Why does Britain have nuclear weapons?

  Рет қаралды 575,715

Imperial War Museums

Imperial War Museums

2 ай бұрын

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been developed by American and British scientists working together, but soon after the Second World War, Britain found itself out of the loop with the US no longer willing to collaborate. The Soviet Union tested their own nuclear weapon in 1949. And the United States was on its way to testing the first H- bomb, 1000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Britain was desperate to enter the arms race. And by 1952 it succeeded with Operation Hurricane, becoming the third nuclear power in the world.
But why? Why did Britain want nuclear weapons when already part of NATO and close allies with the US? And why do they still have them today?
Check out V-bomber items in the IWM Duxford Shop:
Photo of William Penney, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls and John Cockcroft © Los Alamos National Laboratory
Nuclear radiation sign on the Montebello Islands © Brian Gordon Bush via Research Gate
Ted Rollo on Trimouille Island reading the radiation level at ship debris via xnatmap.org
Explosion of the first Soviet nuclear bomb. (Photo: U.S. Department of Energy
CND marches from the 1960s © cnduk.org

Пікірлер: 1 666
Tim Gosling
Tim Gosling 2 ай бұрын
A few points: Why does developing our own atomic weapons make the UK 'stand as an aggressor on the world stage'? As far as I know UK nuclear weapons policy has never, ever, envisioned first use. Britain didn't actually rely just on Blue Steel until Polaris took over in 1970; the unreliability of the Blue Steel motor had already brought about the deployment of the WE177 gravity weapon which would be released from a low level toss manoeuvre. The 177 then continued in service with Buccs and Tornados pretty much to the end of the century. I think you got a little mixed up over Trident. Each of the current boats can carry 16 missiles, not 8, each missile having up to 8 MIRVs. This would make the maximum load-out 128 warheads, although in practice this has been reduced to 40 spread across 8 missiles to meet arms reduction targets. Perhaps this is where your number of 8 came from? For a more balanced approach to the CND activities in the 1980s, it might be worth mentioning that the US deployment of cruise missiles was a response to the Soviet forward deployment of SS-20 nuclear-armed IRBMs. I would of course never suggest any link with KGB support for Western anti-nuclear movements and CND's vociferous and highly one-sided actions at the time. But the main thing is that this piece doesn't answer the question in the title; it's just a, slightly inaccurate, summary of UK nuclear weapons systems. The actual answer is that in any sane world nuclear weapons do not make sense. We should not have them. One can argue that they would only be used when there is no other way of winning a war of national survival, but on the other hand their use is likely to end in the obliteration of civilisation for both one's own nation, the enemy, and a whole bunch of other nations that happen to be sharing the planet too. But the world isn't sane. For nuclear weapons to be a deterrent there has to be credibility of capability (ie you have nukes and they'll work as advertised) and credibility of use (in extremis you will press the button). Back in the 1940s when not much was known about nuclear weapons and there were very few of them about it sort of made sense that they would be used again if the Soviets or Chinese got any more territorially ambitious, a policy known as Tripwire. They became a routine part of political and military policy. And that was the trap, they could not be un-invented and they proliferated wildly. Now we have to live with them and rely on potential enemies not being totally sure we won't press the button, however unlikely that may seem. It truly is a MAD world.
D.B Cooper
D.B Cooper Ай бұрын
@BPS&D The deep underground launched nukes are the most reliable but it required to be long range
D.B Cooper
D.B Cooper Ай бұрын
@hashtag underscore nonsense
Special Android
Special Android Ай бұрын
It seems unlikely that humans will survive for another 100 years. A major nuclear war seems probable within that time or out of control global pandemic.
michael howell
michael howell Ай бұрын
I can't agree more. I think the British were more than justified in developing their own program. Britain would have been the first target in the event of a Soviet first strike. Pandora's box can't be closed once opened.
Tim Gosling
Tim Gosling 2 ай бұрын
@James Fagan Ideally no one would have them, but they exist. So efforts continue both to reduce numbers and to prevent proliferation to other countries, particularly those whose regimes are, shall we say, less subject to rational checks and balances.
SDH 2 ай бұрын
I find the evolution of warfare and weaponry through the ages and the conflicts that have taken place fascinating to study. But I find the Nuclear age very disturbing. It's one thing for countries to try and wipe each other out with conventional warfare & weaponry, but to have a system in place that could effectively make this planet totally inhospitable to live on after a conflict, is insanity. It's all you need to know when it comes to asking yourself, "do you trust your leaders ?" They are all insane !
Hamez Ай бұрын
@bjs301 Fair enough, but that’s exactly the reason why we can’t rely on MAD anymore. We’ve come too close to making mistakes based on false data and anxiety that could’ve had dreadful consequences. A leader’s sense of safety is not just a rational idea, it’s felt, so either way you probably want to appeal to it.
bjs301 Ай бұрын
@Hamez I hope you're right, but I've been around for quite a while, and my faith in humanity's ability to reason itself out of this has not improved over the years.
bjs301 Ай бұрын
@colin diplock I trust you were referring to American deaths only. More Americans were killed in the civil war than in any other, but American war deaths in all of history were far less than those of many European and Asian countries in the world wars.
Hamez Ай бұрын
@bjs301 Definitely not right away, but they certainly won’t if we refuse to. Everyone’s playing this game of brinkmanship to save their own skin, I don’t think the risk of a first strike is all that likely. But the point is that MAD is a fragile principle and we’re safer with lower overall stockpiles. The question is how we get them to cooperate but I think there is a good chance they will so long as we do too. Look up the amount global stockpiles have reduced since the Cold War. Progress is possible!
colin diplock
colin diplock 2 ай бұрын
Just as an aside. More folk were killed and wounded in the American civile war, with far less shots fired than in any war since. With mostly single shot muzzle loading rifles and cannon.
Clyde Wary
Clyde Wary 2 ай бұрын
From what I've read, the "Tsar" bomb was designed to yield 100 MT. But Sakharov did some calculations, and determined that if it were exploded with that yield, it's fall-out would have landed in populated areas. So, he "de-tuned" it. I think he was aiming at a 50 MT yield, a bit less than the actual 57 MT.
Luce 2 ай бұрын
@Slowpoke Tube Actually, they encased it in lead rather than U238 or some other neutron donor to keep the yield low. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Hawky2k21 2 ай бұрын
Thinks Putin would add another 100 MT to be sure it gone and dusted
Adapter Crash
Adapter Crash 2 ай бұрын
@Giggoty that's not what it's for lol
Ron Lawson
Ron Lawson 2 ай бұрын
The Zohar Bomba was one of the cleanest detonations of a Megaton Bomb ever made
Slowpoke Tube
Slowpoke Tube 2 ай бұрын
@Phil fact is they don’t know how to make a big one.
Winston Smith
Winston Smith 2 ай бұрын
I know it was a different political era, but 7 ground-atmosphere nuclear tests (with fission bombs) were conducted at Emu Field and Maralinga in the South Australian side of the Great Victoria Desert in the early to mid 1950s (Operation Buffalo and Operation Antler). Despite being about 800km from the city of Adelaide, the fallout from the early bombs tests there were significantly detected at very high levels of radiation in rainwater at Adelaide (using Geiger counters) by an Australian scientist named Hedley Marson. ASIO got wind of Marsden's experiment and aggressively silenced him by confiscating his equipment and threatening him with the Secrets Act and no employment as a scientist if he published. Despite Pig Iron Bob (Bob Menzies, the PM) allowing the British to use outback Australia as a nuclear test site, no plutonium (except scattered in the soil at the contaminated test sites) or significantly shared results of the tests or bomb design were allowed to Australian nuclear scientists as quid pro quo for irradiating and poisoning our land, and causing cancer in many servicemen and women (on the Australian side) assisting with these nuclear tests, or the neglect of Indigeous Australians by allowing them fatal exposure to fallout at short range and associated radiation sickness and cancers of these people from fallout dust and contaminated food and water in their environment. Little or no compensation was paid out by any British governments for injuries and deaths caused by the British nuclear tests in Australia to any Australian victims of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, including my mother.
