Hello you awesome people! Go check out my patreon for exclusive content and early access to all my videos! --> www.patreon.com/reckyj

@jessicamink7209

2 жыл бұрын

Btw, I just subbed to your channel. 😎

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

@@jessicamink7209 I appreciate it a lot!

@donaldmccombs5566

2 жыл бұрын

We have a military presence at Vidsel Air Base.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

@@donaldmccombs5566 yes. But it’s not American. It’s a Swedish base

@donaldmccombs5566

2 жыл бұрын

@@Reckyj that is true, that is why I said presence.

As a Canadian I feel pretty safe being next to my brothers and sisters to the south. Obviously they’d crush us militarily, but fact of the matter is there really isn’t a single thing that could separate the image connection our countries have. We are different in quite a lot of ways, but we also share a border and many people have family and friends in both countries. Inseparable tbh

@lizardKingCDXX

2 жыл бұрын

I really wish that were true, but war makes a mess of everything, hell we had a civil war, you think we wont fight you? The fallout series is a fantasy game but there something to be said for the lore. In the game the first thing the US does is annex Canada and Mexico for the natural resources and I image any WW3 scenario would likely end up that way, We'd call it a trade agreement but we'd have complete operational control.

@CrotchRocket78

2 жыл бұрын

We love you too !

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

as a puerto rican i would feel much safer if usa was destroyed(preferably by their own hand, which is why i wanted drumpf to win a second term, but sadly he failed even at that), and we were finally set free.

@CrotchRocket78

2 жыл бұрын

@@sabin97 oh you were set free to higher gas prices, cost of living, record inflation, crashing economy. Your ignorance is astounding, your lack of intelligence is staggering. I wouldnt wish my worst enemy to be as moronic as you....

@bradmason4706

2 жыл бұрын

@@sabin97 Yes, they should've mentioned noncombatants, Britain, Australia, Japan, Germany, France they are our girlfriends, so.

As an American we are peaceful people; we are not interested in going to war for no reason. We have a sense of morality and value human life. We are a melting pot with people who come here from all over the world, from different countries and cultures; we get along with everyone for the most part. We believe in freedom and believe everyone has the right to self determination. The last thing we want is war but we also cannot allow people to be hurt, destroyed or exterminated.

@AceManning18

10 ай бұрын

Unfortunately too many people who have either never been here and just go by sensationalist stories or other news or were born here and are so spoiled and arrogant they think for some reason the grass is greener. Anybody who visits and actually interacts with regular everyday Americans would say the exact same thing. 99% of us are extremely welcoming and courteous. And genuinely curious and excited to hear about where others come from/their culture. People please stop watching the news and reading bullshit from biased news agencies online and just visit and see for yourself. You guys who live here and hate it - bye!

The only things you need to remember: 1) The US Navy has "graveyards" of WWII and later warships...sitting in drydock. The amount of US ships in retirement could still squash most world navies. 2) The US began using stealth fighters in the 80's. Russia, China and the rest of the world are just now starting to develop their own. Meaning there's nearly a fifty year gap in technology right there. 3) The American Citizens make up the 5th largest military in the world...so anyone invading the US would be facing gun owners and militias at every turn. 4) I'm hungry for some pizza.

@randlebrowne2048

2 жыл бұрын

One correction: The American Civilian population is, by a *massive* margin, the *largest* armed force in the history of the world. US civilians actually own 40% of the world's small arms (rifles, pistols, shotguns). There are well over 100 million of us with personal firearms. Even China and India (the two actual largest militaries) have less than 3 million soldiers. The US only has about 1.2 million active military personnel. It should also be noted that less than 10% of military members actually have jobs that involve the use of a weapon. The *vast* majority are support and supply personnel. Most navy personnel tend to be mechanics, keeping the ships running.

@titaneyes1

2 жыл бұрын

@@randlebrowne2048 you're right. I was going by a stat I read that said the number of hunting licenses issued in America is equal to the fifth largest military. I generalized. Thank you

@davidcruz8667

2 жыл бұрын

Point number 4 is probably one of the most important driving factors for point number 3... I'm a retired Marine and well armed, and I value my chow! 👍😁🇺🇲

@likeorasgod

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidcruz8667 got to keep them crayons safe....lol Sorry part of the oldest and finest sea taxi in the world. We get you boys where every you need to go.

@davidcruz8667

2 жыл бұрын

@@likeorasgod I agree, don't mess with my crayon-rich MRE's! Yes, I will be forever grateful for the rides, the helo platforms, the gators, and especially the outstanding service of the Navy Corpsman. Fair seas and following winds... say hello to Davy Jones for me, tell him I'll be coming to visit right before reporting to Marine Barracks Pearly Gates! 🇺🇲

After watching the Russian army operate in Ukraine the last several weeks, a serious re-evaluation of Russian forces needs doing. While the world watched, amazed, at how poorly they operate, I can guarantee NOBODY was more shocked than Putin. Russian capabilities are way overblown. While they have the potential to do further great harm in Ukraine, hardly anybody thought the current situation was even remotely likely.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Russia is surprisingly weak.

@khancrow8212

2 жыл бұрын

I mean the US spent billions of dollars and 20 years of conflict with the worlds best weapons against ww2 weapons and lost....I guess we need to serious reevaluation of the US military also....

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

@@khancrow8212 to much military? Or what do you mean?

@danbobway5656

2 жыл бұрын

@@khancrow8212 you clearly dont understand anything about the conflicts in the middle east lol....

@ssjwes

2 жыл бұрын

@@khancrow8212 The US rolled a major mid east country twice since 1990... The first week of action the country was already done. The only thing left was occupation and guerrilla warfare... What's going on in Ukraine right now should've been so quick the west wouldn't have even had the time to do anything. THEY BORDER THEM FOR GOD SAKE!!!

You also have to remember that the US defending its homeland would be 100 times more powerful than what you are seeing in Ukraine. We have 360 million people and weapons to give every person a couple of guns. I have enough to give every family member I have a half dozen weapons each. There are five in my family. If there is one thing that the US has plenty of is guns. Unfortunately, the US would be hit hard providing items and everyday things to people since we don't make too many things anymore. You know those first-world problems. Remember Sweden we love you guys. You guys have some of the best snow bunnies out there.

@likeorasgod

2 жыл бұрын

A lot of folks also don't know that our interstate system was designed to mobilized a military from one coast to the next and all bridges that are apart of it are designed to withstand the weight of tanks and armored vehicle's. While growing up I loved the movie Red Dawn but felt like things like this was always left out of such movies and made it felt like we where weaker than we appeared. Many of us with guns have multi guns so even the folks that don't have them we could armed with us.

@mountnman3609

2 жыл бұрын

"We have 360 million people and weapons to give every person a couple of guns. " Just remember who'd be getting some of those guns. There are some in this country that would just as soon turn those guns on their fellow citizen than a hostile enemy.

@nowaynoways584

2 жыл бұрын

@@mountnman3609 We would have to, most of the left would welcome any communist incursion.

@amp2193

2 жыл бұрын

When the collapse comes. We will make all that stuff here again. All those regulations they passed to nuder American business won't mean anything when the ppl start to riot.

@crwilliams4597

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. I have enough to equip a platoon sized element if needed. What I do not understand (actually I understand the authoritarian ones doing so) is why other countries do not allow as much civilian firearm ownership. It does dissuade foreign invasions. A civilian with a good rifle who knows how to use it can give a foreign occupation force some problems. I know from experience in Iraq.

When it comes to America’s overwhelming military power I like to remind people of what *British* Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said: “[We] should remember that when, after the last War, the United States had a monopoly of nuclear weapons, she never once exploited her superiority. No country ever used such great power more responsibly or with such restraint. I wonder what would have befallen us in Western Europe and Great Britain if that monopoly had been in Soviet hands!” It’s so true! There was a brief history of time when America and only America had nuclear weapons. America could have used those weapons to extort and blackmail other countries but she did not. She never threatened anyone with them. In fact to the contrary American Presidents said many times that no nuclear weapons would ever be used *except* in response to a nuclear attack.

@mutanthybrid3466

2 жыл бұрын

Even against other nations that chose not to work with the US, there is never a threat or military attack against them. Yes, geopolitics is influenced by the size, strength and technology level of US military forces, so it would have an impact on political maneuvering, but the reality is that it would never be used to extort or threaten anyone directly. The worst that happens if another nations says "get lost" to the US is that the US takes its multimillion dollar deals elsewhere. Unfortunately, we see that some other nations are not responsible with that kind of power.

@armadillotoe

2 жыл бұрын

The UK badly needs another Thatcher IMO.

