There seems to be a lot of confusion about what will or won't set off a nuke. These W-49 thermonuke warheads (ca 1962) had fission primaries which used 2 ignition points; it was hoped if only one point fired, the TNT lens would explode unevenly, squirting the plutonium out the end unfizzed. According to wiki: "Out of 25 tests conducted in 1957 and 1958, 7 had 0 or slight nuclear yield (success), three had high yields (severe failure), and the rest had unacceptable yields between those extremes."
Today's bombs are a lot safer, but (when testing was ongoing) safety tests remained a substantial percentage of testing. Bombs lost in the 60s in Spain, South Carolina and Greenland (and possibly others) all suffered explosions of their primary lenses; the one in Greenland may have actually been a significant nuclear event, but no one alive was a witness. Scary times.
So yes. Those people at Johnston Island were lucky when all they suffered was plutonium rain.
The video does not say the warhead went off in the fire, it said it burned up. They said they used an airplane dropped bomb to complete testing.
And no, a fire will not set off a nuke, heck dynamite taped to the warhead wouldn't set it off. The warhead is surrounded by HE, (high explosives), that MUST explode exactly correct or all you have is radioactive material in little pieces.
The HE is some really bad a** stuff though, if it did explode in a fire, it would make a big boom.
@qtrtilldawn: You're right. The implosion charges fired, but not in the smooth sequence that would have caused a nuke blast. They were very lucky; test of that warhead in failure modes in NTS showed a 60% failure rate (that is, 60% of test showed some fission occurring). And, yes, plutonium was spread all over the area. The pad had to be torn out and rebuilt from scratch.
@NeonGenesisPlatinum Fire causes malfunction in the electronics, setting off the bomb,, its a possibility, other than that i cant think of how fire would cause it to detonate, but its not impossible going by this scenario.
@clitmint It's probably not IMPOSSIBLE, but they did a lot of test where they left war heads on/in really bad fires and NONE of them ever detonated. I have seen ALL the available test films!
@NeonGenesisPlatinum: Ummmm, that's wrong. Of the early warhead series (using lensing 2-point ignition bombs), 27 tests had 15 failures (I think). A failure was one in which fission was detected.
@NeonGenesisPlatinum: Wrong. They most certainly can. Multiple test were done in Operation Plumbob and subsequent, which routinely failed more often than succeeded, in the earlier warheads.
If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people. You will see what I mean when you read the first page.
@swiver7 You're mixing up nuclear warhead testing and delivery vehicle (missile) tests - both always were carried out separately, since you can't risk warhead falling god knows where due to missile failure.
@klin1klinom: Somewhere, sometime, it comes time to test the system concept of an ICBM. You have a better way? You may disagree about the need for it, but you don't seem to have been complaining back in 1955. At least I didn't hear you.
@puncheex Your time is over, pops, it's my world now.I wasn't talking about general ICBM testing,but rather about using live warheads for such tests,which is simply senseless-you don't need to carry the warhead on top of the missile to verify the missile and reentry vehicle technical characteristics and you don't need missile to test live warhead either.Fission/fusion isn't an issue here,who gets to keep the warhead or have plutonium infused rain shower over their heads is,if the missile fails.
@klin1klinom: You're so right (about your turn). Welcome. So, what are your plans? Hope you don't get second guessed, like you're doing.
They were simultaneously testing the launch platform, the ICBM concept, and the effects of very high altitude detonations; 3 for the price of 1. It isn't as if they hadn't done it before. Three missiles with nukes were fired in Project Argus. In Dominic/Frigatebird, a Polaris was launched underwater to go 2000 miles downrange and explode.
Good thing the missile exploding doesn't set off the nuclear reaction, otherwise the scientists and soldiers in those silos would be pissed (and have two heads)
Dude... you can't just drop a nuke on the ground, or put it next to an explosion, to initiate a nuclear reaction... it requires a very specific set of conditions to result in a nuclear chain reaction... (such as critical mass...) that is why it took so many years for the countries involved to "successfully" detonate a nuclear bomb. I say "successfully" because success is a relative term. It is hard to fathom such destruction as success...
@shitbum99 that's what I said dickhead. I know it takes a lot more than just an explosion and that's what I wrote in my comment. Thank you for reading it next time
This video doesn't make it terribly obvious, but that large nuclear explosion featured at the end of the video was not caused by the malfunctioning rocket or the ensuing launch pad fire.
"Caution: Do not touch plastic nose in flight." Why?....will it fall out from under you? Is it heated and will burn you? Maybe they just didn't want to scratch it....which is my theory. If it got all scratched up, it would be no good for aerial surveylance.
What will happen to you when you die? Have you ever told lies, stolen, used God's name in vain? If yes, then you are a liar, theif, and a blasphemer. When you die & stand before God you'll be guilty of breaking His law. The bible says you'll end up in Hell! But God sent God his Son Jesus to die on a cross for your sins, & He rose from the dead on the third day. If you'll believe the Gospel(Jesus died for your sins & was resurrected) for the forgiveness of your sins, you'll have eternal life!
i love how people post comments on youtube and act like they know all sorts of shit, like theyre a scientist or something when in reality anything they write down can be found on wikipedia... just hilarious.
@gubeym its just people being people, besides, not everything on wiki is wrong (not saying everything is right either.) if you really can't handle it then don't scroll down
@stalkingalizee: The one shown did. That is, the high explosive lense system that was supposed to fire the weapon exploded, but not in the precise manner that would have caused nuclear detonation. Instead the core was blasted all over the launch area in microscopic pieces; the whole launch area had to be bulldozed and rebuilt from scratch. This same thing has happened in Spain, Thule Greenland and in South Carolina, and possibly in Texas. See wiki, "nuclear accidents".
@puncheex I didn't say explode... I said detonate. Two very different things when talking about nuclear weapons. It takes a precise alignment of blast force to trigger a nuclear reaction and it is impossible to do without the bomb being triggered. Fortunately the fail safe always works as it is too complex to be set off by random failures.
