then perhaps we just don't understand. the search for answers starts july 7th, and d, w ah. march 2022. russia is waging war on ukraine. inside rush, engine, strategic, nuclear weapons being relocated model . this is a highly dangerous conflict because we do not know whether at some point the nuclear threshold might be crossed and if so, in what form? in the irish renovation it has the situation is highly dramatic cottage. i don't think we are on the brink of a nuclear would not react 16 i. but if we continue in the years ahead, as we have done in the past on the risk of has actually heading for a nuclear confrontation will increase significantly. so i am significant, the returns and nuclear weapons is an issue we discussed with many international experts back in 2018 but even then, such discussions were not possible in russia. after putin invaded ukraine, we got in touch once again with many of the people we spoke to background. in the 1980s, millions of people took to the streets to protest against new nuclear weapons. an entire generation lived in fear. when the cold war came to an end, thousands of nuclear weapons will withdrawn from europe to day. the secret missile sites lie abandoned. memories of faded instead of spreading fears of a nuclear war. atomic bomb proof silos for cruise missiles became fair ground techno the age of the nuclear threat seemed over in 2018 new atomic weapons for europe would being tested in the united states. nic day war is more likely now than it was at the height of the cold war. and the nuclear problem has not gone away. it's, it's changed. it's become something new and different. some analysts call this the 2nd nuclear age. non the bother simoli. all experts agree that paradoxically could, than the risk of a limited deployment of nuclear weapons article that is perhaps greater in this decade in there than in the 20th century. different m check blancho dull beyond in the sands, the france, a relic of the cold war. this was an underground bunker for launching nuclear missiles. only one of the 18 and silos here has been maintained. ah sons, christenson is an internationally renowned expert on nuclear weapons. he works for the f, a. s, the federation of american scientists and the celebrated swedish piece research institute slippery been wild hello pete us carries at research into nuclear weapons at the distinguished sciences po university in paris. so this whole massive chunk of steel and concrete rapidly going out here and a exposing the missile inside. i'm getting ready. all right, so one mega on going off to moscow make a ton is $1000000.00 tons of t and t explosives. i, if you imagine you set off that amount, explosives her in one time in comparison and the russian mom, the destroyed one city in japan was 15 kilo time. so the power in this war hit that would have been here behind us is just really difficult to fathom here. so, so mean stolen certificate or, or seal 1983 is about the time when the last version was put in for commission. and then it sat here until 199396. the decision that has been going back then disarmament was the trend. now things have changed for game, you know, other day we noticed that all countries possessing nuclear weapons are investing a great deal and will do so for several years in order to modernize their ass knows y'all this in you. but the question is, after it does the generation, which is going to live in the shadow of nuclear weapons, and we'll bear the cost clear, realize what's happening and how does it feel about this? filipino, let's you. the nice the missile silos tunnels many kilometers in length were cut into the mountain to enable command staff to survive and mount a nuclear counter attack. it's a surreal experience because imagine the circumstances for which this was built, which is to withstand a 1st strike of nuclear weapons and enable a couple of people to be able to launch french, a ballistic missiles back against her. in that case, the soviet union, the did it. so i'm immediately reminded of course of the crazy situation of countries holding each other hostage with nuclear weapons on alert. or i mean pull their foreigner to or steal food. whole back of last from was that anger for me? this place symbolizes the idea that prevailed in the nuclear error and still prevails today. of being able to survive says yeah, i've cleared in a tunnel a place without lightly, but that was how people thought they could survive a nuclear war. but if they did manage to survive and went back outside one date, what would they find? what will be left is he also rule his guest or close to 2000 nuclear warheads or on our to day, or in the world ready to launch within just a few moments of the receiving the order from the national leadership. 2 countries in western europe possess their own nuclear weapons, britain and france. in addition, france also has nuclear missiles for aircraft. both countries would decide independently with regard to their deployment. nato has $100.00 and 5th american atomic bombs at its disposal, small tactical nuclear weapons for use on a battlefield. they would be deployed 1st to defend nato's eastern border. for example, russia also has missiles of this kind. b, 52 bombers from the united states air force on exercise in the baltic. many see this as a clear message to russia. and there is other military posturing in the form of nuclear attack exercises we've seen and types of exercises that we haven't seen since the cold war were american b, 52 bombers to fly up over the north pole to their launch points for nuclear cruise missiles. and then return to their bases in the united states. those kind of strike exercises were not done since the, i mean 98. the old cat and mouse game of the cold war is back in, threaten and be threatened. as a result, many people are worried. well, helen called because co founder of physicians for total responsibility and an internationally renowned peace activist feel reminded of dangerous times. well, i got to know robert mcnamara quite well, who is the sick judge fence and was in the oval office with jack kennedy during the cuban missile crisis. he said to me, helen, you don't know how close we came to within 3 minutes, quote unquote, the scene, the situation to day could well be compatible with that. officers have to decide in next in no time whether or not to follow the order to launch a nuclear strike. but how reliable are the soldiers in the missile silos? the men in the missile silos in america, they call minute men, is i have minutes to decide their aged 18 to 26. like pavlovian dogs. yes, so no sir. press the