quite honestly, there is only one explanation for all of the tech by the nazis: aliens. when they were exploring in india, they found miracles of science buried deep away. in fact, the swastika was an indian symbol. hitler then thought that religious vesselsof power (like the ark of the covenant) was actually alien tech that were thought by ancestors to be of God--hence the endless searches acrossthe middle east. the cruise missile ballistic missile, helicopter, jet were foreign to earth.
and they all sucked.and they lost the war. and there supreme leader kiled himself. and the easily dropped atomic bombs actualy didnt find there way onto the planes because without help of further development from 'ALLIED' countries there technology sucked. there science teams went to the usa and uk to use proper equipment. good try tho kipper lips
But all that assumes NATO would honor their treaties. Personally, if I were NATO commander and Russia had struck USA first and taken out their nuc chain of command, I'd have a hard time giving the order to launch nucs at Russia knowing that even if they prevented a Russian response, the fallout would destroy Europe. Wonder what happens to Russian and USA nuclear subs if the home country is destroyed, can they launch without receiving codes from home? And would they? (makings of a movie script!)
@malamagr The launch code from home thing is a myth, once the missiles are armed and in place (which they need clearance for officially, but not physically) the Captain and Weapons Officer can push the button, so to speak.
Really all you need to start a global thermonuclear war is an insane submarine crew. This is why I'm a member of CND.
What I'm getting at is that as long as both sides are reasonably well-armed, there's probably never going to be a nuclear war. Who's got faster planes or bigger bombs isn't the deciding factor, it's geography. No matter who attacks first, Europe and Russia get destroyed. USA being closely tied with Europe would not want them destroyed, but at least theoretically USA could strike first and survive, itself. If Russia strikes first, EVERYONE's destroyed. I don't believe they'd actually do that.
There've been references to a more secret "stealth cruise missile", but the AGM-129 is stealthy and was made around same time as F-117. (I just read 129's are slated to be retired per treaty.) It's not just stealth; USA has so much stuff so close to Russia that with only 2 major targets, maybe a first strike could knock out nuclear chain of command before retaliation? Because of NATO, Russia would have to take out USA plus European nuc powers in a 1st strike, which would destroy themselves too.
Germany made the first ballistic missile in 1942 i think the famous V-2 that could drop easily atomic bombs for sure at moscow lond and maybe america germany had the best technology they were to far for these times the made the first half stealth plane named ho 229 or go 229 in 1945 onl 3 were produced before the end of the war they made the first cruse missile named V-1 and the first jet ofcurse name me-262
@djkapalof The V2 couldnt carry nuclear weapons, nor did the germans build "stealth" planes in WW2... if they did then either the Soviets or the US would've been all over it making copies
@djkapalof I have seen it, I know it looks very similar but it is not stealth. Not only does an aircraft need advanced computers and scientists to help design a stealth plane, they also need the right materials which as far as I know weren't available in WW2
@atomicR4GER The V-2 didn't carry a nuclear warhead because of Hitler's stupidity. He stopped Germany's nuclear weapons program. But the V2-2 could've been very well adapted to carry a nuclear warhead if the Germans had the technology.
And they did build the first stealth plane. It was called Horten Ho 229. It was built by the Horten brothers and it had a flying wing design. It was also covered in a primitive RAM. It's just that it came to late during the war to make a difference.
@djkapalof The V-2 couldn't come close to dropping an atomic bomb, for a long time A-bombs were far too large and heavy for anything except the hugest planes. And the V-2 could get across the English channel but not to Moscow or America. It was a small rocket! Just a nuisance really, same as the V-1's. Not a strategic weapon.
@djkapalof but you're right, the Germans were very innovative when they felt they had to be in order to survive. So were the British when they had to be, and later the USA and USSR when both thought they were in danger.
@crucifr1ed The launch from underwater was done by the submarine which ejects the missiles from their tubes by igniting an explosive charge in a separate container. as soon as it breaks through the water the rocket then ignites the fuel.
In a nuclear war britain needs to cut all ties with america cause it's gonna be them that either start it or are hit first. That means her allies will be next. A country has no friends in a nuclear dispute.
@2550505 To be honest any country involved in a nuclear war is gonna hit the enemy and allies first then anything left will hit neutral countrys cause who's gonna want there country destroyed whilst a seperate country has the power to invade and take over whatever is left. The next world war will be a WORLD war
@2550505 That's why I think neither Russia nor the USSR could ever start a nuclear war. They'd have to hit all the stuff in western Europe aimed at them, and the fallout would destroy Moscow and the rest of the most important parts of Russia. Geography puts them forever on the defensive. Also, if USA nukes Moscow the fallout would destroy their allies in Europe. If China struck first their economy would collapse. Only the USA could start a nuclear war and survive, if Russia had no time to react.
In terms of nuclear power britain and america are on par, to say britian is an orphan child without america would be wrong because any smart person would interpret the power of the nation by its nuclear weapons divisions. However, in terms of an army that britian has to offer then we are weaker than you but by no means should this be any reason to underestimate the countrys strength it has
This is the most powerful sub based ballistic missile in the world. But soon, it will be outmatched by the Bulava. The Americans should take action again the Russian violation of the arms treaties that they make with RS-23 & Bulava, now. IN the form of ABM systems. The US definitely must develop ABM systems capable of dealing with the threats represented by the Bulava and RS-24. I don't know why they's so wimpy when it comes 2 confronting the Russians on these things.
@StiviGun1 How surprising quoting wiki as your only source as USUAL :) So why do you always put people down for using wiki when in fact it is all you use. Pathetic.
@Mechatron1cs A Russian source??? Are you fucking kidding me? What video on YT? Show me that video. I bet it's that video where a Bulava test fails and the Russians claim that was a failed Trident test... Show me that video.
@Mechatron1cs Watch ur language moron! The Bulava had MUCH MORE than 1 failure. In fact, THIRTEEN out of the 17 were failures. And where is the video of that Trident test gone wrong? U think I'm gonna trust Russian sources. The Russian try 2 bash any American weapons project that is powerful & has potential. They just can' stand 2 see America being ahead of them, that's why they're wasting A LOT of money on Bulava... Show me the proof on those recent Trident II tests!
@Mechatron1cs Are you on drugs or something? When did I say Bulava didn't have any failures? On the contrary, I said that the video that circles around YT with a supposedly Trident II failed test, is actually a Bulava missile test... U must be drugged... Bulava has had 13 failures out of 17, MUCH MORE than the Trident II had since it was designed. U were the 1 saying that the Trident II had 6 failures in a row. Now, u're trying 2 avoid the subject... What a lame tactic...
