The United States USA vs The World Who Would Win Military Army Comparison

* ROAD TO 780,000 SUBSCRIPTIONS **
to Donate using Paypal!: www.paypal.com/paypalme/Mrlbo...
Patreon - / mrlboyd
FOLLOW ME: / mrlboyd
PUBLIC DISCORD: / discord
MUSIC REACTIONS : / @mrlboydmusic
MOVIE AND TV REACTIONS: MOVIE AND TV REACTIONS: / @mrlboydmoviereviews
CLICK THE BELL! 🔔
CONTACT ME
➡️ / mrlboyd
➡️ / mrlboyd
➡️ / malagaphotography
➡️ Snapchat: MrLboyd

[@KurNorock]

Nuclear powered sub does not necessarily mean nuclear weapons. The nuclear power is literally just a nuclear power plant that generates the electricity that powers the sub. Most of the nuclear subs in the US Navy do not have nuclear weapons onboard. But they do have many non-nuclear ballistic missiles.

[@USMC-Goforth]

Great points. The distinction stands with nuclear powered carriers as well.

[@dragonhero14]

Yes, the key here is that because they are nuclear powered, they don't need to refuel. They can be deployed silently in the ocean for however long the food rations last onboard, which, if prepared for special missions, can last over 3-4 months +. Typically special assignment mean that they are given orders based on a bunch of scenarios. Then they go radio silent and stand delpoyed where they are ordered until that time frame is up and they can dock to stock up on supplies and get new sets of orders.

[@JadeaRS4]

Very obvious

[@KurNorock]

@@JadeaRS4 not that obvious. Most people think of nuclear weapons when they hear "nuclear submarine".

[@VitalizedG]

Yeah he clearly is misunderstanding most of the video to be honest. I knew that the moment he said France would be a problem. Then he proceeded to not realize no nuclear weapons can be used. That has absolutely nothing to do with vehicles that are powered by nuclear power. He clearly is lumping them together, but not everyone can know everything i guess.

[@bullish3584]

BTW, nuclear subs referenced here are in regard to how they are powered. Not their weapons necessarily. Many probably have nukes as well as traditional missile systems.

[@NotAMystery]

Exactly! Take out the nuclear payload and use the missiles as conventional weapons.

[@bullish3584]

@@NotAMystery Not quite. There are plenty of standard payloads on missiles already on board. Certain class subs have nukes as well. But all nuclear subs are powered by a nuclear reactor on board the submarine.

[@Awakened2001]

Yep, the point is how long our subs are able to be deployed. Our navy's ability to maintain blockades and deny trade is scary.

[@jimmybobsap8729]

@@Awakened2001 Well nuclear subs never have to come to shore in theory , but then its a literal skeleton crew

[@dominiccampbell181]

I've been saying this for a couple years now. Our military isn't preparing for war with other countries, it's preparing for an Independence Day scenario.

[@mauricehumphrey545]

No, how about this term, brother: a "GLOBAL WORLD EVENT." Ha ha ha. No one can stop the USA fools.

[@scotthill1600]

Would honestly make a lotta sense

[@Selet101]

the scariest part of this is that the US Air Force never left the United States in this video. The entirety of the Air Force would be mobilized on neighboring countries starting with Canada and Mexico within the hour. They'd be forced into surrender within hours of this war breaking out. Once all domestic enemies are eliminated, the Air Force would be free to join in and assist the US Navy on their operations.

[@firefly9838]

They left out the fact that our defense contractors can back door shut down a lot of US made aircraft in use with other nations if used against us in a theoretical war.

[@KurNorock]

The US also shot down a satellite by shooting it with a missile fired from an F-15 fighter jet. And I think that happened back in 1985. The US has been working on anti-satellite weapons since the 1950s when Russia launched Sputnik.

[@bigwill8145]

When he said nuclear submarines he was referring to their nuclear powered engines not weapons

[@Thamechanicguy]

Well hang on cause the Ohio class subs have nuclear warheads

[@NXS1FY]

While yes the subs are nuclear powered they do in-fact carry nuclear warheads about 70% of the nations nuclear arsenal are carried on their subs and some of the most powerful ones at that. I think it was around 300x the power of what was dropped on Japan if I'm not mistaken. Another video here on KZbin explained it. The US do this just encase their silos on homeland gets taken out before they can use them. They also carry some nukes at military bases for deployment as well.

[@ronb6152]

Ohio class are not attack subs. They are ballistic missle subs.

