one major MAJOR thing to remember, the US is currently restrained by The Geneva Convention, where we basically play the good guy all the time. we are told to stand down far more than we are allowed to fight. if "the gloves are off" we will be unconstrained and will be able to fight literally for survival. nobody has weapons as advanced as the US currently, regardless of claims. i worked in Space Command with Lockheed Martin to design and train the current missile defense system. it's incredibly advanced, since the program has been going on since the 1990s. basically zero nukes would make the mainland. the US population is around 330 million. but we have 350+ million guns in civilian hands. that is a massive massive militia. and a large amount of that population is ex-military, retired cops, and people who hunt for both sport and food. we have the best trained civilian population in the world. retired/disabled USAF vet, 9-11 era (space command). the F15 eagle is getting a re-vamp for more modern hardware to be used as a joint strike fighter along with the already proven f35. the f22 raptor has yet to be unleashed in any combat role because we havent really had anything hard enough to need it's insane capabilities (the chinese balloon didnt count haha). the ancient b52 stratofortress bomber is STILL going strong, getting new upgrades as of this writing, and can drop upwards of 70,000 pounds of munitions in a single run, and has enough fuel to fly over the atlantic, bomb, and fly back without needing refueling. from the air, nothing touches the US, even if we dont use nuclear options. CYBER: amazon handles 70% of the entire internet traffic around the world. they would simply shut it off outside of the US, rendering most of the rest of the world with almost zero internet-based communications, while our own nationwide comm, and satellite networks, would still be running just fine. (25 year IT expert with 2 degrees, including bach in admin and bach in satellite comm engineering) FOOD: the US grows the majority of all grains for the rest of the world. we are the largest exporter of pork to japan, just from a single company. we have more weapons developers than the rest of the world combined, including companies that dont sound very military, like Boeing (space rockets and passenger planes) and GE (jet engines and microwave ovens). even companies like Singer (sewing machines) have a history of producing precision weapons for the military. Ford, Chevrolet, and the defunct company Willys produced the Jeep and other military vehicles an-masse at the drop of a hat. the US is the only country in recorded history to fight a war on both fronts, the east and the west, and win. and, like with ww2, recruitment would skyrocket for people wanting to defend our homeland from attack, and our population is BIG. 330+ million people, with a large portion of that, male and female, capable of both mechanical AND front line combat. we are a country born of war. and we have been at war almost 90% of our entire existence. we're kinda good at it. much love from an ancestorial german american who was, thankfully, stationed in germany for several years!
Wow! Nice dude for your information. Sure it took some of your valuable time. Wrote a book! That was a very good opinion based on obvious experience in a easy to comprehend manner.
Also, the US military has an official doctrine of being able to wage a full-blown war on two fronts simultaneously. It is the only country to be able to do that
Remember WWI and WWII? The US military had to fight thousands of miles from home. As a result, we learned and got better at it. The thinking is, that the best way to stop global conflict is by not letting them begin. Overseas bases reduces the response time for threats.
@@finnleary477Are you referring to Operation Linebacker or the Christmas Bombing? Cuz those didn't go well for North Vietnam. Or are you trying to refer to when over 2 years after the peace agreement was signed between North and South Vietnam and after the US had pulled troops out of the region, when North Vietnam had time to rebuild forces, they went into South Vietnam and took Saigon?
@@Mark-cf1rw I, too, am sick to death hearing people tell me how we "lost" the war in Vietnam. Did nobody ever bother to check their facts. It seems like the whole world believes a lie and the few people who know the facts, because they studied the "police action," are labeled fools. Americans have been betrayed by politically motivated history re-writers. Heck, all the facts are still there for anyone to see. All the newspaper articles of the era are still available, all the Walter Cronkite news segments, all the magazine articles. The real story is right there for all to see, and nobody even looks. So we "lost" the war in Vietnam.
The US doesnt need anything from outside. They produce more military arms than anyone in the world. The US is also is lucky that they can produce everyhing they need in the USA id they really needed to in a war. So this video is pretty accurate. Lets hope it never happens.
Desert Storm was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The strongest air force in the world is the US Air Force. The second strongest air force in the world is the US Navy.
Before the current war in Ukraine, Desert Storm was the last "major" war. To make a long story short. US led coalition dismantled Iraqi Air defenses (believed to be the 2nd or 3rd best in the world at this time.) Then blitzed towards Bagdad. The ground invasion only lasted 3 days before surrender. It was known as both the most complex air operation ever, and the last large tank battle. (Again, before the current state of affairs.) Highly recommend checking it out. It's basically the last time America flexed.