No first you said the minuteman III "well soon be outmatched by the Bulava". I said in response "Don't forget though that while they are technically most powerful, there have been periods in recent testing in which it failed 3 times in a row" By that response I was refering to the Bulava.
@Mechatron1cs stividumb is a well known troll, I have shown him to be wrong several times. His favourite tactic is to either change his argument or if enough comments have passed pretend he never said anything in the first place.
If he gets really upset, he'll start stalking you across youtube.
@StiviGun1 LMAO so how exactly will the Bulava out match it? Or are you just doing your usual thing and writing bullshit which you know nothing about?
@StiviGun1 Um, the USA already violated the ABM treaty a long time ago. And like I was saying what's to be afraid of, no-one can ever survive starting a nuclear war except the USA. So we don't really need ABM's to protect from the Bulava etc., we only need them to protect from an older missile obtained by a terrorist group.
@malamagr Well, whether ABM systems can protect against a major power that has a large number of ICBMs or not, it's debatable. Don't forget that during the '60s it was the Russians who were developing ABM systems and the Americans were the ones trying to get a treaty to ban such systems. Now, it's the other way around.
As for what you said, that the US only needs a system that would protect them against a terrorist attack, well, that's about the only capability the US has right now.
@StiviGun1 Something else to consider is USA is well spread over its territory, so they'd have to saturate us with lots of warheads to destroy us. By contrast, somewhere I read that 1/3 of the population of Russia is in or around Moscow, which is also a more centralized society than ours, so it's so much easier to destroy, we've got stealth bombers and stealth missiles. They can't win, will never attack first, so no need for a full ABM system unless we're planning to actually do a first strike.
@malamagr You're right about this, most of Russia's population is centered around Moscow and Sankt Petersburg. And the Russian leaders don't care about the rest of the population anyway. So it is easier to destroy Russia than it is to destroy US. This was not the case with USSR though.
As for capabilities, yes, you have stealth bombers, but not nearly enough. As for "stealth missiles", I don't know what that means, but I know the Russians have more powerful ICBMs than US.
@koenigsegg661 What, the two missiles you see? The submarine? The two missiles go off to kill a continent, if utilized to full extent. The most common use is a warning shot disguised as a test. I was involved in flying a covey over Cuba. We could have done it anytime, but there was rumor Fidel might hand over to his brother (long ago, not the more recent news). Raul was on the beach and got a phone call to look up as the dum dums came in between Cuba and Florida. Very peacekeeping - like. LOL.
A noble proposal to get rid of nukes but the fact is that nuclear deterance works and the US remains unattacked by foreign governments since its inception.
Another thing to consider is that countering technology lags way behind offensive technology. For instance we are still able to use our missiles (although upgraded) from the sixties and they will still penetrate defenses. Mutually Assured Distruction is just something no one can make peace with.
thats the bomb!!! it doesn't even have to suface to launch! uk citizens can sleep a little easyer knowing we have the means to defend ourselfs against all the nations that tony blair prevoked
HIS IS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTIONS TEN TIMES OVER, AND BARBARIC, GROTESQUE, CRUEL, DISGRACEFUL, MOSTEROUS, FILTHY DIRTY VULGAR INSANITY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER! IF SADAM HUSSAIN WAS HANGED FOR MYTHICAL ONE'S, ALL THOSE IN LONDON AND WASHINGTON SHOULD FACE SIMILAR FATE TOO!
I think this missile would've made a great wheeled mobile platform based ICBM. It would've been much more suited for this role than the Midgetman. It had bigger range, much larger payload. And it wasn't very heavy either, so a mobile land platform could've been conceived for it.
The mystery missile that was fired off the coast of California has been solved. According to Colleen Thomas begin of a Pleidian contact.
She says the US government was firing an ICBM at Iran and was intercepted by the Pleidians.
Soon after President Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka, Osama Bin Laden, ordered another missile fired at the Pleidians in order to continue Bilderberg and the Illuminati's rule.
Not the entire middle east, 192 nukes on an ohio sub with up to 8 per SBM, if you destroyed the largest 192 cities, the blast wave and radiaiton will also kill many people, but there will still be many small towns with small populations they were not worth targeting.
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Missiles are not the only way to deliver a nuke so technology that can counter missiles does not negate the nuclear threat. Also, for nukes to function as a deterent it is important that we can deliver a nuke anywhere on a moments notice, hence the need for missiles.
@zombiespecialist The missiles have nuclear warheads in!! And have the ability to hit targets any where in the world. So they are a deterrent only to used in extreme situations such as WW3 :-)
Kills me how any1 under 30, even 40 sometimes defines a hippie as something like this dumb definition.
You think every hippie was some dirty , ultra liberal douche, and not a single clue of the history you pretend to know.
My old hippie friends consist of recon, door gunners and , chopper pilots & more, and you'd probably learn more than 1 thing if you knew them , especially actual meant being a hippie to normal people then. Kids now, and rednecks from in the day, PLS help 'em.
Kills me how any1 under 30, even 40 sometimes defines a hippie as something like this dumb definition.
You think every hippie was some dirty , ultra liberal douche, and not a single clue of the history you pretend to know.
My old hippie friends consist of recon, door gunners and , chopper pilots & more, and you'd probably learn more than 1 thing if you knew them , especially actual meant being a hippie to normal people then. Kids now, and rednecks from in the day, PLS help 'em.
@300Spartans You are the reason humanity will not ever get to a state where weapons like this are not needed. People just like you. Thanks for holding the rest of us back. And dont even think about calling me a hippie, i am a navy missile tech, thats my platform, thats my missile, and my system. But i think you dont understand what its for.
Civilised nation should get rid of their nukes and develop the technology to countering missiles. Why should the world be run by fear? If we need to strike, then use precision strikes that reduce civilian casualties. Remember that goverments start wars, not the average person.
Well they need to keep nukes (but I could bet you a million bucks that they're never gonna use it for war) because of countries with doubtful leaders that wants or have it. but you're not wrong, it's true that it would be great to try developing some long range anti missile devices.
Problem is that the only reliable interception method currently known is laser (with the anti-missile missile systems such as patriot being a joke).
And there is the problem that any tranport platform for the laser is hard to produce and the cost is really high.
There is currently a Boeing airbourne laser prototype that is meant to intercept tactical nuclear weapons, and it's one of the most expensive aircraft ever.