John Marley
John Marley Ай бұрын
To this day, the weapon preparation area at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base Edinburgh in South Australia is called “blue steel”. The airside area (where the V-bombers were frequent visitors) is called the “tech area”. This is a throwback to the ‘50’s to differentiate it from the Weapons Research Establishment (WRE) at Salisbury, a few kilometres away. The now obsolete Orion aircraft technician training facility was opened by Leonard Cheshire, ex RAF 617SQN CO. Reminders of the ties between Britain and Australia throughout the decades of weapons development at Woomera, Salisbury, Edinburgh and Elizabeth are everywhere. I mean...just look at the names of these places! Australia, however, never accepted nuclear weapons.
todd3205 2 ай бұрын
My recently deceased uncle helped install Thor missiles in the UK in the fifties. He and my aunt had wonderful, lifelong memories of your fine country. They were installed there because they were the first ballistic missiles, with a 700 mile range, and it was either that, or leave Europe defenseless at a time when The Korean Conflict and upcoming trouble in SE Asia had spread the West pretty thin.
jack k
jack k 2 ай бұрын
I met a kiwi who was in op grapple he is one of only 2-3 left of his contingent, He said fallout got a lot, A lot of cancer deaths, He said there plotter got them to close to the drop zone poor protection equipment and other factors contributed to the deaths of many in the long term He went on into the SAS for both nz and england and had some gruesome tales to tell Anyway these guys are heros in my eyes may the rest in peace with honor and digintiny
powerwolf1097 2 ай бұрын
M.A.D is a good solid concept that has thus far prevented all out nuclear war. I believe i've heard that the UK also has some subs very close if not inside enemy waters occasionally where it can launch a devastating initial salvo against critical infrastructure.. the other powers know this and can't predict where they are so i guess thats also useful from a psychological warfare standpoint. Id imagine theres a range of other scenarios like being invaded and somehow no one honours the NATO mutual defence pact.. or maybe there is no one else left. Who knows tbh. Id figure it's a - better to have them than not to have them just incase type of situation. No one knows the future for sure afterall.
cgb Ай бұрын
@A friend of a friend as per Russian military doctrine; they believe, they can win a nuclear war. MAD is a NATO idea.
A friend of a friend
A friend of a friend Ай бұрын
@cgb No it doesn't
joe iborowski
joe iborowski 2 ай бұрын
@tim james G Blababa..babbaba... no one wants to read your long winded novels. All that cut and paste B.S. you mentioned as if you designed all these systems and know it all from open internet B.S. sources. I'm surprised NATO and the Russians ain't rushing to you for your "expertise". All I have to say is talk is cheap. Look how miserable the Russians old tech is faring in Ukraine against NATO tech.... No need for your blahbaba...blahbaba. “A foolish man thinks he knows everything. A wise man knows he doesn't.” ― Amanda Hocking - 2014
70 AD
70 AD 2 ай бұрын
@cgb Russia/China know that nuclear war can NEVER be won. They're not that stupid to believe that if they annihilate the west, the same annihilation won't happen to them. That's why it's called Mutually Assured Destruction because it can't be won.
tim james G
tim james G 2 ай бұрын
The biggest, and easily the most idiotic thing we've ever seen from any European, is this silence about the American people themselves and what they're all doing and have done about any of this, this is what every European should be demanding answers to?. But it's like these other Europeans don't understand what we've all really seen happen? Or that it is all of us Europeans who are going to pay for the American people's failure to do anything about this. As for the American people?, well, there is, without question, something seriously wrong with these people today. And this is probably the biggest problem any of us in Europe have faced in our lifetimes. In 2015, Russia exposed the USA to the American people, and the entire world, for supporting terrorists in Syria, and that forced the USA, to admit to the whole world, that they had recruited - trained - armed - supplied - protected - paid - and used, brutal terrorists, the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) in Syria, (oh, sorry I forgot, today, the Americans like the term "moderate" head chopping rebels), it's only terrorists to the rest of this world, my mistake. Yet not one of these Americans, has ever condemned it?. Not one has done the right thing, and stood up against it? Or even protested against it, (as every other society on earth, would be doing, if any of our governments were forced to admit what the USA admitted). Far from seeing anyone of them protest against it?, what is the reality, what do we really see! We see millions of Americans cheering their criminal presidents, and we see millions of Americans chanting USA USA USA, (just like Nazi's today). And we have never seen a single American, stand up against it. Why not? 2018, Teresa May announces British strikes on Syria, within 3 hours, literally hundreds of thousands of people are stood outside Parliament protesting against it. 2018, Emmanuel Macron announces French strikes on Syria, later that evening in Paris, hundreds of thousands of people are protesting against it. 2015, Russia exposes the USA to the American people and the entire world for supporting and supplying terrorists in Syria, and still, 6 years later, not one American has even condemned it, let alone protested against it! The only society we've ever seen do this before in modern history, not even protest against their own government's criminal murder and killing of innocent people (once the people found out), was indeed Nazi Germany 1933-1945, and that's the only time in modern history the people of any society have done what these American people are today. The truth is something that seems to be forgotten today, but what was the most asked question after WW2, a question asked all the way into the early 1980s? "Why did the German people do nothing"? What's worse, is, we can understand today, why the German people did what they did, they were starving to death with the harshness of the Versailles treaty, and dying in large numbers during the great depression, so quite naturally, they'd of supported absolutely anything that offered them hope! These Americans have no such excuse. This is one of the biggest problems facing us all in this world today, the American people themselves, don't know or understand right from wrong any more! The truth will always out, and that truth today, is, it's the American people themselves, who are all at fault, because it's up to them to demand their government stops all of this! Nobody else can do that, only they can! But the problem we all have, is, that none of these uneducated clowns will do a thing. WHO DO ALL YOU SUPER INTELLIGENT PEOPLE THINK IS GOING TO PAY FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF THEIR OWN CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT AGAIN? ALL OF THEM? OR ALL OF YOU? WAKEY WAKEY!
David Cullen
David Cullen 2 ай бұрын
I thought this was a really good and balanced video. There’s a small error where you say that Polaris missiles were developed at Aldermaston. Presumably you mean the Polaris warheads. The missiles were of course US developed and produced.
actionjksn 2 ай бұрын
After ICBM's became more advanced with a high level of accuracy the ridiculously large nuclear bombs were not needed. The super large ones were needed by the USSR because their missiles were only accurate within so many kilometers. Our stuff could be made to hit very precisely. Plus the really big stuff has to be delivered on a large plane, whereas something that's not insanely big can fit in the nose cone of a missile. Large bombers are very easy to shoot down with modern weapons. The blonde in this video is doing a very good job of delivering the facts to us...❤️
Sean B.
Sean B. 2 ай бұрын
If Ukraine had kept their Soviet era nukes instead of giving them to Russia in exchange for a U.S.-U.K.-Russia signed agreement to keep Ukraine’s borders, would they be invaded now? Nukes are frightening, but nuclear power is very useful, and having nuclear weapons probably mean a country will never be invaded.
D.B Cooper
D.B Cooper Ай бұрын
Same as Libya 🇱🇾 and Syria 🇸🇾
Johnny blaze
Johnny blaze Ай бұрын
@Mountain Biker no
Mountain Biker
Mountain Biker Ай бұрын
Never ever give up your Nukes.
MrcabooseVG Ай бұрын
Ukraine even up today don't have the economy for a nuclear program. Look how much the UK and France has to spend to keep their nuclear capability, there's zero room for funding problems when it comes to nukes. You either do it right or you simply don't do it
Johnny blaze
Johnny blaze 2 ай бұрын
@Mungo literally would not
L33tSkE3t 2 ай бұрын
The Brits helped in the Manhattan project so they’ve been there since day 1 essentially, it was just after the war, we shut off access to all nuclear fission research (which sounds unfair but it was for security reasons) as we didn’t expect Russia to be able to detonate a fission Bomb as quickly as they did (mostly because of espionage) so they had to develop their bomb from scratch essentially. They had their experts that were in the U.S. during the development and detonation of Trinity though,
Regicidal Militia
Regicidal Militia 4 күн бұрын
@nuntana2 The US invented the nuclear age not lil England. 😂 Both the Atom and much more powerful and influential nuclear hydrogen bombs were created by the US. The Brits almost 10 yrs later couldn't create a nuclear bomb by themselves as usual and asked the US for the knowledge. 'Under the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement, the US supplied the UK with Polaris missiles and nuclear submarine technology.'
MrcabooseVG Ай бұрын
Britain gave years of research to the Americans under the promise that Britain would get the research back. The Americans then just said no after Britain had spent so much money on the project and supplied scientists... The Americans did everything they could so that only would have the bomb, i'm glad we had a government back then with a spine to just go it alone. We know all to well that you can't rely on the Americans for help, unless of course they stand to gain from it
Scaley Back
Scaley Back 2 ай бұрын
@Smithy779 And have a grasp of the way in which Britain was screwed over. The major release of information to the Russians from the Manhatten project came from scientists (not all of US origin but working for the US) Britain had its own problem with Russian infiltrated spies but proved to be useful whipping boy when the excuse leakage of information to Russia was use to freeze British (and Commonwealth) experts out of the programme. They were not even allowed to leave the establishment with the fruits of the research notes they had amassed through their own cognitions and sweat. Special relationship my arse!
Smithy779 2 ай бұрын
@nuntana2 to be fair a lot of the people who try passing that off as fact ate usually either high on weed or are simply too patriotic to believe they arent the only people on earth.
nuntana2 2 ай бұрын
Yes indeed. I do cringe when certain Americans maintain that Britain was gifted nukes by the US, when in fact it was the other way around-the likes of Tizard and Hinton-regards expertise from our scientists and engineers. And then the US does not reciprocate their best friends. Not cool.
Jun Pineda Jr.
Jun Pineda Jr. 2 ай бұрын
Britain without nuclear weapons is like the USA having a Major Allies cut to the knees, but by having thermonuclear weapons,the UK could present both fear and deterrence to it's enemies.
Regicidal Militia
Regicidal Militia 4 күн бұрын
England is nicknamed the 'American Aircraft Carrier of Europe' 😉
You2 2 ай бұрын
@Sounak Chatterjee Try reading some books on history
Lee 303
Lee 303 2 ай бұрын
@mark true, but militarily we should emphasize defence rather than Americas first strike capability. Makes us more of a target & probably get nuked before America does as we're nearer. Putin already alluded to this with threats over the sanctions.
mark 2 ай бұрын
@Sounak Chatterjee small but potent, size means nothing.
ollaz olla
ollaz olla 2 ай бұрын
lol its the first country thats gonna be on everyones list , keep dreaming
Science Chap
Science Chap 2 ай бұрын
The UK still builds its own nuclear warheads at Aldermaston. The Polaris rocket bus was common, as is Trident, but the warhead is all home grown.... By that I mean that the US builds trident rockets. These are solid rocket motors with sophisticated guidance and navigation systems. At the top is a mounting system, normally a ring or something similar. Onto this can be fitted warheads. The US also builds and maintains its own warheads. These are the re-entry vehicles, which are independently guided to their own targets. These are the MIRVs. The UK builds its own MIRVs and mounts them on the rockets. They're then covered with an aerodynamic shroud and loaded into the submarines.
Evan Bell
Evan Bell Ай бұрын
@Cornish camp What?
Evan Bell
Evan Bell Ай бұрын
@Cornish camp I'm aware of that. Canadian personnel were also involved in the Manhattan project.
Lee 303
Lee 303 2 ай бұрын
Isn't it just the trident warheads being refreshed / serviced / swapped out before going back out under police escort to Faslane?
actionjksn 2 ай бұрын
@Evan Bell Making a nuclear bomb isn't really that hard to do technically. The really hard part and the reason a bunch of third world dictators are not all making nuclear bombs, is the difficulty in making the nuclear material refined enough to cause a chain reaction. If you are using uranium and enriching it, when you start with the basic product which is called yellow cake the vast majority is not a suitable fissile material. It only contains 0.72% fissile material which is called U 235 the rest is just garbage which is called uranium 238, this has to be separated from the uranium 235. This means you have to process a lot of uranium to get suitable material. The two isotopes are slightly different in weight so they put them in a centrifuge and they have to spin it at around 100,000 revolutions per minute. If the machine is even the slightest bit out of balance it will fly apart so it is very difficult to make the centrifuges. If you were to touch the centrifuge, the part that spins the oils from your skin would throw the machine out of balance, that's how sensitive and precise it is. They can also make them by using plutonium that is produced in a nuclear reactor and that is also extremely complicated. Once you have the fissile material separated making something that will go boom isn't really all that hard for people with some knowledge and training. This is why it is pretty dangerous for Iran to have nuclear reactors, since they have openly stated that they want to drop a nuclear bomb on Israel. The United States makes a big effort to prevent certain countries from obtaining centrifuges that are capable of doing this.
Dave 2 ай бұрын
Adrian 2 ай бұрын
Personally I entirely agree with the UK keeping nuclear weapons, I don't belive we need to expand our traditional military, air force or navy, but keeping nuclear weapons present deters agression on a world war level and restricts the world to proxy wars rather than all out direct conflict.
D.B Cooper
D.B Cooper Ай бұрын
Same as Nkorea
MrcabooseVG Ай бұрын
@Scaley Back No one, nuclear weapons are highly complex things. They won't have the money or means to operate them
Scaley Back
Scaley Back Ай бұрын
@MrcabooseVG And then just who will have their fingers on the button? Scary enough when you know who it is!
MrcabooseVG Ай бұрын
@Shaka na Wao Of course they can, the Iranian people will bring the government down before they even use them judging by the current state of their country
MrcabooseVG Ай бұрын
We absolutely do need to expand our military. If war breaks out we have zero ability to fight an attritional war, ships and planes take a long time to build and are very expensive. It's better to have a strong military and not need it rather than to need and not have... Look at Ukraine, the only reason they currently exist is because NATO dumped billions into the country. Had they been left Russia would have marched through
Mathers David
Mathers David 2 ай бұрын
The Vanguard class were built with 16 missile tubes. Load-out and warheads per missile can be reduced in peace time for a sub-strategic role.
Anon Nymous
Anon Nymous 2 ай бұрын
My mom's cousin, who worked as an engineer for General Electric in Pittsfield, Massachuesetts, was a lead engineer on the guidance system for the Polaris missile system.
James Matthew
James Matthew 2 ай бұрын
that's awfully specific from someone with the name anonymous. I hope you have life lock friend.
Jeff B
Jeff B 2 ай бұрын
Pretty crazy that the US actually sold the Polaris and tridents to the UK. Special relationship indeed
Regicidal Militia
Regicidal Militia 4 күн бұрын
Britannia is our lil ally needed for our bases throughout Europe...same for Germany 😉
D.B Cooper
D.B Cooper Ай бұрын
Same as China offered the blueprints, Uranium etc to Pakistan and N korea, soviet to China
weird science
weird science Ай бұрын
@Beachcomber NZ rutherford appleton labs
MrcabooseVG Ай бұрын
Not really, they only sold it after they did everything in their power to stop the UK making nuclear weapons. America, they take everything but give nothing.
Scaley Back
Scaley Back 2 ай бұрын
@bighand69 What the US really got out of the deal was a bankrupt so called ally who would not compete against them in the design/development field so the US got what it clearly covets the most - less competition and one step closer to monopoly. US first is hardly a new phenomena.
Pastor Rich
Pastor Rich Ай бұрын
Interesting story on the history of nuclear weapons and their deployment in the service of the UK. A program note: At 9:06 the script discusses submarine-launched ballistic missiles calling them "Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles". Submarine-launched missiles are in fact called "Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles" or SLBMs, not ICBMs (their long-range, land-based counterparts).
throwback19841 2 ай бұрын
Nuclear weapons today primarily exist to deter their use by others using them with impunity. You may ask who would be mad enough to start a thermonuclear; the answer is it hasn't been tried yet and we shall see. The more nuanced answer is that there isnt a scientific consensus on the severity of nuclear war or nuclear winter, but none of the scenarios are good. It is possible that another nuclear power may conclude that a limited use is possible and that effects are acceptable to them if they are desperate enough, or that they gamble that their enemies will defer retaliation out of fear of escalation. This is why it is important not to back Putin into an inescapable diplomatic corner, as distasteful as that is. I agree of course that the human race would be far better off without the bloody things. And they are militarily useless except for deterrence. They do not permit you to project power at all and cost a fortune. In many respects a strong navy and long range conventional aviation and ground forces are far more persuasive in the real world. But one thing history can show us is that even a democracy will use nuclear weapons to achieve its political objectives if it has no fear of retaliation. That is fact.
Scaley Back
Scaley Back 2 ай бұрын
The real lesson is that the H/A bomb series of weapons have only ever been used against a country which had none. Threats aplenty from and to those who do have then and harbour a desire to have them but as yet not used against somebody who can punch back - long may it remain that way.
richard wyse
richard wyse 2 ай бұрын
did nobody catch the "Bomber Harris " quote?........nice!
Tom Clark
Tom Clark 2 ай бұрын
The Z midget in Rush hour!😮
Lee 303
Lee 303 2 ай бұрын
@FriedEgg absolutely. It's more of an empire / economic war going on. USA wants to destroy them economically. Russia is trying to do same through their military paranoia & overspending of them. BUT. America doesn't care about that anymore. They'll carry on printing (military) money into another great depression. That means, both sides are backed into a corner. Personally I believe America is desperately trying to goad Russia into launching nukes; but Russia knows this. However, if a global economic collapse comes, we already have the lying, deceitful, shameless & totally jaded leaders, here in the West. They will be the ones to lose patience first. Ghouls, the lot of them. The richest people have no concept of happiness or being alive. Which is deeply concerning.
FriedEgg 2 ай бұрын
I think we still have to assume that Putin, with all his flaws, is not a crazy cartoon villain. Using nukes would have consequences for him, which I'm sure he's aware of, and I don't mean retaliation by nato. For start he'd most likely lose China as an ally upon using nukes in Ukraine, there's no way China would support that. Secondly, Russia, Belarus and Crimea border Ukraine on 3 sides, plus Putin has many troops inside Ukraine, so any use of nukes would risk friendly-fallout. Thirdly, it would be a huge escalation, and most likely drag nato directly into the war. Putin needs to be humiliated imo.
Craig Prescott
Craig Prescott 2 ай бұрын
My Dad was at the Dominic nuclear tests on Christmas Island. He was part of a British contingent of troops there to support American tests. He died of a rare cancer associated with exposure to nuclear radiation. He was still very proud of his service and so am I. Our countries should recognise those that died as a result of these tests.