@stalkingalizee: Well, not exactly impossible. There was much concern about the two-point lenses of the 50s; tests showed that it would have partially or completely "detonated" single-point some 18 times out of 25. Los Alamos' W47 design was safe, but rather than share the the credit for the first SLBM bomb Livermore used a mechanical "wire" system to safe their warhead. Later it was found that the wire rendered most all the bombs it was used on duds.
Ok wow, you people should really just STFU. Your fucking youtubers, not some damn scientists. ust watch the video, you dont have to show everybody your "Knowledge". just watch the video.
@slipperywhenwet5 YouTubers always troll, and say stupid things, but then on videos such as these, they try to be the smart ones. You don't need to discuss why it matters, just watch the video and go. FUCK, the comments are the WORSE part of YouTube, people always asking for thumbs ups, and mentioning Justien Bieber everywhere, And arguing. YouTube would be better off without comments by far, just reading them makes me hate society.
@Ababagoobeable - dude, you're refreshing. I'm to the point where the comments are as entertaining as anything...and then the reality of it all hits: we're only a small voice in a crowd of angry morans. Guess all we can do is have patience, not try to convince others of anything and let God sort it all out.
@Ababagoobeable I agree, Youtube is NOT a political or opinion website, what is so wrong with just talking about the video and subjects relating to the video. I dont get it
People have the right to say whatever they want (if not offensive) in the comments, that's called free speech. Knowing that, if you don't want to read you don't need to. Also, if you are not adding nothing constructive maybe you should be the one to STFU!
@molinobeer actually you can say offensive things too ^_^ only thing you cant do is say something that would cause harm to people like yelling bomb on a plane or fire in a theater.
@dap889 While hate speech is not illegal in the US, it's illegal in quite many other countries. Lets face it, it's very visible anywhere on the internet - US citizens fall probably into the worst behaving people online. In 90% of disagreement situations, all you get is a sequence of random insults based on no logic thrown at your face. Looking @gunmetal10 .. good example. Thumbs up for @Ababagoobeable for not joining the childish insult tossing.
@snaip where the hell did you get 90% of americans are the bad behaving? i will say people, in all, not by country, just people talk shit. doesnt matter where your from. im sure youve talked shit in your life and have said offensive things. i was only stating that its not illegal. to be honest what you just said with the 90% of americans are misbehaving is offensive to me since i am american. i believe you just pulled that number out of your ass because you are bias and anti american.
And I never said you're wrong, only that your correctness applies inside the states and countries that do not criminalize offensive speech. Neither did I call you bad behaving, why such a hostile response? Are you folks trying to prove my point or what? There's also a major difference between offensive speech and being offended. OK, anyway so you're patriotic and don't tolerate my opinions. That's fine, lets not start a war about it. That'd be silly, hm?
@snaip just saying the obvious. sorry that finland does not allow you simple freedom's. anyways, i'm going to go with american laws, since i am american and on an american website. btw i respect finland very much, just because you guys kicked the shit out of the soviet union in 1939-40. ^_^
Oh uh, in case you missed it, that 90% is totally pulled out of my ass. Some might call it a personal opinion.. or general impression. Just to ease your pain; all the usa folks I know personally are nice. That's less than 10 people but anyway.
@snaip oh i know it was.. i know many people not, finnish but people from other countries that love the US.. my girlfriend is from saudi arabia, on a scholarship to go to school here and loves it here. shes not moving back now. ^_^
@foetus4all Oh, i'm sorry, thank you for correcting me. I'm sure my wrong grammer was so out of context, and thank you for showing me just how smart you cab be. Gee, YOUR the best ;)
This is why you test nuclear missiles in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
In this case, it was on Johnston Atoll, literally a thousand miles from anywhere. It didn't detonate but it did break open and contaminate the entire atoll with plutonium, but they scraped it all up and buried it in a pit somewhere.
Later they used Johnston atoll for a massive chemical weapons incinerator, for the same reason. Nobody around to get hurt.
worker: it would be funny if the stand went with it other worker: ur a idiot robinson sientist:its a nuke what could go rong if we dont hobo: ive seen things maaaan everybody: ... everybody: LETS DO ROBS IDEA "they do it" sientist:somethings rong! worker:ITS NOT TAKEN OFF ITS ON FIRE some random person WTF! everything: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM
@eufaula1 You're half right, except that there was so much fallout from all the tests at the time that the very few high altitude experiments did not make any difference. One thing is for sure about the high altitude detonations, they were beautiful and the majority of the radiation caused interesting lights through our atmostphere :D
@Badassbok Despite over 1000 atmospheric nuclear tests the background level or radiation has increased by less than 1%. Cancer is so prevalent today because people live longer and healthier than they did before, but eventually you have to die of something; that something is heart disease and cancer.
And how much were you paid to say that? "We have to dies of something" are you a moron? Yeah- is called "old age" !! Not cancer (and huge numbers of cancer) caused by the idiot trigger happy police state motherfuckers playing God with every one else's lives..
@Badassbok Old age is not a cause of death. No country in the developed world recognizes it as an official cause. There is ALWAYS a real underlying disease or illness of some kind, the most common ones being is heart and vascular diease and cancer.
Cancer is an age related illness, it really skyrockets after 50; Age vs. cancer risk graphs are easily available online, look them up. 60 years ago the life expectancy in New zealand was 65, now it's 80.
For any particular age group you care to mention (young people included), I would bet that incidents of cancer have increased ith increased ambient radiation.
There is a degradation of DNA overtime - one of the problems that they encountered with clones - cloning old DNA meant ti started old, and ended older.
Heart disease is a time related thing. Cancer probably goes up with time- because you have been subjected to ambient radiation longer. The more you have been subjected to, the more incidents.
We were getting cancer (in small numbers) before from the suns rays alone, now we have redued ozone because of the polloution and tests, and while the background radiation has "only" increased 1% because of the direct atmospheric radiation, when yo LIVE in the increased radiation over time, it KILLS you.
