British Guy Reacts to The United States (USA) vs The World - Who Would Win? Military Comparison

what would happen is the united states of america decided to take on the world???
🎮Twitch - / l3wg
Please subscribe, like and turn on notifications if you enjoyed the video!
Original Video: • The United States (USA...
Socials:
twitch: twitch.tv/L3WG
twitter: L3WG_
Insta: L3WG_
Tiktok: tiktok.com/L3WG

[@crazyteenagers]

As a Canadian I cannot imagine our government siding against the US in a situation like this. Granted it would depend on the reasons for the conflict, but either way the US forces would roll across the border and Canada would be occupied by lunch.

[@melkor251]

I don't think you give Canada enough credit. One, they are on the inside of a lot of things like NORAD. They could do so pretty nasty stuff to the USA in a quick amount of time. Still, they would get overrun, but they could definitely cause the USA as lot of problems in the first few weeks. But I think the simulation works better if it is North America vs the world. We would Cripple them.

[@teriannebeauchamp254]

I live with 80 miles of the Canadian border. I also work at a store where we see the Canadian reserves coming thru 4 times a year to train on our military bases using our tanks, etc. They travel by busses usually with the occasional humvee type transport. For years I have joked with them and they agree that if Canada ever waged war on us we would have to lend them the equipment. They just don't have the needed war machinery

[@Londubh]

Yo, Canada, how about this: you turn over all your military assets to us, send us some timbits, and apologize for the war of 1812, and in exchange, we'll not completely obliterate your infrastructure, and allow you to turn your provinces into states (and be protected as such), and we'll apologize for Starbucks? Deal?

[@axidhaus]

We are already considering this

[@martindick6001]

Canada does have a military. His name is John, I've met him, he's a great guy.....

[@Sharky-bp1yl]

As Japanese Admiral Yomoto once said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

[@monet53]

That is true

[@roger5322]

I can't speak for anyone else but I have 60 rifles of various calibers and around 250,000 rounds of ammo (combined) . So as far as a ground war goes we don't need the military. We would have 100,000,000 well armed well motivated militia. It probably won't go well for those invading the homeland. Just saying....

[@Bmoreknowledge]

We woke a sleeping giant always remember that in Pearl Harbor movie ithink it was

[@roger5322]

@@Bmoreknowledge it was Yamamoto who said that. Well actually he said both.

[@Bmoreknowledge]

@@roger5322 I can never forget that line in that movie

[@blake7587]

Largest Air Force in the World: United States Air Force. 2nd Largest Air Force in the World: United States Navy.

[@liamengram6326]

4th largest: U.S. Army

[@swamprat9018]

12th Largest: U.S. Coast Guard. just joking it's probably higher than that.

[@brianorca]

5th largest: US Marines

[@gamelord1000]

6th largest force, the 100+ million U.S. Citizens who already own 400+ million guns.

[@Force2reckonVods]

That's always just a fun statement to read

[@antonioo6432]

I’m US Navy vet. Fam you missed the part about American military being separated by command groups. “Command groups” which means each group can’t fight alone. So if you think America can’t handle attack from mainland and in South Pacific while also fighting in the Middle East you would be wrong.

[@cartmemes5034]

I’m not American but I don’t think people realize just how POWERFUL the USA actually is, like the American citizens combined could probably invade and conquer multiple countries alone with the sheer amount of weapons they own. As a Japanese, I’m just happy we have them on our side

[@kathleenmccrory9883]

No worries, we're too busy using them on ourselves.

[@DESERTOXFARMS]

As an American I’m glad your own our side

[@RedBaronVunhun]

carter, are you sure you arent american??

[@cartmemes5034]

carter?@@RedBaronVunhun

[@theconsigliere8463]

despite how the media portrays us american citizens owning a firearms and most citizens own multiple per household which is true. heres where a lot of the misconceptions come into play. first take countries like mexico and multiple countries in africa and russia right more of thier citizens have access to full automatic rifles. 99% of american citizens do not. They can be legally obtained but the laws behind that make it next to impossible for 99% of american citizens, being they have to be manufactured from 1986 or earlier, cant own anything newer than that so how many of those are floating around today? not very many, if you find one they are not in a price range most americans would be willing to pay for a fun switch were talking 10s of thousands of dollars usually around $30-50k ok lets say you're one of the few thats willing to pay that, now you still cant take possession of it cuz now you need to pay a federal tax stamp that must be approved by the government through an extensive background check and whatever other process the government wants to do, well this process also applies to people submitting for suppressors, short barreled rifles, shotguns, firearms classified as "destruction devices" so imagine the list of paperwork they looking through so this process can take up to a year if not longer, so now you've paid this large amount for a firearm with a fun switch that you cant even own yet. so yea we would be defending with semi auto firearms, with regular everyday citizens not trained and 99% that have never been in such a high stress situation like a self defense situation let alone a full out war, sure we would do what we can to help as the american people are proud people, but the disadvantage those that would try and be out there on the front lines would be ugly, the best advantage the people would have would be the ones staying in homes when enemy troops kicking doors trying to take cover.

[@donaldfisher749]

When he says nuclear subs and carriers , they are powered by 2 small Nuclear Reactors that only have to be refueled every 25 years

[@krimzonghost1987]

I was just about to drop this exact same comment. Thanks!

[@sonar357]

Yeah. It amazes me that people still don't understand that basic concept: nuclear submarine/carrier = nuclear POWERED.

[@brianorca]

There are two main kinds of submarines: attack subs are designed to use torpedoes to sink ships or other subs. They might be powered by nuclear power, but do not have nuclear bombs. Ballistic missile subs are the ones that have nuclear bombs which it can deliver from far away.

[@benjaminewing3472]

Yeah now we even have nuclear aircraft carriers

[@had1toomany114]

Wow. I know what nuclear power means, but I didn't know they only have to be refueled every 25 years. Interesting.

[@ryanross6426]

They didn't even mention that over 46% of the worlds non military firearms are owned by US citizens. The stat I saw was that Americans own 120.5 firearms per 100 people. Even if Canada and South America tried to invade, it probably wouldn't go well.

[@jeannewallace8967]

South America is invading now if you hadn't noticed...and they seem to be doing fine

[@Puyax01]

Rednecks will not go to war. They are all bark

[@redraven8963]

There is a sharp shooting competition that happens every year in the United States, approximately 10,000 people compete for an award from the president on average 50% of those Shooters are civilian that has won the award.

[@deannaforrest9571]

Agree...I know a few people who privately at home own 25+ guns their self. Collectors. I know a lot of women who own guns. These are law-abiding people, not criminals. One of the reasons Americans refuse to disarm. If there ever is an invasion besides the vast military, citizens will still be armed and fight.

[@zinkszinks4555]

You're correct plus there are only a few viable land access points to enter 🇺🇸 anyway. Covering this by air would deplete any engaging force.

[@joetblake]

Love how he's like "but wouldn't the other countries help?" Obviously has never tried to get puppies into a bath tub.

[@sli0.0]

Underappreciated comment!

[@Micas099]

I don't know about that man.. like.. if I pick up a puppy and put it in the bathtub, the bathtub is a tub, so the puppy can't get out as long as the tub has high a enough side that prevent jumping out. After I've put all the puppies in the bathtub, aren't they just stuck there? Your analogy seems flawed, but I could be wrong.. like maybe the the puppies that aren't in the bathtub yet are running around the house like mad (a distraction) because they know that bath time is their worst nightmare, and the puppies already in the bathtub are coordinating their attacks to get out of the tub by boosting each other.

[@hecticway]

🏆

[@verse31]

I don’t think they could communicate well enough together at all.

[@nomadtex5810]

​@@Micas099Except all of that depends on the puppy lol, and these are really big puppys

[@marcbelisle5685]

As an American, we just want peace and commerce, and we believe in what Teddy Roosevelt said about effective diplomacy: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

[@illusive1181]

"Its better to be a warrior in a garden, then a gardener in a war.".

[@jackhenry8015]

That's the people, our Gov wants global hegemony and can't blame them. Look who's inline to take over when we fall? The hatred of the US will be missed greatly when China & Russia have the big stick. The no war for oil crowd, do they really think oil isn't worth fighting over? Only through that do us people enjoy peace and commerce. Sadly that pissses out enemies off who want the same at least in their corner of the world and we stay in this loop. They could fall in line but that means they fall in line and agree to the US's rule and the Dollar. We enjoy our way of life due to our control and we piss everyone because of it. Answer to the problem? Might as well just take control

[@dustinoutlaw9453]

@@jackhenry8015 Our government (the US) is a puppet government. The progressive globalist Marxists all convene in what's called the Bilderberg meetings... Anyone who believes that Obama isn't actually pulling the strings above Biden is either dim- or they have their heads stuck in the sand. The uniparty is controlled by the globalists, and they control Obama. Ask someone on the street how many World Trade Centers fell during 9/11 and 90 percent will tell you 2. WTC7 was absolutely positively a controlled drop- the footage of it coming down proves that- never mind the fact that in the history of structural steel erection, no building has ever collapsed due to an office fire... I'm an ironworker with almost 20 years under my belt, with experience in demo. Obama, Bush, they're all tied together and part of the problem. I served under Bush Jr- I signed up for the US Army when i was 17 because of 9/11... I was naive. We got 20 years of war on terror, we got the patriot act and we got headline news that overshadowed the Congressional hearing going on where the DOD was being questioned about 2.9 Trillion dollars that they couldn't account for... The American people are starting to wake up- but i fear it's to late...

[@TYR_001]

@@jackhenry8015 thats honestly a pretty solid take.

[@jaredconnor]

​@@TYR_001it's not a take. It's a certifiable, substantially backed truth. US hegemony is the only way forward.

[@MrRayj35]

You know the US Military has way more capability than they will ever let any of us know.

[@MrRayj35]

@OnlyReplyIfYourCommentDontSuck Absolutely. It's been said that our US Military has technology that goes 30 to 50 years ahead of what the rest of the world knows. I call BS on that. I'd be thoroughly surprised if they aren't AT LEAST 150 years ahead at this point. It always amazes me when people think they really KNOW what we are capable of. Heck, there are large portions of our OWN MILITARY that don't have a clue of our true capabilities!!!!

[@brandonholmes1144]

The united states is in possession of exotic material

[@anthonysantucci4803]

@OnlyReplyIfYourCommentDontSuck It’s probably the ufos people have seen

[@lancehayes9983]

We still don't know the full capabilities of the f-22. What we see them do in videos and at airshows is all that the public is allowed to see.

[@MrRayj35]

@@lancehayes9983 Absolutely agree.

[@sjdedeaux]

L3WG Reacts: "I don't see how the US could win." US Dept. of Defense: "Observe."

[@Censorthisbananahamock]

This is what happens when the education system fails, this guy doesn't know a thing about how supply chains work, how goods are transported, or how previous wars were fought and the dangers of transporting thing across the ocean. They could take every abled bodied Chinese and Indian Male, and put a uniform on them, but it would take years to put guns in each of their hands. Then what are they going to do, load them on a ship and send them across the ocean, subs will torpedo those boats and then you would have a lot of dead floating in the Pacific.

