Stanislav Petrov died. Not sure how well known he is in the US, but he's the bloke who basically prevented a thermo-nuclear war in '83.

Not the *only* thing.

We also don't invade if you don't have anything we want, or if you can't be exploited as a pawn in a proxy war.

N. Korea doesn't have anything we want, so they would generally be safe on that account. On the other hand, the Korean War (particularly support from China, Russia, and the US) was very much tied into early and continuing Capitalism vs Communism proxy wars wherein those major players downplayed direct confrontation (why the Cold War was cold) but were quite happy to ramp things up indirectly.

Things frequently don't go real well for countries tied up in that history. We arm Afghanistan to indirectly prod the USSR, decades later that comes back to bite us and we hit them back with a rather disproportionate degree of destruction. The USSR sets Cuba up as a potential proxy Communist threat to the US, which pushes us pretty close to nuclear war. Fortunately we avoided that, but the fallout for Cuba in trade sanctions etc. persists to this day. And on and on.

So I concur, N. Korea has plenty of reasons to see the US as the bad guys. Personally, I think Obama's strategy of patience was probably the best. Either they are full of hot air and won't ever actually do anything, or they'll eventually do something so provocative that China will have no choice but to withdraw that lifeline. In the meantime, N. Korean people are the ones suffering the most. Not much to be done about that, because the US has an even worse track record when it comes to interfering "to save the people of {wherever} from their terrible leaders"...

The title, which you posted, claims this video is proof. Period. Take responsibility for what you post and/or stop posting pure lies. Edit: I don't believe for a nanosecond that if I posted a video titled "X provides proof Trump is having sex with his daughter" and the video had nothing but ridiculous opinion and innuendo (actual fake news) that you wouldn't call me a liar.

Proof: July27, 2016....he publicly requests that Russia hack Clinton in a speech. This is treason, unequivocally asking a foreign nation to interfere in our election. Tube chop is down so I can't cut it out and present it to you, but you won't mind listening to hours of Trump insanity to find it, will you? In case not, here's the quote....
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily....by our press"

Who cares? Anyone listening to him that can't determine if "I don't know Putin" or "We're great friends with a close personal and working relationship" is true. The president being truthful is important....and this one is not.

Trump has already been worse at controlling Russia, he's allowing more illegal military build up without any response, allowing more illegal military actions without response, indicating he intends to remove the sanctions imposed because of their interference in our election (on his behalf), and stating that Croatia is now Russia, and East Ukraine soon will be, tacitly supporting their expansion into our allies territories.

Russia and Korea are both problems. Trump has also not done a thing about Korea, waiting days after missile launches to even discuss it with Japan is not an appropriate reaction to missile launches aimed at our allies.

No, I absolutely don't feel safer under Trump, I see many countries 'testing' him, and he's either ignored or completely failed each and every test. Korea alone has broken international law with missile launches repeatedly, and assassinated citizens of other countries in public. Clearly THEY feel safer with Trump....safe to build up their arsenal and threaten us with nuclear war. Russia clearly feels safer too. The only ones not safer are our allies and ourselves.

You contradict yourself. You said he is delivering what he said.
If, as it seems, you admit he's failed to deliver on any of these promises, what do you mean by that?
So far, all I see him actually deliver is hypocrisy and ineptitude, no uncontested victories, no ability to unite, and a seriously dangerous plunge in international respect with nation after nation ignoring/violating treaties and expanding their militaries and territories in a blitzkrieg (China, Russia, N Korea, Israel, Iran, etc).

4weeks in and you throw in the towel? He's not emperor yet, but he's on track to get us there by declaring the media an enemy of America, the Judicial branch partisan political activists, international obligations and law negotiable, and nuclear war acceptable. 1 year and 11 months to go before a new congress and likely impeachment if that power hasn't been striped from them by then.

Strangely, the thing that seems to be most important in stopping nuclear war with Russia is Trump's outrageous friendly relationship with Tsar Putin, because he's already made it clear that he has no qualms about using nukes against those he thinks are enemies.

Do you have to demonize a man who assassinates his enemies and expands his country? There's no question that he's done those things, so I don't get his point at all. You don't have to demonize a demon.

How does he think he knows what classified proof there may be? His statement makes him seem silly, he's complaining he hasn't seen this proof, knowing he shouldn't be able to see it.

Russia incontrovertibly militarily and financially supports our enemies and attacks our allies. That alone makes them threat #1. Period. They are also expansionist on multiple fronts, which is hyper threatening.

It's only unwise to build up Polish border forces if you want Poland to be Russian.

Be clear, Putin didn't "put Trump into the whitehouse", but he certainly helped. The argument that he didn't just install him is a red herring, designed to distract from the legal and illegal things Russia did to effect the election, a plan that worked better than they ever hoped.

Fake news hysteria?!? Fake news is one of the most important issues today, because it denies progress on ANY other issue by confusing the facts, making negotiation impossible.

I hate hearing about Bakers "promise"....it wasn't in writing, it wasn't from America or NATO, it wasn't binding in any way even then, and thinking we should stand by it in the face of Russia breaking treaty after treaty is just insane and naïve. Remember, Russia promised to never invade Ukraine (including Crimea).

I don't really think Aleppo was liberated....there's nothing left to liberate there but rubble.
Really, he's claiming that when Mosul was "liberated", Iraq just let the enemy drive away? That's bullshit. We have bombed the fleeing militants, and the Iraqi have fought them with vigor this time.