At the time the Iraqi army was the fourth largest in the world. The war effectively was over in a handful of days, but realistically in hours. The Iraqi air force managed to get a few birds into the sky that were all about down without a single US loss. The tank war lasted an afternoon or three and the US lost a single light troop carrier that basically drove right up to a tank in the smoke and I think 3 or 4 troops were in it. The soldiers were surrendering to cameramen and reporters, got their bottle of water and taken to the rear with little resistance. I think there were a dozen Marines lost taking a camp of some sorts and a few rocket attacks in the closing parts of the war that got handfuls of army members. It was the first time a connected battlefield was stress tested in the real world and the opening salvo effectively had the power grid down in minutes. It was an absolute spanking that pretty much showed the world the logistical might and technological difference between the previous generation of tech vs. the latest generation. I'm recalling from being 5 at the time or so and a few things I've heard since then, so be gentle of I'm way off. I was busy putting up yellow ribbons for reasons I didn't fully comprehend at the time and there was an air of apprehension at the time as we had an army base nearby where many families worked and the feeling was we were expecting coffins with flags soon. Not sure if a single one ever showed up. Even the military community seemed pretty shocked at the degree of one sidedness of the conflict. Or, so it felt as a child.
The Great Depression ended in 1939. The nation was crippled. Entering WWII meant we needed weapons and equipment fast. The need for workers was immense and that created millions of jobs. This sparked our economy to where we are now. In this scenario, yes we would lose exporting but we would create different jobs so it wouldn't effect GDP much. There is a law in the US that, during war time, the government can force companies to stop their business and start using their infrastructure to manufacture weapons/supplies. It was used during covid to manufacture health equipment and supplies.
Could you imagine the supply depots that places like Walmart would be transformed into by the U.S. military? They could close a quarter of the stores nationwide and still support the U.S. population while simultaneously running supply lines for the U.S. military. It would also be crazy to see how quick supplies are moved between the massive cargo train routes and the interstate system.
I would have to disagree with your conclusions. Being that I am retired U.S. Air Force, having fought in the Iraqi War, and being stationed all around the world, I am very aware of what countries can offer goods, men, or money. The majority of the world would offer little to nothing, as they are too small to have many troops, monetarily poor, and no real weapons to contribute. That applies to FAR MORE countries that you think. The thing you miss is that, when offering troops, they may have to be moved to a new location. The U.S. would obviously be guarding/watching for such moves, and cut them off before they could even arrive. You cannot starve the U.S. out, and you cannot make it suffer much due to lack of oil, as we can produce our own in-country. The U.S. strategy would be quite simple (but not easy). Cut off ALL oil routes first. Then, if needed, cut off all food/cargo routes. This will quickly eliminate many countries. Not selling goods to the U.S. would hurt only for a little while, until we, just as you say Russia has done, adapt, and use or make new stuff. Let's just hope it stays "hypothetical", since whether the U.S. would win or not, we would all lose!
Agreed. The US industrial might is currently a shadow of its former self because of economic and political reasons that would no longer be an issue in this doom scenario. I'm thinking of WW2 type of mobilization, but i don't really know what a modern global war would look like. Yikes!
Yes, let's put this in perspective: most of the world lacks significant sealift capabilities, as well as naval vessels designed to operate far from home. For our channel host, let's look at the mainstay of the German Navy: the Brandenburg class frigate. It has a range of 7,400km, and the distance from Germany to the US is 7,800 km. Not only can they not reach the US, even if they somehow managed to get here, they'd have no fuel to attack nor to return home with. This is more the rule in the world's navies, than the exception. Most cannot operate away from their home.
I've had a theory that everyone in charge of our military decided to buy civilian oil from someone else and military oil is farmed here. Meaning we aren't using as much of our own oil as everyone else is. Dont have evidence but just seems like the right thing to do
In the video the guy says the US can be self sufficient for years. The US shrinking GDP would be irrelevant at first. The world's GDP shrinking would be felt immediately. Especially with no oil
The US is an anomaly among nations in that very little of the GDP comes from trade- historically, around 10%. The worldwide average is around 40%, and Germany's is closer to 50%. I believe Chris is applying what he knows of his own country's economy, to another country where the same does not apply. This is one of the big reasons why the US dollar is the de facto currency of global trade: the US has much less incentive compared to other countries to manipulate the value of its currency to achieve beneficial trades.
I love it when people realize that most US oil doesn't come from the Middle East. The US made the move to not port oil from the Middle East in the 70s when they tried to hold oil hostage. After that event, the US has mainly gotten its oil from Canada or Mexico. Now, the US is going to start getting its oil from Guyana. And yes, the US has been in the Middle East because of oil, but not for the reasons people think. the reason why The US is mainly in the Middle East is to stabilize oil globally since Europe is still fairly dependent on Middle Eastern oil (not so much now as it was 20 years ago).
