John Oliver Sounds Off on The Terrifying State of America’s Nuclear Arsenal: VIDEO


On Sunday’s Last Week Tonight, John Oliver aimed his wit and sarcasm at America’s terrifying nuclear weapons program – which turns out to be oversized, outdated, and riddled with incompetence.    




  1. Jay says

    The only reasonable use of nuclear power would be to protect ourselves against something like an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. But these warheads are on top of ICBMs whose sole purpose would be to escalate global annihilation. India, China, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran wont just stand back and hold their fire.

  2. ratbastard says


    Nukes prevent far worse wars than we have. Nukes essentially present a stalemate between two nuclear armed opponents. Unless they are insane (and they probably aren’t, just very calculating) Russia, the U.S., China are never going to attack each other, nor will they likely start a 3rd world war, because they know they will be wiped off the map. Neither would Russia or say China (for examples) ever militarily attack the E.U., because they know the U.S., Britain and France would respond with nukes if necessary. Likewise, Israel exists and hasn’t been overrun because it has nukes and would use them if necessary.

    The U.S. has a lot of nukes and various delivery systems for redundancy purposes. It aldo uses various technologies, some if them old, to make it more difficult for an enemy to deliver a devestating first strike or a surpise EMP attack.

  3. leprechaunvict says

    @ME, agreed, he’s totally doable, plus the funny personality makes him crazy hot!

  4. gr8guyca says

    John Oliver is really nailing it every week. Much better than Stewart or Colbert because he has the time to go deeper into a story. It’s informative, scathing, and humor with a real bite. It’s my favorite
    show now.

  5. Randy says

    If you actually watched Stahl’s report, a “fail” is 90%, which is an A by any other standard. So to degrade these people by calling the fails “D+” is not nearly correct.

  6. Mike says

    The idea of even having such nuclear weapons in silos does NOT prevent wars. The idea that we MUST have them never did make sense! The whole idea of some sort stalemate was warped.

    We now have MUCH more reliable deterrents and a defense budget that does not have any limits! Listen to all the former Secretaries of State like Madeline Albright or Colin Powell.

    The only person who would use them are third world religious zealots and idiots like Bush who can not even pronounce the word nuclear. The idea of keeping even one percent of of them which is much more that enough to wipe out all life and leave the earth only a smoking cinder is totally insane . . .

  7. funinsnow says

    If Japan and Germany had the atom bombs, they would have used them as the Japanese airforce had used parachuted fleabombs against China were many were killed in biological warfare. Japan had a program to build the atomb bombs. Though off topic here are my thoughts on 1945 atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Harry S. Truman should have dropped the atom bombs elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths, but there is no guarantee that this would have ended the war. President Truman had bad options. He could have done what he did and it ended the war. If it had gone to a ground war with Japan, more people both Allied and Japanese would have been killed. Japanese would have used women and children in combat with house to house fighting and they were already doing so. Japanese had Bushido (Samurai way) and fighting to death was preferred to suicide. Yes, the newborns killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are innocent war victims. War is a bad thing. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong, but there were only wrong choices for President Truman to choose from. War is bad and an invasion of Japan would have been worse.

    How can we get cleaner energy? We must use nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, geothermal and in some cases use renewables. But renewable energies which will be explained is not so green as it’s sold and renewables can do environmental damage. We must reduce our use of natural gas and coal and save these fossil fuels.

    Germany is building many coal plants to replace their nuclear powerplants and importing gas. Germany will be getting dirtier air from their coal plants.Windmills and solar panels, are sold as ‘green’, but they are not. They need more land, use more materials, generate less energy-both the wind and sun are intermittent. Windmills have killed endangered birds and bats. People who live near windmills have higher incidence of hearing loss, migraines, nausea, etc. Solar panels have dangerous chemicals some of which are carcinogenic. Yes, we must also use windmills and solar panels when possible, but let’s end the idea that windmills and solar panels are ‘green’. Windmills and solar (renewable energies) are based on how much sun and wind you get and when renewables don’t give enough, then coal as Germany does is used.

    The main thing here is that we must save fossil fuels such as limiting natural gas to fuel cars and reduce coal usage. That’s why we must use nuclear/atomic power, geothermal and hydroelectric dams (when possible) combined. Nuclear/atomic energy has advanced greatly-they already use less Uranium which lasts longer & more energy. Thorium needs to be perfect. Physicist Kirk F. Sorensen is working to perfect the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. It must be said that people like me who support nuclear/atomic power also support geothermal, hydro-electric dams, etc. If a place can get 100% of it’s energy from hydroelectric dams as some places in Canada do, then those places uses hydro-electric & the need for nuclear is not there. If a place can get 100% of it’s energy from geothermal as Iceland does, then again, the need for nuclear/atomic energy is not there. Please know that those of us who support nuclear energy also support hydro-electric dams, geothermal, etc. We must use atomic/nuclear energy as well and know that there I am an environmentalist who supports nuclear energy.

  8. says

    In 2009, President Obama stated America’s commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. Help us remind him that words without action are weapons-grade bullsh*t! If you’re on Twitter use that handle for good this week and join us: