lou with

ah, last year the world 9 nuclear arms states spend over $82000000000.00 collectively on their nuclear arsenal. now that is a dramatic increase from the previous year and shows that despite the calls to di, arm states have continued to embed and modernize their arsenal. at the top of this list is the u. s. spending $44200000000.00 on a nuclear weapon. china is 2nd at $11700000000.00, and russia is 3rd with $8600000000.00. but why does country need so many missiles and what are the chances that they end up being used in nuclear complex? i'm pissed the i and you're watching the cost of everything. where today we're going to be discussing the economic ramifications of a nuclear escalation. ah, the countries continue to

stop power. nuclear missiles falling, america's lead america justifies the $3800.00 warhead arsenal, under the theory of deterrence, sending a message that us, which holly ation would be so awful, that it shouldn't be provoked in the 1st place. but for practical purposes, there is no reason for this massive arsenal. once you've dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on a city, a couple more will just make the rubble shake. building nuclear weapons is expensive and requires technical expertise. nuclear weapons have 2 basic parts. the warheads and the delivery system. now 1st, to build the warhead, the most important components is enriched uranium. the visible isotope uranium $235.00, which makes up less than one percent of natural uranium must be separated from uranium to $38.00,

which is the more common isotope the your am needs to be refined to concentration of at least 80 percent to be considered weapons grade via a gas centrifuge process. a nuclear bomb needs about 15 kilograms of enriched uranium to be opperation all. and one kilogram of uranium $235.00 costs about $15000000.00. now possessing fissile material is not enough though. next, a country also has to master design and manufacture of a bomb. now this is a significant hurdle, as there are delivery system and that nation devices as conventional missiles cannot carry the extra weight of a nuclear warhead. the u. s. has bombs that can be delivered by aircraft, or air launched cruise missiles and submarines. these delivery systems are more expensive with systems like the minute man's land based missile costing over $50000000.00. the cost of deploying $1.00 land based nuclear weapon would be roughly $85000000.00. the tried in summary and based missile cost,

a $140000000.00 a piece. and finally, the be to stealth bomber air launch missiles cost, roughly $270000000.00. now for more, let's bring in activists and journalist patrick masa. so patrick, given the path we are on today, do you think that we are rationing up tensions? are we still trying to keep everything at a low simmer? so it doesn't come to a head? and do you think it's even possible to keep everything contained so that we don't come too ahead? well, when you look at the pathway in the ukraine more, it seems that both sides are on an escalation neither side seems, seems willing or able to get off that escalation. so it's very concerning and how far it goes is, is anyone's guess. we know that there are nato troops,

us troops training in, in romania right now, and poland close to ukraine. if in any way they, they cross the border into ukraine, all bets are off. i don't believe that nuclear there that nuclear war is necessarily going to break out. the russians have many military options right now beyond that are far, even though that don't involve nuclear, nuclear weapons they, they have only used a portion of their, of their military power. and they have an interest in not using nuclear weapons because it would strain their alliances with china, their friendly relations with countries of the global south, such as india and turkey. and they,

they really don't have an interest in setting off a nuclear weapon close to their own borders where the radiation would simply blow over back to their own people. however, there is a danger in, in, in that many times in the past we have come close to nuclear war by mis miscommunication. misconception. there are there, there is what we have just noted the 60th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis, where it was negotiated through diplomacy, the removal of human mis, of harmony of soviet missiles in cuba. we had another incident which was less well known, which i had written about recently at my, at my blog, the at the raven blog, which is the abel archer, incident of 1983 we're the russians. the soviets thought us and nato

were preparing a 1st strife on the soviet union, under the cover of a, of a nuclear exercise, mimicking nuclear war. and they were prepared to strike at the least sign that, that the u. s. was ready to launch us weapons. we've had incidence in, in a, in, in our us nuclear alert system where there have been foss alerts based on a war games tape being placed in, in the computer or a failure of a micro chip. which in this current environment. and if there was a, if there was a false alert showing on nuclear missiles going over the over the poll from either side, it could trigger a nuclear war. so that's, that's my greatest fear is, is war by miscommunication. ah,

