British guy reacts to - The United States (USA) vs The World - Who Would Win? MIXED FEELINGS LOL

[@TreyM1609]

Gotta think though we only have 330 million people but if invaded, almost everyone of those people have multiples guns at home

[@countspyder4769]

Not only that but we have multiple very large rivers (the most important being the Mississippi) and mountain ranges that would make for extremely defensible terrain.

[@maryjoygelizon4268]

So basicaly an invasion on the US is suicide

[@thomasbullins2008]

@@maryjoygelizon4268 -- Yamamoto said that during Japan's planning to attack Pearl Harbor -- "behind every blade of grass would be a gun"

[@Lumpygrits76]

Guns owned by civilians is estimated at 393 million most likely not counting the illegally owned ones. 5 million first time owners just in 2020. Effectively meaning a potential very well armed militia of millions. And growing every day.

[@Mr.HorseClock]

Amen I’ve got an Arsenal to arm my entire neighborhood 😂

[@plainjose29]

Imagine not mentioning the Air Force and Space Force. This is rough

[@destroyerdeath5605]

Video was made before space force was created

[@williamjordan5554]

Or nukes.

[@robert893]

@@destroyerdeath5605 The Army, Navy, and AF have had ‘space’ personnel and assets for several years before the Space Force became its own branch. They all acted independently of one another and would train jointly during operations.

[@SuDaixi]

@@robert893 And now that they are one central joint thing as space force it makes logistics so much quicker and easier in the long run too. Which considering it was pretty good before is terrifying to think about if you are the enemy.

[@arthurrossignol7899]

I don’t think America would sweep as the video says, but in the end we would probably win.

[@JamesCornwall95]

Agreed

[@chriscox9617]

I totally agree with you except that I think the rest of the world would have a few surprises that America wouldn't be able to counter and then there's the fact that war efforts launched by America are always directly influenced by public opinion.

[@arthurrossignol7899]

@@chriscox9617 You are completely correct. That is why I don’t think we would wipe the floor with them

[@chriscox9617]

@Gary Hochstetler I don't know with how arrogant some in America are I think there would be a big push especially high up in the government to strike first and as often as possible.

[@w925gaming6]

@Gary Hochstetler how do they even win?

[@SilvanaDil]

Regardless of the outcome, it does stimulate a patriot's heart knowing that this scenario would be completely ludicrous if it were any other country vs. the world.

[@JamesCornwall95]

The concept is cool af I gotta admit

[@Coprolite19]

This war would be funded by Disney once they buy out everything else. The mouse always wants more

[@JamesCornwall95]

This is the comment !!!!!

[@iamaloafofbread8926]

I always knew the mouse was the anti christ

[@jcscorner2980]

SO TRUE, Love it

[@dubstylee]

the full American military might is just scary. The tech is insane. Air and sea dominance is key. No amount of ground forces can stop that.

[@ExPxxVlogs450]

Ground troops from Europe or Asia would never reach the US because of the overwhelming size of the American Airforce or Navy

[@ernestespinoza9509]

America “hold my beer” be back for lunch. 😜

[@daddydunbar4777]

No kidding lol.

[@Pringlyman]

Me: im going to go conquer the world America: be back by noon

[@nicholasuszko]

Honestly, its all about logistics and ocean control. Im not going to knock on you for not knowing, but the US has built a military designed to fight far from it's shores and win.

[@Pope_Francis_III]

This is him making himself feel better about the last video

[@ericreinhart9795]

We will win, but I think in a stalemate. With everyone suffer major losses.

[@a.t2267]

Doubt it since you would not have the Manpower

[@PhxVanguard]

@@a.t2267 we do have the man power. Many of our weapons can be controlled remotely by a handful of highly specialized military personnel. As the video said, our stated military doctrine sees us carrying out two full scale military theaters at once. This is the active military and doesn't include our national guard stationed largely here at home. I live in Phoenix. Our bases, just in Arizona could take Mexico and Central America if we wanted to with little resistance. Technology is a huge factor in this video a lot of people are overlooking in a haze of salt. The only place in the world with comparable technology is Europe because of NATO and at any given time we have nearly 200k troops stationed there and tons of equipment for forward readiness to deal with a Russian threat. Those assets wouldn't just disappear. But this is all just fantasy. The US has never shown inclination to be territory takers. Regime changers, yes. But we don't take other people's resources and possessions. Iraq and Afghanistan proved that when Chinese companies got most of the foreign contracts out of there.

[@a.t2267]

@@PhxVanguard I doubt you would have the Manpower. Every war requires footsoldiers. And america has a lot but not as many as the rest of the world combined. America would most likely fight on 4 fronts if the combined forces decided to attack at once. South america would go up the coast and through central america. China, Japan, Korea and the rest of Asien would go through Hawaii and the west. Canada would do canada things in the north and the East would get invaded by europe and russia. Don’t forget that america did not win vs the vietkong in Vietnam. Barely won vs Iraq and Afghanistan and created Isis in the process. As you could follow in those conflicts soldiers cant be away for too long. The combined world would always have atleast 3 million active while america would not even have 1/3 of that active at all times. Its good and all to destroy stuff with guided missiles but as you know from, again, Vietnam and the nazis during world war 2, bombing stuff without a good amount of countinued man power wont make a difference

[@PhxVanguard]

@@a.t2267 just so you realize, not one war that we've fought since ww2 REQUIRED boots on the ground. Look at shock and awe in Iraq. We literally obliterated the entire infrastructure of Hussain's regime in a matter of hours without a single boot on the ground. We CHOOSE to adhere to certain rules of war though. Not saying it's right, but if we wanted to, we could just wipe out and subjugate most countries without a landing force. This is of course fighting against state actors and not non uniformed combatants. But that's what this video was about. Guerilla fighters will always have huge advantages.

[@a.t2267]

@@PhxVanguard Vietnam? You had a lot of troops in nam and tried to bomb the living shit out of it but failed

[@quickhistory8637]

The one problem with the global coalition is that they simply dont have enough ships or planes to transport troops to the us homeland especially if the us navy stayed near the cost.

[@clutch13]

350 million vs 7 billion I like those odds

[@N1korasu]

They've got us out numbered 24 to 1 Good then it will be a fair fight

[@ronb8500]

What do you think 7 billion people are going to be able to do without oil. The U.S. wouldn't need to invade these countries all they would need to do shut down oil supplies and that alone would cripple the counties from putting up much of a fight.

[@nex8000]

@@ronb8500 The U.S. would not be able to maintain bombing the middle east and a multi-year blockade of the entire world. Most likely we would eventually lose our grasp on the middle east before their oil starvation. Russia has more than enough oil reserves to be able to supply the global coalition to push the U.S. out of these areas. At that point it would just be a multi-year stalemate until a massive population disadvantage would lead to them inevitably out pacing the U.S. in everyway.

[@JimboJoeAH]

In a defensive war, yes it would be ridiculous to attempt an invasion tomorrow of the mainland US. The rest of the world combined (including civilian ships) doesn't have the capacity to move troops across the water in a meaningful way. You could stage troops in Canada and/or mexico to attempt to cross, but it wouldn't be too easy to do without the US seeing what was happening. Besides, we have bases strategically placed in every corner of the country, with a side benefit of having at least one division acclimated to that area's climate at any given time. It's not impossible, just absurdly impractical. Defeating US assets overseas though is a different story, then it's a matter of cutting supply lines. The fact that the US's best defense is just being so far away, also acts against us in force projection. During the cold war, this was also something that had to be planned around when devising defensive strategies for a soviet invasion of western europe. If we're talking about a US offensive war of conquest, then no. At least not in the traditional sense of conquering and occupying the world. But I don't think any country seriously entertains such notions in the modern world. World domination through conquest and occupation doesn't make sense when you can get what you want from other nations through political and economic maneuvering. See Yuri Bezmenov

[@Runfromsnek]

Lol the first play ("he is an American") well it's infographics so they focus on a lot lol

[@Runfromsnek]

Just wanted to say: the cost of the war would never justify the war itself.