[@dalemac614]

He should remember his own history, Great Britain hasn’t been Invaded since 1066. The mere fact of them being an island has made it impossible to invade. The USA is surrounded by vast u irrupted thousands of miles of open ocean. An invasion is simply not possible.

[@michaelk6685]

You spelled "Hold my beer" wrong. 😂

[@gunnerelliott6737]

Well aside from the fact that the US military is highly compartmentalized and most servicemen are only privy to thier branch/job scope most servicemen don't know the full scope of capabilities at any given time. The biggest reason why America wins this battle are 2 reasons. 1 we train constantly we are battle ready for anything and everything when needed. 2 attrition. We can immediately hurt opposition then when all are struggling to build, and replenish we start picking off the strongest of the bunch keeping any coordinated efforts from materializing, we can mass produce everything military wise we need here at home as well as feed and refuel when no one else has that ability. All of that said this is a dumb scenario because the US has no designs to rule the world. We only wish to keep fighting to a minimum. Hence trying to keep the middle east from imploding.

[@jamescrouchet1283]

@@gunnerelliott6737 I notice they didn't even touch on the effect of things like US special forces. And given that the US has detailed info on who's who, what's what, and where they are likely to be on any currently allies I expect a lot of high value targets would be eliminated or extracted very quickly.

[@jlanthripp]

@9:30 - "They're gonna be using their planes and missiles to blow up the ships" - they'll try maybe, but they won't get ordinance within fifty miles of a carrier. A carrier strike group has dozens of destroyers and guided missile frigates screening and protecting it. And each carrier is carrying an air wing that is more powerful than most countries' air forces, combined.

[@Brian-zw4zu]

Not to mention sending in seal teams and virtually all spec ops/ black ops teams to take out those facilities which would leave them vulnerable. This entire video was JUST on the capabilities of US military via air and sea, not mentioning our ground forces whatsoever. Add that in, our enemies don't stand a chance.

[@Sabamonster]

As a 40 year old, medically retired US combat veteran, one thing I can say; is that we have been perfecting modern warfare for the last 40 years. We have a lot of experience in theatre that other countries just don't have. Combined with technology, the amount of people in service at any given time, we would be a tough nut to crack. We took Bagdhad in 3 days. Our current AO is the world. No other country in the world can say that. And Nuclear subs are Nuclear Powered.

[@nate.hanlon]

what’s AO mean?

[@Sabamonster]

@@nate.hanlon Area of Operations.

[@RyanPatrick-yy7zi]

No, the world would roll of the US

[@Sabamonster]

@@RyanPatrick-yy7zi Spoken like someone who's never seen the US War-machine. Nobody is even close. That's not anecdotal, keyboard warrior boasting - that's real-world experience and comparison. We might get beat but it would take the whole world to do it - and even then I'm doubtful.

[@TechReviewTom]

​@@RyanPatrick-yy7zi It wouldn't be a rollover. It would be difficult however.

[@spoilofthelamb]

A nuclear submarine is a submarine powered by a nuclear reactor. The wargame called for no use of nuclear weapons, but just like nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, these subs could still be used with conventional missiles and torpedoes. The advantage is that they never need to surface or refuel - their limiting factor is food, which lasts months to years depending on rationing.

[@paulmartin2348]

Food is something like 3 months with rationing. NOT years for a Sub or a Carrier. (Carrier is large but 5-6 thousand people on board that all eat)

[@Not-a-GSD]

Nuclear Submarines also have many conventional weapons on board. During the first and second gulf wars a large number of conventional cruse missiles were launched from just a few nuclear submarines.

[@user-nr5ux7gr2g]

Besides food a nuclear powered sub in a active war will need to re-arm and pick up parts and other supplies just to keep all those moving parts that makes Sub

[@akrasiathekruzmachine2341]

​@@paulmartin2348 American ships tend to carry a LOT of food. With modern storage techniques, I wouldn't be surprised if they could go a year or more. I'm not sure about subs though.

[@cptn_chromo3189]

@@paulmartin2348 Wrong. They carry enough food for an entire deployment because they are expected to have to be submerged for the entirety of it. With rationing they can nearly double the rest of the food.

[@evanspage5]

Remember, each of these battlefield scenarios are happening simultaneously, Europe, China, and others would be facing strike groups while the middle east was under siege, and wouldn't be able to realistically come to aid.

[@zekepentecost2393]

I think they could have been more clear about that. Folks that don't know don't understand this. That little nugget of info changes everything!

[@scott8448]

When’s the last war America won? You’ve lost countless lately and to people who are no more technically advanced then you were when you defeated the British. You’ve lost not once but twice to the Middle East, Korea, Cold War was a non fight, even now with all the backing of the USA Ukraine is losing to Russia so how the fuck could you take on the world when you constantly lose to minor third world countries?

[@kalebcampos1064]

Itd be a literal wave of stealth bombers over all the major countries while the scorched earth campaign in the Middle East kicks off. Use the chaos on need to be defensive to force a lose-lose decision. Then it's blocade and naval domination. The key is, if a navy is overwhelmed with minimal losses for the US, every ship lost hurts more and more in a war of attrition.

[@WillMuny]

This video is kind of lame. The fact is Americas first and only priority at the start would be to secure the Gulf Of Mexico, Caribbean and to secure the North American Coast line including Panama. Its second priority would then be Secure bases in Morocco and Spain, and Eliminate the Japanese Navy. After this the Navy could focus on the South Pacific, Med and North Atlantic fully. It will also allow for air raids back into the middle east and their oil production. America will not be able to hold most their bases like this video says. The only thing they got 100% right is the bases in the Middle East would destroy all oil production. More than likely once this is done at the start, they would be evacuated.

[@Blarg6306]

He's missing the part where these aren't separate wars where nobody is helping each other. These are happening at the same time, they're just different theatres. It isn't that they won't help each other; it's that they CAN'T.

[@fearandloathingmedia2051]

Him: wouldn't south America, Canada, and Mexico be attacking and invading U.S. soil. Canada, Mexico, and Brazil: 👀 you want us to do what now?!

[@immystery3946]

This made me laugh

[@frenchspartan89]

Right? They tried that in WWI and Mexico noped the f out on that.

[@dianethomas9384]

Most of Canada seems pretty metro special but from what I habe seen a lot of people in Alberta Manitoba and Saskatchewan would at best refuse to fight us and some would be likely to support us. Cannot speak for the rest of that country. As for Mexico, the cartels would have no customers if we went under, so, like the Italian Mafia in WWII, they could fight the Mexican government forces

[@landengoodner9841]

This made me laugh so hard.

[@5avan10]

I'm pretty sure that Texas' National Guard forces alone could keep Mexico's entire military at bay pretty easily. And we haven't even started to discuss the US Coast Guard yet.

[@alexanderrose1071]

A big thing here that I think you're overestimating is how hard it is to coordinate a war. That many countries who don't have a history of working together would not go well or be easy.

[@mrsgunsage01]

He's also not taking into account that even if the rest of a global coalition could throw some kind of command structure together quickly enough... they would have to go into a fight against the US knowing outright that they couldn't trust Russia, China, or North Korea not to betray them and try to turn everything to their own ambitions.

[@Crocoroar]

Underestimating*

[@Sgt_SealCluber]

Mobilization is the key, people underestimate it. It doesn't matter how strong the rest of the world's militaries are if they can't get them to the battlefields.

[@Viconius]

Coordination within the same military is difficult and takes a great deal of practice. Coordination between different nations is way harder and regularly on display with NATO even under the best conditions. Poor coordination can be more disastrous than actual conflicts.

[@EricT3769]

@@CrocoroarNo, he’s talking about the guy overestimating the world’s ability to coordinate an attack on the U.S.

[@tiercelnox7552]

A nuclear submarine is a submarine powered by nuclear reactors. This gives them a greater expeditionary range. It also drastically increases the combat capabilities. Also, the scenario proposed in the video has the U.S. engaging the Middle East and Europe at the same time as they engage the Pacific Asian countries.

[@sethparker3122]

Also probably more important even than range is their undersea range (without resurfacing). Before the nuclear generator, they used diesel which burns up your air so you need to get close enough to the surface to snorkel in fresh air regularly. With a nuclear generator, you can stay deep under the surface for literally months at a time. The limiting factor actually becomes crew provisions in modern subs.

[@TravisLiscum-e8o]

I thought every1 knew this 😂

[@gamecrow8354]

Also, I'm pretty sure that the nuclear subs run a LOT quieter than the noisy diesel subs, making them harder to detect

[@kevinkilpatrick2536]

@@TravisLiscum-e8olol I assumed the same. But I guess that’s just because we have them and the majority don’t.

[@DankMoonBlade]

@@gamecrow8354Idk there have been some quiet subs and good captains able to shut the engine off and coast and get away, I think they crashed tho lol was a Russian sub supposedly trying to defect.

[@Op42177]

"While everyone hits them" 🤣🤣🤣🤣 is the funniest line ever who said we would let anyone get that close?

[@tinaw.5538]

The biggest thing you miss is that the rest of the world, including China, can't deploy them anywhere. We are everywhere.

[@kenadler777]

He wasn't listening or understanding this. He went in with a preconceived idea that the US could not beat the entire world so he was doubtful early on.

[@theodorep9569]

Counterpoint, once Taiwan is taken the U.S. loses its source of 95% of its chips required to replenish its forces. In a war that lasts this is Americas Achilles heel, much like the propeller screw or heavy water that was the one limit to the Nazi replenishment.

[@King_Dusty_Of_Pookytopia]

To true. 900+ bases the world over.

[@potroast1797]

The ability to mobilize anywhere in the world is a uniquely USA ability do to our navy

[@ThePaganSun]

As long as those other countries continue to LET us, but if we are at war, goodbye foreign military bases.

[@johnathanhenley2251]

As an American, I cannot fathom any scenario where our alliances would break down to such a point where it would be one nation fighting against a galvanized coalition of every other nation on the planet. As a US Army Veteran, I have worked with some damned fine service members from other nations. I hold those working relationships and national alliances in the highest esteem.

[@xzonia1]

It is a goofy premise, to be sure. Thank you for your service.

[@johnathanhenley2251]

@xzonia1 to carry this chicanery and tomfoolery a step further, I can't conceive a single possibility of anything within the US military undustrial-complex, bottom up, or top down, where this scenario could ever conceivably happen. The very best numbers I think that will ever come in the political sphere here ever again are something the range of 44.2 (+/- 1.95) with a deviation range of a half % in either direction for a about 30 to 36 years. There won't be a third party candidate that makes serious waves in that time. Humans are fickle, and I hope I am wrong in a good way. Americans are also very set in doing the things that we've always done.

[@d0sitmatr]

@johnathanhenley2251 first off, thank you sir, for your service. now, let me paint a picture for you that may (or may not) make you rethink the US never fighting against a coalition of every nation on earth. a certain person in the WH continually makes our armed forces weaker by design. to the point that many nations (even US ally's) are laughing at us and perceive us as weak coupled with weak leadership. unable to fulfill its promises of helping defend our ally's from attack. this same person at the same time is devastating our current reserves of both resources and firepower while fighting a proxy war. it is leaked that this person has been linked to bioweapons that had been "accidently" released... you see where Im going with this line of hypothesis ?