Hestia's Hearth
Hestia's Hearth 2 ай бұрын
My grand uncle's wife's friend of a friend worked on the British Prostitution Fallout, a secret project of King Charles to create a stripclub with Armageddon as the theme.
r taylor
r taylor 2 ай бұрын
My uncles Barry and Paul chuckle used to transport the warheads between facilities.
actionjksn 2 ай бұрын
If your country is anything like ours, they will deny that any sort of sacrifice like that was made, because they don't want to have to pay the families for killing servicemen with radiation. I know my government is scummy enough to cover something like that up, 100% for sure.
Karl hill
Karl hill 2 ай бұрын
That's hardly Britain deciding to become an aggressor on the world stage.Its what's known as building yourself a defensive insurance policy. And I'm always very cagy about ideas of unilateral disarmament because even if the U.S U.K and France stuck to their word and got rid of all their nukes,it doesn't mean that Russia would,even if they said they would.Russia by their very nature are a very devious,untrusting people.They would never believe our promises(even if they were genuine), because they would judge us by their own standards and so would NEVER fully disarm.Unfortunately this is a situation we are going to be stuck in forever. And my last point,Britain is a small country in comparison to Russia,the only thing stopping Russia from coming over and steamrolling right through us is our independent nuclear deterrent,so(even though a lot of Scots disagree)we would be absolute idiots to get rid of our nukes.
Karl hill
Karl hill 2 ай бұрын
@bighand69 All there needs to be is that 50/50 chance that just one of our hydrogen bombs gets through to Moscow,and the deterrent is serving its purpose.
DavidL86 2 ай бұрын
@bighand69 hmm tbf I never considered detonating a nuke to stop a nuke (I assumed other explosions / missiles etc).. but still seems a pretty logical idea. Also apparently they were testing lasers to stop nukes in the 1980s! So who the hell knows what technology they’ve developed since
bighand69 2 ай бұрын
@Karl hill We are assuming that there is no means of defence systems either disrupting the pathway of the missile, interfering with the mechanical control systems of the nuclear detonation or some other really exotic means of interference. Maybe there is some sort of advance laser tracking system that means it can easily be targeted even when it is in orbit. Maybe they use other nuclear weapons to detonate within its path so that they do not need to be super accurate and make a direct hit.
bighand69 2 ай бұрын
@Dave We have no idea what sorts of atmosphere research has taken place so we just do not know what is possible. A nuclear weapon is a mechanical system and who is to say what sorts of external effects could interfere with that mechanism. Maybe there is some sort of system that could enable an early detonation so that it cannot reach its target. We just do not know is the thing.
Dave 2 ай бұрын
@bighand69 But by then mankind could of developed a comically large apocalyptic fly swat..
David S. Cameron
David S. Cameron 2 ай бұрын
Delta-Winged Avro Vulcan bomber, what an incredible aircraft, one still on view by Rayleigh Wier Essex. Its part on the recapture of the Falklands is boys own British bollocking rollocks too. God Save the Bream.
Beater Bike Channel MFGA
Beater Bike Channel MFGA 2 ай бұрын
@Dave the High Seas Fleet gave the Grand Fleet a bloody nose at Jutland but when asked if they would like to try round 2 once we learned to stop storing piles of cordite in gun turrets did they come skulking out of Wilhelmshaven for the challenge? Nein...
Beater Bike Channel MFGA
Beater Bike Channel MFGA 2 ай бұрын
@Mister Big and your progressive communo-marxist future dream is any better? "You vill own nosink, live in zer pod and be happy because you can live as one of 1,000 genders today." Shoot me now.
Stephen 2 ай бұрын
@Dave It takes a few hours to fill a gaping hole on a runway. Strangely enough bombing other people's runways has been a thing for many years and everyone has figured out how to repair them rapidly 🙄
Dave 2 ай бұрын
@Richard Pendleton 🥔?
Dave 2 ай бұрын
@BPS&D Yeah and they sank HMS Invincible too.. 🤡😂
popefang 2 ай бұрын
Friends of mine have dived the lagoon at Montebello. Its still radioactive far above background levels. Divers are restricted to short periods of exposure over the site. The Maralinga tests never cleared the human population from the western desert, condemning these innocents to death, shortened lives, and continued marginalisation
Saint Pauli 75
Saint Pauli 75 2 ай бұрын
Thank You for not glossing over the environmental and human impact British Nuclear testing had on Australia. 👍
Stephen 2 ай бұрын
@bighand69 yeah cos Russia is really a threat to Australia.... How many countries has Russia invaded the last 25 years? How many countries has the UK or US invaded?
bighand69 2 ай бұрын
It ensures that the likes of Australia is safe from Russia.
Milo 2 ай бұрын
@Mike Montagne The UK would like to regain Australia like they have Canada, whereas the rest of us say bring on the republic and screw the UK. The UK wants to pretend they committed no atrocities in Australia, hahaha pull the other one. Lets get an Australian prime minister with balls who brings the UK to its knees in a world court.
Mike Montagne
Mike Montagne 2 ай бұрын
There should have been a specific mention of Maralinga.
Peter Zimmerman
Peter Zimmerman 2 ай бұрын
In the 50's Sweden's parliament was told by the engineers that had long been working on the nuclear program they had all the materials to start assembling a nuclear bomb, but the parliament voted against it. For all kinds of reason. Not wanting to make things worse, and hoping that they wouldn't become a target if they didn't build and use them. I would assume that that's what's happend. I guess it also saves money since these things requiers maintenance and reloading to keep working etz. It is however unfortunate that the world has as many Nuclear weapons as it's got, but it could have been far worse, a lot of countries could have gotten them and they only spell the end of humanity, and have very little good to offer. Nuclear power however was a welcome addition to the energy mix.
MrcabooseVG Ай бұрын
@Scaley Back It wasn't the US bulling the UK and France, it was the entire western world. The UK and France developed nuclear weapons entirely on their own, the UK even surpassed the US in power to weight
Scaley Back
Scaley Back Ай бұрын
@MrcabooseVG The cost becomes irrelevant at the point when the nation needing to use the weapons has to gain permission from the nation supplying them first! The word no at that juncture has cost what? What if the supplying nation's requirements at that juncture do no coincide with the nation requiring to use the weapon for defence purposes. Not having a completely independent weapon system does not make any sense whatsoever. We've already witness how the US can bully its closest allies into abandoning a path which the US did not wish to happen - Suez! Had Sweden/France/UK and who knows who else in Europe had manufactured their own weaponry they would not be so dependent upon the goodwill of the US which will always only ever act when it is in the interest of the US to do so.
Peter Zimmerman
Peter Zimmerman Ай бұрын
@MrcabooseVG North Korea has them and their estimated GDP is 5% of Swedens. The GDP percapita of Sweden is 25% higher than the UK's. In theory having just 10-20 well maintained ready to fire would probably be enough to serve as a deterrent on top of more conventional arms and resources. Russia has been buying parts and tools for their nuclear programs from Sweden for a very long time, that has been put on hold now however. There seems there is a lot of dangerous tech that's sold that probably shouldn't but when the customer gets a not a lot of them seems to have a problem with it, Bush came personally on an unannounced visit when they got a no on certain stuff. The world would have been better off without some of that stuff out there. Sweden cracked the Germans Enigma and it's big brother long before the Brits did back in WW2. Doing that however is understandable, knowing whats happening helps keep you safe.
MrcabooseVG Ай бұрын
Britain only has 200 and it costs billions a year, that's after the costs of developing and testing (it'll be into the hundreds of billions spent all in). I doubt Sweden could afford it, Sweden isn't a poor country at all but there's far far less people there paying tax to fund it
Scaley Back
Scaley Back 2 ай бұрын
IMHO it is a pity Sweden did not, "Go it alone". Maybe a collaboration with Britain and France may have give Europe a completely independent nuclear deterrence in no way reliant on the US and only to be used in the interests of the US if that interest coincided with European interests. An opportunity lost.
Alex Ozanne
Alex Ozanne 2 ай бұрын
Because of the French, of course!
Louis beer reviews
Louis beer reviews 10 күн бұрын
Martin Bröde
Martin Bröde 21 күн бұрын
@Mister Precocious 😂😉🤣
Trent Ай бұрын
UK and France is a decline country in terms of influence, tech, economy . And China and America is now new a force of global superpower👍👍👍
Moses Dan
Moses Dan Ай бұрын
@Carnifexor u giggle or google no one cares
Carnifexor Ай бұрын
I'm French American and I giggle at this
John P
John P 2 ай бұрын
Strange, that she doesn't mention the WE177, it predesessor and she could have expanded on Skybolt? Ok the last one never made it into service but they would have been inpressive on a Vulcan B3, if they had ever built it? We used to load a single 28lb practice bomb to the Vulcans, it looked ridiculous in that bomb bay. But it had similar balistic characteristics to the above so I suppose it was useful?
