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

Hello guys, here is our reaction on The United States (USA) vs The World - Who Would Win? Military Comparison! Watch&Share!
Our Movies based channel, TheLoudGuys Movies-
/ @theloudguysmovies
If you like our videos then you can also support our channel via Patreon (Thanks in Advance!) -
/ theloudguys
THANK YOU TO OUR PATREON SUPPORTERS -
Lilly Em
Paul Goodlett
David
Rob Robby
Jeanne
Call Me Mr Tibbs
Rebecca E Strayhorn
Kevin Godin
David H
PantieThief
Christian Tang
Anders Pettersson
You're Mr Lebowski
Jonathan Conway
verdantdruid
Grover666
Bruce Trogdon
Paul Bennett
Lucifer Moon
Gainz 4 Dayz
Edward Barocela
Daniel L Bruns
Ronny Boss
Robert Ahrendt
Don't Forget to Subscribe to TheLoudGuys Channel and Share your views in the comments!
Follow us On-
Instagram - / parbrahm
/ kaursamardeep
Disclaimer: No Copyright is intended in this video. All rights belong to the rightful owner !!

[@acemarcola]

The United States military does not lose wars. The United States politicians lose the wars. Same outcome, but it’s worth stating.

[@jollyjackass]

We don’t lose the war. We lose the peace. Honestly if we had a force trained to just peace keeping and stop asking the military to quit being a military and switch to nation building role it will continue to be our stumbling block.

[@DTG_LOCKETT]

The biggest problem we face is that other countries can ignore the rules of engagement and it gets swept under the rug but if we kill one person that is not dress liked a combatant it gets twisted to us getting blamed for killing innocents so we fight by the rules of engagement while combatants are holding their on people hostage because we won't kill them if it risk killing the hostages

[@stevenbryant3694]

​@@DTG_LOCKETT Facts.

[@jdwilmoth]

Yes and they also start wars because they make millions of dollars off of wars billions

[@jonathonfrazier6622]

Our international strategy is : America, no better friend, no worse enemy.

[@georgehopper7310]

Well, that was our strategy until Pres. Biden. E.g. Afghanistan withdrawal.

[@jonathonfrazier6622]

@@georgehopper7310 Very true. That ugly truth loomed up in the back of my head even as I wrote it. I have to hope we can redeem ourselves.

[@ravens.u.a.sflightservices]

@@georgehopper7310 trump was the one who started the withdrawal while he was president. just happend to finish the last part while biden was in office

[@georgehopper7310]

@Raven S.U.A.S Flight Services You are right. President Trump did start the withdrawal as he said he was going to do. Withdrawal is completely different from the headlong abandonment leaving behind Bases, equipment, munitions , allies and American citizens as perpetrated by the Biden Administration. He and his handlers totally and absolutely screwed it up and seriously damaged our reputation in the World community.

[@TheGroovyBanana]

@Inksday the issue is not that he left… it’s how he did it.

[@preppydevildogable]

in order to answer some of your questions at the end, you should watch “how geography made the United States ridiculously OP”. It’s longer than this video so you might have to have a part one and part two but it will be worth the watch. Absolutely mind blowing.

[@TheMajorActual]

Seconded.

[@ferby135]

thirded

[@scorchtail6655]

Fourthed😂

[@armanii4005]

My favorite video on KZbin

[@zevynozevyn4102]

Fifth, of alcohol?💪😎🇺🇸

[@randieandjodistrom854]

I'm an American, and a 30-year military veteran. I really appreciated your reaction to this video, and I thought the video was very well presented. With respect to Canada, the state of California is more populous than all of Canada, the border is almost 9,000 kilometers, and pretty much all of the civilians along the border in the US are armed to the teeth. Mexico is much more populous (about 40% of the US population), and trust me, the US civilians along the US's southern border are likely better armed than most armies in the world. So even if the US didn't deploy their military forces to repel an invasion from Canada or Mexico, I believe the civilian population alone would be able to repel any invasion. The key factor, as is the case on a worldwide basis, is that military power is of little value if it can't be brought to bear at the point of the fight. There's no nation in the "American" hemisphere that has any capability to bring their forces to bear against the US's borders, and any capability they may have would be easily intercepted by the US's 4th generation (non-stealth) aircraft. This is what the video presented so well, unless you can bring your military capability to bear at the point of the fight, or to counter blockades, numbers don't matter. No nation can deploy their military capability to anywhere in the world like the US--there's not a remotely close second. Most importantly, the US is not interested in conflict with any other nation, and spends tremendous resources (governmental and non-governmental) to maintain good relations with all other nations. None of us have anything to gain by conflict, but we can all benefit through cooperation.

[@theidajawho]

Most intelligent statement I have read on KZbin in months.

[@mikejacobson14]

Yeah, but which side would californians fight on?

[@theidajawho]

@@mikejacobson14 Which ever side is woke.

[@MJ19438]

@@mikejacobson14 Ignorant comment. Enjoy your self-chuckle. But at the end of the day we are all Americans and will fight to the death to defend our country. Even to defend you, you ignorant fool

[@mikejacobson14]

@mikemccouch3965 Based on the people you keep putting in office that are destroying a once great state, I doubt you could contribute much to defending the US. However, I realize that there are many who don't vote that way but are unable to do anything about it. For those (you?), I hope things will somehow improve. The California of the past was a great part of the country. BTW, I lived there for 8 years and served in the military for 25.

