Why Putin Can NEVER Use a Nuclear Weapon

Explore the history behind Russia's nukes, and the likelihood of Vladimir Putin launching a nuke as a result of the War in Ukraine.
In this documentary we discuss nuclear warfare, the Soviet Union, the Cold War, the Tsar Bomba, and a whole lot more.
Support my channel on Patreon: / theicarusproject
Please subscribe: / @icarusproject
Check out my second channel here for daily videos: / @pauljwarburg

[@icarusproject]

What did you think of the slower narration style in this one? Be sure to check out my new second channel for additional daily videos! www.youtube.com/@PaulJWarburg

[@GrowingUpWithTheInternet]

If you did a lot of work and it ends up being too short then it's totally fine, specially the narration style you have is pleasant to hear to, even if you trail off a bit (:

[@altonwilliams17]

Putin is the boy who cried wolf or (like Betty White said about the Sheppards boy in St. OLEF on the Golden Girls), the Boy who cried continuously....😂

[@andan2293]

I really like your analyses. But this one is imho based too much on premises of rationality and "conventional" nuclear warfare. Sure, it's probably very unlikely Putin would ever try to nuke USA. But it's still a crazy dictator who can become even more crazy when he realizes he can't win the war. He already threatened with a small "tactical" nuke on Kiev. That wouldn't cause any nuclear retaliation. Btw, USA has active defenses against ballistic missiles, that was missing in the video.

[@djape1977]

Your whole video is just a stupid propaganda for weak minded

[@camdenmcandrews]

I quite enjoyed the style of narration. Easy to follow, information-rich, and quite accurate; and the videos mostly reinforced the presentation of the subject matter. That last big is vital because so many videos on KZbin present stock video that is only vaguely related to the narrative, distracting from the story instead of adding to it.

[@KarlKarpfen]

"particularly Poland, for some reason" The reason is, that Poland is the largest country in Europe to understand the severity of the current situation and therefore uparming themselves to fight and win a war against Russia without any doubt and if need be, without any allies.

[@davidboatman925]

Poland has saved Europe from countless invasions over history.

[@norsenomad]

Poland is the 9th largest European country by area, 8th largest by population, 7th by military power, and 10th largest by GDP (according to various publicly available sources) - but I get your point: to mess with Poland will be costly for the aggressor. Besides, there is NATO's Article 5...

[@SkinE-Vadee-Veechee]

Poland is now part of the pack. We in America are grateful to have such a win for the NATO alliance as Poland. I doubt you'd be doing anything as far as War without us and I'm certain you could handle Russia alone but no need to now.

[@minn5459]

​@@norsenomadPoland seems to be preparing for not counting on Article 5 and I can see why. Their partners don't seem reliable enough

[@djape1977]

@@KarlKarpfen totally delusional

[@SciHeartJourney]

I'm not a nuclear expert, but I do know about harsh environments. The core of a nuke creates a harsh environment for the internal mechanism that makes the bomb work. Insulators break down, corrosive materials cause damage that's difficult to inspect for. That's just the nuke. The rocket has the very same kind of problems, except that it has a LOT more moving parts and parts that have to survive extreme flight conditions. O-rings dry out and become brittle. Internal corrosion becomes harder to prevent because there's so much complexity.

[@freqeist]

yep Russian stuff has all got rusty

[@brianhammer5107]

Russia does maintenance on their mobile ICBM's, but set that aside - gravity bombs kept in proper storage are good for over 200 years, and Russia's new SSBN's have top of the line SBLM's in them - those alone will create a toxic atmosphere around the planet. If Russia ever launched a nuclear attack, the devastation will be absolutely catastrophic. Don't ever be complacent about the threat of nuclear weapons. There is no defense against a nuclear exchange.

[@amai2307]

​@@freqeistexcept Russia regularly produces new nukes, unlike USA.

[@johnhehir508]

They are not nuclear bombs they are nuclear triggered hydrogen bombs, Thermonuclear warheads are small but extremely powerful,

[@brianhammer5107]

@@johnhehir508 um, that is a nuclear weapon - all diff names for the same thing

[@huverdoose]

Why does everyone who uses 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' as an argument forget the end of the tale where a wolf actually shows up?

[@JmanHarbo]

Exactly this guy is liberal leftist propaganda inching us toward war for political advantage

[@Kansor_the_Great]

There was a movie decades ago about an AI that was mistakenly put in charge of nuclear weapons in a War Game. Before the start of WW3, its creator had it play Tic Tac Toe, repeatedly. When two equally skilled players play this game you get a DRAW! NUCLEAR WAR works the same way! Except EVERYONE LOSES!

[@gungnir3926]

the boy could also be secretly on the wolfs side all along.

[@thomasprice7893]

Because the purpose of the story is not "wolves exist and might eat humans", that's something we've known since we lived in the fucking trees. The wolf is the base foundation upon which the lesson is built, and the lesson is "if you lie all the time, you will not be believed when you really need it" It's like you're complaining that The Tortoise and the Hare proves hares are way faster than tortoises and thus the hare should have won. We fucking grasp that, children grasp that intuitively, the lesson is in understanding why that obvious conclusion was subverted. TL;DR you're a pseudointellect and probably from a stinky third world country where you can't drink the tap water.

[@TheRulleskoejten]

Lets see hes nukes ;-D

[@Randy.E.R]

I am old enough to have grown up amid the Cold War. I spent my childhood years practicing duck and cover drills in elementary school which was absolutely stupid. They used to say "If you see the flash, duck and cover." Truth is, if you see a flash, you are dead. The argument was that we lived in the Mojave Desert surrounded by Edwards AFB, China Lake NAWS, and Fort Irwin which made us a prime target for a nuclear attack. Most of my friends in town had fully stocked bomb shelters in their backyards which kind of set them above us. My Dad made little more than minimum wage and couldn't afford a bomb shelter in our backyard. I know this bothered him deeply because he felt like he was not protecting his family from the world's biggest threat. Since we lived in a small town, we had to visit the city (Bakersfield) to do some big shopping. I remember going into some of the larger stores there which often had the big yellow and black signs pointing out their fallout shelter. Mom often pointed that out to us and explained that was where we would go if the country should come under attack while we were out. But, what about the rest of the family back home, what were they supposed to do? I wondered. If that wasn't enough, we spent every Sunday sitting in church listening to Pastor Doug tell us, "Folks, we are living in the last days." Before going into detail about how all the prophecies in the book of Revelation have been fulfilled, all that's left is for the Soviet Union to blast us back to the Stone Age. By the time I got into High School, I think everyone was "nucleared out", tired of living in constant fear of a nuclear attack. If it happened, was it really worth trying to survive it? People stopped maintaining their bomb shelters. In fact, some of my friends turned them into a party pad where we would kick back inside and smoke....well...we smoked things other than tobacco while listening to Pink Floyd. The fallout shelter signs came down in most of the bigger stores. When I became a Dad in 1983, I told my wife that we would not tell our daughter about nuclear war. I didn't like having my childhood ruined by living in constant fear of nuclear war, why would I do that to my own child? The Soviet Union collapsed a few years later so I didn't have to tell her anything. What's my point, besides the fact that I am old and like to tell stories? I see a new generation of people worried about nuclear war. My advice is to STOP! Looking back, I realize that it was the media keeping everyone worried about nuclear war. We didn't have the internet and KZbin to keep us worried, we had Time Magazine and newspapers. They knew that if they could keep us living in fear, we would keep reading and watching the news to find out whether we should keep worrying or not. It worked. This kept advertisers happy just as the nuclear stories keep a new generation tuned into KZbin and other websites to find out how worried they should be. This is one of those times where ignorance is bliss. If you don't think about it, don't read about it, stop watching videos about it, your life will be much happier.

[@rumrunner8019]

I agree. I was a kid at the end of the Cold War, and I never understood why people would be afraid of the Soviets doing anything. They wanted to live just as much as we do, so they would never do that. Same with every other country on Earth. And then, right after high school, 9/11 happened. Then people in big cities in America became worried, and many still are. What if one of them gets a hold of a nuclear bomb? What if some corrupt general in Russia sells one to somebody with too much of his religion and too much oil money on his hands? Unlike the Soviets, the Jihadis actually do want to die and they don't care if their home countries are destroyed. Your generation at least grew up in an age of seasonable tyranny and reasonable despots in uniforms who could at least understand cold calculus. This generation now has to live in a world of religiously motivated madman who have abandoned reason in favor or 5th century conquest and zealotry. The Soviets wanted to live, the jihadis want to die. That's why they will most likely be the ones to do something terrible with nuclear weapons.

