Most of us are hoping that any nuclear threats are just empty threats, and getting at the facts about ICBMs can be difficult. But what would actually happen if someone launched a nuclear weapon?
We're conducting a survey of our viewers! If you have time, please give us feedback: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SciShowSurvey2017
Hosted by: Michael Aranda
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/scishow
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters: Kevin Bealer, Mark Terrio-Cameron, KatieMarie Magnone, Inerri, D.A. Noe, Charles Southerland, Fatima Iqbal,
سلطان الخليفي, Nicholas Smith, Tim Curwick, Scott Satovsky Jr, Philippe von Bergen, Bella Nash, Chris Peters, Patrick D. Ashmore, Piya Shedden, Charles George
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
listen me carefully,when the missile comes from up to down ,before reaching 1km we launch a rocket just in direction of a bomb ,to catch him and put that far away up as we can and done.fb valdrin demiri
R&d in Electromagnetic pulsar deterrents, with a focus of preventing the binding of heavy and light nuclei using emp technology that would infact neutralise or activate positrons cancelling out the binding fission chains at the point of detonation greatly reducing yield in even the most advanced hydrogen bombs. Problem solved.
All these plans, and strategies to overcome a nuclear strike...rly amazing but why would you risk striking in the first place? I just don't get, it's not like any other weapon we've had so far, this is something that even if it does end up destroying the target, collateral damage could weaken and destroy the launcher itself too
Have you people heard about the speed of these missiles when come down to its target from 5-7km/s yes per second, there is nowhere in the world such a defense system to stop such a speeding bomb, and one more thing, the Russian ICBMs have a dozen fake dummies in it, fake missile distractions that make even 1000% harder to predict or to know which ones are the real Nuclear warheads. You got me laughing with "US has Infrared Satellites blah blah" please man there is no stopping of such a thing as the Russian Satan 2 the Sarmat. The government will make you just believe that some shield exists to protect you, but in reality, they don't have nothing. What the THAAD that's a deadly weapon.Just pray no one lunches one to another one.
This is the main way to stop an icbm. There is also a secondary way. The United States military has small arrays of laser, yes lasers, set around the contiguous United States. They use X-ray like tech to find where the nuclear warhead is located and target the activation system. The lasers are also used on military planes, for example, a c-130, to distract targeting systems in smaller missiles.
So say North Korea launches a missile at the US, the US has many allies with nukes themselves bound by treaty to launch in kind. The US can probably shoot down a couple dozen missiles while jamming 8,000 nukes down Kim's throat. Not even counting the US missiles, North Korea would be wiped out in an hour. Well done, you shot a bear with a .22
Wanna destroy a large part of land with about 25 million? USE ANTIMATTER it’s contained in a thing and if it not in it it will explode and make a giant explosion basically bring a gram of antimatter and throw it on the middle of North Korea boom half of it dead.
we do we have to hit the nuke directly with a missle? why cant the missle we fire at the nuke blow up befire contact, causing the nuke to be destroyed by the blast radius? woulnt that be much easier than trying to precisely hit a nuke head on???
Why not install lasers or missiles on satellites, so that the nukes can be intercepted while they are at lowest speed and most vulnerable? Both lasers and missiles should work better in the outer space.
Next we will create Higgs Boson Bomb that will change the lowest possible energy state of matter when it explodes, and the result is we can wipe *EVERYTHING* in our Galaxy Cluster! Beware Andromedan, u don't know how dangerous human is... so come and kill us before it happens :D
Consider the following (to steal a line from Bill Nye):
A country attacks the US with nukes. Could be North Korea, Russia, China, some rogue former Soviet state, whoever.
Our missile defense works. By the grace of the gods and the overwhelming power of the human mind to solve a problem, not a single US city is destroyed.
Theirs? Not so much, and every man, woman, and child living in their urban centers is dead, maimed, or at the very least living in a shattered waste of a collapsed society.
And let's say for the sake of argument that the fallout isn't TOO bad. Few extra cases of cancer, some babies born with defects, it ain't paradise, but universal agreement that it could've been a lot worse.
Now imagine the social, economic, and political effects. Demagogues play the blame game. Left-wing dissidents are rounded up and put in camps for their "lack of patriotism", as the military, taking credit for saving everyone, sets up a junta without too much public opposition. Neighbors turn against each other. Chinese-Americans (or Russians, or Koreans, or just anyone who doesn't look like a Norman Rockwell painting) are Holocausted out of existence in the hysteria.
Oh, and of course the economy collapses completely. Widespread food shortages as fallout affects crop yields, all those EMPs wipe out the digital economy, everything goes pretty much to, at best, early Industrial Age tech.
We might be better off if the nukes went off. The fallout of the radioactive kind wouldn't even be the worst fallout from such an event.
The class of drugs that Levitra, Viagra, Stendra, and Cialis belong to are called PDE5 inhibitors. They work by relaxing tight blood vessels, allowing more blood to surge into the penis and cause an erection, says Gregory Bales, M.D., an associate professor of urology at the University of Chicago.
The little pills do the trick for more than two-thirds of men with Viagra protects the heart (ED). They also work for guys who simply need them for a short time to get their “confidence back,” says Michael Eisenberg, M.D., director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford University.