@Mr.Incognito11

2 жыл бұрын

A lot of people hate on the US for being imperialist yet dont have any scope of how limited US imperialism has actually been based on our capabilities since the end of WWII

@blake7587

2 жыл бұрын

@@Mr.Incognito11 America had a brief moment of Imperialism that ended decades ago. America doesn’t go to war to invade and conquer lands these days like countries such as Russia do. America didn’t go into Iraq & Afghanistan or even Vietnam to take their stuff. We went to give them their freedom and stop the spread of the cruel system that is Communism.

@jeffstrom164

2 жыл бұрын

@@Mr.Incognito11 I truly do not understand calling the U.S.A. imperialist. We aren't taking over other countries and incorporating thier peoples and lands. We mostly just tell countries to stop picking on thier weaker neighbors or thier own populace. We don't demand tribute and don't demand obedience. We are the least imperialist world power I know of.

Former missile operator, here. Yes, we would absolutely spank literally the entire rest of the world when it comes to air defense and missile capabilities. My knowledge is a decade out of date, but even ten years ago we outclassed the rest of the world combined many times over.

@viperdemonz-jenkins

2 жыл бұрын

have you seen how woke the US military has got over the last few years? we in deep shit.

@wolfmaster0579

2 жыл бұрын

@@viperdemonz-jenkins Being woke in the sense of recruitment because no one wants to have a job they might die in. Otherwise, the US military produces some of the best soldiers for a modern and future conflict. What I want to know from you is what besides recruitment, public relations, or training is "Woke."

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

the king of missles is china. so yeah. china on its own can outmissile usa. and the king of propulsion systems is russia. so yeah. usa vs the entire world, goes really badly for usa, really fast.

@wolfmaster0579

2 жыл бұрын

@@sabin97 Depends on what you mean really badly. From a propulsion prospective, china and Russia rule cruise missile technology. However, their capability to hit ie their sensors and software are vastly outdated and inferior to modern nato or western counterparts. The problem is that china has a very powerful arsenal, that maybe probably won’t fly even 10 miles from a ship, identify the ship, get through the most advanced missile defense systems(passive and active soft kill and hard kill), and hit the ship. U.S. fleet defenses and tactics are not impenetrable, however require more or better than what china or Russia or any single nation has to do so.

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

@@wolfmaster0579 "Depends on what you mean really badly" i mean their military bases get overtaken in the first few hours and their spy satellites also get destroyed in that timespan. and that means the usa fleets are left without the overwhelming majority of their logistics infrastructure. and lets not forget about physics. each of the 11 usa carriers can only be at one specific place at any moment in time. russia and china would slowly pick them to pieces, while india and the middle eastern countries defend the oil supplies of the world and canada and mexico reinforce their respective borders. the biggest problem usa has is physics.

One you may like is called “Cities at sea, How aircraft carriers work “

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you Chris! Just what I wanted

He didn't even mention the anti missiles systems. Which are amazing. Lasers and electromagnetic railguns which can neutralize any missile attack on US ships

Precision guided munitions in other countries do not compare to those of the USA. "To within 10km anywhere in the Pacific" is a lot less impressive when you consider the USA can literally ring your door bell with a PGM at the same distance

@watchthe1369

2 жыл бұрын

It is only polite even if the BOOM happens a fraction of a second later :)~

@richardstanek5549

2 жыл бұрын

JDAMs are not fun to be around, danger close sucks . . . .

Brown water navy is coastal and river control Blue water navy is the ability for long range sea control Just in case you weren’t sure🤟🏽🇺🇸

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Live the names! Thank you for clarifying

@korvettenkapitanmetzinger8382

2 жыл бұрын

Another name for coastal navies I've heard would be green water navies.

@rsll510

2 жыл бұрын

@@korvettenkapitanmetzinger8382 China has a Green water navy, as they are trying to build up for taking Taiwan back.

@korvettenkapitanmetzinger8382

2 жыл бұрын

@@rsll510 are you trying to tell me that green water navies aren't coastal navies? Because if Taiwan is the target a coastal navy would be all they need.

@rsll510

2 жыл бұрын

@@korvettenkapitanmetzinger8382 nope that is not what I was saying. a Green water navy is a coastal navy and it was built to retake Taiwan. They are just now starting to build a blue-water navy

Its important to realize why the US puts so much resources into their military, the main reason is to deter major conflict between major economic powers. Think what would happen if the US were to just dissolve NATO and revert to isolationist policies. My guess is that there would be a rapid militarization of the European powers. Likely Germany would try to leverage their sway of the EU into something similar to the HRE in fear of Russian aggression. But i could also see a less harmonious split where very few major powers resent becoming vassal sates of Germany. In short, The US has such a great military to deter a major world war.

@brandonstrife9738

2 жыл бұрын

The thing people need to realize is it won't be that way forever thus why we created the alliance system that Europe takes advantage of.

@_jow

2 жыл бұрын

germany already leverages the EU as something roughly similar to the HRE. The EU is not truely repesntative, nor is it democratic. Sure, any nation's representatives can propose rules to the EU, but Germany holds sole veto power.

@weeboftheleft5113

2 жыл бұрын

@@_jow Not sole, France also has Veto power.

@watchthe1369

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, look up Bretton-Woods, it is what stopped communism cold and why globalism became an -ism. The USA for the last 3 or 4 presidents has backed away from Guaranteeing the trade lanes. We made our own deals and are dropping back to being a regional power again instead of a world power. India made their own way, and that has enabled them to have regional power potential in the future. China won't be a player for very long, they cut their own throat with the 1 child policy. The USA learned from Europe it take far less effort to trade than to conquer and exploit. a predatory deal is still better than scorched earth and mass nurder. You can learn from the nasty deals like you learn from the bullies on the playground. Russia is a failure to grow up and is still trying to steal milk money, but they are not the threat they were. If you share a border with them- study war like the kid that got tired of the bully learned to box.

@stephenwest6738

2 жыл бұрын

The cold war set up such a worst case scenario as a consequence of war that conflict of any kind was seen as unacceptable risk. If you are worried about setting off a massive brawl that would surely destroy the whole bar, not even the smallest hothead in the room wants to be the one to throw the first punch. That's essentially been Americas military policy since T Roosevelt's "speak softly but carry a big stick".

This was a fun exercise, I'm American and it is always strange to realize through something like this just how stacked the US military is vs rest of world. I know it from spending, but, it's another thing to see it as a played out scenario. I am former USCG Aux, and while it got *one* mention, and is the SMALLEST hardly ever considered US military force, the US Coast Guard is *still* the world's 12th largest navy. That is mind boggling. Anyway, as an American I will continue to do my best to ensure all this stuff is used in the right places, in the right ways. I don't want us terrorizing anyone or being bullies or anything like that. We all see what a major power with malicious intentions is capable of. ETA: if the "rules" of war were adjusted to territory gain and not spare civilian death (even without nukes), the US could basically just bomb everything to bits, just about anywhere. :/

@lukaswesthoff1030

3 ай бұрын

Nope, you cant conquer europe or cripple our economy

12000 Independence accountants got together in tried to audit the US Department of Defense. They literally failed the audit because they couldn't find out how much stuff that they actually run. They lost track because there's just too much🤣🤣🤣

As an American, the one thing I see that these "US vs" videos never mention is how well equipped the American population is. If any country tried to attack the U.S with boots on the ground, it wouldn't go well for them. I alone have 3 AR's, an assortment of hand guns and gear. Which in turn would be enough to at least equip 2-3 other people with the equipment they need to defend the country just in case they didn't own any weapons. Compared to other people in the U.S, my arsenal is very small lol... I'm just a speck in the sand, if you know what I mean. Also, not to mention, U.S citizens are allowed to buy majority of the same gear our military uses. There is some military attachments we can't own for our rifles, but that's very few. The major difference is most of us citizens wouldn't have full auto like our military does. Some would, but majority wouldn't. When attacking the U.S, you are essentially fighting 2 military's. The military and we the people.

@tannerrich2388

2 жыл бұрын

full auto is overrated anyways. (except for maybe LMGs) (also, "burst" is pretty good i guess.)

@123GOHANZ

2 жыл бұрын

The fact that we have more guns than people is insane

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

armed civilians are just corpses that havent yet hit the ground.

@prouddegenerates9056

2 жыл бұрын

You’d actually be fighting 50 states in different geographical locations, whom have militia thier own. You’d be up against an enemy that completely impossible to predict or plan anything against.

@redrick8900

2 жыл бұрын

Any military that could make it to our shores would rip through the population in open combat.