[@alexeycharondin3295]

@@rumrunner8019 They actually did sell some nukes to North Korea, but there is nothing to sell now, and none was sold to Iran proxies because of war in Afghanistan 1979-1989

[@dewindae3059]

Too long didn't read.

[@JugglesGrenades]

I am 69 years old, and grew up in Macon GA....which is 18 miles as the crow flies from Warner Robins AFB. So, we knew that if it happened, we were cooked.

[@Randy.E.R]

@@rumrunner8019 If Russia maintained its nuclear weapons the way they have maintained the rest of its military equipment, I would be too worried about what it might have sold to some radical Islamic nation. Assuming they did sell them something useful, it would be highly unlikely that anyone within that regime would be skilled enough to properly launch a nuke. If they tried, their most likely target would be Israel which has the means to shoot one down as soon as the missile left the launch pad. Again, it's never been something that I have never given much thought to.

[@eveliinaniilivuo7329]

Greetings from Finland! Not so great to be russia’s neighbour.

[@b1646717]

They fear you.

[@user-vr8zs3ei7n]

Winds blow east, and we the US and EU uses small and accurate nuclear weapons so you Finland will be fine.

[@djape1977]

@@user-vr8zs3ei7n is that before or after you decide on your pronouns 😜

[@Magnus-v9x]

You don't need to defend Finland alone🇫🇮🤝🇸🇪

[@Kodakcompactdisc]

Sorry for your troubles. I can’t imagine what it must be like to live near that terrorist state.

[@jamessmith84240]

I think you are correct here. The Russian Kursk submarine sank itself because of poorly maintained torpedoes being tested in a live fire exercise back in 2000.

[@David-gh6vp]

Apparently, half of Russia's submarine fleet is diesel powered. They have fewer nuclear powered subs than the US has. Still, these land-based missiles are concerning. Some of them may not have rusted through. . .

[@breakbollocks9164]

Incorrect info.

[@ChildofC-53]

@@breakbollocks9164because you say so Russian acolyte

[@AoliaUK]

People… you’re so… basic 🙄 please watch a documentary made by Brits btw (I think it was on nexflix a while ago) the British experts analyses why Kursk sank and what sort of deal it was for Russia. You just simply refuse to think, that’s what a regular watching BBC etc does to you all. 🙄 Educate yourself please, you’d like it.

[@dougcouch4032]

@@breakbollocks9164 You know what they tell you. We know what we see.

[@celebritynet-z3t]

It's sad that citizens helplessly watch as their mad leaders engage their countries in worthless, expensive and unending wars.

[@Fano2311]

Right. No sane citizen wants to be involved with war for profit.

[@UbuntuPersonNoMint]

Americans love unending wars

[@flo3467]

Countries? Try country, Russia is the only aggressor here, fucking the entire world!

[@johnbyrne8026]

I know it must suck being American or British

[@UbuntuPersonNoMint]

@johnbyrne8026 American and British citizens love war though

[@erikgranqvist3680]

1) logic and reason does not allways come into it when war is concidered. Just look at the war in Ukraine: a lot of people did not believe Putin would invade because it had not good enough logic behind it. 2) nuclear weapons are those weapons that are - in practice - unusable. Because no matter who drop a nuke, there is no scenario where the rest of the world could afford to let it just be.

[@alarmactionukalarmactionuk893]

I agree. Only the US has used nuclear weapons against another civilian population. Russia has not despite several opportunities to do so in the past.

[@chetpomeroy1399]

@@alarmactionukalarmactionuk893 This was during a conflict called World War II, and U.S. forces had to use those new weapons to defeat the enemy. It was those two atomic weapons used on those military industrial centers that finally ended that worldwide conflagration. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been bombed, the projected casualties from a US-led invasion of Japan would have been significantly higher, with estimates ranging from hundreds of thousands to potentially millions of combined American and Japanese casualties, with the majority being Japanese civilians due to the anticipated fierce resistance from the Japanese military; this is the primary reason cited for the decision to drop the atomic bombs.

[@alarmactionukalarmactionuk893]

@@chetpomeroy1399 I was merely stating fact. 1983 Able Archer orchestrated by nato forces very nearly sparked a nuclear conflict with the USSR. Within the past Russia has had to deal with much provocation from the west. Ukraine being the latest.

[@chetpomeroy1399]

@@alarmactionukalarmactionuk893 Actually, it was *Putin* who decided to violate Russia's 1991 treaty with Ukraine by sending his troops in, invading Ukraine and taking Crimea in 2014, causing needless civilian Ukrainian deaths in his second invasion in 2022. At a moment of heightened Cold War tensions following the Soviet downing of Korean commercial Air Lines Flight 007, Able Archer 83 raised the risk of an accidental nuclear war. Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, who had control of Soviet nuclear weapons, was on duty during the incident, dismissed the warning as a computer error when ground early warning radars did not detect any launches. He thought, since that system was new and known to have malfunctioned previously, and also believed a full-scale nuclear attack from the United States would involve thousands of simultaneous launches, not the single missile detected.

[@chetpomeroy1399]

@@alarmactionukalarmactionuk893 Actually, it was *Putin* who decided to violate Russia's 1991 treaty with Ukraine by sending his troops in, invading Ukraine and taking Crimea in 2014, causing needless civilian Ukrainian deaths in his second invasion in 2022. At a moment of heightened Cold War tensions following the Soviet downing of Korean commercial Air Lines Flight 007, Able Archer 83 raised the risk of an accidental nuclear war. Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, who had control of Soviet nuclear weapons, was on duty during the incident, dismissed the warning as a computer error when ground early warning radars did not detect any launches. He thought, since that system was new and known to have malfunctioned previously, and also believed a full-scale nuclear attack from the United States would involve thousands of simultaneous launches, not the single missile detected.

[@calebshonk5838]

The problem with nuclear weapons being their ace-in-the-hole-deterrent, is that they can only play the card once.

[@crocop2o12]

even if they live good inside their luxury bunkers for years, when they get out earth is dead , no animals, bees ?

[@NightmareRex6]

@@crocop2o12 you think the elite care? infacty they are EVIL they would LOVE that!

[@Rob-lu8me]

Maybe the lack of testing is something to do with them being signatories to the nuclear test ban treaty. The US, French and UK haven’t tested any ether as a result

[@Mikoshi700]

That's the answer for why they, and we, have not tested anything. But there are people with very transparent agendas that want to take the lack of testing, and claim that we are safe to go all in on saving Ukraine, because Russian nukes don't work or whatever.

[@LordToxygene]

It's mentioned in the video.

[@m_hub3957]

testing now is done by computer simulation and by taking the Fission Trigger for a multistage device and testing that, without the fissionable material there is still testing

[@TheKakan1337]

Russia withdrew from the CTBT signatory at UN last year. So they can escalate testing nuclear bombs again

[@Seveq]

@@m_hub3957 You're aware that tests weren't just meant to show the testing nation that their nukes work but everyone else too. That's something no computer simulation could ever achieve. A virtual mushroom cloud isn't nearly as scary as a real one. So it totally lacks the propaganda effects.

[@larryslone65]

The Cuban Missile Crisis aside, when various military personnel (Soviet sub commander; American destroyer captain; Russian anti-aircraft/missile commander in Cuba) came close to precipitating what would almost certainly have led to a shooting confrontation in conjunction with nukes on hair-trigger alert, the problem isn't about totally rational actors. It's about human commanders deciding and acting under necessity within minutes with inadequate information while under tremendous stress. It's about the potential for individual commanders to make or recommend a launch based upon erroneous data. Once a nuke has exploded somewhere, it almost certainly will be followed by many more. We absolutely should be greatly concerned about the possibility of nuclear war and it's likely consequences - death of most of humanity

[@amandagish5976]

Poland is living by the adage, hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Smart.

[@Murdock444]

Poland is my favorite country, wish I lived there. I'm Canadian.

