Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Russia Backs Away From Nuclear Test Ban Treaty || Peter Zeihan" video.

  1. The US regularly tests all the systems from National Command Authority to the simultaneous detonation of the surrounding high explosives of a warhead, without a warhead present of course. The implosion device high explosives triggers are measured during these tests, as are the radioactivity of the warheads in their storage sites. Nuclear warheads are physically hot and have to be kept in special storage, including the ones in missiles that are ready to launch. They have an operational lifespan that is recorded so they can be replaced at the appropriate intervals. We regularly test that everything is in working order. The sealant on ICBM motors degrades and the SRMs have to be replaced at great cost as well. We have multiple types of delivery systems and warheads: 1. Silo-based ICBMs 2. Submarine -launched ICBMs 3. Air-Launched Cruise Missiles 4. Surface -to-surface cruise missiles 5. Gravity bomb nukes 6. Others
    2
  2. It triggers an internal collapse of the system due to a literal power vacuum.
    1
  3. ​ @marcusaustralius2416 If one side has functional, proven nuclear weapons, and the other doesn't, the one with nukes doesn't need to waste its human resources on you. It can dictate you politically.
    1
  4. ​ @WayneTheSeine Communism has killed more people than all the religious wars combined.
    1
  5. ​ @danielvella2549 It's the West's fault Putin ordered his military forces to invade Ukraine?
    1
  6. ​ @davidanon1568 Putin paid the Clintons $363 million to gain access to Uranium One, just as one factor in that. There is a lot going on behind the scenes that isn't reported.
    1
  7.  @izzytoons  The US was never a signatory to Geneva Convention. CIA private contractors were doing really stupid interrogation techniques that everyone in that community knows don't work. Why? Remember that CIA had 200 double agents in its ranks in 1947, all working for the Soviets.
    1
  8.  @ГеоргийИванов-й6ю9ш  One of my contacts in the Russian Foreign Ministry was running his mouth about how they were going to take everything back. This was in the early 2000s, as we had the discussion with an intermediary in 2007 when I brought up the subject of the risks vs rewards of Finland joining NATO. It was explained at the time that Russia would interpret a Finnish NATO membership as a hostile action, which would accelerate the invasion of Finland on a timeline, but Russia planned to take Finland either way, along with the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, and any former Czarist or Soviet satellites. I put a pin in that conversation thinking it was notable, but also possibly an old Soviet blow-hard who was casting his own desires on the new Putin Presidency. He was reprimanded by his superiors though for running his mouth too much about the new Putin foreign policies, because Putin was pretending to be peaceful at that time. In summer of 2008, I was in Estonia finishing up the Erna Raid competition as an observer-controller when Russia invaded Georgia. The rest is history, as they say.
    1