i realize this is a film from 1979, but i have to ask – how accurate does an ICBM or an SLBM really need to be, given the overall destructive power of a nuclear warhead?
ICBM sumarines are perfect they are always hidden. Plus we have the UK and France Submarines to back ours up. Scotland BAE Systems boats alone could destroy every large city in Russia with one Sherwood Forest package deployed in 20 minutes. First Strike just wants to pretend the subs are inaccurate - they use the same guidance systems as our fixed base missles! Therefore they are the best deterrent really - submarines are all you need really - bombers are too slow at getting going.
@usadear2me you're being silly, all europe has to do is kill the people that robbed the citizens (central and international banks) and take thier wealth back. all these economic crisis can be solved by taking the wealth back from the thieves or starting a new currency that isnt debt ridden. do you know how I got out of debt to banks? i refused to pay and demanded proof that the bank had the money to lend in the first place, banks lend money they dont really have so the debt is void
@mitomke the soviet commies invaded one country ever after the shakedown of ww2, the soviets took eastern european countries as a buffer and it worked, history shows thier strategy was sound. the west was far more intrusive and destructive than the east especially in third world. the usa used to intervene even when they werent wanted while the soviets only butted in when asked except for Afghanistan. the blame is with ALL peoples because we let our fear of each other get out of hand.
The Soviet what? They don't exist any longer. The Soviets could never surpass the West in technilogical developement. Go back in history when the U.K. sold jet engines to CCCP and they then reverse engineered them. The Soviets copy and enhance but never create original concepts. This video demonstrates a depart from reality. I feel if the Soviets thought they could defeat the West, they would have done so.
We needed three nuclear deterrents because we have three branches of the military and massive defense contractors who profit from each branch. The Military Industrial Complex simply used fear to convince Americans that we needed to waste even more money on the Cold War.
@fivestarmichael OOOKKK Neville Chamberlain...found "peace in our time yet?" "Triad" means that we have 3 ways to defend ourselves....kinda like 1). good drivers, 2). seatbelts, 3). airbags. Any will save your life, but if the others fail, you are more likely to survive.
This is a fascinating documentary, a classic example of the problems that Ike was warning about in his military industrial complex speech.
Even by the time this was shot the SLBM force was in the process of being upgraded to the point where the ICBM itself was no longer needed. The debate in the video about the subs not being accurate enough was already known to be false (or soon).
Reagan had a better solution, just get rid of the nukes. No one wanted them.
@djgloverv Russia's economy is nowhere near the United States, also Russia's strategic defense infrastructure is deteriorating, in particular their missile early warning system
Folks, the Dept of Defense was hungry for taxdollars, that's why it was scaring the public...What was most scary was the fact that had JFK lived he would have been younger than Reagan at the time, who was 75 and had his finger on the nuclear button. Nothing was scarier than that.......
Reagan-era Military-industrial-complex propaganda here. The U.S.S.R. was weakening at this time, but his CIA chief fixed it so that this information was kept out of the appraisal of Soviet capability.
No, this was fimed in 1979 and aired in early to mid 1980`s depending on when it was aired locally. This was when the Carter Administration was looking to cut military funding, and the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union has just recently been ratified. The Air Force filmed and released this. At the time, they were in danger of losing funding for the MX missle and B-1 Stealth Bomber programs. Listen closely how both programs are constantly being talked about.
@album183 I stand corrected! I was going on something I'd read about skewed appraisals of Soviet mil strength during Reagan's time- that they knew the U.S.S.R. was weakening, but continued our own buildup.
WHEN PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER was shown 3 Different ways we could so called hit any TARGEt... HE was shown in 1976-79 THE B-1 BOMBER then a MACH 3. TREE TOP LEVEL!!! PAY-LOAD WAS CLSSIFIED,Above 65.000 feet it could have been over MACH 3.6.BUT IT was considered too costly...He was shown the less costly MX Missile that could be delivered from AIR or SHIP , and SUBMARINE...Then CAME a game changer the NU-TRON BOMB as I said it Disstroys a few BLOCKS LEAVING RADIATION FALLOUT WOULD do the REST!
yes we are still here,but Russia,china,south korea,france ,pakastan ,india ,even Israel,possiblely IRAN, all have nuclear wepons more accurate ss.22s and minute man 2s+more accurate sea based and Air Based MX and Don't think THE NUTRON BOMBS tipped on more advanced I.C.B.M.s'could be loaded with low yeild nukes for sole use of E.M.P.s' are more of a THREAT to PEACE... NUTRON TIPPED MISSILES' are bombs that blow up a few blocks' LEAVING CITES intact just RADIO-Fallout would KILL ALL!!!
yes we are still here,but Russia,china,south korea,france ,pakastan ,india ,even Israel,possiblely IRAN, all have nuclear wepons more accurate ss.22s and minute man 2s+more accurate sea based and Air Based MX and Don't think THE NUTRON BOMBS tipped on more advanced I.C.B.M.s'could be loaded with low yeild nukes for sole use of E.M.P.s' are more of a THREAT to PEACE... NUTRON TIPPED MISSILES' are bombs that blow up a few blocks' LEAVING CITES intact just RADIATION would kill living things!!!
@stperkin No, you can't step back and claim that both powers were "sadly ignorant." You're talking about a conflict of ideologies here, regardless of how faithful each side was to their own ideas.
In reality, the Cold War was born out of intolerance for the other side's ideals. Marxism-Leninism directly opposes what many Western democratic countries champion, and Marxism itself demands a world revolution. Conflict was inevitable.
I have an alternate solution. Dismantle all of the nukes in the world and build a room that our world powers can go and with the use of good ole "Rock'em-Sock'em" Robots, determine who wins the current argument/disagreement at that time.
The money saved would be enough to rebuild the economy without the need of the oil industry and other funds could easily be made available to take care of our homeless and other issues. That is all, please carry on, I'll be here all day.
First of all, the SALT and START Treaties are null and void. We can justify rebuilding our complete nuclear force! The treaty was between the USA and The USSR. The USSR does not exist, they do not have the right to even have a seat on the United Nations. I consider China to be a threat. We must build up our nuclear forces to the six digit level. China and North Korea with Iran should be priority target and Russia a target of opportunity.
It is my belief that the current threat does not come from the former Warsaw pact nations but rather the threat now comes from Terrorist organizations both foreign and domestic utilizing Black market Nuclear weapons which can now according to our intelligence agencies be purchased on the black market. Nations that are now Nuclear capable such as North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, China, and India do not have an accurate deliverance system.
I can't believe that national US doesn't have a countermeasure against ICBMs. First to launch, first to win, should it be so "easy"? No anti-missile missiles?
It is exaggerated -- the idea was to present an absolute worst case scenario to get the audience's attention. The purpose of the film was to motivate people to think about the utility of nuclear weapons, why they confer power, why perceived vulnerability is dangerously provocative, the relative merit of various modernization schemes and the necessity of stability maintenance.
The SS-18 was designed to take out our Minuteman missiles and Soviet SSBMs, the bombers and other soft targets.
The risk described in this video seems greatly exaggerated. Because of the time involved, our missle silos and bombers were never seriously threatened by Russian land-based missles. Instead, that threat came from submarine-based missles, which we answered with our own submarine-based missles. None have yet developed a way of eliminating that latter mutual threat.
We were allies with the USSR only due to the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Heck Patton wanted to start a war with the USSR right after Germany fell, figured we would sooner or later.
@filmsouth yes, we are still here, but nonetheless, don't rule out the possibility, after all, Yuri Solomonov mentioned that the state defense order for 2011-2013 calls for a significant increase of the ballistic missile production rate after the first year. The number of missiles produced in 2012-2013 is expected to be "several times higher" than in 2011, which is expected to stay at the current level.