[@etienne8110]

Poland is living on UE donations for now .. Once we stop funding them, we ll see how well they keep funding their army. 😅

[@Triple_J.1]

@@etienne8110 Poland has problems. They are among the most collectivist of the Union of incoherent welfare states, who insist on sharing a currency they are unable to print themselves to pay their inevitable deficit social spending.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

​​@@Triple_J.1 Poland doesn't use the Euro. It issues its own currency, the Polish Zloty (PLN). You're clueless.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

​@@etienne8110 It's called the EU, not the UE. 🤦 Poland's economy is booming, so their military spending is unlikely to reduce and by 2030 they might even become a net contributor to the EU.

[@MatthiasNyberg]

The US haven't done any nuclear tests either, not since 1992. Does that mean US nukes don't work? No. It means you don't have to test what you know will work.

[@lobobaltazar1322]

I have listened to him until he started mocking Putin and doing Usa propaganda. And I live in Nato country.

[@RichardFoley-f2x]

This is false. America just tested a nuclear weapon recently. Probably because Russia did.

[@Soemguywhoask]

@@lobobaltazar1322sure ya do. You wouldn’t say ‘NATO country’ and ‘USA’ propaganda, you’d specify what country you live in, and you’d say ‘American propaganda’. Also, most slander on putin is justified.

[@Soemguywhoask]

U.S. is actually bringing back nuke production and testing.

[@MatthiasNyberg]

@@Soemguywhoask My point is that you don't have to test existing weapons that you know will work. They have already been tested and can be mass produced. Of course there will always be reasons to test new types of weapons, but to claim that Russia can't have nuclear weapons, because they haven't done nuclear tests in decades, that's ludicrous. Also, you can test ICBMs without arming them with nuclear war heads. In fact, Rusdia just "tested" one on Kiev. If the Biden moron triggers a nuclear world war then we're all screwed. There will be no winners in such a war.

[@uncommon_niagara1581]

Who knew that Russian corruption could be the best deterrent against nuclear war?

[@djape1977]

Do you actually believe this BS?

[@logan5824]

Hali comrade what # stayion to rely?​@@djape1977

[@HeeBeeGeeBee392]

@@djape1977 How's the weather in Veliky Novgorod, tovarish? Aren't you glad Kim Jong Un has saved you from having to spend next winter cowering in a foxhole in the Donbas?

[@djape1977]

@@HeeBeeGeeBee392 doesn't your uncle daddy ever let you out of basement even to look at the weather? Sod off you sad little boi.

[@alarmactionukalarmactionuk893]

Actually officially speaking Ukraine is the most corrupt country on Earth.

[@nickpeyon]

you are missing the point on 2 things: 1- the West is also sending old equipment to Ucraine. 2- All it takes is ONE nuke to start a chain effect to pretty much end humanity as we know it.

[@Ilsimeone]

11:45 I agree that Russian nuclear warheads are probably inferior to anything the West has. But it's completely wrong to compare military budgets in this way. The cost of personnel and material is much lower in Russia than in the US or any Western country. $60 billion in Russia is not the same as $60 billion in the US. The Russians get a lot more for $60 billion than a Western country.

[@Ilsimeone]

Also, we don't know how much Russia actually spends on defense. The Kremlin's official figures cannot be trusted, as it is one of the most corrupt and opaque governments in the world.

[@rphb5870]

their missiles are superior to anything the west have actually. Russia is the only country that poses hypersonic missiles

[@Moonstone-Redux]

That's why there is such thing as a purchasing power parity, and even with such adjustments the numbers still don't add up for Russia.

[@rphb5870]

@@Moonstone-Redux thou mean America. Russia have demonstrated that they posses warheads that are superior to anything America possess. They can reach London in 20 minutes

[@rphb5870]

the numbers just don't add up for NATO, against Russia we are the small ones

[@BigMathis]

The boy that cried wolf is an inaccurate analogy to use. There can come a point where Russia will use nukes.

[@kings3411]

I think we are quickly approaching that point

[@sithvsjedi9696]

Absolutely unfortunately. At the end of the video the narrator tries to address and fails miserably in my opinion to scoff at a "few" nukes. The big problem is if Russia only had say 20 it would bring the USA to its knees. It wouldn't be a case of only being partially destroyed as he says. 20 hahaha we all know it would be at the very least atleast at the bare minimum 300-500 nukes they gave that will be effective and the. The whole planet is screwed.

[@tristanswain4328]

I’m a military guy…. Russia certainly can utilize nukes… why? Harsh environments and degradation of components doesn’t matter when you properly maintain them… Russia would never let the one thing that makes them untouchable go to shit…. Weapons that are shelved, are serviced periodically… some are serviced annually, some every 5 years, some monthly. The components are accessible so they may be inspected, serviced and replaced if necessary…. Some nukes are completely dismantled for inspection and services… they are not built to never be taken apart again…. Any military with any weapon, especially a strategic weapon, will maintain them…. Don’t be deceived into thinking that they don’t have capabilities that every other modern military has….. yes they have old shit… but I can also drop a 526 hemi into a ford focus… Fun fact… a mig 25 FoxBat is the fastest manned aircraft in operation today, and entered service in 1970. Don’t be fooled….. they have stuff, it might or might not be as effective, it might be old… but in no way means it doesn’t work or can’t be utilized.

[@Saufs0ldat]

Most people would have agreed with you prior to the 2022 Ukraine invasion. But now we know what peacetime maintenance in the Russian army looks like. It's a mix between doing nothing and actively stripping stuff for parts.

[@bikerboy3k]

"Russia would never let the one thing that makes them untouchable go to shit." You know nothing of Eastern European laziness and incompetence. Bulagaria sold its tanks for food, Romania arms soldiers with pistols that break in your hands, Poland has ww2 tanks in its ranks, Russian troops are being defeated by randoms... Look it up it's fucking depressing dude.

[@Deutritium93]

@@bikerboy3k I hear the same argument from both side’s. Which is why I no longer support either side today. War is war regardless of how you feel about it. The Ukrainians are taking heavy losses, no the Russians are taking worse losses blah blah blah. Reality is though, and it’s an undeniable fact, that is, Russia has a far greater population, more robust economy and military force. Without western aid and support, where the fuck would Ukraine be right now?

[@thesirmaddog8209]

The thing is you NEVER under estimate your oppenent

[@reinoldgaming9780]

but you ALWAYS over estimate your opponent because that is what your daddy putin wants people to do 😂

[@thesirmaddog8209]

@@reinoldgaming9780 I do NOT... And I know Most of our Generals do NOT... And Im on the OPPOSITE side of Putin

[@midnightghost6261]

@@thesirmaddog8209 but also never overestimate you opponent, or you will make them acted.

[@thesirmaddog8209]

@@midnightghost6261 LOL... NO they would just get a big head and make you look like crap

[@rebeccasouthall1249]

Never puff yourself up,. To be bigger or stronger than you are,.

[@tcarroll3954]

Never underestimate an enemy. It will get you killed.

[@larisakotenko6950]

Both under- and over-estimating an enemy are lethal. russia can cause harm but it's not all-powerful.

[@spocko2181]

@@larisakotenko6950”They aren’t omnipotent therefore they are weak.”

[@dezertfox3681]

@@larisakotenko6950 It's more powerful than us. That's the problem. The West has atrophied for many decades.

[@jeffschroeder4805]

And overestimating your enemy might have you cowering unnecessarily in your basement. Do you propose obeying a threatening bully because he might be able to beat you up?

[@dezertfox3681]

@@tcarroll3954 You are right. Russia must go for the USA immediately.

[@danielrutschman4618]

When experts say something can never happen, is when it's time to be very, very worried that it will happen.

[@honderdzeventien]

You're spot on. I've known these facts partially for a long time, but you've summed it up brilliantly. The additional perspective you hand us is also magnificent; if they'd throw just even one bomb, they'll be sublject to their own immediate demise... A bit knowledgeable person should understand that P's whole premise is based in bluff. Terrifying bluff maybe, but bluff non the less. I also think it's not unlikely he's got a private pile of at least a couple of functioning for the necessary feararmonherinh

[@ooo_Kim_Chi_ooo]

My best friends father was in the Parade Demonstration Unit of the Soviet Army and he said they used roll equipment through then repaint the numbers and roll them through again.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

Sure buddy, because paint instantly dries. If they were doing that it would have been exposed ages ago.

