Royal Marine Reacts To Ballistic Missile fleet strength by Country

Original Video (Ballistic Missile fleet strength by Country)
• Ballistic Missile flee...
DREADNOUGHT MEADERY!
KZbin: / @dreadnoughtmeadery
Instagram: / dreadnoughtmeadery
MY EQUIPMENT:
Camera: amzn.to/3W9dL37
Lights: amzn.to/3JtLflf
Key Board: amzn.to/3JpPWwx
Headphones: amzn.to/3JrF15x
Mouse: amzn.to/49P81ij
Monitors: amzn.to/4aLd1FP
Mic: amzn.to/3U7XWXY
Audio mixer: amzn.to/4b2FJSr
StreamDeck: amzn.to/4b4lHH1
Favorite Books:
Norse Mythology: Neil Gaiman: amzn.to/4b24Ftc
The Way of Kings: Brandon Sanderson: amzn.to/3JyHIlu
Breath: James Nestor: amzn.to/3Jur9Y7
We Are Nature: Ray Mears: amzn.to/3JurhXB
The Last Kingdom: Bernard Cornwell: amzn.to/3w4JjN0
BECOME A MEMBER
/ @originalhuman
SOCIALS
►Instagram @OriginalHuman_
►Twitter: @OriginalHuman_
►Discord: / discord
►Facebook: / originalhuman.videos
►Business inquires: [e-mail]
OTHER CHANNELS
►The Sword And Scabbard: / @theswordandscabbard7909
►OriginalAdventures: / @originaladventures2728
►OriginalHuman Geek: / @originalhumangeek

[@Mgaming61]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Russia has even more, considering what's going on

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

Nah if they did they wouldn't have had to buy drones from Iran and use S300 missiles on ground targets.

[@WHIT4CROW]

​@@n3v3rforgott3n9That's war. Using cheapest and reliable product rather than using fucking ISBM'S

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@WHIT4CROW I didn't say ICBMs... I said ballistic missiles... Maybe read?

[@WHIT4CROW]

@@n3v3rforgott3n9no you didn't... and you think ballistic missiles is cheaper then 300$ FPV drone or 15'000$ suiside drone....well I don't think so

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@WHIT4CROW ... what do you think "S300 missiles on ground targets" is? Also the video is talking about ballistic missiles... IE me saying "Nah if they did they wouldn't have had to buy..." means I'm talking about them having more ballistic missiles... are you this daft? Also you think S300 missiles are "Using cheapest and reliable product"??? HAHAHA

[@itsjustme8947]

I didn't wear a 'pocket rocket' during my time in the USAF, but served close to 10 years in SIOP planning. Anyway, conservative estimates are that 40% of Russia's missile force simply won't leave the ground (poor maintenance, contaminated fuel, etc). Their warhead busses are horrible (look up 'warhead fratricide') and their accuracy is measured in MILES. Still a lot of firepower to contend with though.

[@SHKIPERsf]

Родной, а скажи ка по чьим "скромным оценкам"? Вам прямо из кремля докладывают о состоянии российских ракет? А как же "Россия - страна-бензоколонка" и тут же вы говорите про "загрязнённое топливо", разве у стран бензоколонок так бывает? ) А на чьих ракетах на международную космическую станцию летали астронавты США, после того, как была закрыта программа шаттла из за ВЗРЫВОВ УНЕСШИХ ЖИЗНИ АМЕРИКАНСКИХ АСТРОНАВТОВ? Что же вы не боялись летать на загрязнённом топливе и плохом обслуживании? А по поводу точности -посмотрите видео учебных стрельб российских РВСН и вы с удивление, для себя обнаружите, что отклонение от цели составляют метры, не мили или километры - метры. К слову военные нато поистине оценили точность российских ракет, на украине, после того, как ракеты "кинжал" поражали места их брифингов и расположения. Сколько там натовских вертолётов с офицерами неожиданно разбились, ведь так принято маскировать потери? А? 😉 В общем "вашем мнении очень ценно, для нас, мы перезвоним вам позже (никогда) )😆

[@itsjustme8947]

@@SHKIPERsf Oh, you're funny comrade! Where do we get this information? Simple, there are thousands of people in your military, WITH ACCESS, who will sell you out for a few thousand bucks. We're not worried about contaminated fuel in your Soyuz rockets, because that is made by Evonik, a GERMAN company, LOL! Ukraine is still kicking your asses and we haven't EVEN sent any of our good stuff. You can't even handle a Patriot battery, lol! Your video of SFM firing operations? Well, it's far cheaper to hire people to photoshop images and add CGI than to build something that ACTUALLY WORKS, LMAO! In conclusion, the best way to describe your infantry is to compare them to bananas: The start off green, then turn yellow and die in bunches! Nice try though. Keep that propaganda machine running!