The US imports ~2% of their oil from Iraq (down from 5% in 2003). The majority of Iraqi oil goes to China, India and the EU. The Americans didn't commandeer the oil fields but protected them so the new government could sell on an open market
@@kramermccabe8601bingo. i know bush is a piece of shit for allowing rhe invasion of iraq, but i mean you gotta understand after 9/11 we americans were filled with rage and all it took to go to iraq which yes had aided terrorists before, is bc a high level politician told bush it was a great idea and it wouldnt fail and bush was so mad at 9/11 he allowed the invasion. but afghanistan is the place we had a right to be, considering the taliban are terrorists and they let osama bin laden stay there for a while after 9/11 and alot of his terror fighters stayed in afghanistan to fight us. we killed 49,000 enemy combatants. thats only people with guns shooting st us or pointing the gun at us, now civillian deaths were bad but i mean how do uou fight a clean war? we didnt mean to hurt women n children and innocent people. i wish we could evacuate all civillians out of countries that are at war and let the two militaries go fight there without civs everywhere.
@@kramermccabe8601 Then, you have to dig further and see WHY that oil is being imported. The US has more refining capability than any other country (although Russia has been closing that gap), able to refine 1.5x what the US uses. The US produces enough oil to cover domestic needs, but imports additional crude in order to refine it and re-export the finished products to the global market.
Always laugh at the "drill baby drill" morons... We have lots of oil, pay much less than most other nations.. and people whine about the cost. These populist peons do not realize that the USA, in the long run, is in a much better position to be the "last one standing" because much of our reserves is high grade and we will be able to produce jet fuel and other much needed products when other locations have been tapped out.. I hope those simpletons don't realize their freakish dream.. it would end in a nightmare.. Be Well!! 😃
The current mandate for the US military is to be able to fight and win 2.5 theater wars simulataiously. That doctrine was increased from 2 a few years ago. In WWII the US fought 2 full on theater wars in Europe and Asia simulataiously.
Today it's more realistically 1.5 major fronts. Despite military spending being huge it really hasn't kept pace with inflation. Otherwise we would be around 3 trillion per year.
That fighter jet at about 9:50 is a F-22 Raptor stealth fighter….what you see coming from its top surfaces is water vapor….caused by a drop in atmospheric pressure on those surfaces due to its shape during certain maneuvers…..it’s basically creating clouds as would be the case anytime there is a low pressure zone!
Look up the number of ships, tanks and planes the US had before WWII and after WWII. During war, the American factories are converted to war factories. During the three years the US was in WW2, the US built over 5,500 naval ships. The US supplied the allies, including Russia. In the three years following the Battle of Midway, the Japanese built six aircraft carriers. The U.S. built 17. American industry provided almost two-thirds of all the Allied military equipment produced during the war: 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery pieces, 86,000 tanks and two million army trucks.
The US built well over a hundred aircraft carriers when including light carriers and escort carriers. Look at the Taffy units in the battle of Leyte Gulf, they had over 500 planes onboard the tiny escort carriers. A perfect example of escort carrier firepower. The light carriers were half the size of fleet carrires but still carried a huge force of planes by operating in large groups like the escort carriers.
The US economy doesn't depend upon exports. Notice they didn't mention US soldiers fighting they wouldn't have to. GDP would be driven by weapons production as in WW2. The other countries don't have the ability to work together, the communication channels don't exist. No one else has the transport to move troops or weapons. Basically, the US starves the world of oil and one by one countries would collapse.
The vast majority of the world does not have the capability to move that large amount of goods, food, or troops over water and the few countries that do have it would be to busy fighting for their lives against the US Navy to act as global Uber. It doesn’t matter if India has almost 2 Billion soldiers if those soldiers drown at sea because a Wolfpack of 4 US submarines sank their convoy of ships en route to reinforce the Middle East.
The problem with American's gdp going down as you said like Russia is quite different. America can suply its own oil, food, metal, coal, and many other necessary things without trade. The problem is manufacturering. But WW2 showed the Americans can deal with that.
Largest Air Forces in the world 1: US Air Force 2: US Army 3: Russian Federation 4: US Navy 5: PLA Air Force (China) 6: Indian Air Force 7: US Marine Corps US Military: ≈13,300 The next 5 countries combined: 13,025
The USA is modern Rome. We can project power in a way that no other country has ever conceived. A single aircraft carrier group has a larger Air Force than 90% of the world and we have 11 of them.