[@bigwill8145]

@@NXS1FY they can also fire other weapons besides nuclear which is why they can still be used in this situation

[@bigwill8145]

@@Thamechanicguy I didn't say they don't carry them but they can also fire other classifications of weapons which is why they can still be used

[@Seacub42]

On your point at 11:00, there are something you and others need to realize about this. We have some defensive missile capability that would mitigate a large number of nuke capabilities. However, the US missile capability, though slightly smaller than Russia's, there's a reason the rest of the world has so few comparatively. They are difficult to maintain. A lesser known fact for most is there is limited confidence that even 50% of nukes fired from other nations with long range capability (few countries have this, the ability to reach the US) would fire, work as intended. They have been poorly maintained. The US missile components are by far the best maintained in the world with capabilities updated constantly. The US defensive capability would negate a large number of the other incoming missiles. Some missiles would get through and would cause damage, but there are concerns they could target effectively. You are looking at at 1-5 ratio here. For each 1 missile that comes through successfully, you get 5 fired back that hit their targets. Nukes is not an option for the global coalition here as the retaliation would be far worse than the offensive capability. No one knows the true might of our defensive capability as we keep that secret but we've successfully tested targeting and destroying incoming missiles.

[@osculim]

Typical American arrogance. Thats what they said in Vietnam aswell. We all know how that went. When these situation come up its always look at our weapons. There are way more factors to consider. Heck America cannot even permanently stop one terrorist group. Nevermind the world.

[@Sephiroso.]

If you think what happened years ago in Vietnam has any bearing on how things would go now when wars wouldn't even be fought the same as back then...well idk what to tell you. Also it was obvious America wasn't there to stop one terrorist group. So bringing that up is just as retarded as your previous statement.

[@remveel2443]

I'm from SEA, and I'd like to say you're right, and wrong at the same time. With regards to Vietnam, US's objective is to seize control of the communist party of Vietnam. Not exactly demolish Vietnam. In this scenario, where US's job is to win, they could've launched 10 missiles in all of Vietnam's jungles and the communists would easily lose. Like, in outmost, 1 day. US at the time is met with many global laws that they have to oblige to going in to the war. Hence why their offense is very limited.

[@remveel2443]

However, you are right in a sense that it's not about weapons only. The video failed to estimate if US can maintain ALL of their weaponry's maintenance as one of those vessels would consume so much oil. And another factor that is not mentioned, is that America would most likely destroy itself more than the world. Just in the Vietnam war alone, Americans grouped up to retreat from Vietnam. America would probably collapse on it's own figuring out how to make every single citizen cooperate in this warfare. Lastly, the war is definitely oil-dependent, but not all the time. US can block many routes to avoid oil and communication, but this doesn't stop countries from making new oil pumps and ways to communicate. History has shown how versatile humans can be in times of need.

[@archbound6224]

The US does not need to conquer in this imagined war, this would be a war of defense with the world trying to take down he US. This starvation strat would work. the US lost in Afganistand and Vietnam because they were trying to hold territory for long periods of time. That would not be the goal here.

[@bobdam4478]

any country that has nukes would use them if defeat was going to happen and that includes the US. these infographic shows are fun but the idea that the entire world was fighting the US and no one would use nukes is not realistic at all.

[@watchdog4454]

Would really just depend on who can take the least amount of damage I don’t really get how nuclear weapons are such a big problem when all u need to minimize damage or avoid it is a rocket faster then the nuke so it could catch up to it and explode it from a safe distance

[@adameager7114]

Clarification: Using nuclear subs does not mean using nuclear weapons. The subs are nuclear powered to allow them to remain deployed under the surface for months at a time. They still have conventional munitions for attacking with.

[@remveel2443]

But, it is still classified as both a WEAPON and has presence of NUCLEAR. So... This should also be banned if we're banning ALL nuclear weapons. It's only fair for everyone to not have a pint of nuclear involvement during the entire battle. Which again, this video made biases about

[@queen-lilyorjiako268]

​@@remveel2443what do you mean? How is it biased exactly?

[@remveel2443]

@@queen-lilyorjiako268 Because America has the most Nuke Subs in the world by a long shot. Obviously he finds a way to make sure US wins

[@Lumpygrits76]

😂😂😂 paused @ 0:08 I was wondering if you were going to roll with these videos. Ya gotta do more of these

[@malice926]

I'm a little disappointed that he didn't bring up the fact that we have essentially been occupying Japan since the end of WWII.

[@Jrocka7x]

There is a common interest; but, Okinawa got screwed by mainland Japan.

[@jasonrd316]

Japan was also not allowed to even have a real military until relatively recently due to the treaty, so US served as their defense force as well.