[@diegonicolas9739]

Let us consider that the same intelligence has been saying since March 2020 that Russia did not have any more missiles and they were fighting with shovels and washing machine chips and today we know that they have already used hypersonic missiles in Ukraine and that they produce more weapons than the European Union and the United States combined and that alone is defeating a coalition of about 40 countries despite economic sanctions

[@user-hc6kg6wy2p]

Чё там недавно ваш ЭКС президент говорил ТРАМП???? А командующий ВМФ???? Про отставание а? Как дела с Гиперзвуком???? Ну и кстати по нашим оценкам из всего наземного базирования, если и взлетят 10 % всех минитменов это уже хорошо! Я понимаю что у вас американцев вся надежда на подлодки! Там в основном ваши ракеты! Но с другой стороны как бы ты планировщик хренов ответил на то, если бы Россия разместила свои ракеты на Кубе и в Венесуэле???? ААААаааа???? Вы сами сюда припёрлись!!!! Вам много раз говорили не расширять нато на восток!!!! ВСЁ Разговоров не БУДЕТ!

[@NATION_FIRST_BRAVEHEARTS]

Russia has most modern and capable missiles. But this data is fake. This is not true that Pakistan has more ballastic missiles than India. India has five times more ballestic missiles than Pakistan.

[@alexfischer7554]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKOmgYR6Yt1kppI

[@victorgurule3711]

I’d say Russia probably has many more…but are they modern and kept up. Or are they antiquated and left to rot??

[@poornalingam6261]

🤡

[@BIOSHOCKFOXX]

Since the start of the conflict in Ukraine, Russia has been using ballistic missiles, the well known Iskander missiles that western media at one point were bluffing around about how Russia is out of missiles because of this and that, while they are restocking and manufacturing, and continuing to strike. So I have to say that old stuff is depleting and replenished by new one, so there's basically either no old ones, or news are being used right away, ending the debate how well they are kept. Meanwhile U.S. has sent some ATACMS's, so either because of limited quantity U.S. has available for sale and not the one that is a minimum to be kept on the homeland for obvious reasons, or Ukraine can't buy them with the large U.S. tax money that is being sent, or U.S. is out of them and can't produce more, so they had a low stock to begin with. It is unknown. Those are called Quasi-Ballistic missiles. ICBM's on the other hand... Russia is beating U.S. by having already in active service since 2000's, an ICBM's called Topol-M, first produced since soviet dissolution, replacing all Topol ones in 2023, which were the older ones. Topol was in 1985 made. So the soviet era missiles have now been ended its service life and replaced with newer one. Another one is Yars, first tested in 2007, in service since 2011. And other modern variants. Meanwhile U.S. has quite...a sad look in comparison. U.S. Minute Man 3 and Trident 2, former being 1970's made, and latter 1990's. U.S. is upgrading the Minute Man 3 missiles instead of replacing and manufacturing new ones. "The Minuteman III missiles use D-37D computers and complete the 1,000 missile deployment of this system. The initial cost of these computers range from about $139,000 (D-37C) to $250,000 (D-17B). The existing Minuteman III missiles have been further improved over the decades in service, with more than $7 billion spent in the 2010s to upgrade the 450 missiles." That's not reassuring or qualitative imo, but it is economical. Usually that's something we would see about Russians doing to their systems, constantly updating but not manufacturing new ones, similarly to how they do with their tanks, running on T-72 design chassis, but just modernizing it. Of course it doesn't mean that they use T-72's and slap on tech and more armor, but it's just the blueprint they use while still manufacturing the same tank. U.S. does the same with their Abrams's mostly as well. But regards to ICBM's... Russia is on top with quality, power, and range. As I read, U.S. does have a in-development program for the next gen ICBM's.

