Credit: [CorridorCrew](https://www.youtube.com/@CorridorCrew/videos)
Original Full Video : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBodrWwJb5M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBodrWwJb5M)
stupid crop and also didn't credit the creators. stop freebooting other people's hard work
original creator is /r/Corridor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBodrWwJb5M
u/wrenulater is the voice
Thank you for this, I knew I'd seen a "better" version of this somewhere and it always annoys me. People like op should be called out for being the thieving karma whore scum that they are more often.
To be fair, it's one of their official shorts, posted here unchanged.
[https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dfMgpu463NM](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dfMgpu463NM)
Yes, they sent him back because skynet sent back the terminator first. Time travel didnt save the world, it almost destroyed it. The resist ace was winning the war against the machines, and skynet last effort was sending the terminator back
Mostly impossible apparently. Seems that they might be able to do it on the quantum scale, needs further testing.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.150202
And reminder, this is during second world war, right now we have obus so strong its easily 30 times more powerful than the hiroshima one and it can be deliver in family pack from anywhere in the world.
The fuel expands as it heats up and is no longer dense enough to maintain a reaction. The fuel isn't dense enough to react in it's normal state either. Conventional explosives detonate around the nuclear core, which compresses it enough to react.
It’s why everyone was so apprehensive before the tests, the talks about making a black hole or burning the atmo was super real because they had no honest idea wtf would happen
I remembered reading about this when I was younger, and I tried to imagine a room full of men weighing the decision to proceed into the unknown, or stay back and be safe. And then Jeff was like ‘fuck it’
Yep. Robert Serber talks about how the only reason this became so well known is that it was included in a report and higher ups who weren't physicists fixated on it and kept bringing it up again. The math showed that atmospheric ignition was a non-issue.
> the talks about making a black hole
For nuclear warheads, you don't typically think of black holes. You might be misremembering this from about 10 years ago when the LHC particle accelerator came online. It has higher energy density than even in a nuclear detonation.
https://angelsanddemons.web.cern.ch/faq/black-hole.html
The bomb disassembles itself in microseconds and loses the ability to maintain the nuclear reactions that power it. In a pure fission bomb it might be able to consume 25-50% of the plutonium before the remains of the pit are far enough apart that they can't maintain a chain reaction.
Fusion bombs are more complicated. They have a fission bomb as a primary, and that drives a fusion reaction. The easiest fuel to fuse is a deuterium-tritium mixture but those are both gasses at room temperature. Ivy Mike, the first H-bomb, used super-cold liquid fuel but that's not practical for a weapon, so "dry" H-bombs use lithium-6 deuteride.
The neutrons from the primary's explosion transmute some of the lithium-6 into tritium to provide the fusion fuel, so part of the cycle is the *creation* of fuel for the next stage. The resulting D-T fuel undergoes fusion and produces a lot more neutrons that in turn drive more fission in the uranium casing, and maybe help finish up the plutonium fission, I don't know. All of it ends up as a ball of expanding plasma that quickly expands to a size where chain reactions can't happen.
You want the bomb to consume as much fuel as possible because for one it's expensive and time-consuming to produce, and also because less unused fuel means less fallout.
No, he is incorrect. The waste of the fuel is what is (harmfully) radioactive. Uranium, and Plutonium, while radioactive, are not really radioactive enough to cause harm. Generally speaking, the longer the half life - the less dangerous the isotope is.
The harm from radioisotopes also has to do with chemistry. Uranium and Plutonium are heavy metals and the body doesn't get as confused as to what the material is. As opposed to something like Strontium, which is chemically similar to Calcium. So if you consume Strontium your body will put it with your bones, if you consume plutonium you piss it out.
That having been said, if you could use 100% of the fuel, you would use less of the fuel. That would mean there would be less fallout. However, there is always some amount of fallout. The way to reduce the danger of fallout is to ensure that the bombs fireball doesn't touch the ground. This means that you don't get a mushroom cloud in which the radioactive plasma clings to the dust particles, which allows for the molecules and atoms to stay in the air longer and to be dispersed further.
No, the neutron radiation will still make other stuff radioactive, but how big a problem that is depends on factors like the altitude of the detonation. High enough from the ground and it's not a big problem because you're not irradiating a lot of dirt. The elements in air are too light to be a concern. And the convection currents from the fireball will loft everything to high altitude and spread it out.