Where is the class action lawsuit against the US government by cancer suffererers. I want to see a graph of tests v cancer prevalency (with a 20 year time lapse in between) .
@Badassbok The primary cause of cancer is plain old metabolism. Reactive oxygen species cause thousands of DNA damages per cell per day.
And then you've got fine particulates and smoke, heavy metals, mycotoxins(e.g. aflatoxin), asbestos, various retrovirii and a million other things.
Radiation is an incredibly poor carcinogen; we haven't even been able to find a statistically significant increase in cancer risk in parts of Ramsar where they live with up to 200 mSv/year(~100x normal).
If radiation is such an incredibly poor carcinogen, then why do pilots an stewardesses have a statistically significant increased risk of cancer from exposure to radiation - THROUGH the skin of than airliner?
@Badassbok It's well documented that ozone depletion is caused by chlorine from CFCs. It's entirely a problem at very high lattitudes where ice crystals catalyze an important step in the reaction. It's irrelevant even at the lattitude of New zeeland or Sweden.
You clearly have not spent time in the sun in New Zealand recently... I live there. It MOST CERTAINLY is not irrelevant. You burn yourself to a crisp (in relatiely low temperatures) in next to no time at all. A tan is practially impossible because it goes straight from no tan to burnt in one jump. In NZ and Australia, the government has warning campaigns about skin cancer from over exposure to the sun.
I used to stay in Johannesburg - at 1700m altitude. You (typically) would burn there MUCH faster than at sea level because there is less atmosphere above you. But in NZ, you burn MUCH faster than even Jhb. You dont know what you are talking about.
@Badassbok "I want to see a graph of tests v cancer prevalency (with a 20 year time lapse in between) ."
That's about as informative as a graph of number of pirates vs global warming.(hint: nothing else has been held fixed, including the primary suspect, lifespan).
"And how much were you paid to say that?"
Vague insinuations of this kind are the last refuge of a scoundrel. Put up or shut up.
You are asking me to put up or shut up- but you are susing percentage points- radiation has incresased less than 1% - implying that a small percentage means small effect - which is DEFINITELY not teh case where radiation is concerned.
Radiation has increased so much in our atmosphere that they have to harvest old steel from sunken battleships to make radiation sensitive meters for satellites- modern steel contains too much inherent radiation
they probably did that shit on purpose... as a "test" to see what happens when something goes wrong hahaha fuck it man lets drop 200 nukes in the desert and see if it causes a nuclear winter. it'll be a good test.
@kjeezy101 You can't cause a nuclear winter unless a nuclear warhead is detonated over a city, otherwise there would not be sufficient ash to block the sun's ray from getting through the atmosphere.
wait so if the nuclear missile had a fuck up does that mean the it had a nuclear explosion or does it give a nuke explosion only when the atoms split.
All nuclear warheads (save a precious few of the older Russian models and maybe the North Korean warheads) have safeguard built into them. It will not detonate if the rocket malfunctions, they have to be at a certain air pressure, altitude, etc. before the mechanism can be triggered.
So a rocket malfunction like the one above would not detonate the explosive that would start the chain reaction. However it is very plausible that the warhead could be damaged or even fragmented. This would essentially have the same effect as a dirty bomb, spraying radioactive fragments all over the launch zone and contaminating it for years.
@chimpychub Actually, the fire probably does detonate the explosive, but that doesn't cause a nuclear explosion. All nuclear weapons are designed with at least one-point safety; which means you need to initiate the detonation in two or more different places with micro-second timing, otherwise the blast squeezes the plutonium pit into a peanut shape and nothing happens.
That nuclear explosion is the one that appears in 0:44? I've seen in a documentary called "Atomic Cafe", but I do not know which test was! If anyone knows, please tell me! Thank you!
@kilzwes the explosion at 0:44 is called 'Housatonic'. It was the largest test of operation Dominic at 8.3 megatonnes and was the last atmospheric h-bomb test ever conducted by the US (not counting 2 sub megaton level extremly hight high altitude tests conducted a few days after this)
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured during five and a half years by the German BND, which is the former GESTAPO. I recorded more than 100 videotapes which ended up in the legal system. My brother was tortured during 1.5 years despite several legal procedures pending. Markus Bott was assassinated on July 11th 2009 because of our homepage, linked on my channel, and our book Der Totalitäre Staat. If my homepage disappears, the BND will have assassinated me as well.
Would somenone be as nice as to explain me basically how a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System works? I don't see how it's different from a regular ICBM.
FOBS would've used the much greater range of an orbital trajectory to send warheads over the south pole and into the US from the "wrong direction" while all NATO's warning systems were looking north.
Yeah ..and because of that it's practicly..unstopable... Can not be shot down with any earth-air ..air-air on any other missle...Second is flying speed of that thing...unbelivable..
I too myself find it pretty stupid they spend so damn fucking much on making them for pretty much no reason the only country that ever used a nuke offensively was the US against China or Japan kinda forget well that money could og to somewhere else, like my bank account or something.
If you`ve been watching events going on in the world , our planet is coming on the verge of a break down. All countries who contain these powerful weapons , and pretty much capable of having nukes , know it is only for extreme self defense. In my opinion , if Russia or Iraq decided to create a nuculear warfare , i would want some self defense , don`t know about you. And it was the japanese who were bombed. Due to them being suicidal and crashing planes into our battleships.
"I too myself find it pretty stupid they spend so damn fucking much on making them for pretty much no reason the only country that ever used a nuke offensively was the US against China or Japan kinda forget well that money could og to somewhere else, like my bank account or something."
You suggest that we spend the money on you instead of building nukes... News flash, nuclear scientists do not hoard their money, the spend it... maybe at TACO BELL so you can get paid!