[@zombiejelly4111]

@@Runfromsnek exactly America could easily do this if you don’t account for the civilians both internal and external

[@zombiejelly4111]

If America gets to strike first then they could destroy every key city in the world but if not given that chance then it would be a big war of attrition

[@robtintelnot9107]

That's right, World. Bend over and take it like a champ.

[@bjsmith6187]

Definitely being salty. It’s a simulation. It operates off of pure data. You aren’t actually disputing anything the video says, you’re just refusing to believe it. The US has the largest AND most advanced Navy in the world. Other nation’s Navies simply cannot compete. Using those old and conventional tactics works, that’s why they use them. No amount of tactics or technology can unblock a shipping lane when it has a sunken tanker in it. Blocking oil and trade shipping would easily accomplish exactly what the vid says, and other nations simply do not have the assets to prevent it. The vid is not acting as though the US wouldn’t be taking losses, it just continues on knowing that the US can replace those losses from reserves without much interruption. Look up Annual Military Spending by nation, and I think it will be a little more clear. I believe the results may surprise you.

[@Seth2Death38]

You keep referencing the amount of people the rest of the world has. Wars aren’t fought like that anymore. Even if they could transport troops to the US safely, you would still have to go like 3k miles over open ocean. Most countries don’t even have that capability.

[@colleen3749]

Reco "the ocean is way deeper than you think"

[@JamesCornwall95]

You got it 💪🏼

[@jimrobertson5986]

I think that the most important issue that has been left out of this scenario is the nature and end goal of the war. The narrator just presented statistics about military forces and tactics which when compared to the "known" forces of other nations may in fact lead to these individual American victories. In an American DEFENSIVE war this would prevent occupation and therefore be chalked up as a "victory" in this USA vs. the World scenario. If this is an American OFFENSIVE war, then what are the victory conditions/goals (destroying the world economy, controlling foreign resources, overthrowing foreign governments, ect...)? Without defining this, the narrator can't say the Americans would win. Without a doubt America can do massive damage and destabilize nations, but America cannot overthrow all the world's governments or occupy enough nations to give it practical and unconditional control of the world. So if "world control" is the goal, then no - America would not win that war.

[@zombiejelly4111]

That’s true we need to have a goal. If destruction is the goal hell yeah we gonna win but if control well we will need some gas chambers

[@mohdghazali3473]

Agreed, in the scenario of defensive then yes but in the offensive war which was initiated by US, if world control was the goal then US would face rebellion across the world and it would be costly for the US. Eventually US would lose influence in place far from US mainland and it would be a huge burden for the US. I imagine "USSR dissolution" scene but 100 time in a much greater magnitude. Also the US public response would be need to take into account unless US government implement a similar system like the one in USSR and Imperial Japan. Based on the goal and condition to be deemed success, the direction the war take and how it would effect US capabilities and economic condition cause we are talking about US against the entire world. Would US have enough natural resourcess in the event where US was alone against the entire world. Also logistic stuff was not taken into account. He is talking about completely destroyed the oil reserved, than where do you think US would get most of their oil supply ? All of US major and global company, it's branch and subsidiary's staff and worker in the factory across the globe in the world where US breach the international law and made their country an enemy alongside the rest of the world, what would be their response. Would they really need to follow international trade law in the case of US anymore ? In the event US fight a war against the entire world, they would be made enemies and propaganda would be use by all world leader. So what would the American live outside the US reaction and response ? Canada, Mexico and the Carribbean might be came directly under the control of US in that event. They're talking about Middle East but the first major battle would probbaly happened around the US border. US would probbaly also have to deal with opposition against their very own citizen especially those who live in the border of US and have families living outside US and since many US citizen kept a gun in their own home, imagines the opposition accross the nation and border town like Calexico, Mexicali and Blaine (where a Peace Arch of US-Canada Border was there). For the record Blaine have annual celebration called "Hands Across the Border", so this border town would have a greater opposition and in unlikely event where US suddenly launch invansion and war across the world, Canada and Mexico might considered sending help to the border town and further insite major opposition deep into US territory. Thought even if US would be able to defend against Canada and Mexico, i don't think US mainland would be untouchable. The end result would the most devastated in the history of human civilisation.

[@a.t2267]

@@zombiejelly4111 you would not win a ’destruction’ war tho? Every asian country would do guerilla warfare. You have no military units that work well in snow so taking scandinavia easily i simply say good luck. You have 320 million people in your country vs around 7 billion others. You would simply not win lol

[@zombiejelly4111]

@@a.t2267 destroying shit is easy, we have more airplanes then everyone one bomb

[@zombiejelly4111]

@@a.t2267 also we have troops trained in snow combat shows how much you actually now about the American military

[@unominous4759]

The guy had the entire US attack sub fleet in both the eastern Atlantic and western Pacific.

[@natefrom828]

I noticed that too

[@JamesCornwall95]

I thought that but didn't wanna say it incase I was wrong 😂😂

[@jasperavelis9678]

After the Middle East is shut down then they just move to the Pacific...

[@unominous4759]

@@jasperavelis9678 Takes a looong time to move 55 subs from Europe to the Pacific when the Suez is blocked by scuttled ships. And the Chinese aren't going to wait their turn to get their licks in like the bad guys in a bad martial arts movie.

[@jasperavelis9678]

@@unominous4759 why would they be in the Med? Plenty of reach from the Gulf...

[@tommccan1866]

“ you cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Isoroku Yamamoto. That is why we love our gun rights. Taking that quotes into consideration. also taking into consideration the size of our Navy and Air Force. It would be a bad time for any country trying to invade United States. The reason that he doesn’t mention upsets is because those are variables. If he went down all of the variables, this video would be hours long. If you want to watch videos with all the variables “binkov’s battleground” has lots of videos that get into those variables. I know you weren’t fond of his video yesterday but he has others with the variables I believe you would like to see. Also this video is not about conquering other countries. The only way Americans would ever back such a war is if the rest of the world was trying to conquer us. So to us this video is more about could we keep the rest of the world at bay. With all that being said I do agree that he forgot to mention, with time the rest of the world would definitely win the war. it would be a costly victory for The world, but A victory none the less.

[@harvbegal6868]

Yeah. But these days and invasion would involve tanks, jets, long range missiles. Does Jethro have anything against that in his barn shed?

[@harvbegal6868]

@J Wilmoth You don't think Canada and Mexico has tanks?

[@harvbegal6868]

@J Wilmoth The scenario in the video is USA versus the World. The world, meaning Canada and Mexico as well.

[@archaeologyteensyoungadult4477]

@@harvbegal6868 LOL Mexico? Fighting US with tanks? LOL...Canada has very few...Mexico has about 500, USA has over 8,000. California has 32 military bases in its state, clustered around San Diego near the border with Mexico. Lots of marines with tanks...Texas has 18 bases, Arizona has 6. Canada has a total of 10 or 12 military bases...LOL.

[@tommccan1866]

@@harvbegal6868 We have more tanks and jets used for decorations around America than Canada and Mexico have combined. We have more carriers the the rest of the world has combined. So we can assume that there are no reinforcements coming with more tanks With that being said. In order for Canada and Mexico to get them tanks past the border’s they would have to go through our military’s tanks. If (very optimistic “if”) they fight through and destroy all of our tanks they will not have any tanks left either. So then it will be a even playing field.