by misconstruing the other, which is why whatever our differences are with the ukraine war, we need to be talking to each other. we need to make sure we're in contact with each other to. and so we know each side knows the other's intention. if there is a limited nuclear war, where can it be and what, when the economic cost b, i don't think there can be a limited nuclear war. and i think it's just school shove us to think their candy. um, wargames consistently have shown that it's hard to start once you, once you start that, once you start on an escalation pathway, um it's hard sharp. and there is this phenomenon with, with the, the ground based intercontinental ballistic missiles, with the ground based bombers of use it or lose it. if one site feels the other

side is ready to attack or believes it is under attack, it has to launch its missiles and get its bombers in the air quickly, or the or they will be lost, especially true of the missiles. this is a matter of minutes decision. so that makes it very dangerous. so even the possibility that a, what i mean the, the policy makers of both sides actually do form their policy on the basis. they think there can be a limit of nuclear war. but if we have even the, the, the smallest potential that a, that a so called limited nuclear war could escalate, we should not be, we shouldn't be planning for that. we shouldn't be thinking about that. so i would say that the cost of any nuclear war is incalculable.

but we can see flash points in, in ukraine. we can see flash points around taiwan and china. again, you know, we look at of war games that have been conducted by the u. s. navy, in, in and around, supposedly defending taiwan from china. they always escalate to nuclear. so we can't really think in terms of a limit of nuclear war, we should ditch that. we really should all, all the nation should adopt a no 1st use policy. which states that the only reason we have nuclear weapons is to deter other people using nuclear weapons. that's really the only only good use for nuclear weapon. and how much a spend and build an researching new types of rockets and nuclear weapons. well, that's about, you know, there's, there's about $80000000000.00 of actually it's more like $82000000000.00 annually

and go go to research are building and the maintenance of the nuclear arsenal. ah, it around the world of that, about half about 4044000000000 is u. s. a. china is, is 2nd at about i think around 17 rushers comes in 3rd or that and the u. s. also is engaged in a what's called a modernization of the strategic tree at which is a new or missile summary in a new nuclear bomber and a new new icbm or the congressional budget. the says, we will spend this decade from 2021 to 203634000000000 on nap and averaging about 60000000 a year. so it sees an escalation of u. s. expenses. the modernization will go beyond that,

or if it continues and the total cost of that is, is projected to be about $1.00 trillion dollars. and of course we know with military stuff, it always escalated, always the costs always blow up. so who knows where that stops, one and a half 1000000 are needless to say we, we have a lot of other needs in the us. we could be spending that money on affordable housing up. it's fast rail transit that works. a water supplies for communities, but instead we're spending it on an entirely new nuclear korea has any year for a 3rd. our technology come into the market place from work on advancing nuclear weapons will. yeah. and the we, you know, a lot of money has been put into an, into nuclear weapons. and so, yeah, i mean, if you were nuclear burke are in as much as you consider nuclear power, valuable. um is, is

a product of the nuclear weapons complex. it started the 1st nuclear reactors were to make barnes. and that's a fact of, of nuclear power is that any nuclear reactors are potentially the waste coming out is potentially useful for making nuclear weapons the fuel cycle going in this potential also potentially useful for, for making nuclear weapons. so that's one reason why a lot of people have questions about nuclear power. our missiles space missiles still watching a specialty. they came out of her military research. ultimately looking at creating the creating missiles to launch nuclear weapons. and some of the original a mainframe computers were created by i d. m, under contract with the government to, to manage the, the, the early warning system in the nuclear system. so we have technology spin offs

from, from nuclear weapons. i mean, we could have, obviously, directly invested in, in those technologies are probably at lower cost and still have had all the benefits of them. but sure you spend a lot of money you, you should get some other benefits than being able to book the world. and how long does it take to recover from a nuclear war? we're talking about rebuilding population cities infrastructure as well as environmental damages. and would there be any changes in the environment that would be coming? well? well, what is not taking into account in, in nuclear strategies is something we have little note about for a long time. we've known about this since 1983 that you blow up enough nuclear weapons. it will throw a cloud of blocks certain to the atmosphere that will shield the sun and cause