Alpha Shaving Works - ΑΛΦΑ
Alpha Shaving Works - ΑΛΦΑ 2 ай бұрын
It can be answered in a few words "So we do not have to depend on the whims of other nations to defend ourselves - political or economical".
Alpha Shaving Works - ΑΛΦΑ
Alpha Shaving Works - ΑΛΦΑ 2 ай бұрын
@BPS&D Yes we can.
Alpha Shaving Works - ΑΛΦΑ
Alpha Shaving Works - ΑΛΦΑ 2 ай бұрын
@BPS&D utter nonsense.
BPS&D 2 ай бұрын
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent. We can't fire our nukes without American agreement.
Dana Jennings
Dana Jennings 2 ай бұрын
@Alpha Shaving Works - ΑΛΦΑ Don't read much do you.
Alpha Shaving Works - ΑΛΦΑ
Alpha Shaving Works - ΑΛΦΑ 2 ай бұрын
@Joe Soap Nonsense.
Nigel Depledge
Nigel Depledge 2 ай бұрын
OK, this is an interesting look at *how* Britain has nuclear weapons, but you didn't really delve much into *why* Britain has nuclear weapons. There was one omission : in the late '50s, the only reason the USA was amenable to once again collaborating with the UK on nuclear weapons development was because the UK was the first nation to come up with a "one ton - one megaton" device (i.e., a device weighing only 1 ton but with an explosive yield of 1 megaton).
Ligma Sack
Ligma Sack Ай бұрын
@Bob Graham Sorry, but the Brits didn't invent the Telephone, it was a Scotsman in AMERICA Short-Bus. Radar was invented by the Germans (Strike 2 Ret@rd); and while a Limey patented a design for an Jet Engine, it was NEVER BUILT; which means that the Germans actually get credit for that too! What other "inventions" of the Limeys would you like to discuss, eh Short-Bus? Limey's were promised NOTHING from the Americans regarding the Manhattan Project; typical of you Brits to cry Foul about your delusions of entitlement though!🤣🖕
Ligma Sack
Ligma Sack Ай бұрын
@Nigel Depledge Yet it's only you Limey's that try to claim that you were owed anything. Thanks for proving that Y'all can't figure things out for yourself though; and so much for Y'all being a Super Power...🤣🖕
Nigel Depledge
Nigel Depledge Ай бұрын
@Ligma Sack - there was a written agreement that the USA abandoned. So, yeah, the US actually did owe the UK the continued collaboration that was outlined in the document.
MrcabooseVG Ай бұрын
@Ligma Sack Because that was the deal, Britain had done a hell of a lot of the research and had the specialists who'd done it shipped to your door. Without that it'd have taken longer to make the nuke which means you'd have to invade mainland Japan where millions would have died on all sides. America only cares about itself, always has which is why the whole world hates you.
The Once & Future King
The Once & Future King 2 ай бұрын
@Ligma Sack Well considering that the whole deal was the research had to go both ways, a deal you bloody Yanks reneged on, yes, we _we're_ entitled to it!
Michael Rudkin
Michael Rudkin 2 ай бұрын
We have nuclear weapons in order NOT to use them.I am not being cynical,I am serious.
luigi vincenz
luigi vincenz Ай бұрын
OH, a number of us get your point. It's called deterrence. There are just people who don't get it. You rob my gold, I'll give you lead. Fair deal.
Londronable 2 ай бұрын
I don't think there's anything wrong with getting nukes to basically lock in your border. As long as it's only used in self defense I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I trust countries like the UK and France to do so.
Champak Basumatary
Champak Basumatary 2 ай бұрын
@JZ's BFF Mutually NOT Agreed Destruction
S 2 ай бұрын
Damn Sherlock how did you figure that out? All on your own too?
Colin Stewart
Colin Stewart 2 ай бұрын
That's deterrence baby. Just wish more people understood that.
Troupe Goal
Troupe Goal 2 ай бұрын
We signed a deal to share research and bomb-making effort with the US during the war, and as soon as the war was done we were on our own
Greasy Belcher
Greasy Belcher 2 ай бұрын
A few weeks ago I was out in the middle of the desert in Australia on a dirt bike. I stopped off for a moment at the remains of the Blue Streak Rocket. Launched in 1964, not found until 1980, in the sand 50k SE of Giles in the Western Australian wilderness.
John Mcguigan
John Mcguigan 2 ай бұрын
The greatest benefit was aesthetic--the V bombers had to be the most beautiful fleet of Armageddon ushers ever built. Pretty expensive artwork, though.
richard wyse
richard wyse 2 ай бұрын
Nuclear Art Deco.......
Ostrichs 2 ай бұрын
Nuclear weapons is one thing, but Nuclear power is something that the world should invest in more. France is a leader in this and we all should follow them including the UK and US.
Ostrichs Ай бұрын
@MostlyShorts you must be smoking some stuff even stronger than me because I never said France was the world leader. Please do the smallest amount of research before you comment messes like that. France when it comes to Europe is the largest Producer of nuclear energy and is expanding even more into it. The US produces the most nuclear energy out of the whole world. China is second on the world stage. My point is that the US needs to push more into nuclear.
Ostrichs 2 ай бұрын
@Fred the red mostly because other than the US and China, France produces a lot of energy using nuclear and is in the process of expanding its nuclear power sources.
Fred the red
Fred the red 2 ай бұрын
When does the French lead the world in anything?
mou 2 ай бұрын
@BPS&D The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were some of the darkest acts taken by humanity in our bloody history, but the mechanics and materials involved in nuclear power generation are very different. It's akin to comparing an internal combustion engine to a pipe bomb, they both contain extremely energetic fuel sources, but one produces a stable reaction from which we can generate electricity, and the other produces a run-away reaction that releases its energy in a very short period.
Ostrichs 2 ай бұрын
@Andrew Grosset go and read my first comment to BPS&D from his first comment. It gives links to videos made by a very knowledgeable person. All three basically explain away all the myths about Nuclear power.
Jamie Knight
Jamie Knight 2 ай бұрын
The video is good but it is a little muddled in how it names things. For trident, the missiles are procured from the US. But the nuclear warheads are UK designed and made. An interesting sub story is Blue Peacock which was designed for use within Europe as a atomic demolition munition. Intended to destroy dams and other infrastructure should Russia ever invade.
BeAFreePerson 2 ай бұрын
This seems to be a description of what nuclear weapons the UK has held not why the UK has nuclear weapons
weird science
weird science Ай бұрын
@Gambir uk has at sea deterrant, its a good idea as any country launching on us would get wiped out. i dont agree with nukes but in an unsafe world i feel that at sea is best
Gambir 2 ай бұрын
@Ser Garlan Tyrell YES! This video is basically is a history of uk relationship with nuclear weapon, not analysing the reason why uk chose to develop, test, and keep a nuclear weapon in the first place
Ser Garlan Tyrell
Ser Garlan Tyrell 2 ай бұрын
Maybe if they ammended the title to "How does Britain..." rather than "Why..."
KarlosH 2 ай бұрын
Impressive and terrifying , all at the same time .
John Elliott
John Elliott 2 ай бұрын
A world with out these weapons will never happen again but it could if one decides to push a button this will be the only way that it will end so much weaponry out there after the Soviet. Union collapse who honestly knows how many and who was able to procure therm and if they're stored properly and the people who have them actually know what they are actually doing.
Paul Trevett
Paul Trevett 2 ай бұрын
We have a nuclear deterrent as we can be trusted not to go nuclear till absolutely necessary!
Clayton Carter
Clayton Carter 2 ай бұрын
“Bigger bomb=more peace” is kinda counterintuitive, but it’s hard to argue with the results.
Scaley Back
Scaley Back 2 ай бұрын
Add to that a reliable/effective method of delivery and your argument is complete sir.
Adam 2 ай бұрын
If there was a better answer we'd do it I'm sure.
Derek Cable 🇬🇧
Derek Cable 🇬🇧 2 ай бұрын
@Stephen How many world wars since 1945 ?
Stephen 2 ай бұрын
So how many years of peace have the US or UK had since 1945?
SnowHeader 2 ай бұрын
It has been since the dawn of man.
Sebastian Chan
Sebastian Chan 2 ай бұрын
Vanguard-class are able to carry up to 16 SLBMs just like the Resolution-class.
Spike123 2 ай бұрын
The Launch systems electronics are from the 1980’s though. Does it work?
schr75 2 ай бұрын
@marc21091 The US Ohio class can carry 24 but are now limited to 22 because of treaties.
marc21091 2 ай бұрын
The presentation is in error is stating that the Trident boats carry eight missiles. They carry sixteen missiles, as do most missile submarines (US, French).Each missile has multiple warheads which are independently guided (MIRVs) so that 16 missiles can deliver weapons to up to 100 targets; though some of these are dummies. The Royal Navy missiles have been fitted with forms of MIRV since Chevaline, the British modification to Polaris which was undertaken by Aldermaston - rather than buy the US Poseidon missile. Trident has replaced that generation of missiles.