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 one big problem though it is very very expensive to destroy it safely and eco-friendly, so if they keep them and maintain them safely and eco-friendly for 2000 years it would still be cheaper so by that time we can get rid of them but for now maintaining them for not just for defence but for money to be put to the AEGIS system it would be better.
@amrite Thats ur opinion and ur entiled to it. But i disagree with that cold war type of thinking. The background radiation from the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs is still causing deformities in unborrn children. Do u think that the mistakes of past generations should affect the current? Thats what nukes cause.
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But I disagree with your bigotry. Nukes. save. lives. Without them, another million Americans would've lost their lives trying to invade a fanatical Japan.
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Im afraid your information is incorrect, the only above average cases of child abnormalities occurred in the unborn fetuses exposed to the radiation at the time of the detonations. There has been no cases of hereditary genetic problems passing from the first generation in any of the major releases of radiation in the last 60 years.
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Missiles are not the only way to deliver a nukes so technology that counters missiles does not negate the nuclear threat. Also, for nukes to function as a deterent it is important that we can deliver a nuke anywhere on a moments notice, hence the need for missiles.
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Partly because the Russians have missiles that we (the west) can't shoot down. If we get rid of our missiles, there's no guarantee we'd be able to stop them attacking us. That's the unfortunate reality of mutually assured destruction. No one dares attack first when they can be certain of effective counter-attack.
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Oh and you have a crystal ball do you? We have no idea what China is planning (or building), we have no idea what challenges this planet will face in the coming decades. Nuclear weapons are an unsettling reality that aren't going to go away any time soon. Hopefully, one day, there'll be no place for such weapons in our arsenals. Right now, the future isn't clear enough to make that assumption. What else would prevent nuclear armed nations holding others to ransom?
Long-range missiles are not the only method of delivering a nuclear strike.
Civilized nations getting rid of their nuclear arms would be a huge mistake. Those who believe the world would be better off without nuclear weapons are unfortunately naive. You ask me, "imagine a world without nuclear weapons!"
What do I see? I see a world where major powers are at conventional war. I see millions of causalities, both military and civilian, in constant world wars.
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 I'm sure "civilized" nations are attempting to counter nuclear missiles every day. I think most people believe it's that fear that the world experiences that keeps everyone from killing each other. Without nukes we go back to WWI, pre-WWII. Einstein was saddened by the violence nukes could entail but I'm sure he'd be happy to know about the peace they've created.
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 The technology isn't there. Star Wars was a public relations campaign, not a legitimate R&D program. The reasons nuclear weapons exist is not to be used, but to deter their use by others. There is the chance, as there always has been, that deterrence will fail and there will be a nuclear exchance. It's exceedingly unlikely, however. What worries me is Russia's aging early warning system.
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 We're civilized for the very reason that we have these weapons. We are the guardians at the gate keeping the barbarians at bay. The saying walk softly and carry a big stick applies here and that's exactly what these weapons are....our big stick. If these weapons weren't present then the world would be in even worse shape than it is now. The reason that no one launches one (like North Korea) is because the retaliation from nations such as ours with these weapons would be
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 so overwhelming that any nation that did such a thing would be reduced to ash in a matter of minutes. That is why we have these weapons and that is why they work. When you threaten your kids with a belt if they act out of line you set up a consequence for their actions. This is our belt and we will beat your ass with it if you get out of line. That is what they are for. That's why they work. Quit being a little warm and fuzzy dipshit, we're not going to like everyone.
What's really scary is that those two missiles can deliver 20 nukes between the two of them. That's more destruction than most countries are capable of with their entire military.
Somene wrote Trident is able to launch a warhead into an elliptical low earth orbit, and this capability is used to achieve very flat trajectories (much flatter than classical parabolic ones)and long range. But Russian SAMs did prove to shoot down a Trident launched, by mistake, from water near Svalbard in 1995 directed towards Moscow (in that occasion Russian president and officials were very quick to collect themselves and be aware of the situation, deciding NOT to retaliate)
The 1995 Svalbard incident was not a trident, but a Black Brant sounding rocket that Russia thought was a trident. Nothing was shot down either.
The trident can be launched in a depressed trajectory. A depressed trajectory reduced time of flight, but also has reduced range when compared to a minimum energy trajectory (MET)
you're all agressive braindeads.......its sad that all you have is your impulses for war. I'd quite happily be hit by a trident if war mongerers like were in the same room.......atleast that would give some sort of hope to the rest of the world (that actually think for themselves).
Alright then. Take away the nukes and every country can invade each other without fear of losing hundreds of thousands of civilians. There may be chemical attacks on America and England and God only knows where. Nukes are the only things preventing that, because people are too scared to risk getting hit by one.
@TheNp42 seriously i am from germany and there are at least 8 other countries who surrund us but i´m not afraid that anyone would invade us and none of them is afraid that we invade them. and we don´t habe nuklear chemical or biological weapons
Maybe for your country, but there are higher risks surrounding America, China, the UK...it's pretty much a given that these countries are the main priority of attack.
@TheNp42 the face of wat changed over the years: 50 years ago 1 country fought against another both with huge armies like ww2 or the could war. but the new war looks like iraq or afghanistan: a guerilla (i hope its is the same word in english as it is in german) fight with small very well trained,flexible and prepared (its important that they are prepaird i don´t think the americans where prepared for iraq so well) forces. show me the advantage u americans have over the new threat like alquaida
With an arsenal of ...350 nuclear weapons (something like that) I wouldn't doubt that we could destroy the Earth. However, none of them are extremely high yield (1MT and higher). The highest yield we have (Trident II D5, in this video) is 550 KT. The rest are 355KT (Minuteman III missiles).
@TheNp42 allright buddy :-D i don´t know much about them :-D but really they are useless today! in the past humaity use atomic weapons 2 times ... and they will probably never use on again ... hiroschima and nagasaki (i think) still suffer. those weapon threat all people of the world or than saving and protecting them
Nah, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are perfectly fit to live in nowadays. It's been nearly 70 years, and a radioactive half-life isn't close to that. Nuclear Weapons are something that countries own to feel safe - the common populace believes that nobody will attack them if they have nuclear weapons.
@TheNp42 yeah noone will attack the usa ... remember 9/11?? one of the worst things in close history for sure but the americans felt untouchable. again it shows the new threat: not countries fight against each other but small mobile groups. and nuklear weapons do shit in those conflicts!!!
