www.piavpn.com/Whatifalthist to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free!

@Zeyede_Seyum

5 ай бұрын

Make a video about Ethiopian Ethnic Federalism.

@danielsantiagourtado3430

5 ай бұрын

Keep up the good work

@SayNoToDemocide1

5 ай бұрын

Hey, I got a video called "Responding to Whatifalthist: 17 disagreements with Whatifalthist, as a fan.", which is what the name suggests. It also has additional resources for you and people to talk to. By the way, I'd like to see you do an alt-history for if Columbus sailed for England instead of Spain.

@noahtylerpritchett2682

5 ай бұрын

I see the writing on the fall the shit will hit the fan. We won't just be engaged with Iran. But also against Iran backed militias in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Gaza and Afghanistan. Lots of conflict. We'll lose thousands of lives as well as resources and supplies and expenses. And that's not including our inevitable conflict with Latin American drug cartels and Haitian Gangs. I see a timeline where we're gonna be crushed.

@skibidi.G

5 ай бұрын

First time I'll say this , but imbecile opinion. Turkey is anti-West pro-caliphate while Saudi Arabia are pragmatists and the real caliphs of Arabia. Nobody likes the Turks anyway, they also have rhetoric about invading Israel . In other words the actual plans are to bankrupt Turkey and give concessions to Kurds. Edit: Turkey being pro-caliphate means with _them_ as caliphs, which all Arabs abhor.

"Stolen" isn't quite right. Equipment was abandoned. Which is arguably even worse

@tomfoolery333

5 ай бұрын

Correct. I noticed that also. I like this channel, but how he continues to get basic stuff like this wrong a few times each video really grinds my gears. Like, how does he think stolen is the right word when we just up and left it there? I call it a 88 billion dollar gift. Very strange of him to word it this way.

@chuckhoyle1211

5 ай бұрын

Gifted?

@Crimea_River

5 ай бұрын

The military industrial complex needs an excuse to go back to the middle east.

@promeneuzivotu117

5 ай бұрын

​@@tomfoolery333also how he also said that Serbia is a problematic country while overlooking their neighbours who are not much different.

@coltonowens2742

5 ай бұрын

I'd argue stolen from the American people via tax dollars.

The biggest lossers will be the American tax payer

@thinkpolhub

5 ай бұрын

and Iranian lives

@ConnortheCanaanite

5 ай бұрын

The biggest losers with be those of European descent, as this would create waves of “refugees” and migrant populations that would forcibly be brought into the US, Canada, Australia and NZ. Many of these routes are used by those looking to take advantage of them, as in, people who aren’t actually from the country in question or aren’t actually seeking refuge or aid. Even then, these groups have shown themselves over time to be quite hostile in the West. I have no ill will against Iranians, or Iran, for that matter. Iran is actually a fairly industrialized and prosperous country, especially, compared to its neighbors.

@Metalgarn

5 ай бұрын

Yeah but that's true no matter what.

@theboyisnotright6312

5 ай бұрын

All wars since the American civil war have been fought for only one reason. To make money for the military industrial complex. It's pretty obvious really. Oh we were the good guys in WW2? Ok but why was Henry Ford making trucks and perhaps more for the German Army in his factories in Spain? It's all the way it should be ,poor people die and the rich make money. Please read "War is a racket" by general Butler.

@RMCbreezy

5 ай бұрын

​@@ConnortheCanaaniteused to be extremely western and our ally. And then we helped fuck that up

we have a saying in YEMEN which says "How easy war is for the spectators"

@Invadedargument5150-qi6lf

5 ай бұрын

Son: so dad do you think the braves or the Yankees will win the base ball game Dad: how easy war is for the spectators

@ghiaccioswhitealbum

5 ай бұрын

@@Invadedargument5150-qi6lfthe complete lack of awareness in this statement is fucking awesome

@theboyisnotright6312

3 ай бұрын

This is a great way of saying how evil war mongering is.😊

@TheRisingFury

2 ай бұрын

That's a universal saying, not just in Yemen. I refer to the spectators (who play videogames 24/7) as "armchair generals" who like to talk tough without any knowledge or experience.

China and Russia would basically give Iran a blank check in any war scenario. I don’t think Russian and China would declare war to save them, though.

@RA9U1

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, the Chinese and Russians would see it as an opportunity to signal more opportunists to immediately initiate any blitz operations they had in mind. China would probably immediately set up a naval blockade of Taiwan/Formosa. Russia would probably start to ramp up bombardments against Ukraine maybe even begin baby-stepping forward. The Norks would probably back up China by posturing extremely close to South Korea and sending out test rockets every 2 weeks towards Japan to make sure they're not mobilizing naval resources to counteract China's blockade of Taiwan/Formosa.

