The Countries Who Can Retaliate With Nukes

Copyright: DO NOT translate and re-upload our content on Youtube or other social media.

SIMPLE HISTORY MERCHANDISE

Get the Simple History books on Amazon:

T-Shirts

Simple history gives you the facts, simple!

See the book collection here:

Amazon USA

Amazon UK

Credit:
Show Created by Daniel Turner (B.A. (Hons) in History, University College London)
Script:
Narrator:

Chris Kane

[KnightSlasher]

Hopefully they don't make everyone play fallout irl

[randomclipsmilitary]

“Only i can have nuclear weapons you cant!!”

[JG-xitu]

Submarines are a sufficient second strike capability.

[idcgaming]

The UK does not utilize air-delivered nuclear weapons as they are inefficient, do not have the safe needed to strike the targets that would be prioritized are not necessary to ensure second-strike capabilites. The majority of the UK's active arsenal is carried by submarine, who thenselves alone make for sufficient first AND second strike platforms.

[MacKennaTheGoddessofRadiation]

I always forget that France is a world power

[ckev]

The UK would be in this but they don't bother with ground based as stationary targets are easier to target so only have air and sea.
I really hope no-one ever actually uses one because that domino effect will kill us all.

[ronmaximilian]

Assuming Israel has nuclear weapons, they have a three-tiered nuclear system. They have land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombs and missiles that can be launched from their long range strikefighters, and cruise missiles launched from their submarines.

[lordbob-upwd]

I’d add that the US also has nuclear weapons stationed in europe

[Lord_Messiah_Disciple]

Might makes Right.
There are no rules.

[rustomkanishka]

The UK does have 4 vanguard class subs to launch it's nukes, giving it a second strike capability. Building silos in the UK would be pointless and expensive. There's little land to waste, and the best place to put them- Scotland - doesn't like their presence as it is.
Silos kinda suck anyway because everyone knows where they are and would be the first place to target anyway.

[Aidcaa]

What does the UK not have? I know they have submarines but I thought they have silos inland

[asif-uz-zamankhan]

It’s like saying weed is illegal with weed in own pocket.

[SeamooseInc]

Why didn't you show of "France"?

[pharaohbubbles]

Im kinda surprised not many countries fit that trifecta

[VentiVonOsterreich]

UK not being included and being overshadowed by France just proves that France remains a military powerhouse ever since the Mongols invaded Eastern Europe

[MTerrence]

The focus on the nuclear triad is hard to justify. Until the 1960s, all or essentially all strategic nuclear weaponry was air-dropped. Rockets with sufficient range, accuracy and capacity didn't exist, or didn't exist in sufficient numbers, to be a meaningful deterrent. (This is why Sputnik was such a big deal; a rocket that can put something in orbit has the capacity, at least theoretically, to reach anywhere on Earth.) Submarine-launched missiles were even trickier to get right.

Britain got rid of their air element, and never had a land element, because they simply weren't necessary when ballistic missile submarines are an option. Truth be told, today that is by far the most important leg of the nuclear triad. Contrary to this video, France also no longer maintains a land element, and its air element is mostly perfunctory.

India does have the nuclear triad, but lacks the range to strike the United States with almost any of it - though a nuclear strike by America on India is hardly a reasonable possibility.

Why does the United States even maintain a land element, when an air element is too slow for a first strike and a sea element is much faster? I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure that the missile fields exist primarily as a target - throwing your missiles at Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota means they don't hit anywhere more important.

Mutually assured destruction is also fairly outdated. Now that nuclear weapons are both accurate and survivable, it simply isn't necessary for deterrence to have enough warheads to reduce an entire country to rubble, and then make the rubble bounce, just in case you lose a bunch.

[Galaxy-oynj]

Huh? The UK has Vanguard-class nuclear submarines and you can drop a nuclear bomb from literally any modern plane

[samditto]

Bo burnham has a song called "thats how the world works"

[paddy_]

Uk is capable of nuclear strikes only difference is we don't have silos we have a large nuclear sub fleet instead.

[ARM_THEAS]

why would a nation tell everyone they have nuke? its stupid