Actually, Germany is still a rather crucial staging area for European operations, so yeah, I think they SHOULD worry about it. An invasion of the UK (by say, Russia) is likely to push through Germany first.
nuclear missile have not kept peace at all, they were one of the major causes of the cold war which could hardly be called peace
and also the lib dems do not want to abolish nuclear missiles, they want to replace trident with a different nuclear deterrent as it is too expensive to renew
@beanmage : Europe owes much of its existence to nuclear weapons. Otherwise the Soviet Union and the United States would have gone to war by the early 80's....no doubt Europe would have been the battleground. In other words the "real" WW3, not the propaganda pushed by the nuclear disarmament perps or their KGB handlers....
what do you do if you see a red button? press it without any thinking.
Artic3buster 6 days ago
An extremely impressive graphic display of what I have PROVEN already we can never expect .
Sure you can run around and shoot a few more sailors...
BillyJimOMFG 1 month ago
Lock Dad there up, park the fucking thing in New York and blow the silos.
Have a nice day.
BillyJimOMFG 1 month ago
cool
c001st0rybro 1 month ago
Америка и в праду хочт начать войну против Российской Фежераци?))))
Ну давай давайте это вам не ливия и афганистан)
Qiarzz 2 months ago
quite honestly, there is only one explanation for all of the tech by the nazis: aliens. when they were exploring in india, they found miracles of science buried deep away. in fact, the swastika was an indian symbol. hitler then thought that religious vesselsof power (like the ark of the covenant) was actually alien tech that were thought by ancestors to be of God--hence the endless searches acrossthe middle east. the cruise missile ballistic missile, helicopter, jet were foreign to earth.
fatty1443 2 months ago
mirv!!
MidnightRedemption 4 months ago
nigger lips
UberLifeTroll 4 months ago
and they all sucked.and they lost the war. and there supreme leader kiled himself. and the easily dropped atomic bombs actualy didnt find there way onto the planes because without help of further development from 'ALLIED' countries there technology sucked. there science teams went to the usa and uk to use proper equipment. good try tho kipper lips
dannyrsturbo 4 months ago
'
come on america,,,
america can make it many trident missiles / rockets,,,
america can make more better super tridents than ussr russia
bestamerica 4 months ago
@bestamerica Learn how to compose a sentence and go suck yourself.
Scorpiowned777 2 months ago
@Scorpiowned777 Compose? I think you mean 'construct'.
TheNakedQuack 3 weeks ago
But all that assumes NATO would honor their treaties. Personally, if I were NATO commander and Russia had struck USA first and taken out their nuc chain of command, I'd have a hard time giving the order to launch nucs at Russia knowing that even if they prevented a Russian response, the fallout would destroy Europe. Wonder what happens to Russian and USA nuclear subs if the home country is destroyed, can they launch without receiving codes from home? And would they? (makings of a movie script!)
malamagr 4 months ago
@malamagr The launch code from home thing is a myth, once the missiles are armed and in place (which they need clearance for officially, but not physically) the Captain and Weapons Officer can push the button, so to speak.
Really all you need to start a global thermonuclear war is an insane submarine crew. This is why I'm a member of CND.
charlottesetsu 2 months ago
What I'm getting at is that as long as both sides are reasonably well-armed, there's probably never going to be a nuclear war. Who's got faster planes or bigger bombs isn't the deciding factor, it's geography. No matter who attacks first, Europe and Russia get destroyed. USA being closely tied with Europe would not want them destroyed, but at least theoretically USA could strike first and survive, itself. If Russia strikes first, EVERYONE's destroyed. I don't believe they'd actually do that.
malamagr 4 months ago
There've been references to a more secret "stealth cruise missile", but the AGM-129 is stealthy and was made around same time as F-117. (I just read 129's are slated to be retired per treaty.) It's not just stealth; USA has so much stuff so close to Russia that with only 2 major targets, maybe a first strike could knock out nuclear chain of command before retaliation? Because of NATO, Russia would have to take out USA plus European nuc powers in a 1st strike, which would destroy themselves too.
malamagr 4 months ago
Germany made the first ballistic missile in 1942 i think the famous V-2 that could drop easily atomic bombs for sure at moscow lond and maybe america germany had the best technology they were to far for these times the made the first half stealth plane named ho 229 or go 229 in 1945 onl 3 were produced before the end of the war they made the first cruse missile named V-1 and the first jet ofcurse name me-262
djkapalof 6 months ago
@djkapalof The V2 couldnt carry nuclear weapons, nor did the germans build "stealth" planes in WW2... if they did then either the Soviets or the US would've been all over it making copies
atomicR4GER 5 months ago
@atomicR4GER see the go 229 in google picture and thene see the b2 stealth bomber america is having it a copy
djkapalof 5 months ago
@djkapalof I have seen it, I know it looks very similar but it is not stealth. Not only does an aircraft need advanced computers and scientists to help design a stealth plane, they also need the right materials which as far as I know weren't available in WW2
atomicR4GER 5 months ago
@atomicR4GER The V-2 didn't carry a nuclear warhead because of Hitler's stupidity. He stopped Germany's nuclear weapons program. But the V2-2 could've been very well adapted to carry a nuclear warhead if the Germans had the technology.
And they did build the first stealth plane. It was called Horten Ho 229. It was built by the Horten brothers and it had a flying wing design. It was also covered in a primitive RAM. It's just that it came to late during the war to make a difference.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@djkapalof The V-2 couldn't come close to dropping an atomic bomb, for a long time A-bombs were far too large and heavy for anything except the hugest planes. And the V-2 could get across the English channel but not to Moscow or America. It was a small rocket! Just a nuisance really, same as the V-1's. Not a strategic weapon.
malamagr 4 months ago
@djkapalof but you're right, the Germans were very innovative when they felt they had to be in order to survive. So were the British when they had to be, and later the USA and USSR when both thought they were in danger.
malamagr 4 months ago
@djkapalof they only had a range of 160 miles, but during world war 2 that was outstanding range.
zulok1337 2 months ago
so is the torpedo propeller driven whilst under water and the rocket kicks in once it had left the water?
crucifr1ed 8 months ago
@crucifr1ed The launch from underwater was done by the submarine which ejects the missiles from their tubes by igniting an explosive charge in a separate container. as soon as it breaks through the water the rocket then ignites the fuel.
sentinental 7 months ago
@sentinental cheers for the info :D
crucifr1ed 7 months ago
Heeeeeeeeey...whats this button do?
CyclonicTuna023 8 months ago 37
@CyclonicTuna023 lol
TheParkerjo 6 months ago
@CyclonicTuna023
DON'T PRESS IT...! Aww.