[@barnabydodd8956]

I think a lot of people underestimate how important a naval force is in a global conflict. It is the #1 most important thing. The U.S. is the only country in the world with a truly global naval force. For example, the U.S. has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, and they are decades more advanced. The U.S. Navy is unmatched and unrivaled, and in a global conflict they would dominate the seas, thus paving the way for dominance in other areas of a conflict. Europe today relies heavily on U.S. naval assets. They haven't built up their own fleet because they depend on America's. So the reason why a country of 330 million could take on a population of 7 billion is because of U.S. naval power. It can't be stated enough how important it is.

[@pspublic13]

I think people in general completely underestimate the concepts of logistics in warfare. The reason why the British were so dominant in the colonial period was because they had excellent logistics (compared to rivals like the French or Spanish). It is American logistics that is the real power behind the US military, not technology. (Although the US does also have the most advanced air force and navy....)

[@pspublic13]

Also, military doctrine plays a big role that is ignored by most. The US is the only nation in the post-Soviet period that actively plans for global-scale conflicts and also is the only nation that funds the military to meet these doctrinal goals. The other NATO nations are the only other countries with any training in global operations. And this is limited in scope and scale.

[@ai_araphat]

Y’all could send troops to the mainland, or US could be attached by the surrounding countries but remember that 50 some + percentage of United States citizens are armed? Citizens got more guns than cops.

[@doctor8342]

'We haven't talked about anyone attacking America yet". When you said this the video had never even touched on our National Guard, or Coast Guard which is significant, also have you ever heard the quote from Yamamoto from Japan when the Japanese leadership were discussing invading America? It was something like "Behind every blade of grass is a rifle". People forget that one reason behind our second amendment is national defense, there are literally more guns than humans here, I have many and would be handing them out to my neighbors that don't if shit like this hit the fan, and yes most of us are not military trained but there's ~350 million of us.....

[@emperorofrome692]

This is a comment that I found relating to this concept- "The US would win if attacked. The US Navy and the USAF are the largest fleets in the world. And they possess advanced technology that has been proven on the battlefield. An invasion force would have to, at some point, cross an ocean. Meaning they would have to deal with the US Navy. The US Navy is larger than the next several navies combined. As powerful as the Navy is when you hear about it conducting operations around the world, many people fail to realize that this is only 1/3 of the total US naval force. 2/3 of our battlefleet is always in dock for either upgrades, downtime for the crews, etc. A fully deployed US Navy would easily stop an invasion fleet combining the rest of the world’s naval assets. Firstly, the combined military sealift capacity for the rest of the world is insufficient to TRANSPORT the men and equipment to the US shores. If you combined every single amphibious assault craft and somehow they managed to sneak past the US Navy (itself an impossible task with modern surveillance tech) and landed them, the force would simply be too small to establish a foothold and allow for more reinforcements to arrive before US land and air power responded and shelled them back into the sea. Invasions would have to land in Canada or Mexico using COMMERCIAL ships to carry enough men. Cargo ships cannot land on unimproved shores. They must have deepwater ports. And you would need THOUSANDS of them in order to transport a force large enough. And these thousands of cargo ships have absolutely no defensive capabilities. They would be sitting ducks to any missiles or torpedoes fired from US ships. And the World Naval units escorting them would be too few to protect the entire fleet of cargo ships. Further, the cargo ships that DID survive the trip across the ocean would still find themselves with nowhere to land. Because the US, once it had been set upon by the world, would instantly move on their neighbors. The Canadian and Mexican militaries are not weak, but their combined might is simply not enough to stop the US. The US is not in a “conquer mode” here. They’re moving fast to cripple the AIR defenses of these countries. With airpower gone, the US can launch land offensives to neutralize the neighboring countries' land force projection. Once Mexican and Canadian land forces are neutralized or destroyed there is no way to land at the “friendly” ports in those countries because they’re no longer friendly. US land forces and land-based air power prevent landings from the invasion fleet. The US would put a TOP priority on keeping the fighting off our land. An amphibious landing would not happen. An attack over land would not happen as US forces would move North/South as needed to take the fight to an invading force in enemy territory. All of this is assuming the world is making a hail-mary shot at the attack. Because taking a few thousand cargo ships with you means you’re devastating the trade and economies of the homeland and you cannot sustain that long without significant gains in the war. If even your first invasion attempt is repelled, the World would be unable to mount a “2nd try” for many years due to the logistics of recovering from the failed attack in terms of lost equipment and cargo lift. They’d have no money left to replenish the massive loss of life and equipment. If the world tries to attack the US while maintaining their commercial trade and economies, the attack would simply not progress past the planning stage as there is no way to launch a large enough invasion AND keep the world merchant fleets active doing their trade routes. Now, if the US forces were just attacked, without provocation at their various military bases around the world, we’d definitely suffer heavy losses and lose those bases and equipment. US bases are designed around a doctrine of support and power projection to protect our overseas interests. A US base in the UK is heavily dependent on UK forces for supplies, etc. But that would not equal defeat, because US forces would simply withdraw to the mainland. With a total war economy, the US could quickly rebuild and re-arm. The US can shift into a total war economy and devote trillions to defense. The rest of the world would find its economy buckling simply to maintain their current forces at full deployment overseas. The US spends 3.5% of its total GDP on the military. This equals about $600 billion in funding. That is more than the next 8 strongest militaries combined. And that is a peacetime spending level. That is for maintenance and R&D and limited military actions. During World War 2, the US converted almost 66% of its spending to the war effort. In today’s dollars, that would be about $6 TRILLION in spending. The US could retool hundreds of factories to produce war materials. They could be operated 24/7/365. Naval, air, and land equipment could be fabricated in huge amounts VERY quickly when the manpower and budget are increased by 100 times its current level. At the height of World War 2, the US shipyards averaged about 1 new ship rolling off the line per day (they took months to build still, but they would start 1 ship on day 1, the 2nd ship on day 2, etc. ) Surface ships could be built in a matter of months. Aircraft in a matter of weeks. Tanks and small arms and ammunition could be produced in hours. Crews and operators could be trained constantly as a military draft would pull in tens of millions of new fighting aged men and women. Those unable to fight could man the factories and homesteads. The US military is, in its own, simply too strong to defeat. However, if you were to grant another nation the same power as the US military, they STILL would not be able to invade the US. The US military, literally, could not conquer its own country. The natural barriers and logistics are just too intense to overcome. "

[@emperorofrome692]

​@@francescomiele6601 The US could outproduce Vietnam and Afghanistan and yet we lost. That's because you can't underestimate the will to fight. Very few countries would be willing to completely mobilize their countries and send thousands/millions to die in a long term war with the US. Not to mention the difficulty of coordinating a military with almost every language in the world. Further complications would be had when several nations refuse to fight with each other. (China and India, Russia and Ukraine, Israel and the rest of the Middle East.) What also shouldn't be forgotten is how many of these nations would battle internally to be the leader of this coalition. Organizing a multi-lingual, multi-cultural invasion of literally billions of people would be a nightmare, add the rivalries and the egos and it becomes nearly impossible.

[@redssracer4153]

Remember that "Denial" is part of the process of recovering from the "Disbelief" after a loss... What I'm saying is that America understands... But Norseman, let it go...just let it go... Lol!! :)

[@jaypaster8244]

Europe would quickly run short of KFC buckets and cheese in a can.

[@adude20]

The whole point of the video is pretty much that the USA's navy could take out the navies of the rest of the world because of the size/modernity of the USA's navy. And if the USA controls the seas, then the rest of the world can't reach the USA to attack it, while the USA could attack the oil production/transportation of the rest of the world from the air/sea. So the actual armies don't even really come in to play, since the European/Russian/Chinese army's couldn't get to the USA, and the USA wouldn't be trying to invade on land, just trying to destroy them economically.