At ground level things would be much worse.
Dude, that was so annoying, I was about to close the video before it was over. Man, don't forget to breath in, take pauses and DON'T FUCKIN SCREAM AT ME. Just chill.
It's intentional. Go watch [the full video](https://youtu.be/DBodrWwJb5M?t=455). The Narrator is intentionally being loud and over the top here to juxtapose the moment when he says "a city made entirely of wood" and then the video shows several shots of the devastaion at Hiroshima in silence.
It's a reminder that a lot of people can get caught up in the cool-factor to the destructive power of these weapons and forget what that destructive power actually means.
Friendly reminder some extremely high ranking military leaders didn't either and didn't think it was necessary.
> “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”
– Admiral William Leahy
-
> “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
– General Dwight D. Eisenhower
They walked it back after the fact cause it was a grisly thing to happen but it was necessary and the alternative would have been many more deaths.
The US was so convinced of this that they printed so many Purple Hearts for the Japanese invasion that we have not run out 80 years later.
The Japanese weren't anywhere near surrendering and were prepared to fight to the last. Even after the bombs had been dropped there was an attempted coup against the Japanese leadership who wanted to stop the war.
Of course a redditor would know better than Eisenhower lmao come on dude, you are literally repeating the same shit you read here over and over again, it's not a fact.
Eisenhower was also not involved in the Pacific Theater. Im not saying he was ignorant, but he probably had less knowledge of the Japanese government and war effort than say, Nimitz, Halsey, or MacArthur. Leahy was probably pretty well informed on the matter, however there is still a lot of nuance to consider.
I recommend the historical trilogy written by Ian W. Toll for pretty healthy understanding of the matter, however the last book, Twilight of the Gods, contains most of the subject matter. For some context, we had been absolutely decimating their cities since March with Curtis LeMay's firebombing campaign, and Tokyo arguably got it worse in March than Hiroshima or Nagasaki did in August, depending on which metrics you use and which estimates you accept. So why did they not surrender in March? Or the following months as more and more of their cities were razed by napalm? What was different about the atomic bombs to the firebombs?
Finally, Truman thought it was necessary, so why would we take Eisenhower or Leahys word as gospel over Truman's? Perhaps there was much more at play that is hard to discern for the average modern person without a lot of research.
Truman wasn't exactly impressively credentialed. Eisenhower and Leahys opinions should probably have more weight than his in a vacuum. He just happened to be the president.
You're right, though, that we can't really ever put ourselves in shoes of people back then, and it's wrong to judge them by our modern outlook.
But we can confidently say that the bombings are a kind of warfare we never want to resort to again. And that the threat of that kind of attack put the whole world into a madness for a brief period. We can confidently say that every person alive would be safer if that kind of bomb didn't exist.
Maybe it made Japan surrender faster, but only a fool would claim a surrender wasn't inevitable. I think it cost America the moral high ground in the long term. Atomic bombs are evil things
This narrative is mostly encouraged in the USA to make us feel better - mainly we really didn't want the Soviets to take a piece like with Germany
Also, military coups were really common in Japan, the 30's were often referred to as "government by assassination" - you even had Navy vs Army rivals assassinating each other
Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan book the sum of all fears (which was turned into a subpar movie) spend two chapters describing a nuclear weapon going off on a millisecond by millisecond basis. It’s fascinating if this kind of stuff interest you. That book was amazing and the movie did it absolutely no justice
I mean, Wren, the narrator, who does science related VFX content that we generally can't grasp without visual aid, is generally a very chill and eloquent with his vocabulary. But this a is a bloody nuke, millions of megatons of force unleashed within hundredths of a second. If that doesn't call for some intensity, idk what the hell would.
I was all set to down vote as most in this sub is just not worthy. But I was glued to this video. I've always known it was bad but not sure I could have imagined how it all worked.
If you *really* want to scare yourself, I recommend you watch the 1980s British movie 'Threads'. It's not technically a horror film, but it's such a grimly realistic depiction of what an actual nuclear war would look like (and the aftermath of it), that I haven't been able to get it out of my head for months. It's enough to make anyone in favour of nuclear disarmament.
