America’s Most Expensive Weapon
Enter the world of drones and exciting new lieutenants. Install War Planet Online for FREE here: wpo.page.link/nwythxwpo
... and thank you to Gameloft for sponsoring this video!
Why the US Military had to develop the ground-launched Peacekeeper missile, even though they already had submarine-launched and air-launched nuclear weapons on hand, is #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs
Music:
Human Missile - Craft Case
Secret Light - Max Anson
Particle Emission - Silver Maple
The Dropout - Guy Copeland
Mr Marshall - Imprismed
3 AM - Lennon Hutton
Into Hiding - Marten Moses
Inbound - Brendon Moeller
Footage:
Select images/videos from Getty Images
Shutterstock
National Archives
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Enter the world of drones and exciting new lieutenants. Install War Planet Online for FREE here: wpo.page.link/nwythxwpo ... and thank you to Gameloft for sponsoring this video!
The government needs to bring back the Peacekeeper. The CEP was so much better than anything else.
Reminds me of UltraCorps brought into the 21st Century(yes, it's still online & free to play, it's a RISK in Space)....
The Peacekeeper was phased out because the contractor that built the guidance system used non approved components in order to meet deadlines. As a result, up to 80-90% of the missiles were failed for launch in their tubes. This was a major scandal and they were traded away under the arms limitations treaty because the missile was a failure and the fix was very expensive for new guidance systems. So why not trade away a broken system?
What happened to the 57 Kawasaki satélites usa pure in the spare ?.
You mentioned hot launch vs. cold launch, but did't explain to viewers why this matters. A hot launch destroys or damages much of the missile silo, requiring major and timely repairs to use it for another launch. A cold launch system allows for the possibility of a fast reload and reuse of the silo, adding another dimension to deterrence. In an exchange, an opponent could safely ignore any silo that had launched a missile with a hot launch. With cold launch capability, even previously used silos would need to be targeted, making a first strike even more risky.
problem with reloading these things though is if they are known by the enemy, after launch there probably isnt a chance of a reload.
The US looked at moving the missiles among various shelters as a deterrent. The Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces took the same basic idea and instead looked at using mobile missile carriers that could hide and then reload and be ready for launch in under 24 hours. In a way it's even scarier than the US system which was predicated upon fixed storage locations. The Soviet doctrine would have seen missiles scurrying on their carrier vehicles in all directions and hiding basically anywhere. Cold launch and reload was a big focus for them, and cheaper than building new silos. Not only were reloads probable, they were difficult if not nearly impossible to stop. Reference the SS-18 (R-35) and the negotiations of the SALT/START treaties. The cold launch capability was indeed a huge concern for western countries and therefore a key goal was to limit Soviet deployment of systems with that capability. @@ashleygoggs5679
@@ashleygoggs5679 That's also the point though.
He’s explained that in like 8 other videos homie
Hot Launch: That's what she said she wanted.
It is amazing the amount of effort placed on getting so much original footage. Excellent work.
👍That MERV test was about as cool as anything I've seen in a while on KZhead 🎉
Amazing for sure
Significant improvement to some of the stuff he's posted in the past
2:05 James May: I seems to be damp
Bombers may be slow and more vulnerable than ICBMs, but they have one major advantage. They are recallable. Once you fire your ICBM, you are committed. During the cold war, the bombers were used as a strategic measure, always ready at a moments notice to advance on the Soviet Union, but then also easy to recall. Strategic bombers allow the US to escalate and to deescalate. An ICBM does not have that option.
I thought you could open the silo doors to escalate? Signaling the immanent ability to launch
@@1funnygamenope, opening silos doors straight up means ww3 due to security protocols.
@@1funnygame The doors are only opened moments before launch. Doing that would be like randomly laying a card face up in the middle of a poker match. It can only hurt you.
@@dustinbrueggemann1875 Good to know. Must be a false recollection on my part.
The doors only open seconds before launch. Its crazy how fast they slide open for how big and heavy they are.@@1funnygame
2:07 Someone tried to ignite it once, but it was a little damp.
James May
@@NiteAtTheFortYES that scene was hilarious!
Target: Chipsky Norton
That last sentence made me smile. Thanks for that
You failed to mention the fact the Minuteman III missiles are now going to be replaced by the newest ICBM designated Sentinal along with brand new nuclear warheads.
whats special about the new warheads?