Lx Puma
Lx Puma 2 ай бұрын
they enter service soon aswell
Nothing\ 2 ай бұрын
It's fun to learn about the thing that will probably end civilization. Not humanity. Not by a long shot. But civilization, sure. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero, does it not? And on a long enough timeline, we're bound to use nuclear weapons again as long they exist. Especially when the generations who remember how horrible Hiroshima and the effects of atmospheric testing were and these just become words in a history book.
ballsworker97 2 ай бұрын
It’s basically the same as do you bring a knife to a gun fight, or do you bring an anti aircraft gun to a gun fight? Logic says if you bring a bigger gun the opponent will back down (the rest of the world) and then those who have anti aircraft guns too (Russia, China, N Korea) know that if their opponent has the same guns it’s not worth fighting each other as nobody will win. And so as frightening as it is, the very concept of nuclear deterrence stops nuclear war from happening. Ukraine is a good example of absent nuclear deference, they got invaded.
Mick Healy
Mick Healy 2 ай бұрын
weird feeling knowing we all have these hanging over us from many countries and it could all end for us billions at any time because of what a few dozen people decide, seems wrong that this is the situation and it cant possibly end well, just a matter of time.
Sean FitzGerald
Sean FitzGerald 2 ай бұрын
As an Aussie I can say, I am proud we helped the Commonwealth in its development of nuclear weapons, and I am glad Britain still stands today at our side armed with the results of those tests. We live in peace because of these efforts.
Aayush Prakhar
Aayush Prakhar 22 күн бұрын
Proud of what??? They tested their nuke on your soil... probably radiation from it messed up your head
Aayush Prakhar
Aayush Prakhar 22 күн бұрын
@popefang india developed nuke on its own...we used plutonium from CIRUS reactors from canada...unlike Britain who had fair share of cooperation from others india did it on its own infact after smiling Buddha which we did in 1970s as we fought 3 wars within 10 years...west arm twisted india to give up nukes after first nuclear test as our economy took toll after wars....if west shared nukes among each other it doesn't imply that india did so as well...
John Marley
John Marley Ай бұрын
@Zebra Dun Australia has never had or experimented with nuclear weapons. Britain used real estate in Australia for testing, but that ended in the early ‘70’s. There is one nuclear scientific research facility in Sydney, but it’s low yield.
Barnett McCarthy
Barnett McCarthy 2 ай бұрын
​@Oliverider mmm*
B Wilson
B Wilson 2 ай бұрын
@LCFC Just a baboo who has a doctorate in admin.
Left6 2 ай бұрын
Interesting how popular history has written Britain's contribution out of the manhatten project.
SerBallister 2 ай бұрын
@BPS&D Most of my German friends say it was American and German scientists, they never heard of tube alloys or any British involvement. This is from a small sample size though..
BPS&D 2 ай бұрын
@Felis Corax You don't know much about the war in the Far East at all do you? There never was any plan to use Lancasters in the Far East. Bomber Harris didn't even want them used on D-Day preparations. He certainly wouldn't have allowed his precious Lancasters to be taken away from him and be used against Japan.
COL BEAUSABRE 2 ай бұрын
@james brooks I live in the US and have known about since I was a schoolboy in the Sixties
Left6 2 ай бұрын
To be fair, it isn't something a decent country would want to own. Britain, the US and their Nazi partners (on the manhatten project) are all criminals for their contributions to this technology.
Felis Corax
Felis Corax 2 ай бұрын
@Stu Saville True; although Australian Citizenship came into existence in 1948, in constitutional matters, Australia was still technically a self-governing dominion rather than a sovereign state in its own right (that status would not be achieved until the 1984 Australia Act came into force), so this was still very much seen in the historical context as “the British Empire’s bomb”. You can hear this in the commentary and reportage on the subject via British Pathé, for example.
Jambo Jambo
Jambo Jambo 2 ай бұрын
Great history lesson. 👍
Captain Hindsight
Captain Hindsight 2 ай бұрын
In a scary world, it’s reassuring to know we have the English speaking world of the US and the UK with her commonwealth family to protect us. Respect to all nations of the alliance 🇺🇸🇬🇧🇳🇿🇦🇺🇨🇦🇦🇮🇻🇬🇰🇾🇫🇰🇲🇸🇵🇳🇬🇸🇸🇭🇹🇨🇹🇻
the reality artist!
the reality artist! 2 ай бұрын
I was right all along the UK and the USA both worked together on building this bomb we have been brother and sister all the time in making many things together 🇬🇧🇺🇸
Jamie's ETM Cult
Jamie's ETM Cult 2 ай бұрын
Britain was also very aware of having lost their empire in WWII and having nukes probably helped salve that wound.
The Once & Future King
The Once & Future King 2 ай бұрын
And we didn't want the world, especially the Americans and Russians, thinking that we were now without teeth in case someone decided to test our bite.
Pedro Ortega
Pedro Ortega 2 ай бұрын
Obtaining the most powerful weapon on Earth after losing the largest empire in recorded history sounds like a fair trade. Though you got to wonder how different the situation could've been if Britain got nukes at the height of their empire in 1912 and not 1952, when their empire was ending...
Land Rover Addict
Land Rover Addict 2 ай бұрын
High Explosive Research, and a talent for understatement!
Neil of Longbeck
Neil of Longbeck 2 ай бұрын
Technically that is what a nuclear bomb is.
Allan Gibson
Allan Gibson 2 ай бұрын
Originally it was Tube Alloy Research and the MAUD committee (named after the housekeeper of Niels Bohr).
spaceymonkeything 2 ай бұрын
Unbelievably High Explosive Research seems better.
Steven Homan
Steven Homan 2 ай бұрын
So many commonwealth countries and the resources of scientists from Britain were involved in the Manhattan Project, that they could be thought of as instrumental in the development of the first fissile bombs of WWII. I knew a physicist, who was heavily involved in the development. He was an Australian who held deep regrets over his participation in the research. It could be said that he was haunted by this.
Ray Brown
Ray Brown 2 ай бұрын
It is better to be haunted than dead!
Buckhorn Cortez
Buckhorn Cortez 2 ай бұрын
Yes, and Britain also supplied the key Russian spy, Klaus Fuchs. Then there was Donald Maclean, Kim Philby, etc. So, Britain not only supplied some important scientists but also important spies.
Mike Montagne
Mike Montagne 2 ай бұрын
Wikipedia; 35 year Doctor Louis Slotin died 30th May 1946.
Casual Disdain
Casual Disdain 2 ай бұрын
My main question surrounding the current UK deterrent is: if the country was under attack, wouldn't it be only able to use 8 missiles from the one patrolling submarine before the other docked submarines are destroyed, along with warheads stockpiled on land?
Carl W
Carl W 2 ай бұрын
It’s a minimum of 1 out patrolling, one is normally in for maintenance, and others are either on patrol or on training. Plus I imagine all 4 will be out if tensions are high. Also each sub has sufficient warheads to totally wipe out any country.
harrier331 2 ай бұрын
@Dave Yes, with the cost of nuclear arms it would be impossible to hide other means of delivery, there are far more than the number he mentions but our defence is by submarine alone.
jens256 Ай бұрын
Very interesting video. Lots of interesting information which is genuinely new to me. It exhibit really seems worth a visit.
Dainius Karanauskas
Dainius Karanauskas 2 ай бұрын
Thank You! For this informative video!
Ben Dover
Ben Dover 2 ай бұрын
Anyone who's against nuclear power is just special. It's the safest and most effective energy source out there. Wind and Solar can't provide energy at all times, and battery storage just isn't ready. For a greener future, nuclear is the backbone we need for the energy grid.
michael howell
michael howell Ай бұрын
I think the decision to move forward with an indigenous Britisg nuclear program came about more as a bargaining chip and a prestige move rather than aggression.
David Rodgers
David Rodgers 2 ай бұрын
Short answer: they were already working on one, and had made progress, when the USA joined WW2. The two agreed to work together a,d share the results, while promising never to use them against each other. Ever.
harrier331 2 ай бұрын
@bighand69 That is a complete lie.
Buckhorn Cortez
Buckhorn Cortez 2 ай бұрын
@Caspian The United States and Britain had the Quebec Agreement to share nuclear information. After the War ended, the US declined to provide additional information to Britain as they had an agreement with France to supply France with defense information. When the US asked Britain if they would give US information to France, the answer was "Yes," because they had to honor the agreement with France. The US refused to provide information that would be given to France as France had no involvement with the atomic bomb development and the US could see no reason to give the French free information.
Caspian 2 ай бұрын
@bighand69 not true lok
bighand69 2 ай бұрын
That is not even close to being true. The Manhattan project was completely a US project.