[@dustinjones1346]

Because of tensions with China and North Korea, US troops are actually well respected in Japan and South korea

[@malice926]

@@dustinjones1346 Even if they are well respected it doesn't change the facts of the situation. There's also a huge difference between liking the troops and liking the government.

[@jasonrd316]

@@dustinjones1346 Well, yes and no. I was stationed on mainland, and for the most part you are correct, but there are still regular, fairly small, protests for removal of forces in those areas. I think it's worse in Okinawa because of how small the area is.

[@buubarry2172]

Thank you

[@KevinBrown-lv2fk]

please watch how britain nuked america twice and see just how secure the US airspace really is

[@slickstretch6391]

That was a long time ago.

[@ezza9578]

All ya gotta do is drop some major disease into the states, the populous coudnt afford to pay big pharmer for the cure, job done 👍❤🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[@Jadebones]

Anyone who was "caught intentionally" using bioweapons for war purposes, would be instantly turned against by the rest of the world. I, personally, would have considered that whole Coronavirus bullshit to be an excellent example of such.... However, although it was HEAVILY covered up and that alone caused the "pandemic levels" to get so high, I don't believe the virus was let out intentionally. China though... They've been caught/recorded seriously talking about high medtech type bioweaponry, and they don't seem to care what ANYONE'S rules are, nor do they care what any country thinks of them. The CCP only says and pretends as if they're playing nice, "just a developing nation building products for the world".... But that's a paper mask. I guarantee that China's rapid NAVAL GROWTH in recent years has a *VERY SPECIFIC* purpose, and only this ONE purpose: Microchip control. If China TAKES TAIWAN... That's it world. Game over.

[@Loke6661666246]

This is why we don't have socialized medicine.

[@leonardchurch7675]

@MrLboydReacts For the most part, We and Australia are the global mutts founded mainly by the discarded and undesirables from the Mother Countries. We welcomed a lot of the other mutts and discarded and said 'Hey come play in our sandbox.' and we built something bigger than the others. Sure we have problems we fight amongst ourselves and are disrespectful to each other... a lot.... but let someone come at us and for some strange reason even those here we have problems with at home suddenly turn on the interloper and we show how much of mutts we are and how vicious we can be.

[@victoriazheng2295]

Sure you are. Wait 30 more years and your kids and future would be gay feelings and hormone blockers.😂

[@gsdstrike]

I love it that Oil production is overly glossed over by, US Oil reserve will still struggle even with its oil take over. Also what country would just sit face down even after thier military bases have been wrecked. counties that can and will try to retaliate agains US forces, which meansd US will have to deploy all of its Militray might all over the globe and will still end up thinning its over all forces.

[@jasonrd316]

No. Major infrastructure strikes, followed by impenetrable blockades are all that is needed. That isn't the entirety of US forces. The vast majority of US forces would go the middle east. That would be the largest theater of war, all nations would fight there, so of they were going to put up a potentially winning fight, they'd need to assemble a coilition of nations there. That would only be possible for some countries, most would be taken out of the fight relatively early on. They'd have resources to stave off an invasion of their own countries for some time, but over time that stuff depletes, ages out, economy tanks, supplies diminish... It seige tactic for a whole region. If you can't control the blockade, you're screwed.

[@ryanmyers723]

I would like to know where your intro comes from. It's weirdly nostalgic for some reason.

[@ParasitikOne]

Not to mention “the gun behind every blade of grass” analogy… if US Mainland was invaded the civilians would again be fighting side by side with regular army/navy/marine forces.

[@Undeadarmada]

I wanna see that on a shirt! : Kerfuffles are trouble!

[@martini1179]

It's even better for the United States today and worse for the world because we are basically considered both the biggest consumer and the biggest producer of oil, if you count the newly found shale oil fields. We're no longer 12th in the world in oil production, but second or first.

[@bafumat]

Our attack subs mostly fire Tomahawks and anti shipping missiles... they have some nukes but not many. They are mostly mobile underwater artillery. So they are within the rules.

[@wwhite2958]

Logistics is the strongest point of the us military. On top of the face the 82nd has an immediate response force 5000 top-tier grunts that can be anywhere on the planet in 18 hours or less

[@bobdam4478]

nuke subs are about the nuke reactor that powers the sub NOT what weapons they carry. The can use conventional warheads on those cruise missiles.