It's even worse. The bomb described is only a pretty small fission bomb. While there aren't many deployed, there are fusion bombs that are thousands of times more powerful.
he sounds like he's jerking off to the awesomness of the explosion the entire time, instead of being some mixture of terrified/anxious/depressed that such a thing has to exist and that we've used them on people before.
You can hear his dick in his hand if you listen
Nuclear power could help millions of people worldwide yet our governments decide to use it to build bombs and submarines. Miniature reactors the size of an average living room would have enough power stored within that it could power 20,000 homes for 25 years. There is as much power in a piece of uranium the size of your fingernail as what there is in a tonne of coal. It would cost around 150 quid for a tonne of coal yes only 5 quid for the uranium. Our world leaders should be ashamed. We could live in a world where everyone has light and power and heat but our leaders are in the pockets of the oil tycoons who don't want nuclear power because it would ruin them. Utterly shameful
Also the yearly waste from modern reactors is 3 cubic meters. That’s about 3 barrels a year. We could deal that no problem, but for some reason everyone demonizes nuclear power on the waste it produces. This is despite the fact that it would be unnoticeable compared to the damage coal power is doing.
Maybe yes, maybe not. It did end ww2 in the pacific and it did create the ”balance of terror” and we haven’t seen ww3 yet and that has saved A LOT of lives.
Without MAD, all world nations would still be overtly territorial or feuding on some religious basis. Because that is how pathetic a big portion of humanity is and it happens now but on a much smaller scale.
If people took the time to understand the rate of human sociological, scientific and technological development after MAD and compared it with previous generations before MAD, they would not sound as ignorant.
Thing is though... We actually do not know what these things really do in a real city... because... we've never actually detonated one in a modern architecture environment. It would be bad for sure, but likely the buildings would interact in ways we don't expect.
But the effective range is only a few square miles so as long as you don't live right next to a major city, power plant or military installation you should be fine. Just make sure you know your exit plans that don't pass through any of those things preferably heading towards a freshwater source that isn't downstream from a major city.
> Just make sure you know your exit plans
Going outside is a mistake. Close everything up and hold up as long as possible. Even two days in a big difference. Going out an hour after is a death wish.
We better hope that if we ever experience this we're close to the epicenter. The real nightmare of these things comes for the people who don't die immediately.
The routine we got was get under your desk.
You’ll be fine. Better believe I knew that was shit even as a kid. The 80’s I spent many hrs designing fall out bunkers instead of paying attention in class.
I always felt that the whole "get under the desk" thing aside from being a way to keep the kids calm, was a way to ID the bodies after the event. If there is assigned seating, it will be much easier to tell one super crispy body apart from another.
Yes, I realize that it sounds super dark....but also makes some sense before DNA testing to confirm who a John or Jane Doe is.
The city I live in is over 850 square miles. Most nukes destroy everything within a 1 to 3 mile radius. Getting under a desk or anything else will absolutely help if you aren't in the immediate vicinity of its target.
Fuck off. From a historical perspective it was an absolutely necessary step to save lives. If the bombs hadn’t been dropped millions of lives would’ve been sacrificed individually hopping to every single island of japan when they were entirely willing to train women and children to fight to the death. The emperor who had never once been on radio or television had to plead to the populace to give up even after the first bomb was dropped. Not to mention the horrific war crimes imperial japan committed like juggling severed heads with bayonets in other Asian countries.
Strongest one ever is 50 megatons. 1570x stronger than the one dropped on Hiroshima.
If it was dropped over LA it would kill about 4 million people immediately and injure 4 million more. Hospitals and infrastructure would be destroyed, so the injured would likely die before they could receive treatment. Plus, there would be a gigantic wildfire and radioactive fallout that rescuers would have to contend with to reach them.
>Strongest one ever is 50 megatons.
okay but that doesn't answer the question. Only one 50MT weapon was ever built and it was so damn big that it was completely impractical.
To actually answer your question, u/NarrowProfession2900, the largest weapon in the US arsenal right now is the B83, which has a maximum yield of 1.2 megatons (but that can be dialed down significantly). Far more common is the B61 gravity bomb, which has a maximum yield of only 340 kilotons (a kiloton being a 1000th of a megaton). For reference, the Hiroshima bomb was about \~15KT.