@yoFarhan because the human race is too stupid, and will continue to create weapons to kill each other that we will eventually kill everyone on the planet
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what will or won't set off a nuke. These W-49 thermonuke warheads (ca 1962) had fission primaries which used 2 ignition points; it was hoped if only one point fired, the TNT lens would explode unevenly, squirting the plutonium out the end unfizzed. According to wiki: "Out of 25 tests conducted in 1957 and 1958, 7 had 0 or slight nuclear yield (success), three had high yields (severe failure), and the rest had unacceptable yields between those extremes."
puncheex 2 months ago
Today's bombs are a lot safer, but (when testing was ongoing) safety tests remained a substantial percentage of testing. Bombs lost in the 60s in Spain, South Carolina and Greenland (and possibly others) all suffered explosions of their primary lenses; the one in Greenland may have actually been a significant nuclear event, but no one alive was a witness. Scary times.
So yes. Those people at Johnston Island were lucky when all they suffered was plutonium rain.
puncheex 2 months ago
The video does not say the warhead went off in the fire, it said it burned up. They said they used an airplane dropped bomb to complete testing.
And no, a fire will not set off a nuke, heck dynamite taped to the warhead wouldn't set it off. The warhead is surrounded by HE, (high explosives), that MUST explode exactly correct or all you have is radioactive material in little pieces.
The HE is some really bad a** stuff though, if it did explode in a fire, it would make a big boom.
qtrtilldawn 3 months ago
@qtrtilldawn: You're right. The implosion charges fired, but not in the smooth sequence that would have caused a nuke blast. They were very lucky; test of that warhead in failure modes in NTS showed a 60% failure rate (that is, 60% of test showed some fission occurring). And, yes, plutonium was spread all over the area. The pad had to be torn out and rebuilt from scratch.
puncheex 2 months ago
Sadly ignorant video. No connection between the scenes shown. Dumb.
DarwinsFriend 3 months ago
Giant Atomic Mushroom Clouds,, coming to a city NEAR YOU !
clitmint 3 months ago
Nukes CANNOT go explode because of fire!!!
It is a totally different reaction.
NeonGenesisPlatinum 3 months ago
@NeonGenesisPlatinum Fire causes malfunction in the electronics, setting off the bomb,, its a possibility, other than that i cant think of how fire would cause it to detonate, but its not impossible going by this scenario.
clitmint 3 months ago
@clitmint It's probably not IMPOSSIBLE, but they did a lot of test where they left war heads on/in really bad fires and NONE of them ever detonated. I have seen ALL the available test films!
NeonGenesisPlatinum 3 months ago
@NeonGenesisPlatinum: Ummmm, that's wrong. Of the early warhead series (using lensing 2-point ignition bombs), 27 tests had 15 failures (I think). A failure was one in which fission was detected.
puncheex 2 months ago
@NeonGenesisPlatinum: Wrong. They most certainly can. Multiple test were done in Operation Plumbob and subsequent, which routinely failed more often than succeeded, in the earlier warheads.
puncheex 2 months ago
Nuclear weapons are good weapons.....
to be used only against bad enemies.
MucusFelidae 3 months ago
@MucusFelidae Thats what the enemies said too
themightyrara 3 months ago
@themightyrara When both sides say the same, then it must be true.
MucusFelidae 3 months ago
it did launch @0:32 the warhead launched hehe
PaperbatVGFAN67 3 months ago
where do we find enough land to test these bombs and where does the radiation go? r we bombing niggers and asians or something?
Brooklyn149isGOLD 4 months ago
@Brooklyn149isGOLD they drop em in the ocean or some desert somehwere...
TheMagicalTouch 4 months ago
can a nuclear bomb go right?
MrMeineNamen 4 months ago
@ :34 seconds- isn't THAT the warhead ejecting?
greenseaships 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people. You will see what I mean when you read the first page.
SeekTruthN0w 4 months ago
What a load of bollox. Rename it "usual boring shite of a failed missile launch".
stubbostubbs 5 months ago
@stubbostubbs: And yet that is what happened. Sorry you missed the boat on that.
puncheex 2 months ago
@40390576 Where do I apply for one of those jobs? ;)
JetMechMA 7 months ago
@40390576 Ah, I rushed. Thanks for the correction. Bad idea never the less)
klin1klinom 7 months ago
Great! What did that cost my dad?
chuckbyf1 8 months ago
Who's bright idea was it to test-launch ICBM with a fucking live warhead on it!!!???
klin1klinom 8 months ago
@klin1klinom all the worlds super powers used to do it but it was outlawed due to bad effects on the planet.
swiver7 7 months ago
@swiver7 You're mixing up nuclear warhead testing and delivery vehicle (missile) tests - both always were carried out separately, since you can't risk warhead falling god knows where due to missile failure.
klin1klinom 7 months ago
@klin1klinom: Somewhere, sometime, it comes time to test the system concept of an ICBM. You have a better way? You may disagree about the need for it, but you don't seem to have been complaining back in 1955. At least I didn't hear you.
puncheex 2 months ago
@puncheex Your time is over, pops, it's my world now.I wasn't talking about general ICBM testing,but rather about using live warheads for such tests,which is simply senseless-you don't need to carry the warhead on top of the missile to verify the missile and reentry vehicle technical characteristics and you don't need missile to test live warhead either.Fission/fusion isn't an issue here,who gets to keep the warhead or have plutonium infused rain shower over their heads is,if the missile fails.
klin1klinom 2 months ago
@klin1klinom: You're so right (about your turn). Welcome. So, what are your plans? Hope you don't get second guessed, like you're doing.
They were simultaneously testing the launch platform, the ICBM concept, and the effects of very high altitude detonations; 3 for the price of 1. It isn't as if they hadn't done it before. Three missiles with nukes were fired in Project Argus. In Dominic/Frigatebird, a Polaris was launched underwater to go 2000 miles downrange and explode.
puncheex 2 months ago
Good thing the missile exploding doesn't set off the nuclear reaction, otherwise the scientists and soldiers in those silos would be pissed (and have two heads)
yomama629 8 months ago
@yomama629
Dude... you can't just drop a nuke on the ground, or put it next to an explosion, to initiate a nuclear reaction... it requires a very specific set of conditions to result in a nuclear chain reaction... (such as critical mass...) that is why it took so many years for the countries involved to "successfully" detonate a nuclear bomb. I say "successfully" because success is a relative term. It is hard to fathom such destruction as success...
shitbum99 8 months ago
@shitbum99 that's what I said dickhead. I know it takes a lot more than just an explosion and that's what I wrote in my comment. Thank you for reading it next time
yomama629 8 months ago
The Tiger says love is in the air.
sturmtiger305mm 9 months ago
weapons like this were developed for the chat below!
jsmythib 10 months ago
Imagine if this went off in your ass. It would be more tolerable than reading half of the messages below.
gogetmeseashells 10 months ago
stupid lunatic army boys and their violent fantasies
iorixs 10 months ago
@XXXintervention both.