[@yamiryu02]

Global governance coalition fails to overcome Americans hunger for liberty and cannot recruit our nation into the global conquest. Globalists number one enemy. That's how that happens.

[@niko7903]

Of course, it really is an unthinkable scenario. It's just an exercise to put into perspective the military power that the US has. I too am very pleased with the awesome relationships we have with our truly badass foreign military partners, who are more than worthy to fight along side our soldiers. What makes it so special, is the way we have trained in constant large scale joint exercises together, our advanced system integration, and our general shared values. Russia and China barely like each other, they're more frenemies than they are allies, and none of our enemies truly know how to fight together. We and our allies basically come together to form into Voltron, while our enemies would form into a bag of dildos. They don't want this smoke.

[@mattneilson644]

He seems to have missed the part where this is happening at the same time. Nobody can go to help someone else because they have their own "problems"

[@qsviewsrpgs4571]

100%

[@Rodimusfire]

Omg Thank You i was literally looking for this comment smh

[@nikkiab86]

All of this will happen simultaneously. You are right, each country will have their own problems to deal with.

[@charleswood4508]

Yup this is why the video showed the different combatant commands and how we'd do it simultaneously, don't get me wrong there'd be a heavy loss on the US but doing it at the same time is crazy. Not to mention, cyber guys doin there shi, ew guys doin their shi, then you have a Mashup of everyone from space force. The onyk thing i can think of is pilots, and logistics like food,water fuel etc

[@TroyBierkortte]

Nuclear subs don't necessarily deploy nuclear weapons. They are just powered by nuclear reactors, which makes them able to travel underwater essentially indefinitely and for long ranges. They can cross an ocean 20 to 30 times before they have to stop. That's about how long it takes them to run out of food, which is what actually limits how long they can stay at sea. They don't need fuel. They make their own water and oxygen from seawater.

[@Phil-s4u]

Nuclear subs 100% definitely have to refuel. It's crazy to say it doesn't need fuel.

[@UKnowtheThing]

I was on the USS Michigan SSBN 727. The nuclear reactor doesn't need refueling. You're talking every 25 years or so. And we have 24 independent Trident missiles with 8 independent warheads each. You're talking end world scenario if we launched because we wouldn't be the only ones launching.

[@TroyBierkortte]

@@Phil-s4u no, they do t necessarily have to refuel. Sometimes they just get junked instead. The fuel load is good for many years. Sometimes the sub becomes obsolete before it runs out of fuel.

[@Phil-s4u]

@TroyBierkortte yea...when it's obliterated or it's an older model.....the usa usually have nuclear subs in service for upwards of 40 years. But the uss Ohio is a nuclear powered sub and it's been in service for 43 years and still going. But all that doesn't matter. Nuclear subs definitely have to refuel.

[@TroyBierkortte]

@@Phil-s4u yeah, if you awant to be pedantic about it. They need to refuel about once avery 15 years. Definitely not something that limits the length of time they can be underway. BTW, the USS Baltimore was not an older type (many older ones are still in service) and was not obliterated. Only 2 US nuclear subs have ever sunk. It was decommissioned without ever having been refueled. It was not the only one. It was the first one I qualified on. Which was your qual boat?

[@jerrymanderer8464]

To clarify, a nuclear sub is powered by a small nuclear reactor, as opposed to being powered by an internal combustion engine. This allows for longer submersion, as well as quieter operations. But, yes, some are equipped with nuclear missiles.

[@michaelnielson3978]

That part was amusing me

[@blademaster2390]

“The largest air force in the world is the US Air Force. The second largest air force in the world is the US Navy.”

[@catherinepetersen3789]

Is the 3rd largest the U.S. Marines??? 😂

[@-dragonofthewest-3625]

​@@catherinepetersen3789 Last I checked Russia was no.3 but we do hold the 4th and 5th spots lol xD (Army and Marines respectively)

[@RejectOneWorldGov]

At this point in time, I honestly dont think even the world combined could take the US. Certainly not the main land. I dont really think its ever going to change. We will always be ahead of the world.

[@eddarby469]

The third largest might be the US Army if you count rotary wing aircraft.

[@DarthVader2000-sf8nr]

​@@eddarby469well about area 51 they got technology we don't even have all over the united states

[@albertpeugh9367]

My Wife’s from England and her Dad would look at me every 4th of July and say “I’m glad we’re Allie’s, it’s why I don’t speak German” to which my Wife concurs. He was 7 when Hitler invaded the UK.

[@tannerbanta2659]

Hitler never invaded the uk lol

[@LexGoyle]

​@@tannerbanta2659Germany bombed the UK relentlessly.

[@robertharris6092]

​@@LexGoyle thats not an invasion

[@idkisuckatnames8160]

@@robertharris6092 the bombing was to prepare for invasion to weaken the UK air force but Hitler shifted bombing to non military targets after berlin was bombed allowing UK to repair enough ships to fight off the German planes which if they won would of most likely set up for UK to be invaded

[@robertharris6092]

@@idkisuckatnames8160 ships were not used to fight against planes in the battle of london...

[@WoeItsHeated]

Another thing you're not considering, is that each country wouldn't want to expend their forces in say the middle east. Because they'd also be concerned about leaving their territory vulnerable.

[@williamstelling2164]

What most countries don't realize is that in many conflicts, the US actually does restrains itself. The US almost never uses force even when other countries think we are

[@user-gy8ij6mx4s]

💯

[@klay369]

They also don't take into account in the video the massive private military production complex of America. We could out produce every other country combined in weapons and weapon systems. At a higher quality than everything they already have.

[@greatarabia8091]

Makes sense because you guys have killed tens of millions of innocents since ww2. ​@@klay369

[@Bizz4r2m0ke]

​@@klay369not only that but more and better trained boots on the ground faster. No offense to any of our allies, especially South Korea.

[@RonRhine1076]

Thats because our definition of force is a lot different than the rest of the world.

[@seizer88]

Having seen what the leaders of many of these countries are like, I really have a hard time believing they would be able to coordinate a serious coalition.

[@seaneustace9838]

The political leaders of the United States, don’t have the same power as leaders in other countries. They have push to have more and more power over the years and that’s how weak in the military and other systems because they are incompetent morons. This is why America replace them with Donald J Trump and this is why they stolen election from him, but the trajectory is against their power base in long run. All the fantasies of the world economic forum and borderless capital, and Banksters are going to come to a swift and sooner than later. That’s why they’re flipping out and stealing elections and trying to cause World War III and trying to force central bank digital currencies on everyone right now. In the end they will hang from bridges by piano wire or have pitchforks fixed in their necks. They have prevented any form of remedy, which plays against their desired ends, and by doing so have brought about nothing but enmity from the American people.

[@anonymoustechnician2935]

Right now with biden in office I doubt we'd be able to pull this off right now

[@tonylester4959]

This is where you are wrong. War is the one thing we are good with. We disagree on many things, but we are all in when it comes to protecting ourselves.

[@seizer88]

@@anonymoustechnician2935 What you think our military is weak because Biden is president, I've never heard anything stupider, except for trump, he was stupider. Putin's puppet.

[@mattbrown5511]

There is no such thing as "overkill". There is prepared or defeat. And yes, I'm American. And yes, I'm an American combat veteran. Everyone forgets the US Coast Guard, National Guard, Air National Guard and Reserve Forces that America has.

[@PaulMoyerSavingFreak]

And that if you attack our homeland, in entire sections of the country the citizens are armed to the teeth.

[@TheAvkdutch]

Don't forget our police forces are.pretty well armed as well. Oh and.our civilians would pester any force with hunting rifles "shoot and scoot"

[@JohnHill-bn5kn]

Puddle jumpers? Just kudding

[@gregoryk.9815]

You should include the veterans

[@guyonbench]

@@TheAvkdutch "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". -Isoroku Yamamoto

[@drblaque521]

I really enjoyed your video and you commentary, but there's some basic things you need to know, and as a a US Navy veteran myself, I could help you and the audience understand a lot. Like nuclear submarine does not mean nuclear bomb.

[@SirRichardKingOfCringe]

lol, was looking for this comment XD If I understand correctly, it just means they are powered by nuclear material? how long does that material last before they have to "refuel"?

[@maj0raw3s0m3]

@@SirRichardKingOfCringe if i remember correctly it lasts about 25 years

[@drblaque521]

@@SirRichardKingOfCringe decades, maybe centuries. It's that serious, amazing technology. Other countries can't match the US capabilities

[@CJ-442]

The thing is when most people (Americans included) hear that the US military is “massive” they really don’t understand the true scale of how much bigger it is than everyone else’s.

[@natedevos1511]

Oh alot of us do, we spend more on military spending than the next 15 countries combined

[@Maurice3774]

I think this to is why Brick sounds scary but they would just bully their way back into currency that works

[@angelacrist338]

It’s honestly infuriating (as an American). The risk to us is minimal of genuinely being attacked and this tradition of military spending has put us way behind in healthcare and education.

[@jesuscornstorm737]

Or how technologically A L L of our vehicles are, land, sea, air, we now have literal laser beams for missle defense on all combat ready vehicles almost.

[@beatles42ohgg94]

@@jesuscornstorm737 well, we have a vehicle in most units equipped with that. most other vehicles are just protecting the trophy system.

[@nschlaak]

The US is required by law to be able to fight two full fledged wars and a brush fire (minor skirmish) at the same time.

[@markbay9275]

As an American I want to say that we respect our allies and know that strength in numbers is crucial to winning a world war.

[@JustB904]

This is true! But video even touches on fact at end.. Even if we “win” the world’s economy is crashed. Everyone loses

[@tonymiller8152]

GOD HELP ALL THE LITTLE PEOPLE

[@peterraab3411]

As a Yankee myself, I'm proud of my Nation in a Traditional sense. Do to Liberal Democrat Socilisim and a decline in values and illegal immigrants........ROME is Falling.

[@janicearroyo-wright8529]

​@@peterraab3411Nah. Out worst moments in history have always lead to making us better. Revolutionary war, civil war, civil rights,...etc. We always get stronger after struggles. This is one of those moments in time and we will be better for.

[@jaredconnor]

​@@peterraab3411the irony of you dismaying illegal immigrants when original British-American settlers were all illegal immigrants.

[@DNozz777]

"whole world combined" actually means only about 10 nations with actual military hardware.. For example.. Mexico's military couldn't even take Texas civilian reserves.. btw.. Nuclear submarines don't mean they use nuclear weapons (they can as well) but a "nuclear submarine" mean they are powered by a nuclear reactor. (can quite literally stay underwater for decades at a time without having to refuel).

[@syngates6]

A homeland invasion on the US would not go too well, due to US Forces state side, and civilians being armed. A Japanese commander from WWII was asked why they did not try to invade the US and his response was "there is a gun behind every blade of grass"

[@brandonpearson4142]

Admiral yamamoto i believe is the one your quoting.

[@Papasquatch73]

You can have California

[@mcdan84]

Give em the shit show that is texas.@@Papasquatch73

[@glenntukes4021]

yeah but look at how they are trying to weaken us by taking our guns and all of their gun control laws!

[@richardgray7447]

The thing that makes us “ The last superpower in the world “ is based on the fact that we’re the only country in the world that can fight multiple theaters of war at the same time while still being able to defend our nation.