[@Vyperus69]

He needs to update this, for one there isnt any US military bases in Afghanistan anymore

[@williamevans6455]

I'm not afraid of losing chineese technology manufacturing due to most of that technology being developed by us and using china to build it cheaper. If it came down to us vs the world, i think the US would surprise everyone with how fast we could start manufacturing and supplying these technologies on our on property. We just don't do it now due to greed. Americans just don't work cheap. But we will if we need to do it to survive. Amercia was built on survival and that should never be underestimated. We will make crazy sacrifices when it comes right down to it.

[@D2jspOFFICIAL]

ok cowboy

[@jimmybobsap8729]

@12:00 we don't need alerts of troop movement, we can see every troop movement down to meters from satellites

[@CabVideoz]

Not to mention, I wonder how communication between a whole European military would go initially. Like how do you make sure every nation feels like they're not being put out to die over others? "Why are so many Italians casualties but not French or Brits?" or "Why doesn't Germany up its commitment a bit more?" are akin to arguments they already have economically IRL.

[@MultiAnime4U]

Nuclear attack subs are basically just subs that are powered by nuclear fission. Not necessarily that they use nuclear warheads as a weapon. These subs can stay at sea indefinitely and would only ever have to resurface to resupply food for it's crew.

[@johnathanhenley2251]

To respond to your final thoughts as a vet, I hope nothing like this ever happens. I have too many friends from countries of coalition partners to lose in a scenario like this. As a species, I think we are better than the need to use war and subjugation of violence to solve problems. My entire goal and end point is to find effective reconciliation to ensure that an enemy doesn't have to remain an enemy so long as a common path forward that doesn't cause harm is achieved is reached, agreed upon, and held to.

[@johnirby8847]

Nuclear attack subs are nuclear powered! They don't only fire nukes and can be used...they don't need refueling is the nuclear naming, not the ammo.

[@RepDeanPhilips]

Damn this is crazy. Got my mind going in all types of directions! It’s so crazy how the geographic position of the US is such a crazy advantage even before you start considering the tech and numbers and ability to move hardware and soldiers. Sure, the US military has struggled in certain conflicts like Vietnam or Afghanistan but that’s got a lot to do with bad PR and how they were kinda like fighting and finding a needle in a haystack. When it comes to defense strategy, naval battles, air superiority, defense systems, detection and just launching ICBM’s all over, the US is a CRAZY powerful beast. We have the entire planets waters filled w subs and carriers. Of all the military maybes videos, this is by far the most fun to think about.

[@salvalooez2249]

You think the entire world isn't going to be a problem, I think Russia cab take us,out ,add Mexico, china,all of South America, all middle east. All of Africa

[@lukaswesthoff1030]

Nope, you cant conquer europe

[@RepDeanPhilips]

@@lukaswesthoff1030 me? hell yea i can. your loss buddy, im in New Jersey rn but im about to start walking cross the atlantic in like a day or so

[@lukaswesthoff1030]

@@RepDeanPhilips 😂😂😂as long as you are not armed and in the army Welcome in Europe bro👍

[@millabasset1710]

Basically, a tarantula being devoured by a hoard of fire ants.

[@suzannelouisiana1025]

When they are talking about nuclear subs they mean nuclear powered like don't need fuel for years yeah they have nuclear war heads against the rules but they also have many many conventional weapons that are allowed in this war game

[@quentinboswell6720]

every single person I've seen react to this says that about the nuclear subs

[@mariejustme]

The philosophy, “If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch”, sums it up fairly succinctly. Although, “Sometimes it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie”, would work just as well. 😁

[@mchavezjr661]

We can build what ever we want

[@mrpucket5736]

They also know that using nuke would mean nuclear retaliation. So not sure it true that they would use nukes . But a very dangerous situation.

[@daniel4647]

This seems like a massive over simplification that is just a comparison of hardware while working under the assumption that all the US plans would just work with little to no resistance. Like he assumes that Europe wouldn't scramble to defend the middle East. Like they wouldn't be able to coordinate. Seem like this plan hinges on a lot of assumptions. But if the US was really trying to cut off everyone oil reserves, Europe, Russia, Asia, everyone would descend upon the middle east to protect their assets there. And lets not forget that the all mighty US army couldn't even kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan. So if they were to face the entire world I highly doubt things would work out like this. Because this sounds a lot like when they said Russia would take Ukraine in few weeks. And a lot of US assets are outside of the US, if the US went against the world, Five Eyes, a lot of their targeting capabilities, and probably other classified stuff would go out the window. And there is of course also what you mentioned, there is no way we'd just leave the US alone, we would find ways to strike at their home. The US is full of foreign nationals, not to mention that it's at the brink of war between it's own people already. So if the US actually tried this they would feel it at home, they wouldn't be safe. So it's highly unlikely they'd get much support in their own population for such a war, and that's going to lead to demoralized troops and lots of domestic opposition. So I don't think the US's chances of winning this is anywhere near as high as he estimates. Besides, like you said, if this were to actually happen, then people would definitely start launching nukes, so this would just be the end of the world, guaranteed. And he didn't even mention bio weapons or anything which would also most likely be deployed. So yeah, definitely end of the world scenario right here.

[@BozesanVlad]

in Yugoslavia and all other wars, US army kill itself In case of global conflict, US will burn US itself to the ground

[@chadbushell]

All the world's major powers watching this video and taking notes 😢

[@Leogoth68]

Sneaking something in? The Sum of all Fears comes to mind. If you haven't seen this movie I'd love to see a reaction to it. Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears. Staring Ben Afflack and Morgan Freeman.

[@TheKrispyfort]

OK Straya - time to ready the Emus and the Cassowaries, as the crocs and irukanji are already in position

[@georgiaann4402]

Russia has said that nuclear weapons were not off the table with their invasion of Ukraine. They've already threatened to declare war with the US. No matter the military capability, nuclear weapons can level the playing field.

[@NXS1FY]

I can almost guarantee if Russia uses Nukes they will regret it big time.That would pretty much start a nuclear war and the US along with it's allies will end up decimating Russia.

[@marshmelo15]

you do know u.s has the most nukes right. we also have the better tech to take nukes down

[@PhuckYT12]

@@marshmelo15 In terms of self-reported numbers and those from international inspectors (Before inspections were called off) Russia has at least 15% more nuclear devices than the United States, also in a higher average megaton yield.

[@Jadebones]

​@@marshmelo15 I hope that "tech" is automatic, because it's gonna take Biden 3 days just to answer the phone. On top of that, is he even CAPABLE of understanding that situation when it happens?

[@Pietervandebuurt]

@@marshmelo15 Sorry to wake you up, but Russia has more nukes then the USA

[@sbccmichaelkelly]

I just learned where Spain is a little better. I have travelled across places in Spain, I just didnt know where we were.

[@Seacub42]

Also nuke power submarine is the engine, not the missile capability. A nuke engine runs significantly quieter and allows for much longer deployments allowing for a true blue water capability. Some subs carry nukes but that's a different thing

[@PhuckYT12]

I wouldn't be worried about Russia outside of nuclear armament. They went from projected second strongest in the world, to the second strongest in Ukraine, to possibly the second strongest in Russia itself 😂😂

[@Rocco1332]

Wagner just attacked and seized a military headquarters in Russia, so we are about to see if Russia is 2nd in Russia or not 😂

[@PhuckYT12]

@@Rocco1332 🎶🎶I'm so excited 🎶🎶 🎶🎶and i just can't hide it 🎶🎶

[@fishtailfuture]

I'm sure you caught it later, but by "nuke sub" they are talking about nuke powered. Although they also carry Nuke armaments. but not to be used in this situation. They would be swapped out for conventional weapons.

[@Walter_Sobchak_43]

I love Mr. loyd, and I know that he is an Army vet. But it still shocks me how much Army soldiers like Mr. lloyd dont study geopolitics and warfare. This man doesnt understand how much he was a cog in a gear, in a machine, that was part of a system of machines. Edit: that sounds rude, I know...Id argue all night with my Vietnam Vet dad about geopolitics. 🤷🏽‍♂️❤

[@RepDeanPhilips]

It feels…a little wrong thinking about this lol but I’m not gonna lie, the fantasy of how this could go down definitely does get my blood pumping! It’s like this psychological effect of “why have toys if you can use them?” kicks in a bit lol

[@sdd2147]

that's scary and very sad.It's like saying I have this power, and gonna use it and I don't care what will happen to you.Kind of evil.Hope americans don't have this heartless mindset of yours.

[@RepDeanPhilips]

@@sdd2147 face your shadow self, brother. Only way to not act out dark things is to own the impulse

[@ciaspecialactivitiesdivisi5867]

We’d be fighting our own tech so we’d have to figure out how to bring them down first

[@svgs650r]

🤣

[@xebec1958]

That is a lot of C02 released into the atmosphere and they are worried about cow farts?

[@gavinwilson2071]

I think this is not even close to how it would play out and I'm fairly sure the US lose. Pretty sure the UK wasn't mentioned and we already nuked America twice working under their rules on our Jack Jones. US is so funny.

[@svgs650r]

Yeah somebody would break those rules… for as long as it takes to identify a launch and then a couple minutes later they’d cease to exist

[@TheIRISHkop]

This video is wrong on a lot of its info or purposely doesn't include it like the fact that china, russia and india have all successfully tested anti-satellite weapons as well not just the US, The low combat readiness rates of US aircraft and ships and the fact that US stockpiles and logistics for specific weapons systems are not even capable of keeping up with the rate at which Ukraine is using them never mind a global war. This video is more "merica" hype than in-depth strategic analysis.

[@PhuckYT12]

Yeah, Binkov has a much more accurate in depth analysis. Shell starvation would hit America within two months.

[@Mighty_D.I.K.]

A bit of a skeptical with what this guy is saying. Only because I have see multiple reports, from several different sources. Saying we are not capable of being able to deal with China. Also there have been multiple generals and admirals with in our military saying we are low on key munitions because of the war in Ukraine.

[@katiegwynn4495]

Yup rules will be broken cuz it's war, and at that point, you need a commander who can respond quickly and accurately, taking all potentials into account. And that leaves us ...screwed

[@RetroGamerBB]

We'd definitely have to invest in alternative energy for cars and tanks if they cut all the oil out.

[@99bajakid]

why?

[@terryglenn61]

Nuclear powered subs doesn’t mean it is carring nuclear weapons.

[@wwhite2958]

We shot down a satellite with an f15 in the 1980s.

[@hplovecraftscat2255]

In war, respect is the last thing on your mind and should not even be a concern lol.

[@kingmasterlord]

before I even watch this video I know that the American military has a policy called "maintain overmatch" so this is just for the reactions.

[@RagnarokLoW]

the problem with this scenario is that it doesnt take into consideration how stretched the resources of the US would be. the US couldnt keep proper control of Iraq with 130k soldiers. You think they could do any better in a country that's 23x larger like Canada where there's a large percentage of the population with hunting rifles? It wouldnt be like Afghanistan either. The IEDs wouldnt blow just in Canada, it would be fairly trivial for resistance members to attack american assets on the other side of the border.

[@ethanbrinkman3401]

In this scenario, American citizens would mobilize like ww2. Our hunters out number Canada's by far. Plus we don't just own hunting rifles. The American citizens who have guns, could hold the homeland while the rest of the world is starved out.

[@ethanbrinkman3401]

Also, rules of engagement handicapped us forces in the middle east. This would be no holds barred (except nukes).

[@VitalizedG]

France will not give us a problem 😂😂

[@KurNorock]

In all honesty, taking China out would hurt us in the short term, but would benefit us GREATLY in the long run. The US absolutely NEEDS to stop being reliant on Chinese goods and middle eastern oil.

[@caligo7918]

Germany has a hand full of hydrogen powered submarines which are very, very silent. In the current situation, there is no need for more of those, but the size would make them a great target for mass production to secure shipping routes in case of emergency.

[@mythoughts5615]

The rules are no nuclear weapons. The subs although capable of using nuclear weapons, the reference in this video is nuclear powered Russia and China are a regional power. Their ability to project power is limited however the US reach is definitely global. The ability of the US to deploy anywhere in the world so quickly is second to none

[@dwaynecarswell41]

nuclear attacks subs don't have to have nuclear weapons. They are just powered by by nuclear power

[@user-ye4ft2fl5w]

We are essentially Georgia in college football as a Country Superpower. There are upsets in football (especially in college) and there have been upsets in previous wars. However, one on one Country vs Country we are pretty much superior in almost every category. Unbeatable? No, hell even Tom Brady had a few off days, and they claimed Titanic was 'Unsinkable'. That being said, we are pretty damnn close to unbeatable as it gets. Whoever the Country is thinking about going toe to toe with us.....they are essentially testing fate. They are essentially poking the bear...they are pulling on Superman's cape. Just don't do it!😂 It just wouldn't end well for them.

[@Pietervandebuurt]

They couldn't even win against the Taliban, so i dont think this scenario is in the US there favor. Guerilla warfare would become a big thing in certain countries, and for that the US would need to station troops in those countries, which cannot be used somewhere else. The rule about not using nuclear weapons would be off the table anyway, cause in such a scenario, for sure the USA would use tactical nukes, and so will other nations by then. The US fleet is massive and technological advanced, but it would not have any ports to dock at for long, cause they would become easy targets and could basically be shot at from almost anywhere in the world except there home ports. My conclusion with this video is that the guy who made this video (who is probably an American himself), underestimates the rest of the worlds combined power, and leaves out so many factors that would play a huge role, he is clearly an pro-American person.

[@iammyriad71]

Sweden showed the US that your supercarriers can be sunk!!! UK Astute boats would cause you major headaches. Infiltration by SF's would hurt you as well. P.S. you forgot the North Sea Oil fields.

[@Sophie.S..]

This video seems to ignore Europe completely...

[@Sephiroso.]

@@Sophie.S.. Because they would be taken out immediately effectively.

[@Sophie.S..]

@@Sephiroso. You underestimate Europe.

[@iammyriad71]

@Sephiroso. How? I think even the US military isn't that sure of that!

[@Sephiroso.]

@@Sophie.S.. No i don't. The entire world recognizes the US as the strongest military power for a reason. There's a reason the US gets away with being as cocky and brazen as they are with their movements around the world. Because they have the power to do so. The only thing that gives a country the ability to expand their influence on a global scale is power. Military strength. If you lack that, best believe a country will be stopped in their tracks. This is proven by history and modern times.

[@cripplious]

Russia is the only nation who has Nukes as offensive weapons while the rest the world see nukes as defensive/end of the world

[@tonshimountain652]

The situation in the Ukraine has proven that Russia is a military mess. The only thing they have is bombs and those are no joke.

[@BloodTithingsGaming]

Lets just hope us Americans don't become drunk with power. Oh, wait......

[@dominushydra]

The U.S. Navy is so OP it's 😮

[@erikhopkins9548]

This video doesn't take into account that the US has a new laser system that can shoot down anything and we would have them ready in a situation like this

[@lukaswesthoff1030]

Europe too

[@dustinbridges6831]

We could beat the world in a week if we didn’t hold back.

[@lukaswesthoff1030]

Joke😂😂😂

[@lukaswesthoff1030]

Europe over everything

[@jeannettesilva4242]

(1) We don't Need the oil.

[@charminbaer2323]

Super Power means being able to project power overseas. Neither China nor Russia have the capability to project their armies to another country via sea or air, only thru land. A land invasion of the US by China, Russia, or any other country is basically impossible. Canada and Mexico's armies would get handled by the state's National Guard, Reserves and Coast Guard alone, no need to use the active duty military for that.

[@mrpucket5736]

Nuclear subs don’t necessarily use nuclear weapons.

[@nayr_murdoc5366]

Can anyone explain I thought nuclear subs just ran on nuclear power. Do they also contain warheads or is it a case of some do some dont

[@charminbaer2323]

Also, we wouldn't need to occupy most of if any of these countries. Just our Air and Naval forces alone could cripple the world.

[@christopherbenwell873]

He better not have said France will give us a problem I hope I missheard

[@CabVideoz]

The West Pacific part is important if Chinese equipment goes to Canada and Mexico, even Cuba somehow. Their land equipment could help stymie US efforts in this wargame if placed on the borders or even in larger South American countries' hands like Brazil, Venezuela or Argentina. Not to mention just giving massive military equipment to drug cartels and saying go to town.

[@curtisthomas2670]

When you consider that just North Korea alone has enough missiIes to overwhelm the US defense system

[@charminbaer2323]

no they don't lol.

[@curtisthomas2670]

Wow, insightful and indepth rebuttal

[@myonen4402]

We specifically don't have the manpower to occupy even the us much less the most populous nations in the world iirc it's 20 troops per 1000 civilians under light resistance. However we could likely knock out most other nations conventional military

[@RyanRichardsToby]

Nonononono... USAF F15's and F16's and USN F18's are not to be fucked with. Having said that, the 22's and 35's are overkill, but overkill is necessary in decades to come.

[@dawatcherz]

don't forget canada is common wealth. as the uk goes so goes canada, no matter the canada/usa relations.

[@ReactsRiot]

Exactly people don’t understand this

[@Sephiroso.]

@@ReactsRiot Canada has 0 chance at harming the US in any meaningful way which is why they aren't even a factor.

[@ReactsRiot]

@@Sephiroso. canada literally has the best special forces operation units in the world

[@Sephiroso.]

@@ReactsRiot Okay? You know what beats special forces operation units? Fighter jets with tons of detonation power to destroy vital supply lines and infrastructure that would disrupt deployment of said special forces.

[@ewetubin1]

Why would those countries ACTUALLY have conditions such that they would be taken out by US in a war. I think not. There are details left out here. The US has agreements with Canada but nothing that allows them to take over within our country at any time. They do not have their own bases filled with US army. There are bases borrowed for training purposes for Canadian and US soldiers. And Vise Versa in the US.

[@seancurrell6012]

nuclear weapons, 'someone is sending one over' if thats the case, it also has to land.... no one in the world has a missile US fighters cant knock down or catch in flight.. the technology gap is really that huge.... submarines are usable, they are nuclear powered attack subs not strickly nuclear missile launching subs, they car and can fire many tomahawks that are non nuclear....

[@Blaque_Frost]

This video didn't even touch on US offensive cyber capabilities.

[@KurNorock]

Unfortunately, this isn't really where your taxes go. The US does spend a lot on the military, and rightfully so, but that is only roughly 14% of the annual budget. The vast majority of your tax dollars go to failing entitlement programs like Social security, medicare, welfare, public housing, the education system, etc..

[@Tcheera]

I think even if it were realistic that no one would use nukes (don't think it is but okay I'll suspend disbelief) -- I think there are a few ways that the US could still lose this war even with its firepower: 1. Communications -- we don't have the best comm tech in the world. Isn't that with some of our new NATO allies? So I think we could end up at a disadvantage there that we don't realize. 2. he said no nukes but he said nothing about chemical / bio warfare, and if we went up against the world i think it would be hard to keep track of everyone coming in from everywhere crossing Canada, mexico, ports, etc. We could end up like 12 Monkeys. 3. And then this could proceed in many ways but I think the biggest risk to the US would be other Americans or people already here. I mean cannot imagine everyone would be on board -- can't imagine all military would be on board, but even if he could argue they were somehow -- don't see it but okay?? Then how do we protect against 330 Americans who aren't going to be all on board with it nearly all who are going to have some connection to other countries or a vested interest in us not being in this war? This could range anywhere from hacking, to attacking our own power or telecomms, to I dunno you name it. Anyway the biggest threat to the US would be probably whatever was already in the US once we saw our own government doing this. We let a lot slide here, but I don't think anyone is gonna stand for us unilaterally starting WWIII. And Americans can be lazy but heck, as soon as their tik toks (one point of attack lol), or internet, or whatever gets locked out, there will be pandemonium. But in all sincerity the US has gotten more and more divided about getting involved in conflicts let alone wars. Just don't see it happening. So the US would become very insecure.

[@davidepps1640]

Buddy we have nuclear powered subs that launched non-nuclear missiles called Tomahawk cruise missiles and other variants of the cruise missile that have large warheads and do devastating damage and the Subs carry a shitload of them so yes Subs and even if they were the nuclear subs that carry nukes them one still have Torpedoes and a good amount of them which means as long as there's no nukes being used they could still be used to sync everybody's ships or Subs so that way the United States is the only ones with boats in the water or Subs

[@MrGrislyTooth]

Oil is Americans crack, we don’t care what the situation is. We’re coming to grab a great big handful.

[@nathanlucas5207]

Bro, starts off with France would give us a problem. You good?

[@CarlosLopez-hr6do]

Sounds good but there are a some variables unaccounted for and it wouldn't be that easy. Things like secret technological developments and weaponry that we don't know should be weighed in. Also resistance of the native population should be accounted for. A war of that magnitude needs a big number of soldiers because of how spreader your forces will be and the number of casualties we will suffer. That means that conscription will have to be activated and people here in the U.S. will oppose and this will in turn will create internal struggles inside the country. Troops don't run with oil so you have also to account for food. Our defenses are good but not perfect and certainly not unbeatable. Someone in time will crack them down. Don't forget about spies. If we were up against the world the losses will be far greater that what can be gained. It will be a very very long war (in a no nukes scenario) and if we win we'll be left in a vulnerable position and a devastated economy. It's a loose - loose scenario and far more complex and complicated that what the video explains.

[@truthsearcher6450]

Hypersonic missiles would take out any ship transporting soldiers from the U.S. to fight abroad. There is no defence against these missiles yet.

[@archbound6224]

They are easily shot down with current THAAD systems, it has already happened in the Russia Ukraine conflict several times.

[@truthsearcher6450]

@@archbound6224 Are you serious? Ukraine shot down a Mach 10 Kinzhal missile. Dream on. Even the Pentagon admits they have no defense for these missiles yet.

[@googleplussuckssucksbigone4667]

Who? Who sends the nuke? As soon as they send, we send, and we have 1000's of modern nukes ready to go with the best delivery systems. So no, no one is sending nukes.

[@sonar357]

Short version: America is OP. USA! USA! USA!

[@yarsivad000.5]

China and Russia have ant-satellite capabilities too.