Get Nebula with 40% off annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/realtimehistory Watch Red Atoms on Nebula: nebula.tv/redatoms

@Battlefieldsucks0501

9 ай бұрын

I would subscribe to Nebula in a heartbeat if it did not require a credit card, I do not have one unfortunately...

@lolmao500

8 ай бұрын

You forgot to talk about the Dead Hand/Perimeter.

@derekatkins4800

8 ай бұрын

Would you please give me the page number for the McGeorge Bundy quote from Danger and Survival?

@francisdenbow5352

8 ай бұрын

​@@Battlefieldsucks0501¾³ 5

@bg.3072

8 ай бұрын

if russia uses putin''s own nukes, he will also die by inhaling the fumes of putin''s own nuclear poison

Dora the Explorer taught me that saying no is enough and then they won't nuke you back

@robertsantamaria6857

9 ай бұрын

And per Spongebob, "It's not about winning, it's about fun." Plankton: "F is for Fire that burns down the whole town. U is Uranium. Bombs. N is for No survivors ..."

@snigie1

9 ай бұрын

Swiper no nuking

@draytonkk

9 ай бұрын

Stalin no nuking, Stalin no nuking,... " aww shucks" says Stalin in disappointment

@VinnyUnion

9 ай бұрын

But at least three times Which chicks are notoriously bad at :p

@juxtaposingjunctions9705

9 ай бұрын

Only works with swiper

Perhaps the most amazing and horrific thing mankind has ever done, is develop weapons which allow us to describe the bombs used on Hiroshima & Nagasaki as "primitive".

@preppertrucker5736

9 ай бұрын

Definitely a war crime…… Also the opening of Pandora’s box…..

@JohnDoe-on6ru

9 ай бұрын

Rookie numbers

@alexbarnett8541

9 ай бұрын

I liked Stalins attitude towards nukes. He didn't let fear of them rule his decision making.

@Geckobane

9 ай бұрын

Word.

@thorr18BEM

8 ай бұрын

​@@preppertrucker5736development of the weapons was a war crime?

I’d very much prefer never finding out. This is a relatively new format from you guys but I am really enjoying it. Props to all at RealTimeHistory

@realtimehistory

9 ай бұрын

wholeheartedly agree

@nvelsen1975

9 ай бұрын

You have found out: We have won the nuclear war. Who's 'we'? I don't need to fill that in for the statement to be true, because the MAD effect of the nuclear kept it from happening, thus we won.

@waynehewett4017

9 ай бұрын

Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to help As its not about you It's about your kids and loved ones

@GM-xk1nw

9 ай бұрын

@@waynehewett4017 wow we got the edgy kid here

@Agent_Black72

8 ай бұрын

U can win

You can win a nuclear war if your enemy doesn't have nukes

@JohnDoe-on6ru

9 ай бұрын

Japan be like

@samfisher2306

8 ай бұрын

Yes. In fact even if you destroy an enemy that also has nukes, if that enemy has just two submarines that have nukes? You are also doomed if you can't detect and destroy those two before they launch. Scary stuff.

@Warsie

8 ай бұрын

The risk is a nuclear power gets involved in the war against you depending on the enemy's alignment

@jebes909090

8 ай бұрын

​@@samfisher2306you arent doomed, you just possibly lose some cities.

@jpnphom5470

8 ай бұрын

It will destroy some cities if only drop a few….