@@xv6701 We have 11 aircraft carriers, but only about 5 air strike groups. The reason is because of ship maintenance. At any one time, 6 aircraft carriers are docked for retrofit and crew training. Every 6 months, they basically put 2 of the ones on patrol in dry dock, and then 2 that were in dry dock go back out on patrol. They move the planes from the one that went into drydock onto the new one that's going out on patrol. That way every carrier at sea has a full complement of planes and the dry dock doesn't have to stress itself with their weight. If we were at war on a massive scale, i'm most of the way certain all 11 would be out on patrol and would commandeer planes from the air force to fill them up. That way space could be made on airfields back at home for new planes to be manufactured. My uncle was a mechanic on a destroyer in the 80's and he talked about how it was cool to watch the transfer of planes.
I think another thing he also missed is most of the weapons other countries have are from the US and I wouldn't be surprised if they could turn them off if they wanted to.
I think you might be forgetting that many/most of the other nations would be struggling to trade amongst themselves-because the USA would have a stranglehold on most of the major shipping routes (that account for about 40-60% of global trade/export). Even if the USA navy couldn’t get complete control of the routes, the military presence would be so strong in those areas, that the likelihood of significant amounts of goods making it through, to everywhere in the world that would be needing it-is very slim. Which would knock most of the smaller nations out of the fight almost immediately.
I think the main weakness for the rest of the world would be in its navies. The US would certainly know that there could be no attack on it or its territories if the rest of the world had no fleets. The US is the only navy specifically designed to fight in long distance conflicts and dwarfs the capacities of all other navies combined. The nuclear sub fleet would almost certainly be tasked with taking out all non-US ports, naval bases and ship construction/repair centers. In theory, Eurasian forces could protect facilities in the Black Sea, Caspian & possibly the Adriatic, but the US would likely control or seal Mediterranean exits through Gibraltar and the Red Sea, so that might not be very useful. In the mean time, carrier & destroyer groups would concentrate on sinking or crippling all enemy military vessels on the water. US Air Force stealth bomber & fighter wings would certainly be concentrating on removing air fighting capabilities by targeting air bases and runways worldwide, weapons manufacturing facilities, and all known cyber warfare facilities. Non-US military and communication satellites would also start going dark pretty soon after the beginning of hostilities. The biggest ally the rest of the world might have would be the American people themselves, as we tend to be generally isolationist, and many have family and friends outside the country. However, the first attack on US assets or soil could send ripples of solidarity across the country, which has been traditionally bad for the aggressor.
The only countries with an ACTUAL blue water navy are the U.S.A., U.K. and Russia. China has a lot of ships, but they're not blue water capable. They're mostly for coastal patrol. Same goes for france, Germany, and Italy.
Yes, it would hurt GDP and some industries if everyone refused to trade with them. But the US /North American economy could sustain itself though. It’s not reliant on exports unlike a lot of countries like China. The US consumer & companies basically fuel its own economy. I don’t see a US vs the world at all. But US was very isolationist before WW1 &2 and was still a large economy even then. It would require moving manufacturing back into the US. Though that is somewhat happening now. Taiwan chips and infrastructure cyber attacks imo are the biggest concern.
200 million? Maybe that was the number 15 or 20 years ago. It's closer to 400 million now, and the number of gun owners has been increasing steadily for years.
USA has many hundred's of years of oil and gas for our selves and you folks over the pond I think it is not so understood. We could power us and Europe for 200 years plus....... god blessed the USA
Having served within CJSOTF in Afghanistan and having seen the capacitor foreign militaries, I’m skeptical of your final conclusion. Ultimately there would be no winners, regardless of who still stood at the end of that conflict.
I think you are overestimating the impact this would have on the US GDP. While foreign trade is an important part of the equation, it does not constitute the majority of the GDP. In such a scenario, the US could become completely self-sufficient for an extended period and instituting a wartime economy similar to WWII would be able to support such efforts.
And likewise, the rest of the world is not dependent on the US. Individual contries are, but they'd figure it out with some time. Problem for the rest of the world is that they ARE dependent on the middle east for oil. Thats why we'd cripple that first. What everyone, incudling the US is dependent on is Tiwan's chip manufacturing. Its doubtful the US could ramp up production within 2 years or so to meet increased demand from the war machine. However, thats why we started an effort to bring chip manufacturing here after Covid showed us this vunerability. We'll likely not be dependent on Tiwan in a 5-10 years. But as of now, the rest of the world still is, so we'd do the same as we do for oil, take control, or if we cant, destroy the $20B factories.