button sir. they're each armed with a pistol. one, shoot the other if one shows signs of deviant behavior. that the deviant one much. yeah. the other one recently it's been determined that many of those men are taking ill estie, not in a missile silos but beforehand and having wild psychological experiences and lowering it. it taking marijuana cocaine and the like helen cole, the coach, 2 wounds of a nuclear war, occurring by mistake. located close to google, a village in the eiffel region of western germany is a german armed forces. airbase. it said that american nuclear weapons, when nato are stationed here, officially that is neither confirmed nor denied hans christensen is certain that tactical nuclear weapons as the unknown ah, stationed here small nuclear weapons for deployment in europe. they're still tactical nuclear weapons. yes. or only gravity bumps delivered by fighter jet aircraft. they are the last remnant of a what used to be an enormous inventor of about 7000 or tactical nuclear weapons. but they're still here in about a 150 of them. but only that one kind of air delivered gravity bombs. and in a conflict situation, they could be dropped by fighter jet aircraft. merit is have basis in europe, but there are also 4 countries in europe that have host base arrangement, as they call. they call it a nuclear sharing arrangements. germany, the netherlands, ah, belgium, italy, and possibly turkey. and so those countries are the ones who sort of serve a soda nuclear strike roll, where they are, aircraft would be equipped and handled over nuclear weapons in times of war. aerial photographs show silos that i believe to contain the u. s. atom bombs for german combat aircraft. these weapons is said to be small, but possess enormous explosive power. some of these weapons are very powerful. i mean, this is not just small nuclear weapons, they're more powerful than the weapons that destroyed hiroshima and nagasaki there and one location here at google air base. ah, we estimate that there are $10.00 to $20.00, be $6.00 to $1.00 nuclear bombs inside shelters. here at this base right now. what does the future look like for america's nuclear weapons? toppa in the nevada desert is a test site and in military, no go area. here in new atom bomb and it's flight characteristics of being tested. it's designation the b $6112.00 it's development is expensive to cover it in its budget for 2019 alone, the pentagon requested $254000000.00 job in combat aircraft, also being and able to drop the bone adaption work already goes into way in 2019 p, a 200 integration refers to the tornado p a 200, which is flown by the german air force in about a month or 2. the u. s. will begin full scale production of the new b 6112 bomb ok. and we know from airforce statements that within by the end of this year, certainly early next year. but by the near the end of this year, probably they will start training the nuclear units in europe to receive this new web. ok. so we most likely will start seeing this weapon being shipped to europe or sometime next year. ok. so you can imagine if this crisis is still happening at the time, that will almost certainly be used by the russians as an example of natal. increasing its nuclear threat against russia, something like that, even though they're already are tactical nuclear weapons in europe right now, of course. so that's, that's an element that can influence this escalation potential in the future. german air force tornadoes at the u. s. air base. the consequences of nato air force bomb as being prepared for new american nuclear weapons can be far reaching just opposite the british ministry of defense, maxwell, denman, workstall, and institute, which is critical of nato. the 1st place russian missiles would go would be the be $61.00 sites. ah, there are so many hurdles for these things. getting off the ground, you would need to load the planes with the bombs, because the bombs, the planes and the bombs on together. these would need to take off, then. this is all presuming that russian missiles are coming and then once they're flying, you would need to refuel them in an and then you would need to fly them into russian ass space. plot past russian, ballistic missile defense before dropping free for bombs. compare that to firing a missile. there's huge risks with these things, and they realistically would never get off the ground. and even if they was successful in taking off with nuclear weapons, experts fear that when refueling in the, at the latest, they would be an easy target. so why should the german air force need nuclear weapons at all? does highest of the aisles i did in miss 9 and missed and convent this mean light. that on the one hand, we need to make an appropriate conventional contribution to lend weight to our voice asked sissy, but we must also be prepared to try to shoulder the burden on. and it is a burden of nuclear weapon is being stationed on our soil. are from dodge and if necessary, being deployed by german pilots in china and ist. but it is bowden far advanced the decisive element with all these issues. and this is an understanding of the nuclear strategic correlations, english tried of, and tried on. and only in this way, is it possible to have an influence isn't within the alliance of these of either. no atomic bombs, no saying things. only if germany, too, is prepared to use nuclear weapons, will german governments be allowed to participate in nato planning and decision making with regard to the deployment of nuclear weapons that also applies to modernization. military leaders claim that the new bombs are necessary because the current weapons are outdated. it is a kind of maintenance they say. as far as we can figure out, the increased actual accuracy is about 3 times better than, than it is with the existing weapons. now what that means is that not only can huge strike targets or facilities much more effectively, but you can also choose lower explosive yields settings for an attack that to day requires a much higher yield setting. so that's more useable, it's less radioactive fallout. so it's concerned that we're making nuclear weapons more usable damage is this makes it a weapon, which of course, can meet a totally different military requirements from its predecessor going on with the russians, realizes us and a saying, okay, the west is doing that. so we'll respond off, but we need new systems, better systems, one that would be a new arms race, a new cold. oh. so what goals did donald trump pursued during his presidency? he often emphasized the americas new care supremacy. as part of our defense, we must modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal. o, fully never having g is it? but make in it so strong and so powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression by any other nation or any one else. president trump also reserved the right to launch a preemptive strike against countries in possession of nuclear weapons. and that is not all well, united states is in the early face of a complete overhaul of its nuclear arsenal. and we're talking about everything we're talking about all delivery systems, all warheads on nuclear infrastructure of the factories, a nuclear command control system. so it's a huge under taking. it is one of the biggest armament projects of all time. the congressional budget office compiled the costs in a report. the bottom line, $1.00 trillion dollars, roughly a 1000000000 euros bachelor's in 2017. so the projects could get a lot more expensive. by the modernization involves nuclear attack submarines with inter continental nissans as well as silos and command centers. the land based nuclear missiles, nuclear bombs and cruise missiles. but why is america spending so much money located in california is one of america's leading nuclear research laboratories. here. nuclear weapons are serviced and strategies devised. the head strategist is brad roberts, who as deputy assistant secretary of defense in the obama administration, was also responsible for nuclear weapons. so the alternative to modernization is unilateral disarmament or we have postponed any decision because they're costly and politically very divisive. we've postponed any decision about the modernization of our nuclear forces for decades. the newest us nuclear weapons in the arsenal went in in 1991. there is no weapon that was designed, intended to have a shelf life of more than 20 or 25 years. a clear commitment to the continued existence of nuclear forces. yet just over a decade ago, quite different sans were being heard from washington. i state clearly and with conviction, america's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. when people read the prox beach, most people read only one or the other section of it. the one they like and some people preferred the one that talked about the potential elimination of nuclear weapons. others prefer the portion to talk about while we worked for that to happen, we have to modernize on nuclear weapons. so in a way, people came away from the proc speak with 2 very different conceptions of what the priority was. make no mistake. as long as these weapons exist, the united states will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary and guarantee that defense to our allies, including the czech republic, experts at the laurens live more national laboratory not only develop and service nuclear weapons. they also simulates possible voice and eyes. the fear here is of a new kind of nuclear war. so is war again, thinkable. it was not thinkable in the 1960 seventy's and eighty's when the one nuclear war became the problem of arm. again, the problem of the end of human history. and it's possible that today we have one or 2 or 3 actors who believe that a nuclear war can be one because it can be kept limited because we will back down when they employ nuclear weapons on a limited basis. and if they believe it can be kept limited and can be one than it can be fought. but every new strategy also requires new weapons. according to experts mighty warheads, with the explosive yield of 40 hiroshima bombs, and not suitable for a limited nuclear war. in part, the answer is yes, we do need some new weapons. some of the targets we might want to hid in this kind of environment can be destroyed with small nuclear weapons that would minimize damage to other things. what we call collateral damage. we could significantly reduce small nuclear weapons. we've had that before. here, east of frankfurt, us nuclear shells for german tank. how it says we're one stored small, tactical weapons for the german armed forces. these former offices were involved with the nuclear weapons on a daily basis. the commander of the german units, guarding them back then was bet beckman again kind, dodge, no german was allowed english. that was strictly forbidden. we didn't exactly know what was happening in there because it was all kept really secret of, of got your job, i guess was to be ready if on the soviet army would come across the hill right now, it was about nuclear battle in europe. does hamby owns, although we told our soldiers time and again that germany is always the target and i was on. in other words, a conflict will always mean the destruction of germany. and the better we do our job and you, the more will be able to defend ourselves in this way too far. and that makes the chance of us never having to use these weapons even greater yet. and indeed, in the final analysis, it worked puzzled. it was deterrence personified, and every so jet understood that including the conscripts and we had lots of those in your lives when we explained it like that they understood member is indirectly at home in the ninety's. there was still 120 of these nuclear weapons depos located throughout germany. the nuclear shell stored in the silos with designed to stop soviet tank armies. the problem was that they had a range of only 20 to 30 kilometers. so they would always have exploded in germany, designation of a small atomic bomb escapes her nuclear figure through godaddy. well, there were even nuclear anti aircraft, nice eyes and, and even nuclear mines in zion. and there were the craziest things in the cold war days did come on those today. when you think back, you can only say that the world in those days was mad because it would all have meant total self destruction. so there were even mines on the, in a german, borderline and, and nuclear mines ago grants the hercules air defense system was also nuclear. aquila so filled up as isde in nuclear, nucleus shells fired from silos like this. and exploding over soviet tank units would have destroyed the whole of west germany. nuclear defense on that scale would have meant the end for germany. at some time or other, the military also realize this they have largely moved away from tactical nuclear weapons. and the reason they moved the ways because the military didn't need them to solve their military objectives, they could use advanced conventional weapons for this instead. so now we are hearing recommendations that the u. s. needs to inter, reintroduce tactical, or tactical like nuclear weapons. ah, with low yield and during the cold war, this was east germany, for my missile