I served with the United State Air Force for 30 years. I served on the battle staff of the Strategic Air Command Airborne Command Post (LOOKING GLASS) and as a crewmember with the Minuteman III ICBM system. Point being, "nuclear combat" is something I know a great deal about. Will there ever be another nuclear detonation? Far too broad a question as it doesn't distinguish between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, and there's a quantum difference with respect to the yield and proliferation of both. I believe there's a reasonable chance of a nation using a tactical nuclear weapon (one that will influence the events on the ground in a limited conflict), but a very remote chance of the use of a strategic nuclear weapon as any nation that decides to use such a weapon (e.g., Russia, China and the USA--the hype around the nuclear capabilities of the DPRK, i.e., North Korea, are comical) would be committing national suicide. There's no nation with meaningful strategic nuclear capability that would have anything to gain by initiating a nuclear conflict. However, over the past decades, the USA has developed very capable anti-ballistic missile capabilities, e.g., AGEISS, THADD, Patriot, etc., etc., so I cannot conceive of a scenario where any nation would launch a nuclear attach against the USA and come out ahead, it would most likely result in the absolute annihilation of any such aggressor, and even with the potential devastating damage, the USA would likely recover within a matter of years and emerge even more dominant that it did prior to the conflict. No nation has anything to gain in a strategic nuclear conflict, and any nation desperate enough to use tactical nuclear weapons will likely be eliminated in very short order.

@RubicGirl

6 ай бұрын

That's absolutely terrifying to think about. I only recently learned about America's tremendous anti-ballisitc capabilities. Largely from HLC who claims that he's the leading expert in the field of missile interception. I had learned from a young age that icbms were pretty much impossible to stop due to their speed. But, it makes perfect sense why that's not necessarily the case now. And I've always believed that any nation who could defend itself from icbms would pretty much be unstoppable. Of course, that's not the entire story. But the fact is that once one side gains an edge in the MAD and turn it into Partial Assured Destruction for me and Assured Destruction for you, then there's no doubt that governments would begin to see it as more of a viable option. Before it was a no reward, assured-impossibly-high-cost. Now it's high risk potentially high reward. And no doubt that it'll just continue to get better or depending on perspective worse. Potential rivals to America have adopted asymmetric warfare and to top it off considering their economic and technological circumstances, I'm not sure if they could create their own robust missile defense network. It's scary to think about, because every year I trust my own government less and less. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I used to think we were the good guys. But worryingly, we might be living long enough to become the villain. I really hope my fellow countrymen start waking up to the dangers of power and start scaling our government back down. I just frustratingly don't understand why people selectively choose to blindly trust the government when history has only ever shown them causing harm. Just doesn't make sense to me.

"Don't start no sht, wont be no sht!"

@detsportsfan18

2 ай бұрын

Japan learned that the hard way.

So glad to have you back

USA! Hackers would be a concern, but I think American hackers (offensive & defensive) are more advanced than Russian or Chinese hackers.

@jimmy_wang_

9 ай бұрын

I agree 👍

The technology is very impressive, but, what makes the U.S. military the best in the world, is our people. The training, dedication, professionalism, and, fighting spirit of the men, and, women of our ALL VOLUNTEER force is second-to-none.

My, surface level, understanding of the multiple levels of surveillance and multiple levels of air defense around the USA would ensure that we’d shut it down before much happens. If it’s aimed at us, which it likely would be.

I'm pretty certain mutually assured destruction will keep the nukes in their silos, but as another commenter said -- never say never. Also to echo many others, it's so nice to have you back!

They should name one of the drones Soundwave.

Katt Williams (a comedian) once said: America hates bullies because we are the biggest bully!! 😂😂 A very good ally but a very horrible enemy. Sometimes we get ourselves into some shit by always budding in to feuds ! We can’t stay to ourselves.

America is like that WILDLY dysfunctional family that the entire neighborhood needs for everything to work out. Sometimes the stress of watching the US self-destruct but then somehow still manage to show up when the pressure is on can be overwhelming and I don't envy that feeling at all. I can't imagine what it's like as an ally of the US honestly.

I'm an old cold warrior. Reagan's Navy. We are closer to extinction now than at any point growing up. The only time we were closer was during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I’m middle aged and agree I’d like to stay on the same side as the USA. As for a nuclear bomb, I doubt it but never say never 😔

Dude, it’s been a while. Nice to see you back.

I'm so happy to see a video of yours. glad to see you here❤

9:10 No. I’m a 58 year old US Army Cold War era Veteran, I was both an 11B (Infantry) and a 15D (Lance Missile Crewman), the Lance missile system was (it was decommissioned in 1991 due to the Anti proliferation treaty with Russia) a tactical ballistic missile launched from a tracked vehicle, and had a single 100 kiloton nuclear warhead. The reason I said no, is because anyone who thinks about “dropping” a nuke knows without a doubt, everyone else that has nukes will drop theirs. It’s called “Mutually Assured Destruction “.