11:22 I think that he is referring to the fact that those countries do not have an established system to share info at the speeds and quality level needed for combined operations. An an example, one easy to overlook element of combined operations (2 or more militaries/countries working together) is deconfliction. Deconfliction is the ability to organize and identify friendly forces (so you do not accidentally shoot down an ally for example), route air traffic through air defenses (again so that they do not get shot down by "friendly" forces) route air traffic through air bases and other resources where you have physical limits on how many aircraft can use a facility at one time, etc., etc., etc. It can be a very complicated task, even when you have training, practice, and experience doing it together. These sorts of tasks are one example of why the US runs so many combined exercises with our allies worldwide, so the US and allied militaries get real practice working together.
One of the main strengths is our ability to transport and continually supply a large military force. Our manufacturing would be virtually untouchable, while we could cripple most countries manufacturing
#1) US has oil. The rest of the world, except for OPEC, does not. We have 10 aircraft carriers that are the same size as everyone else's carriers but then we have 11 Supercarriers on top. All we have to do is turn off the global oil tap. 2) How are you going to get armies TO America? Remember, there are two types of ships, submarines and targets. 3) Yes, the economy would take a hit, but there is almost nothing that can't be sourced in the US. 4) Even we don't know what the US has that is "classified".
This video obviously simplifies a lot of things but the GDP for the rest of the world would suffer as well in large part because of how powerful the U.S. Navy is. All large container ships would be vulnerable and would require a navy escort but that would also mean the U.S. could take advantage of that and destroy those military vessels. If we, the U.S., are fighting against the world, the first thing you would need to do is to test the strength of the alliance of all the countries involved. It's hard for one country to keep asking for more supplies but expect another country to risk their naval ships and soldiers lives if it doesn't feel like everyone is fairly contributing. All major shipping lane chokepoints and major seaports would have a constant U.S. Navy presence like an aircraft carrier strike group or a few destroyers that all we need to do is destroy a ship or two to block those areas off. Look what happened in the Suez Canal when a ship ran aground in 2021, it stopped all shipping. The submarines are the real threat as they are virtually invisible until the last second and have dozens of missiles. All they would need to do is get close to the coast and launch them and target power plants, major rail stations, oil pipelines and water supply plants. Now the world is struggling because they don't have power, fresh water or a way to transport large amounts of goods meaning food and supplies. This scenario should never happen but don't make the mistake and think the rest of the world's GDP wouldn't take a huge loss.
That is a recipe for disaster for the US. You're tying our hands back behind our backs by not using the most powerful navy in the world. Why would you let the world build up their military and economic strength. They have 20x more people than us and many more resources, you let them organize and we lose. You need to control and disable their supply lines and propetually keep them in defense mode. They cant come over here if they have no oil. They cant run their economies if they have no oil. We can produce our own, and secure Venezuela/Canada when we need more. We cant have Europe and Asia helping them out when we do.
5:02 There are no roads connecting Colombia (Northernmost country in South America) with Panama (the southernmost country in Central America). Additionally, that area is dense jungle, mountains, and swamps. This would require either cutting and building new roads, or sea lift around the gap.
I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but America can provide all necessities for our people without running out of food or water...we export a mass amount of food to other countries, including China who cannot feed it entire populace...and that is massive...we don't need to import even fuel
In 1948 the USA people could have taken over the entire world (easily). I think it is important that in all of human history to understand that we chose not to. We chose to help as best we could (sorry for any shit we may have caused along the way) Thus the reason we seam to be the global police .... trust me we don't want to and we really don't want to pay for it ..... world love .... out
Another thing to remember is that the US shares a lot of its military tech with its allies. Additionally, America contributes to almost every country's economy through foreign aid, which would immediately end. That would impact those economies. For example, the US spends more than 4% of its GDP on the military, while most others do not even spend 2%.
Don't kid your self my friend, even if you pushed us back to our borders,and the government surrenderd ,100,000,000 people here are well versed in weapons, and We the People, would never surrender, never!
Germany is actually considered the second largest military in Europe. France is the largest. Germany has 380 military aircraft. Believe me, you guys are nothing to sneeze at.
@ThisIsMyRealName Poland, quite frankly, I expected your country to be at the top of the list. You guys have been increasing your military equipment like crazy.
It seems we can not underestimate the resolve and energy that can be switched into a war effort. In WW2 my family had a dairy and another three relatives were running wheat, corn, cattle and or egg farms. The war allowed them to rapidly increase production. Also one relative worked in a California cosmetics company. Within a few months, the production had stopped and been retooled to make medical bags and package plasma or blood products for the world war effort. Small and large companies would turn on a dime to begin working for survival against a threat.