[@kurtlee3198]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 they have been exposed that's why people are talking about it, you think this is the first time this has ever been mentioned, they have been caught out before and he probably meant stickers were put on as that's what the claim was when i read about it

[@jonathanbelanger6574]

​@@matthiuskoenig3378thin paint layers actually dry quite quickly enough for a second coat , using stencils you can repaint numbers on top of still tacky base paint within minutes

[@CarbonatedGravy]

They did it with planes in syria too lmao kept repainting new numbers to look like they had more, embarrassing tactic but it worked tbf western analysts thought they actually had that many

[@R6-D2]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 🤡

[@GlenDevan1970]

I wouldn't necessarily rely on the statement in the title.

[@WayOfTheZombie]

All in favor of bringing back Doomsday Preppers 👍

[@barbaraarndt5293]

@@WayOfTheZombie 😅🤣😅

[@dandavis8300]

Yeah, this is a propaganda channel.

[@JayMaverick]

Comments like this are the propaganda. Sowing doubt with no facts to support.

[@SamMurray-h9w]

better get in your bunker then

[@dimakolesik]

Well the ICBM Oreshnik seems to work. We sure don’t need to test the rest.

[@steffenscheibler5849]

The US hasn't detonated a nuclear weapon since 1992.

[@eran0004]

And they are also not threatening anyone with nuclear war.

[@fabulous_y5654]

@@eran0004This isn't the issue here. In the video it was said that Russia's nuclear capabilities could be a hoax since they haven't tested nukes since the Soviet era. Following this logic, US nuclear capabilities would be a hoax, too, since they haven't tested nukes since 1992 or so.

[@TacticalSnapBack]

​​@@eran0004Trump has threatened nuclear action many times. Biden has even threatened to use Nuclear weapons against US citizens in a situation of civil war.

[@ElectricSmurf]

@@fabulous_y5654except we know that the USA has a defence budget that includes maintaining its nukes. USA is continually developing new aircraft, ships and munitions, then manufacture them. America’s kit works, grunts have real ballistic helmets, not fake ones, Abrams have real ERA not bricks. Russia boasted about its ‘world beating’ new aircraft, tanks and nuclear torpedo. NONE have reached serial production, despite Russia having a war economy. Things are so bad Russia begs for missiles, drones and ammunition from Iran and North Korea…now it has NK troops fighting for it. The facts are there, Russia can’t afford to its conventional military, and nukes are even more complex and expensive to maintain.

[@i_elemental2189]

@@fabulous_y5654 They atleast have the budget to maintain them. I don't believe the US government would have to tell smartasses like you where they test or dont test their warheads. US is superior either way

[@MichaelBoltonsEntireCatalog]

"Depends on where it is. Over whose real estate." - Dr. Huxley (John Lithgow)

[@chaiwallah69]

Makes me wonder how much corruption was in play when the latest Sarmat test blew up

[@cynthiaherbst3909]

Indeed. It looks like the blast door hadn't even had a chance to open from the satellite photo of the crater.

[@zibbitybibbitybop]

Correct question is, what part of Russia HASN'T been rotted out by corruption? I don't think there is one.

[@djape1977]

Not nearly as much as last two in a rowfailed test of mutican submarine launched ICBMs

[@cynthiaherbst3909]

@@djape1977 plus their submarines on global tours that are showing literal real time deterioration

[@tankiller9638]

All the corruption, jokes aside I always look at it pretty simply, your nuclear arsenal is only in as good of shape as your Military, uh...yeah, yeah my guess is it's pretty bad. Otherwise I'm pretty sure Putin unironcially would have used one by now given the amount of "red" lines crossed. My guess is they can't be certain it will go off and to launch one and have it fail...well let's just say NATO won't see it that way, which would be a really stupid blunder even more so than invading Ukraine and expecting no resistance. The US alone has promised a response to any nukes launched on Ukraine and obviously any NATO country would be a given Article 5 without hesitation, either way Russia would be done in Ukraine

[@qstudiomusicandproductions2695]

Very illuminating- great job!

[@MrKockabilly]

As I read in the news, the threat was the use of TACTICAL nuclear weapons in Ukraine, not an intercontinental all-out use of strategic nuclear weapons.

[@tyr844]

Yeah but China has probably already put this limit to Russia. If I'm right, the non-proliferation treaty says a nuclar power shall not use nuke against a non-nuclear country, to not encourage them to get nuclear weapons. If Russia doesn't respect that engagement, USA may provide nuclear weapon to Taiwan as the treaty is not respected, and I guess China really doesn't want that

[@tuitoekwilliam]

Tactical nukes once used will immediately result in every single country that can afford needing them too. Pretty much makes their strategic nukes redundant, will they maintain nukes against ALL countries in the Western alliance and their proxies? If Russia in return arms all it's proxies (never mind the cost) what control will they have left?

[@leonidfro8302]

@@tuitoekwilliam But the thing is, many countries want them since yesterday, not many can afford. How tactical 10Ktn weapon makes megaton things redundant, please explain it slowly.

[@TheGnue]

​@tyr844 chinahave more to say to russia. Then it's showed... its not putin who runs russia it's ji xping

[@tuitoekwilliam]

@leonidfro8302 whole purpose of megaton nuke is strategic deterrence. You actually use it there isn't much deterrence is there? Also everyone building one (for their own blackmail protection) and having a precedence of using one pretty much logically cascades to reducing the Earth to ash. There is no winning end game with using a megaton nuke. All roads eventually lead to untimely demise of humans.

[@OffendingTheOffendable]

Using nukes would ruin Putin's ability to make money

[@Kohagaan]

Not to mention that he will have to abandon his favorite yacht in favor of his favorite bunker. For the rest of his days.

[@dagmastr12]

More importantly his friends wouldn't make money...

[@CarlBland-l8l]

He's 71 a a billionaire sure he's nt bothered about cash nw 😂

[@Kohagaan]

@@CarlBland-l8l you underestimate his greed. And the instinct to breath.

[@CarlBland-l8l]

@Kohagaan not long left to breath nw thankfully

[@JG-xk7ve]

a russian specialist says by 2015 they hadn´t anything anymore

[@LemonsInTheShade]

Can you reference this, please?

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@LemonsInTheShade 'my source is I made it the fuck up' the media is desperate to undermine russia. If such a statement had been made it would be impossible too get away from it.

[@JG-xk7ve]

@@LemonsInTheShade you know russian?

[@LemonsInTheShade]

@@JG-xk7ve unfortunately not, but even if the only reference you can give is in Russian I think that would be good. Something like that just seems so important that it ideally should be referenced.

[@adebowalegbenga4316]

He is being sarcastic, people 😂

[@Sjrick]

The bomb would destroy all life ? "Challenge accepted" ~ NYC roaches and rats

[@amackzie]

I guess the conclusion of this video is Russia can’t use nukes cause they don’t have nukes lol. Lots of assumptions in the video based on corruption in the Russia military so the conclusion is false. Different branches in the military can have different oversight especially considering that russias nuclear weapons are of strategic importance they might have diff oversight rules and standards for the rsvn which manages Russia nukes. Russias nuclear forces receive priority funding compared to conventional forces. The usa and Russia also do regular inspections to see each others capabilities as part of the start treaty. This requires Russia to have an active arsenal and validates USA figures on the number of nukes Russia has I live in a corrupt country and I know corruption does not affect certain part of government or the military the same way. Russian nuclear forces might be considered more elite earners higher salaries and have better oversight and diff culture from infanstry units being shot and killed by their own commanders on the battlefield. This is fairly common in corrupt countries where they still understand the need to protect certain key sectors from rampant corruption The rvsn are a separate branch of the Russian military under direct oversight of the general staff and the MoD. So you can’t assume you know how these special units operate and work without having insider information. Every conclusion is drawn from other units failures. But just cause some infantry guy doesn’t have a vest or a gun doesn’t mean it’s the same for special forces or su57 pilots And money in Russia and the USA doesn’t go equally as long. The us spends abt 6% of its budget maintaining nukes. We know Russia spends 10bn (easy fact to get on the inernet). Considering factors like cost per missile and comparing this with the USA which spends 1.5m per missile and delivery systems icbms bombers slbms , using similar prices as the us russia can operate 1500-2000 active nuclear warheads, likely higher because things cost less. The start treaty limits each side to 1550 which is around why Russia can handle. Idk if this is wishful journalism or propaganda but the conclusion it wrong and deceitful

[@Swedroxx]

It's not that Russia doesn't have nuclear weapons, it's that they can't maintain MAD. It's about the possibility that they simply don't have enough nuclear weapons.