@@johndor7793they're new
@johndor7793 they use an optical firing set, and are independently dial a yeild. One size fits most modular,
@johndor7793 they use an optical firing set, and are independently dial a yeild. One size fits most modular,
@@christopherleubner6633 nobody even knows about "new" nuclear warheads. don't kid yourself. anything "new" in the nuclear military will be classified for the next 10 yrs minimum before it is leaked. you watch a video on "new" nukes? Please. Otherwise, I urge you to claim sources for "new," military source verified nuclear warheads, with specs included. oh wait... those don't exist. and to anybody that they do exist to, you already know the NSA is watching everything you type, and if you type the wrong thing...... good luck to you. point being, you have no idea what is new or not 🤣🤣
I'm really glad you have a sponsor, gotta pay the bills, but "War Planet". lol
It will be intresting to see if the upcoming Sentinel missile will have any similarities with the Peacekeeper, like the cold launch and in terms of size with ten warheads.
The warhead limit per missile is still in effect from previous treaties.
The Sentinel is designed to be stuffed down Minuteman tubes, I believe. I don’t expect them to carry a different loading than the Minutemen.
@@howlingwolvenThey'll use the W87-1, a higher yield modification of the W87-0 currently carried by Minuteman.
HANDJOB High Altitude Nuclear Deterrence Joint Ordnance Blast
Excellent video and summary, thanks.
The plow truck and the rail car of the apocalypse are both on display in Dayton, along with a Peacekeeper.
Learned about the peacekeeper missile just last week in class, awesome to see a video about it so recently!
What class are you taking that talks about ICBMs? Sounds cool
80% of MX programme was insane basing scheme - not the missile.
Right on time with Perun on the whole nuke content, nice.
We have six Ohio-class SSBN and 2 SSGN submarines home ported locally at NSB Kings Bay, GA. They are beautiful to watch entering and leaving port.
back in school it was the loudest shouting guy that always won. same with us in the word: they just scream the loudest (example you lol)
@@hanspeter24 That makes no sense. Who is screaming at whom?
thats 120 icbm in one place haha
@@killerbern666 Well, it would if they were ever all in port at once. They aren't. Our local boats represent about 1/4 of our nation's nuclear deterrence force. I don't recommend F'ing around with them. The Finding Out could get ugly fast. We also have two SSGNs that can bring their own unique pain to the finding out.
@@killerbern666 that’s 120 silos in one place, not 120 missiles. There’s a reason the upcoming Columbia class number of missiles carried are scaled down to 16, we haven’t enough to load 20 on each submarine, following the treaties and scaling down of the nuclear force.
Great project ! Greetings from Norway
p.s. you can't ignite a SS-18 with a lighter
Smoking Ivan: "Hold my vodka bottle!"
Ah yes, Friday means a long video!
Good video, buddy
Thanks 👍
6:59 😱 Oh my Gosh! I never knew that was a Soviet ICBM Launched from a Train 🚂
where do you get these pictures on the video thumbnails bro pls I NEED ITTTT
I’m a huge fan
Idk why but i love that they named it the midget man missle lol
You mean the “Minute Man Intercontinental Ballistic Missile” capable of reaching speed of 17,045.231 Miles per Hour and hitting it’s target with the at most accuracy with ensuring that the enemy would think twice about why they went to war with the Grand U.S. Of A?
@sniperspk1237 did u watch the doc? it sound like the midget man is totally different than the minute man. it was mobile.
@@Keegan_CarterNo, he means the midget man trailer launched missiles that was shorter ranged and only carried one warhead you clown
Huge missed opportunity to call it the secondman
@@Keegan_CarterNo, he means the MGM-134 Midgetman. A very small solid fueled road mobile ICBM that was in development but cancelled at the end of the cold war.
Didn't Sandboxx make almost this exact video about a week ago?
Old title: American 200 billion Missile that never launched
best thing America's governments do... waste taxpayer's money
@@briangriffith3985 To be frank, the alternative might have straight up been nuclear annihilation. The USSR would have probably attacked the US in a first strike if the US couldn't strike back.
@@briangriffith3985 So cancel your nukes and military. See how much that ends up costing.
@@hankjones3527 nothing to do with cancelling. they make some piss poor choices, and dont mean nuke programs. look at those modern navy ships that are retired because of buckled super structures. they havent seen any heavy use yet. why? cause of piss poor choice of materials. thats only 1 example. another is sending all that money to Israel every year to prop up their own military.
@briangriffith3985 The original comment was about spending money on missiles that were never launched. I pointed out it's best to spend on a military and never need to use it than not have it at all. Yes some programs fail but that doesn't mean all expenditure, like the one in the original post, was a waste as you suggested it was.