Honor to the man that had the strength to not sound the nuclear alarm and realized it was a glitch, avoiding nuclear annihilation

@BEstudent

7 ай бұрын

Stanislav Petrov

@potatheadd

7 ай бұрын

If only nukes were real

@paulinasieron9261

6 ай бұрын

He didnt relize it mate he Just assumpt

@bradsanders407

6 ай бұрын

​@@potatheaddname checks out

@bradsanders407

6 ай бұрын

Except he didn't avoid anything. There would have been many more verifications to conduct before anything would have been done and he certainly wouldn't have been the one to make that decision. Just a greatly exaggerated story for publicity.

the thing with plans one has to keep in mind is that, even if theoretically fit for actual execution, they often are concieved so a) there are plans for any possible situation, no matter how unlikely, and more importantly b) so planners have experience in devising plans, for that is how they learn how to plan in the first place, and its not always clear if a plan is drawn up for actual possible use or more for plannings sake

@user-cd4bx6uq1y

9 ай бұрын

Exactly what I've been thinking

@SuperMookles

9 ай бұрын

Something the film War Games captured very well.

@dirremoire

9 ай бұрын

In learning to plan, all planners learn is to make fancier versions of plans they've already planned.

@jebes909090

8 ай бұрын

"Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth" Mike Tyson

The reason nuclear weapons could be used during World War 2 was because only one power had them. After another power got them, it became impossible to use them without taking into account all sides that have them. Making them almost irrelevant at the same time the most important thing. Making the complexities of having them more complicated than not having them. As long as more than one power had them. Not to mention if the first side to use them, even understood the damage they could cause before using them or after.

@sam8404

8 ай бұрын

That short time when nobody else had them would've been the perfect time to nuke Moscow. Would've saved the whole world a lot of trouble.

@rias.gremoryyy

8 ай бұрын

To be fair they aren't irrelevant, if a country is backed up into a corner and has to choose between surrender or nuking the enemy they will resort to nukes

@CoreyANeal2000

8 ай бұрын

@@rias.gremoryyy That has more to do with who is in charge than the nukes themselves.

@alfredsutton4412

7 ай бұрын

Psychopaths don't care.

@potatheadd

7 ай бұрын

And you take the circumference and multiply it by two divided by the square root you get the same thing you just said

Penguins could finally evolve to be the dominant species.

@myboysd5772

9 ай бұрын

Penguin supremacy shall prevail.

@anthonydoyle7370

9 ай бұрын

All penguins live in deserts. Fun fact is that

@raulseixasdasilvasauro4962

8 ай бұрын

If Batman Allows it.... mwahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahagahahaha

@everythingsalright1121

2 ай бұрын

Fool, the crab is superior

The cameras in all of these nuke tests must be made from vibranium lol

@JohnDoe-on6ru

9 ай бұрын

r/dontkillthecameraman

I'm glad people are discussing this. One thing I do know, I've never seen one pop off and I hope we never do. Nuke war is all around bad.

We cannot allow a mine-shaft gap!

Great video, thanks for the perspective!

Great content as always Jessie and RTH Team. And a great outtro.

Think ive heard a quote about this very question. Guy number 1: "As long as two americans survive, wed have won". Guy number 2: "Well, you better hope its a man and a woman that survive, then".

@Otokichi786

9 ай бұрын

"The Twilight Zone" episode, "Two." (Season 3, episode 1) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_(The_Twilight_Zone)

@Agent_Black72

8 ай бұрын

U can win an we will

Awesome video, really like the inclusion of quotes from the heads of these atomic superpowers. It really puts in context the humanity behind each of this historical events

Very well put together , cheers.

Great channel. Please do a long format video on tactical nuclear weapons. Thanks

I believe if you climb inside a fridge freezer you'll be safe

@richard_d_bird

9 ай бұрын

only if you're the main character

Another wonderful introducing and informative episode shared by a respectful ( real-time history ) channel ...allot thanks for sharing this.. remarkable episode introducing

9:01 _Sputnik's launch in 1957_ I remember as a teenager, standing with my father in front of our house late in the evening watching the sun glint off the satellite as it passed over. I was in awe but also a little scared. If they (The Soviet Union) were able to do this, what else were they capable of? 13:04 Brezhnev: _an approach he called, speak softly while you are carrying a big stick_ Props to President Theodore Roosevelt

@ruskyhusky69

8 ай бұрын

Great comment! How old are you now, sir? Are you as excited for space and technology now, as when you were younger? I have a feeling people forgot that we used to look to the sky and think about better things to do and far frontiers to explore

@unknownkingdom

8 ай бұрын

And here in 2023 we see the world would have been better off if Russia had been nuke i to oblivion

@orionSpacecraft

8 ай бұрын

@@unknownkingdom you consider the world being destroyed in a nuclear war preferable to Ukraine losing its sovereignty?