[@amackzie]

@ go read about the start treaty my guy. We know how many weapons Russia has

[@amackzie]

@ kzbin.info/www/bejne/fZfNoHauo6h0ga8si=zsrjvhsljU3T1Xew

[@amackzie]

@@Swedroxx there’s no reason Russia can’t maintain 1500 active nukes with a budget of 10bn a year. They don’t have to pay 10000$ for a bolt like you guys

[@Swedroxx]

@@amackzie In Russia, a good portion of the money goes to the supervisors as bribes

[@peterpalmer9757]

So what about that ICBM they just used they can’t add any bombs to that? I wouldn’t ever use the word NEVER

[@mrrolandlawrence]

yeh it was obvious they were looking to see how it held up with targeting in a gps/ glonass denied environment.

[@r4dio4ctiv3man9]

Can do and actually doing are to separate things. Russia will never use nukes except NATO troops are advancing towards moscow. If russia just uses nukles to defeat Ukraine, they will piss off China and lose its support completely. The reason for that is pretty simple. If other nations gain the impression, that China goes along with using nukes to conquer territory, China will have pretty fast a lot of small neighbours who start to develope nukes as well. Especially Taiwan. And China wants to avoid that at any cost. You can be sure, that Xi made that very clear to Putin.

[@MukiBlalock]

When people think of nukes they think of ICBMs ONLY. When in reality there are: nukes dropped by bomber planes, nukes launched from submarines, nukes launched as regular warhead missiles, AND ICBMs. So go figure.😂

[@charlesharper2357]

Russia has shot off most of their missiles and their planes can't even handle the Ukrainians...never mind NATO.

[@gpweaver]

The problem is that the warheads themselves are the most maintenance-intensive--and expensive to keep operational.

[@rumrunner8019]

Why did I read this in the voice of Bubba from "Forest Gump" when he was talking about all the things you can do with shrimp?

[@charlesharper2357]

@@rumrunner8019 "I know everythin' there is to know about the nuclear bombin' business". 😃

[@dingickso4098]

You forgot about IRBM

[@dollarcoins]

I remember reading that one of the people working on the Tsar Bomba had a nightmare where the Tsar Bomba detonated and polluted europe completely with radiation, after that dream they halved the bomb.

[@Deutritium93]

They halved it due to the drop plane carrying the bomb not having a sufficient amount of time to escape a 100 megaton blast. It would have most certainly resulted in the deaths of those pilots as well as the pilots that flew the aerial photography planes during that test. Also, although the Tsar Bomba was technically the “cleanest” nuclear weapon tested, given its yield-to-weight ratio, a 100 megaton test would have needlessly increased global levels of radiation significantly, as this was at a time when both Russia and the U.S. were both engaged in very complex atmospheric nuclear testing operations in the early 1960s.

[@Vic-ok2pp]

I have visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki numerous times. A visit to the Hiroshima museum will reveal the actual horrors of nuclear warfare. I have relatives living in Hiroshima today who were not alive when the bomb hit but are acutely aware of the history.

[@GregMorse-y1z]

Nuclear war is a horrible thing. It's disturbing and scary watching videos like this where they try to downplay how close we are to actual nuclear war smh.

[@bernieshort6311]

I agree with you. I am English from the UK. I lived in Kure, part of the Hiroshima prefecture and visited Hiroshima most weekends. The Museum has a scale model of the city showing the devastation caused, the Hiroshima Peace Memorial stood out, the outer walls of the building standing alone and tall and near the centre a taller structure with a half sphere shaped skeletal dome structure. It had an enormous effect on me. On an anniversary of the bomb being dropped I visited Hiroshima and thousands of people sailed little boats with a lit candle on them down the river. I also saw white images which were made of white paper, (I think) hung from trees at a school which had lost so many children. Being there on an anniversary really brought home to me the severe destruction to human life and most things built by man. It will live with me for ever.

[@larryfoster8820]

I've been as well. It's an Errie feeling.

[@tonyennis1787]

You surely understand that the nuclear weapons used on Japanese cities saved millions of Japanese lives. Perspective.

[@FC-qe1wl]

@@tonyennis1787 Total BS and propaganda Japan was on its way out due to lack of oil and other supplies, then Russia decided to enter the war. The japaneese knew full well a war on two fronts cannot be won. They were working on surrender, but to the russians, Truman demanded amy surrender to be to the USA. He ordered the atom bombs dropped in hopes the surrender was to Us, and it payed off Those bombs did not need to be used...and thus it was the USA that set the standard....

[@bavid4430]

Im scared for the "aged like milk comments"

[@jamiemcaloon5548]

you talking about the icbm hitting Ukraine? lol

[@bankaihampter2802]

​@@jamiemcaloon5548I think he's talking about aged like milk comments in the upcoming years when nuclear warfare starts out. Don't be scared tho, big chance You won't be there to read them by then 😂

[@jamiemcaloon5548]

@bankaihampter2802 I live next to BAE System shipyard where they are building the next generation frigates.. least my death will be quick 😂

[@User-je7gf]

there wont be internet or youtube left to comment that tho

[@LilyMoonWitch]

@@jamiemcaloon5548 "ICBM" lol.

[@SNOwyte]

13:35 'fool me once, shame on...shame on u...uhh fool me cant get fooled again' -W.

[@yowzephyr]

I would love to see W., Trump, and Obama compete against each other in a game of Jeopardy. The humiliation Dubya and Trump would suffer would be annihilating. Dubya and Trump are smart enough tho to never ever subject themselves to such a spectacle.

[@ColinBarrett001]

@@yowzephyr Trump: 'Hold my beer...' 😅

[@rickpontificates3406]

Nuclear war came VERY CLOSE to happening on multiple occasions. It's only by a MIRACLE that we didn't vaporize each other!

[@kdw75]

I watched a documentary years ago where a nuclear weapon expert said that they could scale up nuclear weapons to pretty much any size. It just wasn't practical.

[@MotoStylus-z8r]

Yes, the 50-100MT class "Tsar-bomba" devices (the AN602 class bomb with 1 tested out of like 4 or 5 ever built) weighted anywhere between 26 and 30 tons, making them completely impractical as a weapon. While Teller-Ulam design allows for even higher yields, there is little use for the said yields. The total-damage-on-the-ground radius increases as the cube root of the yield up until around 50-100MT range and even slower afterwards (with lots of energy starting to go straight to space), meaning larger bombs offer only marginal gains in damage range. E.g., a 100MT "Tsar bomba" blown at full power would only be around 10 times more useful vs a tiny 0.1MT/100kT bomb (e.g., a W76 warhead for the Trident II D5, which you can place up to 12 on that missile).

[@jasonrist6582]

The US has a design for a 10Giga ton device

[@MotoStylus-z8r]

@@jasonrist6582 We did, but were we to produce it, we'd probably find out it would only be about 10-20 times more useful than the W56 warhead while requiring thousands of times more expensive materials such certain-isotope-ratio plutonium, uranium/oralloy and lithium deuteride. Luckily, the Soviets tested the mega-bomb so we didn't have to. Even the W59 (from the Minuteman-1) and its Soviet peers (1MT class) are not that useful, if you think about it. The "high quality destruction" area for those devices is around 80 square miles, were a missile with that warhead hit something. An 8x125kt MIRV missile with the same amount of expensive materials does the same damage to anywhere between 160 and 200 square miles (which is why you have 100-400kT MIRV "buses" on most "serious" missiles these days") and then these miles do not have to be contiguous. We'd be much better off building multiple Trident-II and Minuteman-III devices and arming them with 100-400kt MIRVs.

[@22ergie]

Sad thing is, it only takes ONE; let's pray that that day never comes.

[@silikon2]

Exactly, *nobody* can ever use one.

[@Space_Rebel]

MAD

[@calmlittlebuddy3721]

Ahhhhh. Got about halfway through this before hearing the “don’t go leaving angry comments. You know who you are…” gave yourself away with that one.

[@Believer21777]

HAHAHAHA well his ICBMs do not work DO they ahahahahaha OH wait

[@TheOneZenith]

Yeah, given the current escalation; this aged poorly.

[@Naugrim1]

True

[@empress_alex]

​@TheOneZenith Not reakly, Putin doesn't have the balls to use nukes. All this panic and fear-mongering is just silly.