@filmsouth The current level is about eight missiles a year - earlier Solomonov mentioned six to ten, it stayed about eight Topol-M missiles on average in the last few years. These numbers apparently include Bulava SLBMs that would be required to equip the new Project 955 submarines - Aleksandr Nevskiy and Vladimir Monomakh, which would probably be ready around that time. The first submarine of this class, Yuri Dolgorukiy, apparently has enough missiles produced for it already.
@filmsouth Solomonov suggested that serial production of Bulava has been going for four years. Given that the each submarine requires 16 missiles, Votkinsk would have to produce at least 16 in 2012 and again in 2013, which is already about twice the current production rate. To this we should add seven or so ICBMs (the 2011 plan in to deploy three RS-24 and four silo-based Topol-Ms), which means that the the production rate will roughly triple.
@filmsouth The RS-24, which is a modification of the RS-12M2 Topol-M missile, is a mobile system that is capable of "penetrating highly protected targets", as well as any current ballistic missile defense, in the span of the next 20 years, - my apologies for using 4 postings to fill it in, but one is only allowed to type so much into a reply box, otherwise i would have posted it all in one box.
@TheDudeFrom0Z What would have happened. Keep in mind this video was produced in order to push for a force modernization that was BADLY needed back in the late 1970's...early 1980's (due to the enormous cost of fighting the war in Vietnam, as well as a growing problem with Soviet missile accuracy and an improved fleet of long range bombers). One of the proposals was the MX-Missile system, which was designed to replace the aging Titan nukes. The missile was never built, due to treaty obligations
@zenithomega19 the MX missile - Peacekeeper - was indeed built and deployed. How do you figure they never built it? Just because they scrapped the shuttle basing scheme?
@zenithomega19 yeah; 50 peacekeepers were pushed through by Ronnie. Congress refused to appropriate for more until the basing scheme could get figured out, which it wasn't and the Peacekeeper deployment was limited to 50 missiles with ten bangers a piece. It was retired in 05; big missiles with heavy throw weights arent good missiles to make mobile - so they got into the development of the road mobile Midgetman (MGM-134A) which was canceled in 91 when the cold war 'ended'
Well, at the end it is said that someone wanted to rely only in bombers and submarines: well, nowadays the bulk of US strategic deterrence against Russia, China, Iran and NorthKorea (as well as laical France) is based upon SLBM and B-1/B-2! Minuteman III have progressively been withdrawn
@anisocoro Land based missiles used to be the only part of the nuclear triad that had the throw weight and accuracy to inflict the kind of counterforce damage that would be required.
The Trident D5 has rendered that situation obsolete; the Minuteman force should be phased out, and considering the United States financial situation, as quickly as possible.
If the Russian forces were small and inaccuracte in the 1950s when we had our nukes and bombers, why didn't we take them out then instead of allow them to get stronger?
@Rockyfan10060 Yes, why didn't we kill millions of people when we had the chance? Life isn't a video game. We got through the Cold War with no nuclear weapon exchanges.
A pre-emptive strike against the Russians would be the most odious action possible; President Eisenhower was, for the most part, a man of integrity and honour. He could never order or abide such an ignominious and cowardly act.
no wonder the soviets were nervous to be first striked by u.s.-u.s. used the a-bomb twice. unbelievable how close mankind was to termination because 2 nations refused to negotiate.
@djscheisse Because the US and USSR were led by rational pragmatic men, who did negotiate, the cold war was fought in the labs and factories and not on the battlefield.
You Germans should be more concerned with the Iranian Mullahs for whom deterrence does not apply. They embrace death and would sacrifice Persia in the name of Islam. Even if they didn't use their bomb, they will provoke a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, the worst possible place with the worst possible actors. Viel Glück!
@filmsouth thanks for the instruction.i´m not an expert,but i think if the former leaders would´ve really negotaited,the world wouldn´t have been so close to total destruction in 83 when able archer was started right before a row of russian holidays-which was the potential date for an us-first strike (due to sov. intelligence informations).ussr felt extremely threatened and since there was NO communication at the time it was extremely close.but deterrence by u.s. in those measures was right..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@filmsouth American Empire and its colony Israel are the real nuclear threats in the middle east-- should anyone expect Iran NOT to defend itself against the trigger happy nuclear power called Israel?? Also, Pakistan, India, China, Russia and Ukraine are nuclear powers near Iran....in such a context , Iran would be a fool to give up its "nuclear deterrent", in the language of the nuclear-weapon-greedy American Empire
@filmsouth all too true. russia is still a threat, but the major unstable region in the world with the danger of foing nuclear is the middle east, where such a conflict would almost certainly draw in the major powers and the whole world, take them out now or we suffer the consequences later.
@filmsouth '.. more concerned with the Iranian ..'
Even under ideal conditions (their standpoint), the Iranians and similar in the Middle East are decades away from developing a nuclear arsonal with a delivery system capable of reaching either Europe or the United States. Until then, the risk is limited to the Middle East. An incident there does not automatically translate (at least not with sane leaders) into a greater conflict involving the larger powers (USA, Russia, China, EU, etc).
And Israel has proven they are rational and pragmatic for the past 40 years they have had nuclear weapons. Why should Iran fear Israel? They aren't neighbors. Israel has not threatened their existance in words or deeds. Compare that to Iran's support for Hamas and Hezb'allah.
@filmsouth Iranian Mullahs are highly educated politicians and religious leaders, not the caricature fanatics you portray them as. They really aren't a nuclear threat. For that, look into Israel's "Samson doctrine." It's an open secret that they have hydrogen bombs and the means to deliver them (Jericho missiles). What's unsettling are their targets, which include European cities. Their reasoning: if there is to be a second holocaust, everyone must die in fire.
@filmsouth You are absolutely right. I am wondering how long it will take (if it ever happens) for a dangerous (radical, unstable) nation or well-organized terror group to actually put together a real "MISSILE" (gyroscope and all..not just a fission weapon blown up under the ground, or some two-bit "rocket" that spirals into the Pacific). By the way I have enjoyed this film for a long time now and have met some people I consider friends now..because of this. Thank You! -Chris Saindon-
@djscheisse . The use of Atomic weapons against Japan has nothing to do with this. We were already at war with japan. The Japanese started the war. They have proved that they had total disregard towards non-japanese population. Was the A-bomb use against Japan justified? Yes. Otherwise the war could have dragged on for another year or so and caused more people to die on both sides and possibly the near wiping out of the Japanese people and culture.
@Soldaten308 The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki undoubtedly hastened the end, but Japan was pretty much at the point of surrender anyway. Postwar research shows that the firebombing of Tokyo had a much bigger influence on peace prospects, slim before march 1945, than the use of the atomic bomb in August 1945. (continued in part 2)
@Soldaten308 (part 2) The Japanese War Cabinet were insisting on one condition of surrender, the maintenance of the Emperor. The US would only accept unconditional surrender, but they kept the Emperor anyway. This indicates that the a-bomb changed nothing in reality, only the theoretical terms of surrender.
@djscheisse I concur with filmsouth. The countries in question respected the need to prevent a nuclear exchange. The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine prevented governments from having a cavalier attitude regarding nuclear weapons. Nuclear war may have been a close thing, but it never occurred, keep that in mind.
We need to be concerned over those entities who wish to encourage a nuclear exchange, regardless of the cost.
@djscheisse Actually, as this video shows, the USSR had more weapons capable of a debilitating first strike. The US Minuteman missiles carried at most three warheads while the Soviet SS-18 carried ten with up to forty penetration aids. It's ten warheads were also highly accurate, quite powerful, and were clearly intended to destroy US ICBM silos and launch centers.
@djscheisse USSR and US were allies regarding Japan. Stalin wanted the bomb, but we wouldn't give it to him. During WW2, we were more worried about the Germans and their nukes than the Ruskies.