[@SparklesDwin_art]

Go and listen to the US military advisor’s report about Russia’s nuclear weapons. They are currently having the most advanced and lethal nuclear weapons

[@alexfischer7554]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKOmgYR6Yt1kppI

[@alexfischer7554]

Они очень современные , я бы сказал что самые современные в мире. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKOmgYR6Yt1kppI

[@alferrera9605]

As long as we have 1561 Patriots, we good. 😂😂😂

[@WHIT4CROW]

There is something called MIRV'S and patriots not for defending ISBM'S. usa have different missile diffence for that

[@veritasliberabitvos454]

@@WHIT4CROW They don't work. What has been coming out with Ukraine is that West's equipment is not the best and can be defeated via EW. The equipment was great against people in mud huts. But, in a war where it needs to be fired many times they break too quickly, require huge amounts of maintenance, and then all the logistics around that. As this was all developed by for profit companies. And that is the core issue. Equipment for national defense should never be controlled by for profit companies. That is the key out of the Ukraine war.

[@WHIT4CROW]

@@veritasliberabitvos454 yep. I say its good but not reliable in multiple reasons

[@kriswilson7245]

Good stuff mate, love that you're branching out to new stuff. One quick thought is that all icbm's are all land based. Anything launched from a sub is a SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missile) just so you know what they're talking about if you see that. 👍🏻 Edit, these aren't icbm's they are just ballistic missiles. These are not necessarily nuclear they can be loaded with anything. Most of these are not nuclear. An intercontinental ballistic missile is defined by a nuclear weapon launched from the ground that has a range of more than 5,500 km.

[@paulhansen4586]

I really think you would enjoy US versus China to kill a carrier by hypOps, it shows more tactical use smaller conventional missiles.

[@diegonicolas9739]

URSS and Rusia always was a the top on rokets tecnology, and since 2018 they use hypersonic missile, then China in 2020 and then Iran and North Korea, no other country can fly sea level missiles at hipersonic speed

[@excludedunimpo2013]

America doesn't have the most but we do have the best and most maintained

[@chadbernard2641]

Rofl

[@steeljawX]

Trident II's, sure. However I think we had a Minuteman III test launch earlier in the year and things didn't go so well. I'm just saying that the US doesn't have ICBM superiority, but that won't stop us from backhanding someone with the sun if they want to FAFO.

[@mikkorenvall428]

Or that's what western propaganda likes to tell you... The fact is China has the most new and most modern weapons incl. missiles, since China has invested in new weapon systems and ships ffor the past 15-20 years, as USA has mostly maintained and runned with the old one. And since Russia has most of their weapons selfmade they may be better maintained than we know. Should never under estimate the adversary.

[@chadbernard2641]

Sure anytime

[@MECCII23]

nah the koreans or germans do for sure

[@MrW582]

Rumour has it the Isle of man has 5000 of them just to keep chuck Norris away from the TT races

[@TheArmstrongPodcast]

Same with Tanks. Russia has way more... doesn't mean much tho lol Many formidable armaments around the world.

[@delbertbertke6124]

You said 3720 miles isn’t very far. However, the distance from Paris to Moscow is just sigh of 1800 miles.

[@leonardosaul6390]

good video

[@SHKIPERsf]

Советую ознакомиться с материалами о ракете "Буревестник" - Burevestnik (or Stormbringer) Nuclear Cruise Missile, что бы не питать иллюзий по поводу "USA №1", no man is not №1 any more.

[@thelastrock8551]

luv the content. keep up the good work❤❤

[@alexfischer7554]

Это 1561 на боевом дежурстве !!! то есть доступны к запуску в любой момент , остальные законсервированы вероятно как минимум в 3 раза больше. Посмотри документы о разоружении СНВ-1 и СНВ-2 там есть количество. Помню в СССР скучные люди в военных передачах очень буднично обсуждали вопрос , но не такой - сможет ли Советский союз в случае необходимости ответным ударом уничтожить США. Обсуждали сколько раз !! СССР сможет это сделать !!! последнюю цифру помню 26 раз !!!. Не 5 не 10 а 26 раз арсенал Советского Союза мог уничтожить США. Ещё помню подсчёты что весь мир, то есть всех людей на планете может уничтожить 6 раз !!! Поэтому в 80 годах Советский Союз и Америка решили свести к минимуму ядерные арсеналы. Потому что это стало похоже на какое то безумие. В итоге договорились о 1500 ракетах где в каждой 10 боеголовок. Итого 15 000 ядерных боезарядов. Следует ещё учитывать что боеголовки СССР всегда были мощнее в 3 - 5 раз американских. Но в США вам это не рассказывают )).

[@TerrenceMcGinnis]

The irony of the last statement. I hope you realize both countries do the same thing. Russia will claim to be more powerful/better in x way and not tell their citizens if they aren’t. Rofl.

[@bradleydanek3958]

the amount of missiles don't mater if half of them don't work.

[@WHIT4CROW]

Well half of usa ISBM'S is old and don't work so that's why usa started working on new ISBM'S to replace the old ones

[@Anubis78250]

@@WHIT4CROW They are old, and they are being replaced. It's a huge leap of ignorance to say that half of them don't work. They are tested regularly. One recent test had some sort of malfunction and was terminated, where do you find cause to claim half of them don't work? Are you ignoring all other tests in which they did not have any malfunctions? How are you calculating a 50% failure rate? Oh right.... this is the internet and you're just talking out of your ass.

[@alexfischer7554]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKOmgYR6Yt1kppI

[@DAVIDRICKY41]

Most of the the missiles with only 300km in range, are Soviet 1st gen Scud missiles sold in the 70s and 80s.

[@jesselenz5452]

As an American I think it's kind of funny that Russia is ahead of the US in this race. First of all this is ballistic missiles only, not ICBMs or nuclear warheads. I'm not sure how the numbers match up there. But considering that Russia does not put anywhere near as much money into its national defense as the US does, that just means that most of their money is going towards things which do not need to be added to so the US has more money for other forms of defense. We put a lot of our money into aircraft carriers and aircraft.

[@steeljawX]

It's a difference in capability. The US is considered the World Super Power mainly because it can mobilize logistics and personnel to almost literally "Amazon air drop" war to your doorstep if we so choose to do so. China, Russia, Iran. I guess in general other nations that aren't on amicable relations with the US generally don't have the same means to do so in such an efficient manner. So their best option and response is ICBM/BM attack. They can't send ship after ship full of troops over in 72 hours. They can't confidently send over airplanes loaded with platoons ready to strike. The US also has made sure to have generally good to tolerable relations with our neighbors and the majority of Russia's and China's neighbors. When you think about it, it's advantageous to have a place to off load resources until you can establish your own foothold. The US doesn't really have a BFF relationship with Mexico, but we're not declaring war on each other. It's like awkward exes who can't control themselves if they're forced to confront each other kind of relation. Canada's Canada, so we're good there. We're fairly good with Japan, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, and the Philippines so on the east side, we kind of have a lot of the potential real estate under friendly relations. On the west, we're backing NATO. So the US really has less of a reason to invest in ballistic missiles when we can make something to take out ballistic missiles and just about everything else (F-35 on the Gerald R Ford kind of vibe.)

[@user-ou6jj8bx9f]

Today, the U.S. cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium! The newest nuclear charge in the U.S. is 35 years old (the guaranteed operation of the charge is 25 years), pensioners are hired to maintain these charges, since there are no young specialists! This year, the U.S. was finally able to enrich the first 90 kg of energy uranium! U.S. ballistic carriers have not been produced for more than 25 years! A new project to replace Minuteman 3 has been halted this year. It seems to me that you (taxpayers) were just fucked up.

[@kamito961]

React on Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) country wise video.

[@Darth_Lunas]

Good stuff as usual, man.

[@USAsportsmanIdaho]

A lot of these missiles are cold war era and a missiles capability as in war head size, it’s destructive power, is probably a better measure than numbers.

[@unnixjp]

casually asking why are u not reacting to more indian stuff recently ?

[@BryanW-bp3le]

We prefer to use our Airforce with glide bombs rather than watching ballistic missiles which are much easier to track and intercept.

[@phatphracker]

USA's limits ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. they can be mistaken for a tactical or intermediate range nuclear payload. Also, doubt Yemen's count is accurate after what they've been firing and loosing on the ground in recent months. There count has too be Hoothis. I don't think the recognized government of Yemen has any. A chunk of Russia's got to be gone now used in the Ukraine war.

[@ExUSSailor]

Here's the thing, most of those Russian missiles would be downed before they get the chance to re-enter the atmosphere. Thanks to systems like THAAD, Patriot, and, SM-6. That is IF they even ignited at all, which considering a lot of Russia's missile force is still liquid fueled, is doubtful.

[@georgeantabi6025]

1-The Russian ballistic missiles being liquid fuelled is a choice by the defense ministry, not a limitation. 2- The defense systems that you listed have only been proved against old Scud and Tochka U-type missiles, not against the modern and more common missiles like the Iskander. 3-Even if your argument was true, the same thing can be applied to the US, due to the Russians having systems like the S-300v,400 and the newly commissioned 500 plus the A-235 ABM which is currently being upgraded. And don't forget that the current ballistic missiles in US possession are based on old missiles like the Minuteman and the Trident, while the Russians actively upgrade and add new missiles to their arsenal.

[@chadbernard2641]

ROFL Thadd and patriots have zero chance against Sarmat, any missiles with Avangard. They would struggle against Layner and Bulva. The patriots are not even as good as the old S-300. Get a grip.

[@georgeantabi6025]

@@chadbernard2641 exactly

[@user-vu6bo2mm7o]

Lol

[@NANI-ms4ws]

Nafo invincible! 😂

[@GDO9099]

He sounds like iballisticsquid a little bit

[@NoahM.Angell-sd4ez]

I've shared this video with my family, and we all agree-it's an instant mood booster!

[@Kenneth_James]

We use this thing... it's called an Air Force. We kinda have several.

[@jtroulston6733]

if the ukraine war has told us anything half those russian missiles are duds

[@bogoljubdjordjevic7528]

And Ukraine don't have why to lie about Russia?

[@TerrenceMcGinnis]

@@bogoljubdjordjevic7528 Russia lies. Ukraine lies. The US lies.

[@md.abdullahalmamun1636]

Do you plan to react to non military stuff again anytime? Like you would react to SCP stuff and general horror stuff a few years ago. There are a lot of indy horror series on youtube that are worth checking out.

[@kauinoa2004]

I would be absolutely shocked if more than 2/3 of Russian missiles could launch and if more than half of them had the means to make that kind of distance

[@BIOSHOCKFOXX]

If we would judge by the way how U.S. is sending their stuff to Ukraine, and how fast Russia can manufacture missiles... I would say Russia is still currently Nr1. And Russia has the most nuclear weapons as well. Regards to defense systems and missiles, Russia will rank nr1. Honestly Russia is shown to be more capable to realistically manufacture more than U.S., because U.S. has economical issues of having their arms manufacturers, which are private companies, to manufacture missiles and U.S. having money to buy it. I do believe these are official numbers, and for the big countries the unofficial are slightly higher. So I would say in response to you, that if you think U.S. has more, Russia has more as well, and Russia obviously has more because it needs to cover a larger territory to defend or strike back in all directions.

[@jtroulston6733]

as an american I think its russia They have quantity while america has quality

[@user-bd7qz3jj6u]

These numbers are wrong

[@kavyasharma517]

not the first time america's not first in military comparison, russia has a lot, and i mean a lot more nuclear warheads which it made in its soviet days

[@tjboylan20]

You see the US with Missiles is quality over quantity, and we use our missiles so we keep less on hand, now all it takes is one officer to ask for more and we could triple our amount

[@user-ou6jj8bx9f]

What was the end of the last ICBM tests in the United States?))

[@TerrenceMcGinnis]

@@user-ou6jj8bx9f How’s that week long special military operation going for Russia? 😅

[@johnzubil2875]

Well Bro, we've seen Ruske equipment in action. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@daltonmckee4788]

A very important point when comparing Russia and usa military quantities... the US government tends to understate capabilities to avoid passing of the tax payers. Russia tends to overstate capabilities as their means of deterrence

[@shirleyadair9906]

Rofl! The USA hasn't put as much effort into the ballistic missiles (until recently) because we basically decided that they don't have the warfare value that everyone seems to think they have. We put our efforts instead into laser tech. In theory we can take out every ballistic missile China and Russia can launch at only 97 cents a shot. Russia and China also have laser tech but it can't match ours, yet. We've been working on this stuff for decades now. At one point some folks actually declared nuclear weapons obsolete. They were wrong but still it was the "Star Wars" tech that allowed us to enter test ban talks with Russia. Also it should be noted that the US does not consider a missile to be Ballistic if it can not be controlled in flight. We can, they can't. To research for yourself look for videos about American troop movements from about a year ago. Things were really heated with us and China. We were (and likely still are) on the brink. We moved a bunch of stuff over there and effectively "grounded" their ballistics. Missiles that can't fly are useless. Much like the Chinese Navy that boasts the largest in the world. (they count what amounts to sam pans) We don't count things like our Cajun Navy but if we did......... lol

[@user-ns3yh9bd9h]

It’s not solely on how many but the quality of and the intelligence which USA have both. These are numbers that are thrown out in the public. Do you think we are really going to tell our enemies how much we have. Also, what about the ones that are super new and classified because there are. Technology is so advanced we probably have some that can do some wild damage and make these look like toys.

[@user-ou6jj8bx9f]

Today, the U.S. cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium! The newest nuclear charge in the U.S. is 35 years old (the guaranteed operation of the charge is 25 years), pensioners are hired to maintain these charges, since there are no young specialists! This year, the U.S. was finally able to enrich the first 90 kg of energy uranium! U.S. ballistic carriers have not been produced for more than 25 years! A new project to replace Minuteman 3 has been halted this year. It seems to me that you (taxpayers) were just fucked up.😆😆😆

[@Wildturkey10121]

It has to do with the US following the treaty's and Russia not so much.

[@Gooner21]

Russia always has an Edge when it comes to Missile system, Let's talk about their Hypesonic, they already got 4 hypersonic where America still dont have one.

[@bogoljubdjordjevic7528]

Russia on top of course it's strange you are marine and don't know nothing!

[@TerrenceMcGinnis]

It’s good he doesn’t know nothing. Knowing nothing would be bad.

[@procommunistdestruction2318]

Russia also only has less than 10 with that range they said last I heard too but I know we always have less than Russia since we properly maintain ours and ours are way more accurate

[@bamintado5570]

Am 30+ and yes have a lot of videos. But never-ever seen murica 2nd on the list.😂

[@sauravsaini245]

Wrong data bro

[@inactive2305]

Russia could send 2,000 troops like the 200 troops we dropped in 8 minutes 😂 but instead it’ll probably just take only 30 min to drop 2,000 lmfao

[@Israel_wale_chacha]

bro , which country is telling you there no. of missiles ?? these videos are joke .

[@Chrisw114]

Its weird to think Russia has more ballistic missiles than us, and I know your on a "missile kick" right now but you should check out the reaper light medium machine gun US SOF guys are considering for an upgrade.

[@boomman1349]

After a certain point there is no point in having more as the entire world could be destroyed multiple times so maintenance cost aren’t worth it

[@thseed7]

I don't believe anything about Russian military equipment and capabilities anymore. Even the most modern of their equipment has not performed as marketed in Ukraine and a country with all those missiles not using them in an armed conflict seems strange.

[@user-uz1xh2ho9s]

А ты не верь, поверишь в их действий. И да в Украине показало Американские 160 миллардное $ превосходство.

[@eddawg79]

Half of Irans ballistic missiles failed to leave the ground when they shot them at Israel, I'd expect much of Russia's would be the same way.

[@pratikmohite6202]

india has less but the range is better than others

[@jst1man]

You do need to take into account that Russia doesn't really maintenance their middle as good as the US. So if problem cut that in half at least. Plus, who know what the real range is. It's not like Russia has actually tested the range like the US.

[@user-ou6jj8bx9f]

How many of the twelve Aircraft Carrier Groups can go out today to carry out combat missions? You can only check two!😅😅

[@TerrenceMcGinnis]

@@user-ou6jj8bx9f How’s that two week special military operation going for Russia? 😅

[@alexwilson5319]

Im pretty sure America does have the most we most likely just dont publish the right number so other countries dont know for sure