Skyheadful 3 months ago
@CyclonicTuna023 it kills 5 million people.
zulok1337 2 months ago
In a nuclear war britain needs to cut all ties with america cause it's gonna be them that either start it or are hit first. That means her allies will be next. A country has no friends in a nuclear dispute.
ntfclad1985 9 months ago
@ntfclad1985 All of America's allies in Europe will be targets because of NATO
2550505 6 months ago
@2550505 To be honest any country involved in a nuclear war is gonna hit the enemy and allies first then anything left will hit neutral countrys cause who's gonna want there country destroyed whilst a seperate country has the power to invade and take over whatever is left. The next world war will be a WORLD war
ntfclad1985 6 months ago
@2550505 That's why I think neither Russia nor the USSR could ever start a nuclear war. They'd have to hit all the stuff in western Europe aimed at them, and the fallout would destroy Moscow and the rest of the most important parts of Russia. Geography puts them forever on the defensive. Also, if USA nukes Moscow the fallout would destroy their allies in Europe. If China struck first their economy would collapse. Only the USA could start a nuclear war and survive, if Russia had no time to react.
malamagr 4 months ago
Human Loves War
maxmag981 9 months ago
where's the sound!?!?!?!?
samthelittleman1 9 months ago
In terms of nuclear power britain and america are on par, to say britian is an orphan child without america would be wrong because any smart person would interpret the power of the nation by its nuclear weapons divisions. However, in terms of an army that britian has to offer then we are weaker than you but by no means should this be any reason to underestimate the countrys strength it has
JacobDOperanta 9 months ago
america's middle finger!!
bonkersblock 9 months ago
ههههه ايران دولة الفوتوشوب
21zooz 10 months ago
The Royal Navy sub HMS Vanguard fired this? :-)
TheArmchairSoldier 10 months ago
I love some MIRV missiles :)
MidnightRedemption 11 months ago
This is the most powerful sub based ballistic missile in the world. But soon, it will be outmatched by the Bulava. The Americans should take action again the Russian violation of the arms treaties that they make with RS-23 & Bulava, now. IN the form of ABM systems. The US definitely must develop ABM systems capable of dealing with the threats represented by the Bulava and RS-24. I don't know why they's so wimpy when it comes 2 confronting the Russians on these things.
StiviGun1 11 months ago
Comment removed
Mechatron1cs 11 months ago
@Mechatron1cs And how do you know that? Wiki says this missile has a perfect launch record? Can you provide a source that proves what you say?
StiviGun1 11 months ago
@StiviGun1 How surprising quoting wiki as your only source as USUAL :) So why do you always put people down for using wiki when in fact it is all you use. Pathetic.
Jospehporta 11 months ago
Comment removed
Mechatron1cs 11 months ago
@Mechatron1cs A Russian source??? Are you fucking kidding me? What video on YT? Show me that video. I bet it's that video where a Bulava test fails and the Russians claim that was a failed Trident test... Show me that video.
StiviGun1 11 months ago
Comment removed
Mechatron1cs 11 months ago
@Mechatron1cs Watch ur language moron! The Bulava had MUCH MORE than 1 failure. In fact, THIRTEEN out of the 17 were failures. And where is the video of that Trident test gone wrong? U think I'm gonna trust Russian sources. The Russian try 2 bash any American weapons project that is powerful & has potential. They just can' stand 2 see America being ahead of them, that's why they're wasting A LOT of money on Bulava... Show me the proof on those recent Trident II tests!
StiviGun1 11 months ago
Comment removed
Mechatron1cs 11 months ago
@Mechatron1cs Are you on drugs or something? When did I say Bulava didn't have any failures? On the contrary, I said that the video that circles around YT with a supposedly Trident II failed test, is actually a Bulava missile test... U must be drugged... Bulava has had 13 failures out of 17, MUCH MORE than the Trident II had since it was designed. U were the 1 saying that the Trident II had 6 failures in a row. Now, u're trying 2 avoid the subject... What a lame tactic...
StiviGun1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StiviGun1
No first you said the minuteman III "well soon be outmatched by the Bulava". I said in response "Don't forget though that while they are technically most powerful, there have been periods in recent testing in which it failed 3 times in a row" By that response I was refering to the Bulava.
Mechatron1cs 11 months ago
@Mechatron1cs stividumb is a well known troll, I have shown him to be wrong several times. His favourite tactic is to either change his argument or if enough comments have passed pretend he never said anything in the first place.
If he gets really upset, he'll start stalking you across youtube.
You're comments are exactly right.
Jospehporta 11 months ago
@StiviGun1 LMAO so how exactly will the Bulava out match it? Or are you just doing your usual thing and writing bullshit which you know nothing about?
Jospehporta 11 months ago
Comment removed
Mechatron1cs 11 months ago
@StiviGun1 Um, the USA already violated the ABM treaty a long time ago. And like I was saying what's to be afraid of, no-one can ever survive starting a nuclear war except the USA. So we don't really need ABM's to protect from the Bulava etc., we only need them to protect from an older missile obtained by a terrorist group.
malamagr 4 months ago
@malamagr Well, whether ABM systems can protect against a major power that has a large number of ICBMs or not, it's debatable. Don't forget that during the '60s it was the Russians who were developing ABM systems and the Americans were the ones trying to get a treaty to ban such systems. Now, it's the other way around.
As for what you said, that the US only needs a system that would protect them against a terrorist attack, well, that's about the only capability the US has right now.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
@StiviGun1 Something else to consider is USA is well spread over its territory, so they'd have to saturate us with lots of warheads to destroy us. By contrast, somewhere I read that 1/3 of the population of Russia is in or around Moscow, which is also a more centralized society than ours, so it's so much easier to destroy, we've got stealth bombers and stealth missiles. They can't win, will never attack first, so no need for a full ABM system unless we're planning to actually do a first strike.
malamagr 4 months ago
@malamagr You're right about this, most of Russia's population is centered around Moscow and Sankt Petersburg. And the Russian leaders don't care about the rest of the population anyway. So it is easier to destroy Russia than it is to destroy US. This was not the case with USSR though.
As for capabilities, yes, you have stealth bombers, but not nearly enough. As for "stealth missiles", I don't know what that means, but I know the Russians have more powerful ICBMs than US.
StiviGun1 4 months ago
God bless America.....
YankEZe911 11 months ago
Hope they're heading for hajji.
hurtzc 11 months ago
@plaebslayer It's the same thing, just covered by smoke. It's also further down the sub's missile bay.