“Developed within the last decade” is not absolute. As a general rule, if we, the public, know about it then it has been around for atleast 30 years.

I was in the navy 90s, a machinist i made so many people happy with a piece of bake o lite.

I'm glad you're back

The Secretary for Military Cyber-Security said in a news conference that his people were fighting the equivalent of WW3 every day.

I think nuclear first strikes (therefore any nuclear strikes) are a thing of the past; it was possible only during those few years when the USA had a monopoly on them. One irrational person can decide to launch nukes, but every single person in the kill chain must be irrational, too.

@moviebad109

9 ай бұрын

Vasily Aleksandrovich Arkhipov is the perfect example of why I don’t think it’d ever happen. Man refused a direct order to Launch a nuclear torpedo during the Cuban missile crisis and single handed it prevented a nuclear war. There’s way more people like him than there are people who would revel in the idea of global destruction. It’d take a truly insane regime from top to bottom to even seriously consider the idea.

@1:50 the official numbers are likely very close to correct. I'm sure they are a good number of off the books planes but considering we have more aircraft than the next 7ish countries combined it is likely a small fraction for us. Also the numbers include all aircraft not just combat planes. So cargo, trainer, recon, awac (a flying air traffic control center) ect. Also a monstrous amount of that number is helicopters, we just absolutely outclass everyone to a disgusting degree in that regard.

We unveiled the first 6th generation stealth bomber in December 2022. It is called the B-21 Raider. Rumor has it that the platform will have the option to be manned or unmanned, so I'm not sure if that counts as a "drone" per se. I am not sure the price tag on it yet, but I am guessing it will be between 900 million to about 1.2 billion dollars per unit. You talk about scary stuff then the NGAD program is up there but the scariest thing I have seen tested is directed high intensity lasers. They are ending prototype phase and I believe one is cleared for combat. I think the ship it is on is called the USS Ponce. There is footage of it being tested and there is no visible laser like in movies. There are test small boats simulating maybe a pirate attack and then you just see them explode in the test footage. It renders the entire hypersonic missile craze a moot point since laser weapons fire at about the speed of light.

Yes, a hacker is a big threat. However, hacking a US weapons system or communication system is a very difficult thing to do. The US Military has some of the best programmers in the world, who are very skilled in defending from hackers. Communication links with weapons systems are always encrypted. Many very expensive drones, if they suspect they have been hacked, will automatically ignore any further instructions and return to base. Iran has claimed to have taken control of a US drone. Many of these drones are actually controlled by ground pilots in New Mexico and Arizona deserts. This is many thousands of miles from the actual combat area. Larger drones like the Reaper used in the Middle East are almost all flown from bases within the US. Smaller drones can be flown with local control. A Reaper drone costs about $130 million.

tjenare! glad att du är tillbaka!!!

@ok34303

9 ай бұрын

9:00 ja det tror jag kanske

We also have a new stealth bomber called the b21 raider that will replace the b-2 Spirit stealth bomber. And also have a new troop transport helicopter coming out to replace the Blackhawk helicopter. The competition is down to two candidates and the winner will be announced soon. The Blackhawk will be used for secondary operations until its retired. And the new troop transport helicopters also have the option to carry weapons just like the Blackhawk. It will operate any much longer range with new efficient engines that can go faster.

I’m 53 years old I don’t think it will ever happen but my comment for the difference between our nuclear weapons and China and Russia has nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons have three up to five nuclear warhead’s within one bomb Russia and China each have one warhead for each one of their missiles, so when they say we have 400 nuclear Missiles times that by five

The future of warfare is you better go for the guy with the computer lol

I dont thinks so, its more used as a threat as an acctual weapon. Knowing who ever drop one first will die second

I’m Swedish as well living in the USA the compliment thing to me is still weird.

Umm bro im like 20 year old in the US from Cali and dud3 your channel isn’t that bad. I know it’s one of those reaction vids of America but like as a reaction and your audio and vid quality is pretty good your doing great as streamer/youtube channel guy alright!😅

Aircraft like the F16, F15E, F18, F22, F35 all carry Tactical Nuclear weapons

I am 65 yrs old, a retired U.S. combat vet, was in the Iraq war 3 times, plus numerous other assignments. NO military person, despite what they say or think, EVER wants any country to use a nuke! Not even our own country! BUT, having said that, none of us know the future, or how bad things make become. Also, I DO think that tactical nukes WILL be used in my lifetime. Not full-blown nukes, but limited ones. And that may happen very soon. The "problem" with that is, if ANY country uses tacticals, they will get an immediate response, and that just MAY lead to use of the big nukes, which will essentially send us either back hundreds of years, OR wipe us all out.

Yes and it possibly could be soon

The cameras on those drones cost about 60 million dollars if that helps your perspective at all.

It's presentation. The military will practice forever.

