Excellent analysis. Canadians often delude themselves with the belief that Canada will never be hit by nuclear weapons because we threaten no one and only have a weak capability to project significant military force. What they don't realize, in addition to the things you have mentioned, is that virtually all military bases in Canada with any capacity to handle aircraft would be targetted for destruction as the Americans could use those bases if theirs were destroyed. Winnipeg would be hit as it is a central railway terminus that can be used for military purposes. The RCAF's 17 Wing is stationed at Winnipeg Airport, and it is a transport wing. Take out Winnipeg, and you've pretty much cut the country in half. The petrochemical complex and oil and gas pipelines at Sarnia would likely be hit with several airbursts of about 250 kilotons (kT) each, but a ground burst would be needed to take out the St. Clair Railway Tunnel that runs under the St. Clair River, connects Canada to the US, and would provide a conduit for war materiel or raw materials needed to produce same. In a nuclear war, Sarnia as it exists today, would be completely destroyed. A few years ago, I came across a graphic from FEMA showing a hypothetical fallout plume coming from a single ground strike on Detroit. The fallout plume goes right over Sarnia, and the graphic notes that Sarnia would receive a total radiation dose of 950 rads (R) in the space of a week. 450R is usually a fatal dose. Sarnia has no public fallout shelters and maybe one or two public buildings with a deep basement. The upshot of all this is that even if Sarnia itself wasn't hit, pretty well everyone in Sarnia would die as a consequence of the fallout coming in from US target sites. I currently live in London, Ontario, which would be a countervalue target. Not because it has a significant military presence, but because the city is home to a plant that manufactures wheeled armoured fighting vehicles and could probably be switched over to making tanks or major subsystems for same if required. In addition, the airport is not far off, and it can accommodate fighter jets and transports with no problem. In fact, during the early 1950s, an RCAF fighter wing was stationed at London Airport to counter the manned bomber threat.
@nutsackmania
10 ай бұрын
this is complete bullshit you tell yourself and put in histrionic comments on a video that explains shit everybody already knows (but it gets you excited), most canadians know what is up
@bulosqoqish1970
7 ай бұрын
The "known unknown" in all these discussions is the fact that while the Russians do have large (~1500) numbers of nuclear warheads that can be delivered at intercontinental range, it is highly debatable whether they would use more than one or two of these on a secondary power like Canada... since every such nuke being used, is one less target hit in the REAL enemy (e.g. the U.S.). If you take a serious look at the number of "military targets" in either the U.S. itself or in its vast array of foreign military bases, and then (as the Russians would have to do) account for (say, 10-15%) misfires and dud warheads, and then retain some (say, 20%) warheads as a reserve in case of a sneak attack by China, the U.K. or France, you can see very quickly that Russia does not have enough warheads to "waste" too many of them on an inconsequential target like Canada. I believe that I am right in this assessment. You had better hope that I am.
@stevestruthers6180
7 ай бұрын
@@bulosqoqish1970 The other unknown is how many of Russia's missiles are actually operational, or whether the communications networks needed to facilitate their launch are still functional. Current stats say Russia has 5,889 warheads. Assuming that most are in operational condition, there would probably be enough capacity to hit seven to 10 targets in Canada - e.g., the nation's capital, CFB KIngston, which is the communications backbone for the Canadian Forces, the naval bases at Esquimalt, BC, and Halifax, Nova Scotia, RCAF 17 Wing (transport) at Winnipeg, the air bases at Cold Lake, Alberta, Trenton, Ontario (another RCAF air transport base), and Bagotville Quebec. Major airports in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver could be targetted as well. CFB North Bay is not really a target anymore as the NORAD bunker there is being sealed up, a fighter weapons wing no longer exists there, and all that is left is an above-ground aerospace monitoring facility that functions as part of NORAD. Given that Russia has more or less been a kleptocracy for the last 30-odd years, I would hazard a guess that its nuclear missiles and launch systems may not have been maintained in that time frame and are not in good shape.