It's estimated that America could field civilian militia somewhere around 20,000, 000 with another 10,000,000 in reserve and support. Much of that would be commanded by American veterans, Vietnam, gulf wars, Iraq excetra.. Keeping in mind as well that our country has millions of pieces of heavy equipment, mothballed military equipment and private aircraft. Millions of pounds in explosives for mining and building. Any or all foreign military combined would fail, frankly no country in history kills or fights the way we do.
20:09 America doesn’t need to trade with anyone to sustain itself. It chooses to trade with allied countries, that helps both countries. But, The United States can stand on its own. Another thing that was lacking in this video, he talked about it a little, but these other countries don’t actually have the equipment to reach The United States.
The US military must be able to fight two wars at the same time. Fighting one in Europe and one in Asia would not be a big problem for the US. We fought the Germans and Japanese in World War Two.
2 main thing you have to realize, 1) the US has roughly 350 million population, with roughly 1.5 million troops total, but during WW2 we had a population of roughly 150 million people and 200 thousand troops at the start but in just 1 year we had Drafted or gotten volunteers of 12 million troops total so in today's standards we would be able to grow to between 50-100 million troops. 2) we are the largest military contractors and producers in the world, Raytheon, Sikorsky Helicopter, Newport News, Electric Boat, Lockheed Martin, just to name a few, and 90% of Europe receive military hardware from the US so once the US shoots down aircraft or destroyed tanks and other equipment how will they replace them, also the US is self sufficient in production of food and medical supplies, and actually supplies 30% of the world's food, so if we destroyed farming around the world people would starve and lose their will to fight! Scorch and burn so to speak. Plus we would go into full scale military production meaning civilian factories would produce military equipment, like car manufacturers producing tanks, APC's, and armor fighting vehicles, ammunition, and medical supplies. A lot of these things weren't touched on in the video so if you add in these extras the US not only ties the world but wins!! The GDP wouldn't drop as much as you think, because the US is designed different than most countries, each state maintains its own sovereignty meaning the US states would trade amongst themselves to keep up the GDP, think of it this way the US is one nation comprised of 50 smaller countries, when it comes to trade!
in my opinion the only reason the German war machine was stopped had to do with bad leadership and nothing to do with the ability of its people. I would say the same for Japan. fortunately, Germany Japan and America are all allies now and speaking for myself I find that very comforting. nukes really aren't an option for anyone. disputes will inevitably be fought with bullets and bombs in the end.
4:05 it's not that other countries can't contribute personnel. It's more that the size of the active army in the field is limited by the amount of supplies which can be provided, and the capacity of most nations to supply troops outside their own borders is extremely low. So if you have a limited number of troops that can be maintained in the field, it makes sense to have only the best-trained and best-equipped troops. In other words, the troops from the wealthiest countries with the best industry, which are the ones highlighted on the map.
F-15s are capable of shooting down satellites in space. We did test runs of it all the way back in the mid 80s, so you can bet we can do it easier now. In a global conflict like this is talking about, one of the first things we'd probably do is start taking out non-American satellites to cripple global communication and navigation. MOST Naval vessels these days require satellites for navigation. There is a very good chance that within a short period after the war started, the US Navy would be the only one capable of reliably navigating the seas.
The us is the largest arms exporter. The us has multiple climates currently there are many imports. If needed farming could be done in country it is just cheaper to import. They had “victory gardens” during the world wars. Also they opened and converted factories during those wars to create more weapons.
All our factories can be retooled quickly to produce weapons and ammo. During WWII the US produced 1000 tanks, 1000 planes, and supplied much of our partners with weapons, ammo, clothes, and food.
Never mind our insanely funded and equipped military, as HabitualLinecrosser once said, we have a bigger defense budget than God. Our public is so well armed, once inside the country it would be a field day for our citizens, especially in the South. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto once said "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Now a days it would be a black rifle sticking out every window.
I subscribed to you, because you seem to be an honest, intelligent young man who wants to continue learning, and I respect that. You understand more/less what the video is talking about, and you ask questions that is exactly what I want to ask. It's like your thinking what I'm thinking about the certain subject. Anyway, I enjoy watching your videos, and please continue what your doing, because before you know it, you'll have a channel with a million subscribers. (think positive)
The United States could actually produce almost everything needed within it's own borders. There are some exceptions with certain minerals, but very few. We are currently not producing at our full capacity because many items are cheaper to produce overseas...that doesn't mean it couldn't be done here.