a global cooling back to ice age conditions, which will crash agricultural production in many parts of the world, and resulting in billions dying of starvation. so even if millions or tens of millions die in the initial exchange, it would result in the death of billions by starvation. so there's really, you know, you, what you're really looking at is the collapse of civilization. what we found in recent years, studies have shown that we were, we would experience a nuclear winter, not just with a full nuclear exchange by the major powers, us and russia, but the nuclear arsenals of india and pakistan are enough to set off a nuclear winter. oh, it would not be as large nuclear winter, but it was still

a result in d. t cutting in and cultural productivity for a decade. i mean, you could see, you could see a couple of 1000000000 people die. and again, with all that, you know, you're really talking about something that at minimum stresses civilization and, and probably collapses it. so it really is, is insane. i would say to continue to maintain nuclear weapons. and i believe we need to abolish them entirely because really, the, the risk is that if we have nuclear weapons, they will eventually be used and if they're eventually use it will result in an escalation scenario. it brings about a nuclear winter and a and a at least an a deep, deep set bath for human civilization which, who knows how long that would take to recover um jackets, centuries,

we don't know, but the risk is simply unacceptable. we, we really need to get rid of the surge. thank you so much, patrick mazda for coming on today. and when we come back, what, what a world look like in the aftermath of a nuclear war? the clock is ticking back. don't go away. ah ah, a russian state little narrative does on the northland stephen hammond. i'm not getting all sunset for a coup in 55 when. okay, so mine is 2000 speedy. when else with we will van in the european union, the kremlin media machine,

the state on russia today, and c, r t spoke neck given our video agency, roughly all bands on youtube. with with at this hour, american and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, to free its people. and to defend the world from grey. who's with proof,

we will bring to the iraqi food and medicines in supplies. and fleet with ah ah, the welcome

back to the cost of everything. today we're analyzing how the world would look like in the aftermath of a nuclear war. now, besides the immediate destruction of cities by nuclear blast, the potential aftermath of a nuclear war could involve fires, storms, a nuclear winter, widespread radiation sickness and loss of much of our modern technology due to electromagnetic pulse disturbances, our history, all the accomplishments and achievements. we've made in technology gone, as most tech is kept in data centers and cloud hosting hubs. not only that, but e. m. p. 's would disable hospitals, water treatment facilities, food storage facilities, communication and cause power outages for months or even years. as of 2021, humanity has about 13410 nuclear weapons. thousands which are on

hair trigger alert. every nuclear country is currently undergoing modernization of its nuclear arsenal. most bombs today are tens or even hundreds of times as powerful as the bombs dropped and world war 2 destination or something like that would render the local ecosystem virtually on livable. it would take less than a 10 percent of the explosive yield of the current global arsenal to bring about devastating agricultural collapse and widespread famine. these stock powers of nuclear weapons around the world has sucked up government funding, diverting money that could have been allocated to health care education, disaster relief, and other vital services. so now let's bring in colleen more advocacy director and women's cross d n. z to talk further about the cost of a potential nuclear war. looking at the destruction of hiroshima and nagasaki, 77 years ago. how does that compare with what the potential destruction today might

look like with the more advanced nuclear capabilities? yes, absolutely. i mean, looking at the atomic bombings, i mean, technically, bombings of her asthma and nagasaki were technically limited nuclear war. but i mean, generations of victims have suffered and like you said, now we have bombs that are multiple times over bigger than those atomic weapons that were used on japan. so while i jo like say that there's that thing such as limited nuclear war because any usage of the nuclear weapon would be absolutely devastating and have devastating consequences. not only for that population, not a nuclear been as use on, but it would also be very widespread and affects people around the world as well. and as you pointed out, what many are worried about right now is that worry, and we're in and even more dangerous situation now in the cold war than in the cold

war in many ways. and one of those reasons, as, as you stated, that are, you know, nuclear arm control, countries continue to modernize their arsenals. we have much bigger and more advanced weaponry than we did 77 years ago. and, you know, even though the world has dramatically reduced arsenals over all many risk production measures have a rooted sense at times many guardrails have been removed, especially under the trump administration. there was the i n f treaty. the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty which banned the us and russia land based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, missile launchers, with shore and intermediate ranges, and the open skies treaty, which allowed gathering information about military forces and activities. but those treaties are gone and dialogue is not happening between the largest nuclear powers, you know, relations are deteriorating, obviously, between the west and russia, with russia invasion of ukraine, great power competition between us and china,