Caspian 2 ай бұрын
after WW2 for a period the US did stop sharing nuclear secrets with Britain - but after a couple of years they continued to share results and stuff
Killing DeadThings
Killing DeadThings 2 ай бұрын
The US hadn't really shown their hand to the Soviets by using the atom bombs. The Russians already knew of the nuclear research by 1943. In July 1945 at the Potsdam Conference, Truman informed Stalin of the existence of the Bomb. Stalin of course didn't know the technicalities by this stage but, time would change that.
Killing DeadThings
Killing DeadThings 2 ай бұрын
@Johnnyc drums Aye I get annoyed a little over those guys. I wasn;t even born lol
Johnnyc drums
Johnnyc drums 2 ай бұрын
Thanks to the Cambridge Five and a few other Commies.
Buckhorn Cortez
Buckhorn Cortez 2 ай бұрын
Stalin knew of the bomb development and he knew of the Trinity test. What he didn't know is if the Allied forces would use the bomb or not. One could easily make the argument that the use of the bomb sped up the Soviet entry into the Pacific War as without participation they would not have a rationale to claim compensation. This is why Stalin continued military action in the Kurils until the surrender agreement was signed on September 2, 1945. He wanted to occupy as much area as possible before the War officially ended.
Andrew Grosset
Andrew Grosset 2 ай бұрын
I recommend watching "Doctor Strangelove" by Stanley Kubrick. I was a child during the 60's and today I am horrified how we are obsessed with CO2 and seemed to have forgotten or become indifferent to the possibility of Nuclear war or nuclear accident - Climate change is more of an issue to most people, to me it is nuclear weapons whether used deliberately or accidently..
Ivan Garcia
Ivan Garcia 2 ай бұрын
Born in the 90s I literally warned my class the soviet union would be attempted to be revived by Russia, i just expected it in 2025 back in 2010
Victor Samuel
Victor Samuel 2 ай бұрын
As an indian proud that we are nuclear weapons state and fourth powerful military power in the world and also replaced UK as the fifth largest economy
stormywindmill 2 ай бұрын
The UK would have had the A-bomb a lot sooner but in spite of the wartime contribution British scientists had made to the Manhattan Project, the USA reneged on the deal and shut the UK out of the research programme. Gee thanks uncle Sam.
Robert 2 ай бұрын
Great video, but I would have ended it with a wider conclusion and not so abruptly.
Thomas Barron
Thomas Barron 2 ай бұрын
I cant believe this is even a question in modern times. We must stand as a force to keep tyranny at bay! If that means by power, as it always has, then so be it. Its the survival of the human race and maybe its downfall but nessicary.
Decipher 2 ай бұрын
The title is basically asking "Why does any nation have nuclear weapons?"
Jonny Jackson
Jonny Jackson 2 ай бұрын
We built the atom bomb because initially, we were developing one with the Americans while world war two was still in progress and everyone feared the Nazis were making one too. After the Japanese surrendered, the US. cut Britain out of the loop so we set out on our own. A lot of this was down to the UK retaining a grown ups seat on the world stage as the USA and USSR became superpowers. After successfully detonating an atom bomb, Britain felt the need to quickly build a hydrogen bomb because the Russians had them and had threatened to nuke Britain over the Suez crisis.
just whenyouthought
just whenyouthought 2 ай бұрын
There was and still is a reason why CND was opposed to nuclear weapons and NATO. ‘As for Soviet funding of CND, it was proven in November 1991 that the KGB bankrolled the British Communist Party throughout the 1970s - the very period when (as Bruce Kent repeatedly acknowledged) only the support of the Communist Party and of the Quakers enabled CND to survive.’
bighand69 2 ай бұрын
Neil Kinnock that tried to start a union level rebellion was trained in the Karl Marx University. Yet the media would never talk about this.
BPS&D 2 ай бұрын
@Felis Corax The term 'useful idiots' originates in the USA and has no connection to Russia at all. Neither Lenin nor Stalin said it. The term was first coined by the San Fransisco Examiner in 1948.
MrGeorgeB006 2 ай бұрын
@Felis Corax like Russia or China would give up their nukes? Yeah never…
Jeran Korak
Jeran Korak 2 ай бұрын
@Felis Corax Nuclear weapons have saved billions of lives. Prior to the invention of nuclear weapons, European wars broke out without fail every 25 to 50 years, usually destroying whole nations and creating new grudges for the next cycle of violence. The reality is that nuclear deterrence works perfectly. It has prevented all-out war between China and Taiwan (via the US threat of nuclear war in retaliation), Russia and China, Russia and NATO, India and Pakistan, etc. Nuclear disarmament is suicide.
Felis Corax
Felis Corax 2 ай бұрын
That doesn’t invalidate their basic argument that no-one should have these weapons. All it does prove is that the CND were the Soviets’ “useful idiots” in the West, at a point of particular tension during the Cold War, whose purpose was to try to divide and weaken the NATO nuclear alliance.
A friend of a friend
A friend of a friend Ай бұрын
You expect the most colonizing country to ever colonize to *not* have nukes?
Sgt Pepr
Sgt Pepr 2 ай бұрын
One could say that detonating nuclear bombs in the atmosphere is more deleterious than carbon dioxide?
Thomas 2 ай бұрын
maybe with the growing space programs in the uk, maybe one day we will use our own rockets too deliver our warheads
Stu Bur
Stu Bur 2 ай бұрын
I think it is time for the UK to consider reacquiring access to air launched nuclear weapons. Russia has overtly threatened the UK with nuclear attack recently using new types of nuclear weapons. The simplest, cheapest, and easiest option would be to reactivate the nuclear sharing agreement with the USA for air launched weapons. The UK already has F-35B aircraft that could potentially carry B61-12 glide bombs. The UK also already has storage facilities and security arrangements in place for such weapons if they want access again. The USA would absolutely agree since the arrangement only stopped because of political decisions on the UK side. An alternative option could be to ask France for nuclear sharing of their ASMP-A air launched supersonic nuclear cruise missiles. This weapon is superior overall to the US glide bomb, especially with much greater range. But this would be more challenging politically and financially. Use of these in a similar arrangement as with the USA is possible but would require a French aircraft to launch them from or integration of French nuclear fusing into aircraft already in service in the UK. The most practical option for that would be Eurofighter Typhoons but would require considerable expense and concession by France to make that happen for even just some of the newest tranches of Typhoons. With nothing to gain it is unlikely that France would agree. The UK might be able to get access by purchasing a significant number of Rafale aircraft to launch them from. These are already set up for compatibility with French nuclear fusing and are capable aircraft. The UK does actually have some need for more ground attack aircraft to replace Tornadoes and has used modified Typhoons for that so far. Rafale could be a decent option for expanding conventional ground attack capabilities in addition to the nuclear deterrence role. They might replace some of the oldest and least capable Typhoons. But that would probably mean buying the aircraft from France without local production. At least 36 Rafale in F3R configuration or newer would be needed for this. Quite a large expense for the aircraft but manageable since they would have utility in other roles as well. The last option would be development of new UK nuclear weapons. This would be hugely expensive and require technical and skilled labor resources that have largely been lost over the past few decades. It would also be politically difficult internally in the UK because of public resistance to nuclear weapons development. The best feasible air launched weapon would also probably not be significantly better than the US or French weapons because of the large time gap in development by the UK. Both the USA and France are developing the next generation of weapons already and thus the UK would likely continue to trail behind in technical features. Therefore this is the least viable option. But it is an option, as the UK has proven to be capable of independently developing nuclear weapons. Probably not worth the cost or effort however any more while there are more feasible options. Thus the best option is F-35B + B61-12. The second best option is Rafale + ASMP-A.
Grave Peril
Grave Peril 2 ай бұрын
why? what you say only makes since if the UK attacks with nukes at the moment its purely defensive
Tom Soki
Tom Soki 2 ай бұрын
Absolutely, making more WE.177 bombs would be incredibly cheap and would offer more deterrence, and attaching a nuclear warhead to our existing Storm Shadow cruise missiles wouldn’t be too expensive either. And ground based missile silos are also incredibly cheap but I don’t think Britain will ever use these.
Crap Tacular
Crap Tacular 2 ай бұрын
@itsjohndell Well, not quite anywhere. There's a few thousand square miles (mostly in Khazakstan) that we can't really reach.
itsjohndell 2 ай бұрын
@scottyotty2hotty Agreed. Tridents can hit anywhere on Earth. But a few more would be a good thing. The likelihood of conventional war is far greater than nuclear war. Britain would be well served in rebuilding the Ground Forces
Jamie Gray
Jamie Gray 2 ай бұрын
@scottyotty2hotty Pretty much sums up what I was going to say. Air launched missiles don't offer much when we already have a perfectly adequate deterrent. Their only real use would be in a hot war, but at that point the notion of a deterrent is pointless.
Steve Potempa
Steve Potempa 2 ай бұрын
With countries like Germany and Russia in WW2 UK needed to develop their Nuclear Weapons.
