[@rickandmortyclips101]

Thank you, this will be very useful

[@keeganbrown9967]

I love the laser idea I think that system would work best out in space on a satalitte that shots at the missle while it's in space too.

[@darrenclayton8246]

There was an agreement that no country can weaponize space

[@SirHusky654]

@@darrenclayton8246 We can't drop nukes from satellites but Rods From God are a thing.

[@glenvanevery5517]

The altitude is too high and renders the power of the laser to be useless without oxygen

[@hhill5489]

@@darrenclayton8246 China already destroyed a satellite with a space weapon. Agreements mean nothing

[@hhill5489]

@@glenvanevery5517 lasers work in space, they aren't explosives that require oxygen

[@RedSiegfried]

Once they're launched, basically zero. Despite what we say we can intercept. There are a lot of people who call it warmongering when you want to create a system to defend yourself from being killed by nuclear weapons without harming the enemy.

[@eodico]

even if we got them all, that ignition will still blow and the energy will enter our atmosphere. Earth would be uninhabitable in 10-15 years

[@binbows2258]

It isn't right to create nuclear missile defense systems. MAD can only work if both sides are in danger.

[@TheSuperRatt]

Because the first superpower that invents a 100% missile defense system, will be able to wage war without fear of mutually assured destruction.

[@endcapitalism5274]

@@TheSuperRatt Nuclear winter: Hold my beer.

[@therallyguy1]

0:34 what in gods name is that thing?

[@dougdouglas2112]

Good stuff, as always. Liked and subscribed.

[@Deviant-Blades]

Whatever you think the current level of technology the military has, is usually a few generations ahead of that.

[@NotWhatYouThink]

We touched on that toward the end of the video.

[@Mrch33ky]

Ah the Myth of Conventional Wisdom rears it's head at last. How very.

[@Norsilca]

When is the last time there was a big reveal where they showed us an operational weapon way ahead of what we thought? The stealth fighter? 30 years ago? And suspiciously right at the end of the cold war?

[@zee9709]

we like to think that way, but generally human not that complicated. Our lazy ass just like to convince ourselve until too late....

[@mvilla9754]

@@Norsilca When was the last time they needed to? F-117 was shown to the world cause it was needed to nullified the Air Defences of Iraq. If the first gulf war had not happened, changes are we could had not seen much of the F-117 for another 5-7 years. Since then the US Arm forces have not needed to show off any wonder weapon.. It is not as if they were needed for the Second Gulf war, or in Afghanistan. There is really no point in showing off your potential "ace up the sleeve" weapons to the world. You only letting potential enemies what to expect.

[@gregbrigham3247]

Worse case scenario. What about a EMP electro magnet pulse or specialized missiles that specifically detect radiation from ICBMs terminal phase. Like a flying guiger counter to detect only nukes.

[@ProfessorJayTee]

"Hit to Kill" on an incoming ICBM was generally considered impossible... until it began to be repeatedly accomplished. Now they're saying that getting enough range is impossible. Um... heard that before, the LAST time you were wrong.

[@flyingdutchman9961]

Yeah. As well as shooting down all 5,977 Russian ☢️ warheads is considered impossible today

[@dharmdevil]

And. . you didn't watch the video.

[@Christian_Prepper]

*These "detection time periods" are WAY OFF and foolishly hopeful.* *"Terminal Phase" is when the public would find out anything has happened...too late.*