@mpwelk We have never been allies with the Russians. Russia declared "War" on Japan after America beat them into submission. August the 8th 1945 I believe was the date. All the reds wanted was land a people to live under its power. They have always parasites on countries that have failed or are failing.
@22reTOYOTA What are you talking about? We were allies with the Soviet Union in World War 2 against the Germans, we specifically talked about them in terms of being our allies; the negotiation of war strategy and partition agreements, the sending of material aid, the succour by way of propaganda, we were allies with them in word and deed.
@djscheisse The only good commie is a dead commie---the only good nazi is a dead one as well! Death to any who dare to challege the United States of America!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@djscheisse U just go ahead and believe your sleep dreams are real and when you wake up are you gonna be surprised! We YANKS have not yet began to fight! There are the left wing and right wing wachos as well as the mentally ill out there but we know how to handle them----
@djscheisse I can't abide by rangeclerk's unprovoked "the only good Nazi/Commie is a dead Nazi/Commie" comment, but your arrogant, smug "face it, the American century is over" attitude makes you every bit of an asshole as he is.
@ShiggityBlam Well, judging from djsceisse's comment that filmsouth replied to, he's inclined to think of America as the Great Satan anyway, so it's not surprising he'd immediately start crowing about the fall of the U.S. the first chance he got.
Notice how he subtly framed the Soviet Union as an innocent victim of American aggression by emphasizing how scared the Soviets were, and how the U.S. is the only country to use nukes.
@ARepublicanVictory Actually, I take back what I said. I thought you wouldn't be the type to have a problem with my comment when I saw your profile, but then I saw some of the racist and hateful comments you've been leaving on other videos. Now I see why you're so bent on talking shit to me.
So instead I'll say this: You, sir, are no patriot, and you have no right to call yourself one. Not when you advocate putting your fellow countrymen in a lower caste than you.
@ARepublicanVictory I know what my comment said. What I couldn't figure out was why someone who claimed (in the loosest definition of the word) to be a patriot would give me such a hard time over calling somebody out for being an asshole toward Americans. You certainly had no intention of explaining your beef with me.
But having seen the comments you've made on other videos, you don't have to now. And frankly, someone as extremely racist as you has no right to call me a moron.
@djscheisse the Soviets were so nervous because they lived through the experience of some fascist country waged a brutal war that ended up killing 7 million of its citizens and nearly marched through their capital... Hint? It wasn't the United States.
Actually, the SS-18 was at first designed with a single 18 - 25 MT warhead; most likely to hit burried command control targets. NOT hardened missiles in their silos. The SS-18 did not achieve this ability until 1982 with the R-36M2 Voivode;
Which yes; verifies your point. When this video was made, the SS-18 was not capable of such pin point accuracy - the R-29 certainly wasn't - but back then, both sides exaggerated their perceived threats.
@CanadaKidProductions I guess Canada would be royally screwed. Of course any attack started by either side would probably have involved NATO, of which Canada is a part of, so no matter what Canada SOL.
@swertinge07 Russians weren't evil, Soviets were. They exploited every bit of Nazi military technology they confiscated in WWII with no other goal in mind other than maintaining power, but by the end of the 60s the Soviet system was in massive decline. As their satellite states (and their resources) began to pull away, much of their nuclear technology on display in the late 70s lacked fissile material--they paraded empty warheads in Red Square. Reagan guessed this and exploited it beautifully.
@swertinge07 Yes because if you were wiped out. They would be wiped out too. That's why there is no logic in nuclear war, everybody loses. The only thing in this age that scares me is a stateless group getting a hold of these weapons, or some regime with some crazed lunatic who would not care throwing his own people into the fire. At least the Soviets and Americans thought things through.
There is a cobnsideratiomn that I would propose: if the threaten was the awesome distructive power of SS-18's 10 warheads against SILOS, there would have been no difference whatever missile was in that silos both MX or Minuteman . The solutions could have been, and in fact it was adopted, to make US SLBM more accurate, and given multiple warheads (as it became Trident)
Why didn't USA want to develop mobile ICBM launchers? a mobile launcher could be concealed very well and in the '70-ies it could almost impossible to discover enough concealed mobile launchers by old and few spy-soviet-satellites. In contrast, Silos have always been known to all the people. Cremnlin included,and therir coordinates were as secret as Madonna Ciccone's virginity
News was supposed to be more liberal back then. This documentary reads like a defense company promotion. NATO greatly outspent the Warsaw Pact. The Soviets just played catch up. Also, increasing U.S. capabilities just led to more arms race. How about arms control? The MX missile was an obsolete idea. A limited movement weapon? Isn't that the reason the Soviets went to mobile launchers?
Obviously, the people who made this didn't mind the war priority for budget defense.
Submarine launched Ballistic Missiles did not have the accuracy that land based had for some time -- they were needed to attack time urgent, hard targets as Van Cleave explains in the film.
@filmsouth Not only has technology made the newer Boomers the very most survivable weapons but with todays trident missles they are just as accurate as any land based ICBM. If not more so!. Great video I think you guys did somethin awesome putting this on here. Well Done!
@cessnawings67 , I do agree with you, B-1s and moreover B-2s are rather difficult, if non impossible (as for B2s) to detect, and they are actually the most powerful warhead carriers. But it would be so if a large enough number of aircrafts were always ready to fly with weapons fitted, and In my knowledge that is not the case fo US strategic bombers
@Petto84 Probably into the 21st century, the advantages of land based missiles will disappear entirely. The Trident II outclasses any other weapon system in the entire world; by itself, the 20 or so SSBNs and future replacements will provide the US with a continuing ability to hold any nation or target at risk
Also take into account the US' much greater advantage in command and control of nuclear weapons, in early warning, intelligence, missile accuracy.. US strengths are overwhelming
Remember when this documentary came out in 1979, the Soviets were ahead militarily and had mobile ICBM called SS-20's. At that time the US was suffering until the mid 80's a recession and it seemed everything was going the Soviets way. When Reagan came in, he spent in 1 trillion in defense that updated our military BUT gave us huge deficits.
It wasn't until the ALMOST nuclear war in 1983 that Reagan decided to talk to the Soviets when Gorbachev came in 1985 which started the end of cold war.
That is a great summation of the situation in the late 70s early 80s. Great to read one without all the partisan rhetoric that usually gets added.
In the late 70s, the Soviets really did have very good strategic forces, the SS-18 seems a particularly fearsome weapon. However, I don't think the Soviets would ever be able to achieve complete surprise.
It would probably come during a period of heightened alert, allowing more missiles and bombers to survive, and the US would launch on warning.
Now its 2010, they still have mobile ICBMS, but are learning that it isn't the cold war anymore, and they cant bully nations into getting what they want just because they have a strong military and lots of nukes. Such as the georgian situation back in 2008.
The Georgians got a bloody nose, they utterly failed in their objectives, and ended the war they started in a worse position (the breakaway provinces declaring independence, with significantly increased and permanent Russian troop presence).
They weren't even in a position to get the status quo ante when peace prevailed.
@redmustang03 The soviets had their fingers practically on the button after hearing the exercise message that the US has launched 300 ICBM's. Awaiting satellite and radar conformation before ordering a retaliatory strike.
The Soviets were certain that a western attack would come under the rouse of an exercise, like that of the Nazi empire and Operation Barbarossa.
@RainbowManification, by 1983 the Russians did have the finger on the button and they almost attacked because they were so paranoid. That's what changed Reagan into finally talking to the Russians.
@redmustang03 Great point. I personally do not believe that the figure of 90-95% of Minuteman missiles destroyed, and have read several academic papers on the subject, however this documentary is very indicative of the situation we were in in the late 70s; the Soviets had a huge advantage in land-based missiles.
From about 1983 onwards, the deployment of the Pershing II, Tomahawk GLCM and Trident C4 pushed the strategic balance back towards the centre, if not to the US.