DaMaddog2882 11 months ago
This video doesn't make it terribly obvious, but that large nuclear explosion featured at the end of the video was not caused by the malfunctioning rocket or the ensuing launch pad fire.
R0b3456 11 months ago
Please check out my page if your interested in this video great video by the way!!!
EightySievertsStrong 11 months ago
The world can only hope that Iran will have the same results.
pmoyer50 1 year ago
did it really go wrong just one less nuke to worry about
XXXintervention 1 year ago
"Missile and warhead burned on the pad?!!!! THEN WHAT???
JetMechMA 1 year ago
"Caution: Do not touch plastic nose in flight." Why?....will it fall out from under you? Is it heated and will burn you? Maybe they just didn't want to scratch it....which is my theory. If it got all scratched up, it would be no good for aerial surveylance.
JetMechMA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What "Wrong" you see in this film ???
Canis1969Lupus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What will happen to you when you die? Have you ever told lies, stolen, used God's name in vain? If yes, then you are a liar, theif, and a blasphemer. When you die & stand before God you'll be guilty of breaking His law. The bible says you'll end up in Hell! But God sent God his Son Jesus to die on a cross for your sins, & He rose from the dead on the third day. If you'll believe the Gospel(Jesus died for your sins & was resurrected) for the forgiveness of your sins, you'll have eternal life!
gramosjr7 1 year ago
i love how people post comments on youtube and act like they know all sorts of shit, like theyre a scientist or something when in reality anything they write down can be found on wikipedia... just hilarious.
gubeym 1 year ago
@gubeym its just people being people, besides, not everything on wiki is wrong (not saying everything is right either.) if you really can't handle it then don't scroll down
T15Medic 1 year ago
God, when the he lenses burn and you get a fizzle, it's all downhill....fast
sitwosaints 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try to flirt and meet Asian women online lushfmlk.info
abriendaabira 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try to flirt and meet Asian women online lushfmlk.info
abriendaabira 1 year ago
Good thing those warheads don't detonate in a fire... that would suck.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee: The one shown did. That is, the high explosive lense system that was supposed to fire the weapon exploded, but not in the precise manner that would have caused nuclear detonation. Instead the core was blasted all over the launch area in microscopic pieces; the whole launch area had to be bulldozed and rebuilt from scratch. This same thing has happened in Spain, Thule Greenland and in South Carolina, and possibly in Texas. See wiki, "nuclear accidents".
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex I didn't say explode... I said detonate. Two very different things when talking about nuclear weapons. It takes a precise alignment of blast force to trigger a nuclear reaction and it is impossible to do without the bomb being triggered. Fortunately the fail safe always works as it is too complex to be set off by random failures.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee: Well, not exactly impossible. There was much concern about the two-point lenses of the 50s; tests showed that it would have partially or completely "detonated" single-point some 18 times out of 25. Los Alamos' W47 design was safe, but rather than share the the credit for the first SLBM bomb Livermore used a mechanical "wire" system to safe their warhead. Later it was found that the wire rendered most all the bombs it was used on duds.
puncheex 1 year ago
Ok wow, you people should really just STFU. Your fucking youtubers, not some damn scientists. ust watch the video, you dont have to show everybody your "Knowledge". just watch the video.
Ababagoobeable 1 year ago 10
@Ababagoobeable What do you think the comments are for? Posting unconstructive shit like you?
slipperywhenwet5 1 year ago 57
@slipperywhenwet5 YouTubers always troll, and say stupid things, but then on videos such as these, they try to be the smart ones. You don't need to discuss why it matters, just watch the video and go. FUCK, the comments are the WORSE part of YouTube, people always asking for thumbs ups, and mentioning Justien Bieber everywhere, And arguing. YouTube would be better off without comments by far, just reading them makes me hate society.
Ababagoobeable 1 year ago
@Ababagoobeable - dude, you're refreshing. I'm to the point where the comments are as entertaining as anything...and then the reality of it all hits: we're only a small voice in a crowd of angry morans. Guess all we can do is have patience, not try to convince others of anything and let God sort it all out.
/not a scientist
grazzmaster 1 year ago
@Ababagoobeable You don't have to read the comments ya know. Take your own advise and watch the video and go.
420hih 1 year ago
@Ababagoobeable having an YouTube account makes you a YouTuber. Therefore, my friend, you are one.
kochkochkoch 1 year ago
@Ababagoobeable then dont read them noob if ur reading this and u reply back ur gay and will be a loner for ever.
gunmetal10 1 year ago
@gunmetal10 I'm the "Noob"? Read your comment again, and think about that.
Ababagoobeable 1 year ago
@Ababagoobeable what do you want u homo and u loner!
gunmetal10 1 year ago
@Ababagoobeable PREACH!!!