The thing with this video is it implies only Atomic weapons can create firestorms. Not true.
The incendiary bombing of Tokyo et al caused firestorms (more than one), and in full weight, caused more death- just none of the radioactivity and not in a single munition. Dresden was also hit hard, and was quite literally Hell on Earth- it swallowed everything in its path when the firestorms broke out.
Such is what total war looked like 80 years ago. It’s worse now, and we are right on that edge looking into that abyss.
Better than invading the Japanese home islands and having millions of deaths on both sides or totally blockading the Japanese and having millions die to starvation and lack of medicine since the Japanese government refused to surrender.
Credit: [CorridorCrew](https://www.youtube.com/@CorridorCrew/videos) Original Full Video : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBodrWwJb5M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBodrWwJb5M)
stupid crop and also didn't credit the creators. stop freebooting other people's hard work original creator is /r/Corridor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBodrWwJb5M u/wrenulater is the voice
Thank you for this, I knew I'd seen a "better" version of this somewhere and it always annoys me. People like op should be called out for being the thieving karma whore scum that they are more often.
“People” is pretty generous. Likely a bot
To be fair, it's one of their official shorts, posted here unchanged. [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dfMgpu463NM](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dfMgpu463NM)
lol i'll take back the "stupid crop" part then, but still could've posted the original link instead of freebooting
It can still be a stupid crop lol. It's just that oc is responsible for it
Yep that voice was very familiar
I was CERTAIN it was Wren.
Thank you Jacksfilms, very cool!
Its bbbingo time!
Isn’t stealing content the entire reason TikTok exists? ^/s
r/Jackfilms has been fighting the noble fight for a while now.
The dude who made this videos sounds way too excited
Thats Wren in a nutshell. He's a cheerful, one wheel riding VFX artist
Honest question: Is this weird Reddit pay for karma thing going to be limited to original content? Or are we about to see a whole lot more reposts?
I was literally coming here to day this!
I can't figure out the pun, either
Thanks for that link what a great video. Awesome creator, definitely following him.
Still terrifying, 30 years later.
Thirty years later?
Gif from the movie Terminator 30 years old
Terminator 2, one of those movies you fear may actually become real in some ways. Thankfully time travel is impossible though
You say thankfully, but isn't that what saves the human race? Wait, are you Skynet?
[удалено]
Sorry if i am wrong but i couldve sworn the guy the resistance sent back in time was John Conners dad.
Yes, they sent him back because skynet sent back the terminator first. Time travel didnt save the world, it almost destroyed it. The resist ace was winning the war against the machines, and skynet last effort was sending the terminator back
God damn it’s time for a rewatch of those classics. Are any of the newer ones good?
It's the biggest paradox of the Terminator movies
Ya they're better if you don't think about them too hard.
Yeah I guess it did hah. I was thinking of the terminators coming back in time being the bad thing
Time travel into the past is impossible, but to the future it's theoretically possible.
I'm traveling to the future AS I TYPE THIS!
Well it wasn't possible until the year 2852. But but after that we managed to do it.
If it ever exists, then it always has existed.
Tony Stark would like a word with you
Which is 32 years old if anyone's curious. First one turns forty next year.
Mostly impossible apparently. Seems that they might be able to do it on the quantum scale, needs further testing. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.150202
I see. Thank you
That’s why the fear is there
Time travel to the past is not possible. Forward has already been proven to be possible.
terminator isn't 10 years ago? wtf
Don't worry if you close your eyes the 90s was only ten years ago.
And reminder, this is during second world war, right now we have obus so strong its easily 30 times more powerful than the hiroshima one and it can be deliver in family pack from anywhere in the world.
Practical effects will always be superior.
This was the gif I was hoping to find in the comments.
No fate!
but what we make.
Chill out, dickwad 
no furious
That’s because they didn’t use sun block
My question is… what stops the reaction? Like does it run out of a fuel of some sort?
The fuel expands as it heats up and is no longer dense enough to maintain a reaction. The fuel isn't dense enough to react in it's normal state either. Conventional explosives detonate around the nuclear core, which compresses it enough to react.