@disamjisa, before that in 1983 the Russians were so Paranoid that they almost did attack us. THe Pershing's in Western Europe could reach Moscow in about 4 minutes and that did scare the Russians. Still both sides could have released their weapons and millions would have died.
@redmustang03 That's absolutely correct. The Pershing II was an unbelievably well-designed, effective and fearsome weapons system. As you mentioned, it could reach Soviet territory in minutes, was devastatingly accurate and carried a triple-warhead third stage each with 150 kiloton yields if I recall correctly.
It pushed the Russians into signing the INF. In 1983, the Russians had good reason to be frightened. They had entirely lost the nuclear advantage they enjoyd only five years previously
dont beleive everything u hear they're speaking of what you know not what you don't know. this is all pre fall of the wall and pre stealth tec, but rest assured that it did exist and it was ready. There are greater secrets in the world on all sides some we may find out about to late lets pray we don't get that wake up call just to be put out of our misery. semper fi.
u got that right. If you can ever locate a book called War & Peace in the Nuclear Age (Video PBS of same title; late 1980s') get it! Russians admit (in the book/vid) they had no deliver any of their nuke warheads in the 1950's on U.S. Homeland.
What this video almost totally ignores is the superb U.S. submarine force, up to 7 or 8 boats on permanent patrol even in those days of polaris and poseidon missiles, not the super accurate trident, gave the U.S. a sizeable and deadly retaliation ability.
A look back sometimes reveals folly. Here we were, in the late 1970's, sweating nukes. 40 years later the greatest threat to the US proved to be a bunch of morons sneaking box cutters onto an aircraft...
And in 40 years time we might be back to sweating about nukes.
This is why I can't stand the anti-nuclear movement here in the UK. Just because we don't need Trident now doesn't mean we won't need it in the future.
i realize this is a film from 1979, but i have to ask – how accurate does an ICBM or an SLBM really need to be, given the overall destructive power of a nuclear warhead?
SimAlex20000 1 day ago
ICBM sumarines are perfect they are always hidden. Plus we have the UK and France Submarines to back ours up. Scotland BAE Systems boats alone could destroy every large city in Russia with one Sherwood Forest package deployed in 20 minutes. First Strike just wants to pretend the subs are inaccurate - they use the same guidance systems as our fixed base missles! Therefore they are the best deterrent really - submarines are all you need really - bombers are too slow at getting going.
skipsassy1 3 weeks ago
He mentioned the "MX".....I remember that coming up in conversation as a child in the 1980's.....must have been debated a lot.
PotatoGunsRule 4 weeks ago
We should get to know our neighbors.
mitomke 1 month ago
@usadear2me you're being silly, all europe has to do is kill the people that robbed the citizens (central and international banks) and take thier wealth back. all these economic crisis can be solved by taking the wealth back from the thieves or starting a new currency that isnt debt ridden. do you know how I got out of debt to banks? i refused to pay and demanded proof that the bank had the money to lend in the first place, banks lend money they dont really have so the debt is void
MrROTD 1 month ago
@MrROTD OOOOKKKKK Lenin.......
PotatoGunsRule 4 weeks ago
Asian Annexation of Americas Probable . . . 50 to 150 yrs.
lazyfreedom98 1 month ago in playlist More videos from filmsouth
This is why people are so poor because of the maniacs who wage war especially the damn commies.
mitomke 1 month ago
@mitomke the soviet commies invaded one country ever after the shakedown of ww2, the soviets took eastern european countries as a buffer and it worked, history shows thier strategy was sound. the west was far more intrusive and destructive than the east especially in third world. the usa used to intervene even when they werent wanted while the soviets only butted in when asked except for Afghanistan. the blame is with ALL peoples because we let our fear of each other get out of hand.
MrROTD 1 month ago
When the hell did we (America) get a century and how the hell did i miss it?
Afireman4u 2 months ago
The Soviet what? They don't exist any longer. The Soviets could never surpass the West in technilogical developement. Go back in history when the U.K. sold jet engines to CCCP and they then reverse engineered them. The Soviets copy and enhance but never create original concepts. This video demonstrates a depart from reality. I feel if the Soviets thought they could defeat the West, they would have done so.
SPAD58 2 months ago
We needed three nuclear deterrents because we have three branches of the military and massive defense contractors who profit from each branch. The Military Industrial Complex simply used fear to convince Americans that we needed to waste even more money on the Cold War.
This film is senseless fear-mongering.
fivestarmichael 2 months ago
@fivestarmichael OOOKKK Neville Chamberlain...found "peace in our time yet?" "Triad" means that we have 3 ways to defend ourselves....kinda like 1). good drivers, 2). seatbelts, 3). airbags. Any will save your life, but if the others fail, you are more likely to survive.
PotatoGunsRule 4 weeks ago
This is a fascinating documentary, a classic example of the problems that Ike was warning about in his military industrial complex speech.
Even by the time this was shot the SLBM force was in the process of being upgraded to the point where the ICBM itself was no longer needed. The debate in the video about the subs not being accurate enough was already known to be false (or soon).
Reagan had a better solution, just get rid of the nukes. No one wanted them.
Great video!
MMfromthenorth 2 months ago 2
missle hits the USA, I am ready to be taken fast. no pain - vaporized in a microsec....
djgloverv 2 months ago
This is why the USA, was the world's superpower into the early - 2000's.. My guess is that /Russia is making a comeback now.
djgloverv 3 months ago
@djgloverv Russia's economy is nowhere near the United States, also Russia's strategic defense infrastructure is deteriorating, in particular their missile early warning system
RainbowManification 2 months ago
President's - Reagan's strategy was to bankrupt the USSR, on spending money on defense, It worked too!
djgloverv 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Propaganda for the military industrial complex!
ru50deb 4 months ago
Fucking matthew broderick!!
steelerfreek007 5 months ago
I c
quicksilvr59 5 months ago
Folks, the Dept of Defense was hungry for taxdollars, that's why it was scaring the public...What was most scary was the fact that had JFK lived he would have been younger than Reagan at the time, who was 75 and had his finger on the nuclear button. Nothing was scarier than that.......
CatalinElton 6 months ago
Reagan-era Military-industrial-complex propaganda here. The U.S.S.R. was weakening at this time, but his CIA chief fixed it so that this information was kept out of the appraisal of Soviet capability.
mookins45 6 months ago
@mookins45
No, this was fimed in 1979 and aired in early to mid 1980`s depending on when it was aired locally. This was when the Carter Administration was looking to cut military funding, and the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union has just recently been ratified. The Air Force filmed and released this. At the time, they were in danger of losing funding for the MX missle and B-1 Stealth Bomber programs. Listen closely how both programs are constantly being talked about.
album183 4 months ago
@album183 I stand corrected! I was going on something I'd read about skewed appraisals of Soviet mil strength during Reagan's time- that they knew the U.S.S.R. was weakening, but continued our own buildup.
mookins45 4 months ago
Stupid Windows 79
AudioAndroid 6 months ago
WHEN PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER was shown 3 Different ways we could so called hit any TARGEt... HE was shown in 1976-79 THE B-1 BOMBER then a MACH 3. TREE TOP LEVEL!!! PAY-LOAD WAS CLSSIFIED,Above 65.000 feet it could have been over MACH 3.6.BUT IT was considered too costly...He was shown the less costly MX Missile that could be delivered from AIR or SHIP , and SUBMARINE...Then CAME a game changer the NU-TRON BOMB as I said it Disstroys a few BLOCKS LEAVING RADIATION FALLOUT WOULD do the REST!