This channel has such a click-baity name, but it's really good. Glad I subbed!
My friend what happened to the 57 Satélites Kawasaki USA pure in the space 🚀 ?.
Nuclear strategy my beloved 🥰
Are you familiar with Perun? His latest video is on nukes.
@@hankjones3527 Yep. I’ve also watched Julian Spencer-Churchill’s entire nuclear strategy lecture series.
@@Graatand Thanks, I'll check that out.
I'm almost sure that many silos have some new unknown icbms.
Yamantau mountain complex
Why?
@@Evan_Bell why not... Why to tell everyone the truth about your best weapons?
@@John.Greyman Because their function is deterrence. You can't deter someone with something they don't know exists. It's also pretty difficult to test an ICBM without anyone noticing.
@@Evan_Bell so one should send a full inventory list? Their main function is deterrance, but there's the MAD factor. And also the issue of not incentivating other players to develop better icbms. Do you really think US' best weapons are 70-80's projects? Weapons designed 40-50 years back? And then they went watching Netflix this whole time? So skunk works & alikes did nothing in the last 3 decades besides an export fighter? 🤔
*What if I want it to fail*
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Its called a nash equilibrium and it explains a lot of horrifyingly bad systems that are stably in place.
2:05 *I think it must be damp*
Cool
The peacekeepers went live 1986. Soviet Union collapses in 1991. So all that for...4.5 years.
so much peacekeeper but no peace
The entire world is in peril because a certain country felt insecure....gulp that -_-
wonder why they decided to make a brand new Sentinel missile instead of an improved Peacekeeper to replace the Minuteman 3
It is called kickbacks
Because Peacekeeper had a payload capacity deemed excessive of requirements, and was extremely costly.
Treaties limited warhead counts. Sentinel is mainly a service life extension for the minuteman III as the solid rocket boosters are getting pretty old and they're staying ahead of the eventual breakdown of the thiokol propellant
@@Evan_Bell well Putin is making the RS-28 which is as heavy as the SS-18/R-36. @73caddydaddy93 if the Russians are making a replacement for ss-18 then surely that treaty is as dead as the INF
@@Hobbes4ever The treaty was never ratified. And the US and Russia have different doctrines when it comes to nuclear weapon delivery systems and use strategies. Russia uses has many more tactical weapons, but fewer SSBNs, for example. Just because one country chooses the path of superheavy ICBMs, doesn't mean it's the objectively best solution. The RS-28 is far more costly and less survivable than the LGM-30 (or it would be if both were produced in the same country), even if it does have a far greater payload capacity. The Minuteman fleet was built precisely because it was low cost. There were debates in the US military leadership about the virtues of liquid vs solid fueled ICBMs. Liquid fueled rockets can be more precise, more efficient (for example as measured in terms of throw weight vs overall missile weight), but are far more costly, harder to maintain, physically larger, thus requiring larger more expensive silos... The US opted for solid fuels starting with MM1 because they knew they could out-produce the USSR with low cost solid rockets, which at the time the USSR had not perfected. It was felt that numerical superiority had a greater deterrent effect than greater accuracy, or other advantages of liquid fueled rockets.
"Greetings Professor Falken. Would you like to play a game of chess?"
The missile knows where it is at all times
because it knows where it isn't. Classic.
_MidgetMan missile too offensive_ In name only...
Lol the title sounds like a Real Engineering thumbnail
Zero mathematics were discussed in this video
... the very last sentence😂😂😂
first strikes with shit like ICBMs, are just global sized mega battleships game with guessing what's a silo and what's a weird ass farm.
You should address how an icbm launched from Russia could destroy land based missiles. Since the flight time is about 28 minutes, then there is time for us to launch before the Russian icbm's arrive, meaning they would hit a lot of empty silos, but yeh, some loaded silos too because we would not launch our entire arsenal.
Why do you think the entire land based arsenal would not be fired? If any were to be held in reserve, it'd be the SLBMs. Silo launched missiles suffer from a use them or use them limitation.
minuteman , the only one that you know of
1:25. Weren’t the Peacekeepers ‘phased out’ due to SALT or START treaties w, the USSR? I always understood them to be technically superior to the Minuteman, and were more destructive with 10 MIRVs vs 3. Edit - 4:28 Our author claims 12 MIRVs for the AGM-118.
Yeah, that's literally what he said later on in the video. Just keep watching it instead of asking questions lol
Wonder that violence and war make all this genius!