escalating arms, race and lack of dialogue on the korean peninsula. so it, it's a very dangerous situation right now because of all those reasons. now, apparently the official justification for the u. s. using the bomb on japan was to cut the war in the pacific short avoid an invasion of japan and save hundreds and thousands of american lives. and truman even went on as far as say that he believe that it's a japanese lives as well. what do you make of this response and is it justified when the destruction was so catastrophic? yes, i think that is a very typical argument that is made. i think there's a lot of arguments against the alternate use of atomic bombs on japan for that reason. and there's a lot of military arguments that, you know, the soviet union was entering the pacific theater a little bit more at that time that the war could have ended sooner rather than later. i think the argument that justifies the nuclear attack on japan is very over

inflated. and i think the consequences of the use of the atomic bombs of japan is so much more far reaching than than they thought it might be. or maybe they, they knew that as well, but i think just the generations of victims i have suffered you know, nothing. i don't think war and that kind of response. and i think that is why working for the are bullish of nuclear weapons is so important is because of these consequences. it's not just a, there's no such thing like i said is limit of nuclear warfare because the consequences are so far reaching. there's nothing that can really be contained to an area because of radioactive fall out, and they continue to experience the facts even to these days over multiple generations. so yeah, nothing warren's response, a new their response. thank you so much calling more for your insights today. in

the event of a new clear war, there will be no winners, only losers. and after the dust settles, the global food system would be obliterated. and over 5000000000 people will likely die of hunger. a study, analyze the amount of sun blocking, so it ignite it as a result of nuclear weapons. and this would decimate crops and render agricultural lands unfit for production with contamination. crop declines would be the most severe and the mid to high latitude nations and include major exporting countries, such as russia and the u. s. now, over the span of 2 years, more than 75 percent of the planet would be starving. the ozone layer would also be destroyed by the heating of the stratosphere, producing more uv radiation at the surface, drying out the land, and killing off huge spots of wildlife. the world has come close to nuclear war several times

a while. the ramifications are known to all the risk of escalation is still present as there is a revival of the cold war mindset known as mutually assured destruction. the once on thinkable prospect of nuclear conflict is now back within the realm of possibility. as the heretic, memories of hiroshima and nagasaki are fading. and it's ironic that so many are worried about carbon emissions and climate change. when the more immediate threat is a potential for nuclear disaster, which would render all attempts to save the planet a moot point. the best solution for the world is to ban nuclear weapons, but while the 5 year old un treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons has been ratified by 66 nations, none of the 9 nuclear states had signed. i'm kristi, i thanks for watching and we'll see you right back here next time on the cost of everything with

ah oh, in the year of 1954, the united states of america engaged in warfare against the people of vietnam. the white house supported the corrupt puppet government of southern vietnam. in 1965 americans began their invasion following the aim to defeat the forces of vietnamese patriots. the pentagon was confident that the victory would be on the american side, due to its military superiority. however, the vietnamese turn this war into

a total hell for the occupants. unable to cope with the guerrillas, the american army started blanket bombing alongside using chemical weapons and napalm which burnt all alive. the village of my lay wearing 1969 american soldiers killed 504 civilians, including 210 children, became a tragic symbol of this war. all in all, during the whole period of this conflict, the usa dropped on vietnam more than $6000000.00 tons of bombs, which is 2 and a half times as much as on germany during the 2nd world war. in 1973, the american army under the pressure of the rebels, withdrew from vietnam. and only 2 years later did the puppet regime in saigon fall . however, the vietnamese paid a high price for their freedom. more than 1000000 vietnamese people became the

victims of american aggressors. ah, ah russia strike the ukrainian fall, right. i will put tale in come on in the front line region of that for those yet, it comes with russian force is almost completely as circle back move to also known as a fresh wave of protest. pit televi with please using tear gas and water. can they gave demonstrates is that a judicial report that would get the government's new clean power the african union if that would be represented at the g 20 as russia pip log on to india is prime minister stress the importance of a mo.