kevinpsomers 7 months ago
yes we are still here,but Russia,china,south korea,france ,pakastan ,india ,even Israel,possiblely IRAN, all have nuclear wepons more accurate ss.22s and minute man 2s+more accurate sea based and Air Based MX and Don't think THE NUTRON BOMBS tipped on more advanced I.C.B.M.s'could be loaded with low yeild nukes for sole use of E.M.P.s' are more of a THREAT to PEACE... NUTRON TIPPED MISSILES' are bombs that blow up a few blocks' LEAVING CITES intact just RADIO-Fallout would KILL ALL!!!
kevinpsomers 7 months ago
yes we are still here,but Russia,china,south korea,france ,pakastan ,india ,even Israel,possiblely IRAN, all have nuclear wepons more accurate ss.22s and minute man 2s+more accurate sea based and Air Based MX and Don't think THE NUTRON BOMBS tipped on more advanced I.C.B.M.s'could be loaded with low yeild nukes for sole use of E.M.P.s' are more of a THREAT to PEACE... NUTRON TIPPED MISSILES' are bombs that blow up a few blocks' LEAVING CITES intact just RADIATION would kill living things!!!
kevinpsomers 7 months ago
I wonder if the MX program, and the Denver airport are connected?
aoghiroshima 7 months ago
Fascinating how poorly each side understand each other. Both powers were sadly ignorant.
stperkin 7 months ago
@stperkin No, you can't step back and claim that both powers were "sadly ignorant." You're talking about a conflict of ideologies here, regardless of how faithful each side was to their own ideas.
In reality, the Cold War was born out of intolerance for the other side's ideals. Marxism-Leninism directly opposes what many Western democratic countries champion, and Marxism itself demands a world revolution. Conflict was inevitable.
HooshIsASoup 3 months ago 5
@HooshIsASoup Yes, a wise man can step back and attempt to observe from an unbiased perspective. Both sides misjudged one another.
joshuaoha 2 weeks ago
I have an alternate solution. Dismantle all of the nukes in the world and build a room that our world powers can go and with the use of good ole "Rock'em-Sock'em" Robots, determine who wins the current argument/disagreement at that time.
The money saved would be enough to rebuild the economy without the need of the oil industry and other funds could easily be made available to take care of our homeless and other issues. That is all, please carry on, I'll be here all day.
Danbo342 8 months ago
First of all, the SALT and START Treaties are null and void. We can justify rebuilding our complete nuclear force! The treaty was between the USA and The USSR. The USSR does not exist, they do not have the right to even have a seat on the United Nations. I consider China to be a threat. We must build up our nuclear forces to the six digit level. China and North Korea with Iran should be priority target and Russia a target of opportunity.
bohemoth1 8 months ago
It is my belief that the current threat does not come from the former Warsaw pact nations but rather the threat now comes from Terrorist organizations both foreign and domestic utilizing Black market Nuclear weapons which can now according to our intelligence agencies be purchased on the black market. Nations that are now Nuclear capable such as North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, China, and India do not have an accurate deliverance system.
freakwilliams 8 months ago
So the Soviets/ Russians had/ have the capability to bomb each bomb? Are Russian nukes still aimed at the UK?
Tell me what you know somebody. Thanks.
Kelly14UK 8 months ago
I can't believe that national US doesn't have a countermeasure against ICBMs. First to launch, first to win, should it be so "easy"? No anti-missile missiles?
aboutblankita 9 months ago
@aboutblankita This was made back in 1979, and the documentary exaggerates the situation.
TomBarrister 8 months ago
@aboutblankita the anti-balistic missile treaty took care of that. but then george dubbya tore it up.
Op3rationMongoose 8 months ago
@Op3rationMongoose The ABM treaty was signed between the USA and the USSR. Since the USSR no longer exists, the ABM treaty is null and void.
SCE2AUX 7 months ago
@SCE2AUX I concur with you on that.
Op3rationMongoose 7 months ago
@SCE2AUX I concur.
Op3rationMongoose 7 months ago
LOTs of long winded comments ands its really sad that it turns into a Dems ve Repubs debates /insults in the comment section.
The Scarey thing is their is still THOUSANDS of nukes with the USA and Russia.
indyfan22k 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want Black Ops First Strike For Free Go Here growingnumbers{DOT}weebly{DOT}com
weezicle1 10 months ago
Terrifying Americans!! Paranoid!
32780tit 1 year ago
It is exaggerated -- the idea was to present an absolute worst case scenario to get the audience's attention. The purpose of the film was to motivate people to think about the utility of nuclear weapons, why they confer power, why perceived vulnerability is dangerously provocative, the relative merit of various modernization schemes and the necessity of stability maintenance.
The SS-18 was designed to take out our Minuteman missiles and Soviet SSBMs, the bombers and other soft targets.
filmsouth 1 year ago 19
The risk described in this video seems greatly exaggerated. Because of the time involved, our missle silos and bombers were never seriously threatened by Russian land-based missles. Instead, that threat came from submarine-based missles, which we answered with our own submarine-based missles. None have yet developed a way of eliminating that latter mutual threat.
stewartx5 1 year ago
The new start treaty the democrats are pushing will certainly make this stuff more likely to happen down the road. It's all lose for the USA.
Monty22001 1 year ago
We were allies with the USSR only due to the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Heck Patton wanted to start a war with the USSR right after Germany fell, figured we would sooner or later.
Zoomer30 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheDudeFrom0Z 1 year ago
@TheDudeFrom0Z
What could have happened -- We're still here -- Right?
filmsouth 1 year ago 15
@filmsouth YEA DUDE ITS A SIMULATION OF WHAT THAT CAN HAPPEN IF ALL OUT NUCKLEAR FALL OUT IF IT EVER HAPPEN
MrJKILLA7 1 year ago
@filmsouth yes, we are still here, but nonetheless, don't rule out the possibility, after all, Yuri Solomonov mentioned that the state defense order for 2011-2013 calls for a significant increase of the ballistic missile production rate after the first year. The number of missiles produced in 2012-2013 is expected to be "several times higher" than in 2011, which is expected to stay at the current level.
sr71ablackbird 4 months ago
@filmsouth The current level is about eight missiles a year - earlier Solomonov mentioned six to ten, it stayed about eight Topol-M missiles on average in the last few years. These numbers apparently include Bulava SLBMs that would be required to equip the new Project 955 submarines - Aleksandr Nevskiy and Vladimir Monomakh, which would probably be ready around that time. The first submarine of this class, Yuri Dolgorukiy, apparently has enough missiles produced for it already.
sr71ablackbird 4 months ago
@filmsouth Solomonov suggested that serial production of Bulava has been going for four years. Given that the each submarine requires 16 missiles, Votkinsk would have to produce at least 16 in 2012 and again in 2013, which is already about twice the current production rate. To this we should add seven or so ICBMs (the 2011 plan in to deploy three RS-24 and four silo-based Topol-Ms), which means that the the production rate will roughly triple.
sr71ablackbird 4 months ago
@filmsouth The RS-24, which is a modification of the RS-12M2 Topol-M missile, is a mobile system that is capable of "penetrating highly protected targets", as well as any current ballistic missile defense, in the span of the next 20 years, - my apologies for using 4 postings to fill it in, but one is only allowed to type so much into a reply box, otherwise i would have posted it all in one box.
sr71ablackbird 4 months ago
@TheDudeFrom0Z Don't you remember that gigantic nuclear Armageddon 30 years ago? That we rebuilt our cities right afterwords.
RainbowManification 1 year ago
@TheDudeFrom0Z Dumbest question in history - congrats
neo1mantra 1 year ago
@TheDudeFrom0Z Tell me you're kidding. Please. Tell me you are kidding.
hotelmario510 1 year ago
@TheDudeFrom0Z what the fuck man, are you serious??