[@FueledByAdrenaline]

Damn right... We could defend our nation, poorly yet effectively, with our citizens alone. Red Dawn was actually based off of a military scenario where the US had to be defended by its people and not its military. Even though the vast majority of the American people aren't tactically trained, we have enough of a well regulated militia that training would be happening live.

[@OzZy-13820]

​@@FueledByAdrenaline and at least the majority of the country folk, as well as some city people that hunt, many are great shots at a distance. It's like warring with a bunch of snipers.

[@williamcahill2462]

The US has more stealth aircraft than England has Royal Marines. Thats the scale of difference between the US and a typical NATO partner. That stat is from GenDat, a former Royal Marine.

[@RomaInvicta202]

Idk where you got that from as according to Forbes there are 700 stealth aircrafts in the entire world and UK has 6500 Royal Marines No one disputes US military power, but let's stick to facts

[@williamcahill2462]

@aprilfool6808 I checked again. I heard it wrong. It was more AIRCRAFT that Royal Marines. It was from a reaction video of a retired Royal Marine who has a channel called GenDat.

[@nate4036]

Stealth has multiple meanings. Majority of our aircraft have stealth properties. From very low detection to completely invisible. Yet both are considered stealth. The US alone has way more than 700 “stealth” air craft

[@williamcahill2462]

@Shenmue06 modern day Rome without the "conquest" component of governing. The US realizes their super generous geography makes us powerful simply via trade as opposed to conquest. We shut down European colonization models after WWII, as we traded arms for the surety these countries would not continue with colonization post war. That led to 70 odd years of relative peace. It's also why countries can sleep well at night knowing the US will never seek to conquer them. Now that the Ukraine - Russia conflict has exposed Russia as a non factor in battle, and China copied Russian weapon systems, it's clear the US stands alone militarily.

[@KmartToaster-th2hm]

With the exception of the Manifest Destiny policy of expanding westward to the Pacific and the acquisition of Alaska and Hawaii, consider the number of countries that the United States has occupied - and then given back, usually after rebuilding them..... Mexican-American War - Mexico surrendered unconditionally - the US could have annexed the entire country if it wanted to do so Nicaragua - The US occupied that country from 1912 through 1933 Haiti - Occupied by the US between 1915 through 1934 - again in 1994-1995 Dominican Republic - between 1916 through 1924 Honduras - American troops were sent in 1903,1907,1911, 1912, 1919, 1924, and 1925 Cuba - in addition to outright taking the territory in the Spanish-American War of 1898, American troops were sent in 1917 through 1922 (the US still has Guantanamo Bay) Puerto Rico - taken from Spain in 1898 Spanish American War - the US won't make them a state but they refuse independence (debatable....) Philippines - taken from Spain - retaken from Japanese - granted independence by the US in 1946 - now an ally Germany - rebuilt and returned - now an ally Japan - rebuilt and returned - now an ally Italy - rebuilt and turned into ally while still engaged against Germany Greenland Iceland Austria Panama - 1989-90 Grenada - 1983 Iraq - occupied and left Afghanistan - occupied and left Vietnam - could have stayed but elected to leave - could have left it out of this list, but it at least shows that the US won't stay unless it is profitable or if it risks creating more hippies.... South Korea - occupied from the Japanese - protected against North Korea and China - rebuilt them and continue to be an ally - most don't realize that over 100k South Korean soldiers fought with the US in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War You are correct. Countries understand that the US does not want to conquer them and keep them. They will certainly invade, remove governments that piss the US off, and establish friendly relations, and will even rebuild your country if you ask nicely. The US is arguably the most benevolent conquerer in history. If you had to chose, who would you rather have invade your homeland? The US or Russia.... The US or China? How about the US or England? @@williamcahill2462

[@victorfebo2672]

When talking about nuclear, he refers to the power engine and no ballistics missiles

[@christineharrison7815]

I laughed when you mentioned Canada,Mexico and South America……they really have nothing to throw our way….Canada has the most….and honestly, I think they would try to stick with the US out of self preservation

[@BeefSupremeAviation]

@@beowulf_of_wall_stwhile I agree with this, all it would take is the government ran news stations in the US to say that Russians are invading dressed as Canadian to get every hunter within 100 miles of the border to defend their homeland

[@christineharrison7815]

@@beowulf_of_wall_stI agree! But this is an every nation vs US (never to happen) scenario…..so I’m just referring to capabilities….not any real desire😅

[@shmiggz]

They wouldn't get too far with their tank lol

[@PerceptionOverload]

@@christineharrison7815 In this scenario of an all out war against all other nations, the USA would basically roll up the border and reach Ottawa within days at the very most. We simply do not have the equipement to sustain war against america in any meaningful way. Within a week, Canada would sign total surrender. You outnumber the population 10 to 1 and you out equip us a billion to 1. The Canadian military is trained elite soldiers to accompagny american forces on oversea deployement and humanitarian effort. Other than uniforms, we don't own anything.

[@michaelgleason4791]

They have sticks and stones.

[@edwardkendall9101]

Boots on the ground are not needed in any scenario you can propose. No country in the world has the capability to reach the USA to attack it, with the exceptions of Canada and Mexico. Canada's military is very small, and Mexico is even smaller, and not near the technology level of the USA. This war would be as described, a war of attrition. Also, of the top ten military manufacturers in the world, 5 are located in the US.

[@liamengram6326]

And both countries would be more than ready to fight along side us with assistance because they know how tf it would go. They aren't trying to make enemies right next door. Given survivability Mexico and Canada are ready to make sure the only entries are the coasts.

[@NeoGen1987]

Also Mexico is so corrupt that they are just too busy killings themselves

[@marksmith4892]

well i'm guessing canada and mexico would try to simply remain neutral because in this scenario it would mean that the whole world had lost its goddamn mind hahaha

[@liamengram6326]

@@marksmith4892 They wouldn't be able to. It would either be get fucked by both sides or join the U.S. Because whether they like it or not the other countries would quickly realize that a sea-based war front would not only not be sustainable long-term, but would put them at a disadvantage. So they'd want to come in through Canada and Mexico with a land front. That alone is going to fuck up the infrastructure of those nations even if they do not resist. Even more so, the U.S. in such a dire war isn't going to wait for those land fronts to rock up at the border. They're going to meet them on the ground, well away from the lower 48, and then both those countries become warzones. Realistically they have one option... launch a joint defense with the U.S. to defend the East and West coastlines along with the Gulf, use the arctic as a natural barrier to the North and limit ground invasion to the relatively tiny strip of land that is the Mexico-Guatemala border to the south.

[@xScooterAZx]

Russia does. It can send troops across easily through the tip of Alaska.

[@RvSWAZvT]

As an American I can say it’s true. Most pedestrians have guns. Invading the mainland would be nearly impossible as almost anyone would be a threat. Not only that we train other countries in our tactics. Which means we’ve mastered war to the point other countries rely on our training. We spend a lot of money to be #1 and trust nobody to do a better job than the US. Keep in mind we post our military tech on National Geographic and History Channel. Almost like an open invitation to try it because we’re bored.

[@Fermion.]

True, I mean if a foreign force did invade, where the hell are they going to go? They could get picked off by anyone, anywhere, at anytime. It won't be like the movies, where a foreign force invades and just goes marching down main street, with all the citizens cowering in fear. They'll have bullets flying at them from every direction. We have about 1.25x more guns in circulation than people. So, if they come with a force of 20,000 men, and invade a city of 1,000,000, that's about 1,250,000 guns in circulation in that city alone that they'll have to deal with. There's no way in hell they're walking out of that. And how they're getting 20,000 men past the US Navy is a whole other damn near impossible situation, in and of itself.

[@marcbelisle5685]

Or because the supposedly cutting edge stuff we advertise is a generation behind the real cutting edge stuff, which is top secret.

[@OfficialTacoGod]

Imagine paratrooping into the US only two get your ass cheek sniped by a drunk hillbilly and his buddies join in placing bets on where to hit 💀

[@Midnight24435]

@@OfficialTacoGod Is'zat ona 'dem 'er invader partroopers?? Shiiiiiit. Hole mah beer, BillyJo. Bet I can get 'er dooonnnnneee wit one shot dis time.

[@OfficialTacoGod]

@@Midnight24435 $20 on the left cheek first shot 💀

[@FrauWilhelmKlink]

As an American, I can say with no bragging whatsoever that we believe in being overprepared for literally anything. We generally treat war like a game...in the sense that we could have made a _lot_ more destructive things, but rejected the ideas. And it's a good thing we do, because if we didn't, the rest of the world would fear us. But we're well aware of that, so we keep ourselves in check. Besides, the world police _has_ to be prepared for anything, so...🤷🏻‍♀️ In our defense, we've been eager to fight since the Revolutionary War and never stopped. On the bright side, it means we make great allies! Much love from across the pond❤

[@mazrick247]

We have been carrying the biggest "sword" in the world for over two hundred years. and outside of the few lunatics that we have helped put down, its been some of the best times in human history! How many people in the world do you think sleep better at night knowing this? That if someone evil seeks to claim dominion over them, to take from them that which is sacred to them, that America will be there. People can say its hogwash, but it happens every day. I know of special forces operators who form their own companies and put there lives on the line to free people from North Korea. Look at the air life operation after world war 2 to feed the people of Germany that the communist sought to starve. I liked your comment! Brought out some fierce old American veteran in me! It does hurt to travel the world sometimes and get looked at as being part of the "evil" American war machine. We went to Iraq to genuinely help those people, despite what our government may have wanted, speaking for myself and those I know.

[@lucasjohnston1305]

As a former aircraft refueler for the US Air Force, we had a saying: "without gas, pilots are just pedestrians". If the enemy air force has no gas, they don't fly Edit: also no, Nuclear submarine means its nuclear powered and therefore has an extremely long range and has to surface less when compared to traditionally powered ones. Although they can be equipped with nukes in some cases, this is not what the name refers to.

[@chrischoin7402]

As a weapons loader our saying was the “Air Force was just another airline without us. “

[@jesusofbullets]

@@chrischoin7402 Ayyyyy, a fellow load toad. IYAAYAS!

[@kerrytoby7041]

Canada will never fight America. We are too much allied. The longest term allies of NATO would also not fight each other.

[@mrmoofle]

Remember the National Guard. Every state (and Wahington, DC) has its own army. Not to mention, there are more privately owned firearms in the US than the rest of the world combined. Every deer hunter is basically a sniper. There are over 300,000 licensed hunters just in the state of Minnesota, dwarfing the armies of most other countries.

[@Nytebane]

Right.... it would not go well for any country to invade 😂

[@camfrog79]

Holy.. yeah good luck.

[@ThePaganSun]

Deer hunters and snipers are not the same. 🙄

[@tearstoneactual9773]

@@ThePaganSun - If you're engaging a target at 500+ meters with precision, from cover and concealment, there's really not. Combine that with a lot of hunters liking to take shots at even longer distances? I should point out that most police sniper engagements take place at 300 meters or less. Oh and then add in the fact that there are a lot of U.S. military veterans that are hunters? And precision shooters? Pretty sure there are thousands and thousands of killer bush wookies out there just waiting for a HVT to walk into their AO.

[@ThePaganSun]

@@tearstoneactual9773 Not all hunters are accurate lol. Police and miltary have to engage in consistent training and make meet a certain scores year after year. Hunters however do not require constant training after they get their license so... no, they're definitely still not the same. Not all hunters are pros.

[@iLLWiLLx21]

I laughed so damn loud when you said Canada and Mexico and South America. We don’t even need soldiers to beat those😂😂😂😂😂 our teachers and supermarket employees will take them out😂😂😂😂😂

[@dianethomas9384]

Yes we could take them out,but the indicia members of the US and Canadian military are in general very professional and honorable. Their min lack is in Government decisiveness and ability to purchase or develop the latest in military equipment. As such they may be harder to beat than you indicate, and in any case, there is no need to be disrespectful to those patriotic people who are willing to fight for their country

[@BronsonJM]

well said @@dianethomas9384

[@BenjaminRaymundo18]

If it weren't for corruption and indecisiveness they would be a bigger stronger power @@dianethomas9384

[@Voltairus30]

@@dianethomas9384 It depends on what you mean by " beat " when it comes to this scenario. As it was pointed out, but probably not clearly enough, is that in this war game the US isn't trying to occupy all of the world. It is trying to starve them out into giving up from their primary natural resources like oil. While there are a lot of people in the combined South American countries and Canada, they lack weaponry and transport capabilities to deploy them in any meaningful way to prevent the US from controlling what they could do in a global effort. Essentially forcing them to stay put in their own countries and never allowing them to import or export anything for months on end. Without trade for supplies they would crumble and be forced to surrender ages before the US would. Its also the main way they would keep China under control as well, they would never get conquered by the US by invasion, but they'd be so pre-occupied keeping themselves safe from invasion to ever effectively help prevent the US from stomping European/Middle Eastern blockades. Now, it would all truly hinge on the US somehow deciding to do this and synchronizing their efforts across the globe all at once in a sneak attack but let's be honest. Even in a situation where it wasn't an immediate sneak attack on the entire globe, the US is simply positioned to be capable of fighting against the rest of the world for years if it really wanted to.

[@truckstopcowboytruckstopco5639]

America has paid for every drop of oil! if we wanted it, we would just take it!@@Voltairus30

[@Altiveda]

14:50 that's the entire staple of the us military, being able to fight two superpowers on two fronts.

[@zekepentecost2393]

For anyone who doesn't understand the full might of the US military. Understand that NO ONE, in recent history, has seen it full capability. The US military that most can remember has never flexed its full might. Kinda like playing WWE with your little brother. You only hurt him just enough to not get in trouble by mom( the UN and the rest of the world).

[@ericx6969]

bruh america lost vietnam lmfao

[@zekepentecost2393]

@eric23443219091 we were advisers in that war,,remember. If America free to fight wars with the same lack red tape as the rest of the world, that would have been a completely different situation. Name one war where America was able to use it full potential, besides WW 1&2

[@ThePaganSun]

​@@zekepentecost2393I doubt most countries have used THEIR full potential too. Many have nuclear weapons too, you know. China aline now has greater military capacity than us and, one of the biggest factors, POPULATION.

[@JT-yl9yt]

@@ThePaganSun China in a 1v1 would be a laughingstock compared to the U.S. the population gap doesn't mean anything when one cannot even attack the other while the US could freely stealth bomb China without repercussions. The whole world could try to send their entire army by seas in transports and be sunk by the US Navy and Air Force as the gap in technology and manufacturing makes it possible.

[@midnightrider6983]

​@@ThePaganSun Oh bless your heart.... The things the military shows the public is what they allow the public to see. You've gotta be outta your mind dude. America has more military power than the next 8 countries combined have.

[@Blasto2x]

This video doesn’t even mention American citizens themselves, a hefty number of which are reservists and veterans. The US populace is the most armed in the world, there’s more guns than people and any land invasion of the US homeland would be impossible. We have many air bases and military installations here on our own soil. We are an army within ourselves, Texas alone would take out whole countries with their firepower. Making things go boom is what we’re good at.

[@markcarpenter6020]

Most Americans don't like fighting because we know we are very good at it.

[@richardbooze6460]

I'm a well armed vet. There are many of us so, if they send troops to the u.s. they would be met with many armed citizens

[@AyeliaGDoren]

A war against America needs to be cultural and psychological. Some say Putin has already won it.

[@shelleythompson-brock6412]

Yep. Us proud Texans are a force to be reckoned with, in and of, itself.

[@gregorybower2759]

I mean to be fair, we have people like Timothy McVeigh, the Uni bomber, and just plain rednecks, we are home trained EOD techs, I won't say what I have, but I have friends that one of their gun safes could arm a platoons worth of troops.

[@MrBp505]

Not only does the US have a huge national military, each state has a mini army called national guard. Not only that if there was a on the ground invasion, there are more guns in the US than there are people and they would be used to defend. Nuclear sub means nuclear powered.

[@toddgale7663]

The old saying “A gun behind every blade of grass.”

[@RoguishClyde]

​@toddgale7663 That was said by the Japanese. The exact quote is "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

[@springbrown9769]

I'm an American, and we are so stupid we would be shooting ourselves. Lol

[@mickeydooley2230]

God bless the 2A

[@IcePrincess751-kb9bq]

Absolutely.But without a strong leader in the White House things could end up going terribly wrong just like we saw with the Afghanistan withdrawal.If people who supported Biden aren’t willing to admit just how much he’s destroyed our country and ruined the trust of our allies then there’s just no brain function there whatsoever!Bumblin’ Biden was bought and payed for by the CCP many years ago and doesn’t give a damn what a total treasonous pile of garbage he is as long as he and his corrupt family members get rich.

[@JimNewbury]

Nuclear subs refers to the fuel source subs use. It is very quiet and does not require refueling

[@Ilimar1]

One of the biggest issues is logistics. The US had this down to an art by supplying their ships, bases and men all over the war. No other county can do this.

[@KneedsItsGat]

Yeah, the US is a damn master at logistics. They’ve shown it time and time again.

[@tzaphkielconficturus7136]

"Boys study war; men study logistics."

[@kragglewulf4105]

We also do this for 90% of the EU and majority of the world, no other nation can. We own logistics.

[@cbweno1]

Wasn't it Nepoleon that stated, "strategy is for amateurs, logistics is for professionals."

[@cbweno1]

Not to mention was in Marine Avaition, we had a 96 hour emergency deployment add on to that 6 deployments 12 aircraft and 200 Marines never taking longer then a week to travel across the world for non emergencies. In fact did a joint exercise with Germany. MFs booked trains! Trains for shipping military assests... like blow my mind that one unit same size as a Naval Squadron took 3 months of travel compared to our 5 days to ship to Iraq.

[@benjamintalbert4473]

The funniest part of this video is when he said "wouldn't the Canadian and Mexican military invade America" 🤣🤣🤣🤣 if we wanted to we could conquer Canada and be back in time for supper lol

[@myfinalcut]

Texas alone could defeat Mexico lol

[@Sharky-bp1yl]

The funniest part would be the fact we'd just walk on through go to a bunch of diners and coffee shops over the government free the citizens and allow Canada to purchase fire arms and become Americans through gun rights and patriotism 😆

[@silverswordsmith5424]

Mr. President, we've recieved reports that Mexico has mobilized their entire military to invade. Should we mobilize the National Guard? No? We're just going to inform the Texans their state is being invaded? Very well Mr. President.

[@kitten9416]

i think the mexican cartels would be more dangerous than mexico or canada themselves

[@Digitalsapien]

Nope, they wouldn't. They are both well aware of the 2nd amendment.

[@Onnabote]

You've got to take into account the fact that, given the extent of America's intelligence gathering apparatus, there's not a snowball's chance in hell of a secret coordinated attack by any number of militarily significant nations.

[@stanleymyrick4068]

Well, true to an extent. China in particular has a respectable hacker force and I'm sure they are battle planning ever day to knock out communications and the hi tech advantage America relies on to coordinate and attack. Their Cyber force isn't something to be sneezed at, I am guessing and if they succeed, that key advantage will be devastatingly lost.

[@stanleymyrick4068]

China would be well behind America in all areas if it were not for them stealing (via hacking) many classified plans and schematics.

[@davidpeterson3147]

⁠@@stanleymyrick4068Chinese hackers would only be able to cut off the US Civilian and low level politicians communication. The second those attacks were conducted the U.S. military goes straight to DEFCON 2, President and JCS are retreating into Bunkers, all Military personnel are called back to readiness and Full Scale Military Deployment ready in six hours or less. The next step beyond that is DEFCON 1 which quite literally “Warheads on Forheads” directives.

[@stanleymyrick4068]

@@davidpeterson3147 How did the Chinese steal so much classified information regarding military tech that set them years ahead of where they would have been without?

[@davidpeterson3147]

@@stanleymyrick4068 your second comment makes no contextual sense within the scope of the conversation. I know what you’re trying to say, “OMG Chinese Hackers Are like so good” but gaining unauthorized access to a digital database is not even closely related to being able to bring down Analog Simplex HF or VHF communication, even basic Duplex P2P (point to point) HF or VHF comms can survive without the grid. To answer your second statement, while the technology they stole slingshot them ahead several decades from their original designs, they are still 20 years behind the US in both production and deployment of technology.

[@swanbaby62]

You ain’t know-now you know🚀 This made me proud to be an American. It’s rocky in America at this moment but…now I remember. U.S.C.G Semper Paratus. Rock on and dream of our better Angels

[@desantisphotography]

As a military vet myself, I agree with @SSZB. The creator of that presentation certainly recognized the "tactics vs. logistics" theory. Modern armies require fuel, food, and ammunition in quantities most cannot imagine. When you have the ability to deprive them of one or more of those, your odds of winning grow exponentially.

[@algoner4421]

I know I'm late to the party, but I vaguely remember a point in the docuseries on history Channel "america: the story of us". They were talking about what each American soldier "had" by means of supplies and plasma and it was something like 10x that of the Japanese soldier. What America did as far as turning out equipment and supplies during ww2 was absolutely insane and nearly unbelievable.

[@Aloofgoblinoid]

​@@algoner4421it's only gotten better with time, just like fine wine... my Uncle is an over the road semi driver. He got a call once to drive a fed delivery, he got a police escort and direct approval to disregard driving regulations at his discretion. He told his escort "keep up if you can." Lmao

[@judygreenwood613]

As a US citizen, it just comes to show that when your first president was a five-star general I could imagine it made some form an impact on our military as of today! I could be wrong now I'm just a history buff lol!!!

[@earlwade-pf3qy]

No it wouldn't you forget every American has guns lol 🤣

[@earlwade-pf3qy]

All my family members their own ammo 😂

[@tg6301]

Also he doesn't mentioned Canada and Mexico, because of the size of the National Guard force we have maintained just for self defense, this force alone is 500,000 roughly 5 times all of Canadas military force. As well the civilian populace is the most armed in the world. Having roughly 120 guns per 100 people. Meaning the civilian populace has roughly 400 million of its own guns.

[@jlesko1063]

Registered Guns*

[@hoseqt1]

Yeah, 400 Million that the Govt knows of.... But probably double that, wink wink....

[@rickwrites2612]

Yea, ppl outside US often dont have the context to understand because obtaining a gun illegally in most Western democracies youd have to be the head of organized crime syndicate, most domestic gangsters in UK dont generally carry them (more international smuggler types mighth). Buying a gun on US black market is easy as buying drugs. For legal arms, they sell rifles at WalMart. If the US was actually threatened by an potential invasion in a war the people agreed was neccessary to maintain their autonomy, nearly EVERY American over 12 yo would be armed (and plenty in 8-12yo range). Liberals and progressives too, (contrary to popular belief we also support gun ownership, but different communities really have different needs re the nitty gritty of stuff like background checks, etc, for instance in a wealthy metropolis where people are living like bees in a hive and police respond within minutes, there is normally no need for every person to carry a concealed weapon, it is a huge risk as accidents, human and mechanical errors, and a potential active shooter getting it in his hands drastically increases with proliferating population in close quarters. So we who live in or close to cities tend to prefer slightly stricter rules about checks, waiting periods, firearm *use and security*, because that is what fits that environment...but the second the country faces invasion that all gets put on hold...and no, taking up arms against the government/military is a childs fantasy, if a global military alliance cant fight off the US government-military, its own civilians certainly can't ). Yea imagine most ppl armed....the elderly and disabled, pastors and monks/nuns, nearly every goddamn one of us. There would likely be subsidies for community centers, high schools and universities to install ranges and offer free/cheap equal opportunity classes on firearm safety, cleaning, maintenance and basic training, etc...

[@dorothytucker9305]

No no.. they are all lost in the river/lake/ocean/golf pond we swear!😅

[@timl3359]

​@@dorothytucker9305I was on an unfortunate crabbing adventure in the puget sound with all my firearms when the boat was sunk by the Seattle kraken. I lost all my boom sticks and am utterly and completely defenseless now from tyrants😂

[@squirrelbuddi]

The video at the beginning already explained that the other nations lack the ability to transport themselves to the usa homeland. So they wouldn't be getting attacked. This is also mostly being fought by just their navy. Their airforce would remain on the home land as well as another force.

[@Rob337_aka_CancelProof]

18:45 a nuclear attack submarine is a nuclear powered submarine and they can carry nukes but that's not what it means it means they can operate using a nuclear power plant on board the ship that can supply them power giving them the ability to stay submerged for up to a year or something like that which makes them incredibly difficult to find. So think nuclear power plant instead of nuclear bomb

[@ronnie-sillyme0560]

The even scarier part is knowing that this is a chess board. All these are key points that our military has, not only taken to account, but has strategies to counter most foreseeable advances. They probably have a playbook of unimaginable accounts of scenarios.

[@copperhoard1110]

Yes. Using computers with artificial intelligence to determine weaknesses and strengths, and daily (political, military, economic) changes of our adversaries.

[@italianknight78]

Training scenarios are always versus an overwhelming opposition opponent and every piece of our equipment breaks. Like putting an F22 against Typhoon at visual range and just to make it fair. The F22 has drop fuel tanks that fail to release. Negating all stealth and maneuverability.

[@loganteague5805]

Oh my god yes. The Pentagon actually has a plan written up in case of a zombie apocalypse. They don't expect to need it, but they did give it a full analysis and decided what would be done, just in case.

[@algoner4421]

​@loganteague5805 of course they did, and I'm sure there were various opinions on how to handle it lol

[@MushInSkull]

If it's like playing chess, was the F up in Afghanistan, Biden sacrificing a pawn or maybe a rook? 🤔

[@randieandjodistrom854]

How much military capability a nation, or any combination of nations has is of little consequence if they cannot be brought to bear at the point of conflict. China, India, Europe, and Russia have very capable military forces (although Russia's military capabilities are very questionable as of late), but they have very limited capability to posture them to where they could be effectively employed. The only nation capable of moving significant military forces in a relatively short amount of time is the United States of America. Any other country attempting to move military forces would be relatively easily intercepted by US air or naval forces. The US is not interested in world domination, but in world cooperation, as that is in the best interest of all people.

[@cdressel53191]

You mean it's in the best interests of global capital.

[@AJ-vm8ft]

Not to mention many of these country’s militaries depend on US supplies, munitions, kit, and money. When that’s cut off, they are rendered useless.

[@shy404usernotfound]

"capable" maybe if you combined all those countries together, but still not even close to comparable

[@mitchellmiller6644]

America can be boots on the ground in any country in less then 24 hours.

[@kens-jr2vv]

Most countries' military doctrine is to defend their borders and doesn't have the infostructure to expand their assets across the ocean. Even if they tried, US satellites would detect them before they reached the US mainland.

[@AyeliaGDoren]

Watching this as an American I realize that this is precisely what our military was designed for and that's why it's going so much in the US's favor. "Better to fight them abroad than fight them at home." Our leaders know we have an advantage because of the distance from the rest of the world and they've built the military and created military bases to exploit these factors. One thing I would point out is Bin Laden understood this and that is why he used our own tech against us to attack the world trade center and other targets. It would require that type of strategic thinking to give other nations a chance. The other way to make war on the US is via psyops. Basically exploit the existing divides to get Americans so turned against each other that we can't come together to do anything else.

[@Delgen1951]

yet i think that if China bombed Gurm the US media would blare : 10,000 Dead on American Territory, Gurm in flames!! "would over come all divisions and unite the USA like only WW2 has. think on that.

[@darnoc0010]

The problem with the psi-ops dividing us is that (as proven on 9-11) any attack on our country refocuses are population. Hitler had a chance if Perl Harbor never happened. As soon as it's REAL for the people at home the sleeping bear awakens.

[@LA_HA]

Except once war is eminent, it's On. Nothing else would matter. We'd defend And offend. Anyone pissing inside the tent would end up disappearing forever. Everyone outside is The Enemy. Easy

[@Noneyabiz001]

Which is exactly what they are trying to do right now. That’s why all these politicians need looked into to see who’s selling us out.

[@Thedarkbunnyrabbit]

historically wars like this are very uniting though, and you can't get much more united than 'the rest of the world wants us dead'.

[@chocolatethai7747]

I like how you get ahead of yourself watching the video. And your questions answered, and you seem disappointed the world can't box with a heavy weight

[@Phoenix-J81]

It would be hilarious trying to pull a red dawn in the US. In my household, we have 3 large gun safes and a cabinet (completely full) We were raised to hunt and live off the land, and that's just my family alone. My neighbors are all the same. 😂

[@yellowdog762jb]

Wolverines!

[@JSAFIXIT]

Pretty much everyone I know has a minimum of 10 guns, and thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammo.

[@MidgetPunter]

My home is the same. I made a lot of investments. When I die I hope the wife and family don't sell the firearms for what I said I paid for them.

[@man.newton]

Worth mentioning, bro: The United States has 4 of the 10 largest air forces in the world: #1 is the US Air Force, #2 is the US Army Aviation Division, #4 is the United States Navy, and #7 is the United States Marine Corps.

[@tuorofgondolin8235]

Huh. When I was in (1988-1994), the Navy had the most planes, and the Air Force had 2nd most. That was a long time ago, though, so I guess it's changed now.

[@ericcouch]

@@tuorofgondolin8235 At no point in recent history has the us navy had more aircraft than the us air force. It's not even close. Currently the navy has approximately 3800. The USAF has 5400.

[@tuorofgondolin8235]

@@ericcouch I'm just repeating what I was told back in 1988. If I was given bad info, then I guess I'm guilty of spreading it.

[@DangerzoneDotTV]

@@tuorofgondolin8235 And you've started the apocalypse....admitting you can be wrong humbly and respectfully, in KZbin comments no less! How can you do this to us all?!

[@tuorofgondolin8235]

@@DangerzoneDotTV Some people just want to watch the world burn... er... I mean apologize!

[@R3_dacted0]

The thing is that the US' military can fight on multiple fronts. If all countries try to combine forces to combat against specific attacks by the US, then they would effectively be leaving their own country's defense vulnerable to secondary US attacks.

[@ptbelttactics]

And, American is uninvadable because America has more guns than people.

[@ericx6969]

america has guard south and north harshly because home territory so forces are split and deal with missles and ship invasion air from both west side and east side coast that not easy task

[@ImezRuez]

You forget that armed US civilians outnumber every army and police force on the planet COMBINED? We'll be fine here at home. Short of NBC attacks anyone that starts shit here on our soil is going to end up sorry and sore if they're lucky.

[@hazardousfury]

​@@ericx6969The US military wouldn't have to defend the homeland, because we have the National Guard, which are a seperate branch of the military and are stronger than most first world nations by themselves, then there's the US citizens that hold half of the worlds civilian owned guns by themselves. Roughly 80-90million gun owners owning 400 million guns. There's more guns than people here and constitutes a standing army that is larger than all the militaries of the world combined.

[@protorhinocerator142]

We would only need to attack the nearest countries at first. Then use them as stepping stones to attack the next country. It's not like we need to attack 100+ countries at the same time. And if you start with Middle East oil, those remaining countries get weak fast.

[@brettboyer4056]

This guy needs to understand that they would help, but as mentioned at the very beginning, the other countries don’t have the capacity to help without the ability to get the fighter craft to those areas. They are short range aircraft

[@ForgeofAule]

Although nuclear submarines CAN carry nuclear weapons(which were banned for this scenario), a nuclear submarine means that it is powered by a nuclear reactor which is much better than the previous diesel engines

[@LlyleHunter]

They’re also silent and powered for twenty five years at a time

[@jdb79jdb79]

One of the things they didn't mention is the fact that the US is completely self sustaining. We have all the natural resources, material production eg mining for steel, lithium and other important metals, and agriculture for food all here on our homeland. While other countries that depend on the US to provide food would suffer we would still stay fed, have gas and diesel, and be able to produce more war machines without depending on any other countries.

[@IanCCal]

Possibly. The only thing we really lack is a skilled labor force to produce all of these things, let alone a populace even willing to do these jobs in the first place.

[@deebee4622]

@@IanCCal During WWII housewives went to work in factories due to a labor shortage while men were fighting. People can learn quickly and fearing for your life is good incentive to work.

[@ThatGuy-nv7cx]

@@IanCCalthe U.S. exports 2x as much corn as the next country, and is 3rd in grain exports. We also were the largest oil exporter (only problem is updating refineries because Middle East oil is different than u.s oil and most refineries weren’t made for refining u.s. oil). I guess it’s surprising to lead in those categories when we don’t have any “skilled labor” or “people willing to do those jobs” though right?

[@pierrethegod22]

@@IanCCalin 2023, trust me! Skilled Labor is not an issue.

[@Giantsmafia]

As an American, I’m also proudly a 0311 infantry marine… we fight for the people, not just the people of our own nation but the freedom of all people around the world. We will defend the freedoms of the world till our death. God bless the United States for we are the police of the world.

[@dontworrydehappy7104]

Exactly! 100% agree! We love our allies and greatly respect them. Maintaining peace is always the goal.

[@CMDRZero01]

I'd rather be the EMT of the world but i can agree with the overall point.

[@ahmadalimi9784]

The US needs to mind its own business.

[@JesusFelan]

When talking about nuclear submarines, it means nuclear powered submarines as opposed to conventional fuel powered craft.