@killman369547
4 ай бұрын
@@bulosqoqish1970 Probably only one. Their ICBMs can carry up to 14 warheads. That'd be more than enough to put us down for the count.
@TheCassandraProject-nuclearwar
6 ай бұрын
Loved that you did this. I was planning to do one on Canadian targets but you did a better job than I would have done. I would love to interview you for my own Nuclear War channel to discuss this video.
@Liquormans
Жыл бұрын
Likely 22 wing NorthBay would be on hit list. Lots of US service personnel posted there NORAD installation
@stevestruthers6180
10 ай бұрын
And it would be totally destroyed, since the radar and satellite monitoring facilities there are now situated aboveground. The NORAD bunker there has been decommissioned and is now in the process of being completely sealed up forever.
@RFKFANTS67
6 ай бұрын
My cousin's last post was at Cheyenne mountain complex. He was a Major former CF116 "F35" driver, then did 3 tours with our RCAF Snowbirds. Remarkable facility He enjoyed his time there. Then after his military service he flew for Air Canada for another 20 or so years.
@basspig
10 ай бұрын
With 23,000 nuclear weapons in existence amongst the handful of countries, if all of them decided to launch on the same day it's a pretty good bet that it would put an end to the atmosphere on the planet Earth and the planet would become a lifeless Barren Rock just like mars.
@albertbeaney2580
7 ай бұрын
Yeah, this guys content of this video is lacking some serious repercussions of full out nuclear confrontation.
@basspig
7 ай бұрын
@@albertbeaney2580 Few people can even fathom the implications of a large scale nuclear event. I don't believe anyone can--it's never happened before.
@tomarsandbeyond
6 ай бұрын
Which study says this? They do not "end" the atmosphere.
@basspig
6 ай бұрын
@@tomarsandbeyond To date, mankind has only detonated one bomb at a time. If all nations launched everything at once, we can't predict what would happen precisely, but it would be catastrophic and life-ending for the entire planet.
@tomarsandbeyond
6 ай бұрын
@@basspig not how it works. It is not a magical death ray that hits everwhere. Not all of those nukes are available to launch, a portion would fail, a few get shot down, and any that reach a target and airburst have little fallout. Ground bursts would be concentrated in certain areas. Other areas have a chance. Depending on severity of nuclear winter. That might be worse in the northern hemisphere. Southern hemisphere probably has some surviving areas.
@DonKnight-qi4tu
5 күн бұрын
In WW2, Bell Island Newfoundland was attacked 4 times by Germany due to it's iron ore mining. 70 lost lives. Airports and seaports would be attacked as would infrastructure such as power plants, dams, refineries and manufacturing. Canada is like a school child, my brother can beat up your brother. Our brother is the US.
@wesleyc8101
Ай бұрын
Who’s this cute bulldog KZitemr? I am gonna subscribe.
@KHKH-os6kt
3 күн бұрын
Yeah,yeah, I grew up in late 1950s, 1960s listening to this shit. Still around.
@alexanderalejandre241
Жыл бұрын
Nice video. Here's a comment to help you with the algorithm.