[@MattMajcan]

you should watch some stuff about the USA - Japan pacific theater in ww2 since you mentioned not knowing much about it. lots of fascinating battles and stories there. Definitely check out some stuff on the battle of midway. a really good one is called "the battle of midway from the japanese perspective". another good one is "the battle of the coral sea"

[@Spectre-wd9dl]

Battle of Samar, look up taffy 3 and the USS Johnson. A handful of destroyer and destroyer escorts turned back the bulk of the Japanese surface fleet. Amazing history.

[@trentjones5450]

Well what he was saying is that the world lacks a way of getting there troops into America and America has a overwhelming navy to defend from this

[@KeithG9774]

Also we have our second amendment rights, so a ground invasion would result in foreign militaries fighting the citizens too

[@HOSS257]

Liked for your name

[@frogpaste]

I think two things in particular weren't considered. First, Russia has a newer class of missiles as of 2018 they claim can reach all of US soil and the US doesn't have terrific missile defence systems on the homeland. Also, as far as a land invasion would go, the US citizens are armed heavily and any land invasion would find opposition in literally every town and city. It wouldn't just be a matter of taking US bases. Additionally, if the US government surrendered, States could easily secede and continue fighting individually. This would effectively change the fight from one super power to fifty individual, still fairly powerful, nations.

[@AmountStax]

Not many people know this but, iraq was the world's 4th largest military and the US destroyed it in 2 months. If the US wasn't worried about war crimes(an oxymoronic term) and didn't want to nation build, it could've been done with iraq and afghanistan in less than a year.

[@LCBanga]

Bro, I understand your distain for this video and how it seems that the Americans have an answer for everything. I get it, even as a true blue American I honestly get it. But you have to understand. The American military's basic mission statement is to be literally unbeatable in any conflict, especially after how we were embarrassed in Vietnam. Also America has so many enemies, our military spends and trains to be prepared for this very scenario, if all the major nations of the world suddenly decide to come after us. That's why it seems so crazy the weapons and tactic we have. It's because our military assumes WW3 will be literally "US vs The World.

[@SardonicSoul]

That maybe true, but sorry to say...when it comes to the aftermarth, the US is...not realy prepared for that. They crippled the worlds, and their own economy and they have not truly the logistics or Managements, to control that massive amount countrys and land. Unless they go full dictator on the entire world, which would spark much stress and new problems for them out, and probably inside the US. So yes, they would win the battle, but the war...highly debatable.

[@Robertz1986]

This video didn't involve America invading the rest of the world, but rather simply using the excellent naval and air capabilities of the US to destroy oil production in the Middle East and starve international trade. No one can reach the US because of America's huge navy, and they can't dislodge American naval and air powers from the ocean. The reason there was no talk of armies and generals is because America doesn't have the power to win a land war and so wouldn't even attempt it. This video is probably among the more realistic in the basic framework of what would happen, because this is what makes the most sense. The US built outrageously large and advanced naval and air forces because of this exact sort of scenarios. Note that this whole video lays out the strategic goals, this is not the US steamrolling everyone and conquering the world, but rather simply shutting down oil production and international trade from the ocean where America actually enjoys a massive advantage.

[@ajw5138]

Yeah Infographics kind of suck, I've noticed that they do a pretty poor job covering things when I watch videos on topics I know about.

[@ΒΞΔΝ]

they are the worst. They always throw bias, and PC culture into vids. Utter garbage Infographics is.

[@jetseal8437]

I understand that, but I think if everything would be taken into a count, it would make the video hours long lol

[@grandmasterblueberryice4882]

All that I can say is that the US Homeland has very good defenses and an invision on US soil would not fare well for anybody attempting. Theres a reason why it hasn't been done since the 19th century.

[@Mercilesstantalus]

Also as an American...this video is pretty stupid. I don't know who would win in the end though I doubt it would be America vs THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD combined...but to say it's America EASILY is just ridiculous! I don't think you're being salty! Either way this was amusing and I love your content, thanks for posting this!

[@brandonmcginnis7679]

You’re right but as an American I feel it’s definitely broken down. If everyone invaded us at once that’s a different story

[@JamesCornwall95]

I'd say it is impossible to invade and capture the American homeland, but who knows what would happen if America attacked the world 💪🏼

[@yutaoGOATsu236]

@@JamesCornwall95 I think it would probably be like ww2 germany and japan the would make quick gains in the beginning but would overwhelmed just as quickly

[@thetabbyguy921]

Yeah the video wasn't actually U.S vs the world but instead U.S vs the middle east then U.S vs china and india nothing more than that

[@pspublic13]

@@yutaoGOATsu236 Except that's not an accurate comparison. American industrial might was noted by all the European powers as early as the 1890s. By 1940, the US had the industrial expertise, developed natural resources, infrastructure, and raw population to ramp up to levels to fight the Germans and Japanese. By comparison, only China and India have significant UNTAPPED industry that can be ramped up. All of this potential development would require fossil fuels as of today. So the video is accurate in what goals the US would pursue and how it would perform, strictly based on the data simulations.

[@phantomimages7673]

“If everyone invaded the US at once, that would be a different story.” That could never happen, the US is geographically protected from that occurring, European troops have to cross the Atlantic, Russia, India, and China would have to cross the Pacific. The US Navy (combined with US Coast Guard under times of war) is larger than the next 8 countries navies combined. More importantly none of the countries with large enough ground troops have ( not even taking in consideration that they couldn’t get past the US Navy) enough transport fleets to transport enough troops at one time to land enough troops all at once to make an invasion of US homeland even possible. Also keep in mind, in this video majority of US ground troops and assets would still be home in the US, meaning 3/4’s of all the tanks, and other mechanized infantry vehicles, 3/4 of the US Air Force fighter planes and over 1 million active duty soldiers and marines, another 2 million ground troops in national guard and reserves, plus they could the US could call up all of it’s IRR (inactive ready reserves, veterans who have already served but did not serve for more than 8 years) adding another 1.5 - 3 million ground forces. Then add on top of that there are also over 400 million privately owned firearms in the US. Without any air support there is no way any foreign nation could invade the US homeland.

[@bjsmith6187]

There’s no need to mention army personnel or special forces. The only ground offensives would be in North and South America. The “7 billion people” are irrelevant, unless they’re going to swim out to the carriers and sink them with their bare hands. The ENTIRE scenario utilizes Air and Sea forces. Present an opposing strategy other then what the video suggests. “I simply can’t believe it” just doesn’t cover it.

[@yakob3520]

In regards to objections of local resistance, there's a difference between an occupation and a scorched earth approach. While true that many middle eastern countries have proven difficult to conquer, these were attempts of American/coalition forces at state building. While the ability of local insurgents to hide and strike US/coalition bases is a serious concern if your trying to install a democratic Iraqi government, it really doesn't matter if your goal is to stop oil production. The US doesn't need translators, bases, or local cooperarion. The US would only need to ensure that all oil refineries and reserves were little more than burning craters, and all sea lanes are mined and occupied. That can be done siting 30 miles of the coast and lobbing tomahawks at any oil facility bigger than a tool shed.

[@originalname9191]

The british man was salty about the uk vs us so now he wants to see the us lose

[@Ez_Brzy]

Next video "USA vs the entire galaxy".

[@pspublic13]

@@Ez_Brzy Here's the title for that video. "US Space Force vs the Milky Way"

[@HydroNinja-es8cl]

You cant attack american homeland, also he literally said america is the only country that can move there army around in big quantities

[@ryanschrum9872]

Thanks for making videos that are great and also stroke our massive American egos 🤣

[@TrulyUnfortunate]

How does the local populace defend against 5th gen fighter jets? A bunch of Hadjis with AK's wouldnt cut it.

[@YouTubeWatcher9000]

You should react to “could the us citizens fight off the us military?” by the infographics show

[@ΒΞΔΝ]

Quick answer. Yes. considering we have a volunteer military.

[@grandmasterblueberryice4882]

yes, as a result of organized mini Militia

[@jameshollidayjr7383]

You also have to remember that he can only go off of the stats of what the rest of the other countries has. He cant predict random things happening. Also he did mention that because the rest of the world has never had to fight a war across the oceans they do not have the proper capabilities to transport ground troops to the US for an invasion. Loved the reaction. Love your videos. Keep up the great work.

[@losangelesislife3824]

Mexico: *rushes the border*

[@citymorgue8462]

*Defends the border

[@jenkinswrld9562]

US: puts up taco stand back across boarder and readies big fence

[@losangelesislife3824]

@@jenkinswrld9562 to be fair, both militaries train together all the time so I think Mexico is prepared as far as training goes yk haha, and their military, with what they have, fight well against the CIA-supplied Cartel😂

[@losangelesislife3824]

@@jenkinswrld9562 but I’d doubt they’d actually win without support from Canada😂

[@ademas2211]

Ok they rush the boarder, than what? Last i checked Mexican citizens didnt own a stock pill of weapons, as do the American citizens lol

[@Brando501st]

I think 2 things he doesn't touch on at all would be the ground troop battle which everyone would eventually overwhelm us. And then there would be the civil unrest in the middle east and the US.

[@adielmelendez3969]

Without a navy to cross the ocean there will be no need for ground troops, America is not going on the offensive in this scenario. Which means southern American countries and Canada have to go against USA alone (ground wise speaking) America will pull all their foreign base personnel to the homeland or strategic American strongholds. Ground troops of South America and Canada has no chance with USA military and not to mention... USA citizens with their own weapons. Navy will control European trying to give aid

[@roddack]

I think their is a drastic underestimation of how adaptive other countries can be if going into total war mode

[@JamesCornwall95]

Lemme know what you think 💪🏼

[@thecrazedhumor]

Just started but already know it’ll be great

[@cupidpinoi2k1]

Well as entertaining as these videos are they are mostly wish fulfillment (WW2 tactics with modern weapons equating to only focusing on force vs force conflicts) which conveniently ignore certain aspects that may make the conflict much more interesting to watch such as the use of subterfuge (no mention of any of the spy agencies and networks that exist), acts of desperation tactics (like the Japanese balloon bombs during WW2) and local insurgencies (either home grown or encouraged by clandestine services). I had the same thought during your "US vs UK war" vid but if I recall correctly there was no mention of either CIA or Mi6 and it's possible role both of which sharpened their skills during the Cold War and had practiced regime change into an art during the "War on Terror"

[@SilvanaDil]

It is true that minus nukes, no other countries have much with which to project power. This scenario of cutting supply/trade routes and no intention of occupying any countries is a pretty good tactical one.

[@redssracer4153]

Norseman, if you "liked" this vid, you should react to "Could The US Defend From An Invasion of the Homeland", I'm sure that you'll "like" this one also... :)

[@ClockworkAnomaly]

Its an armchair view. Touched broadly on a lot of topics but it did definitely didn't take into account several factors (like population) that I think you felt were missing. Its a little grim to think about, but modified human wave tactics could retake the middle east. It all feels a lot like Germany, ww2- where in the end they would be crushed by the economic weight of so many opposing them. Then again I think the video made good points, from a sort of "point fighting" perspective, yes, Oil, and air strikes and naval control. You're done. But point fighting like karate rarely fares well against MMA ("real fighting"). I suspect if such a thing were to happen, America would punch themselves out before they got everyone to surrender, and then a new Economic powerhouse would rise in its place and defeat it. However, if America played only defensively, only point fighting, and at the same time played diplomacy ("we are only defending, stop attacking us, you keep losing, we aren't attacking you etc), perhaps they might not get the world to surrender, but they would get the world to give up the fight. Peace talks and compromise. I think the world would accept as invading the U.S. heartland would be dead hard. like invading 50 switzerlands. A rifle behind every tree, in every house. car bombs, technicals. secret citizen arsenals, and miles upon miles of vulnerable roadways to run your supply lines on. So in the end, is the USA is the bad guy= like Germany WW2. if the USA is the good guys= eventual negotiation, like how the American Revolution ended.

[@Duke00x]

He didn't talk about resistance from the local population in the middle east because they was no ground war there. It was all navy and air strikes. 3 million plus people with AK-47s can't do anything against bombers and fighter jets or ships 20 miles off the coast. So they were not taken into account.

[@alexp.9529]

Please react to “this will happen if the us pulls out of nato” by The Infographics show

[@bradzillabrave6856]

I think one thing it gets wrong is how the US would strike first. It wouldn’t be a military strike, rather an economic one. Since America rules over much of the world’s financial and economic systems, this would likely be where the US gets the initial upper hand, especially if the government can gain the cooperation of entities they have significant contributions over such as the world bank, the imf, and private financial institutions. If acting in a coordinated fashion, these institutions could bring down much of the rest of the world’s economies without a shot even being fired. That way, most countries are already unstable by the time the war starts.

[@thecrazedhumor]

With my Kodak courage (as they call it) I believe the US would win but it would be a heavy casualty war that would end with minimal population left, yes the US has astronomical firepower and manpower but we got nothing when it comes to population vs the world so it’s a hard situation to judge

[@romemedina4712]

Guys true with how things and people can't teleport so numbers can only mean so much.

[@SilvanaDil]

We're very good at destruction in multiple places at once, especially if the military were fully unleashed. But, we suck at occupying to "nation build."

[@thefederalist9982]

The greater degree of interest lies not with those who hunger for a fight (those who have never experienced combat first hand), but with those who have and yearn for peace, if not caution, for blood does not stain the skin, it stains the soul for life.

[@kokofan50]

This is a naval war. What matters are the number of hulls, what kind of ships you have, and training. 7 billion people vs 1/3 of billion doesn’t really matter unless they’re building ships or manning them.

[@Superdm64]

The problem with upsets is you can't account for or predict them, therefore it would be difficult to include them in this hypothetical scenario. He is correct in stating that America's best strategy would be to destroy the world's oil supply lines and essentially starve them out, however he failed to mention what I would consider to be America's greatest challenge in this scenario, namely securing our northern and southern borders against invasion from Canada and South America. While ultimately I believe that we could hold them off, this would be a major concern.

[@Jxuptosae]

Eh, not really. While Canada has some competent forces, they have far less hardware and population. Not to mention that the campaigns against the world wouldn't require our ground forces at all. Those would be used to secure our borders, or more likely, entirely route those possible enemies.

[@MrAnimason]

I think America would lose, but only by a war of attrition in which we run out of resources. We have peak geographical, military, and economic strength compared to literally every other country, and it wouldn't be hard to repel an invasion from weak neighbors and distant powers. We just wouldn't be able to hold onto influence across the globe.

[@yadisamdestiny]

Salty asf 😂😂😂

[@jdemd1977]

You're right, this video doesn't take into account all the countless surprises that inevitably come during war. Having seen you react to many wars in history, I feel the same as you. In a war like this, it's virtually impossible to take into account all the variables. These videos also assume that the American people would simply go along with it- All the devastation, loss of life and infrastructure, not to mention the cost to the economy. I think it would be equally impossible for anyone to successfully invade and conquer the US Homeland as it would be for the US to fully invade and conquer the rest of the world. 🇺🇲💙🇬🇧

[@prs149]

It's not this guy's voice in the video that bothers you it's just at the truth hurts

[@oldschool72]

That is what the video is saying. no other country would have the ships, planes, subs nor the modern capability etc to even get close to the US for a ground troop invasion. The amount of civilian population and small numbers of military they still would not have the capability of invading the US.

[@jjdefeo7413]

I agree with this video, for a few reasons that it seems that you're slightly overlooking in your criticism. One country versus the world is really a tall order and that's why it seems so crazy, especially with China and Russia's massive amount of people, but in today's theater of war, the amount of people you have is next to irrelevant if it's a US versus the world kind of scenario. It's the fact that the US is very isolated with only two neighbors that wouldn't dare be able to attempt a ground assault against the US. Other than that, there's not nearly enough capability to move troops across either of the oceans, more likely the atlantic, for enough troops for a landing anywhere or a ground assault anywhere in the US to occur, especially knowing the fact that they would definitely be running out of every natural resource they have because, well, you know the US Navy and coordinated air Force units already took out most oil, coal, and operative metal mines. So the issue is not whether or not they could fight a war against the US, the issue is whether or not they would be able to physically make things for the war or physically move their tanks or people or guns for longer than a couple of years, and they wouldn't be able to. That's why the US would win so resoundingly, because it's extremely self-sufficient with it now mining oil up in Alaska, and it's massive forward operating Navy and air Force capabilities, along with, like you mentioned, it's very organized very structured command and communication system, and overall all of these things can bind make this video much more accurate than you're giving it credit for. This wouldn't be a war of invasion, because if it were an invasion that's totally different. In today's type of war in this scenario invasion would be irrelevant, it's just outwitting and making the opponent's country crippled and collapse before yours does

[@schirado2010]

As an american, i do feel like it wouldn't be that easy. This just puts into perspective on why we spend so much on military. I came into this video thinking it would be a toss up, never thought oil was so important until now.

[@siouneo152]

To give a more legitimate view of how situations will go simple America will lose no chance. 1. If you noticed he mentioned the entire US fleet in a single place all the times, Yes if 55 America submarines are stationed in the south China sea than it would be hard for China to kick them out, but US would also have to send submarines all around the world to protect its middle east territory and send even more submarines to stop Europe from going anywhere. 9 super carriers is very strong but when their spread out through out the world it isn't as strong any more. 2.He said America can simply starve the world to defeat by controlling the oil fields of middle east. Middle East does contain a lot of oil, but especially Africa has a butt ton of oil that isn't extracted yet, if you take the oil in South America, Africa, Asia and Europe the amount will substantially be more than what the middle east has. 3. America might have control of the oil, but the rest of the world has control of everything else. So I don't know is oil more important than every single thing that's not oil? 4. Europe's navy is more than capable of giving America it's foot. In particular, queen elizabeth and Charles De gaulle is quite good for dealing with other ships. Again, US navy might be big but against a enemy that has concentrated amount of ships VS the US ships which are spread all over the world you can tell who has the advantage. Russian navy and Chinese navy together is a formidable force. 5. He also didn't mentioned the fact that Mexico and Canada can serve as pretty good ground invasion points for the rest of the world. This is how it will go if US Vs The world happens: 1. Russian, Chinese, Australian, Singaporean, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, Vietnam, south Korea, Japan, north Korea, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Indian navy VS the US pacific fleet guess how that goes... Anyway US pacific fleet would be decimated not because of a technology difference but just because of mass numbers. 2. UK, France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Greece, turkey, Russian Baltic and black sea fleets, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia and some African country VS US Atlantic fleet, I wonder how would that go..... Jokes aside you could guess US navy will get decimated. 3. This one is pretty simple, Panama can close it's canals to US can't send support from its fleets cutting their support to each other. 4. Canada thank to the fact that US navy will be blocked so that no ships can go through the Arctic Canada can allow the of the rest of the world to land their entire armies on to Canadian shores and March all the way to the American border :) 5. If some miracle happens and some how the US navy manage to wipe out the Europe navy and make their way to middle east ( virtually impossible ) they will be welcome by the Russian army which if you didn't know has more tanks than the US has. Also Russia always lacks money to built better stuff than America now that the world is against America that also applies to Russia just had a massive military budget boast and with that new budget they now have the capability to modernize their 22,000 tanks, Buy thousands of Su57, get hundreds of thousands of S500 for the entire world and get their 4 Kirov the best equipment and tech, they can also do something called, Spam T14 Armata's which will cause utter Panic among US troops when they land in middle east and when they see hundreds of T14 waiting for them :) Also France always wanted a second Charles De gaulle but they can never afford it but with the sudden boast of budget they would be able to procure unbelievable amounts of everything they ever wanted. 6. US might have troops all around the world but Europe has troops in US as well so it goes both ways. 7. With half of the US forces dead thank to them being spread out through out the world the world would breeze through US with all of their newly designed stuff thanks to the budget increase for everyone. In conclusion, US will get destroyed while Russia will have so many tanks that they could just invade the rest of the world as their economy got destroyed by the spending

[@stephencathy3796]

Idiot, You have many fire power grounds but you couldn't carry that all in AMERICA Homeland, stop dreaming, oil is important, without oil you can't even sail your Navy move to America, Did you hear what narrator says? Any of these countries don't have enough ships can carry a fire power to us Homeland, and if you did? Good Luck with 150+ millions Legal and ILLEGALLY gun owners in US

[@joshstreet6819]

What gets me is the guy has Canada and Mexico staying out of any war that wouldn't be the case but the exact opposite. Canada and the islands around the USA that belong to European countries would be the the unsinkable aircraft carriers and staging grounds just like Brittan was in WWII. The USA wouldn't be able to send all of it's carriers (11 carriers and 10 amphibious assault ship) to the meddle east (could bring older amphibious assault ship and non-nuclear carriers out of the ghost fleet but that would take time) do to the European navies not just setting on their butt's twiddling their thumbs. The USA would most likely send a 1/3 of it's navy to the meddle east/ Indian ocean with another 1/3 of the navy sent to the pacific and the rest being sent to stop the European navy. I remember seeing a war game plans based on a what if war between NATO members and the USA set in the early 1980's before the Falkland War but after the war the USA had to rethink the war plan do to the UK's fast response. With the meddle east the USA forces would be pushed out by the European NATO members and Russian Air forces in about 4 to 8 weeks. the sinking of ships in the Suez Canal would most likely be do to the USA being forced out of the area. Over in the Pacific he was right the navy would start off by sending in the submarines to try to cut off supplies and launch cruise missile's at land targets. If it turns into a long drawn out war yes the USA could force the waring members to the peace table but not after both sides lost a good chunk of their navies and air forces. But if Canada and Mexico are part of the war their would be heavy loses of life for both ground forces and civilian.

[@attorneyrobert]

This video doesn't consider the economic impact. A war of this nature would immediately cause a severe economic depression, which would be a factor into how fast individual governments (including the USA) would decide whether they wanted to continue fighting or move towards a negotiated peace.

[@chrismoore3295]

I mean its like a best case scenario it ends quick, because if it doesn't economies won't shrink, they die

[@Tijuanabill]

You are right about the unconventional tactics. Not only would US forces not use unconventional tactics to block the Suez Canal, they wouldn't want it blocked at all. They would likely just seize it, so they could use it while others could not.

[@hobopwnr1]

Couple points I'd like to contend with as an admittedly probably biased citizen of the united states: 1) Technology and Timelines. While I do agree that the timelines presented are a bit comical at best, I think you vastly underestimate the difference superior technology makes. As an example I'd like to propose Israel's 6-day war, a war wherein the IDF (Israeli defense force) was able to, with decisive action suppress 3 opposing countries of a roughly equal combined size. As a testament to the US faith in technology (albeit sometimes misplaced) is the reliance on the F-22 raptor. Despite having a significant number of these 5th generation fighters, they have routinely trained in sorties where they are outnumbered by as great a ratio as 6:1. Compared even with our own previous generation air superiority fighter, the F-15 (which many nations globally field as the most capable backbone of their forces) the F-22 in initial trials and training exercises regularly scored 5:0 kill ratios against it, often having the only sign of its presence in the area be an RWR (Radar Warning Receiving) ping signifying that the raptor is tracking and locked with its onboard radar. The only aircraft that would pose a significant threat for the raptor are the Eurofighter Typhoon and perhaps Dassault Raffaele in dogfighting scenarios. But having had the privilege of interacting with raptor pilots, if the F-22 is even needing to dogfight in any sortie, there is a significant problem with either the pilot's situational awareness, or some kind of weapons system malfunction that would warrant RTB anyway. Just because you can see an asset, doesn't mean you can strike it. 2) One significant advantage posed to the US that isn't heavily discussed in the video is the way in which we handle kill chains and officer accountability. Our staggeringly effective kill chain is bolstered by the fact that unlike the majority of countries in the world, we allow and encourage even low-level officers to make their own decisions and afford them the freedom to do so (within obvious limitations like having an O-1 ask to bomb a whole city into the ground) This makes us more tactically flexible and capable of dealing with many eventualities and resistances I'm sure would occur within the confines of the scenario. 3) Population. While it is true that from a sheer numbers perspective when it comes to population, the US is at an overwhelming disadvantage, from the perspective of combat-ready, trained individuals with the means and technology to enhance personal lethality, the US has an overwhelming advantage. The thing to remember is that training even something as simple as a ready made "minute men" style militia force takes significant time to achieve meaningful results. For example, while a stray "pot shot" at a US base may injure or even kill a service member, if you're only hitting 1/1500 shots fired, your net effect is trivially insignificant. 4) Targets of opportunity. While you are absolutely correct that I'm sure the regional populations wouldn't just keel over and hand the us assets like oil refineries, one thing to consider is their location. Typically an oil refinery isn't in the middle of a city or near any large population center, so the resistance supplied by locals would be negligible at best. 5) Air dominance. In my own and the majority of opinions of military experts, the air war is the most important, because once you control the sky you can control everything underneath it. This is in part why China specifically was credited with being able to inflict the heaviest US casualties, because of its plethora of anti-air systems. And to the point the infographics show was making, having power and being able to project it are two very different things. Even within the US arsenal, all vehicles have a limited range, and limited availability due to maintenance. What makes the US a true superpower is its ability to keep the majority of assets combat ready ~80% of the time and the logistic capabilities of said assets. The US Navy is not something to be trifled with, as they are the 2nd largest air force in the world with 1st being held by our own US air force. 6) Combined factors. The success outlined in the video isn't necessarily superseded by any one point I or the video have made, but rather the combination of these points. Having significant investment into global conflict over the past several decades, almost century now has afforded and continues to afford the US military a level of modern combat experience that few, if any other nations can match. Training is great, but experience is king. This concludes my dissertation lmao, ended up being longer than I planned or expected... by a long shot, but the more I thought on it, the more certain things the US does made sense to me haha. If you've read this far I just want to say I hope you have an excellent day and are staying safe in these troubling times. (also, despite everything I said, I'd like to reiterate the timeline for this is pretty ludicrous everywhere but the middle east and the strategy imposed isn't the most effective use of our carrier strike groups but that's a story for another day) Love you Europe and Australia :D

[@daniellaster7062]

If we are assuming this world war is due to US imperialism then the ground wars would be fought in central and south america. The US would need control of the regions for resources and economic stability. In Europe and Asia, they would have to put forth massive joint efforts with both the military and civilian populaces to amass basically a overwhelming scale reverse Dunkirk, with strong D-Day undertones, to put up a semblance of a fight. The best bet strategy is to basically push overwhelming, suicidal blockade running fronts practically everywhere with a mishmash of mostly civilian vehicles.

[@balli7836]

With a good army you can conquer a continent, but with a good navy you can conquer the world. As a brit you should know that.

[@thomasbullins2008]

How did that work out for them tho?

[@balli7836]

@@thomasbullins2008 Quite well, if you take into consideration that they conquered a quarter of the total landmass of the planet and were able to hold most of the Empire for around two centuries. With the decline of their fleet however they lost large parts of it and had to abandon the rest shortly after.

[@thomasbullins2008]

That and the "best military at the time" couldn't beat a bunch of farmers with rifles ---

[@balli7836]

@@thomasbullins2008 true, but the point is, that a strong navy is necessary if you want to project power over long distances. The brits were successful with this doctrine for quite some time and nowadays the americans are successful with it as well. As you see in the Video, if that scenario would be true, the US would still be able to inflict massive damage to the world economy by simply using their navy to disrupt the major shipping lines. And because their navy is stronger than the next 7 or so navies combined, the rest of the world is not able to do much against it.

[@randlebrowne2048]

It doesn't matter how many troops the enemy has, if he can't get them to your shores. The fact is, no other country actually has enough troop transport capability to get more than a token force across the Atlantic or Pacific. Given that, even without our military, American civilians have far more in the way of rifles and other small arms than exist in the combined arsenals of every nation on the planet (including the US military. Any invading force would be quickly overwhelmed by local opposition; especially since no other nation has enough ships to bring troops enough to establish a beachhead. One other thing to keep in mind is that, if the entire world were attacking us, the US would likely not be acting with our traditional concern for civilian casualties. In such a war, we would not be trying to win hearts and minds; so, would use our heavy, long range strategic bombers (something most other nations lack) to carpet bomb enemy populations that pose too much of a threat to our troops. For the past 80 or so years, America has more or less fought with it's hands tied behind it's back; in order to limit civilian casualties. If it becomes a choice of "win, or lose our country", we will likely take the gloves off and show how much we have been holding back, due to political concerns.

[@JeffreyLewis03]

You may also be forgetting that this video is over 2 years old and the information is outdated

[@micahcraig5599]

Look up could the us homeland defend an attack

[@SerV689]

There’s be issues and losses along the way that wouldn’t be expected but we probably would win in the end and the reason he gives is the right one too. The vast size of our navy. The reason for the lack of ground troops is because most of the killing would be done with bombing. Ground troops with guns are no threat to planes and ships. If they also lack the means or are removed of the means to sail or fly them across the ocean then they sadly do become pretty irrelevant to victory or not.

[@mrexists5400]

I don't like how he ignored canada, and possibly mexico and south america. a 2 front war on us soil is something that has never happened, i'd imagine there would be political pressure to keep as much assets as possible close to home, which could have a noticeable impact on the scenarios described in the video

[@swarley39]

Everyone saying America would start to lose in a protracted war but seem to forget almost every war America fights becomes "prolonged." America has an incredible advantage in being able to support long lasting wars, and to rapidly increase industry to further aid the war effort

[@loganryan1317]

Imo this video shows how it wld be fighting each ciuntry independently, what happens if they all group up together against the US. Which is what the title wld lead one to think.

[@pierregibson6699]

It’s really simple the rest of the world would run out of oil and we wouldn’t

[@lindalight2029]

The reason the public won't be able to do anything about it because we're hundreds of miles off shore on aircraft carriers 20 of them

[@bjsmith6187]

Also, he did discuss attacking America. He’s explained in detail the reasons that would prevent other nations from performing and attack on the American mainland. Many nations lack the capability to deploy assets that distance, those who do, couldn’t because of dwindling oil reserves. Not to mention, those assets would be needed to protect their own nations. Controlling the oil and global trade is the key, and you’re completely dismissing the effects it would have, even though it’s spelled out in the video.

[@Jdoom13]

Ground troupes are always nessasry. You can't occupy a street corner with a tomahawk missile.