It's a Grader. A plow would do the exact opposite to the ground 😉
👍👍🌟🌟
Trident 2 = no need for MX
If missiles were launched against the US the retaliatory strike would be in the air before impact. So the silos would already be empty.
This is why we can't have nice things. Either I'm insane or this world is. Only one can be true.
Isn't that most of nice things we are using come from war's needs? Like radio, GPS, IRS..
@@sarahkatherine8458Jet engines, etc.
@@sarahkatherine8458 Radios were invented long before the wars that extensively used them. The wars accelerated their development by throwing more resources at them out of necessity, but they were very much extant before that.
@@gimmethegepgun Sorry for the misunderstanding, I didn't meant to say that "they were invented for war" (and I also didn't say that), despite some of them were. What I meant was exactly what you said: the tech may exist long before, but wars and similar conflicts reveal the needs for them, and such accelerate the developement/refinement. On a small note, why picked radio over the other two? Should I throw in the Internet?
@@sarahkatherine8458 Receiver-only radios had plenty of consumer presence, and two-way radio communication was being developed, because ships at sea and airliners in flight greatly benefit from it. The war probably accelerated advances in miniaturization of transmitters but I don't really see a whole lot of credit there. I picked radio over the others because I don't know what you're referring to with IRS, and GPS was obviously a military program. However, though both GPS and the internet were developed by the military, they both could've instead been non-military programs made for public use. The internet in particular shares a lot of similarities with the telephone network and could've followed a similar path of development.
There is no such thing as "too offensive" when dealing with russia, force is the only treaty they can follow.
I think you missed the joke on that one.
@@NotWhatYouThink 😫
Us started using MIRVs in 1970. We've always been ahead.
The congress be like when they saw the price tag : oh well our tax payer will not gonna be happy after this
Eh- The alternative could have pretty much been a first strike on the US by the USSR, so I would argue that it was money well spent.
You're argument doesn't hold up, we're still alive.
Russian ICBM's actually had a CEP of 600 meters. Not feet. That's why the went with multiple reentry vehicles. The U.S. CEP was 200 meters. But let's keep in mind. The Total number of nukes was enough to destroy nearly all life on earth 10× over. There would be no winners.
Wasn't the space shuttle also supposed to be a method of carrying Warheads into space should the US decide to launch a covert first strike?
NASA was created as a Civilian arm of a Military program. The military has their own launch vehicles.
The soviet space shuttle was originally designed as a platform to strike the US, in response to the American space shuttle as soviet leadership thought the space shuttle was designed to launch nuclear strikes but as we know it wasn't. The Buran (soviet space shuttle) ended up only launching once in the late 80s before the collapse of the soviet union, after the USSR collapsed Buran was placed into storage until 2002 when it was destroyed
@@thesmartgoose2099it wasn't destroyed. It's in storage at its launch site in Kazakhstan. There are even youtube videos documenting this.
@@garystewart3110 The military has their own space shuttle? (serious question)
@@kurtnelleExpendable rockets. Back in the day, the USAF ran the launches that the ULA, SpaceX, Orbital, and others, are now contracted to launch. No vehicles like the Space Shuttle…although I guess the USAF-managed X-37 would count - but no one knows what it carries.
looking at: - what became of the soviet union - what the US was / is - what russia is today - how the same or similar people overhype, exaggerate china's abilities and capabilities (especially vis-a-vis the US) - behaviors and tendencies of reporters, journalists, ... some folks
NGL, i'm already thinking of ways to Mod the HMV & MidgetMan into my Civilization game.
NGL thinking a platform that could be knocked out by conventional means(torpedoes) is more survivable than one than NEEDS another nuke to KO is not very smart.
Hi. Every one.😊.
Use it or lose it😂😂😂
Ummm, wait, didnt the title says "Russia"? I could have sworn it did when i put it in my watch folder...
Nope, "American 200 Billion dollar missile it never used" or something like that
@@jr2904 meanwhile the title has changed again.
I appreciate the Westinghouse logo on the missile. It’s like they knew their product would be in propaganda videos which helped them sell television sets…which allowed people to watch propaganda videos.
2 RIBU BiLLiON
Imagine how screwed we'd have been if it did launch :/
I wouldn’t have been born so that’s a plus
"missile that never launched", trust me. I don't wanna see the US get to a point where that is launched....
Hello, cold war, again...
Not like the missiles in Putin’s arsenal could even get off the ground in the first place 😂
I mean we have plenty of video evidence showing them to get off the ground just fine. The reliability of Russia's ICBM are comparable to that of the US.