Capt777harris 1 year ago
I have one of these in the basement, the sub that is.
dtiydr 1 year ago
@dtiydr lolz MCLL
CJ090 1 year ago
@plaebslayer Three nuc subs. Qualified on all. Fuck you, dumbass.
Therealmensa 1 year ago
@Therealmensa I know what the second one does now, it flies to your house and goes straight up your asshole lmfao
plaebslayer 1 year ago
@plaebslayer I do, you fucking idiot.
Therealmensa 1 year ago
@Therealmensa what does it do?
koenigsegg661 1 year ago
@koenigsegg661 What, the two missiles you see? The submarine? The two missiles go off to kill a continent, if utilized to full extent. The most common use is a warning shot disguised as a test. I was involved in flying a covey over Cuba. We could have done it anytime, but there was rumor Fidel might hand over to his brother (long ago, not the more recent news). Raul was on the beach and got a phone call to look up as the dum dums came in between Cuba and Florida. Very peacekeeping - like. LOL.
Therealmensa 1 year ago
@SuperAnimalGuy
I'm going to guess and say it's in the ocean.
columbusmozart 1 year ago
A noble proposal to get rid of nukes but the fact is that nuclear deterance works and the US remains unattacked by foreign governments since its inception.
Another thing to consider is that countering technology lags way behind offensive technology. For instance we are still able to use our missiles (although upgraded) from the sixties and they will still penetrate defenses. Mutually Assured Distruction is just something no one can make peace with.
ruby1487 1 year ago
in war i suggest taking away all weapons take back the Sword and let the Country Leaders have a Duel will be much less war that way
Mattebubben 1 year ago
thats the bomb!!! it doesn't even have to suface to launch! uk citizens can sleep a little easyer knowing we have the means to defend ourselfs against all the nations that tony blair prevoked
evergonge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HIS IS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTIONS TEN TIMES OVER, AND BARBARIC, GROTESQUE, CRUEL, DISGRACEFUL, MOSTEROUS, FILTHY DIRTY VULGAR INSANITY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER! IF SADAM HUSSAIN WAS HANGED FOR MYTHICAL ONE'S, ALL THOSE IN LONDON AND WASHINGTON SHOULD FACE SIMILAR FATE TOO!
AbuAmanah 1 year ago
I think this missile would've made a great wheeled mobile platform based ICBM. It would've been much more suited for this role than the Midgetman. It had bigger range, much larger payload. And it wasn't very heavy either, so a mobile land platform could've been conceived for it.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
long live . islamic republic of iran
Darajandu 1 year ago
@Darajandu Long live Iran? Not with these around...
mj2w1 1 year ago
@Darajandu
Um, yeah...how many times has Mesopotam...er...Persia....er Iran been subsumed now?
columbusmozart 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The mystery missile that was fired off the coast of California has been solved. According to Colleen Thomas begin of a Pleidian contact.
She says the US government was firing an ICBM at Iran and was intercepted by the Pleidians.
Soon after President Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka, Osama Bin Laden, ordered another missile fired at the Pleidians in order to continue Bilderberg and the Illuminati's rule.
Thanks to: Colleen Thomas.
NO TO NWO!
LOVE-PEACE-LIGHT-ABUNDANCE.
marinodelfino 1 year ago
Сейчас разрабатываются новые ICBM в USA?
421292129 1 year ago
these missiles are used for only one thing and one thing only. To fucking kill people.......haha
blazedbl 1 year ago
@egpg2000 1 trident missile sub could level the entire middle east.
bobafettfan32 1 year ago
@bobafettfan32
Not the entire middle east, 192 nukes on an ohio sub with up to 8 per SBM, if you destroyed the largest 192 cities, the blast wave and radiaiton will also kill many people, but there will still be many small towns with small populations they were not worth targeting.
S1lent2011 1 year ago
Comment removed
Grundlethefunky 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Missiles are not the only way to deliver a nuke so technology that can counter missiles does not negate the nuclear threat. Also, for nukes to function as a deterent it is important that we can deliver a nuke anywhere on a moments notice, hence the need for missiles.
ETicketM 1 year ago
We dont have the tridents on the Ohio class subs anymore. All smart missiles now...
HPISFBankrupter 1 year ago
@HPISFBankrupter
yes, actually we do... do your research...
raggi555 1 year ago
@HPISFBankrupter Uh.....yeah actually we do. They've been there for a while and their not going anywhere any time soon.
Grundlethefunky 1 year ago
@HPISFBankrupter
Tridents are still used on Ohio-class subs.
columbusmozart 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck war fuck navy fuck assassinsmilitary wars useles for a better world
and fuck judeo-and-freemasonery forever disappear from universe
rotas75 1 year ago
@zombiespecialist The missiles have nuclear warheads in!! And have the ability to hit targets any where in the world. So they are a deterrent only to used in extreme situations such as WW3 :-)
StuntedGrowth300 1 year ago
@StuntedGrowth300
Well, an SRBM doesn't quite have the range of an ICBM, and it can hit anywhere in the world (mostly, but you have to get the sub there first).
columbusmozart 1 year ago
Brutal thrust correction after breech
Baphamatt 1 year ago
@egpg2000 = 0 left of anything, lol
shattercourse 1 year ago
@egpg2000
Kills me how any1 under 30, even 40 sometimes defines a hippie as something like this dumb definition.
You think every hippie was some dirty , ultra liberal douche, and not a single clue of the history you pretend to know.
My old hippie friends consist of recon, door gunners and , chopper pilots & more, and you'd probably learn more than 1 thing if you knew them , especially actual meant being a hippie to normal people then. Kids now, and rednecks from in the day, PLS help 'em.
Rampant7990 1 year ago
Хуйня это все.. Русские вас уничтожат в любой момент.
8800888 1 year ago
@8800888 например чем ? портянками закидают? ... ура- поцтреот
xOpenAir 1 year ago
Anyone who dislikes this video and what it represents is a fucking hippie, a terrorist or a fucking hippie terrorist.
300Spartans 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@300Spartans
Kills me how any1 under 30, even 40 sometimes defines a hippie as something like this dumb definition.
You think every hippie was some dirty , ultra liberal douche, and not a single clue of the history you pretend to know.
My old hippie friends consist of recon, door gunners and , chopper pilots & more, and you'd probably learn more than 1 thing if you knew them , especially actual meant being a hippie to normal people then. Kids now, and rednecks from in the day, PLS help 'em.
Rampant7990 1 year ago
@300Spartans You are the reason humanity will not ever get to a state where weapons like this are not needed. People just like you. Thanks for holding the rest of us back. And dont even think about calling me a hippie, i am a navy missile tech, thats my platform, thats my missile, and my system. But i think you dont understand what its for.