The first ship/boat of a new class is how you reference the class. LA class is a fast attack sub followed by Seawolf, and then Virginia class. These subs are there to scare the crap out of the enemy and sink ships. The Ohio class is a ballistic missile sub designed to be invisible to everybody including the US when at sea.

"Deep water" or "Blue water" operations essentially refer to the US Navy's ability to work in carrier strike groups far from the US or US bases for extended periods of time. Most militaries, especially a navy, require intense supply lines that tether the group to locations, most often the nation itself. The US began developing ships and equipment that were far less dependent on these supply lines in an effort to make it possible to operate with near autonomy anywhere in the world, on multiple levels. It's one of the ways in which the military can make sure it can engage anyone on favorable terms on their doorstep, instead of the US's.

Classes for ships usually just means the next generation. US Navy uses that system for all their types of vessels. LA class are our oldest active subs, and they step through to the most modern, Virginia. My dad actually worked for about 35 years at Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia, which is home to the US Atlantic Sub fleet. Actually got to go for a ride on one when I was like 10, but that was pre-9/11(1986), and definitely doesn't happen anymore.

Awesome. Thank you for your insight, from the 🇺🇸

The United States does not have a base within Sweden however they do rent some of the airports to use for their military purposes if necessary. That's not even close to the same thing though. It's basically just like paying to be refueled

@rg20322

2 жыл бұрын

This is what the US does and rents airports and bases all across the world. This is how to maintain a presence or re-fueling station..

@rg20322

2 жыл бұрын

BTW - it is the same thing based on strategic value.

@davidmacy411

2 жыл бұрын

That could change with the way Russia is acting and with Sweden/Finland possibly joining NATO. If all the memberships are taken, it will of course be up to Sweden and Finland how added forces are deployed there, if any, but their strategic position could easily find a new base in Finland and possibly naval stations in Sweden.

@citisoccer

2 жыл бұрын

We don't have a base in Sweden of which the public is aware. We have 2 base budget numbers on our defense budget. One number can be attained by adding all listed base budgets, and the other number is the ACTUAL listed number spent. They are MASSIVELY different numbers, and it's commonly believed that can be explained by unknown bases/installations, down to special hangars/stations at allied bases.

There is a lot of american military capabilities not even mentioned in the video.. just as one small example..there are valid reasons that america does not sell the f-22 to allied countries..but we do sell the f-35's. In example if this.. most modern warfare technology and military assets world wide rely on satellite communication and GPS satellite navigation (which is around about 2 meter accuracy) but one system in the f-22 that im fairly certain is declassified (questionably) is the "black ice magnetometer" which is a quantum sensor operated magnetometer with 1 meter accuracy that does not use external sourced information like satellites or GPS. The design was inspired by the study of "cryptochrome" (or cry4 protein) found in the robin species of birds. There are hundreds of technologies like this example that are still very classified including thousands of satellite capabilities that are still 'top-secret' and represent a very serious monopoly on intelligence and and tracking capabilities as well as response and interdiction/interception capabilities. I would say the largest realistic threat to the american homeland is politically motivated choices/decisions to let threats bypass such networks of defense to reduce populations of "friction" here in the united states. (Which sadly is just an example of the way of the human race for hundreds of years) We humans are all one, despite ideologies, countries, flags, religions, or politics.. tribalism is the only weapon we all face, and it is used to keep us all distracted from unity. Unity being the only real threat against the old ways and the only mode to transpire/evolve to a new greater way to coexist as one. We each have to choose to individually live the change we wish to see/motivate in society around us. Walk with light my brothers and sisters.

We've been "practicing" war for 80 years. Developing those capabilities across multiple theatre's and situations. Expanding those technologies and strategies while the world watches.

@tannerrich2388

2 жыл бұрын

yeah thats always a positive ive thought about our seemingly dumb, uncalled-for wars; America not only boasts the largest military and global reach with it, but we also have the most combat experienced/ready military. Looking at the Russian invasion of Ukraine you can see why experience is not a factor to write off.

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

you would lose. due to physics. first all of your military bases and spy satellites would be neutralized in the first few hours of the war. that cripples your spying capabilities and your logistics infrastructure. and that severely limits your ability to operate those nice expensive airplanes......and without air superiority, nobody can win a modern war.

This is somewhat true. 5 star Generals have written books about USA VS World, they do agree we could possibly win.

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

then they probably failed at basic physics. two very basic facts. at our usual medium scales an object can only be at one place at any given time. events all over the world happen simultaneously.

@tannerrich2388

2 жыл бұрын

@@sabin97 what are you saying? they may have failed physics but you failed english.

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

@@tannerrich2388 "what are you saying?" i'm saying that at the scales humans normally use(think of objects from the size of a tiny pebble to the size of a planet.), an object can only be at one place at a time. that means each of the 11 usa carriers can only be at one place at a time. if carrier #1(i dont know, or care for, their names) is attacking china, that means carrier #1 cannot be simultaneously attacking israel. at the same time carrier #1 is fighting against china, france and england are attacking a different carrier. the events happen simultaneously. that means if carrier #1 is attacking china, it cannot help carrier #7 when it's being attacked by england and france. do you understand now? to think usa could win a war against a united earth is silly. simply because of basic physics. also. english is such a ridiculously easy language that even the people of usa can more or less speak it. what makes you think i fail at it?

@tannerrich2388

2 жыл бұрын

@@sabin97 wow... i almost feel bad for you.

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

@@tannerrich2388 why exactly? do you not understand basic physics?

As a veteran what differs in the US military is our military is for the protection of the US people. Our military is defensive. Yes, we have a very power military, but just because you have the biggest military muscle doesn't mean you have to use it on people. Like I said our military does a LOT of humanitarian missions, because while we are a force to be reckoned with you don't have to use that force to conquer. The whole point to why the US is so advanced militarily comes from our history. We had to fight our way to earn our freedom from Britain, then again in WWII. Meaning America was aways trying to fight to establish itself and protect its own. So, America did not always have the upper hand militarily. We had our losses and wins. Our military has always striven to be better for the protection of the US's people. Not for a single person...as American's we don't swear oath to the president..“I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the ...Yes we follow the president orders but the Constitution is above all else - defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..domestic includes people within in that give unlawful orders or seek to do the US people harm. Our biggest slogan in the US is prepare for war, but pray for peace. No solider wants war.

@ericsierra-franco7802

2 жыл бұрын

Our military has been used offensively. What would you call a preemptive invasion of Iraq? And that's just one example.

@shawnkroll3950

2 жыл бұрын

@@ericsierra-franco7802 You are correct. It has been used offensively as it has to include Vietnam. I was saying and I have served a lot of our mission are humanitarian. rescue, and defensive in nature too. It is more of multi-faceted tool.

@adirondackmama7724

2 жыл бұрын

I like that you brought up the oath of enlistment. Whenever people try to make the military political I cringe. Everyone who has raised their right hand and swore that oath know it's in service of the people of our nation. Presidents and political parties change but the constitution and the people are what make this nation.

@drama8335

2 жыл бұрын

@@adirondackmama7724 mate you clearly have no idea what your talking about even the police in America don´t serve the people let alone the army

@yusted1

2 жыл бұрын

@@adirondackmama7724 the real issue is generals and admirals who are more politician than military leader taking the oath seriously. Oaths to them are just door openers

Great video as a proud American I found myself giggling at this also 😆 on a more serious note there's a video that talks about the world's largest aircraft carrier there's some good info in it, it's titled, Inside the world's largest aircraft carrier. Look foward to more videos keep it up my dude! 👍

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you bud! Always nice to get compliments. More coming!

Something people are overlooking is at this point and time the us military is one of the only nations that abide by the Geneva conventions rules of combat if there was a war of this magnitude those rules would disappear and it would be 100 times worse for opposing forces

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

unless the geneva convention rules allow for the wanton butchering of innocent civilians and the torturing and indefinite jailing of people without accusing them of a crime, then no. usa DOESNT abide by them. also in a war of usa vs the world, usa would lose. if the war breaks out immediately, what do you think would happen simultaneously in ALL of the hundreds of usa military bases around the world? yeah. they would get overpowered by the local militaries. so right off the bat, usa would lose all of their HUNDREDS of military bases. take for example the dimona radar facily in israel. it would be taken instantly. and while that is happening camp carroll in south korea would also be taken(it has only 1500 usa soldiers, which would be easily overpowered by the south korean forces there). and simultaneously the pine gap spying base in australia would be taken. and so on and so forth, for all usa military bases around the world. so at the very start of the war usa would lose a portion of its spying capability, and also a huge part of its logistics infrastructure as military bases serve to supply ships and airplanes with everything they need, and also to repair them.

JAW DROPPING! UNBELIEVABLE!