I would say there are a few things that aren't mentioned that play key roles in an event like this. The first is the US uses the joint chiefs model for combat. We are the only military on the planet that does. Which is why US Generals and Admirals are always the coalition commanders. It allows all the branches of the armed services to coordinate and allocate resources together. We also embed operators within units that can call in assets like artillery and air power. So you might see an Army unit but there might be an air force or navy officer with them that can all in support. Another important thing to realize is the US navy is what secures the global trade routes. Which means we could close down the shipping lains fast. The US military also has the largest logistics and supply delivery system in the world. Lastly our troops are trained to act differently. Our troops are trained to be aggressive by default and every member is given the mission orders and breakdowns. So if an officer is killed the unit still knows what needs to be done and you just took off the limiter. Basically other militaries have officers that lead the troops. The US has officers that control the troops.
You mentioned the German submarine in exhibit in the US. Do you know that the second bigger Navy in the world, after the US Navy, are all the boats (and submarines) in US exhibits?
U.S. Military doctrine since World War 2 states that we must, by law, maintain military capabilities suitable for fighting a full scale war on at least two fronts. As it stands, we have enough Aircraft and Naval vessels to conduct full scale offensives, easily, and don't doubt that being attacked would inspire enlistments similar to the 250,000+ that signed up for service immediately following 9/11. While this evaluation is loosely based in fact, it is also not at all realistic. Full scale war on a global scale will likely result in near total devastation of all life on Earth. You should look up a video on U.S. military capabilities as of 2024. Think you'll be surprised at the scale.
I think the very first thing the US would do, once war looks likely, is take Canada, Mexico, and Central America. It wouldn’t take 48 hours to accomplish, and would lock our borders from South America to Russia. Then the games would really begin.
I think what we all need to remember is that the video was not really meant to prove that the US could win a war against the rest of the world, but it was trying to show just how strong the US is in all areas. We could all sit here and have the old argument of whose father can beat up who, but in the end, nothing would be solved. Thank you for your reaction, Chris.
14:35 correct, at the beginning of the video, he said a supper power had to be able to fight in more than one place, or front. Which is why America is the worlds super power. We can fight in multiple locations, at the same time, and! Effectively disrupt, dismantle, or completely take out the other side.
Context on how many guns America manufactures - about 10-12 million *per year*. For reference, the US military has only around 4-5 million guns. It's not unheard of for an individual here to have 10, 20, 30, even 50 guns.
Third video I've watched. Here, have a new sub. You've earned it. So, we have the F-22, or as Habitual Linecrosser calls it, "the scariest things with wings since the Cretaceous period." Nothing put in the air against us would survive long enough to see what killed it. At this point, our military is competing with itself.
You can't just throw people at an army, they will just get mowed down. You need fighters, and fighters need to be armed, trained, fed, clothed, housed, and transported. On top of that they want a monetary compensation or moral reason for their time. Building, maintaining, and effectively using a military is no easy task.
This scenario was scary. I hope this will never happen. Even though I am American and yes our military is a BEAST....a global war is absolutely terrifying.
To answer your question about subs - I work in an industry that supports the Naval sub program. They are considered the absolute top single priority in the US military program. Fast attack and missile subs play two separate crucial roles but let me just say this. Nobody knows where the subs operate, they cannot be tracked, and they can completely out of the blue launch attacks and disappear and are faster than anything that could chase them even if somehow they were located. They aren't going to be located however. I was told that the current classes being constructed are built around a 40 year service life before the next generation and, based on our intelligence they are built to still be undetectable with the projected innovation of other countries 40 years from now. Essentially we currently possess technologies (Top Secret) or will have retrofittable in prgoress technologies 40+ years advanced on any other country.
Writing this out before I watched the video and I'm surprised this video is so long. I know for a fact that America would win for a few major reasons. 1. America is very self-sufficient and would not be taken out by any kind of restriction on resources. America over produces food and we still have many massive oil basins to draw from (the Middle East just has cheaper oil), and we have stores of any other resource one could need. 2. America is very isolated and no country has the strategic naval or air assets to maintain a campaign on the U.S Mainland. I believe we are maintaining 11 full Aircraft carriers with their own naval battlegroups that can project power across the globe and strike anywhere within days. No navy comes close and because of that no navy is capable of making any kind of landfall or incursion onto US soil or even on our neighbors soil that have been feeling the full might of the US Army and National Guard. 3. America also dominates on the technological front with many of it's weapon systems being updated with computer tracking and other technical suites. Aswell as having a complement of 5th generation aircraft that pioneer and built upon the stealth technology developed in the 90's and been perfected for 40 years. The BIG thing is that the US does NOT need any outside resources and can sustain itself. And no country has the Naval capacity to come close to the mainland and even if they somehow did breakthrough the US navy, they would never be able to create a beachhead or secure a port to bring in their land assets due to the US land forces launching harpoon missiles or cruise missiles from military bases. The hardest thing for the US would be taking and holding every country that we conquer and flushing out dissidents. It could be done, but it would be exhausting and it would take forever. The greatest weakness of the American war machine is domestic support. That's how ever modern war with America ends, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. You just have to hide and fight until America decides it's not worth it and goes home or signs a peace treaty. Also one more thing. America does have a fraction of the population of the world, but in modern war and on a strategic scale. That doesn't really matter that much. It matters more about the military capabilities than anything else. One guy in an A-10 is gonna outmatch 100 guys with AK's any day, and you have to transport the guys with AKs and feed them and deal with the domestic outcry when your government loses 100 guys to one plane.