[@chago4202000]

Try the video "Could the US defend from a Homeland invasion?" It shows why invading the US is suicide! Great reaction! Love the Loud Guys!!

[@halicarnassus8235]

He is right at the end about politics because honestly if the United States was going to take over the world we could have done it when the Soviet Union collapsed. We are not interested in destroying the world, we just have the capability as a deterrent. The US encourages trade and partnership.

[@josephgriffin6552]

hell, if we really wanted to then right after WW2 would have been the prime opportunity.

[@jaybelle1909]

This is still possible; at present leftist and idiots in gov pushed ukr to provoke rus to invade so europe would become more dependent on 🇺🇸... Eu/un is our biggest enemy because they want a one world gov with them at the helm but so do leftist in America; as seen in recent years especially under Joe Biden it is clear that if this continues then they can and mostlikely will cause ww3 so 🇺🇸 can subjugate everyone so leftist can control the world; then they'd take away any ability to defend against them and mass arrest ppl for saying things like a man can't become a woman... this in part is why it was imperative on rus part to finally invade corrupt ukr

[@Dee-sz4jc]

@@josephgriffin6552 you're not wrong. We had an atomic bomb at the time too which other countries didn't even have at the time lol would've been prime time for sure

[@jollyjackass]

@@Dee-sz4jc believe we only had enough material for 1 extra bomb at that time that was used for research. Not saying it wouldn’t be possible just that the bomb wouldn’t really play much part at that time is all.

[@dummythicc6660]

@@josephgriffin6552 are you dumb? If the soveits and allies went to war in 1945 soveit union would conquer all of europe

[@cguidry1481]

We are powerful, but we are not mean.

[@kylesummers1565]

We don't want to attack anybody. Play nice and we will too. If China had this power, can you imagine how bad things would be right now? Peace, Love!!

[@AdamNisbett]

It did address what if the other countries went on the offensive - it pointed out that very few countries have the ability to transport troops en masse to the USA mainland and the USA easily has enough naval power to resist them. So taking control of the USA mainland isn’t feasible with current capabilities.

[@Solidaritas1]

Disappointingly it did not cover the topic of military being busy trying to squash any kind of internal conflict...wars like Vietnam had a LOT of pushback, now imagine doing that to the entire world at once...you'd have civil war, desertions, defections, refusals, etc. to worry about too.

[@halicarnassus8235]

@@Solidaritas1 there's nothing in this video suggesting of ground Invasion this is using the US Navy and Airforce which is basically its own Army and controls of the sky and the Seas. And knowing that the United States cannot be invaded by any other Naval Force.

[@cycleboy8028]

@@Solidaritas1 It did suppose that conflict broke out with everyone against the US, which is fairly unifying for at least the short term. Granted, this is an idiotic premise, and internal politics would be the bane of the US, an attack against the US by a coalition of main powers would let the US act decisively for the first couple months.

[@acemarcola]

@@Solidaritas1 yes that’s why it’s hypothetical, it would never happen because people don’t want it to. It kind of goes with believing that all people have the right to life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness ,given to them by their Creator.

[@aaronburdon221]

Hell, most of the american fishing fleet combined with Yachts retrofitted for battle could take most country's navies out (the exceptions being The primary European countries, russia, china, australia, and India). The only thing that would make things really difficult would be the India, China, Australia alliance. They'd basically just pick at the outskirts of American ships. The only question being can they cause enough damage through partisan activity to stop the logistics to the bigger ships. It would be extremely costly in both manpower and resources but it could be done. Really the only question is; how many people have to die from starvation before the world gives up because the U.S. supplies a SHITLOAD of food to both India, China, and Africa. Most of the deaths won't be from battle.

[@tomhelmsjr]

Canada and Mexico are the only ones that could facilitate an invasion, and neither is capable of mounting a force large enough. The state of California has more people than Canada. The terrain along the border with Mexico is in some places totally impossible to cross undetected by any force large enough to cause a problem for the extremely well armed civilian population in Texas. In which case the Army, Navy, and Airforce presence in TX is enormous. US Airforce, Marine and Navy aircraft would also be available for a border war with Canada. The US is virtually geographically impossible to invade and hold. Not to mention that in times of trouble, no country is more likely to come together and protect itself. Admiral Yamamoto of the Japanese Imperial Navy during WW2 once said, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

[@MTBSHOGUN]

As a born and raised guy from California! It doesn't matter to me we fight to protect our country not matter the left or right side. At the end of the day we will come together to hold off and defend our beautiful country!!! . Imagine what just the gangs in California could do to invaders alone. Lol great video. Let's hope and wish one day the planet could have peace for once!

[@SilentXtract]

The gangs would be doing driveby after driveby with their switch glocks while all the rednecks are skeet shooting any paratroopers😂😂😂

[@chrisd7047]

After 9/11, there were several Tony Soprano-type bosses in NY who swore that anyone trying to attack the city would be lucky if the FBI or NYPD found them first. It isn't just California that has underarmor.

[@MoJo-Slots]

A huge percentage of Californians drink Bud light giving the world an advantage. The US would most likely abandon the state.

[@midgetydeath]

The main thing he got wrong is the global economy thing. The global economy relies on the US’s economy to buy excess output as per the bretton woods agreement as well as the US military to guarantee free trade. This puts immense drain on the US economy. The global economy would collapse and the US economy would increase after a brief drop.

[@romemedina4712]

You need to remember civilians would push out anyone unlucky enough to land in the US. More weapons than people along with some being able to take out tanks or helicopters.

[@randallrobinson5546]

The U.S Ohio class submarines combined carry over 4,000 nuclear missiles on board. They are also untraceable and can be anywhere along a country's coast waiting to strike.

[@midgetydeath]

Yes, but all nuclear-armed missiles also have versions with various other payloads. So, in the case of the Ohio, their missiles would simply be switched out as this thing’s rules forbid nukes.

[@jaybelle1909]

@midgetydeath no it would stand, as the sicario is like saying the world agrees to not use nukes so the US would still have them armed and ready just incase one was ever used

[@afterthefact6708]

the Ohio's carry a total of 280 missiles not 4,000. Even without the treaty deactivating 4 tubes each that comes to 336. Generaly, the entire fleet of nuke armed subs functions as one leg of the triad of nuclear deterrence. Logistically nukes will not be used unless in retaliation. Something that is more impressive is the ability of bombers, fighters, helicopters, cargo planes to deploy swarms of normal and stealth cruise missiles with ranges over 600 miles. A flight of 10 C130' s could deploy a swarm of 450 cruise missiles each of which is incredibly hard to stop.

[@Benny007mld]

You don’t really have to go over the number of missile tubes on a sub the United States stock pile of nuclear missiles which is broken up into three parts, the nuclear triad, but all total is a little under 6500 so with just basic common sense, you would know that we don’t have 4000 nukes on every sub We do have enough to level basically any country

[@robertahrendt67]

You know since the release of this video. We (the US) has announced the release of the M5 unmanned tank, several helicopter drones, and the Boston Dynamics robotic dog with a .50 cal attached to it. Just to name a few. So time for a new video!

[@jaybelle1909]

Yes but while the vid was being conservative it would still stand today as all you mentioned would be irrelevant

[@Dee-sz4jc]

Don't forget the rapid dragon. The US is now able to deploy cruise missles out of cargo planes lol bombers no longer needed.

[@blackpowder99]

The idiom phrase ‘an army marches on its stomach’ means that soldiers, workers, or anyone else expected to perform a task cannot function effectively unless they are well fed, America is very abundant in materials and produce.

[@archaeologyfornon-archaeol1014]

@Will Muny That is true, but we seldom will be relying on ground troops as much. Still have to feed the air force and the navy.

[@afterthefact6708]

The USA also has a dormant manufacturing capacity that could easily be ramped up.

[@yordantv9322]

The US military doesn't really need to defend its homeland. FACT #1 for every 100 civilians, they'll have 120 guns. From what im aware of, the US is one of the only countries that pretty much, openly allow its civilians to carry weapons. An im not talking about pistols only. I'm talking M16s AK47s and so on. So if close by countries do get the itch to invade by land, it would be their mistake. The US doesn't just have a insane military. But its civilians are also carrying. Thats a fight i'd rather avoid 🫡

[@marcosoconner664]

ROFLMAO 🤣🤣🤣🤣 when you said what if Canada and Mexico attacked the USA !

[@dominushydra]

It would be a travesty 😂

[@SilvanaDil]

It's important to note the final part of the video -- this scenario partially wrecks the US itself, so it's not worthwhile. (Have you seen the Canadian military & Mexican military? Both unimpressive.) Countries other than the US can fight only locally (and Russia is struggling even vs. next door Ukraine).

[@cycleboy8028]

Canadian soldiers are decent... all 500 or so of them. :P Yeah, the premise is a cohesive US civilian backing of the war strategy though.

[@archaeologyfornon-archaeol1014]

@@cycleboy8028 If we are attacked by others, the reaction would be very different than when we attacked Vietnam.

[@jaybelle1909]

SD, only temporary... the 🇺🇸 wouldn't stop at just military action as we would hold oil, food, and power Hostage and force the entire world to be subject to us (pay high taxes to 🇺🇸), thus would make 🇺🇸 far more powerful and as in Japan we would ban the world from ever having a military... An all out OP attack would only be a temporary low with high gain post...

[@jaybelle1909]

@Cycleboy the scenario is if the world attacked us thus if 🇺🇸 became more transparent and declassified docs to the world it would pass the world off especially incidents like Nordstream pipelines to make europe dependent on 🇺🇸, or if 911 was actually inside job; these things would get the world to start to resist... if 🇺🇸 then gets attacked it would piss every American off and they'd want revenge but the only way to fight that kind of war is to take it all the way, thus go full OP mode on the world to completely subjugate it

[@DeusSalis]

I mostly agree but Russia is not struggling with Ukraine. That's simply just propaganda fooling people to believe so.

[@watcher24186]

the largest air force in the world is the usaf, the second is the us navy. our navy is as big as the next 8 navy's. we have bases and installations in 140 countries, and 850 of them. some are just radar stations. not all are military or naval bases. if we wanted we could attack anywhere in just 3 days

[@RaiderMXV]

You also didn't add that the US has mothballed ships. While it would take time to refit and rearm. Those ships could be added to the fleet in time. Also, invasion is nearly impossible of the US. Since like Switzerland, we have an armed population and quite a few are retired military.

[@dsmkrotj4990]

It takes money and time to build up a defense United States has been doing this since 1775 Hawaii and Guam are territories of the United States .

[@archersfriend5900]

5% of the USA defense budget in 2022 destroyed 50% of Russian military power. Slava Ukraine!

[@dlovink6655]

And still Russians are winning the war😂...

[@archersfriend5900]

@@dlovink6655 5%, just wait.

[@royceratliff7220]

Hey loud guys the New York police department is larger than the Canadian military

[@timmiller666]

The US isn't worried about Canada or Mexico only because they have little to no air force. They would be sending troops without air protection which in modern warfare is not a good idea. The only reason why the USA struggled in Korea and Vietnam was because they burrowed underground or hid in dense jungle so the USA couldn't use its air support until large engagements by ground forces. As a US citizen I believe our greatest concern would be everyone's attack submarines because they are harder to detect. They would be the best chance at hitting the USA homeland.

[@archaeologyfornon-archaeol1014]

I think we would take most of them out, most likely. We would suffer losses but still end up with the most food, the most transportation, the most satellites.

[@jaybelle1909]

@ Archaeology for Non-Archaeologists exactly in thus extreme sicario the 🇺🇸 would immediately take out anything that poses a risk... yes oil and shipping are a given but also immediately taking out satellites and critical power/radio stations thus no communication or guidance for missiles, subs and air bases will also be at the top of the list; any world efforts to build up an attacking force would be spotted from the beginning and taken out like highway of death in GW1... 🇺🇸 post war would control world oil, food, power supplies and force them to pay taxes to 🇺🇸 and to demiliterize as Japan after ww2; the world would be completely subject to 🇺🇸 and 🇺🇸 would become even more powerful

[@Spectre-wd9dl]

The problem with Vietnam was the same with any guerilla war. You don't know who your enemy is until they are shooting at you. It could be and was a 10 year old kid. It's almost impossible to win any war when your enemy smiles and waves at you then shoots you in the back when you walk by. Could we have just carpet bombed the entire country into the stone age. Sure, but the we wouldn't be much better than the bad guys.

[@jollyjackass]

I wouldn’t be too concerned about other nations subs tbh. We usually know where they are without even actually looking. One the video missed is that we have microphones all throughout the ocean and know the sonar signature of most naval and commercial craft.

[@timmiller666]

@@jollyjackass We did navy games with other countries and a Swiss (i believe) sub sunk a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier in the games. Perhaps we weren't using our most modern tech to give it away... but that still happened. To think we are impenetrable... other nations will find a way.

[@jchristif]

Let’s never find out. So sick of war and inflation 😕 pray for peace. Good video!

[@marcdominguez7541]

So your thought about Canada attacking the USA had me laughing on the floor....but let's say they did. The USA is the most heavily armed civilian population it would be a huge mistake to set foot across the border. Our National State Armies are larger than most countries forces. Texas alone could handle most countries around the world. I guess it is a good thing we do not want to make enemies, only friends. However, never mistake our kindness or generosity for weakness. I'm talking to you Russia :)

[@davidbell1619]

And to China,Iran,North Korea, and any one else who wants to try. The Chicken Ass goverment would be bought off or run and hide. Then you only have to fight 50,000,000 pissed of Americans.

[@machinist7230]

The NY national guard has more tanks than Canada.

[@bradleyrumley763]

Another thing that they fail to talk about is how America is already deploying laser defense weapons for air defense. also america would also shut down other countries power grids, just like they did during a couple raids in Europe in 2020

[@donktheclown]

Loud Guys, know that what you see here is just the equipment my country wishes the world to know about. Our real capabilities are only a fraction as shown.. Any country marching on our soil would face a citizenry of at least 150 - 200 million adults armed to the teeth with weapons. As far as Canada and Mexico is concerned, we'll wipe them out with our Boy Scouts...That being said, I pray no such conflict will ever commence.

[@efrin23]

Loved the comments, I am in Texas in the USA Canada and Mexico would not invade because of the mass amount of weapons the American people have in there own personal homes. there are 300 million people in the US and there are over 7800000 weapons registered to the civilian population. It would be a fight from house to house. It would take hundreds of thousands of casualties to take just one state. The American belief in freedom is still really strong. Thank you for the video have a blessed year.

[@bradleyrumley763]

The sad thing is no one really knows how much money, we actually spend on the military, because the 800 billion is just what we know about. The Pentagon says that they are unable to account for 21 trillion dollars that was given to them. For almost 40 years, the dod received and additional 400 billion dollars a year that wasn't on the DoD books, so all that money went to fund black ops and probably was about the space force was originally started

[@mfree80286]

21,000 billion dollars doesn't just disappear, it's "in something"... probably a lot of "somethings", all pitch black and likely effective to the point of causing global uproar if they were known.

[@bradleyrumley763]

@@mfree80286 exactly what I was meaning, because up until trump announced the space there was 400billion going to the Pentagon that no one knew what the money was going too. It just so happened that trump was elected and started asking questions about budgets, and started having the Pentagon audited, and every year for several years there was always a mysterious DoD unaccounted funds for the 400 billion, trump asked what it was several times, and then the a couple months later, trump announced the space force, which the videos about the space force, makes me think it's a cover up for black ops missions lol

[@bradleyrumley763]

I mean come on, how are you going to be the space force and never been in the outer space lol

[@pierregibson6699]

People do not realize we are an Island the size of a continent

[@chandie5298]

What some people might miss from this video is that the US military could fight the entire rest of the world.......but it does not. So what is the actual function of the US maintaining a military this strong if it is not fighting the rest of the world. Well.... it is to protect trade routes and world commerce from being interrupted by aggressive countries.

[@chandie5298]

That is not to say that the US is the only protector.....just the largest. India and Japan protect their region from being taken over by China. EU countries (with the help of the US) protect Europe from Russian aggression (although we can see that non-EU European countries are still at risk) The US would never roll tanks across the borders they share with Canada and Mexico....instead, the US engages in trade with them to mutual benefit.

[@chandie5298]

Something that is not addressed in this video but would be very important to a war that lasted more than a year is food. The US (actually all of the Americas) are completely capable of producing more than enough food to sustain themselves without imports. This is not true of every country in the world and with trade routes being controlled by the US during a war with the world....there are countries who would starve if the war lasted more than one year.

[@afterthefact6708]

Put this into perspective. The USA spends 3.2% of their GDP on the military. India spends 2.4% and China spends 1.7%. The amount is only so different because the GDP's are so very different. The focus should always be a solid percentage spent on defense and growing your nations GDP which would then lead to a stronger military. Wise investment and excellent planning lead to national power. Grow your GDP, grow your power. End of the day the USA stood up and stabilized the world because after 2 world wars, the world showed it needed it.

[@rg20322]

Great channel and look forward to your reactions.

[@halicarnassus8235]

" They can destroy satellitelitee to". I'm honestly surprised that he did not know that

[@josephbeyerlein1381]

America has had that capability since we got special missiles for the F-15s back in the cold War specifically designed for destroying soviet satellites. And not many people know this but the F-15 is one of those planes so powerful that it can accelerate while flying straight up, like a rocket instead of a plane.

[@jaybelle1909]

Destroying satellites would be a first move buts it's also risky per debre can take out our own... first move of any war is take out all communications, radios, power, oil supplies/supply lines, routes for any offensive force, missile defenses, and air fields; also in this case subs would be on list to go first... thus the would would have no chance to offer any resistance and US would completely subjugate the world afterwards and demiliterze it... the world doesn't have a chance which is why we need to keep our nation in check and get ppl like JB out of office

[@archaeologyfornon-archaeol1014]

One thing to keep in mind for this video...the USA started nothing. It has a huge military, principally for defense; we are reluctant to use it mostly, and try to make it targeted, not take out entire towns. Only 8 countries have nuclear weapons, Iran, N. Korea, India, US, France, China, Russia, and Pakistan; most are not substantial in numbers compared to the USA and Russia. Russia seems to have a lot of outmoded equipment, and a disarray in its army. Most standing armies are not made up of professional soldiers. The US has a large standing army of professional soldiers who make it their career. Most countries do not have this and in Russia they are using draftees, poorly trained. European countries have better military than some, but the US provides the bulk of the money for NATO, the European command, and has a huge military presence in Europe. Europeans have wanted the US there to deflect Russia. Canada has a very small air force, mostly American made planes, and has a very small population, about 1/10th that of the USA. Mexico has almost nothing in the way of advanced fighting weapons (some) and is so unstabilized by drug cartels, I would doubt if it could mount an offensive; they have upped their military budget to fight cartels, and it is still low, less than 1/10th of the US military budget. They spend very little on military weapons. Brazil has very few jet fighters and has never had much military. The USA spends nearly 700 to 800 billion per year just on military expenditures. We have 800 military bases around the world, in many countries, most carrying armed, professional personnel and aircraft. We have about three dozen just in Germany. One of our largest bases is Ramstein in Germany. These bases are full of air and ground troops. I should point out that it does not matter who wins, as the video pointed out the entire globe would be reduced to the level of pre 1941 years in food, transportation, etc. It is likely that the only satellites remaining would be those belonging to the US.

[@philipsims9920]

just a thought. the us would recover the fastest though. we would still be the only major power... and our home land would be untouched. so we would make our money back..... by selling our goods to the countries that agreed to our terms first. and we could pick and choose who we wanted to help and leverage what goods they have that we want. 4d chess. scary but doable.

[@Rikko5500]

A good part to point out is the will of its people to fight, the American people at least in recent pasts have had a will to fight if neccessary (of course with todays weird attitudes) not sure but Americans have the will to fight.

[@queen-lilyorjiako268]

I feel like if the world declaring war on the US would be a good enough reason, plus the second they actually attack US land it's all over.

[@2strokinit527]

Keep in mind the US Navy would still be able to defend the sea lanes, and the Citizens of the US hold 46% of all firearms in the world so an attack on the US even if Mexico and Canada tried land while the rest of the world tried sea it would still probably not work.

[@Green.P3]

This has nothing to do with the video but you know America is strong when it’s not even going to war , but it’s own equipment that’s in Ukraine is the main reason why Ukraine has made Russians retreat farther behind lines. Russia claims it’s at war with US not Ukraine that’s how much damage the equipment is doing.

[@trololoev]

still USA didn't win a single war by themselves. only solo war they do was against Vietnam and USA lose.

[@Green.P3]

@@trololoev Stop the lies go look up America’s history third most wars won of all time and a lot of them weren’t won with allies

[@Green.P3]

@@trololoev Where are you from ?

[@Green.P3]

@@trololoev Only reason US didn’t win in Vietnam is because they hid in the jungle

[@antichoice1]

@@trololoev We beat Britain twice LOL

[@darylb5564]

It’s so much fun for a while to watch them try to have a thought

[@jaybelle1909]

For most ppl all the things that constitute everything in the vid is completely out of their world as they mostly focus on just getting by in the world instead of learning how everything works and what history actually is... nothing particularly wrong with it

[@TheKennonprua]

What about the experienced veterans on the ground in civilian populations. There's alot of us that are no longer in, but still hold our oath sacred.

[@afterthefact6708]

Not to mention we have seen how to effectively fight as an insurgency by seeing it first hand. We know all the dirty tricks because they were used on us. Ill just skip the normal roadside bombs and go straight to EFP's and deep buried attacks =D.

[@musicvideomaestro1209]

I like that the woman with no military knowledge or concept of siege warfare thinks the video was "biased toward the US".

[@davidmcnulty4960]

It’s called logistics communicating with every branch of the military

[@mamaduntoldu7065]

A surprise first strike on US would also be hard because of the US surveillance capabilities.

[@Nijuka87]

To answer your question at the end. It wouldn’t be that simple, this video addresses the navy and air forces, our army and national guard would be operating homeland defense, with the military left overseas defending air bases in the Middle East. The rest of the world doesn’t actually have the capacity to date to attack the homeland for one , and two the strategic objectives addressed are far too important for the rest of the world to ignore. I’m short this forces the world to fight where the us wants because of how important that region is for oil, this is how warfare is conducted.

[@sargothi]

If an army attacked the mainland of the US, insurgency from the heavily armed citizens would be insane on top of their military defense.

[@bigwill8145]

They answered your questions in the video it said that all the other countries don't have the transportation capabilities to come across the ocean and attack the US and since the US isn't trying a land war it's just chocking off the oil supply and blockading the trade routes the US land forces would be going into Canada and South America and since our Navy and Air power would have a strangle hold on the Pacific and South China Sea with the blockade they wouldn't be able to go to those Islands

[@raphaelpaz8476]

Mexico has not much of a military and Canada wouldn't be a threat they would be neutralized by the air and naval power fast

[@theidajawho]

Just look at the problems Russia is having right now fighting it's next door neighbor. America has fought all over the world with little problem (except from our politicians). NO other nation can even approach talking about it, much less doing it. America's weakness is our heart.

[@aaronabraham5199]

Dude in the video is very informed

[@slothbro6415]

As a Canadian, I had a teacher that served in the Canadian military. He said theoretically, the USA could invade and control all of Canada within 2 hours. Canada wouldn't be able to do anything without the support of the world, but as the video stated, they wouldn't be able to go on the offensive because of the American navy. They also have 10x our population, and way more guns.

[@aynako1538]

I'm American and I sure hope we never live in a world where the US would even think of invading Canada. It's a lovely place with lovely people.

[@mattycakes1161]

While they could potentially try to invade the US Mainland, they'd have to contend with Police and a heavily Armed Population. Other Nations in the Western Hemisphere don't really have enough Military Forces to invade much of anything, mainly just Canada and Mexico, and they'd be shut down pretty quickly due to their close proximity to the US, and they could be seriously messed up with drones/sabotage alone if they really had to fight us. That pretty much leaves Brazil alone to do whatever they can.

[@Alexp36500]

I think this is also why we live in such a bubble here. We know between our geography and the military on the mainland 48 were relatively safe. Also being American I'm curious if we would be able to do this with who's currently in the military or would they have to enact another draft? I think it's a lack of people wanting to serve that is where we would be most vulnerable.

[@archaeologyfornon-archaeol1014]

Interesting, but many of our military are professionals, unlike the military of other nations including Russia. We have many who make it a career. I think a ground army would be less used in this case, except perhaps with invasion, which is very unlikely. Even so, in case of invasion, we would have people standing in line to join.

[@Alexp36500]

@ Archaeology for Non-Archaeologists that may be true, but do we have enough man power to do what we need if an invasion happened? And idk... most young adults I know refuse to join the military

[@archaeologyfornon-archaeol1014]

@@Alexp36500 That is likely because you have not reviewed what happened the last time we were attacked, on Dec 7, 1941. Men were lining up to join. I can understand men and women not wanting to join for firefights in Afghanistan, etc, but when we are deliberately attacked on our own soil or nearby having done nothing to cause the attack, it changes minds rapidly.

[@Alexp36500]

@ Archaeology for Non-Archaeologists no I wasn't alive then. But that was not the last time we were attacked on our own soil... or did 9/11 slip through your memory? I was alive for that, and watched as the 2nd plane hit the tower. I still don't think my generation and the 2 behind me will want to fight in that way.

[@archaeologyfornon-archaeol1014]

@@Alexp36500 LOL.. I agree, I should have come up with that. I think we had a long line of young people lining up to enlist for that too: "181,510 Americans enlisted in the ranks of active duty service, and 72,908 joined the enlisted reserves in the year following Sept. 11". We have one of the more professional armies in the world. However, we were not fighting the right people at all. The 9/11 people were all Saudis and it was not politically expedient apparently to attack them. So the politicians turned to Iraq, to make up for not finishing Saddam off after Desert Storm. Then Afghanistan, which became a debacle. One of our problems is that we are not willing to be violent enough to end a war the way others do, by killing off whole cities. Dec 7 was the impetus we needed to help our friends in Europe, who were being battered to death by the German blitz. The Brits had been fighting and being bombed for nearly two years at that time; Poland and France were in enemy hands. So we determined we would fight a war in two hemispheres, and we have been militarily able to do that ever since. Now we mostly have wars of attrition, little strikes here and there, or seeing the takeover of vulnerable populations In Africa, such as the kidnapping of young women by Boko Haram. We have successfully assisted there when requested. Many countries do want the USA to continue as a deterrent to Russia and China, that allows them to have much smaller military budgets. We have two countries now trying to get into NATO because of Russia: Sweden and Finland. Germany is finally catching up to the USA in providing financial support to NATO. Standing armies are likely not going to be the way of war in the future. Drones, air force and navy most likely will be larger. Sorry, I tend to be long winded!

[@colinjames7569]

Thank you for your support. It makes a difference ❤

[@matthewkeating6970]

Great vid

[@midgetydeath]

An F-15 shot down a defunct satellite with an anti-satellite missile.

[@theprogressivecynic2407]

In one of my IR classes, I saw a projection that the USA, UK, Israel, India and Japan could absolutely win a conventional military conflict with the rest of the world, and it pretty much followed what they said here. The UK would be a key force-projection point for the European theater of the war, while Japan and India would perform this role for the Pacific theater of the war (containing Russia and China). Basically, they would act as a forward operating base for US forces, as well as a supply of soldiers to bolster US forces (this is part of why the US put bases in Japan and Germany after WWII). Israel, with American help via a carrier group and aerial refueling, could decimate the rest of the Middle East and lock down the oil supply, as detailed in this video. Fortunately, it's never going to be tested, as the casualties for such a conflict would be horrific, and there would be no benefits for either side.

[@TheSamsamdd34]

That video only talks about weapons that are known to the world . usa can do far more then that . but Luckly that will not happen any time soon. and also the civilian population also have weapons

[@bradleyrumley763]

If the world goes on an offensive and America goes in defense, it would be ever easier for America, because no one has the logistics to move their troops, so we would pick them off as they try to come across the oceans

[@michaelmanzo4661]

That girl looks really mad about this situation LOL people don't understand how powerful the country is

[@christypriest30]

You know what world, we should just stay friendly! Also, for the record, most of us Americans just aren’t interested in fighting everyone. Not like this at least

[@paznerkiller]

What this doesn't describe is that oil and natural gas are the base materials for nearly all industrial products, not just energy. Those products include FOOD!

[@dmcclain8305]

if you would/could, turn down the volume of the video you are reacting to and turn yourselves up. when you have thoughts and/or comments, pause the video. while the video was playing i could barely hear you sir and could not hear you ma'am at all. some of your comments ma'am i could only tell you were speaking because i could see your mouth moving. both of your comments are why i watch your video :) and not the video you are reacting to. at the end of the video when the watched video was over i could only just barely hear you still ma'am. a trick i see other youtubers use is to turn on the CC (closed captions) so the video you are watching does not have to be very loud at all. i hope you both have a blessed day/life!

[@gladius1275]

Nothing to really fear here. The United States is not imperialistic. The American people themselves would not allow their government to ever engage in these type of actions, which would be heinous. You will never see the US doing anything remotely like Russia is engaging in Ukraine right now. We support and respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and every other nation on Earth for self determination. We highly value the relationships of our allies, such as India. Diplomacy is the better way. Also, defeating a nation or a number of nations is one thing, but holding or controlling it is another. What’s the point?

[@WilliamHyres2112]

He forgot to mention that the US could size Venezuela's oil as well. Venezuela has a massive oil reserve that is basically untapped.

[@josephsanchez5987]

Canada and Mexico would be whiped out in 1 day

[@charleslaurenbaril9575]

No its just 2 hours haha😅

[@kavindujayasinghe1573]

Usa already cut off oils no other countries go to attack because few of oils.this situation all countries defense the country.thts right i think.

[@halicarnassus8235]

I really wish they would pause the video when they're talking cuz it's hard to understand what they are saying .

[@archaeologyfornon-archaeol1014]

can you turn on captions? I do.

[@csquared7759]

good post

[@RobertMS1979]

They didn’t mention all the guns that the civilians have as well in America.

[@jonathanmartin8716]

I like this video and a lot of these responses :) You have a good community here. I see you filming from different locations and that would make it hard to pause the video together, but a video like this has several places where you could have paused and address the points being made at that time. If you wait and try to make your argument for when the video's over, you're just not going to remember everything :P That being said, as you stated, why wouldn't the rest of the world go on the attack? That basically comes down to resources and readiness. Attack the Middle East? The Americans are already there and the rest of the world would have a hard time getting enough troops to dislodge even the presence that's there now before as the video describes, the Americans bolster their presence by abandoning the European theater. Canada and Mexico to the US? Not only did the video mention the numerous planes left behind in our air force, but the number of privately owned guns by people on both borders in the US is insane. While it's not such an issue up north, the Southern States have a love-hate relationship with Mexico and all the Middle and South American countries and would love an excuse to go defend their border or cross it. This video showcases the tactics the US would use to strangle the economies of the world and historically, THAT is what wins wars, when you can't afford to wage them anymore.

[@JenoFletter]

Canada and Mexico would join the US I would think..

[@if0078]

Instead of trying to fight the west. lets understand that the west is about freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (and we are not perfect but we try) My ancestors were slaves but I would fight and have fought for the freedoms I experience in the america that we have built. And if you think that we are not ready than, my friend I would suggest you pray before you step on our toes because it could get ugly really quick. But ask yourself why because every culture is represented in the USA, and ppl dont want change so they fight when you look at the corruption in the world no country is perfect. Stop being against things and add to the world in peace and there will be no war. 💯💯💯

[@trololoev]

Russian Poseidon drone: "can USA win against 4 of us?"

[@archaeologyfornon-archaeol1014]

yes, we can...what a wimpy piece of equipment.

[@darinlieurance2817]

Fun video

[@pitchblack2304]

lol, he swore , was not expecting it lol

[@markpukey8]

It's funny. For most of these reaction videos I wish the commenters would stop hitting the pause button for pointless comments. But for these guys I wish they WOULD pause the video! I was interested in their opinions, but could rarely hear them since the video kept playing while they talked.

[@archaeologyfornon-archaeol1014]

Captions are not working for you? I have them on when they are available.

[@markpukey8]

@@archaeologyfornon-archaeol1014 Dude, I'm an American. I can't walk and chew gum at the same time. You want me to listen to a video and READ at the same time? You have me confused with someone with mad internet skills. Maybe my kids could do it... but I can't. Shame... shame and sorrow....

[@archaeologyfornon-archaeol1014]

@@markpukey8 LOL...well...as an 81 year old woman, should I tell you it is not that difficult...? I use captions for everything...😁

[@aaronabraham5199]

Great video tho

[@colinjames7569]

Exactly. This scenario does not include our friends. If the world is behind us we can cause serious damage/problems towards our enemies

[@johnpeck4387]

Just remember that America is the good guys

[@dennisplesz9487]

The main thing that makes America strong as we have every race in our country most of us don't care what color you are we know we are all human America is the only country with pretty much every race you can think about in it and all that knowledge makes us powerful Unstoppable

[@traveladvisor909]

I see your watching what we are capable of, this is very correct!

[@JoaoMariaNunes]

using nukes the entire world loses, including the USA... but conventionally, the kind of army the USA has is only weak when facing guerrilla, as we saw several times,like Vietnam, and Afghanistan

[@Brandon-sw5ob]

You do realize the population of Canada is like the equivalent of 4 of our state? Candidate would lose in a heartbeat. And even if the economy went to WWII levels the end of WWII our economy was gangbuster England didn't come out of their recession and in all of that until the late late 80s. But yeah the terrible Prospect anyway I would hope everybody this would agree to disagree and go about their dang business but we know better peace and love guy no war no bombs no bullets🙏🤜🤛🤷

[@AdamNisbett]

Also depends on which state. California on its own has a greater population than all of Canada.

[@Brandon-sw5ob]

@@AdamNisbett indeed

[@mfree80286]

@@Brandon-sw5ob And it's concentrated in the west and east coasts, where the west faces a 'pinch' due to having a border with Alaska, and the east coast has the problem of waterway crossings.

[@azcarmerrero8405]

The thing is that you have to understand that other nations dont have the proper hardware to move them around. And alot of armues dont invest alot in their Armies.... the video makes alot of sense if you think abiut it.

[@dennisbohner6876]

Please fear US. It's not like we want to use all of this stuff to ruin your days. BUT, we will use those materials. We have a habit that is readily displayed.

[@angeln4461]

Haha the truth is we have weapons 100 of years ahead of any country

[@kingrichardiii6280]

a note on the idea of invading the US. the second amendment secured the right for private citizens to arm themselves and, despite advocates citing other reasons the second amendment is essential, the constitution specifically explains the second is intended to keep "a well regulated militia" (an army organized by private citizens). so invaders manage to make it over the ocean, secure supply lines, able to handle the diverse climate and conditions of the continent, and handle the national military, you still have to deal with the rest of the citizenry as well on their home turf. every city, every town, every household a potential battle.

[@italiantank87]

Pause the video sometimes to share your thoughts. Viewers might want to hear what your comments are.

[@RAYROTHSTEIN66]

Nope, this whole scenario was based on the USA doing minimal ground invasions, in other words, pull all troops from all bases and bring them home or to ships.

[@book3311]

Great video, im a fan in America!! Book 33

[@colinjames7569]

With great power . Comes great responsibility

[@spencerbainter677]

When you guys comment you should pause the video because I can’t hear you guys

[@quasimotto8653]

The South American militaries, in relevant terms, are really no closer to the US than Western African or European militaries. Using Brazil as an example, it would be a monumental accomplishment for them to get to the US by land. But they don't have the Navy that would allow them to do it by sea. Even if they tried, the US Atlantic Fleet (primarily the subs) would be silently tracking them as soon as the Brazilian Navy left port. The idea of "the US vs the World" sounds like a giant task for the US, but really, it would come down to the US vs the 5-10 nations that would really have any true impact on the conflict.

[@animeman8203]

For example, practically all of South America and Africa could be ignored because they wouldn't be able to do anything. That's over 60 countries right there.

[@quasimotto8653]

@@animeman8203 Yes, I agree with you. A person can look at this as "the US versus the World". But most countries in the world would be irrelevant to the battle. I suppose some could contribute manpower to some of the other countries. But lack of manpower wouldn't be the main issue.........it would be the lack of logistical equipment to move men TO the fight.

[@DaddyDoggAbbott]

This would never happen but you control the ocean you control distribution

[@johnbradshaw4963]

The collateral damage from this type of global conflict would be catastrophic. Additionally, exclusion of nucs ignores the significant possibility of pressure to use tactical nuclear weapons in situations where opposing forces were facing obliteration.

[@iampnp]

You guys should pause when you want to comment. That way you can also give real reactions

[@JumbledEye]

Lol, the video only talks about 4th and 5th generation technology. But we're probably working on 8th generation technology already...

[@AirRider44]

I get that you guys don’t want to hear how the U.S. is OP, but it really comes down to facts regarding naval and air power. The whole premise would be for the US to deny energy and trade supplies to the part of the world that could “fight back” because that energy isn’t produced where it is needed it means it’s vulnerable to U.S. capabilities. In the U.S., energy is produced where it is needed l, thereby making the US much less vulnerable.

[@user-ty5di3ku6o]

We now have 495 functional F-35s.