You're the man, Recky. Really enjoy your content, God bless from the USA

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Cool! makes me happy to hear that

There are a couple other things to think about also. WWII showed how fast America can convert from a Consumer Economy to a Building thinigs for War. Plus IF any country did make it to the USA they not only have to contend with our military. they have to contend with Hundreds of millions of former soldiers that know our miltary equipment and how to use it. Plus over half of Americans own several guns each and have billions of rounds of ammo.

@riftwake178

2 жыл бұрын

Trillions. America has Trillions of rounds of ammunition in it. Last time I checked there were 380,000,000 guns (more than 1 gun per person) and over 4 Trillion rounds. The US Army orders more ammunition than all other nations in the world combined. Just FYI. lol

First video of yours that I've seen and my initial reaction is that someone from the southern US must have taught you English, love the accent! Going to follow the channel and see what else ya got, thanks!

Thanks for these vids Recky.

@Reckyj

Жыл бұрын

My pleasure Chuck!

Somebody already answered your question regarding the meaning of submarine names, but I wanted to make you aware of an error in the video. It states that the majority of US subs are Virginia class, the latest class of attack submarine the US has made, but that is not correct. The US does have 19 Virginia class subs in operation now, and there are many more building or planned, but he majority of US attack submarines are still of the older Los Angeles class with 27 of those still in service. 💯✌

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

A force to be reckoned with!

I don't know if it's part of the strategy, but the US being so expeditionary has perhaps acted to prevent others, or remove the need for others, to have their own expeditionary forces. Anytime conflict breaks out, and the US intercedes, people see that and don't create their own capabilities. So now nobody can reach us.

@mikegamerguy4776

2 жыл бұрын

It's probably by design, if i had to speculate. If given the choice to be the world police... it only makes sense that you would want your country in that role if it could pull it off.

@scottstewart5784

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikegamerguy4776 Yeah, you have more control, but it's expensive in cost, lives, and emotional energy.

@watchthe1369

2 жыл бұрын

Like A Boss.....must you talk so much?

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

if there was a war between usa and the rest of the world combined, in the first few hours usa would lose all of its military bases and their spy satellites. because of physics. if you dont understand how, just ask and i will condescendingly(not understanding basic physics deserves condescension) explain it to you.

@scottstewart5784

2 жыл бұрын

@@sabin97 WOW! You seem completely balanced.

there are a couple of videos about American super carriers, i would encourage you to check them both out, the first one is titled, Cities at Sea: How Aircraft Carriers Work, and the second one is titled How Aircraft Carriers Work? both are excellent to give a person the basic idea of how versatile those ships are.

when you asked what it meant about the different classes of subs, all our naval ship's design types are names. think ikea furniture. you have many types of dressers, but each one belongs to a certain name.

This video speaks of active forces.... We also have a very deep bench of air reserves stored at Davis Monthan Air Force Base... We could deploy those planes in a matter of weeks to make up for losses both for naval and land based aircraft. Take a peek at the video "How The World's Largest Airplane Boneyard Stores 3,100 Aircraft" This is where we keep the spares (Planes and parts) we need to fight. This will give you an idea at just how much we have in our back pocket if we need to fight a war. We do the same with ships, tanks, trucks and artillery too, just not in Arizona....

You are basically right about the different classes of submarines. You can research each class to see what their purpose is but keep in mind that they are only telling a small part of the abilities. The rest is very secret. For sure there are missile carrying subs around the world that can take out military and major targets in minutes. For instance, there is always a missile sub in the black sea… a missile from there would be over Moscow and any city of the same distance… in minutes. ….And each missile has multiple warheads that can be directed to specific targets… Also they will say that these "nuke boats" can go about 30 miles per hour… That's like saying a Ferrari can go 50 mph…. we know both can go much faster.

Reckyj, That base is Brussels Belgium. Love the shows!!

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you Johnnie!

First time seeing your videos your reaction from this one made me sub can’t wait to see more from us veteran

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Welcome Chris! Thank you for the sub.

Regarding the various classes of submarines: Los Angeles is the oldest class of attack subs in US inventory, they date from the 80's in design, there are a lot of those boats. Seawolf is a newer design with improved systems, there are not very many of those, think maybe 3-4 because they are also very expensive, Virginia is the newest one with some of the Seawolf features and systems and an altered weapons load out. Ohio is a "boomer", also a design contemporary with the Los Angeles class, their sole job is the thermonuclear destruction of the enemy with SLBM's.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

I really love that class name

Just to give you an idea of how far American Military Doctrine is ahead of everyone else, the seawolf-class submarine and the F-22 Raptor fighter jet we're both developed near the end of the Cold War and both of them were so over designed that they're still by far the best War vehicle of their type and it's not even remotely close. Additionally, America stopped producing them because there was literally no threat that they were possibly needed for in great numbers...

@paladin11C40

2 жыл бұрын

I wish the US would have kept going with the Sea Wolf class, but at 3 billion dollars per sub, I can see why the rest were cancelled. I do think they are superior to the Virginia class and the Virginia class costs about the same now. Sea Wolf is fast as well.

@JonathanFlexx

2 жыл бұрын

Remember that time a shitty swedish submarine sank the most expensive aircraft carrier in the world including all it's assets during war-games? Edit: They got in and out undetected btw

@whenisdinner2137

2 жыл бұрын

@@JonathanFlexx no...

@JonathanFlexx

2 жыл бұрын

@@whenisdinner2137 Look it up, it's a pretty funny story!

@samrester6254

2 жыл бұрын

@@JonathanFlexx You think that result is reproduceable?

Nice video. It puts things in perspective the scale of the US Military.

4:57 I'm pretty sure the base you are looking at on that wildly imprecise map is Ramstein Airforce Base in Germany.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

it was. Thank you google!

Blue water ops is a common term in the US Navy. It refers more to an aircraft carrier being far enough out in the ocean that the aircraft have no divert fields in case of emergency than the depth of the water. You either land on the ship, or you ditch.

@simeonbaugh4491

2 жыл бұрын

Did not know that meaning. I did know it referred to oceans.

@marksroberts4880

Жыл бұрын

Out of what we cal "Bingo" range.

Sea wolf class submarines are what’s called hunter killers they basically hunt other subs. The LA class is an older version of the Virginia class which is a hybrid between the Seawolf and the Ohio Class. They can launch Missiles and torpedos. The Ohio Class is mostly used as a nuclear deterrent as they carry Nuclear missiles that can be deployed if a Nuclear attack came at the US. Four Ohio class subs have also been converted to carry Tomahawk cruise Missiles.

I didn't know this ty

I'm Canadian prices don't include sales tax either, the price and then pretty well add 17%, and we are now metric,we switched over probably 30 years ago. And we also eat peanut butter and jelly (jam) sandwiches. Anyway love your show keep it up.❤

The largest and most powerful air force is the US Airforce, the second most powerful and numerous is the US Navy, one Carrier battle group can take down most any nation on earth, except the bigger powers. And yeah we (US) makes plenty of mistakes, does dumb stuff plenty, or questionable things, but we are generally pretty friendly as far as being the worlds only super power, that outclasses most nations put together. Yeah we stomp around and break shit, cause problems, but we keep the peace, as in no large wars, as no one wants to fight us straight up, well, no semi-sane country anyways. Oh the thing about chinas missiles? They are only accurate, guaranteed to 10km…and they use standard HE warheads, you’re not going to kill a carrier with that inaccuracy. Unless you are extremely lucky and we are unlucky. So sure they can hit a 10 km square island, but not even where they want to, lol. Even the German missiles in WWII were equal, or more accurately.

@JB-yb4wn

2 жыл бұрын

So what? It doesn't mean that the US can beat every country on the planet at once. You think that your pipelines and infrastructure are out of range from retaliation? You going to try and protect the thousands and thousands of miles of pipelines, electrical grids, bridges, dams, and all the other soft targets by sending your navy off to invade the middle east? You going to protect those tankers once they have to go back to be refueled?

@ExarchGaming

2 жыл бұрын

agreed, one thing this presenter discounted in his war game, was just how effective the US missile defenses are. I mean to even get close to a carry those missiles have to get through a deadly screen of destroyers and frigates all built with the purpose of knocking those sort of weapons out of the sky. It brought up china's satellites but didn't bring up the GPS network which lets us deliver long range precision strikes anywhere in the world. We can launch missiles from hundreds or thousands of kilometers away, and hit with an accuracy of like a half a meter. Drone strikes are also something that would be deployed, as they can deliver deadly AGM munitions while being controlled from the safety of Nellis Airforce Base in Nevada. Our stealth bombers can operate basically with impunity and any sort of offensive against china would involve high level strategic dismantling of china's anti-ship and long range missile capabilities long before carriers got within range.