@unknownkingdom

8 ай бұрын

@@orionSpacecraft Russia should be destroyed and i believe this could be done without destrthe world. world.

@orionSpacecraft

8 ай бұрын

@@unknownkingdom you just said you wanted to nuke it into oblivion, which would obviously be met with a russian counterstrike

That was very interesting, thanks guys!

Very well done thanks!

Another brilliant and educational video from real time history. Well done !!

@bdleo300

8 ай бұрын

Not really, he is wrong about "Soviet first strike doctrine" it was actually American doctrine, Soviets were more obsessed with retaliation.

Great presentation - Impressed

This is awesome. Well done everyone.

really interesting video, it's cool seeing the comparison

@21:12 that awkward moment when your superior officer salutes you even though they're not wearing their uniform and... you salute back, I guess?

I love your videos. I know I say that often in the comments, but I really do enjoy them.

Thanks Jesse & co!

I like the Tom Clancy's approach, if there is a War between power, they will keep it Conventional because the other choice is Armageddon. And let's be practical nule Hanoi, Kabul and Kyiv gonna make the situation of the Agressor really better ?

Always learn something new.

The joint chief of staff under KENNEDY thought that they could win a nuclear war, KENNEDY was agains it.

@Agent_Black72

8 ай бұрын

U can win

The problem with winning isn't just the active or reserve nukes but also the nuke infrastructure. This includes the active infrastructure for example all the DoE stockpile maintenance locations but also the passive one. Ie every location that has an enrichment plant or an active civilian reactor. Reactor grade plutonium works just fine for nukes. An enemy that trully wants to fight to the bitter end will simply take reactor grade plutonium build bombs from it quickly jerry rig it to an aircraft even civilian aircraft can be used if things get apocalyptic and send them on one way trips. Heck with how effective drones are getting you would simply send drones with nukes. At that point it makes no difference anymore except hitting back. And that's the problem countries like China have a huge nuke infrastructure and thousands of drones. Its too many to take out in one strike. They're too dispersed and in an emergency they would be even more dispersed. If they wanna fight to the bitter end you're gonna get some hits. And even a few hits are nation ending.

Thanks!

It would be nice if you had pointed out that the US sill explicitly rejects a "no first use" policy.

@dogfaceponysoldier

9 ай бұрын

We reserve that right specifically to retaliate against the use of chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies.

@andriypohors2538

8 ай бұрын

rejects or holds onto?

@Eyesorecrymore

8 ай бұрын

​@@andriypohors2538yeah I was thinking that as well. The way he said it we would have taken out everyone by now lol.

Your M-4 Bison picture is not an M-4 Bison I'm afraid, it's another Tu-95 of some type I believe.

Brilliant presentation unpacking an extremely complex matter, thank you!!

The Stalin quote was always simultaneously the most cold-blooded logical view and the most vatnik thing I have ever heard.

I would have welcomed the mentioning of the implementation of so-called "dead-hands" like "Perimetre" - systems; making sure that armageddon will happen, even if the leadership has been terminated!

have to say...just your series and Paper Skies videos makes nebula free. Thank you all...oh did i mention History Buff? ))) Viel Glück.

The Red Atom was amazing!

Thank you.

In the Cold War era, RU had a Politburo. There was therefore a structure of political checks and balances. The difference now is that there is only a capo di tutti i capi in the Kremlin (if he is actually there). His main aim is physical and political survival, yet we know you don't get to retire in the mafia (Tony Soprano had a few words to say about that). We assume the current capo is a rational actor, but look at the people around him e.g. Medvedev, a former president, ramping up his post-Putin credentials with talk of tactical nukes. Things could get hairy in a post-Putin transition.