Amid87 1 year ago
@Amid87 i meant the problem, is the problem a situation or did it really get that far fuckhead
TheDudeFrom0Z 1 year ago
@TheDudeFrom0Z OWNED!
liveecarbme 1 year ago
@TheDudeFrom0Z What would have happened. Keep in mind this video was produced in order to push for a force modernization that was BADLY needed back in the late 1970's...early 1980's (due to the enormous cost of fighting the war in Vietnam, as well as a growing problem with Soviet missile accuracy and an improved fleet of long range bombers). One of the proposals was the MX-Missile system, which was designed to replace the aging Titan nukes. The missile was never built, due to treaty obligations
zenithomega19 1 year ago
@zenithomega19 the MX missile - Peacekeeper - was indeed built and deployed. How do you figure they never built it? Just because they scrapped the shuttle basing scheme?
cirkis 9 months ago
@zenithomega19 yeah; 50 peacekeepers were pushed through by Ronnie. Congress refused to appropriate for more until the basing scheme could get figured out, which it wasn't and the Peacekeeper deployment was limited to 50 missiles with ten bangers a piece. It was retired in 05; big missiles with heavy throw weights arent good missiles to make mobile - so they got into the development of the road mobile Midgetman (MGM-134A) which was canceled in 91 when the cold war 'ended'
ghostmedic171 9 months ago
1:15 now thats a funky wig , if i've ever seen one!
bubbles867 1 year ago
Well, at the end it is said that someone wanted to rely only in bombers and submarines: well, nowadays the bulk of US strategic deterrence against Russia, China, Iran and NorthKorea (as well as laical France) is based upon SLBM and B-1/B-2! Minuteman III have progressively been withdrawn
anisocoro 1 year ago
@anisocoro Land based missiles used to be the only part of the nuclear triad that had the throw weight and accuracy to inflict the kind of counterforce damage that would be required.
The Trident D5 has rendered that situation obsolete; the Minuteman force should be phased out, and considering the United States financial situation, as quickly as possible.
disamjisa 1 year ago
Environmental impact hilarious!
aberdown 1 year ago
If the Russian forces were small and inaccuracte in the 1950s when we had our nukes and bombers, why didn't we take them out then instead of allow them to get stronger?
Rockyfan10060 1 year ago
@Rockyfan10060
Same reason Russians didn't take out US in early 80's..nobody want to kill billions and it's too risky anyway.
dusq123 1 year ago
@Rockyfan10060 Yes, why didn't we kill millions of people when we had the chance? Life isn't a video game. We got through the Cold War with no nuclear weapon exchanges.
A pre-emptive strike against the Russians would be the most odious action possible; President Eisenhower was, for the most part, a man of integrity and honour. He could never order or abide such an ignominious and cowardly act.
disamjisa 1 year ago
The original Mx design, however it was deployed in the field much differently.
angelkid79 1 year ago
Can't help it gang -- I disagree strongly with what the
outcome of a USSR-USA nuclear war would have
been. First, and right up front, it would have been a
complete NIGHTMARE absolutely. No argument
there. But I believe we had a massive -- a massive
-- edge in quality and accuracy. They may have had
us in number of warheads certainly. What I will
close with is this: thank God we never had to find
out :-) I have always loved the Russians for some
reason (McCarthy would have loved that :-)
ChristopherSaindon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"But I believe we had a massive -- a massive -- edge in quality and accuracy.
"
Reason why a Taliban base was left nearly intact, surrounded by 5 big craters.
Fridaey13txhOktober 1 year ago
no wonder the soviets were nervous to be first striked by u.s.-u.s. used the a-bomb twice. unbelievable how close mankind was to termination because 2 nations refused to negotiate.
djscheisse 1 year ago
@djscheisse Because the US and USSR were led by rational pragmatic men, who did negotiate, the cold war was fought in the labs and factories and not on the battlefield.
You Germans should be more concerned with the Iranian Mullahs for whom deterrence does not apply. They embrace death and would sacrifice Persia in the name of Islam. Even if they didn't use their bomb, they will provoke a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, the worst possible place with the worst possible actors. Viel Glück!
filmsouth 1 year ago 29
@filmsouth thanks for the instruction.i´m not an expert,but i think if the former leaders would´ve really negotaited,the world wouldn´t have been so close to total destruction in 83 when able archer was started right before a row of russian holidays-which was the potential date for an us-first strike (due to sov. intelligence informations).ussr felt extremely threatened and since there was NO communication at the time it was extremely close.but deterrence by u.s. in those measures was right..
djscheisse 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@filmsouth American Empire and its colony Israel are the real nuclear threats in the middle east-- should anyone expect Iran NOT to defend itself against the trigger happy nuclear power called Israel?? Also, Pakistan, India, China, Russia and Ukraine are nuclear powers near Iran....in such a context , Iran would be a fool to give up its "nuclear deterrent", in the language of the nuclear-weapon-greedy American Empire
yusufolokun 1 year ago
@filmsouth all too true. russia is still a threat, but the major unstable region in the world with the danger of foing nuclear is the middle east, where such a conflict would almost certainly draw in the major powers and the whole world, take them out now or we suffer the consequences later.
mikefan09 1 year ago
@filmsouth '.. more concerned with the Iranian ..'
Even under ideal conditions (their standpoint), the Iranians and similar in the Middle East are decades away from developing a nuclear arsonal with a delivery system capable of reaching either Europe or the United States. Until then, the risk is limited to the Middle East. An incident there does not automatically translate (at least not with sane leaders) into a greater conflict involving the larger powers (USA, Russia, China, EU, etc).
stewartx5 1 year ago
@filmsouth ohhh last time I checked Israel already has nuclear weapons... they shouldn't let them get it in the first place - now it is too late
you can't blame iran for responding to the threat
kerimil 9 months ago
@kerimil
And Israel has proven they are rational and pragmatic for the past 40 years they have had nuclear weapons. Why should Iran fear Israel? They aren't neighbors. Israel has not threatened their existance in words or deeds. Compare that to Iran's support for Hamas and Hezb'allah.
sylvan47070 9 months ago
@filmsouth bravo
meronmotors 6 months ago
@filmsouth Iranian Mullahs are highly educated politicians and religious leaders, not the caricature fanatics you portray them as. They really aren't a nuclear threat. For that, look into Israel's "Samson doctrine." It's an open secret that they have hydrogen bombs and the means to deliver them (Jericho missiles). What's unsettling are their targets, which include European cities. Their reasoning: if there is to be a second holocaust, everyone must die in fire.
DDTea 4 months ago
@filmsouth You are absolutely right. I am wondering how long it will take (if it ever happens) for a dangerous (radical, unstable) nation or well-organized terror group to actually put together a real "MISSILE" (gyroscope and all..not just a fission weapon blown up under the ground, or some two-bit "rocket" that spirals into the Pacific). By the way I have enjoyed this film for a long time now and have met some people I consider friends now..because of this. Thank You! -Chris Saindon-
ChristopherSaindon 4 months ago
@djscheisse . The use of Atomic weapons against Japan has nothing to do with this. We were already at war with japan. The Japanese started the war. They have proved that they had total disregard towards non-japanese population. Was the A-bomb use against Japan justified? Yes. Otherwise the war could have dragged on for another year or so and caused more people to die on both sides and possibly the near wiping out of the Japanese people and culture.
Soldaten308 1 year ago 3
@Soldaten308 The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki undoubtedly hastened the end, but Japan was pretty much at the point of surrender anyway. Postwar research shows that the firebombing of Tokyo had a much bigger influence on peace prospects, slim before march 1945, than the use of the atomic bomb in August 1945. (continued in part 2)
disamjisa 1 year ago
@Soldaten308 (part 2) The Japanese War Cabinet were insisting on one condition of surrender, the maintenance of the Emperor. The US would only accept unconditional surrender, but they kept the Emperor anyway. This indicates that the a-bomb changed nothing in reality, only the theoretical terms of surrender.
disamjisa 1 year ago
@djscheisse I concur with filmsouth. The countries in question respected the need to prevent a nuclear exchange. The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine prevented governments from having a cavalier attitude regarding nuclear weapons. Nuclear war may have been a close thing, but it never occurred, keep that in mind.