[@donttrackmebro]

"All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio river in a trial of a thousand years." -Abraham Lincoln (1838)

[@willtaylor8260]

At the points in time when you’re asking wouldn’t India and China be helping in the Middle East, you have to think that in this scenario we’d probably have two air craft carriers each parked at their shores. They’d already have their hands full.

[@NismoXero]

Exactly. He doesn't understand that all these things are happening at almost the same time. It's not the entire military hitting the middle east. That's just one part. The video he was watching didn't portray the timeline properly.

[@MrCovi2955]

Yeah, he didn't catch the opening bit about how we have multiple theaters of war already laid out. That isn't "We can operate there" that is "We have forces there right now which can do what he's describing in the video, independent of other theaters." Part of the paranoia we were left with after WWII when we did have to fight a 2 front war in the Pacific Theater and European Theater.

[@veronicadw7070]

...not to mention I don't think any country would want to rush to aid the me, unless forced or with the promise of compensation.

[@Neoblitzkrieg666]

Some important info that you need to know is that in 2013 (I think it was) there were two middle eastern A4s going after an American drone. A single F22 flew under them, took the time to observe their loadouts, then proceeded to pull up next to them and tell them that "I'm not impressed, go home". Always remember that the F22 is a very old plane at this point and it still outclasses the majority of the worlds other gen 5 fighters. You've got the incident with Iran's navy in the 80s where the US decimated it within 8 hours, and then you've got Desert Storm and Shield where they absolutely steamrolled the 4th most powerful military at the time, and that was after telling them when and where they'd attack. Also your concept of "overpowering" the US is flawed. Yes a combined global coalition would 100% have more manpower. The issue is that the US Navy would have superiority in any water theatre. And because of that, air superiority would come next. The majority of the worlds forces don't have nearly as much modern military equipment. The majority of targets could be destroyed or disabled before they even knew they were being targeted. The rest of the world grew complacent while the US was allowed to be the worlds police and vastly improve its military tech.

[@SteveKaye-yl7te]

To back up your point, Combat experience is critical in war, the American military has Ben working hand in hand with it’s military industrial complex for 2 decades testing weapons and hardware, technology, tactics, constantly evolving, and all of this means nothing without all the logistics, maintenance, and support units, so 2 decades, China hasn’t fought a war in a long time, in fact lost the last one to Vietnam, Russia. Is having a very hard time in Ukraine, can you imagine if they had to go up against hundreds of American aircraft and drones?

[@mazrick247]

@@SteveKaye-yl7te and our army and marines have been sharpening their fangs in every different kind of theatre imaginable over the years. You called it, EXP would play a critical role, our military's infrastructure is setup for this very thing, self reliant from the top down. Unlike the others who try to mimic this, we have actually been using it, fine tuning the machine.

[@2006blackmalibu]

I'm just surprised he was caught that off guard

[@Synthetic-Rabbit]

Even if every country in the world agreed to "work together" there's so much ego, prestige, protecting yourself there would be an insane lack of cohesion and communication.

[@jmb3d]

The leaders of all the countries would not be able to agree on the battle plans because each will be looking out for its own interest.

[@ragnarlothbrok2917]

​@@jmb3dOr seeking glory themselves.

[@DwightJames-eo9wk]

I would like to point out that If a war like this were to happen, most countries probably would not be able to work together. They would probably work together about as well as the UN

[@DwightJames-eo9wk]

I do think the video downplayed Canada though.

[@protorhinocerator142]

The concept of triage comes to mind. The USA would divide the world into 3 different categories. a. Countries that need to be attacked now. b. Countries that can be attacked later. c. Countries that have already been destroyed/conquered. Countries that can't form a proper alliance can be ignored from now. Or we could threaten a massive destruction unless they surrender. Many countries have no real military capability. They would likely surrender pretty fast. Start by attacking the oil supply to reduce the energy state of nearly every country at the same time.

[@yamiryu02]

@@DwightJames-eo9wk Canada and Mexico couldn't invade the U.S. once a war broke out where we would have to fight the whole world. Every citizen would be armed and our manufacturers would be pumping out ammo and heavy munitions like crazy.

[@DwightJames-eo9wk]

@@yamiryu02 No the point I was making was that Canada would be hard to finish off. A lot of soldiers would hide in the North where it gets very cold. I was saying that Canada would not go down easily. It's not really about resources it's more about harsh weather conditions.

[@Falconsriseup]

@@DwightJames-eo9wk At that point we just leave canada there to stay and be of no harm at all until the war is over with. Because if they ever leave that area and head to america not even the army but the massive amount of civilians with a ridiculous amount of fire power could handle that. But once america finished handling the strangle holds over seas for resources and bring some of the military back home. They could take over canada very easily for their resources.

[@elizabethlovett4318]

As a US citizen I just want to say that I'm glad we have all the allies we do have that have similar views (democracy, freedom etc). Especially the UK (our sworn brothers in times conflict) and France to whom I know and feel, the US owes what it has become today thanks to their support in our fight for independence as a nation.

[@CrimsonZboss]

Those Allies are our allies rn because we either crushed their ass ourselves or saved their asses from getting crushed - France the white flag wavers, England the country that easily gets crushed without us, Japan we rolled their entire country three times over because of 1 base. We have the allies we do bc we scared them off AND/or saved them. Don’t give them credit.

[@connercoons7363]

​@zacharyfountain7538 I mean until recently England was a strong force, also France was fighting on the front line longer then anyone and finally had to wave to white flag also Japan destroyed a lot more then just 1 base there was many islands they took before they ever suffered one boat lose. If we fought them back then without the nukes it's would of been a closer fight then people think.

[@greatwhiteape6945]

My dad, vet of WW2, Korea, and Vietnam says France was the whore of the world..

[@illicitryan]

France just sides with who they think will win but I've read as well as have been told that the French do not like Americans or American for that matter since it wouldn't be America with the obvious

[@susangarman9561]

Hear, hear.

[@Alio-no8bw]

Nuclear Aircraft carriers and subs dont have to strike with nukes. The nuclear Tec just allows them to stay in theater for vastly longer than Oil dependent vehicles

[@Reggie2000]

America is like starting a video game with 98% complete, unlimited saves, and every cheat code turned on.

[@breygon1]

I realize that a lot may have changed since my time in the US Air Force in Germany, assigned to a Tactical Communications Unit. I was frequently loaned to comm units with our NATO Allies to help teach them how to interface their comms with ours. Left to their own devices, most of the NATO Forces flat out refuse to cooperate with units or command chains of another country. It can be like trying to ride hear on a bunch of four year olds. I saw German, French, Belgian and Dutch officers yelling at the top of their lungs at one another. Eventually, an American officer would come in and take control of the situation. The NATO Allies, MIGHT eventually work together, but it will take time. Initially they will all be too busy jockeying to try the power vacuum that the Americans departure will make, but it won't come easily or quickly. The odds of the others like India, China, Russia, et al working out a common command structure. Plus you have to get them to put aside long-standing hatreds, like the Saudi's hate the Iranians and most of them would love to snuff Israel completely out. Then then you China, Pakistan and India, India hates the other two who are not os found of India. The odds of all the stars aligning to allow this to happen ar worse than trying to hit both the PowrBAll and MegaMillions Lottos when they are over $ 1Billion.

[@TC-lb4gl]

As other people in the comments have said, all of these Battle spaces that the narrator is describing would be happening at the same time, most of the rest of the world uses top-down military organizations. We use bottom-up even if we lost communication between each of the combatant commands, they don't need to talk to each other to coordinate. They could fight independently with their own instruction sets. And not have to worry about talking to Washington. Even if say Indian submarines fired off some torpedo's and sank a few ships. They wouldn't have a home port to return to the reload. Where would they refuel? Where would they get more torpedo's? Because their ports would be flaming garbage. The same is true for all of the countries. We don't need nuclear weapons to make big holes on the ground.

[@deso5889]

I don’t know if this was answered but the U.S. nuclear submarines is referring to the fuel source of the submarine. It can stay underwater quiet in 1 spot only coming up for food. it doesn’t necessarily have to shoot projectiles with a nuclear warhead attached to it - although it can.

[@Drake_4]

Also, for the satellites The USA has another military branch called Space Force for that specific thing.

[@bobevans3209]

Canada and Mexico attacking the US would have to deal with the all the US citizens as well.

[@hackerx7329]

It is the USA. Even the post office has a postal inspector division with armed officers. Park rangers have guns to deal with dangerous animals and the occasional poacher or idiot. The FBI could be pressed into a defensive force if needed. In the scenario in the video large parts of the US Army would be in the mainland US. And the National Guard. And the Air National Guard. And the Coast Guard. And quite a bit of the Marines. And the DEA has quite a bit of combat capability for dealing with drug smugglers. Who knows what the spooks at the CIA and NSA have hidden in reserve. There all the local police departments around the country. The US Marshals. The Texas Rangers. Assorted state guards and militias that people always forget exist. Even Hollywood has large reserves of guns and fully operational military vehicles. And all of that is before you even have people start getting creative. In the US not only is there the rocket launch capabilities of NASA but multiple private companies with their own launch capabilities. If people thought Elon Musk was weird now can you imagine a scenario where the US government gives him blanket approval and a blank check to just go ahead and do whatever he wants with his launch and manufacturing capabilities to defend the country? And then there are all the private aircraft. Crop duster airplanes don't even really need any work done on them to be weaponized against ground targets.

[@pduidesign]

…and the hundred million plus guns and rifles they own and know how to use. 👍

[@TheFairlaner]

@@pduidesign 400 million plus actually with multiple sites on either side of the conversation reporting. Not making a moral evaluation. Just apparently true.

[@Londubh]

​@@pduidesignyeah, 100M guns has been an underestimate for at least half a century, I expect.

[@jerdtgg]

Americans from all over the country would move toward the boarders with their guns and set up to watch for an invasion.

[@member57]

A single aircraft carrier group is in the top 5 largest air force. We have 20 carrier groups. We park offshore outside a country's air power and blockade. We also own somewhere around 60-70% of civilian owned guns. Making homeland US the largest army by several magnitudes.

[@shaneimler641]

He might be right in some of his comments but the main thing that helps the United States stay ahead of everyone is that almost every one of our forces are trained very similar and have similar tactics. Plus we all speak one language. It would be hard for others to communicate and put together a coordinated attack when there are so many non English speaking countries involved. Then there will be some stuff lost in communication because not everything means the same in different countries so translations would be problematic for the rest of the world.

[@seaneustace9838]

This is a very good point, which I didn’t even consider.

[@BronsonJM]

language... very very good point

[@psychophallus]

Speaking of language, we have used differing languages to great effect during war. By the suppression of native cultures, we have a strategic pool of nearly lost native languages that the rest of the world may not have ever been fully exposed to. Just think of the role of wind talkers and that was just using a small sample of the languages inherent to the indigenous people.

[@scott8448]

Even without communicating America stands no chance just look at your citizens who are too stupid to point out a country on the map, how are you going to attack other countries that your too stupid to know where they are? Oh and when’s the last war America won? Last time I checked you lose constantly to third world countries like the Middle East twice, Korea and even your proxy war with Russia your losing at the moment.