[@xHearshot]

We should just do it and make the whole earth the usa lmaoo

[@marcuswestrich6823]

I think the war would, in the start at least, look a lot like how WW2 went, the US would come out of the gates super well like Germany did, but eventually overtime once the other countries start sending more troops to help eventually the US would just become outmanned and wouldn’t be able to conquer any more over time, And with Mexico and Canada pushing in on us on two sides at the same time on the home front, which is something no citizen of the US has had to face since the Civil war over 100 years ago, eventually we’d be forced to surrender due to the public losing support, and if we get rid of that as a factor, I believe the US could hold it’s own on the home front but since the conquering would come to an end, there would be no point in continuing the effort and we’d be forced to surrender anyway, that’s just my opinion though

[@JeffreyLewis03]

Just to comment on when you said there is no way the local population wouldn’t put up some resistance (in the Middle East) he was taking about the US using solely Air Force and Navy, not the army or marines.

[@pyrex222]

I love my country but this guy has a hard on for the USA. The total disregard for the land game is stupid. Just because our soldiers are pretty well equipped and the air power is great, a round to the shoulder still takes a person out of the battle as effectively as killing him. Get European grade weapons systems down to that theater and they could easily hold onto the middle east. Plus, quantity has a quality all of its own. Iran, Pakistan and India could shove so many troops into the region it's ridiculous. It doesn't matter if I have 150 rounds of ammunition if they have 151 soldiers. Additionally, the total disregard for Canada and South and Central America is asinine. We would have to invade Canada and at least all the way down to the panama canal to truly make sure we were secure at home.

[@Jxuptosae]

What land game? You really think the US would try to occupy the WORLD? This scenario is about controlling trade and oil refining. Next, the whole plan outlined leaves our entire infantry base in tact, which would be used for exactly the type of land campaign you are talking about with Canada, Mexico, and South America. The number of soldiers that are there don't matter if they can't bring down a plan, destroy a submarine, or sink an aircraft carrier. 10 thousand men can't can't stop a missile with rifles, 1 million men can't stop an F-22 raptor with their bare hands. 7 billion people can't stop the most powerful Airforce and Navy in the world. 3 billion people in India doesn't equal 3 billion soldiers on American soil. They literally just can't move their troops anywhere that matters.

[@pyrex222]

@@Jxuptosae I realize it's all about the trade and oil refining and the US is only trying to hold to the middle east. My point is that while the sea would most definitely be ours(for a time), the air and land theaters of war would be a lot harder to win. No, 1 million men can't stop an F-22 but it only takes one man with a European grade anti-air missile to take it down. Also, the combined air forces of the world far out weighs our own. With shared basing rights and constant air patrol our forces would be wittled down and we would be ousted from the middle east. As for the trade aspect retaking the Mediterranean Sea would be paramount. It would be costly but I think it could be done and then rebuilt and strengthened land defenses around the straight of Gibraltar would make it impossible to be taken again allowing trade and logistics to reopen. With the ability to move European troops down to the middle east the US would be ousted easily enough. One last thing, the tech base of Russia, China, and India may be behind us by a generation but to disregard it entirely is just plain stupid.

[@larrydewesse655]

The problem with the video is he's only using stats of known equipment and the most likely used strategies by each world power it's hard to take into account upsets because those rely on the skills of those actually fighting but I agree with you

[@kingjames1308]

MIddle east would be quick victory tbh. Look at what we did to Iraq in 2 weeks. We wouldn't need to occupy just destroy the oil fields. Big difference. Where we always fail is occupation and nation building. We are pretty good at the initial war stuff lol

[@Foulm710]

Remember this video isn't focusing on ground forces because the States wouldn't have to use them for an economic victory (the only viable path to victory). Of course, if it were a ground war things would be different and that would be impossible to accomplish. Btw if you're interested in military simulation, try binkov's battlegrounds. It's a superior channel that goes more in depth and is run by a guy who knows his stuff. Hope you're allowed to react to it without getting in trouble

[@hauntedshadowslegacy2826]

The video is focusing largely on numbers and geography. Also, it DID mention efforts against the U.S.; it's just that the sheer numbers backing the U.S. are enough to knock those efforts aside (and if you're meaning a homeland invasion, the video explains why that wouldn't work out). Let's be honest, even if this video took into account generals and strategic prowess, America would still win. The scenario doesn't consider those facets because it would defeat the purpose of the 'all vs one' scenario; the smartest of the countries would surrender or ally without even trying to raise a stink. (Oh, also, pretty sure Africa and South America aren't really covered much because of their negligent naval capabilities; same with Australia, frankly. They wouldn't have much of an effect on the scenario if they were mentioned.)

[@VivaCohen]

I don't think it would be as smooth as the video portrays (because it is a hypothetical), but I think he's right that the U.S. would win in the end and most other countries aren't prepared for this type of situation (and why should they be?). And I do think the U.S. would be quite organized about it (unlike other countries, the U.S. is constantly on every continent doing this stuff already lol). The U.S. also benefits from its location, obviously, which makes it hard for most places to attack without crossing oceans. I do think that the U.S. would suffer a lot of loss as well though.

[@dinok5697]

I don't know much about the various militaries of the world but I do think this kind of scenario could possibly happen if the U.S. military acted smartly with their tactics and strategies. And if those areas truly are as important as the vid claims, its not unreasonable to assume that cutting off access to all that trade and resources would cripple many countries if they fail to fix the problem. Isn't that usually how surprise attacks work though? To catch your targets by surprise while they are all unaware and unprepared, which seems to be the best time to do the most damage as you destroy vital structures and stuff. And I think the guy was creating a scenario where the U.S. used its advantages against all those nations effectively once they were crippled by the surprise attack and the massive decrease in oil income and trade. ASSUMING the surprise attack was so successful that it would force Europe to delay their response to the attack on the Middle East. Now I don't think all those nations would feel the effect immediately but I do think they would eventually suffer the effects of a decrease in oil income if they either couldn't find an area as rich in the resource or fail to kick U.S. forces out of the area. Same with all those trade routes he mentioned with China and them. The countries probably wouldn't immediately feel the effect of such a loss but it would eventually lead to decreased effectiveness in some way. And any attempts to remove the U.S. from the Middle East would most definitely leave the defenses of those same nations weakened as a result and they would be somewhat more vulnerable. Now I don't think the guy spoke of the ground forces because its bloody obvious all those nations would have the advantage there regardless if the surprise attack succeeded or not. And while it may seem like bollocks for any single nation to counter and react to so many situations, the sad reality is that if a nation truly is capable of it, they'll be both able to and willing whether you like it or not. So could the U.S. fuck the entire world up? Assuming the surprise attack against the world is this successful and if they go for the Achilles heel of more than one nation and can keep it up long enough to weaken those nations to the point where an invasion would be much easier? Yes, as UNLIKELY as that scenario actually is. Someone let me know if there are any contradictions in what I just said and I'll try to correct myself to more easily get the idea across. It all just boils down to how effective the starting surprise attack was and how much damage is done and lets assume the targets were things like shipyards and other military facilities. That would explain such an "easy" victory,

[@cavscout888]

Libya 2011 military campaign was launched as a purely European effort. After a few days, they found out they didn't have the ability to conduct the combat operations, and then 'went to NATO to ask for help.' The US instantly took over command and control of operations, and started bombing missions. Most of the European countries involved already were already NATO members...

[@kalebzimar5192]

Yeah the 350 Mil vs 7 Bil thing is irrelevant if you guys can’t get here. The US navy and Air Force would restrict the global coalition to Eurasia and Africa and the ground troops would hold the Middle East as long as they could and also be working on taking Canada and holding the rest of north/ South America