Brit Reacts to How would the United States Fight a Nuclear War?



šŸŽ¬Other Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@L3WGLive
Please subscribe, like and turn on notifications if you enjoyed the video!
How would the United States Fight a Nuclear War Reaction!

šŸ“ŗ Support me on Patreon: https://patreon.com/l3wg
šŸ•¹ļøLIVE EVERYDAY on Twitch: https://twitch.tv/L3WG
āœØPatreon: https://patreon.com/l3wg
šŸŽ„More Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@MoreL3WG

Become a channel member and have a channel badge next to your name!ā¤ļøšŸ’„
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfIOSIFur-qFToVKahB0A6w/join

Original Video: https://youtu.be/Z1fvMmkIfSM?si=NEpGucbhPQfvsix7

Socials:
twitch: https://twitch.tv/L3WG
twitter: https://twitter.com/L3WG_
Insta: https://instagram.com/L3WG_
Discord: https://discord.gg/W39NJVd
Tiktok: https://tiktok.com/@l3wgreacts

MASSIVE THANK YOU to my amazing patreons!!
Matthew Passuw,Joseph Boyce,Lora Moellenberndt,Tom Levi,Melissa Koesel,Chase Taylor,ygnubbs,Kelly Patterson,Jordan Geier,Chrissy Hanson,Monty Ferguson,Ryan,Christina Streiff,Drew Evinger,Jeffrey Butler,Alex R,Gerri,Sheley Harp,Steven Cryar, Kenneth Hammond, Ashley Graham,Bri, Pitviper_7, sharon satterfield, Mac Funchess, Elliot Kolmeister, Annette Anderson, klycan, Incursio 23, Bob Smith, Frank Schmitz, Kelby Farley, Angela Engele, Sheli Wynne, Cliff, Blossom,Garth Hill, Eric Gray, Vallary Groda, Nan Peebles, Donna, Larsen,Vertetciel, Pamela Trautmann, Barbara L

source

25 thoughts on “Brit Reacts to How would the United States Fight a Nuclear War?”

  1. Its not just Russia and Ukraine.. its also isreal and palestine, and china threatening tailwan, north korea has been very agro lately (although they've been quiet for the past few years, which worries me a little)

    Reply
  2. Fun Fact: America watched China build its 3 Gorges Dam and praised China for there technology. But in honesty America was like "wow are you kidding me?" Anyways it was part of a military tactic. If only 1 missle hit the 3 Gorges Dam, half a billion people will be under 60' of water within a.couple of hours. (Shanghai happens to be right behind the dam) there isnt enough time and roads to get people away safely. Not to include that nearly 40% of the country will be without electricity. America has a sub with missle lock on that dam 24 hours a day. THIS IS HOW YOU KEEP BIG NATIONS IN CHECK

    Reply
  3. While it is relatively common knowledge about where the warheads are, having them in the middle of the US is a strategic decision. Because while they are vulnerable, itā€™s still a hell of a lot easier to protect the silos due them being so far inland. And keep in mind, we only know what the military has declassified, because the US military and government is a lot more classified than theyā€™d ever admit, and I guarantee thereā€™s far more nuclear weapons in not just the US, but in NATO countries as well than anyone realizes. Iā€™m screwed if nukes ever hit the state I live in because I live in Nebraska (where some of the nukes as well as STRATCOM are located) šŸ˜¬

    Reply
  4. They are in lightly populated areas and are all seperate so it forces a enemy to waste their own nukes and minimal personel losses. They also dont explode like that, nukes use a nuclear fission chain reaction to detonate a simple explsion would destroy but not detonate

    Reply
  5. Having our ICBM's in the middle of the country makes them harder to hit if attacked.

    HOWEVER: in the early stages of our ICBM program, we literally had missile silos all over the mainland United States (including Washington, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Missouri, Texas, New York, Kansas, Maine, and Arkansas), as well as having had IRBM's (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles) in other countries, including England.