[@Naugrim1]

@@empress_alex Why? If russia would use tactical nuclear bombs to destroy the industry or militry camp grounds in UA. What would NATO do? They would never ever strike Russia with nuclear missles. They would not strike russian missle sites with conventional warheads, because then they may launch their strategic arsenal and we are all doomed.

[@AgiHammerthief]

the missile part works all right, the kaboom bit is likely to go „pfoot“ if they send a nuke.

[@frednone]

Don't forget, militarily, you get hurt the worst when you know your opponent can never do something.

[@SloopyDog]

We can never trust what a mad dictator will do.

[@uv-z977]

A very naive video full of pure speculation, the US has the largest spending on armaments but that doesn't mean it uses those funds effectively at all. Russia is medernizing its nuclear arsenal continuously and rest assured that if anything works 100% it is their nuclear weapons.

[@VegardHagen]

In other words, NOTHING works 100%. I can actually believe that.

[@Dank_Engine]

Your characterization of Putin and Russia reminds me a bit of the Dark Tower. We were taught to fear the Crimson King, but when we meet him, he’s deranged and frail and not really a threat to anyone

[@pqlr8763]

Because you don't read books, and you fall for Russophobic propaganda

[@bb5979]

Thats exactly what our propaganda wants you to believe so we support the insane war effort. If they seriously couldnt use nukes the country would not exist.

[@MrPDTaylor]

Putin is deranged but not frail.

[@pqlr8763]

@@MrPDTaylor The people who run the US are deranged, and sacrificed Ukraine. Putin has nothing to do with anything.

[@2x2is22]

There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent. - Sun Tzu The entire Western world seems to be forgetting this ancient lesson on warfare. Do not think for even one second the Russians are incapable because of their stumbles in Ukraine. They've only committed a quarter of their total force. There is plenty more where they come from. They can grind this out for decades if they see a need for it

[@bertb3731]

excellent research and analysis! thank you!

[@emf321]

This video will age VERY badly!

[@ToadRoach]

Only time will tell, but if we were to bet on it, I would definitely put a short on this comment :)

[@Meroknight]

If it does, we might not be here to post our comments.

[@gregaberor]

This is definitely an opinion.

[@breakbollocks9164]

Dnipro, 6 weapons in 6 MIRV, iow your ideas lack credibility.

[@Batko10]

The last time the U.S. tested a nuclear weapon was in 1992 over 3 decades ago! So, most of our presidents didn't actually explode a bomb either.

[@DenWoo-c2u]

To assume they would never use nukes, is incredibly irresponsible. Only a fool would tempt fate like this.

[@dannygjk]

Some people are poorly paid.

[@JH-zo5gk]

But when you back an animal into a corner they lash out.

[@robyhempel3928]

and only a fool will believe all the bs coming from Rusia, North K, Iran and other regimes of conmen

[@ragedmayhem1]

Russia would cease to exist. Putin would die and he wants to live

[@mshepard2264]

Sure since they have nukes do they just get to do whatever want? many countries have nukes.

[@tomelew8465]

A ridiculous video. And since the latest developments, I would even say irresponsible.

[@marabunya]

This is jubbish propaganda channel. I'm giving a thumbs down 👎🏾 for sure.

[@Hyper584k]

No country in the world can use nukes nowadays, until they use one. The point is MAD.

[@tommorgan1291]

89 years old and reminiscening of my work as Product Engineer for nuclear components. They will work!

[@johntrottier1162]

When you built them and for 10 years afterward, I'm sure you are correct. But no manufacturing process in prefect. The US nuclear weapons program had it's share of screwups. For example - There were a couple of notable test failures due the pit having to high a percentage of PU240. When you make plutonium in a reactor, create BOTH PU239 and PU240. The percentage of the PU240 contamination is controlled by how long you "cook" your fuel rods in the reactor. The existence of PU240 was discovered at Los Alamos when the first plutonium samples were delivered from the X10 pilot plant in Oak Ridge. Since PU240 spontaneously fissions, it produces extra neutrons. These neutrons can cause the bomb to go critical too soon, causing a fizzle. This is why you have to use the implosion method to "assemble" the plutonium weapon. Another problem was discovered in the late 60's. The USA uses what is called PALS standing for Permissive Action LinkS to prevent unauthorized detonation of a nuclear warhead. In the late 60's, when many warheads were undergoing their first major maintenance cycle, it was found the the PALS systems were faulty and many of our warheads would not even work. It seems that in the effort to build a system that could not be bypassed and would never fail, the systems became so complicated and touchy that they would have failed to arm the bomb if needed. I'm pretty sure that as crippled by corruption and greed as the Russian state is, their reliability problems will be even worse. I would not be surprised if many of the critical (and costly) components (in addition to the PU239) that go into making a bomb a bomb are actually substituted parts that will not get the job done if that warhead is ever used.

[@mipmipmipmipmip-v5x]

Ah the US is doing massive continuous simulations on their stockpile readiness for nothing, they can just ask you!

[@TheEinharjar]

Will they? Tritium and Fissile material needs to be regularly replaced, Russia is extremely corrupt and has a lot of procurement issues because of that. This has been seen with a lot of their normal weapons, now imagine officers dealing with weapons they never expect to use

[@tommorgan1291]

@@TheEinharjar I assumed readers would know I am writing about USA. Sorry

[@ProfessorMAG]

I grew up my entire life knowing that we were going to die in a nuclear inferno. It was certain, just a waiting game of when. The drills at school eventually ended when they figured it wouldn't matter, we were all going to burn. When the Soviet Union fell we all sighed in relief that maybe we had beaten the odds and WWIII wasn't going to happen. Today I am not certain, we may still burn.

[@shitlordleaf2028]

Comparing cost between Russia and US is foolish. Russian cost and maintenance is way way lower than US one. 2 to 20 times more depending on the assets. And like there is no ''corruption'' and pockets getting filled up in the US...

[@garygeer7646]

This video is insane!

[@joelahnstein2281]

you ignore tactical nukes - artillery, mrbm, aircraft delivered. Those would be effective against Ukraine. One must also consider that states with outclassed conventional forces will threaten nukes to regain a balance. The US did so during the 50’s with our ‘massive retaliation’ doctrine.

[@mdrokunujjaman9944]

Underestimating your enemy is the least thing you can do.

[@KG72740]

Well, do you know how intact russias nukes are?

[@mdrokunujjaman9944]

@@KG72740 The have confirmed nukes and every which of them will work has no gurantee and thinking none of them will work is laughable.

[@smartarsetube]

Dunce

[@Yaniskov]

It seems you look many American movies.

[@LilyMoonWitch]

I'd say that automatically believing whatever lie your enemy throws at you is the "least thing" you can do.

[@thehusketeers4319]

The country that has hypersonic mussiles has completely forgotten how to make nukes.

[@notablediscomfort]

Tsar bomb is _not_ too big to actually use in war. You could easily fit it on a ship. You could fit a much larger one on a ship and still have plenty of room for lead shielding to keep it hidden.

[@thomaskositzki9424]

Hey, genius, tell me then why none of the nuclear superpowers ever build a nuclear weapon for actual military use above 14 mt? Has it ever occured to you that a ship with a nuclear weapon on board would be super easy to detect and intercept?

[@andrewpatton5114]

Because it’s a lot easier to harden military targets than to build even bigger bombs. Also, the sheer amount of collateral damage is intolerable: Tsar Bomba had to be weakened in order to avoid vaporizing the plane that dropped it. It’s much easier to improve guidance systems so that you can ensure a direct hit than to build a weapon too big to miss.

[@cr0wN_]

So you are saying they should spend 10's of millions for a ship to carry it and detonate it while exploding the entire ship and it's whole crew meanwhile everyone can see with their radars days before the ship would reach its target?

[@Jarheads4Yeshua]

Not too big to put on a submarine, or mini submarine such as, Status-6

[@thomaskositzki9424]

@@Jarheads4Yeshua Yes, you are right on that one. Despite what I said, Status-6 is my worst nightmare in this scenario.

[@LaurieValdez-zk3dy]

I'm grateful for everything. I don't worry about it.

[@richiekock8835]

You got your answer yesterday! This video is now obsolete. Those warheads falling out of the sky through the clouds was terrifying.

[@wr2899]

No warheads fell out of the sky ffs, they were not armed, there were no nuclear weapons involved. The whole point was to scare people like you who do not know any better.