TheR0flman 1 year ago
@Ababagoobeable
well there are scientist on youtube, you never know
RebornLegacy 1 year ago
@Ababagoobeable I agree, Youtube is NOT a political or opinion website, what is so wrong with just talking about the video and subjects relating to the video. I dont get it
tokorev747777 1 year ago
@Ababagoobeable
People have the right to say whatever they want (if not offensive) in the comments, that's called free speech. Knowing that, if you don't want to read you don't need to. Also, if you are not adding nothing constructive maybe you should be the one to STFU!
molinobeer 1 year ago
@molinobeer actually you can say offensive things too ^_^ only thing you cant do is say something that would cause harm to people like yelling bomb on a plane or fire in a theater.
dap889 11 months ago
@dap889 While hate speech is not illegal in the US, it's illegal in quite many other countries. Lets face it, it's very visible anywhere on the internet - US citizens fall probably into the worst behaving people online. In 90% of disagreement situations, all you get is a sequence of random insults based on no logic thrown at your face. Looking @gunmetal10 .. good example. Thumbs up for @Ababagoobeable for not joining the childish insult tossing.
snaip 10 months ago
@snaip where the hell did you get 90% of americans are the bad behaving? i will say people, in all, not by country, just people talk shit. doesnt matter where your from. im sure youve talked shit in your life and have said offensive things. i was only stating that its not illegal. to be honest what you just said with the 90% of americans are misbehaving is offensive to me since i am american. i believe you just pulled that number out of your ass because you are bias and anti american.
dap889 10 months ago
@dap889
And I never said you're wrong, only that your correctness applies inside the states and countries that do not criminalize offensive speech. Neither did I call you bad behaving, why such a hostile response? Are you folks trying to prove my point or what? There's also a major difference between offensive speech and being offended. OK, anyway so you're patriotic and don't tolerate my opinions. That's fine, lets not start a war about it. That'd be silly, hm?
snaip 10 months ago
@snaip just saying the obvious. sorry that finland does not allow you simple freedom's. anyways, i'm going to go with american laws, since i am american and on an american website. btw i respect finland very much, just because you guys kicked the shit out of the soviet union in 1939-40. ^_^
dap889 10 months ago
@snaip Thats the problem with freedom of speech. Everyones an asshole.
MurphyMonster 10 months ago
@dap889
Oh uh, in case you missed it, that 90% is totally pulled out of my ass. Some might call it a personal opinion.. or general impression. Just to ease your pain; all the usa folks I know personally are nice. That's less than 10 people but anyway.
snaip 10 months ago
@snaip oh i know it was.. i know many people not, finnish but people from other countries that love the US.. my girlfriend is from saudi arabia, on a scholarship to go to school here and loves it here. shes not moving back now. ^_^
dap889 10 months ago
@snaip 90% of people from Finland always have false information..
frozenfire550 10 months ago
@frozenfire550
Hehe, sarcasm is funny. I like you too.
snaip 10 months ago
@snaip Thanks..
frozenfire550 10 months ago
@Ababagoobeable But what if we a both "Youtubers" and scientists..they what would you say? What about those types of, "you people's"?
analyzingfunny 10 months ago
@analyzingfunny No self-respecting researcher or professional in science would bother trying to convince YouTube comment-posters of anything.
lingojac 8 months ago
@Ababagoobeable take your own edvice kid just watch the video
RunwhenyouseeM1 9 months ago
@Ababagoobeable How do you know they aren't scientists? I think your just angry because they know more about this stuff then you do.
Javis586 6 months ago
@Javis586 yeah, i bet i am, your right....
Ababagoobeable 6 months ago
@Ababagoobeable For the love of god, YOU'RE, not YOUR!
foetus4all 5 months ago
@foetus4all Oh, i'm sorry, thank you for correcting me. I'm sure my wrong grammer was so out of context, and thank you for showing me just how smart you cab be. Gee, YOUR the best ;)
Ababagoobeable 5 months ago
@Ababagoobeable *grammar
stevevscott 4 months ago
@stevevscott Thanks for helping >_>
Ababagoobeable 4 months ago
@Ababagoobeable I'm a scientist, but I understand what you're saying..
Imakeplanesboom 5 months ago
Don't read history much do you vonfeldt7?
htc6600 1 year ago
great video, stop by and see my video when I was assigned there at Johnston Island, between Jan 94-Jan 94.
gregoryarmstrong 1 year ago
yay lets nuke russia!!!....OH SHIT IT CRASHED!!!!! lol
1210djy 1 year ago
The fire would not have made the nuclear warhead explode because they dont activate until its close to its destination.
dukas420 1 year ago
idiots close to the missle:
this is probably really safe.. standing 10 feet from the missle huh?
Missle propellant starts
... dontcha think it should have gone off by now?
missile bursts into flame
OH CRAP RUN!
weirdone17 1 year ago
This is why you test nuclear missiles in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
In this case, it was on Johnston Atoll, literally a thousand miles from anywhere. It didn't detonate but it did break open and contaminate the entire atoll with plutonium, but they scraped it all up and buried it in a pit somewhere.
Later they used Johnston atoll for a massive chemical weapons incinerator, for the same reason. Nobody around to get hurt.
Bullzeye95 1 year ago
Every nuclear missle test has been a horrible wrong.
teddysalad65 1 year ago
@teddysalad65 No? If it is no accident, then, if not for scientific data, a nuke test is at least good because of the fireworks show.
torpedo111 1 year ago
magnumwarrior001 1 year ago
@eufaula1 You're half right, except that there was so much fallout from all the tests at the time that the very few high altitude experiments did not make any difference. One thing is for sure about the high altitude detonations, they were beautiful and the majority of the radiation caused interesting lights through our atmostphere :D
n3xusunit 1 year ago
And we wonder why cacner is so prevalent in our society today - the stupid fuckers.
Badassbok 1 year ago
@Badassbok ...smoking maybe? alpha radiation was hardly a threat to the whole country....Lookup the REACTS course and learn something
Azurwrath2 1 year ago
@Badassbok They have creams that can clear those up.
two45triox 1 year ago
@Badassbok Despite over 1000 atmospheric nuclear tests the background level or radiation has increased by less than 1%. Cancer is so prevalent today because people live longer and healthier than they did before, but eventually you have to die of something; that something is heart disease and cancer.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb
And how much were you paid to say that? "We have to dies of something" are you a moron? Yeah- is called "old age" !! Not cancer (and huge numbers of cancer) caused by the idiot trigger happy police state motherfuckers playing God with every one else's lives..