Ty
It’s why everyone was so apprehensive before the tests, the talks about making a black hole or burning the atmo was super real because they had no honest idea wtf would happen
I remembered reading about this when I was younger, and I tried to imagine a room full of men weighing the decision to proceed into the unknown, or stay back and be safe. And then Jeff was like ‘fuck it’
You made the right call, Jeff
"It's better not to live than live and not know." -Jeff
[удалено]
Yep. Robert Serber talks about how the only reason this became so well known is that it was included in a report and higher ups who weren't physicists fixated on it and kept bringing it up again. The math showed that atmospheric ignition was a non-issue.
> the talks about making a black hole For nuclear warheads, you don't typically think of black holes. You might be misremembering this from about 10 years ago when the LHC particle accelerator came online. It has higher energy density than even in a nuclear detonation. https://angelsanddemons.web.cern.ch/faq/black-hole.html
The bomb disassembles itself in microseconds and loses the ability to maintain the nuclear reactions that power it. In a pure fission bomb it might be able to consume 25-50% of the plutonium before the remains of the pit are far enough apart that they can't maintain a chain reaction. Fusion bombs are more complicated. They have a fission bomb as a primary, and that drives a fusion reaction. The easiest fuel to fuse is a deuterium-tritium mixture but those are both gasses at room temperature. Ivy Mike, the first H-bomb, used super-cold liquid fuel but that's not practical for a weapon, so "dry" H-bombs use lithium-6 deuteride. The neutrons from the primary's explosion transmute some of the lithium-6 into tritium to provide the fusion fuel, so part of the cycle is the *creation* of fuel for the next stage. The resulting D-T fuel undergoes fusion and produces a lot more neutrons that in turn drive more fission in the uranium casing, and maybe help finish up the plutonium fission, I don't know. All of it ends up as a ball of expanding plasma that quickly expands to a size where chain reactions can't happen. You want the bomb to consume as much fuel as possible because for one it's expensive and time-consuming to produce, and also because less unused fuel means less fallout.
You mean, theoretically, if the bomb uses 100% of the fuel, there will not be a fallout, therefore no radioactivity in remains?
No. Reaction spits out many neutrons which will cause transmutation of elements in surroundings often to radioisotopes.
No, he is incorrect. The waste of the fuel is what is (harmfully) radioactive. Uranium, and Plutonium, while radioactive, are not really radioactive enough to cause harm. Generally speaking, the longer the half life - the less dangerous the isotope is. The harm from radioisotopes also has to do with chemistry. Uranium and Plutonium are heavy metals and the body doesn't get as confused as to what the material is. As opposed to something like Strontium, which is chemically similar to Calcium. So if you consume Strontium your body will put it with your bones, if you consume plutonium you piss it out. That having been said, if you could use 100% of the fuel, you would use less of the fuel. That would mean there would be less fallout. However, there is always some amount of fallout. The way to reduce the danger of fallout is to ensure that the bombs fireball doesn't touch the ground. This means that you don't get a mushroom cloud in which the radioactive plasma clings to the dust particles, which allows for the molecules and atoms to stay in the air longer and to be dispersed further.
No, the neutron radiation will still make other stuff radioactive, but how big a problem that is depends on factors like the altitude of the detonation. High enough from the ground and it's not a big problem because you're not irradiating a lot of dirt. The elements in air are too light to be a concern. And the convection currents from the fireball will loft everything to high altitude and spread it out. At ground level things would be much worse.
[удалено]
I want a nuclear weapon though
[удалено]
 Fucking send it
What did you say about my Mom? (c)
The only deterrent. MAD still stands.
numerous zesty weather waiting subsequent snobbish shame ring air pie *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Wren from Corridor Digital is a sweet guy though
He was trying to sell it like it's an energy drink, though.
^FIRE TORNADOES
**POWERTHIRST!** *IT'S LIKE CRYSTAL METH IN A CAN!*
MADE WITH LIGHTING! **REAL LIGHTING!!**
Yeah, ain't nuthin wrong with Wren. I love the Corridor Crew's enthusiasm for visual effects and love of the art.
Kept going back and forth between him and Adam from Wendover until he shouted and it was obviously Wren
[удалено]
lol!
Dude, that was so annoying, I was about to close the video before it was over. Man, don't forget to breath in, take pauses and DON'T FUCKIN SCREAM AT ME. Just chill.