Do you try that every day

When it comes to nukes, we are far less safe today than we were during the height of the cold war. At that time almost all the nukes were Russian and US owned with a couple hundred total spread among all other nuclear players. There were well over 70,000 warheads at that time. The US (Russia as well) fielded an interceptor missile around all of its large coastal cities that was nuclear tipped to destroy bomber wings. This was the Nike Hercules in the US and it was armed with an 8 kiloton warhead. Thankfully those are gone as missile accuracy has gotten so much better but it is still a good area denial device so I wouldn't be surprised to see Russia or China with some. Those 70,000 warheads have been reduced to around 7,000 or just 10% of what used to be fielded and in the US at least only about 1200 to 1300 are combat ready. This makes us actually less safe from their use as the 70,000 warhead total global exchange is now down to maybe 3000 warheads which is very survivable. The old "Mutually Assured Destruction" really does not hold true anymore. Both Russia and China have in recent months stated publicly that the use of nukes to further their aims was within their planning options. Remember the type of leaders running both countries. So I reiterate we are less safe today and though I am nearly 70 YO I wouldn't be surprised to see at least a minor exchange in the next 15 years.

Most military missiles are running on a Linux system built for just that bomb. You cannot access them online so they cant be hacked like that.

US weapons are very difficult to hack. First, all communication with a weapon is encoded, and unless you can break the code, you can not try to take control of it. Second, the US has some of the best computer experts in the world. They actively design protections to prevent hacking. A couple of drones have been successfully hacked by Iran.

We're nice; of course, we complimented you during your visits. 🙂

The atomic bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the same as modern nuclear missiles. Fission vs fusion.

No it the Rubicon like crossing the Rubicon

I'm sure they've thought of the possible hack that could occur.

Nukes can be launched but most nations including the US mostly use them for intimidation purposes but they can be launched which is scary to think about. In other words it’s definitely possible

in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq it took 5 US Aircraft carriers 1 full week to destroy the iraqi air defense forces and 5 weeks to totally dismantle the entire military.

is the US safe from nukes or did i miss something? because a lot of countries have intercontinental missiles armed with nukes. they kinda equalize conflicts. and equalize all the points this video makes. they didnt really talked about defending against nukes.

@Anubis78250

9 ай бұрын

There are many plans to defend against such an attack. From bunkers, to interception, to strikes before the enemy is able to launch. The bottom line planning for an outright nuclear war is to save what you can, but make sure that the enemy is so thoroughly decimated that they will never again be able to pose a threat as your survivors climb back out of the ashes.

@samwich3972

9 ай бұрын

@@Anubis78250 sure but my point is that this video kinda feels like the creators doesnt know that nuklear weapons exist and that russia, china, iran, pakistan and north korea also have those.

@paulmartin2348

8 ай бұрын

By "a lot of countries" I assume you mean 3. The U.S., Russia and China.

To see the true disparity in other countries military compare any country's "Aircraft Carries" with and American LCS Ship.....NOT an American Super Carrier. Our 4th gen aircraft are still superior to 90% of the worlds aircraft, forget about the 5th gen and now the NGAD 5th+/ 6th gen. It is obscene how much we spend, but if not us.....then who? After WW2 Nato and the decision to not gut the military in the US were made to prevent WW3. So far so good. If Europe would finally unite and spend the mandated 2% GDP on their military then the US may actually not go bankrupt .

THe US Military doesn't use the Internet in combat.

Whats his problem with America?

On your last question. No. While cyber attacks are detrimental, they are not an end all form of attack. This also ignores the fact that the US leads the world in cyber everything. Cyber security, hacking, innovation, etc. That nation would be hit much worse. But in the end, a cyber attack can definitely do damage, just not on the same scale as other things. The US has been fighting a cyber war with asia. For years. You should react to "how geography made the US ridiculously OP" which highlights one of the main reasons the US is so powerful

Ease up on the vodka, comrade.

WTF Welcome to Finland

It's up to the Russians and north Korea or iran.

É tudo sucata em comparação á alta tecnologia da aviação da Rússia

You should watch fat electrician

Money well spent

That what NSA, CIA is for...

Yeah with how secretive the US military actually is, I’d assume many of these statistics are kinda underrated lol Regarding the nuclear question, I don't think so. I think any country that's equip with missiles that could cause the damage that has been caused in the past knows the dangers of them. They wouldn't just be wiping out their target, they'd most likely nuke the entire globe. I believe the missile talks and numbers are there more as a scare tactic, for a county's "don't mess with us" points but I agree that it's a bit scary lol

When hot wings video?

Don’t forget civilians are also armed n ready to fight back.

16:00 Eurotrash

NO

the "other options" are 40 years behind... Russia... Hello USkraine!!!

Sorry but no we have the best hackers the best everything

wait you are very very young looking for being a Boomer, maybe more a late Gen-X

If i wanted to give it officialy it would take tons of paperwork but guys come to my tender AD 44 here you go, ill write it off save so much time and paperwork, and ends up the same.

NO other country's need to worry about U.S. Hackers they are some of the most trained in the world.