Fella 2 ай бұрын
The 60s have seen it all, from the nuclear test to the first man steps on the moon
John Martin
John Martin 2 ай бұрын
Because it did not want to be left behind by the US and Russia after the US shut the door on them in 1947.
Marsspacex 2 ай бұрын
Good job Britain 🇬🇧
Robert Saca
Robert Saca 2 ай бұрын
"Australia allowed Britain" haha. We had no choice. That was a different time.
Srinivas S C
Srinivas S C 2 ай бұрын
Britain has 12 bombs, while Russia has 160 nuclear bombs. As tensions increases man bombs over his own head, evaporating the world
Norman Stanley Fletcher
Norman Stanley Fletcher 2 ай бұрын
Excellent video, as alway.
Mark Thompson
Mark Thompson 2 ай бұрын
This is actually a very good point. Why does the UK have nuclear weapons? Since 1945 we have been xxxxxxg away our greatness and have little left to defend. 😡
colin diplock
colin diplock Ай бұрын
To BJS301. In modern war fare there are literally thousands of round fired for each casualty. [Refer to the current conflict in Ukraine] But it is claimed that during the American civil war, like no other since or before , More lost their liver or where wounded with the lest shots fired and for the most part with single shot black powder muzzle loading rifles. Another example, the drones the Russians are using against the civilian population of Ukraine come in at $20000 a unit and we see maybe a dozen deaths, mostly women and children.
James Woods
James Woods 2 ай бұрын
The fact that this is even a question is annoying. Without British involvement the US would never have made nuclear weapons so early.
YouTube oppressive censorship
YouTube oppressive censorship 2 ай бұрын
Britain used to be super military power they had bombers
Max Schneider
Max Schneider 2 ай бұрын
Even though the video does answer the "how", it doesn't answer the "why". Why? (as was teased in the title: "WHY does Britain have nuclear weapons?") Why isn't the question answered?
Armorer 94
Armorer 94 2 ай бұрын
Because they helped to develop them during WWII.
mickyday2008 Ай бұрын
Makes me proud to be British
Cameron Renwick
Cameron Renwick 2 ай бұрын
But nobody can develop a weapon to fight poverty, only death and destruction
crazylittlebigthings 2 ай бұрын
Must be nice to own nuclear weapons. I hope my country gets one of these someday. We need it badly against China.
Kris 2 ай бұрын
as an Australian I hear you and couldn't agree more
GKB05 2 ай бұрын
Just take some nuclear fallout from Japan and sprinkle it all over china
Ray Brown
Ray Brown 2 ай бұрын
If your country live next to Russia would you want them to have Nuclear weapons?
Jason Eldridge
Jason Eldridge 2 ай бұрын
The idea of nuclear weapons is not to use them ,a bit like airbags in your car
Jesper Lykkeberg
Jesper Lykkeberg 2 ай бұрын
It´s like the car dealer claiming the cars have airbags while knowing they won´t work.
shane ward
shane ward 2 ай бұрын
@Gabor K Kim Jong un is a loose cannon, a dictator has complete control over a country, there is no override , same with Russia , that's what makes it a loose cannon situation
Gabor K
Gabor K 2 ай бұрын
@shane ward Double standards. As far as i know Korea never invaded anyone, Korea was however invaded before so who's really the loose cannon here? I don't think it's North Korea.
shane ward
shane ward 2 ай бұрын
@Gabor K not really.... When cars have airbags that can go off uncontrollably , they get recalled. Loose cannon countries should not have them.
Gabor K
Gabor K 2 ай бұрын
Which makes it ridiculous when people criticize North Korea for having them.
Adam Dickinson
Adam Dickinson 2 ай бұрын
Herbert York being pissed off that he wasn't given information by the British after the US seized all of the joint WW2 nuclear research for themselves is an extremely American response
Ryan Gibson
Ryan Gibson 2 ай бұрын
Yeah at that point in time they were near bankrupt and in a really bad situation.
M Hussain Ahmed
M Hussain Ahmed 2 ай бұрын
If that tsar bomba meant to be 100mt 😵 but due to radiation could reach to populated area they reduced to 57mt then can you just imagine what bombs do they have developed Now? I can't imagine this is a MAD WORLD MAD PEOPLE MAY GOD SAVE US ALL
Arch Lich
Arch Lich 2 ай бұрын
9:02 I can't get over how cool that looks. God help us.
Hegemoner Smith
Hegemoner Smith 2 ай бұрын
If the British government really wants to get rid of nuclear weapons, why did they recently decide to significantly increase the total number of nuclear weapons in the British arsenal?
Jesper Lykkeberg
Jesper Lykkeberg 2 ай бұрын
@First of it's kind If God ever said that he was lying.
First of it's kind
First of it's kind 2 ай бұрын
It's same as God says,"Never speak lie" but we all know we must lie in order to continue 😁
The King in Yellow
The King in Yellow 2 ай бұрын
Because in the real world you can't always do what you want. Ideology is laudable, but if you wish to survive you need to react pragmatically at times. edited for grammar
Karl hill
Karl hill 2 ай бұрын
Why would a small country like us want to get rid of its nuclear deterrent? That's the only thing stopping the Russians from steamrolling right through us! Why do some people(Scottish)fail to grasp that fact.
RhysandMike33 2 ай бұрын
Why do we have nuclear weapons? Cause why wouldn't we
Mike Armstrong
Mike Armstrong 2 ай бұрын
What a way to open a video. "This is the first atomic bomb successfully tested by the UK....". Soooo.....how many were unsuccessfully tested before that?
Michael Ай бұрын
The only thermonuclear weapon that produces a cup of tea.
Jun Bun
Jun Bun 2 ай бұрын
Why does Britain have nuclear weapons? The same reason USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, France, etc. etc. Because they can.
Jesper Lykkeberg
Jesper Lykkeberg 2 ай бұрын
Because they can? No. They can only claim to have nuclear weapons and their gullible citizens will believe it.
Archon 2 ай бұрын
But since you say Britain has the right to have nuclear weapons, so do the other countries who have them!
douglas todd
douglas todd 2 ай бұрын
THE NUKES USA DROPPED ON JAPAN were designed and developed mostly in UK to fit our aircraft , before USA joined us in WW2 somehow USA helped finish them then got us to hand them over but had a problem dropping them as they didn't fit their aircraft .
G&J 2 ай бұрын
@bighand69 this is Quote from Wikipedia "The Manhattan Project was a research and development undertaking during World War II that produced the first nuclear weapons. It was led by the United States with the support of the United Kingdom and Canada. From 1942 to 1946"
G&J 2 ай бұрын
@bighand69 yes and? D day planning started in January 1943 only 6 moths after Manhattan project started. when UK gave all research data to USA and send all scientists to USA to work on this project.
bighand69 2 ай бұрын
@G&J The Manhattan project started in 1942 D Day happened in 1944.
G&J 2 ай бұрын
@Buckhorn Cortez which book and written by which country 🤔. Fun fact is no unified history in this days. And half of history facts from ww2 era is still under classified stamp
Buckhorn Cortez
Buckhorn Cortez 2 ай бұрын
Try reading one or more histories of the atomic bomb development and you'll find out you're totally wrong. The only bomb that would not fit into a B29 without modifying the aircraft was the Thin Man. Thin Man was the original gun concept plutonium bomb that was 17-feet long. It would not fit into a standard B-29 dual bomb bay. This was remedied for the training B29s but a Thin Man bomb proved unworkable because the Pu239 had too much Pu240 which would have caused premature detonation with a gun-type bomb. This caused the development of the implosion bomb, Fat Man, which fit into the Silver Plate model B29 standard bomb bay.
Why the Falklands Conflict happened
Imperial War Museums
Рет қаралды 1,2 МЛН
Why testing Concorde took 7 years
Imperial War Museums
Рет қаралды 636 М.
deep fried bacon wrapped cheese #shorts
Zach Choi ASMR
Рет қаралды 40 МЛН
Жездуха 37-серия
Million Show
Рет қаралды 2,1 МЛН
Avro Vulcan: What made the Vulcan the best V bomber?
Imperial War Museums
Рет қаралды 1 МЛН
Why New York’s Billionaires’ Row Is Half Empty
The B1M
Рет қаралды 15 МЛН
How one mistake caused a convoy disaster
Imperial War Museums
Рет қаралды 81 М.
De Havilland Mosquito: The wooden fighter-bomber that could do it all
Imperial War Museums
Рет қаралды 1,9 МЛН
U.S. Strategic Nuclear Policy, An Oral History, Part 1
Sandia National Labs
Рет қаралды 923 М.
How Britain lost 'Fortress Singapore'
Imperial War Museums
Рет қаралды 539 М.
Turning point in the desert | The Second Battle of El Alamein
Imperial War Museums
Рет қаралды 299 М.
Why this 1950s British fighter was still serving in 2014
Imperial War Museums
Рет қаралды 608 М.
The reason Gallipoli failed
Imperial War Museums
Рет қаралды 955 М.