PeaceKeeper Missile video

How to assemble a PeaceKeeper ICBM

[@Bravo2uniform]

Thank you! I have had this surplus missile in my garage for years but did not know how to reassemble. This makes my megalomaniacal plans soooooo much easier.

[@Nighthawke70]

I hope you got a better guidance package than the million-part nightmare they made for it.

[@djpalindrome]

We have here another Bond villain in the making

[@its_air8]

How tf do you own a nuke in your garage!?!?!??!?

[@VaporheadATC]

Pretty sure it's 30 gallons of water which is injected into a chemical which creates the gas pressure needed to push the missile out of the silo. Very impressive!

[@californiaslastgasp6847]

30 gallons, that’s it?

[@Shaker626]

@@californiaslastgasp6847 Water expands to over 1000 times its volume when turned to vapour.

[@BradKwfc]

Peacekeeper=10 Mark 21 Warheads, 335 kiloton yield each. Nagasaki (Fat Man)=21 kiloton warhead, 40,000 instantly killed. One Peacekeeper warhead is nearly 16X greater yield than 'Fat Man'.

[@Nighthawke70]

And only a quarter of the size.

[@unassistedsuicide2243]

Easily a half million human rats exterminated. BEAUTIFUL

[@PsytranceLove]

335 kilotons of peace

[@manzchello4752]

We need them back vs Satan 2

[@Zoomer30]

MX really got scaled back. Initially they were going rbe on wheeled mobile launchers that would have moved between shelters in a "shell game" so the USSR could not know what site had the missile.

[@VinoRatRodbuilds]

Kind of sort of, I worked on the PK program, The program you're talking about never got funded, but the rail garrison program did. I currently work at Vandenberg I was on the PK program when I was 20 years old, I'm 62 now. They built three facilities for the rail Garrison. Where rail cars were going to move across the country, and The Russians wouldn't know which rail car had the missile in The mobile launcher. Which is that they'd have multiple transporters moving around the country with nothing in them.fyi

[@fiodarkliomin1112]

Mobile launch only for light weight missile. They have limited opportunities for anti missile defence penetrations

[@fighting34s]

My dad was stationed at Vandenberg 1981-1987 and work on the Peacekeeper. I had the privilege if watching the first 8 peacekeeper launches. I remember he would go on TDY for a mobile version. Does anyone know what ever happened to that program? Great video!! Brings back a lot great memories of Vandenberg Air Force Base

[@californiaslastgasp6847]

It became operational but was canceled in 2005.

[@stickassholio3163]

Was that glicm?

[@trolleriffic]

@@stickassholio3163 GLCM was much shorter range and was deployed in Europe. The BGM-109G Gryphon was a ground launched version of the Tomahawk missile with a single 150 kiloton nuclear warhead. They were removed from service along with Pershing II, as well as their Soviet counterparts like RSD-10 Pioneer (SS-20) after the US and USSR signed the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

[@Parag0n]

I had pictures of this missile back in the early 90's, I always thought it should of been named the Peacemaker lol.

[@trolleriffic]

It was for a while.

[@donfrandsen7778]

Cant wait to see the replacement for the MINUTEMAN III ICBM. We need to aggressively build more With multimegaron MIRVs Hell yes Russia and China are

[@trolleriffic]

Land-based MIRV'd missiles are destabilising which is why the US went back to single warheads on Minuteman and kept MIRVs on Trident.

[@adamantturner5019]

why did we ever give up this system?

[@AdenStaggers]

Bring back Peacekeeper!!! The US ICBM force at the time of this writing is "only" 450 minuteman III's with a "demirved" singe warhead each!!! As required under "Start 2" (At it's highest US ICBM strength was 550 Minuteman II's, 450 Minuteman III's, 50 or so obsolete liquid fueled Titan II's bringing the full complement of warheads to 1,950) New Russian ICBM are at a minimum 10 or more ("mirved") "Heavy" and of unknown throwweight" protected by various layered ballistic missile defense systems including cannons/guns. America has not fielded a new ICBM since 2005(50 MX's removed from alert status) she relies on those 30 or more years old Minuteman III's for it's sole land based nuclear deterrent!!! America's ICBM force was always inherently vernerable. Could they survive a first strike and ride out... or do you launch under attack... And hope and pray the bombers are not destroyed on the ground. Which leaves only the US Navy to retailiate

[@workingshlub8861]

last i read they are looking to replace miunteman next 5-10 years...been well over 50 years its time..

[@paulcallaway6148]

I agree bring back the peace keeper the treaty has been aboned by Russia, france, india, China, raptors, jsf, dont stop icbms, wake up America peace keepers fully loaded!

[@BrunoViniciusCampestrini]

An Ohio class submarine can carry 24 (20 because of the treaties) Trident II missiles. Each trident missile can be loaded with 12 W88 (475kt each) or 14 W76 (100kt each). Considering that those submarines are as good as undetectable, I think that the US nuclear deterrence is pretty strong as it is. However, the USAF is already developing a replacement for the Minuteman IIIs anyway. P.S. it doesn't matter how many nuclear warheads a Russian ICBM can carry, the treaties between them and the US limit the total of warheads that can be deployed at any given time.

[@BrunoViniciusCampestrini]

@@robinbunnybuns3124 that's why there are mechanisms on those treaties that allow each side to oversee the other. As the Russian say "trust, but verify". Although, TBH, I don't think Russia would even have the military budget needed to field more nuclear weapons than those treaties permit.