[@christianrowe992]

Those weren't nukes that's totally different

[@mhobin12]

Those were conventional warheads

[@dixienormus6941]

Maybe USA should fuck off abs stop war mongering so Russia don’t have to use them USA are despicable

[@maksimminin8971]

@@christianrowe992 It is just warning that Russia has short/middle range ICBMs after US/NATO used ATACMS (Ukraine doesn't have ability to setup flights plans for that). Also Putin will not push red button. He can hit Europe with that ICMB and wait if US respond what automatically means end of the world.

[@Kazihirom]

To be fair though a lot of America’s money is, we’ll call it wasted instead of, stolen. It was recently brought up in Congress about the Air Force paying $90,000 for a bag of bushings that should only cost maybe a few hundred dollars at the most

[@StoyanNedkov-b5g]

Well id say this is again stealing , making private contracts for purchasing overpriced goods so that someone would gain a huge profit is technically the corruption within the capitalistic governments. I can assure you there are many more and far worst contracts like this that are too profitable to become public.

[@bipolarminddroppings]

There's a reason they cost that much money. They aren't the same as the cheap ones, they're designed to be more robust. There's a scene in the West Wing that explains this perfectly using an Ashtray from a Nuclear Submarine. Go look it up.

[@Kazihirom]

@ I disagree. I think it’s because America is an oligarchy and the defense contractors don’t have competition from the private sector in the way that they should.

[@avroarchitect1793]

@@Kazihirom No. Its due to regulation of the areospace industry. There is a mountain of documentation that follows those parts to prove they are properly made and non-destructively tested, by reputable licesnsed manufacturers, from material that is of aerospace specifications. The bushings themselves are cheap, the paperwork that proves they are legal and airworthy is expensive. These same rules apply to military and civilian aircraft and their maintenance.

[@gpweaver]

@@Kazihirom ....the defense contractors *ARE* the private sector, dude. But your overall sentiment is correct.

[@thegohlmethod5218]

I also grew up towards the end of the cold war and its nuclear threat. After the Ukraine war started i took a step back and had an epiphany that is very similar to the points made in this video. Basically, people with power and resources only want more of the same. Theres no reason why they would spend their power and resources creating things that will destroy all they have gained. That being said, i seriously doubt the US has the amount of nukes it claims because why would that be the case if its so obvious Russia has no real potency? Great video! There needs to be a lot more like it and the mainstream media should be ashamed for continuing to assist the governments in trying to control us through modern-day fire and brimstone tactics.

[@mshepard2264]

The US number is probably very close to the actual number.

[@GH0_YT]

😂 dont underestimate us, the US has around 5,055 nukes and that is not a lie, stop talking shit about the US bc you're mad we are better than Russia.

[@travisvadnais1853]

There's some things you really shouldn't find out. I don't think we should be messing around with Russia

[@thomasward4505]

I hope you're right on all this information but I doubt it

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

If you don't have any reason or evidence to doubt the content of this video then what do you base your doubt on? Your good looks? 🙄

[@PyramidHeadTv]

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Russia just hit Ukraine with a hypersonic intermediate range ballistic missle IRBM traveling at 25 times the speed of sound clearly showing their missles are fully functioning and ready to strike. It had no nuclear heads on it so it was still another more serious warning with it's purpose to show their ICBMs are fully functioning and ready. Doesn't sound like a good idea to assume Putin is just bluffing and their nukes don't work anymore, that's a MASSIVE gamble.

[@TheoHyatt]

America military budget will be more obviously.. they ave military bases everywhere 😂.. The United States has around 750 military bases in at least 80 countries . and they pay crazy money to the corrupt military industry complex regardless ..

[@randommofo123]

at what point in the war did you ever have the impression that Putin's military equipment or army had ever been upkept?

[@luisbarrosopereira8033]

What about their space programme? It looks like it works still pretty well, even now. Rocketry and space technology go hand in hand.

[@isthatso1961]

Thank you for this comment. Even NASA which has 10x more budget than Russia's RosCosmos (their space agency) still has to pay RosCosmos to take American astronauts to the ISS. lol

[@eaglevision993]

Without a working war head your rocket is useless no matter how well it works

[@ReddwarfIV]

​@@isthatso1961"has to" hasn't been accurate since SpaceX's Crew Dragon entered service.

[@sanityshorror]

Thank you for pointing out the obvious that destroys this entire video. I'll be saving the video to comment "aged like milk" in a few more months

[@Schwarzvogel1]

The doubt isn't about the missiles, but the warheads they carry. That said, you do raise a point about how if Russia is riddled with graft and corruption, this graft and corruption doesn't seem to have completely rotted out their space programme, which is obviously a source of national prestige, pride, and power for the nation. Wouldn't the same also apply to their nuclear arsenal, which is ALSO a major source of prestige, pride, and power for Russia? That said, the Russian military is riddled through with corruption, and their conventional fighting forces have been demonstrated to be in a woeful level of readiness in the Ukraine war. That said, I do agree with the premise of this video that if Russia were serious about using a nuclear weapon, they'd conduct a test first since those warheads have not been tested in decades, and it's not like their Strategic Rocket Forces and nuclear weapons programme in general have a ton of money to work with, at least not when compared to their American counterparts.

[@gregbarnes1580]

I love how he says “Russian propaganda” as infinitem. USA propaganda is probably far worse

[@williamheyman5439]

The US has plenty of critics. The Russians do not allow critics.

[@kraxkill4747]

Russia still launches US astronauts to space and brings them back when they get stuck there. I think they can figure out an ICBM😂

[@andrewbaillie7417]

I like the slower and more professional style of this video.

[@SuzyMoore-ob3pp]

Lol nothing professional here just propaganda

[@LeoLau-ip9bv]

@@SuzyMoore-ob3pplol nothing here just an internet idiot dumbass who has no cognitive function and is dumber then a bag of bricks and is the reason wy the internet sucks

[@mvflp2218]

@@SuzyMoore-ob3ppcorrect. All his latest videos are blatant western propaganda. Hes taking advantage of peoples nationalism in war time to make money.

[@nikolaideianov5092]

​@@SuzyMoore-ob3ppsays the 6 month old account

[@bb5979]

Top quality propaganda

[@tonygutierez7439]

You're fucking kidding me, right?

[@mpmpm]

Speak more clearly what you mean.

[@ILoveFunAndTheWorld]

Yeah idk the idea that russia isnt capable of launching one single warhead into enemy territory when they have several thousand nuclear bombs is kinda ridiculous

[@CaseAgainstFaith1]

@@ILoveFunAndTheWorldHe actually specifically said that is NOT his argument. And specifically said not to run to the comments section saying that’s his argument when it’s not. What he said is, MAD no longer is relevant. Putin probably technically could launch some nukes, but not enough to prevent a complete catastrophic response. But, the author did not go into the idea of “limited nuclear war”, which supposedly Russia thinks could exist and could be winnable. Where if they used a few nukes, the rest of the world would capitulate rather than retaliate for fear of MAD.

[@daxcafdvaad-o7z]

I tend to visit anti-Russian channels from time to time just so I can laugh at the delusional comment section. Never fails to amuse me.

[@TheKakan1337]

Well did you shoot down all the comments too?

[@jacobreichert836]

i tend to read pro russia comments from time to time. it amuses me seeing people gag on puttins small wiener so fanatically

[@Fano2311]

Do you want the world to end?

[@JasonSpielberg]

Putin: "I will use nook!" World: "But your nooks are shit"

[@JMJfat]

Can you calculate the maintenance cost of warheads using "dollar per kilotons" using data from US, UK, France to check the numbers from Russia?

[@SuperBartles]

A lot of speculation here. Their rockets work ok.

[@chrismonahan9349]

American conservative?

[@SuperBartles]

@@chrismonahan9349 British - what we used to call "small-c conservative" I just want my kids to live and thrive - and I wouldn't mind a bit more time myself. We're closer, don't have such good defences, and Obama thoughtfully gave Putin the codes to our nukes (for some reason) I don't know what "right/left wing" means any more - other than being part of one tribe or the other - which doesn't interest me.

[@MrPereivap]

"Russia is still using old technology"... yeah yeah... A hypersonic missile hits a foreign country - "Where this technology came from?"