Badassbok 1 year ago
@Badassbok Old age is not a cause of death. No country in the developed world recognizes it as an official cause. There is ALWAYS a real underlying disease or illness of some kind, the most common ones being is heart and vascular diease and cancer.
Cancer is an age related illness, it really skyrockets after 50; Age vs. cancer risk graphs are easily available online, look them up. 60 years ago the life expectancy in New zealand was 65, now it's 80.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb
For any particular age group you care to mention (young people included), I would bet that incidents of cancer have increased ith increased ambient radiation.
Badassbok 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb
There is a degradation of DNA overtime - one of the problems that they encountered with clones - cloning old DNA meant ti started old, and ended older.
Heart disease is a time related thing. Cancer probably goes up with time- because you have been subjected to ambient radiation longer. The more you have been subjected to, the more incidents.
Badassbok 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Badassbok "And how much were you paid to say that?"
Vague insinuations of this kind are the last refuge of a scoundrel. Put up or shut up.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb
We were getting cancer (in small numbers) before from the suns rays alone, now we have redued ozone because of the polloution and tests, and while the background radiation has "only" increased 1% because of the direct atmospheric radiation, when yo LIVE in the increased radiation over time, it KILLS you.
Where is the class action lawsuit against the US government by cancer suffererers. I want to see a graph of tests v cancer prevalency (with a 20 year time lapse in between) .
Badassbok 1 year ago
@Badassbok The primary cause of cancer is plain old metabolism. Reactive oxygen species cause thousands of DNA damages per cell per day.
And then you've got fine particulates and smoke, heavy metals, mycotoxins(e.g. aflatoxin), asbestos, various retrovirii and a million other things.
Radiation is an incredibly poor carcinogen; we haven't even been able to find a statistically significant increase in cancer risk in parts of Ramsar where they live with up to 200 mSv/year(~100x normal).
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb
If radiation is such an incredibly poor carcinogen, then why do pilots an stewardesses have a statistically significant increased risk of cancer from exposure to radiation - THROUGH the skin of than airliner?
Badassbok 1 year ago
@Badassbok It's well documented that ozone depletion is caused by chlorine from CFCs. It's entirely a problem at very high lattitudes where ice crystals catalyze an important step in the reaction. It's irrelevant even at the lattitude of New zeeland or Sweden.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb
You clearly have not spent time in the sun in New Zealand recently... I live there. It MOST CERTAINLY is not irrelevant. You burn yourself to a crisp (in relatiely low temperatures) in next to no time at all. A tan is practially impossible because it goes straight from no tan to burnt in one jump. In NZ and Australia, the government has warning campaigns about skin cancer from over exposure to the sun.
Badassbok 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb
I used to stay in Johannesburg - at 1700m altitude. You (typically) would burn there MUCH faster than at sea level because there is less atmosphere above you. But in NZ, you burn MUCH faster than even Jhb. You dont know what you are talking about.
Badassbok 1 year ago
@Badassbok "I want to see a graph of tests v cancer prevalency (with a 20 year time lapse in between) ."
That's about as informative as a graph of number of pirates vs global warming.(hint: nothing else has been held fixed, including the primary suspect, lifespan).
"And how much were you paid to say that?"
Vague insinuations of this kind are the last refuge of a scoundrel. Put up or shut up.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb
Not really, if it does match it.
You are asking me to put up or shut up- but you are susing percentage points- radiation has incresased less than 1% - implying that a small percentage means small effect - which is DEFINITELY not teh case where radiation is concerned.
Radiation has increased so much in our atmosphere that they have to harvest old steel from sunken battleships to make radiation sensitive meters for satellites- modern steel contains too much inherent radiation
Badassbok 1 year ago
@Badassbok: The relevant search items are "nuclear medicine", "radiation", "background radiation", "human subject research", "nuclear law" and similar. Knock yourself out.
puncheex 1 year ago
bull shit
123456787654321ize 1 year ago
July 25th is my B-day,so I was born on a day a nuke went off,great,lol
1865ify 1 year ago
@1865ify there have been so many nuke tests, most people probably have been born on a day a nuke went off.
shoopdanerd 1 year ago
@shoopdanerd I hate to say it but your right mate
1865ify 1 year ago
boring
mical101 1 year ago
they probably did that shit on purpose... as a "test" to see what happens when something goes wrong hahaha fuck it man lets drop 200 nukes in the desert and see if it causes a nuclear winter. it'll be a good test.
kjeezy101 1 year ago
@kjeezy101 You can't cause a nuclear winter unless a nuclear warhead is detonated over a city, otherwise there would not be sufficient ash to block the sun's ray from getting through the atmosphere.
Kwask12 1 year ago
this is one of the best gmods i have ever seen
jlwom 1 year ago
Did he say orgasm at 0:09 ?
FAB3Production 1 year ago
@FAB3Production No, he said oriented.
Sp33dyD3m0n 1 year ago
I was on the island about a mile away and saw the thor explode, I lived to tell about the blast!
tohoward33 1 year ago
Oops. ROFL!!!!
tall32guy 1 year ago
total fail.
starvinggods 1 year ago
its not at all
1acount 1 year ago
no its not
1acount 1 year ago
The price of knowledge is high. If we arent willing to pay the price, we don't deserve the knowledge.
supressorgrid 1 year ago
wait so if the nuclear missile had a fuck up does that mean the it had a nuclear explosion or does it give a nuke explosion only when the atoms split.
shadowhunter388 1 year ago
@shadowhunter388 good question, anyone got an answer?
repoop123 1 year ago
@repoop123 lol quick reply XD
shadowhunter388 1 year ago
@shadowhunter388
All nuclear warheads (save a precious few of the older Russian models and maybe the North Korean warheads) have safeguard built into them. It will not detonate if the rocket malfunctions, they have to be at a certain air pressure, altitude, etc. before the mechanism can be triggered.
chimpychub 1 year ago
@chimpychub. True. Although anything can break. Including safeguards.