[@kylebeach4051]

So when watching this in the future, one fact that is very overlooked but can provide some useful perspective, is simply due to the fact that with very little exception, all the weapons that the USA is supplying to Ukraine right now are not from the federal supply AND were previously scheduled to be destroyed simply because they are so old in comparison to the new weapons. This weapons demolition process would have cost something like $3b, so this is kinda like you being the third child and receiving your older brother’s jacket, that your older brother received from your oldest brother. It. Is. Freaking. Nuts.

[@EdwardHofer-h2b]

Your statement is partially true sir partially.

[@markpukey8]

Yeah, people don't realize just how much of what we are giving to Ukraine is obsolete by our standards. The truth is, America is helping Ukraine to destroy the Russian bear that all our gear was built to destroy, for pennies. It's almost all stuff we would never use in combat again. And there's still billions in cash aid, and newer systems like Patriots that we WOULD use today... We're still spending billions in new money, but it's the single best bargain in the history of warfare!

[@jessedaniels817]

It’s all about being able to transport your military overseas, which no other country can do sufficiently against the US unless they have those ships built before a global war breaks out. As the video said, the US wouldn’t even have to invade another country to win…they’d just have to starve global shipping routes, which it can easily do with their naval superiority.

[@seaneustace9838]

Do US military would not land a military anywhere other than for particular strategic reasons to sure some thing up with the print run the enemy from passing a territory.. The US could not win a land war against the rest of the world that I can use it’s navy to stranglehold The movement of goods and their style economies, and bring any war effort to a halt because sooner or later as the Americans learned in the revolutionary war, if you hurt peoples pocketbooks, they shoot for peace, even if they were in a position to win. No one wants to deal with her people bitching because their lives have become uncomfortable how much more in a modern world of conveniences . Or a long way from Sparta, the world was always a long way from Sparta.

[@aaronrollo7370]

Logistics is what wins wars.

[@benfein28]

When they say nuclear subs, they mean the subs are powered by nuclear reactors, not that the subs are armed with nuclear weapons. I am guessing this is important because it allows much quieter operations compared to other types of powered subs (just guessing though).

[@ryanhampson673]

The reason the US is like this is directly related to World war 2. Before that the US was isolationist, just minding our business (for the most part). When Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor we vowed never again to be taken off guard like that. Also the whole being able to fight two major wars simultaneously is from WW2 as well. We fought in Europe and the Pacific at the same time and were able to supply both conflicts. The amount of equipment and ammo production during the war was STAGGERING. No cars, ovens, refrigerators, or any other household goods were made during the war, EVERY factory produced war goods. The singer sowing matching company made machine guns, Ford and GM made tanks. We were in both Iraq and Afghanistan all without disrupting our social economy or rationing. Now imagine if we went full war economy today…

[@SpecterVonBaren]

And all that right on the heels of the Great Depression too.

[@chrisjung7139]

If I remember correctly, the British call their machine guns "singers" as slag. Wonder if it is because of the singer company?

[@cesarpalmos8235]

Remember, the definition of a superpower is a country able to fight MULTIPLE wars at once. Other countries cannot fight two wars. These battle grounds mentioned in this video is simulated as being fought at the same time. Also a NUCLEAR submarine is a submarine that is powered by nuclear fuel, not diesel like most countries. Most American air craft carriers and subs are nuclear because they don't have to refuel for tens of years, unlike a diesel ship that has to refuel every few weeks.

[@LlyleHunter]

It’s been the policy of the US military since WWII to have the capacity to fight off the two most capable adversaries in the world at once at any time since.

[@thirionj]

Wow, that whole nuclear thing sounds like a good alternative power source we should look more into. 😮

[@cesarpalmos8235]

@@thirionj Exactly, however, the green peace groups like to market it as deadly. All a nuclear power plant does is generate heat. That heat turns into steam which turns a turbine, which generates electricity. Those big cooling towers you see on nuclear plant with white smoke coming out of them, that is literally just steam. It is factual that nuclear power is the most efficient and safest way to generate electricity. In fact, they have been around for nearly a century with most of them being still operational. There have been only TWO nuclear plant accidents since their existence. One accident was due to natural disaster, the other was due to neglecting safety protocols. Every year, at least 500 wind turbines fail, thousands of solar panels fail, coal plants dump thousands of tons of emissions into the atmosphere, and at least 2 major dam disasters happen every year.

[@seaneustace9838]

I feel like the word super power existed before this definition, I have no opinion on it other than I think it’s a modern invention, which does not pre-date the term superpower. Correct me if I’m wrong.

[@ogarafamily880]

At the 14:50 mark he said America couldnt fight a 2 front War when we are the only country that literally built our military to do that exact thing 😂

[@waynrbunyea7059]

We are not the only country to do that.

[@agwats85]

I believe the point of the presentation is that we could fight all three scenarios simultaneously

[@saiga223ak]

When it says nuclear subs its referring to how they're powered. They have small nuclear reactors powering them so they dont have to refuel and can stay submerged for months and possibly years.

[@NicholasGM78]

As a retired U.S. Marine veteran, I love listening to you try to cope with wrapping your mind around the sheer one-sided nature of U.S. military power at scale. As well, you have to understand that this doesn't take into account all the 6th or even 7th Generation assets that the U.S. military still has yet to disclose. Think about this: those 5th Gen fighters and advanced aerospace weaponry assets that so far outclass everyone else, at which you marveled repeatedly, are all 25-30 years old. The JSF program for those 5th Gen fighters was started in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and could have been put into mass production and rushed out in a matter of a year or less, in a time of war, with a quantum shift in experimentation and domestic production. The missile tech and both offensive and defensive weapons platforms are far more effective now than they were 20 years ago, due to advances in hardware, software, and firmware, as well as improved electronic handling. The reason we let everyone think that the Chinese are a real threat to us is a matter of counterintelligence: we want them to think that they've seen what we have available. Even an all-out assault against our military, in coordinated and nearly flawless fashion - an absolute tactical impossibility, to any reasonable mind - would be met by assets that even the majority of our own military leaders don't even know exist. God forbid this scenario ever came to pass, however. It would take several generations for the rest of the world to recover, and the total loss of life would measure in the hundreds of millions or even billions. War is bad.

[@xzonia1]

Well, and this whole scenario is assuming that our big think tanks haven't already thought up multiple ways of subduing nations around the world without incurring loss of life. I've seen shows discussing US military non-violent weaponry; that's also a lot more advanced than the average person imagines. What we hear about on TV is just the stuff they've allowed to be released to the general public. If ever we had a reason to engage in this sort of war, I have no difficulty imagining the US surprising everyone with what we're capable of these days. Lol. Thankfully, we have no interest in ruling the world. Thank you for your service.

[@ErinStev64]

Yes it is. The reason our military is the beast it is, is to prevent war. Peace through strength.

[@markpukey8]

"Even an all-out assault against our military, in coordinated and nearly flawless fashion - an absolute tactical impossibility, to any reasonable mind - would be met by assets that even the majority of our own military leaders don't even know exist." Ask our allies how they felt in 1991 when Pappy Bush casually said "hold my beer" and sent waves of stealth bombers to destroy what was considered one of the top anti-air defense networks in the world, in a matter of days, with no losses. And ask them how they felt watching, live on CNN no less (!), our precision guided munitions striking important targets ON TARGET, EVERY TIME. Ask them how fun it was to watch entire companies of Iraqi troops surrender to news crews (again, live on CNN!) because they COULD NOT FIND American forces to surrender to! Yeah, we have no idea at all what the US military might trot out tomorrow if our leaders felt it was necessary. I hate the trillions of dollars our defense budget costs... but that's the price for having this stuff waiting in our back pocket.

[@DaytonaRoadster]

exactly, remember the assault in Pakistani to get Bin Liden? You remember the SEALS had to destroy their own helicopter after a crash, a STILL to this day never seen stealth model Blackhawk....and that was what, 12 years ago? What other crazy shit have they come up in that time?

[@headoverheels88]

Regarding Canada and Mexico, note that we have a military AND a national guard, whose goal is 100% to protect the homeland. Each state (50 of them) basically has their own small army.

[@19MichaelDixon]

And don't forget the hundreds of millions of armed American citizens.

[@jlinkous05]

​@@19MichaelDixonA rifle behind every blade of grass!

[@deaconblooze1]

@@jlinkous05 And 2 pistols behind every rifle.

[@LA_HA]

​@@deaconblooze1 And backups for each of those + tons of bullets, grenades, bombs, and crazy Yanks working OT like We're getting holiday pay 'cause We've been itching to try out all our stuff

[@Londubh]

Don't forget the 20 years worth of veterans of asymmetric wars...

[@ravynf9286]

First time watching, but my only gripe is that to me LW3G doesn't seem to realize that having 6 separate continents with hundreds of militarys on them would be incredibly difficult to get them to cooperate with each other. And Military Campaigns take weeks to months of proper planning to do. Cause if you and 1-30 other people send in troops with only a couple weeks or days of planning there's going to be friendly fire.

[@raej1307]

I was actually thinking about this too and it reminded me of Eisenhower planning D-Day. It took the better part of two years to plan, including designing supply lines, manufacturing, and shipping equipment to Europe, from artillery, planes, tanks, etc.. right down to the number of band-aids they might need. Band of Brothers showcases the training Easy Co. had to go through before they were ready to ship out. It's an excellent example. Stalin wanted the Allies to form the Western Front from the moment the US entered WW2, but both FDR and the military leaders said no. They needed time. Stalin was a whiner who threw fits. lol The US is VERY good at logistics. D-Day and subsequent campaigns have proven that. But this? Can't even imagine how much time that would take.

[@copperhoard1110]

Not only that, they have never cooperated on anything in the past, and critical information may be lost in translation (with hundreds of different languages).

[@Voltairus30]

@@raej1307 Keep in mind that astronomical leaps in technological capabilities achieved since the days of WW2, not to mention the sheer amount of resources we now have in the forms of vehicles, aircraft, subs, ships, carriers, etc. It was because of the war machine being ignited in the US for those two world wars, in conjunction with the fall of the other global superpowers after the end of those world wars, that we now have 8-10 times the military might of other countries. Not to mention that those wars were attempting to neutralize AND occupy those countries in order to restore peace to the region. In this war game, the US isn't attempting to occupy the rest of the world. We are crippling their ability to trade and maintain military presence in order to essentially force them to surrender to us completely in order to not fall into complete anarchy from lack of natural resources. The entire south American continent of countries, African countries, and Australia would be cut off from the rest of the world supply lines of everything. How long before the people go into zombie apocalypse survival mode and render those nation's useless in a global war effort? European and Asian countries could obviously hold out for much longer due to their own personal resources, but as shown in the war game their ability to coordinate and safely trade amongst themselves would be the whole entire game essentially. Meanwhile, the US could sustain itself for years with its own native resources. Especially once Canadian and South American resources get absorbed. The world alliance can't truly threaten the US mainland since their air force and navy can't get to us.

[@moraschmatt]

At around 18:40 - "British Guy" shows his misunderstanding of US nuclear subs. These are nuclear POWERED submarines. While some of these subs have nuclear warheads, the context in the original video is referring to the submarines being nuclear powered.

[@bleachedbrother]

I have to admit that as a US Navy veteran who served aboard the USS Raleigh LPD-1 from 1985-1988, my twig and berries got a little excited after listening to 20:40 - 21:25 . God bless 🇺🇸