[@MotoStylus-z8r]

They've had similar or maybe even MRBMs in the late 70s and 80s until the INF treaty was signed & ratified back in 1987. Every multi-stage ballistic missile's return vehicle (RV) ever made has been travelling at hypersonic speeds near the terminal phase of their flight since forever. Single-RV or MIRV (multiple independently-targetable return vehicle) all the same. All the Russians have shown is that they have medium range (capable of hitting targets 1000-2000km away) ballistic missiles with MIRV technology. These missiles were banned in 1987 and remained banned all the way up until 2019 when Russia and the US decided to end the INF treaty. The USSR had the MIRV technology since the mid 1970s after the US has come up with the 3-headed Minuteman III design back in 1968. The Russians have also shown president Trump was probably right to accuse them of INF violation(s) as they have been secretly working an a medium range ballistic missile they've used right now quite some time before they officially left the INF treaty.

[@mattdee9296]

Wasn’t hypersonic or ICBM

[@MotoStylus-z8r]

@@mattdee9296 Depends on how you define things. Every 2-stage BM return vehicle approaches the ground at hypersonic speed by definition, 1.5-2km/s or more. It may be considered "non-hypersonic" in that the return vehicle is not maneuvering / not using aerodynamic forces for maneuvering in the way the Chinese DF-ZF RV for the DF-17 does. The Russians have called their thing "hypersonic" as it does fly near the ground at Mach 5 or more. Again, as per US-USSR treaties, the missiles come at short (

[@leegarner4592]

they probably have very few of them, and their capabilities are over-hyped.

[@LilyMoonWitch]

Are you trying to say that because Russia uses new technology, that it also can't be using a whole lot of old technology? Are you really making that argument, MrPereivap? You're not very smart, are you?

[@Jarheads4Yeshua]

Maybe Putin will stage an above ground nuclear weapons test to show the world the destructive power of fission-fusion filmed in 4k.

[@dragoshthebest]

Well, this didn't age quite as hoped.

[@Pinb8eesgg]

Those mushrooms look like the biggest thing I've ever seen.

[@plague6174]

Stop.

[@plague6174]

@@Pinb8eesgg Stop.

[@Kubizan]

It aged very well. Russia launched an ICBM without nuclear warhead.

[@luc8254]

​@@Kubizan Exactly, it might have had one. So the video did't age well because Russia is fully capable of delivering nuclear missiles to their target.

[@Under-Kaoz]

Welp, ICBM dropped today. This videos aging poorly quickly.

[@Vienna.]

it wasn’t an ICBM.

[@moreplease998]

It was a "hypersonic", not an ICBM. "" cos ICBM's are hypersonic as well but for some reason we've labelled low altitude, erratic movement missiles that go fairly fast "hypersonics"

[@megametx6541]

everyone blabing about how poor Russian nuclear arsenal was, and when they found out if it is bad or not, that would be too late

[@glike2]

Because nuclear weapons are a very complicated system with a long chain of steps to properly operate, the probability of each step has to be multiplied to get the number of total successful missions. So if the probability of many steps is very low you get to a smaller and smaller number of total successful... One thing I really appreciate about this channel is the precise manner of speaking delivering hard facts unlike sources of propaganda that talk fast and spew nonsense, with Ben Shapiro being a great example of BS propaganda.

[@piotrd.4850]

There's NO SINGLE FACT in this video.

[@johnkraft7461]

Except relying heavily on a Netflix documentary 😂😂 So the "information" must be correct!!!

[@daz19755]

This guy loves his numbers I can tell lol

[@glike2]

@daz19755 numbers are more objective than feelings

[@jlsperling1]

At the beginning of the Cold War, Churchill said in a speech something like, "How high do we need to bounce the rubble?"

[@Norm-ih2rq]

Doesn't the USA have the same problem?

[@stancil83]

Every Nation with nukes has the same problem. Russia's just not very good at fixing these problems. Or at least that's there track record.

[@cr0wN_]

The difference here is pointed is it's maintaining ability. USA spent same maintaining it's nukes than Russia's alleged whole military budget that they even noticed is corrupted. Reason why other nuclear states have so little bombs compared. Out of Russias 6 thousand nukes maybe couple hundred actually are working.

[@Zaborovnik]

@@cr0wN_ can’t you consider that some information is classified? And thus why post communist country can’t force some maintenance that is untied from the money expenses?

[@Sol-Cutta]

Didnt realise nukes had best before dates 😂😂😂

[@GrayD1ce]

Now the question does the western nukes still work and are you willing to go all in that the Russian nukes are all dudes

[@brucetucker4847]

You're missing the point.

[@robertheinkel6225]

If nuclear war does happen, everyone will die from the fallout, that lasts literally forever.

[@Hunter_Nebid]

If you think Putin can never use nukes, you probably ride the short bus.

[@Tiglath-PileserXIX]

You have to admit that Russians do have impressive military parades.

[@kimpetersen1206]

I agree with all the points in this video but when it comes down to it Russia doesn’t need 5500 nuclear weapons. If they even only have say 5 or 10 working warheads that would be more than enough to throw the world into chaos.

[@Malignant88]

I still remember the French nuclear tests.

[@johnbacon4997]

France probably has more working miles than russia

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@johnbacon4997 probably not. Even the United States can't get their missiles working properly.

[@palnagok1720]

You don't need nukes these days when you earthquake technology and weather technology

[@tyr844]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 French here, we have far less nuclear weapons so I guess it's more easy to maintain (and cheaper ofc)

[@DavidRichardson153]

Pretty much covered all of the points I had been bringing up lately along with a few more specific ones (with numbers to back them up - thanks for that). Even so, I'm going to continue arguing that even if Russia still has some functional nukes, which I highly doubt, they are likely, if not undoubtedly, not able to perform at their stated capacity and are, at best, dirty bombs (still dangerous, granted, but easier to deal with).

[@apveening]

What is the likelihood of the small number of functional nukes being attached to the small number of functional missiles?

[@DavidRichardson153]

@@apveening Well, given how likely the corruption around all other aspects of their military also applies in full to their nukes and their delivery methods, coupled with how they just will, not, shut up with the threats that have regularly been proven to be empty - not to mention how during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is usually regarded as the height of the Cold War due to being the closest we got to starting WW3, the US had 10 times as many nukes as the USSR - and the likelihood points to every such pairing not just being entirely accidental, but so few that you can probably hand-count them (assuming that there are any). BTW, that is no exaggeration about the arsenals of both sides at that time. It actually was the case. Plus, the CMC was started solely by John Kennedy in order to appease conservatives, which he did by placing nuke missiles in Turkey. Yes, really, it was Kennedy's fault, Khrushchev did the most out of anyone to try to deescalate (for which John secretly and constantly sent Bobby in order to achieve and make up for his mistake), it is arguably the biggest black mark on the Kennedy administration, and it's why his biographer was a nobody sycophant that he brought in himself in order to cover up his fault.

[@haitran-xt6xi]

If that were the case then I imagined it wont be used as an offensive weapon but more like a suicide pill. If they lose badly they can say fuck it , you wont take us alive , we'll take yall to hell with us. They can just shoot at least 10 of them radomnly anywhere on Earth, that would be enough to cause enough radioactive fallout , to destroy all life sustenance on Earth.

[@rogerjohnson2562]

4:50 the Cuban Missile Crisis proved Ruzzia's nukes were more of a threat to the world than to Ruzzian citizens.

[@antennawilde]

Imagine making the argument that the country with the most nuclear weapons on the planet... can't use them.

[@antennawilde]

This is a radically irresponsible video.

[@orenalbertmeisel3127]

Honestly, the people running this channel should be arrested, or at least prevented from making more content

[@jacobreichert836]

well no one would be suprised if weapons of shithole ruzzia dont work

[@queenbrightwingthe3890]

@@orenalbertmeisel3127 cope

[@Randpage]

@@orenalbertmeisel3127 lol Spoken like a true communist, comrade!

[@WorldSurvivalist]

Lots wrong with this video, its not about thr power of a single bomb its about placement of multiple bombs. Think cluster bomb vs one big bomb. The cluster nukes are actually far more powerful and effective. And far more advanced now so you need far fewer to do far more damage. And we niw know for a fact the Russians have the hypersonic rocket technology

[@RajHK8]

Russia is doomed just like the Soviet Union. United States will stand forever.

[@davidhess6593]

Don't bet your life on it, and more importantly, don't bet *MY* life on it!

[@terrydanks]

"The one thing that I convinced myself after all these years of exposure to the use of nuclear weapons is that they were useless. They could not be used. " - General Colin Powell