We need to be concerned over those entities who wish to encourage a nuclear exchange, regardless of the cost.
Hvygunner 1 year ago 2
@djscheisse you know that made the cold war very pointless
behrjet 1 year ago
@djscheisse Actually, as this video shows, the USSR had more weapons capable of a debilitating first strike. The US Minuteman missiles carried at most three warheads while the Soviet SS-18 carried ten with up to forty penetration aids. It's ten warheads were also highly accurate, quite powerful, and were clearly intended to destroy US ICBM silos and launch centers.
Nater245689 1 year ago
@djscheisse USSR and US were allies regarding Japan. Stalin wanted the bomb, but we wouldn't give it to him. During WW2, we were more worried about the Germans and their nukes than the Ruskies.
mpwelk 1 year ago
@mpwelk We have never been allies with the Russians. Russia declared "War" on Japan after America beat them into submission. August the 8th 1945 I believe was the date. All the reds wanted was land a people to live under its power. They have always parasites on countries that have failed or are failing.
22reTOYOTA 1 year ago
@22reTOYOTA What are you talking about? We were allies with the Soviet Union in World War 2 against the Germans, we specifically talked about them in terms of being our allies; the negotiation of war strategy and partition agreements, the sending of material aid, the succour by way of propaganda, we were allies with them in word and deed.
disamjisa 1 year ago
@djscheisse The only good commie is a dead commie---the only good nazi is a dead one as well! Death to any who dare to challege the United States of America!
rangeclerk 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@rangeclerk the american century is over-face it. you´re behind the times.
djscheisse 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@djscheisse U just go ahead and believe your sleep dreams are real and when you wake up are you gonna be surprised! We YANKS have not yet began to fight! There are the left wing and right wing wachos as well as the mentally ill out there but we know how to handle them----
rangeclerk 1 year ago
@djscheisse I can't abide by rangeclerk's unprovoked "the only good Nazi/Commie is a dead Nazi/Commie" comment, but your arrogant, smug "face it, the American century is over" attitude makes you every bit of an asshole as he is.
ShiggityBlam 1 year ago 12
@ShiggityBlam Well, judging from djsceisse's comment that filmsouth replied to, he's inclined to think of America as the Great Satan anyway, so it's not surprising he'd immediately start crowing about the fall of the U.S. the first chance he got.
Notice how he subtly framed the Soviet Union as an innocent victim of American aggression by emphasizing how scared the Soviets were, and how the U.S. is the only country to use nukes.
So yeah, he's definitely an ass.
HooshIsASoup 1 year ago
@ShiggityBlam Keep thinking that, moron.
ARepublicanVictory 3 weeks ago
@ARepublicanVictory Why the hell are you calling me a moron?
ShiggityBlam 2 weeks ago
@ShiggityBlam Go back and read your stupid comment.
ARepublicanVictory 2 weeks ago
@ARepublicanVictory How about you stop dodging the question and tell me why you're giving me shit and calling me a moron?
ShiggityBlam 2 weeks ago
@ShiggityBlam Go back to your silly original statement. There you will find YOUR answer.
ARepublicanVictory 2 weeks ago
@ARepublicanVictory Stop dodging the damn question and tell me what about my comment has your panties in a wad.
ShiggityBlam 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShiggityBlam Asshole...go back to your silly original statement. There you will find YOUR answer.
ARepublicanVictory 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
ShiggityBlam 2 weeks ago
@ARepublicanVictory Actually, I take back what I said. I thought you wouldn't be the type to have a problem with my comment when I saw your profile, but then I saw some of the racist and hateful comments you've been leaving on other videos. Now I see why you're so bent on talking shit to me.
So instead I'll say this: You, sir, are no patriot, and you have no right to call yourself one. Not when you advocate putting your fellow countrymen in a lower caste than you.
ShiggityBlam 2 weeks ago
@ShiggityBlam Now you remember?
ARepublicanVictory 2 weeks ago
@ARepublicanVictory I know what my comment said. What I couldn't figure out was why someone who claimed (in the loosest definition of the word) to be a patriot would give me such a hard time over calling somebody out for being an asshole toward Americans. You certainly had no intention of explaining your beef with me.
But having seen the comments you've made on other videos, you don't have to now. And frankly, someone as extremely racist as you has no right to call me a moron.
ShiggityBlam 2 weeks ago
@ShiggityBlam Ok, sorry about that.
ARepublicanVictory 2 weeks ago
@djscheisse the Soviets were so nervous because they lived through the experience of some fascist country waged a brutal war that ended up killing 7 million of its citizens and nearly marched through their capital... Hint? It wasn't the United States.
ghostmedic171 9 months ago
Actually, the SS-18 was at first designed with a single 18 - 25 MT warhead; most likely to hit burried command control targets. NOT hardened missiles in their silos. The SS-18 did not achieve this ability until 1982 with the R-36M2 Voivode;
Which yes; verifies your point. When this video was made, the SS-18 was not capable of such pin point accuracy - the R-29 certainly wasn't - but back then, both sides exaggerated their perceived threats.
ghostmedic171 9 months ago
@djscheisse You should have lived in East Germany.
seka1986 5 months ago
@seka1986 why? because i said US used the a bomb twice? despite japan wanted to negotiate the surrender conditions already for two weeks?
djscheisse 5 months ago
@djscheisse they should have surrendered immediately. They were the Nazis of the far east.
seka1986 5 months ago 2
what would happen to canada if shit like this happened?
CanadaKidProductions 1 year ago
@CanadaKidProductions I guess Canada would be royally screwed. Of course any attack started by either side would probably have involved NATO, of which Canada is a part of, so no matter what Canada SOL.
ingledude 1 year ago
We must destroy Communism, Socialism, Islam, and Marxism ASAP!
NOBULLSPIN1 1 year ago
Russians doesn´t seem to be so evil as it was claimed... We are still here...
swertinge07 1 year ago
@swertinge07 Russians weren't evil, Soviets were. They exploited every bit of Nazi military technology they confiscated in WWII with no other goal in mind other than maintaining power, but by the end of the 60s the Soviet system was in massive decline. As their satellite states (and their resources) began to pull away, much of their nuclear technology on display in the late 70s lacked fissile material--they paraded empty warheads in Red Square. Reagan guessed this and exploited it beautifully.
roaringchicken92 1 year ago
@roaringchicken92 As did the USA. And now you need the IMF to keep a float...
swertinge07 1 year ago
@swertinge07 Yes because if you were wiped out. They would be wiped out too. That's why there is no logic in nuclear war, everybody loses. The only thing in this age that scares me is a stateless group getting a hold of these weapons, or some regime with some crazed lunatic who would not care throwing his own people into the fire. At least the Soviets and Americans thought things through.
alexwribs19 1 year ago
In this footage, how many tracks are shown on the screen of Beal early warning radar?
anisocoro 1 year ago
There is a cobnsideratiomn that I would propose: if the threaten was the awesome distructive power of SS-18's 10 warheads against SILOS, there would have been no difference whatever missile was in that silos both MX or Minuteman . The solutions could have been, and in fact it was adopted, to make US SLBM more accurate, and given multiple warheads (as it became Trident)
anisocoro 1 year ago
Why didn't USA want to develop mobile ICBM launchers? a mobile launcher could be concealed very well and in the '70-ies it could almost impossible to discover enough concealed mobile launchers by old and few spy-soviet-satellites. In contrast, Silos have always been known to all the people. Cremnlin included,and therir coordinates were as secret as Madonna Ciccone's virginity
anisocoro 1 year ago
@anisocoro The US did develop, though never deployed, a mini ICBM that was road-mobile. SLBMs are a more effective solution, at least for the US.