For a professional on US, Russia relations, he's got some strange ways of seeing things.
I do agree with him that, to Russia, bolstering Assad IS fighting terrorism. I think we failed miserably when we didn't take Assad out after he gassed the populace AND support/safeguard the local populace (if not their militias)....no question in my mind, that's when we lost Syria. Once Daesh and others were allowed to take over the anti-Assad side, there was no "winning" that war.
I also agree, with our current leaders, the nuclear safeguard is no safeguard at all, it's a sword of Damocles, not a shield.

I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll see nuclear war as a result of Trumps election. In fact I'm pretty certain that it is *less* likely given the aggression by Russia in the last few years. If our news is to be believed, they've been directly threatening the stability of the Middle-East and Eastern-Europe, and if the US had elected a president with a harder stance against those actions, more conflict would have certainly been the result.
Currently we're more likely to strike deals with Russia, who has a strong relationship with China, (the other major power we'd have the most chance of going to war with) so the greater danger at this point is being undermined economically or through some other diplomatic/political tactics.

After seeing Threads, I decided that I do not want to survive a nuclear war. When the bomb falls I want to be directly underneath.

Your video, What If We Have A Nuclear War?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I agree, hard to get past "nuke-yoo-lar".

But also, I think more information is necessary to justify their claims about results of a hypothetical India vs Pakistan nuclear war with 100 warheads dropped "in anger" so to speak.

Google search suggests that there have been more than 2000 nuclear tests, 520 atmospheric, from 1945 to today. Would the increased particulate dust and debris from being fired on generally populated areas really be enough to make 100 of those warheads have a drastically greater effect than the 520 atmospheric tests that have already happened?

Seems possible, but I dunno. Expanding on that further would be interesting.

Fingerprinting is a nice analogy, Buttle. How can we be sure that all that pollution, CO2 levels, nitric oxide levels and cow farts are A) our fault, and B) actually causing changes in climate?

We cant be sure unless we predict, and then wait a few decades and keep measuring, can we? So we have to say, along with the man falling from the skyscraper, everything OK so far!

So the hysteria about nuclear weapons was a bit silly, beacause we would not all die in an all-out nuclear war. Because people high on hillsides on the far side of New Zealand with food and water and seeds and medical supplies for a couple of years would make it fine. They would not freeze, it now turns out.

Then maybe climate change will be OK too.

But maybe the stakes aren't as high for everyone else. The kind of people who would benefit most from Bernie might see the only solution is to vote in protest, maybe hope to push things to the point where fundamental change is the only option.

Equally, those guys might say you are crazy for voting for compromise election after election until things are so bad and homogenised between the parties that you may as well not have voted. In fact, I strongly believe that's what led to the rise of people like Sanders and Trump in the first instance - the complete failure of politicians to fairly represent the views of the people in the country.

I mean, depending on your position on the socioeconomic ladder, it's either hugely important to keep Trump out or just another meaningless exchange of faces. And then you find out that there's an inward corruption, the establishment machine shifts and rules you out again.

You don't have to convince me btw, I'm just saying those people do exist and if you take a close look you can kind of see their point. If someone proves themselves to be untrustworthy, you're on shaky ground by saying that they're the devil you know. If you don't know the devil you know, what are they?

For me, in my country, my patience for compromise is gone. Where would you draw the line in the sand on compromise and manipulation? The next candidate? Or the one after that? Isn't it always really important? Do we compromise forever and let global warming, nuclear war or terrorists from countries we destabilised wipe us out?

We are all fools @bobknight33 if we continue, as a nation, to just tear each other down, instead of build each other up.

When children in pre-school are being taught how to stand on toilets and be quiet so the shooter can't hear them in lock down drills, I realize the innocence of youth is lost to one child or another every time these horrific acts are carried out.

I grew up being afraid of dying due to Russia and Nuclear War, but children today are growing up afraid of being shot in school, in college, in a place of worship, in a movie theater, a mall, a night club. If there is something that can be done, shouldn't we starting clawing our way in that direction, instead of carrying on like it's just business as usual?

In most cases, absolutely not, but in a few, yes.
For instance, there was nothing besides nuclear war in either '42 or '62 to compare with climate change as a danger to the planet, and while we still have the threat of nuclear war (although it's certainly not as great a threat today as during the missile crisis, but if we have Trump's finger on the button, that threat level changes), we now also have the out of control issue of the climate destabilizing that threatens civilization itself.
Over population comes to mind as another issue that's far worse.

But I do agree, for the most part, we are in a far less precarious position than we have been in the past on most issues, and so many minor issues are blown out of proportion by the media looking for ratings and money instead of looking to inform.

OK, so this is supposed to be convincing us that the plane works?...but they do admit that it can take numerous seconds between rudder input and response by the plane....my RC glider is more responsive than that.

<10% delivery, and only one variant = fail.
Most expensive plane ever=fail.
Past it's expected lifespan before it's deployed=fail.
'The same technology, but a little bit more advanced' is hardly worth the country bankrupting cost=fail

It sure seems like they're admitting that a minor systems upgrade to an F-22 would have ended up with a much better plane with the same tech for <1/10 the cost and time.
This plane seems designed to fight directly against technologically advanced adversaries....which means Russia and/or China. We are NEVER going to be in direct air to air combat with either of those nations. We avoid that like the plague, because it's all too easy to escalate to nuclear war. The enemies we are actually likely to engage don't have 1/10 the technological capabilities needed to take on an F-22.
The entire reason for this plane to exist at all is a fraud.

I noticed at the end of the video it briefly came up with Romans 14:19. I wonder if he'll do a "Smarter Every Day" on the absurdity of religion.

The funny thing about that passage is that, like most religious passages can mean almost anything you want it to. To me it ironically means to give up religion, yet to someone else it could justify a nuclear war.