    We currently have 40-45 B-52's in service, but the USAF is supposed to be raising that to 75, by placing some retired aircraft back into service.

    To give you an idea of how much we have "downsized", we used to have over 700 B-52's, and about 2000 ICBM's in silos, but that changed when the START II treaty was signed with the Soviet Union.

    So far as targeting goes, Los Angeles WAS a target during the Cold War, not because of the population, but because of the nature and number of military bases that used to be in and around the city. Same went for San Francisco, and probably still, Las Vegas, NV.

    Reply
  6. They keep them In the middle of America because itā€™s harder for other countries to reach them. Say Boston or LA were home to these, enemies would easily be able to hit either coast. In order to disable us

    Reply
  7. 4:15 Mostly because of defense. It's easier to defend against all threats (ground or air) is it has to cross half of America to get their first. Also, there is less out there. That means they can spread out, and that it is easier to keep them concealed. It would be hard to keep a launch silo concealed in downtown LA after all

    Reply
  8. Yo L3WG! (sorry if this is too long) In response to your video @6:55 : You'd get an insane amount of radioactive fallout (one of the reasons they put them far away from most population) but the bombs getting hit would, themselves, BARELY explode. If a nuclear weapon gets destroyed by anything other than its own proper detonation sequence, it will explode with ~little~ more power than an ordinary bomb (well…plus a release of nasty nasty plutonium or uranium dust) The term for this is a nuclear "fizzle". Nukes require insane precision to set off the full nuclear reaction. This is one of the main reasons its sooo hard for various nations/terrorists to make their own nukes. You have to get the design exactly right or the nuke's either a dud or a lot less powerful than it should have been (like maybe 1/10th or 1/100th or something). Hence the need for HIGH-level technology + nuclear testing to see if your design even works. …one exception is the "gun design" which uses 2 sub-critical masses of weapons-grade uranium-shoots one mass of uranium through a tube into the other mass to combine them and go boom. Still wont go off if you just blow it up but is a lot simpler/easier to make. But you still need enough weapons-grade uranium and its a LOT less powerful. I think "Little Boy" one of the 2 dropped on Japan in WW2 was this kind. Maybe only destroy a few city blocks vs a few square miles or more for the advanced-waaaaay-harder-to-make-thermonuclear type of nuke. Also, you may have a chance in a nuclear war. The complete-death-and-destruction only goes out a couple/few miles for all but the MOST powerful nukes. If you're 5, 10, 20 miles from the nearest hit you and even your house may be ~okay~ (especially if your indoors when it goes off: the flash of light can burn exposed skin…not to be too weird but maybe wear a white hoody/jacket outside if things get super iffy: in WW2 Japan there were cases where the color of a person's clothing affected the skin-burns underneath-light colors do deflect more light=heat). If that happens, try to stay indoors at least a few days (weeks if possible…consider storing up some gallons of water and some food that you could eat without cooking)-the most intensely-radioactive kinds of fallout sorta "burns" itself up relatively quick (super unstable=intense isotopes have a short half-life like seconds to days) and the longer-term stuff (like radioactive isotopes of cesium and strontium) isn't as bad: you'd hopefully live with just a higher chance of getting cancer instead of a painful radiation-death over the following hours/days. Then again your mostly right: moving to a more open country like America is a good idea. In fact I'd suggest moving someplace kinda rural and getting a couple acres of land if possible (…I know, $$$ right…). …and maybe plant a garden with some nice fruit trees, vegetables (Your own fresh broccoli and jalapeƱos for example?), staple crops, herbs etc. …These days there's a lot of things that could go wrong, not just nuclear war and for most of them its better to be in a small town where there's more space, not too many people and hopefully less crazy if the utilities stop working. If you're in a big city and the system goes down how would you even get food? …these days even loss of internet might have people going crazy… #getoutofcities

    Reply
  9. No one is ever going to use a nuke, they are going to use more advanced versions of stuxnet to destroy the country's infrastructure, or use that one russian book we never bothered to translate until 30 years later.

    Reply

Leave a Comment