@JB-yb4wn

2 жыл бұрын

@@ExarchGaming Sure, once those missiles are fired, they are gone until the task force gets back to base. In the meantime, the whole planet can keep firing missiles and laying mines until the task force runs out of food, munitions and fuel. All Americans seem to miss the point here because you are too busy jacking off to the equipment rather than the logistics. Your navy has a global presence because it is being underpinned by bases that are located all over the world. Assume that all those bases will be mowed over on the first day of this scenario. Now you have the same problem that the Brits had in the revolutionary war, everything has to come from the UK, and you will get the same exact results here. As the world ameliorates your infrastructure, the US will have less and less ability to project itself and will eventually starve, (yes I know the US is food sufficient, but not in fertilizer), just look what is happening now because of a war, sanctions and a lock down. What I am trying to say is stop being stupid.

@JB-yb4wn

2 жыл бұрын

@goblo023 Don't have to sink it, just damage it enough that it's out of the fight, that's all. And yes it can be done, don't know why you think that a wake homing torpedo couldn't wreck the thing.

@Plastikdoom

2 жыл бұрын

@goblo023 yeah, I mean a determined enough enemy might get in a few hits, if they don’t mind losing everything they send, but not gonna sink em

Got to remember that if anyone landed on the U.S. soil you have the people. American has the 2nd Amendment that means we the people have lots of guns! I don't think I know anyone that does not have multiple guns, me included! I had a family member that served on a nuck sub and they can stay out at long as needed. The only thing holding them back are supplies. He told us about being under the polar caps(I think thats what its called) he said they could hear the ice moving deep underwater. Bless the people that are in the military and those people living in a big metal can.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

I got more respect for the tin can guys that spend most of their days under water, than I have for anyone else. Bravery at its finest.

@reedhryals7007

2 жыл бұрын

A Japanese general said there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

@scottstewart5784

2 жыл бұрын

@@reedhryals7007 Imagine someone attacking Texas or Alabama - out in the country everybody has an AR-15 or Grampa's 30-06, and in the cities, everybody has a handgun. You'd have Bubba's working hand in hand with Gang Bangers to defend the nation.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

@@reedhryals7007 man, that’s a damn fine comment

@reedhryals7007

2 жыл бұрын

@@scottstewart5784 I still have my father's 30-06 plus a ar-15 and many other long guns plus pistols. Your darn righ I'll be side by side anyone and everyone.

This goes back to the time of the first dreadnoughts, the class of the ship/subs are named after the first one produced and deployed. So a dreadnought class battle ship is named after the first one named Dreadnought.... So a Los Angeles class submarine is named after the Los Angeles sub...

You should one called Guardian of the Sea it is a bit long but def worth it,

I just watched this again and I realized the map wasn’t meant to imply a base in Sweden. It just was saying that US European Command would be in charge of any sort of military activities with Sweden. Like joint military exercises.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Watched it again? That’s nice to hear. No it’s true. It was just a marking to show that it was far north.

@blake7587

2 жыл бұрын

@@Reckyj Yeah I watched like 1/2 of it and then went to bed and so I started from the beginning to rewatch it and I knew there was no military bases in Sweden so I looked closer and it looks like he was just putting random markers in Europe to show the area US European Command operates in. Sometimes I do watch videos twice if I like them. Sometimes even three or four times! There’s a great Infographics video titled “What If: World Without the US” if you did a reaction that video I will watch it more than once I promise! 😃 It’s a two part video and Infographics does a great job presenting a hypothetical world without the US in an unbiased way. I think you’d like it!

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

@@blake7587 yeah, random markers. I was like,.. have I missed something? 😅 I love my playlist of “get educated” it’s what most people need. And not in a sense of school. Just history. Learn from them whom already tried.

@blake7587

2 жыл бұрын

@@Reckyj Honestly I enjoy watching people from other countries react to learning about America and I like watching Americans react to videos about other countries. I feel like the media in ALOT of countries is pretty biased against America much of the time. That’s why one of my favorite videos to watch people react to is the “What If: World without the US” video by Infographics because it does a great job showing Americas contributions positive & negative rather than just bashing America. Mostly it’s just been Brits reacting to it but I watched a German guy named DiscoNiko react to it too and one thing all of them said was they learned *alot* of things they didn’t learn in school. If you’re ever looking for content to react to about the US I highly recommend it! Infographics does a good job most of the time in keeping things simple and providing honest information. Another great source of content is Oversimplified. He covers everything from the American Revolution to the Napoleonic Wars and does a really fantastic job at it. Unfortunately his videos require so much work that uploads are pretty rare.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

@@blake7587 kzread.info/head/PLuZOhrtxZq76_nYtDg3bcevlkVO2vDI5N In case you missed it. ;)

If the US was invaded we as citizens have the right and capability to bear arms meaning some of us have multiple fire arms from hand guns to assault rifles and we will defend our homes and communities giving the military enough time to mobilize

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

And Swedes will throw meatballs, since we have a mega strict gun laws

@Garjahn

2 жыл бұрын

@@Reckyj Better pull great grandpa thorkell's sword and shield off the wall!

@moabman6803

2 жыл бұрын

Don't underestimate the power of tasty Swedish meatballs. During a world War just offer meat balls to the other side. They will all forfeit for meatballs.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

@@moabman6803 true! Good food wins every time!

@watchthe1369

2 жыл бұрын

That mobilization would consist of naming those citizens similar to what you saw in the Civi War and plugging them into the logistic system. Something like "The 1st Dogpatch Volunteers, commanded by Colonel Cornpone has been Federalized. Here is the initial T/O&E shipment." The general would probably be the one that graduated from one of the military colleges in the last decade. I find it interesting that Chamberlain on Round Top in Gettysberg and the Captain in Private Ryan were both school teachers. I wish our modern teachers had that caliber of character.

Many things have changed since that video came out many many things we aren't in so strong a position as we where then.

The F-35 naval variant can also take off and land on things like amphibious assault ships. Not necessarily the same ship but that sort of theme, I can’t remember the name. Anyway it means effectively having twenty to thirty carriers already.

I had some brief interactions with the Swedish navy and I thought that a Kingdom so devoted to neutrality would not be very good in military endeavors. However I found the Swedes to be very professional and well trained Navy. Of course the fleet is small but I think the Swedes are very good and it is good to know that if things do get very nasty they would side with the US most likely. Good bunch of officers and they are good mariners. Hopefully they can stay neutral and not have to join in any hostile action but Putin/Hungary/Syria/Serbia and especially Belarus are not very trustworthy. Any move on Lithuania or Latvia is gonna caused some s**t to hit the fan. I pray not.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

We can probably kick butt if we need to.

@badguy1481

2 жыл бұрын

Remember: It was a Swedish submarine that evaded detection and penetrated an American Super Carrier fleet, getting close enough to the carrier to torpedo it and send it to the bottom. Thank God that was in a "war game"...but it shows that no matter how safe we believe our carriers are, there's ALWAYS a way to get at them. Also remember the upper mid-west of America is PEPPERED with Swedes, Norwegians and Finns. During the American Civil War those immigrants made up probably the most famous regiments in the Union Army...the Iron Brigade and the Regiments (that included General Douglas McArthur's father) that stormed up Lookout Mountain in Chattanooga (without being ordered to by General Grant!) and drove the Confederate forces off the top. When General Grant was asked about the impossibility of that attack succeeding, the General answered: "It WAS impossible!"

@whirledpeaz5758

2 жыл бұрын

@@badguy1481 Short of a nuclear warhead, a single torpedo will not sink a US Super carrier. As Evidence, the USS America CV-66 survived 4 weeks of weapons fire as a stripped out hulk with no Damage control crew onboard. It was finally sunk by using scuttling charges.

@badguy1481

2 жыл бұрын

@@whirledpeaz5758 I SURE hope you're right. BUT....What worries me are those "Carrier Killer" missiles in both the Chinese and Russian inventory. Such weapons will HAVE to be given the highest priority for destruction (by long ranged, conventional missiles and/or long ranged bombers) before those carriers can "move in close" to either of those countries, should there be a war. But in saying all of that, the point of my response was the Swedes can be "bad asses" when they want to be.

@josephmalet777

2 жыл бұрын

@@badguy1481 What we need to remember is that one aircraft carrier is protected by about 20-30 vessels whose sole purpose is to protect the queen ship. Do you think we would be pouring 100's of BILLIONS of dollars on new super aircraft carries if they could be so easily sunk, we are not that stupid. We only know what armed capabilities we have that is 20 or so years old. We have great capabilities to protect our queen ship with our 2022 armaments, which will not become public for about another 20 years.