@_smurfitude
10 ай бұрын
Canada hasn't been involved in these conflicts but Montana, N Dakota has middle silos close to Canada. Being that we do close commerce with Canada, they may strike it
@kevinhammond2361
2 ай бұрын
I doubt Russia would spend any ICBM’s (their most accurate weapon) on Canada. Those would be saved for US missile fields, Washington DC and NORAD, etc. Once a missile sub fires one missile, it gives away its position and is far more likely to be sunk. It makes no sense to have a missile sub be sunk when it still has unused missiles on it. So perhaps a single Russian sub might target a large number of airfields in both US and Canada. SLBMs aren’t as accurate and airfields are a lesser target. Sub launched missiles have the advantage of the shortest arrival time, and are ideal vs airfields before the planes can be scrambled to safety I don’t see why ground bursts would be used on airfields which are a soft target. Airbursts would cause much wider blast damage. I could see a ground burst at a weapons depot perhaps. Russia might even just use bombers on Canada. Using their most fragile platform on a secondary country of NATO
@mikemccarthy757
Ай бұрын
Although there are many 10 of thousands of warheads worldwide, there are only about 4,000 deployed warheads. The rest are in storage or awaiting decommissioning. The start 2 treaty of 1984 limited the US and Russia to 1,800 missile deployed warheads each. Despite rising tensions, both the US and Russia continue to honour the treaty. Almost all stores warheads and many that are on long range bombers would be destroyed in the first counter force attack. You made another comment about southern Ontario being uninhabitable dues to fallout. This isn’t true. Within 2 weeks, dosage rates drop well below .25 sieverts per hour allowing someone to safely venture outside for 4 hours a day providing they take precautions. After 1 month radiation levels drop to a level that will allow relatively safe habitation in most affected areas. Some hot spots may remain off limits for a year or so but those areas would be small and limited. There would be a rise in cancer rates after exposure to fallout but it is expected to be about a 10% increase. The vast majority of Canadians would survive relatively unscathed if they are outside the immediate target area and are able to shelter for 14 days if there is fallout. It would be the war that kills most people, it will our government’s lack of preparation and almost total lack of civil defence education. More people will die of starvation and exposure following a nuclear conflict than were killed by the actual attack. Some countries are well prepared. Finland has shelters with 3 to 6 months of food and medicine for 85% of its population. Switzerland and Sweden also have made significant preparations. Unfortunately the level of complacency of our governments and the population at large will probably result in a far more devastating outcome than would otherwise be necessary. We can’t stop a nuclear war if it happens, but we can prepare for it. Failure to do so by our various levels of government will result in many Canadians dying and suffering needlessly.
@florinivan6907
25 күн бұрын
The swiss depend on imports to survive. No one is gonna import anything following a nuke war. Half of them would die due to starvation. Its the main reason the germans didn't invade. They didn't need to. Finland and Sweden are not much better off. They'd starve within a year. Once trade stops and surviving agricultural regions demand payment in gold or silver since prewar currencies are worthless. How much gold do the finns have?
@OntarioPrepper
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the information, I will share it to my Community tab on KZitem 👍👍
@bradswim
Жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@OntarioPrepper
Жыл бұрын
@@bradswim EMP Would Be Better TBH ... Gonna sub ya up
@royieg2543
Жыл бұрын
22 Wing Northbay, Winnipeg probably biggest targets along with Alert. Blindbus from freding into the US
@delocon
Жыл бұрын
Not bad. Living in Toronto I've had a bugout plan in place for a long time, including little known, and even counter-intuitive routes to give me the highest probability of egress without getting caught by the mob. I figure if I ever see Ambassadors being recalled to their home countries that would be the time to have left yesterday. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?
@bradswim
Жыл бұрын
You make a good point, I probably should've mentioned that. There's all sorts of indicators you should watch out for that may warn you of impending conflict, including Ambassadors being recalled. One thing I'd be on the watch for would be an increase in demand for blood donations and army recruitment, though these indicators may not be the most reliable. A general heightened tension will be felt in the days or weeks before conflict erupts which may give you more time to prepare or evacuate, so it'd be best to use your judgement in hand with the information available to you. My plan is essentially to bunker up my basement since it's got a room with concrete walls, floor and ceiling, which should keep us safe for a few weeks until it's safer to trek up northward away from any contamination. Thanks for the comment and stay safe!
@cryptohunt2552
6 ай бұрын
@@bradswim Thanks for this. I'm a former member of the British Army living in Canada. We trained regularly for an Nuclear-Biological-Chemical- Viral attack, as do the Canadian forces. I have sufficient supplies to sit out the worst of an attack for myself and my family, including NCB suits, respirators, medical supplies, food supplies, water filtration, weapons, etc. All I need now is a bunker, and I'm looking at purchasing some land in a quiet spot for this. What scares me the most is the complacency of the majority of Canadians who seem to sleep walk through a changing an ever-dangerous world. I asked one man why he thinks we would never be attacked, and he responded "because we are a multicultural society." This kind of mindless nonsense seems widespread here, and will guarantee that most will not survive for long if we are hit. Keep up the good work.