For the Russians, with all that massive steppes to hide launchers, their road-mobile launchers are like land SSBNs.
disamjisa 1 year ago
If the commies had mobile launchers in Siberia we should have deployed the same in the Canadian wilderness.
ElProfGringo 1 year ago
News was supposed to be more liberal back then. This documentary reads like a defense company promotion. NATO greatly outspent the Warsaw Pact. The Soviets just played catch up. Also, increasing U.S. capabilities just led to more arms race. How about arms control? The MX missile was an obsolete idea. A limited movement weapon? Isn't that the reason the Soviets went to mobile launchers?
Obviously, the people who made this didn't mind the war priority for budget defense.
barron8006 1 year ago
Submarine launched Ballistic Missiles did not have the accuracy that land based had for some time -- they were needed to attack time urgent, hard targets as Van Cleave explains in the film.
filmsouth 1 year ago
@filmsouth Not only has technology made the newer Boomers the very most survivable weapons but with todays trident missles they are just as accurate as any land based ICBM. If not more so!. Great video I think you guys did somethin awesome putting this on here. Well Done!
cessnawings67 1 year ago
@cessnawings67 , I do agree with you, B-1s and moreover B-2s are rather difficult, if non impossible (as for B2s) to detect, and they are actually the most powerful warhead carriers. But it would be so if a large enough number of aircrafts were always ready to fly with weapons fitted, and In my knowledge that is not the case fo US strategic bombers
anisocoro 1 year ago
@anisocoro Yep I believe you are right and thank you for the reply comment. Great Work! Keep it up my Friend.
cessnawings67 1 year ago
@filmsouth Would the MX missile be the Peacekeeper?
MrBennetzen 1 year ago
@MrBennetzen yes you are correct.
filmsouth 1 year ago
Im missing something, why silos when you have subs? whats the advantages/disadvatages?
Petto84 1 year ago
@Petto84 Probably into the 21st century, the advantages of land based missiles will disappear entirely. The Trident II outclasses any other weapon system in the entire world; by itself, the 20 or so SSBNs and future replacements will provide the US with a continuing ability to hold any nation or target at risk
Also take into account the US' much greater advantage in command and control of nuclear weapons, in early warning, intelligence, missile accuracy.. US strengths are overwhelming
disamjisa 1 year ago
Yes it is -- finally based in fixed silos -- I think 100 was the final number.
filmsouth 1 year ago
Is the MX the Peacekeeper ICBM?
MrBennetzen 1 year ago
Remember when this documentary came out in 1979, the Soviets were ahead militarily and had mobile ICBM called SS-20's. At that time the US was suffering until the mid 80's a recession and it seemed everything was going the Soviets way. When Reagan came in, he spent in 1 trillion in defense that updated our military BUT gave us huge deficits.
It wasn't until the ALMOST nuclear war in 1983 that Reagan decided to talk to the Soviets when Gorbachev came in 1985 which started the end of cold war.
redmustang03 2 years ago 9
That is a great summation of the situation in the late 70s early 80s. Great to read one without all the partisan rhetoric that usually gets added.
In the late 70s, the Soviets really did have very good strategic forces, the SS-18 seems a particularly fearsome weapon. However, I don't think the Soviets would ever be able to achieve complete surprise.
It would probably come during a period of heightened alert, allowing more missiles and bombers to survive, and the US would launch on warning.
disamjisa 2 years ago
Now its 2010, they still have mobile ICBMS, but are learning that it isn't the cold war anymore, and they cant bully nations into getting what they want just because they have a strong military and lots of nukes. Such as the georgian situation back in 2008.
RainbowManification 2 years ago
@RainbowManification Not sure what you're referring to re: Georgia.
The Georgians got a bloody nose, they utterly failed in their objectives, and ended the war they started in a worse position (the breakaway provinces declaring independence, with significantly increased and permanent Russian troop presence).
They weren't even in a position to get the status quo ante when peace prevailed.
disamjisa 1 year ago
@redmustang03
THE SS 20 were placed in Polen that are no ICBMs that are small rockets who should hit targets in germany and other european NATO-STATES.
TroTLF 1 year ago
@redmustang03 The soviets had their fingers practically on the button after hearing the exercise message that the US has launched 300 ICBM's. Awaiting satellite and radar conformation before ordering a retaliatory strike.
The Soviets were certain that a western attack would come under the rouse of an exercise, like that of the Nazi empire and Operation Barbarossa.
RainbowManification 1 year ago
@RainbowManification, by 1983 the Russians did have the finger on the button and they almost attacked because they were so paranoid. That's what changed Reagan into finally talking to the Russians.
redmustang03 1 year ago
@redmustang03 Great point. I personally do not believe that the figure of 90-95% of Minuteman missiles destroyed, and have read several academic papers on the subject, however this documentary is very indicative of the situation we were in in the late 70s; the Soviets had a huge advantage in land-based missiles.
From about 1983 onwards, the deployment of the Pershing II, Tomahawk GLCM and Trident C4 pushed the strategic balance back towards the centre, if not to the US.
disamjisa 1 year ago
@disamjisa, before that in 1983 the Russians were so Paranoid that they almost did attack us. THe Pershing's in Western Europe could reach Moscow in about 4 minutes and that did scare the Russians. Still both sides could have released their weapons and millions would have died.
redmustang03 1 year ago
@redmustang03 That's absolutely correct. The Pershing II was an unbelievably well-designed, effective and fearsome weapons system. As you mentioned, it could reach Soviet territory in minutes, was devastatingly accurate and carried a triple-warhead third stage each with 150 kiloton yields if I recall correctly.
It pushed the Russians into signing the INF. In 1983, the Russians had good reason to be frightened. They had entirely lost the nuclear advantage they enjoyd only five years previously
disamjisa 1 year ago
dont beleive everything u hear they're speaking of what you know not what you don't know. this is all pre fall of the wall and pre stealth tec, but rest assured that it did exist and it was ready. There are greater secrets in the world on all sides some we may find out about to late lets pray we don't get that wake up call just to be put out of our misery. semper fi.
grips187 2 years ago
Yea, USC! GO TROJANS! NUKE 'EM ALL!
stableshadow 2 years ago
We should have taken out all of our enemies and potential future enemies when we alone held the bomb back in the forties
sapher2020 2 years ago
then youd all be dead of cancer
bulked 2 years ago
u got that right. If you can ever locate a book called War & Peace in the Nuclear Age (Video PBS of same title; late 1980s') get it! Russians admit (in the book/vid) they had no deliver any of their nuke warheads in the 1950's on U.S. Homeland.
rangeclerk 2 years ago
that means what, the whole Earth population outside the hole where you live?
Calypso119 2 years ago
all this talk is bullshit. if 2 nations nuke each other, then everything is fucked up....no fucking winner..
so its better not to use nukes at all guys.....believe me.
TheRenaissance83 2 years ago 4
Thank you President Reagan. I will make note of it.
IrishLincoln 2 years ago
What this video almost totally ignores is the superb U.S. submarine force, up to 7 or 8 boats on permanent patrol even in those days of polaris and poseidon missiles, not the super accurate trident, gave the U.S. a sizeable and deadly retaliation ability.
yorksgeezer 2 years ago 3
Wow.....the early 80s. When toupees ruled.
Also seemd like the comb over was popular.
Zoomer30 2 years ago
I can't believe what liars this men are.
ssatrofma 2 years ago
That's war... what do you expect?
camorramerda 2 years ago
A look back sometimes reveals folly. Here we were, in the late 1970's, sweating nukes. 40 years later the greatest threat to the US proved to be a bunch of morons sneaking box cutters onto an aircraft...
Waltham1892 2 years ago
And in 40 years time we might be back to sweating about nukes.
This is why I can't stand the anti-nuclear movement here in the UK. Just because we don't need Trident now doesn't mean we won't need it in the future.
theredraven 2 years ago 2