MrSelidor7 1 year ago
@shadowhunter388
So a rocket malfunction like the one above would not detonate the explosive that would start the chain reaction. However it is very plausible that the warhead could be damaged or even fragmented. This would essentially have the same effect as a dirty bomb, spraying radioactive fragments all over the launch zone and contaminating it for years.
chimpychub 1 year ago
@chimpychub Actually, the fire probably does detonate the explosive, but that doesn't cause a nuclear explosion. All nuclear weapons are designed with at least one-point safety; which means you need to initiate the detonation in two or more different places with micro-second timing, otherwise the blast squeezes the plutonium pit into a peanut shape and nothing happens.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb: Uh, not back then. Look up what they say about 1 point testing in wiki under "nuclear weapon design".
puncheex 1 year ago
Thats what happens when chuck norris farts
CrossFeast 1 year ago
beautiful
ledfarmer100 1 year ago
waaah
gojiraboy 1 year ago
Well, this is precisely why they build test facilities on remote islands. Fortunately for us civilians.
pogularocky 1 year ago
That nuclear explosion is the one that appears in 0:44? I've seen in a documentary called "Atomic Cafe", but I do not know which test was! If anyone knows, please tell me! Thank you!
kilzwes 1 year ago
@kilzwes There was no nuclear explosion in this film. What you see at 0.44 is the chemical-explosive detonator for the nuke exploding.
Fortunately, it didn't explode in the manner necessary to detonate the nuclear warhead. If it had, then this film wouldn't have survived.
iloveesr 1 year ago
@kilzwes the explosion at 0:44 is called 'Housatonic'. It was the largest test of operation Dominic at 8.3 megatonnes and was the last atmospheric h-bomb test ever conducted by the US (not counting 2 sub megaton level extremly hight high altitude tests conducted a few days after this)
crofters 1 year ago
@crofters In what year was it? Was it before or after the Russian h-bomb test "Tsar Bomb"? Thanks one more time!!
kilzwes 1 year ago
Okay,...the launched on a secure military facility on Johnston Island not near any city.
Kalikani1 1 year ago
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured during five and a half years by the German BND, which is the former GESTAPO. I recorded more than 100 videotapes which ended up in the legal system. My brother was tortured during 1.5 years despite several legal procedures pending. Markus Bott was assassinated on July 11th 2009 because of our homepage, linked on my channel, and our book Der Totalitäre Staat. If my homepage disappears, the BND will have assassinated me as well.
Martin Bott
18BND88 1 year ago
Would somenone be as nice as to explain me basically how a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System works? I don't see how it's different from a regular ICBM.
AdamanceConquers 1 year ago
FOBS would've used the much greater range of an orbital trajectory to send warheads over the south pole and into the US from the "wrong direction" while all NATO's warning systems were looking north.
proctorg76 1 year ago
Oh, i c. Coll, thnx :)
AdamanceConquers 1 year ago
I meant cool :P
AdamanceConquers 1 year ago
Yeah ..and because of that it's practicly..unstopable... Can not be shot down with any earth-air ..air-air on any other missle...Second is flying speed of that thing...unbelivable..
Searayist 1 year ago
Money spent on nuclear weapons should go to something else. World hunger is a very high priority.
ricardorochaharo 1 year ago
the end of this chitt and more is beginning, a lots especimes of universe have a realy big engry again humans.........
§&%?´:ÄÖ'µ€@\|<<µ
MASTER OF MASTERS
PERFECT LIGHT AND
KING OF KINGS
MR JESUS SUPER STAR
jesussuperstar1 1 year ago
I too myself find it pretty stupid they spend so damn fucking much on making them for pretty much no reason the only country that ever used a nuke offensively was the US against China or Japan kinda forget well that money could og to somewhere else, like my bank account or something.
NCONiall 2 years ago
If you`ve been watching events going on in the world , our planet is coming on the verge of a break down. All countries who contain these powerful weapons , and pretty much capable of having nukes , know it is only for extreme self defense. In my opinion , if Russia or Iraq decided to create a nuculear warfare , i would want some self defense , don`t know about you. And it was the japanese who were bombed. Due to them being suicidal and crashing planes into our battleships.
bballin500 1 year ago
@bballin500 I'm not all that good at History lol
NCONiall 1 year ago
@bballin500 ,scared again? dude chill, ofcourse we're going to die. You would only need a handfull of the stuff we all got stored for 'safety'.
Solution2012 1 year ago
@NCONiall
China, eh? You fucking idiot.
asams10 1 year ago
@asams10 Wtf? What did I say in my original comment, I can't find it in the first 3 pages of the comments. -.-
NCONiall 1 year ago
@NCONiall , you said:
"I too myself find it pretty stupid they spend so damn fucking much on making them for pretty much no reason the only country that ever used a nuke offensively was the US against China or Japan kinda forget well that money could og to somewhere else, like my bank account or something."
You suggest that we spend the money on you instead of building nukes... News flash, nuclear scientists do not hoard their money, the spend it... maybe at TACO BELL so you can get paid!
asams10 1 year ago
@asams10 Lol don't take me seriously.
NCONiall 1 year ago
STOP!!!!
yoFarhan 2 years ago
HAMMER TIME?
pauliux11 2 years ago
Why da fuck r dey making nukes even though dey know dat its dangerous
yoFarhan 2 years ago
@yoFarhan why the fuck are are you talking like a retard even though you went to school?
HammersmashedTaco 2 years ago 2
ook can u explain dat 1 2 mi. cuz i still don't get get plz plz plz
yoFarhan 2 years ago
@yoFarhan because the human race is too stupid, and will continue to create weapons to kill each other that we will eventually kill everyone on the planet
HammersmashedTaco 2 years ago
why dont you learn to fucking speak/spell proper english?
Ultran64 2 years ago
cuz im not AMERICAN U ASSHOLE. btw don't take diz personali ok. i know how 2 speak English. so yea... itz just dat igot mad n had 2 say da F word.
yoFarhan 2 years ago
how comes before to as in how to fucking spell.
ricewave 1 year ago