@latviankhan2989

9 ай бұрын

why do people like you who have no understanding of Russia and it's politics have to talk. You make something very simple into something it's not. Putin doesn't think about survival at all because the Russian peoples support renders him invincible. Russian politics is just very surface level simple, they have factions in the government just like any other country, they have coruption and incompetence, again, just the same level as other countries. This mythical thinking of some kind of mafia can be transplanted to any and all countries because thats just how power and even more so popular power works. Trust me if Vladimir Vladimirovich wanted to retire he would do so, but he is from the KGB, he has ingrained values that a man must finnish what he started. He is a ceasarian type leader and he doesn't answer to anyone but the people

@michalformanek2676

9 ай бұрын

Worst, they think they have RIGHT to ocupy other countries like Moldova, Georgia or Ukraine.

@MrGbscott1954

9 ай бұрын

Then why is our country doing everything in its power to undermine his government?

@expatexpat6531

9 ай бұрын

@@MrGbscott1954 I don't think he has a government as such, not in the UK sense (not sure where you're from). The primary aim is for Ukraine to win or, at the very least, not to lose. I don't think the primary aim is for regime change in RU due to the issues above.

@Hideyoshi1991

8 ай бұрын

I think there's enough people in Russia who'd sooner decapitate anyone who tried than allow their country to be obliterated.

I was just thinking about how contradictory it is that we've largely phased out nuclear power for being too dangerous but we still keep massive arsenals of nuclear weapons.

@alexmaclean1

8 ай бұрын

It really is but the reason we don't use much nuclear power isn't because of actual risk but perceived risk by the public. People are afraid because they don't understand and that keeps them from being built.

@guyincognito1406

3 ай бұрын

@alexmaclean1 Surely those with competing interests in the current energy dominator wouldn’t use any of their considerable assets to help spread ‘information’ about that… Surely not…

I love this channel.

People Forget history and History repeats itself.

4:05 - a small correction. The first US hydrogen bomb (Ivy Mike) was too big to be delivered and, although extremely powerful and technologically sophisticated, it was just a technology demonstrator. The first Soviet bomb (RDS6) was much weaker and more primitive, not even considered a true fusion bomb but a boosted fission weapon by some, but unlike the US one, it could be (and actually was during the test) dropped by a plane.

@jakeaurod

8 ай бұрын

IIRC, not sure you can call the first US fusion bomb a technology demonstrator or even a proof of concept since it used cryogenic hydrogen instead of lithium deuteride which is used in all fusion weapons and allows them to be deliverable and have a shelf live over a couple hours or days.

@igorbednarski8048

8 ай бұрын

@@jakeaurod it was the first successful demonstration of an Ulam-Teller design, so it can definitely be called a proof of concept - the concept being the Ulam-Teller design. It wasn't really a weapon at this stage, as you wouldn't be practically able to use it against an enemy (unless delivered by, I don't know, a disposable battleship?), but it still was the basis of actual warheads developed later.

Even if we consider unlikely the scenario of a full exchange of ICBMs, a more likely scenario (but not by much) would be the use of a small yeld tactical weapon in the battlefield. Although it might not trigger a military escalation, even might end a war, it would cross a moral and ethical red line that would give cause for concern to even the most brutal dictatorship. That nation, its people, language and culture would be ostracized from the rest of the world as bloodthirsty barbarians.

@peteranderson037

9 ай бұрын

When people discuss nuclear weapons it is almost always in relation to land forces or cities. However, I very rarely hear people discuss the possibility of a nuclear strike on a naval force at sea. Such a first strike would be militarily devastating, but would have a low likelihood of a nuclear retaliatory response. It would absolutely start a full scale war, but it would be a conventional one, at least initially.