WZW1982 1 year ago
@WZW1982 could you explain what the trident missiles are for exactly?
zombiespecialist 1 year ago
@zombiespecialist deterrence
WZW1982 1 year ago
@zombiespecialist
Making glass parking lots.
columbusmozart 1 year ago
@WZW1982 Sure you were a missle tech. Silly hippie.
300Spartans 1 year ago
Do us a big favor. Nuke yourself for having a selfish and distorted perception of reality, and for inventing a modern system of enslavement.
MightyThruth 1 year ago
imagain the scene. out at sea fishing. then that fucker launches out of nowhere lol
stonerscrap 1 year ago
ooyah
KSpotes 1 year ago
very good! I wish i could send 2 or 20 of these to a spesual place.
i thin you know what i meen
norwegian69able 1 year ago
@norwegian69able learn to spell fool
no0bscap3 1 year ago
@no0bscap3 Its ok. My inglish is not so good as yours
norwegian69able 1 year ago
very good!
norwegian69able 1 year ago
Civilised nation should get rid of their nukes and develop the technology to countering missiles. Why should the world be run by fear? If we need to strike, then use precision strikes that reduce civilian casualties. Remember that goverments start wars, not the average person.
xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 1 year ago 11
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1
Well they need to keep nukes (but I could bet you a million bucks that they're never gonna use it for war) because of countries with doubtful leaders that wants or have it. but you're not wrong, it's true that it would be great to try developing some long range anti missile devices.
tifranpilote 1 year ago
@tifranpilote
Problem is that the only reliable interception method currently known is laser (with the anti-missile missile systems such as patriot being a joke).
And there is the problem that any tranport platform for the laser is hard to produce and the cost is really high.
There is currently a Boeing airbourne laser prototype that is meant to intercept tactical nuclear weapons, and it's one of the most expensive aircraft ever.
LichGeneral 1 year ago
@LichGeneral yeah, the boeing YAL-1
tifranpilote 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 one big problem though it is very very expensive to destroy it safely and eco-friendly, so if they keep them and maintain them safely and eco-friendly for 2000 years it would still be cheaper so by that time we can get rid of them but for now maintaining them for not just for defence but for money to be put to the AEGIS system it would be better.
TheMilitaryTactics 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Yeah, let's all get rid of them while Iran doesn't give a crap about what you say and nukes us all.
amrite 1 year ago
@amrite Thats ur opinion and ur entiled to it. But i disagree with that cold war type of thinking. The background radiation from the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs is still causing deformities in unborrn children. Do u think that the mistakes of past generations should affect the current? Thats what nukes cause.
xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But I disagree with your bigotry. Nukes. save. lives. Without them, another million Americans would've lost their lives trying to invade a fanatical Japan.
amrite 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Im afraid your information is incorrect, the only above average cases of child abnormalities occurred in the unborn fetuses exposed to the radiation at the time of the detonations. There has been no cases of hereditary genetic problems passing from the first generation in any of the major releases of radiation in the last 60 years.
vick912k 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1
Unlikely, within 10 years the resulting residual radiation would be only slightly higher than normal cosmic radiation.
columbusmozart 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Yes, governments and politicians start wars and leave it to the soldiers to finish them.
63gstone 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 so other countries think "fuck attacking them"
GeorgeHurst08 1 year ago 5
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Obviously everyone wouldn't do it. If someone else is going to have these things, I want America to have even more of them.
jdepps13 1 year ago 8
@jdepps13 Well, they're from Great Britain...
c10mimi 10 months ago
Comment removed
ETicketM 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Missiles are not the only way to deliver a nukes so technology that counters missiles does not negate the nuclear threat. Also, for nukes to function as a deterent it is important that we can deliver a nuke anywhere on a moments notice, hence the need for missiles.
ETicketM 1 year ago 12
@ETicketM
Haha As Much as you said Nuke in that pic was annoying.
saradomin122 7 months ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Partly because the Russians have missiles that we (the west) can't shoot down. If we get rid of our missiles, there's no guarantee we'd be able to stop them attacking us. That's the unfortunate reality of mutually assured destruction. No one dares attack first when they can be certain of effective counter-attack.
basslinedan 1 year ago
@basslinedan The cold war has ended.
xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 But a new world threat has emerged, one more complex than the cold war.
POPJack1717 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Oh and you have a crystal ball do you? We have no idea what China is planning (or building), we have no idea what challenges this planet will face in the coming decades. Nuclear weapons are an unsettling reality that aren't going to go away any time soon. Hopefully, one day, there'll be no place for such weapons in our arsenals. Right now, the future isn't clear enough to make that assumption. What else would prevent nuclear armed nations holding others to ransom?
basslinedan 1 year ago
@basslinedan We know pretty much what China is capable of. And the counter to it, and anyone else with a nuke, is just around the corner.
Capt777harris 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1
Long-range missiles are not the only method of delivering a nuclear strike.
Civilized nations getting rid of their nuclear arms would be a huge mistake. Those who believe the world would be better off without nuclear weapons are unfortunately naive. You ask me, "imagine a world without nuclear weapons!"
What do I see? I see a world where major powers are at conventional war. I see millions of causalities, both military and civilian, in constant world wars.
apt3444 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 I'm sure "civilized" nations are attempting to counter nuclear missiles every day. I think most people believe it's that fear that the world experiences that keeps everyone from killing each other. Without nukes we go back to WWI, pre-WWII. Einstein was saddened by the violence nukes could entail but I'm sure he'd be happy to know about the peace they've created.
MrJimshot1990 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 i wish i could thumb that up twice!
lphiljipl 1 year ago
@lphiljipl Thank you
xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 Tell that to the Russians. They don't even wanna hear about it.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 hehe alright lets disarm then. you go first. i promise i will.
IvanDrago187 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 The technology isn't there. Star Wars was a public relations campaign, not a legitimate R&D program. The reasons nuclear weapons exist is not to be used, but to deter their use by others. There is the chance, as there always has been, that deterrence will fail and there will be a nuclear exchance. It's exceedingly unlikely, however. What worries me is Russia's aging early warning system.