Oh, about the time we did anti satellite missile tests from our ships, the Air Force was doing their own tests, of fighter launched anti satellite missiles, those worked too, and yes it was publicly released that they did, and it worked, just a small blurb about it, then nothing, and that was awhile ago…so imagine now, haha.

@yusted1

2 жыл бұрын

Especially since airforce missile research is more relevant and advanced than our naval missile tech. The navy could easily make better missile using their data though if needed

@tannerrich2388

2 жыл бұрын

i think that would be the first move america makes. Targeting enemy satellites

There is an Air Force base in Sweden. I believe it has been there since the 50's and as far as I know it is still in operation. Love your reactions and commentary to the video.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Vidsel. And its not an American base.

This is some serious Mr. Obvious stuff. It is a good giggle.

The US Navy is the most OP military force since the Mongol Hoarde. There's a reason there hasn't been a naval battle of any scale since WWII.

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

1v1 usa could easily defeat anyone, even china. but 1 vs the whole world, it's not even close.

Fun fact. If you take registered gun owner in just Illinois, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin. We (The U.S.) would have more people with firearms, than most nation have in a military. And still have 46 states with Registered gun owners to go thru. Protecting our homeland. I just wish we could help the people of the Ukraine, with more military equipment. Like our A-10 aircraft.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Worlds biggest militia if needed

@MeanLaQueefa

2 жыл бұрын

First weekend of Deer season in Wisconsin and Michigan has enough guns owners/ hunters to be the 4th largest standing army in the world. 😂

@sheriffbart616

2 жыл бұрын

@@MeanLaQueefa Michigander here...I can vouch for this LOL

@craigroberts375

2 жыл бұрын

@@MeanLaQueefa you should see Texas on opening weekend

@Garjahn

2 жыл бұрын

A land invasion of the US wouldn't go well, considering they have more guns than people and way more bullets than the population of humans on earth just sitting around.

@20:16 In navy terms, a "class" is a group of vessels that are all built from the same basic blueprints. The name of the class is usually the first ship made in that line. According to Wiki, there are 21 active Virginia class submarines with 6 in the process of being made and 2 more on order. 36 more are planned. Each sub costs $3.45 billion fully decked out or $2.8 billion stripped. The Virginia class subs replaced the Sea Wolf class subs as they were cheaper to make. Only 3 Sea Wolf class subs were made. The LA class subs had a totally different objective and design. The Virginia class subs were designed to launch cruise missiles. The LA class are fast attack subs designed more for attacking other subs and ships with torpedoes but later ones also had cruise missiles. They are an older design (1972-1996) but we still have 27 active. The Ohio class subs carry the big ballistic missiles and are the largest subs in the U.S.Navy with 18 currently active.

The different classes of subs are from different years. Los Angeles were the first, then followed by the Sea Wolf, and so on.

As an American I am quite firm that the US cannot take on the whole world militarily. Especially since we'd have to direct our immediate attention to literally every point on the globe which I don't believe we'd be able to do all at once. And I like how the clip failed to even mention Canada's and Mexico's roles in all of this. Since they both sit directly north and south of our borders, they can easily become a big nuisance or hindrance for us.

@samrester6254

2 жыл бұрын

America wouldn't try and engage the globe. That was the point of this video. America would fight the oil war in the ME and secure it's borders first. Then attrite the rest of the powers via economic destruction (The South China Sea bit along with other sea trade routes). Sure there may be a few limited engagements in other areas, for whatever reason. But, kill the other guy's ability to make war and turtling up your own border, is a pretty sound plan. Also, while Canada's military is excellent and as good as anyone else's, the southern states of the U.S could hold their borders against Mexico forces, no problem, with just their State assets (they wouldn't have to but, it is feasible). The whole point was America wouldn't fight the globe. It would just engage in a few limited engagements and thumb their nose at the rest, as the rest have no means to transport any sizable force to the U.S.

@khure711

2 жыл бұрын

The US wouldn’t be a occupying force. They would use their Air Force to take out all the major infrastructure of rival nations. The rest of the world would go dark because the us would take out their electricity. Then they would hit the major military installations. Then take out bridges cutting off supplies routes. The occupying forces would take over the oil fields. The navy would cut off oceanic supply routes. Then the drones would start taking out leaders with precision air strikes. All the while the us could attack using cyber warfare cutting off communication and each countries banking system. Be happy the US isn’t Russia.

@adirondackmama7724

2 жыл бұрын

I think we would ally ourselves with mexico and Canada more then we already do. This is indeed a huge hypothetical because I don't see any scenario where the American people would ok an offensive world wide war unless we were under a dictatorship. Now a defensive war I can see but I would also see Canada and Mexico staying allied with us simply due to location and trade agreements.

@khure711

2 жыл бұрын

@@adirondackmama7724 that’s not the scenario. Besides Canada and Mexico would be a pointless ally at that point. Canada population is 1/10th of the US. With their oil and grain supplies, being able to secure the north, they’d be crushed immediately. Mexico would be more difficult but territorially they’d have to go too. Controlling the Gulf of Mexico completely. Reducing the southern border to Panama and controlling the Panama Canal would be the goal.

@yusted1

2 жыл бұрын

This video obly took into account the air and naval assets. Most of our army and air force will be kept in reserve and could be used to secure borders

The astonishing thing about all this is it's also ignoring the USA's police force which is as well armed as many nations militaries and vastly more numerous, effectively doubling the size of its military, sans much of the naval and air power of course.

@catfishmcstevenson220

2 жыл бұрын

if they dont turn on the citizens first lol.

@TD-ug4mg

2 жыл бұрын

@@catfishmcstevenson220 That's very true, the only credible threat to America is the American government.

@lukaswesthoff1030

3 ай бұрын

European polices combined have WAY more firearms than American police

Carrier is a PBS documentary television series about the six-month deployment of the United States Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz in 2005 from the United States to the Middle East and back

I feel India is underestimated badly in this. They would have a much larger impact, though not enough to change the projected outcome, I think. They are tenacious and have good tech.

@andreww.9980

2 жыл бұрын

With how India and China get along if China was fighting the U.S. I think India would be on the U.S.'s side.

@TheNerdForAllSeasons

2 жыл бұрын

India is a regional power at best. A strong one, but completely incapable of power projection outside their part of the world.

@jeffstrom164

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheNerdForAllSeasons Indias army is huge, probably third or fourth in the world. Thier airforce includes modernized 4th Gen aircraft and even a few that people consider 4.5 Gen. They are militarily stronger than Russia. They also operate a sizeable navy. They don't do much on the world stage but don't forget they recently defeated another Chinese attempt at conquering them. I dont think they'd change the outcome but they would likely make it far more costly.

@TheNerdForAllSeasons

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeffstrom164 i know this, that's why I said they are strong. Do you see a land bridge from India to California anywhere on a map?

@jeffstrom164

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheNerdForAllSeasons They have 1 aircraft carrier, working up a second, 1 nuclear sub with lots of very advanced combustion driven sisters, as well as a double handful of amphibious landing ships. They have the economy and resources to make many more. They just don't because they don't need more right now. In a massive war production and numbers would ramp up dramatically. So, they have a navy designed to attack over seas targets unlike most of the others. If any country in Asia could damage us severely, it's India.

I would argue that the us economy would grow... There is no denying that the us economy would shrink do to cutting off trade with foreign nations at first, but that is where the US finds it's fortune. The United States invented synthetic rubbers for its tires and other rubber based products for that exact reason, war that prevented us from gaining natural rubbers. Aside from maybe a small shift in price occasionally, one will realize this by simply looking at the price of tires and how little they have changed since then. Americans would begin to invent or find ways to get the resources we need, even if we don't naturally have them. Though many would join the military in such a scenario we would never send more than what we need leaving the majority of citizens back at home. Automotive factories would switch to machine military weaponry and vehicles. The amount of jobs will open up to some degree due to citizens joining the military... This will raise pay rates due to competition and the need for workers. And those who cannot find work immediately in general labor or stem-based fields will find work in entertainment After all America is the world leader of entertainment... And though it may seem otherwise, the value of almost every dollar in the world was determined by the American dollar, arguably up until recent times due to cryptocurrencies and other such products and shifts within politics... But if a world war were to occur where America versus the world, the only dollar that would matter to Americans is the American dollar. Foreign debt is no longer a factor, worldwide inflationary issues no longer affect America, and so long as American citizens can work, earn a living, and enjoy their lives and entertainment, the economy will always be great... And after the war is over inevitably through attrition it would be America to be the ones to reap the rewards... After all no war comes without a price from the loser. So I would argue in such a scenario America's economy not only would grow, but due to the fact that it would be the victor of the war it would become the greatest economy on the planet... And do to the ever-evolving and forgiving mindset of the average American people, more then likely they would push it all aside, while taking a cut of course, so long as every country were to dismantle their militaries, similar to what we saw with Japan after world war 2, while leaving America's military the only one remaining, and force allegiance to America throughout the entire world, specifically in post war "trade agreements", reconstruction of governments etc, citizen rights, est. In this way capitalism, the American mindset, and all around way of life would spread only increasing their wealth.