One thing wasn't considered on this scenario... how quickly countries would capitulate. Some may fight to the end, but many cannot afford to do that nor would they.
And the only force the US military and government are afraid of are the US citizens. Just in 2 states (Wisconsin, Minnesota) there are 10 million hunters. That's 10 million people that are proficient at killing things with guns. Literally the only people in the world keeping the government in line are the US citizens.
I respect your opinion in the end….it’s logical and plausible…however, the only flaw in it that sticks out to me is the variable of how willing would those waves after waves of personnel from the rest of the world that you spoke of be to take up arms against the US and actually carry out attacks. Let’s just hope that none of us ever has to find out any of this!
Just FYI, America is constantly upgrading and staying ahead of the enemy but one reason the US is an ally of Israel is they are VERY technologically advanced and have invented a lot of technology the world uses, including most computers, laptops, tablets and the internet itself.
After WW2 , 82 million people perished, that was 3 percent of the population of the time. That pretty much made the US the superpower .. The US established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 to oppose communism and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. The US also grew its military and political presence around the world to contain the spread of communism.
Well we always have our eye on Canada. They kicked our ass twice in the past. Furriners always ask why America has no public transportation system in place. Our military takes too much to enable both. A mistake always made is the US having only 11 or 12 Carriers. while this is true for Super Carriers, it does not include the jump jet and helicopter carriers assigned for the Marines use. Just because they may be called _amphibious_ ships does not mean they aren't aircraft carriers. 14:33 In most cases the needed forces are already _there_ Our navy is around the world. Our Army and Air forces are also Around the world...IE Germany.
The refineries in US refine a huge portion of the world's oil. Middle East can produce all the oil they want, but a lot of good it will do if only a portion of it can be refined.
if someone tried to invade the USA by land , not only would they be fighting the military, but remember the majority of citizens own weapons and thats how we gained our freedom from Britain originally
We fought a multi-front war in WW2. There was the European theater, the Pacific theater, the African front, the Arabian front, and a couple others....so yeah, we have troops and gear to do that.
The latest airborne in the world is the US Air Force; the second largest air force in the world is the US Navy. And I think the US Navy fleet of museum ships is in the top ten or fifteen, with the largest navy being, you guessed it, the US Navy.
Another thing, the U.S. exports our military, weapons and training to EU countries and other allies. This would stop immediately in a U.S. vs. the world scenario. We mostly import "wants" for cheaper manufacturing. But we export many things other nations need. The U.S. can switch to domestic manufacturing and production for every need.
At 9:45 you're asking about the air moving over the wing. As the airplane moves through the air, it becomes compressed. Under certain conditions, that compressed air, may cause moisture to become viable.
The first 6 months would primarily be kinetic warfare. The next 10 years would be watching the rest of the world population shrink from mass starvation. Amateurs talk about tactics. Professionals talk logistics. America provides literally half of the worlds food (if not half then nearly half). The only country thats even close would be the netherlands at about 20% ironically.
Love the videos Chris but ya gotta watch more military equipment videos and fat electrician videos lol. You'll see the real machines and why they dominate the field
The US has about as many aircraft carriers (12) as the rest of the world combined. These carriers are the most advanced carriers in the world. Each one is nuclear powered, so it doesn't need to refuel for over 20 years. Even our larger submarines are nuclear powered.
Due to the nature of human beings there would always inevitably be a most powerful country in the world. America's military is so large because we've promised to military support a lot of countries too. If any ally of the U.S. needs defending, we are coming.
11:04 the reason these would be taken out is because US fighter jets are literally the most advanced in terms of speed and being equipped with technology that allows them to fly in undetected. So basically, the enemy would have no idea what’s coming, and it would happen too quickly for them to do anything.