Nater245689 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 We're civilized for the very reason that we have these weapons. We are the guardians at the gate keeping the barbarians at bay. The saying walk softly and carry a big stick applies here and that's exactly what these weapons are....our big stick. If these weapons weren't present then the world would be in even worse shape than it is now. The reason that no one launches one (like North Korea) is because the retaliation from nations such as ours with these weapons would be
Grundlethefunky 1 year ago
@xXTheDarkPrinceXx1 so overwhelming that any nation that did such a thing would be reduced to ash in a matter of minutes. That is why we have these weapons and that is why they work. When you threaten your kids with a belt if they act out of line you set up a consequence for their actions. This is our belt and we will beat your ass with it if you get out of line. That is what they are for. That's why they work. Quit being a little warm and fuzzy dipshit, we're not going to like everyone.
Grundlethefunky 1 year ago
What's really scary is that those two missiles can deliver 20 nukes between the two of them. That's more destruction than most countries are capable of with their entire military.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
@CobaltX07 Yeah and not to mention the after effects of those nuclear explosions
IGOTDOWNS 1 year ago
Two different launches, the first video does not match the second.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
damn...now the fish are trying to get to the moon to?..lol
95ZacK95 1 year ago
"Sir, I think there is a sub over there."
"nonesense, subs shoot torpedoes dummy."
kush8978 1 year ago
Somene wrote Trident is able to launch a warhead into an elliptical low earth orbit, and this capability is used to achieve very flat trajectories (much flatter than classical parabolic ones)and long range. But Russian SAMs did prove to shoot down a Trident launched, by mistake, from water near Svalbard in 1995 directed towards Moscow (in that occasion Russian president and officials were very quick to collect themselves and be aware of the situation, deciding NOT to retaliate)
anisocoro 1 year ago
@anisocoro we should have done and shown the strength of Russia
TJmoneymaker13 1 year ago
The 1995 Svalbard incident was not a trident, but a Black Brant sounding rocket that Russia thought was a trident. Nothing was shot down either.
The trident can be launched in a depressed trajectory. A depressed trajectory reduced time of flight, but also has reduced range when compared to a minimum energy trajectory (MET)
Macrojay 1 year ago
you're all agressive braindeads.......its sad that all you have is your impulses for war. I'd quite happily be hit by a trident if war mongerers like were in the same room.......atleast that would give some sort of hope to the rest of the world (that actually think for themselves).
nigeSW 1 year ago
Nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!
MaggoTDiluteD 1 year ago
we need to get rid of these cold war relics.
HelmutVillam 1 year ago
@HelmutVillam
These "cold war relics" are the only things keeping the world together.
If we get rid of them, then the any country can attack the other without fear of a nuclear launch.
TheNp42 1 year ago
@TheNp42 bullshit!!
lamazilla 1 year ago
@lamazilla
Alright then. Take away the nukes and every country can invade each other without fear of losing hundreds of thousands of civilians. There may be chemical attacks on America and England and God only knows where. Nukes are the only things preventing that, because people are too scared to risk getting hit by one.
TheNp42 1 year ago
@TheNp42 seriously i am from germany and there are at least 8 other countries who surrund us but i´m not afraid that anyone would invade us and none of them is afraid that we invade them. and we don´t habe nuklear chemical or biological weapons
lamazilla 1 year ago
@lamazilla
Maybe for your country, but there are higher risks surrounding America, China, the UK...it's pretty much a given that these countries are the main priority of attack.
TheNp42 1 year ago
@TheNp42 the face of wat changed over the years: 50 years ago 1 country fought against another both with huge armies like ww2 or the could war. but the new war looks like iraq or afghanistan: a guerilla (i hope its is the same word in english as it is in german) fight with small very well trained,flexible and prepared (its important that they are prepaird i don´t think the americans where prepared for iraq so well) forces. show me the advantage u americans have over the new threat like alquaida
lamazilla 1 year ago
@lamazilla
"a guerilla (i hope its is the same word in english as it is in german)"
It is, with the same meaning. I think both of our languages inherited it from Spanish.
columbusmozart 1 year ago
@TheNp42 with all your weapon. with all of your nuclear weapons you could destroy the earth 40 times (or something like that)
lamazilla 1 year ago
@lamazilla
With an arsenal of ...350 nuclear weapons (something like that) I wouldn't doubt that we could destroy the Earth. However, none of them are extremely high yield (1MT and higher). The highest yield we have (Trident II D5, in this video) is 550 KT. The rest are 355KT (Minuteman III missiles).
TheNp42 1 year ago
@TheNp42 allright buddy :-D i don´t know much about them :-D but really they are useless today! in the past humaity use atomic weapons 2 times ... and they will probably never use on again ... hiroschima and nagasaki (i think) still suffer. those weapon threat all people of the world or than saving and protecting them
lamazilla 1 year ago
@lamazilla
Nah, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are perfectly fit to live in nowadays. It's been nearly 70 years, and a radioactive half-life isn't close to that. Nuclear Weapons are something that countries own to feel safe - the common populace believes that nobody will attack them if they have nuclear weapons.
TheNp42 1 year ago
@TheNp42 yeah noone will attack the usa ... remember 9/11?? one of the worst things in close history for sure but the americans felt untouchable. again it shows the new threat: not countries fight against each other but small mobile groups. and nuklear weapons do shit in those conflicts!!!
lamazilla 1 year ago
@lamazilla They do shit all indeed in those kind of conflicts, but they still prevent war between many industrialised nations.
YellowStringStudios 1 year ago
@YellowStringStudios but wich country would direktly attack the us (e.g.) even if they wouldn´t have nukes?
lamazilla 1 year ago
@lamazilla
Well, China for one...they have the manpower to do it.
columbusmozart 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mechatron1cs 11 months ago
@TheNp42
Actually, Germany is still a rather crucial staging area for European operations, so yeah, I think they SHOULD worry about it. An invasion of the UK (by say, Russia) is likely to push through Germany first.
columbusmozart 1 year ago
@TheNp42
Plus, it wouldn't be long before someone(s) started building new ones clandestinely.
columbusmozart 1 year ago
nuclear missile have not kept peace at all, they were one of the major causes of the cold war which could hardly be called peace
and also the lib dems do not want to abolish nuclear missiles, they want to replace trident with a different nuclear deterrent as it is too expensive to renew
beanmage 1 year ago
@beanmage : Europe owes much of its existence to nuclear weapons. Otherwise the Soviet Union and the United States would have gone to war by the early 80's....no doubt Europe would have been the battleground. In other words the "real" WW3, not the propaganda pushed by the nuclear disarmament perps or their KGB handlers....
hooozurdaddy 1 year ago
@beanmage If there was no nukes, WW3 would have happened. Millions would die.
Nukes have kept peace.
YellowStringStudios 1 year ago