[@NUCLEARARMAMENT]

@@BrunoViniciusCampestrini That's actually hilarious considering Russia has a larger economy than Germany? You know in 1989 the USSR had a GDP of $3.2 trillion and was spending 9% on military, or $288 billion, today Russia spends something like $150-$200 billion at least in today's money, and that is only 5% of the entire economy. If they were to spend 10% like back in the Soviet days, they'd be spending at least $300-$400 billion annually.

[@Zoomer30]

5:36 Looks like a gyroscope. WATCH YOUR GIMBALS!

[@hamaljay]

You are right. That is the gyroscope made out of beryllium and something like 20,000 parts. That is one of the most advanced guidance systems to date. At the missile site in Quebec they have one of those on display.

[@MrShobar]

There always seem to be a lot of people shuffling papers and writing. I suppose that this is what will happen on Doomsday.

[@MaxSolar-dd5wq]

6:44 When you're hiding from your relatives at a party but you hear there's ice cream

[@notcpio]

Why was the Peacekeeper program canceled?

[@babykevinxoxo]

BUSH JR

[@matthewgriffith1668]

Arms limitation treaties I believe.

[@andrewbarley6941]

End of the cold war, and the start of the NWO..

[@stickiedmin6508]

There was no need for it.

[@paulcallaway6148]

They should of kept them, the minute man missiles look like fire crackers compared to what the Russians have, America you've dropped the ball!

[@455Transam]

@jmorello123 Nostradamus was HIGHLY inacurate and most of his predictions didn't come true. ANYONE could make thousands of predictions and have a small percentage come true.

[@richardfeynman5560]

Congratulations, you're completely right, that's the whole point!

[@vladislavbogorov9922]

Thank God for America! I believe it saved the world. Stalin would have taken over the world without it.

[@OpenGL4ever]

Vladislav Bogorov Without the American bombing raids on German factories and air superiority Stalin would not have come that far.

[@vladislavbogorov9922]

Oh, yes he would! The USSR produced 90 thousand tanks during the war, Germany - 20 thousand. More, the Soviet ones were of superior quality. The initial German successes were just because the Soviet people did not want to fight for Stalin, they wanted to fight against him. This process was reversed by 1943 so Germany had no chance against USSR - with or without USA participating in the war. The Germans should have used the Russian POW when the latter surrendered hoping to fight against Stalin in 1941. Read the new sources, read Suvorov, Solonin, and the others, the science has moved forward in the last 2 decades.

[@OpenGL4ever]

Vladislav Bogorov Your numbers are bullshit, because you don't take the bombing raids into account. Germany would have produced three times the amount of tanks without the bombing raids, but the bombing raids harmed the German industry and factory output of new tanks. And German tanks had a better precision, that allowed them to destroy more russian tanks within range than they lost. The russian tanks were not superior, this is Russian propaganda. Even the T-34 had no chance against the 88 cannon and German tanks equipped with this cannon could easily destroy more Russian tanks than the Russian could. The Russian tank might be reliable, but it had bad precision. It required to shoot at short distance and getting into range. By doing so, the Russians lost a lot of their tanks. Also keep in mind, the Bombing Raids also damaged the German support with gasoline. So the German tanks lacked of fuel because of the Bombing Raids. That's why most of the German tanks were destroyed by the German itself and not by the Russian, when they run out of fuel. Also keep in mind, without the Allied Bombing raids, the German Luftwaffe would have had air superiority over Russia. All this together shows that if you take out the the Allied bombing raids of the equation, the Germans would have won against the Russians.

[@vladislavbogorov9922]

By the way, about the German air superiority. I don't remember the exact figure of all German aircraft produced during the war, but I'm sure it was below 30 thousand. Well, the Soviet produced 40 plus thousand units just of one model, the legendary IL - 2 which caused so much damage to the German land forces. So what superiority you are talking about? Do you mean 1941 when the bulk of the Soviet airplanes were left on the airfields without firing a shot in anger? This, again, had nothing to do with the Soviet industrial capability and everything to do with the unwillingness to fight of the Soviet soldiers. In summary, stop spreading the Soviet propaganda, which claimed that Germany was industrially better than USSR and get acquainted with what's new in that field. It's 2015 already, it's a bit late to repeat the Zhukov's and Khrushchev's bulshit which is from the 1950s

[@0MoTheG]

Stalin had been dead for over 30 years when this was filmed.

[@Zoomer30]

In 1989 the Soviet Union will fold. Wow, wish we knew this before we spent all this damn $$$

[@californiaslastgasp6847]

You mean 1991? And it folded because it tried to outspend us. Peacekeeper was one reason.

[@Zoomer30]

3:10 Krillin gets owned. Ouch.

[@ThePumaHiFi]

correcto. Atemorizar y educar al mundo. El país que no responde a sus intereses sufrirá un ataque. ,

[@pschroeter1]

This is what the end of the world looks like.

[@babykevinxoxo]

sucks. Should have kept mx bush

[@user-yd8ri8mn2e]

지린다 지려

[@user-tg8kg7qw8s]

오 한국분

[@Sb129]

Lolz, BMO

[@maganreggie6]

I was expecting peacekeeper being detonated....

[@tlamn1905]

F

[@mrwxyz101]

ironic... peacekeper=nuclear missle

[@Wallyworld30]

I know your comment is a decade old but Colt Peacekeeper revolver killed more people than any Peacekeeper missile did.

[@californiaslastgasp6847]

Nuclear deterrence keeps the peace. Read a book.