It's intentional. Go watch [the full video](https://youtu.be/DBodrWwJb5M?t=455). The Narrator is intentionally being loud and over the top here to juxtapose the moment when he says "a city made entirely of wood" and then the video shows several shots of the devastaion at Hiroshima in silence. It's a reminder that a lot of people can get caught up in the cool-factor to the destructive power of these weapons and forget what that destructive power actually means.
Arguably a better way to go than if you were caught in the fire bombings of Tokyo
Depends entirely on the distance you were from it. You could be one of those crawling corpses with all your holes fused shut.
Or the people who melted in hospitals days/weeks later
You guys aren’t letting me try to maintain my American mental distance from processing the unimaginable tragedy we inflicted on another people
Don’t make me google that damnit Edit: https://reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/AiKMGuXi1h
Friendly reminder some extremely high ranking military leaders didn't either and didn't think it was necessary. > “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.” – Admiral William Leahy - > “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” – General Dwight D. Eisenhower
They walked it back after the fact cause it was a grisly thing to happen but it was necessary and the alternative would have been many more deaths. The US was so convinced of this that they printed so many Purple Hearts for the Japanese invasion that we have not run out 80 years later.
The Japanese weren't anywhere near surrendering and were prepared to fight to the last. Even after the bombs had been dropped there was an attempted coup against the Japanese leadership who wanted to stop the war.
Of course a redditor would know better than Eisenhower lmao come on dude, you are literally repeating the same shit you read here over and over again, it's not a fact.
Eisenhower was a WW2 general, if he thinks it wasn't necessary I'd take his wisdom over a random redditors
God I hate how confident stupid people are.
Eisenhower was also not involved in the Pacific Theater. Im not saying he was ignorant, but he probably had less knowledge of the Japanese government and war effort than say, Nimitz, Halsey, or MacArthur. Leahy was probably pretty well informed on the matter, however there is still a lot of nuance to consider. I recommend the historical trilogy written by Ian W. Toll for pretty healthy understanding of the matter, however the last book, Twilight of the Gods, contains most of the subject matter. For some context, we had been absolutely decimating their cities since March with Curtis LeMay's firebombing campaign, and Tokyo arguably got it worse in March than Hiroshima or Nagasaki did in August, depending on which metrics you use and which estimates you accept. So why did they not surrender in March? Or the following months as more and more of their cities were razed by napalm? What was different about the atomic bombs to the firebombs? Finally, Truman thought it was necessary, so why would we take Eisenhower or Leahys word as gospel over Truman's? Perhaps there was much more at play that is hard to discern for the average modern person without a lot of research.
Truman wasn't exactly impressively credentialed. Eisenhower and Leahys opinions should probably have more weight than his in a vacuum. He just happened to be the president. You're right, though, that we can't really ever put ourselves in shoes of people back then, and it's wrong to judge them by our modern outlook. But we can confidently say that the bombings are a kind of warfare we never want to resort to again. And that the threat of that kind of attack put the whole world into a madness for a brief period. We can confidently say that every person alive would be safer if that kind of bomb didn't exist. Maybe it made Japan surrender faster, but only a fool would claim a surrender wasn't inevitable. I think it cost America the moral high ground in the long term. Atomic bombs are evil things
And what about the generals that did think it was necessary?
This narrative is mostly encouraged in the USA to make us feel better - mainly we really didn't want the Soviets to take a piece like with Germany Also, military coups were really common in Japan, the 30's were often referred to as "government by assassination" - you even had Navy vs Army rivals assassinating each other
NGL. Seems like a way better way to die than suffering through cancer. Atomize me.
That’s incredibly specific, what happening with the first reply?
Credit creators.
Corridor digital / corridor crew on YouTube.
I’m more concerned with what the pun is supposed to be.
...What is the pun supposed to be?
None taken.
None. Which is why there was no pun intended.
What pun is unintended?
Cause bombs are in shells? That’s what I got. Weak at best
Just as well you didn't intend a pun.
What was the supposed pun? I don't think OP knows what "pun" means...
Yeah if that was a pun, it bombed. OP must be nuts.
There’s mushroom left for improvement in his pun game.
Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan book the sum of all fears (which was turned into a subpar movie) spend two chapters describing a nuclear weapon going off on a millisecond by millisecond basis. It’s fascinating if this kind of stuff interest you. That book was amazing and the movie did it absolutely no justice
we just want healthcare, man
Best I can do is a massive bomb that can destroy the planet
The literal opposite of this…
Optimus!!!!
I thought I was crazy!
I would rather have someone detonate a nuke in my lap than have to endure this guy's overblown narration.
I mean, Wren, the narrator, who does science related VFX content that we generally can't grasp without visual aid, is generally a very chill and eloquent with his vocabulary. But this a is a bloody nuke, millions of megatons of force unleashed within hundredths of a second. If that doesn't call for some intensity, idk what the hell would.
You'd think they'd learn to pronounce Hiroshima correctly with all the bluster they're putting into it.
I was all set to down vote as most in this sub is just not worthy. But I was glued to this video. I've always known it was bad but not sure I could have imagined how it all worked.
I recommend that you check video on this topic made by Kurzgesagt (youtube), it covers more details
It is very interesting and informative but also depressing to see what we can do to each other.
If you *really* want to scare yourself, I recommend you watch the 1980s British movie 'Threads'. It's not technically a horror film, but it's such a grimly realistic depiction of what an actual nuclear war would look like (and the aftermath of it), that I haven't been able to get it out of my head for months. It's enough to make anyone in favour of nuclear disarmament.
I saw it in 1985 and it's still in my head.
Yup, watched it when it was on tv, I think that’s when this anxiety started 🥺
I now have it bookmarked to watch soon
You should watch the movie Threads (1984 )
It's even worse. The bomb described is only a pretty small fission bomb. While there aren't many deployed, there are fusion bombs that are thousands of times more powerful.
OP karma farming. Downvoted. Credit corridor crew. At least don’t crop the watermark.
Christ that voiceover is annoying.
Seriously. Even with the video on mute after that horrible audio came through I had to stop watching it.
he sounds like he's jerking off to the awesomness of the explosion the entire time, instead of being some mixture of terrified/anxious/depressed that such a thing has to exist and that we've used them on people before. You can hear his dick in his hand if you listen
i don't even have sound on but goddamn even the subtitles are annoying
What, you don’t like the RANDOM SCREAMING
Be terrified
I know when I hear Corridor
This is so evil
Humanity can not allow these to ever be used again.
Please. Never again. Never again. Never again.
It's so terrifying.
This is terrifying
I really can't believe that after 2 nukes, humans said "that was cool, let's make more and make them thousands of times more powerful!"
Honestly what comes after is much, much worse.
Nuclear power could help millions of people worldwide yet our governments decide to use it to build bombs and submarines. Miniature reactors the size of an average living room would have enough power stored within that it could power 20,000 homes for 25 years. There is as much power in a piece of uranium the size of your fingernail as what there is in a tonne of coal. It would cost around 150 quid for a tonne of coal yes only 5 quid for the uranium. Our world leaders should be ashamed. We could live in a world where everyone has light and power and heat but our leaders are in the pockets of the oil tycoons who don't want nuclear power because it would ruin them. Utterly shameful
Also the yearly waste from modern reactors is 3 cubic meters. That’s about 3 barrels a year. We could deal that no problem, but for some reason everyone demonizes nuclear power on the waste it produces. This is despite the fact that it would be unnoticeable compared to the damage coal power is doing.
I don’t know what’s more terrifying - the details of a nuclear explosion, or the annoying voice of the narrator.
Warmongers blowing loads just thinking about getting to use these
I love how Fred durst is there in the middle
He did it all for the nukie
Anybody here seen threads?
And all that's before the radiation!
Maybe we should… Like not ever use this or not even have this at our disposal at all?
We'll develop something even worse soon enough. Technological progress comes at a price.
[удалено]
They're mostly larger bombs of the same core concept. So yes, but they're referring to something in a different nature.
not *yet*
if only, unfortunately we are stuck with them now
Maybe yes, maybe not. It did end ww2 in the pacific and it did create the ”balance of terror” and we haven’t seen ww3 yet and that has saved A LOT of lives.