@user-mh4ri4jb9u
11 ай бұрын
Canada is a " NATO ally" ? What? Sir - Canada was a founding member of NATO. Sweden would be an example of a NATO Ally - not yet a member - but take part in military exercises with NATO members etc
@mitch511
11 ай бұрын
Damn straight! Canada and USA we the top dogs
@bradswim
10 ай бұрын
CA NA DA CA NA DA CA NA DA
@doubleduty1703
10 ай бұрын
Turkey has the second biggest military in Nato , and as of today they are leaning to the other side...
@jeffcindy3274
5 ай бұрын
The jet stream would kill us all!
@bradswim
5 ай бұрын
That damn jet stream!
@j3tts0n65
6 ай бұрын
The big problem is Canada would most likely suffer massive starvation caused by the winter aftershocks
@tazzthedoodle7861
5 ай бұрын
No, winter is nothing to canadians
@berndblabla4249
2 ай бұрын
Thats what i fear, the Winter is hard allready
@marknagle-vi7og
7 күн бұрын
Parliament hill
@hitheshreddy7850
2 ай бұрын
Synopsis for a bingeworthy ‘Post-Apocolypse survival’ tv show.
@tazzthedoodle7861
5 ай бұрын
I don't drink soy latte's so downtown Toronto wouldn't hurt my feelings.
@user-ed4es3sy7c
4 күн бұрын
bruh ww3 gon be lit asf ngl
@nathankeating1673
3 күн бұрын
Bro, youtube wants to translate your comment....... not one single real word in your comment other than "be". Shouldnt have dropped out of school dude.
@user-ed4es3sy7c
2 күн бұрын
@@nathankeating1673 dont be mad cuz u a pussy and scared of nukes lmao
@jaggerbushOG
Ай бұрын
Im from the northeast US in a major city. Id rather be ANYWHERE in Canada than here if war broke out.
@bradswim
Ай бұрын
@@jaggerbushOG No kidding!
@jaggerbushOG
15 сағат бұрын
@@bradswim I'm in Pittsburgh. We, for sure, got on a list during the cold war bc we were the leading manufacturer of steel in the world. I would imagine Detroit had made this list for being the county's largest car manufacturer during that time. I doubt either city now has been "demote" from a Russian list. I would guess once on the list, always on the list.
@AngryCanadian88
2 ай бұрын
me in London hoping there is no attack
@hitheshreddy7850
2 ай бұрын
So Winnipeg, MB is safe✌️
@albertbeaney2580
7 ай бұрын
Are you not taking into account nuclear winter??? Do you know exactly what you are talking about? Just curious.
@SBryck
4 ай бұрын
we just call that winter in Canada. lol
@albertbeaney2580
7 ай бұрын
Doesn’t matter if you are not directly attacked. Not talking about fallout. The earth would be mostly uninhabitable in a full out thermonuclear war. Talking about the Romans and other ancient civilizations lol. They weren’t subjected to a massive nuclear attack 😂
@berndblabla4249
2 ай бұрын
Great we know you can Repeat things you ve heard before, applause
@MJibco
3 ай бұрын
No One. lower mainland BC is aware of how close targets are!
@peterjaniceforan3080
4 ай бұрын
🙀
@Polarweebqc38
2 ай бұрын
Russians should be smart enought to let Canada alone a not nuke em because there is alot of natural ressources available to grab in an diplomatic scenario, the video does show alot of worst case scenario and I do think we shouldn't lost all hope yet as 1 year later we're still okay-ish. ( No nukes for now)
@dawsonreum5459
8 күн бұрын
In a nuclear scenario there is no Russia left, or at least not one powerful enough to worry about resources. Perhaps initially Canada will be fine, but as the war continues to rapidly escalate, Canada would be targetted.
@davidoberle137
5 ай бұрын
montreal first pls
@user-xg2or5pz6y
Ай бұрын
LOL
@natedawg-p8v
22 сағат бұрын
Ummmmm not gonna happen NATO get this bullshit off here bro 😅😂
Пікірлер: 68