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

nah. not only would your economy not grow. it would shrink. in a war between the whole world and usa, the first thing to go would be your military bases and spy satellites. the war would be effectively an embargo against you. all the goods you get from elsewhere(think everything you have that has parts made in china, japan, south korea, germany etc. and all the things you have that have raw materials from mexico, bolivia, china, equatorial guinea, etc), no longer available. all those nice expensive airplanes would become useless pretty soon due to a lack of logistics to get them to operate. spy satellites would be over usa 24/7 all your moves carefully watched, and your submarines hunted down one by one. while russian, swedish, french, english, australian, chinese, japanese, indian, italian, greek submarines would slowly hunt down your ships. it would take a while, because your navy is huge, but it would be an inevitable victory for the world. even germany couldnt defeat the entire world united.

@s1ugtrail978

2 жыл бұрын

@@sabin97 I think you missed my argument on artificial created products such as artificial plastics rubbers etc that America has produced in the past due to not being able to get them because of war... The economy would shrink and stay that way for a while but never the less it would rise as we produce our own products from our own resources and labs. To mention any resources we would easily take from Canada and both Mexico, as we would progressively move forward to South America and other countries along the way across the world taking control as the rest are all running out of resources due to the lack of oil and trade capabilities... As this occurs just our trade-based resources alone would increase due to the fact that we would be absorbing country after country. And we are the only nation on the planet with a space force dedicated to the sole control of space-based assets in such a scenario.... Not including the most advanced scientists on the planet working on our space assets.... We would be able to dismantle any space asset any formation had including boasting our own assets in the process... It's not about being closed minded but open-minded, part of that is acknowledging that the United States as of this moment is the greatest superpower everyday exist and existence itself, until aliens can be proven to be real of course... It will continue to be as far as the known future shows.... And anyone who wants to make a comment about China's economy about to overcome America's, not only would that require China to boost their economy by another 2.5 times, or it would require America's economy to drop 2.5 times, or a form of combination of the two, to see any viable change between the two... These are just simple mathematical, financial, and physical constraints that no other country can match

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

@@s1ugtrail978 first of all it's not america, it's usa. america is a continent spanning everything from alaska to tierra del fuego and nearby archipielagos. usa is just one of 35(36 if you ever set puerto rico free) american states. "artificial created products such as artificial plastics rubbers etc " which require components that you need to acquire elsewhere. and given that you'd be a victim of a global embargo, no. no raw materials for you. "any resources we would easily take from Canada and both Mexico" yeah, and any military forces you commit to stealing resources from canada and mexico are military resources that cannot be simultaneously used anywhere else(because of physics). not to mention that canada and mexico wont just roll over. a land invasion of mexico would be quite costly, and mexico is large enough that a naval blockade is extremely unpractical "the rest are all running out of resources due to the lack of oil and trade capabilities..." there would be no lack of oil or trade capabilities. in the first few hours of the war you would lose your spy satellites and your military bases. and with those you are left with a severely limited situational awareness, and most importantly a crippled logistics infrastrusture. those nice expensive airplaines require supplies and maintenance. and now you'd need to sail them all the way to usa for maintenance. or keep sailing ships back and forth all the way to/from usa. because of a lack of military bases. "a space force dedicated to the sole control of space-based assets in such a scenario" yeah. your module in the space station does NOTHING in a war. so no. you have a "space force" in name only. you have no military assets in space. and your spy satellites would be immediately destroyed by russia and china, and maybe even israel. "acknowledging that the United States as of this moment is the greatest superpower" if by that you mean that usa has the most powerful military on earth, i would agree. but your problem isnt about military power. it's about physics. you see.....objects(larger than quantum objects) cannot be in two places at the same time. and you have a finite number of airplaines, carriers, other war ships, helicopters, submarines, etc. and another thing about physics. ships sail at finite speeds. that's why all yoru military bases would be taken immediately. because as mighty as your military is, locally it doesnt have that much power in any of the bases. and the countries hosting those bases would be able to extremely easily overpower them. and by the time you send your fleet to capture any of the bases, it's already abandoned. and you'd need to leave a huge garrison there, which would be pinned. your population is just 300 million. not enough to have massive armies in every base. and as soon as your garrison in any base isnt massive, it's retaken. short supply lines are very easy to keep. long supply lines are not. so yeah. if a war of usa vs the world united, usa would lose very badly, and it will be obvious from the start.

I don't know if it's up your alley but there's a small time KZreadr called Montemayor that does amazing recreations of past battles. It isn't theoretical battles like this, and the videos aren't fancy tech wise but it's very well done. Check it out in your free time if nothing else. The best ones are US vs Japan naval battles told told from the perspective of one side or the other.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds good! I’ll check it out

Yes way!

It may sound strange to people from other countries for us to have the most powerful military, the world has ever known and yet we don't want war. The US has never started a war. I guess sometimes you have to carry a big stick to keep the peace.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Big sticks is need in the world we live in today.

@bf5175

2 жыл бұрын

The US has killed or deposed the leaders of Nicaragua, Guatemala, The Dominican Republic, Grenada, and Panama. Also the Mexican War of 1846 was pretty much started by the US as was the Spanish-American war of 1898 where America invaded Cuba and the Philippines. I am not saying this to disparage America, I am a proud American, but it is every patriot's duty to know the history of their country so that we may learn from it and become better. Which we have and are, albeit slowly.

@4freebird69

2 жыл бұрын

@@bf5175 In Nicaragua, the US military occupation was working with the government to keep rebels from overthrowing it along with protecting US property and citizens that lived there. In Guatemala, the US military involvement was support and training. In The Dominican Republic US military was there to secure the US embassy and offer a safe exit of its citizens out of the country. The war in the Dominican was a civil war. The Panama Canal was still a US owned territory. With the assassination and attempted assassination of four US off-duty military personnel and Noriega declaring war on the US, we acted. The Mexican war was a declared battle over Texas territory. They wanted the state line to follow the Reo Grande. In the end they got the state to the river and paid for the rest of the land that we have today. This one I'd agree was an unprovoked war. The Spanish-American war was a declaration from the belief that a US ship was attacked while docked in Cuba. The Philippines became a US territory after the Spanish lost and it was the Philippine government that declared war on the US. Now this is not a clean-cut deal. The Philippines wanted independence and the US didn't recognize it. But we know what Japan did years later and they were glad the US fought Japan to give them peace and safety again. In my original comment. When I said we never started a war, I was referring to declaring an *unprovoked* war (except Mexico). As far as WWI and WWII we were pulled in as a necessary involvement. The war with Japan, well they gave us a black eye and that was a mistake.

@bf5175

2 жыл бұрын

​@@4freebird69 Nicaragua: "Occupied by the U.S. almost continuously from 1912 to 1933, after intermittent landings and naval bombardments in the prior decades. The U.S. had troops in Nicaragua to prevent its leaders from creating conflicts with U.S. interests in the country. The bluejackets and marines were there for about 15 years.[2] The U.S. claimed it wanted Nicaragua to elect "good men", who ostensibly would not threaten to disrupt U.S. interests." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars Dominican Republic: "Action in 1903, 1904 (the Santo Domingo Affair), and 1914 (Naval forces engaged in battles in the city of Santo Domingo[6]); occupied by the U.S. from 1916 to 1924. When a rebellion in the Dominican Republic, for example, damaged an American-owned sugar cane plantation, American troops were sent in, starting in 1916. They took over a small castle called Fort Ozama, killed the men inside and set up a military presence to protect their business interests." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars Panama: "The United States Invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, lasted over a month between mid-December 1989 and late January 1990. It occurred during the administration of President George H. W. Bush and ten years after the Torrijos-Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the U.S. to Panama by January 1, 2000. The primary purpose of the invasion was to depose the de facto Panamanian leader, general Manuel Noriega. He was wanted by the United States for racketeering and drug trafficking. Following the operation, the Panama Defense Forces were dissolved and President-elect Guillermo Endara was sworn into office. The United Nations General Assembly and the Organization of American States condemned the invasion as a violation of international law." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama Phillipines: "The Philippine-American War[11] or the Filipino-American War (modern Filipino: Digmaang Pilipino-Amerikano), previously referred to as the Philippine Insurrection or the Tagalog Insurgency by the United States,[12][13][14] was an armed conflict between the First Philippine Republic and the United States that lasted from February 4, 1899, to July 2, 1902.[15] The conflict arose in 1898 when the United States, rather than acknowledging the Philippine's declaration of independence, annexed the Philippines under the Treaty of Paris it concluded with Spain to end the Spanish-American War.[16][17] The war can be seen as a continuation of the modern Philippine struggle for independence that began in 1896 with the Philippine Revolution against Spain and ended in 1946 with the United States ceding sovereignty." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War America has a really bad history of going to war to protect its business interests. We always say it's about something else, but the truth usually comes out eventually. I think most patriots in America want any war we are involved in to be one based on ideals and morality. Americans love freedom and feel it's worth fighting for, that's why there is almost across the board support for Ukraine. All of these wars don't fit that definition and are nothing America should be proud of. Also, I appreciate your response. Discussions like this are important. Heck, I learned a lot doing the research for this and I owe that to you. So thanks. :)