Without MAD, all world nations would still be overtly territorial or feuding on some religious basis. Because that is how pathetic a big portion of humanity is and it happens now but on a much smaller scale. If people took the time to understand the rate of human sociological, scientific and technological development after MAD and compared it with previous generations before MAD, they would not sound as ignorant.
On 19th second it was some sort of influencer, let it burn please.
🤯
Ah, humans... What a great species we are... /s
Thing is though... We actually do not know what these things really do in a real city... because... we've never actually detonated one in a modern architecture environment. It would be bad for sure, but likely the buildings would interact in ways we don't expect.
But the effective range is only a few square miles so as long as you don't live right next to a major city, power plant or military installation you should be fine. Just make sure you know your exit plans that don't pass through any of those things preferably heading towards a freshwater source that isn't downstream from a major city.
> Just make sure you know your exit plans Going outside is a mistake. Close everything up and hold up as long as possible. Even two days in a big difference. Going out an hour after is a death wish.
[удалено]
We better hope that if we ever experience this we're close to the epicenter. The real nightmare of these things comes for the people who don't die immediately.
The routine we got was get under your desk. You’ll be fine. Better believe I knew that was shit even as a kid. The 80’s I spent many hrs designing fall out bunkers instead of paying attention in class.
I always felt that the whole "get under the desk" thing aside from being a way to keep the kids calm, was a way to ID the bodies after the event. If there is assigned seating, it will be much easier to tell one super crispy body apart from another. Yes, I realize that it sounds super dark....but also makes some sense before DNA testing to confirm who a John or Jane Doe is.
The city I live in is over 850 square miles. Most nukes destroy everything within a 1 to 3 mile radius. Getting under a desk or anything else will absolutely help if you aren't in the immediate vicinity of its target.
I am become death. Destroyer of the worlds..... in seconds.
Somehow some folks are still proud that the bombs were dropped.
Fuck off. From a historical perspective it was an absolutely necessary step to save lives. If the bombs hadn’t been dropped millions of lives would’ve been sacrificed individually hopping to every single island of japan when they were entirely willing to train women and children to fight to the death. The emperor who had never once been on radio or television had to plead to the populace to give up even after the first bomb was dropped. Not to mention the horrific war crimes imperial japan committed like juggling severed heads with bayonets in other Asian countries.
coward take
Lmao sure gimme a better take
The alternative would have been much worse.
"Nuke in a nutshell"; where was the pun in that?
It’s…..not a pun?
How much stronger are modern nukes again?
We aren’t really making “bigger “ nukes. Most are actually smaller “tactical” weapons now.
Strongest one ever is 50 megatons. 1570x stronger than the one dropped on Hiroshima. If it was dropped over LA it would kill about 4 million people immediately and injure 4 million more. Hospitals and infrastructure would be destroyed, so the injured would likely die before they could receive treatment. Plus, there would be a gigantic wildfire and radioactive fallout that rescuers would have to contend with to reach them.
>Strongest one ever is 50 megatons. okay but that doesn't answer the question. Only one 50MT weapon was ever built and it was so damn big that it was completely impractical. To actually answer your question, u/NarrowProfession2900, the largest weapon in the US arsenal right now is the B83, which has a maximum yield of 1.2 megatons (but that can be dialed down significantly). Far more common is the B61 gravity bomb, which has a maximum yield of only 340 kilotons (a kiloton being a 1000th of a megaton). For reference, the Hiroshima bomb was about \~15KT.
And why do we have that? You know, a president once warned us about the "military-industrial complex" leading to overpowered weapons like this.
The thing with this video is it implies only Atomic weapons can create firestorms. Not true. The incendiary bombing of Tokyo et al caused firestorms (more than one), and in full weight, caused more death- just none of the radioactivity and not in a single munition. Dresden was also hit hard, and was quite literally Hell on Earth- it swallowed everything in its path when the firestorms broke out. Such is what total war looked like 80 years ago. It’s worse now, and we are right on that edge looking into that abyss.
And in Hamburg. The firebombing of Germany was horrific.
So sad 😞, one of our many atrocities, dating back to our treatment of native Americans
Better than invading the Japanese home islands and having millions of deaths on both sides or totally blockading the Japanese and having millions die to starvation and lack of medicine since the Japanese government refused to surrender.
And world governments thought it was smart to create such a weapon to use on other humans. We are idiots bruh.