@pax6833

9 ай бұрын

@@peteranderson037 Also there were ground to air and air to air nuclear interceptor missiles that were meant to attack bombers and ICBMs Both fell out of use once MIRVs made the idea of defeating a counterstrike virtually impossible.

@carpediem7654

9 ай бұрын

The US nuked 2 cities and nobody considered them bloodthirsty barbarians.

@Redskies453

9 ай бұрын

I disagree. We go along with all sorts of horrific things through manufactured consent. I wouldn't put it past them.

@waynehewett4017

9 ай бұрын

Puking doesn't care He's only concerned about his own skin and huge ego Puking as proved without a doubt billions of people could die and he doesn't care one bit Puking doesn't even cre about the Russian people never alone any one else

The sac commander was reputed to say, if we have 2 people left and rhey have one, qe win a nuckear war

1:55 Stalin wasn't talking about the effectiveness of nuclear weapons in war, he was placating a worried subordinate.

@Eyesorecrymore

8 ай бұрын

Subordinates were scared of him. He was dead for hours before anybody had the guts to check. Doubt he was placating anyone under him!

Thinking along the lines of a most extreme insanity, what fun 😀

the answer to the question is best summarized in a knockknock joke. knockknock. who's there? world war 3. world war 3 who? (silence)

I was wondering how long it would be before you guys did a video related to Oppenheimer

Small yield nuclear weapons are a potential solution. They aren't suitable for MAD but can provide targetted destruction on a battlefield.

Technically a country could "win" a nuclear war, however both sides would essentially lose anyway. The acronym fits perfectly - M.A.D

As long as you keep your doors and windows closed you will be safe but you may have a mild headache for a few days.

I thought the Nuclear weapons modernization program included dial-able yield smaller tactical warheads as the use of nuclear weapons has changed- tactical nukes of fraction kilotons to 1-2 kilotons are permissible to use in battles. They could be fitted in stealth n 4th gen fighter jets.

@Indrid__Cold

7 ай бұрын

Dial-A-Yield weapons are wasteful. You destroy an immense amount of explosive potential with a dialed-down yield.

Depends on what you count as "winning a nuclear war" Really though, Nobody wins in a Nuclear war, not even the "winner".

"Speak softly and carry a big stick" That was Teddy Roosevelt half a century before, if Brezhnev said that he would have been quiting Roosevelt

Winning a nuclear war is like winning a duel with hand grenades.

@Agent_Black72

8 ай бұрын

U can win both of those

There's a reason it's called mutually assured destruction

Always love the blanket statements like “never hesitated” without historical context or truth. It was not a foregone conclusion to use the device and given the evidence it did exactly what was foreshadowed in the ongoing brutality of fighting Imperial Japan. While their are facts in the narrative the larger truth is by-passed in mere moments to reach a predetermined conclusion.

@Eyesorecrymore

8 ай бұрын

Trying to sound smart? Try "there" instead, my friend!

No, it is not possible to "win" a nuclear war in the traditional sense. Nuclear war would have catastrophic and irreversible consequences, causing immense loss of life, widespread destruction, and long-lasting environmental damage. The use of nuclear weapons could lead to a "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) scenario, where both sides involved would suffer unacceptable losses.

@AnhNguyen-hn9vj

9 ай бұрын

It is like two guy get into a fist fight in the arena. The other guy is lost. He come back with a machine gun on the other guy. lol

@Agent_Black72

8 ай бұрын

U can win, an we will it’s coming there preparing an u have no say in this. Be prepared

When Soviet detonated its first nuke, to everyones surprise, Truman asked his generals how many nukes the US has ready. They came back after a few days answering: None! All had been used in tests. There were many components in storage, but the physicists had left for academic and engineering careers, and the documentation was lacking.

Wasn't the "big stick" quote originally from Theodore Roosevelt???

Nobody ever talks about all the nuclear plants that will melt down after a nuclear exchange.