@sabin97

2 жыл бұрын

actually it's strange to us that you CLAIM you dont want war, and yet you invade brown people every single day..... the usa has started many invasions. many wars. not once has usa defended itself. you have ALWAYS been the aggressor. the only thing i cant understand is how you can say "we dont want war" with a straight face.....

"Thank goodness the U.S. is friendly." We always will be. To this day the power of our military, but the lack of aggression shown even though we have it, goes all the way back to President Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick" foreign policy. Essentially, don't make enemies when you can make allies, but have the power to dissuade any nation that may think they could take advantage of us. Americans have no interest in invading any other country. We are weird that way.

@rishinz

2 жыл бұрын

I mean the conclusion of the video is correct if we forbid nukes. USA would most likely defeat the armies of most other countries in the world combined. In reality though someone would use a nuke starting a chain and the whole world would be wrecked and inhospitable. No winners.

@richardstanek5549

2 жыл бұрын

Thought that is largely determined by the administration that is in office.

@OddBallPerformance

2 жыл бұрын

@@richardstanek5549 You seem to forget about Congress. The POTUS may be the commander in chief of the military, but they don't wield that kind of power. Plus, a government of the people generally means that it's actions are at least somewhat in line with how we feel as a people. Not always, but generally. Go ask your every day American if we have any sort of ambition to go invade some other country and you will likely hear the same response from most of us.

@OddBallPerformance

2 жыл бұрын

@@rishinz If anybody used a nuclear weapon in a modern conflict it would most likely not be the U.S. that did so.

@rishinz

2 жыл бұрын

@@OddBallPerformance USA has much more conventional options to use instead of nukes, true. Would probably start with someone weaker whose whole conventional army had been wiped out and they feel that's their last option. But regardless of who starts it, the world is screwed and poisoned for centuries.

@Reckyj The US does not have a base in Sweden, but we do have a sizable amount of units and air-force units there which are used for joint-exercise's.

I have swedish heritage in my blood Sweden is some place sacred to me. Much love . Hope to visit sometime

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

You are always welcome here!

As an American, I am fairly sure that we would definitely lose against the whole world in a conventional war. We would simply be overwhelmed eventually. Obviously, in a nuclear war everybody would lose.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

nuclear war is what terrify me!

@jennyarriola324

2 жыл бұрын

How could they overwhelm you? They simply don't have the capabilities to strike a decisive blow against your forces, except for nukes.

@tannerrich2388

2 жыл бұрын

@@jennyarriola324 he doesnt know what hes talking about. Even if foreign forces were to somehow land on our shores they would be in for one hell of a nightmare. The militia that would form would be bigger than any standing army in the world. That, coupled with a home-field advantage, makes America virtually unconquerable. If America is to fall, it will fall from within.

@msharp6887

2 жыл бұрын

Nahhh. We would curbstomp

i think the greatest defense of our homeland would come mainly from the population. at least here in the south (Alabama). i would say we have as many guns privately owned as a small military force.

The classes of subs are part how new they are and whether they’re attack or ballistic. For simplicity attack subs kill other subs and ships, missile subs launch missiles that can hit long range land targets. Virginia, Los Angeles and seawolf are attack subs.

as a former Military guy myself the US has alot of military bases around the world that we know of and a lot of secret bases or facilities that we don't know of

The difference between the different class's of submarine basically come down to what kind of equipment they carry, the type of weapons they can use, fire or mount and how silent and or fast they are and the roles they were designed for.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

I love them names. Makes them feel more powerful

Different classes of ships or subs is similar having different car models. Chevrolet Traverse VS a Chevrolet Suburban for example. A traverse is smaller with less space and a smaller engine

Each of the classes of submarines are different generations. Virginia class is the newest class and it’s a nuclear powered stealth fast attack sub from the 2000s. Seawolf is a nuclear powered fast attack sub from the 1980s. Los Angeles is a nuclear powered fast attack sub from the 1970s.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

I gotta say. Those name really work, love em

Just a suggestion...check out how USA's National Anthem came about

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

I already did friend.,kzread.info/dash/bejne/ka6NtspumsKqgLQ.html

The names of the different classes of ships are named after the first vessel to be laid down for construction. New York class battleships were named after USS New York even though her sister ship USS Texas was completed first.

Also we have new Experimental Tech as well. You think "RAILGUN" is just a Sci-Fi weapon, well it isn't. We have ships that can fire them and they can SEVERELY bypass just about ANY defense that most militaries have

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

The EPIC railgun!

Attack subs are used to take out other ships and land based targets. As you go down that list, the subs get larger, and they start being nuclear ICBM subs, carrying nuclear missiles.

desert storm also showed how well us radar seeking missiles target active air defence radars

The US occasionally bases out of Swedish military bases- mostly for winter training exercises. In 2020 some US Air Force units and aircraft based out of Skaraborg Air Wing for joint training.

An American here and this is just wow!!

Not a watch recommendation but George Friedman wrote a good book called "the next 100 years" if you really want to understand how the us and why the us has a massive military it does a food job of explaining American strategy

Submarine classes are basically named after the first submarine of that class. For instance, the USS Virginia was the first submarine made in that style. All other submarines made in the same form are hence called Virginia class subs but may be named something else like the USS Hawaii, however it is a Virginia class sub.

To answer your question at 20:06 regarding what is meant by "Virginia Class" and "Ohio Class", Virginia and Ohio are two of the 50 US states. While LA is one of the Major cities in CA (California). To my knowledge alot of our Naval ships are named after cities and states. such as the Nevada Class and Iowa Class Battleships in WW2. so many of the Submarines we have are named after US states. Anyway hope that helps answer your question my dude.

All American Military Choppers are granted the production name by one of the Tribes. Got any info?

Several people have mentioned the armed population of United States what is rarely ever mentioned is the fact that every state has least three or four military basis if not more if you do the math on that that's at least 150 military bases

Blue water operations means open ocean, not coastal. Check out the Astute class submarine, the best ever. p.s. different classes of sub's do different jobs, attack(anti-sub), anti-ship, ballistic (nuclear armed) and multitasking.

I've been married for about 30 years and my husband is a retired CPO in the USN as a SAR swimmer and I've seen some amazing crafts air and sea

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Tell your husband a Swede thanked him for his service!

As a proud American all I can say to other countries is just don't. Mistake, mistake, mistake. Don't knock on my door because you won't like it when I answer the door.

The great air raid of Las Angeles. Or battle of las angeles in 1942 In defense the entire area was ordered a black out. Or a few years ago when the incoming missile attack alert was broadcast in Hawai'i. The alert was accidentally sent. Scary.

@Reckyj

2 жыл бұрын

Ohh dang

Regarding submarine classes... Los Angeles, Seawolf and Virginia are all attack subs. They're smaller than ballistic missile subs and were designed to stalk and destroy enemy submarines/ships among other expanded tasks. The Virginia Class is the newest but many in the know seem to think the Seawolf is the most advanced, only a few subs were built before the class was canceled due to the end of the Cold War. The Virginia Class was designed to be more affordable and take advantage of maturing technologies. The Ohio Class is a ballistic missile submarine, which are designed to hide out with their stash of nuclear missiles and wait for the apocalypse. Some have been converted into cruise missile boats. I believe the first Columbia Class replacement for the Ohio Class is under construction or will be soon. FYI Wikipedia is actually quite a good and reliable resource on various ship classes and military equipment in general.

the different classes of submarines is just different types that have different things like speed, depth and weapons ranges.