Let's spend 200 billion on this shit then we will change our minds when complete 😂
👍👍👍❤❤❤🚀🚀🚀
nuclear arms are by far the most wasteful thing humanity has ever done.
Thanks for not launching ladies and gentlemen.
M yes first 2,000 views in 11 MINUTES. HOW
2.76 million subs
Once the Soviet regime fell it was discovered that only 1 to 3 ICBM were in working condition…
😮
And ...? You do realize, that for last generation of Soviet ICBMs - containerized ones - that was about as designed? One in production to replace legacy, one on duty and one on factory level maintenance?
Where’d you even hear that from lol
Where to you see that gem of nonsense?
Show your references. This would have to been documented.
Yknow its kind of condescending when people try to white night and speak for someone born differently, it would be much less offensive to treat someone like regularly and not assume you know what's offensive for others. Especially when it comes to something cool like missile names.
Wasting $$$that is not theirs but utilizing humans greatest talent WAR they need it to survive
❤😂🎉🎉😢😢😮😅
🇺🇲🗽⚖️
4th
Sorry folks in terms of missile technology US can’t beat Russia
What do you mean, once it fell? Then russia was made and they would definitely nit go out to the us and say, yh btw we actually only have 1/3 of our strike capabilities,
2nd lol
Not soviet now it is RUSSIA ...king of nuclear technology
Unpopular opinion: shame that both MX and Midgetman have not entered production and stayed in service.
Midgetman maybe. But MX was extremely expensive and had a payload capacity deemed unnecessarily excessive.
@@Evan_Bell No its the drop in budget. Remember the treaty only counts DEPLOYED warheads not payload loadout they could easily put 1 or 2 warheads each and a ton of decoys and countermeasures
@@gotanon9659 Yeah, they could do that, but it'd be far more expensive than the current fleet of MM3s
10th
This is why we made sure that Ruzzian missiles would never make it out of the Atmosphere
Fantasy land M.A.D was and still is in effect. Nobody is knocking out hundreds let alone thousands of ICBMs in boost stage
@@johno1544 nobody has thousands of icbms ready to launch either.
@@johno1544 yes we do have classified satellite constellations.
@@garystewart3110 Your dreaming if you think there is some SDI network up there. Neither side would have limited warheads if there was such a defense and both sides would back to tens of thousand of warheads. There is also going to be a insane amount of decoys to deal with
@@johno1544 it has been PRIORITY NUMBER ONE to defend against this very threat for the past 60 years. You are kidding yourself if you think they planned to defend the homeland soley on deterrence. They had plans for this since the 1960s. A way to keep a project secret is obviously to tell you that they didn't do it.
how to waste taxpayer's money 101 america really is the best at it even to this day!
1st
Nobody cares
Hey, I care. Thumbs up 👍
@@ronjon7942 thx bro
Didn't hear anything about mathematics.. why use that title? weird
first like, view and comment not that anyone cares
Your not first
I care. I was first once, it’s worth announcing.
The premise that missile silos are vulnerable due to being immobile has been misleading since the beginning. The vulnerability premise assumes that once the enemy's missiles were launched we would just sit here.....waiting....like a bunch of sitting ducks. Does that sound the least bit logical to ANYONE?!? The moment an enemy missile launch was detected, the U.S. Missile Command (and the U.S. military in general) would be placed at Defense Condition (DefCon) 1, and our missiles would be launched, with OVERWHELMINGLY superior response.
Whole idea was driven by concept of first incapacitating strike / failure to respond on time and suffering crippling loses as result.
You ain't superior in any way
@@antoniohagopian213 >He still believes in "le roosia stronk epic maymay"...
Not if they get subs off the coast, 5-10 min warning tops, less for some. Possibly no warning at all, our first notice may be the detonation of dozens possibly hundreds of sub launched hydrogen bombs.
The worry was always one side pulling off a suprise first strike. Green light teams for example
So inaccurate. Sad
Another reason Americans do a GoFundMe when momma gets sick.
Malaysia with palastine.... Usa, isreal nato terrorist... Bidan natanyahuuuhaaaa...
rod from god
Imaginary
Never was practical
A Silly waste of money. Imagine something thats multiple times as expensive as a nuke, but can affect a really small area, and its innacurate as hell. Having as much kinetic energy as a nuke has doesn't mean that you would release that energy explosively. Also consider that modern nukes don't really have fallout if they explode airburst. The radiation levels on the ground zero of the TSAR BOMBA were completely within human safe boundaries 2 hours after the explosion.
@@johno1544X37b spacecraft