Always hated the term 'nuclear war' because it really should be 'nuclear suicide'.

Yes

"Victory" is a subjective goal. There are several ways to define victory such that wiping out human civilization - or even humanity itself! - count as a victory.

Could anyone tell me what the vehicle at 18:23 is?

@Otokichi786

9 ай бұрын

That looks like a ICBM missile silo rocket-powered "door opener."

I am become educated, watcher of Real Time History.

@anthonydoyle7370

9 ай бұрын

"I am become the destroyer of worlds." A certain Herr Hoppenheimer.

It’s like Tic Tac Toe: the winning move is to not play

@tzarfrogmeister

9 ай бұрын

I always hated that analogy in Wargames. You could easily also say: “It’s like Tic Tac Toe: Whoever starts cannot lose.”

@JonMI6

9 ай бұрын

@@tzarfrogmeister it’s possible to lose despite starting But it’s because it’s possible to end in a draw…much like MAD

Just one kg of antimatter would produce the explosive force of 43 megatons of TNT, which is just short of explosive force of the tsar bomb, the largest nuclear weapon detonated. If humanity in the future ever gets the knowledge to trap anti-matter at large enough scale, nuclear weapons would seem like fireworks.

I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks. - United States Air Force Four-Star General, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Buck Turgidson

@exercisethemind

8 ай бұрын

😂

Threads vibe

No mention of the Strategic Defense Initiative ? :(

@richard_d_bird

9 ай бұрын

nope because it don't work

@dirremoire

9 ай бұрын

Yah, The Reagan years were completely left out.

Even if you were to win such a war, what kind of legacy would you leave.

Did he just say nuclear land mines 🙃

@dirremoire

9 ай бұрын

Yah, The best thing is you only need one.

The Hunt for Red October is partially based on the true story of a Soviet nuclear sub that likely went rogue and tried to start a nuclear war. Look up K-129 and John P. Craven's book _The Silent War: The Cold War Battle Beneath the Sea._ How many times have we come close that we don't know about?

“Can I win a Nuclear war?” The last person who asked me that was full of it! They had no intention of giving me Nuclear weapons!

Can you win a nuclear war? That depends on how you define "win." In the 1980's this video posed that question: kzread.info/dash/bejne/X6F5l5ewaJPTfrA.html The winning side sang this song: kzread.info/dash/bejne/h3Wrq5eIftzdfag.html

You can't win if you don't try.

Can you win a thermal nuclear war. One word NO.

No Fears of nuclear war...I was taught years ago in order to survive all that you have to do is duck under your desk and cover your eyes 😂😂 anyone else remember the "duck and cover" video in school??

Not once you decide what winning looks like.

“An interesting game. The only way to win is not to play. How About a nice game of chess?”

Always remember Wargames' "Joshua": *A STRANGE GAME.* *THE ONLY MOVE TO WIN IS NOT TO PLAY.*

@Agent_Black72

8 ай бұрын

U can win, many are preparing right now u don’t have choice in this

Anything is possible, the question is do we want to find out 💀💀

Easily: By NOT fighting it.

Gulf war operation desert storm please make video

@BesoffenerIslamist

9 ай бұрын

no

Short answer - NO

US did hesitate to use it. However they feared the Soviet would get japan as they were closing in so they used it to make them surrender before it happened. Japan also surrendered mainly because they feared being taken by the soviet rather then the destruction of the atomic bombs. It was an important event, but not the main reason.

The bottle is corked and being shaken. It was always going to pop.

As terminator said..its inevitable….

One side may win, but we ALL lose

Check out the Power of Decision. It is a SAC documentary of a 1950s nuclear war game. It has a general saying the iconic, "We have won with 20,000,000 dead." Just like Dr Strangelove. ❤🦉

So start that nuclier ..love to see the nuclier boommmmm😂❤

Cool if we didn't have competing nation states.

Nuclear weapons are an important tool of deterrence for mid-level powers against the great powers or coalitions