@matsv201

5 ай бұрын

I´m not that sure. China don´t like Iran that much, and While Russia do, they don´t have that much to give.

@bigdoghenry1441

5 ай бұрын

@@matsv201 true, but for example we supported the Taliban against the Russians only to then turn around and invade a few years later. Great power politics sometimes makes for weird bed fellows.

@matsv201

5 ай бұрын

@@bigdoghenry1441 That is not really true. We supported the mujaheddin that in turn had Taliban elements in it. USSR exited Afghanistan in 1989 and it took to 2000 until the Taliban got the upper hand over the other groups in the country. During the time US was supporting mujaheddin the Taliban was a minuscule group in the country. When USA invaded Afghanistan in 2001 the Taliban really just very recently got a dominating position in the country, and they still didn´t occupy the whole country. Its even a bit more complicated. The reason why Taliban got a upperhand in Afghanistan is that they aliened them self with Al Quida that was the reason why USA got involved in the war. Al Quida later merged into Islamic state that The Taliban now is an enemy to. Here is the sort of funny part. Nobody knows how is currently supporting the Taliban. Saudia Arabia isn´t any more. Russia probobly isnt, Qatar might be, but i´m not sure. Pakistan is alleged, but that sems a bit far fetched as well. Iran is possible, but they are the wrong kind of Muslims.... China is a possibility. Taliban seams like they are dead set of building a real state. Its kind of different from the last time around. They even have telecom companies running there infrastructure. Current day Taliban is very diffrent from the 2001 taliban

@noir1923

5 ай бұрын

yes but if it keeps the USA busy and losing equipment and manpower, they would gladly support ANYone.@@matsv201

Lmao I remember when people thought Trump would drive us into WW3. If only we knew.

@celtspeaksgoth7251

5 ай бұрын

Pentagon looks at map of Iran and sees targets. Trump sees golf courses, casinos & hotels.

@michaelpetrovich5353

5 ай бұрын

Didn't Trump have Sulemani assasinated and almost started a war? With Trump its Israel first and Israel wants this war.

@smileygladhands

5 ай бұрын

A lot of us did know.

@thinkpolhub

5 ай бұрын

remember when people thought Biden will drive us into ww3 until it doesn't happen . there will always be tension of ww3 , what matters is a countries ability to survive it when it does happen.

@Brass_Bricks

5 ай бұрын

We did know.

Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon

@Labyrinth6000

5 ай бұрын

If they go under, the military would lose all their technologies. Unfortunately, they are kind of needed.

@EatMyShortsAU

5 ай бұрын

They are already booming due to Wars in Israel and Ukraine. Most of Europe's legacy Soviet era equipment has been destroyed and shit loads of US equipment used or lost in Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine.Russia does not have capacity to export weapons for obvious reasons so US, European, South Korean and Turkish firms are doing very well. I am not sure those arms manufacturers can even keep up with demand

@foshershmul1648

5 ай бұрын

On the contrary, if the war goes badly it would prove that the current industrial complex has outlasted its usefulness, no telling if those companies would be in favor after.

@canchero724

5 ай бұрын

​@@Labyrinth6000they would get taken over by the Pentagon, their tech is simply way too important to land in foreign hands.

@RA9U1

5 ай бұрын

@@pov1 Oy Vey

Dude, there are economic and engineering reasons why naval guns peaked at 16 inch diameters. Larger guns existed outside of battleships. This is why the Yamato's and Musashi's 18.1 inch guns are described as, "The largest guns to have been mounted on a battleship." Also, it's not true that aircraft carriers could always carry enough planes to defend themselves in principle. It turned out that way, because the US crippled the Japanese military industry.

@gregcastle1846

5 ай бұрын

Wrong interepaton of military history and military weapon sustems. But over all, good analysis of the current situation, except for Iran developind nuclear weapons and ICBMs.

@alexs_toy_barn

5 ай бұрын

American ships were and are also limited by size since they have to fit inside the Panama Canal, the Japanese didn't care about that which is why the Yamato and musashi could get at big as they could

@stcredzero

5 ай бұрын

@@alexs_toy_barn But didn't that cause problems for them in terms of rate of fire? Also, weren't the radar laid guns of the Iowa class significantly better at hitting at distance?

@DancerVeiled

5 ай бұрын

@@stcredzero They were, the Japanese had better optical rangefinders but lagged significantly in radar firecon (often absent entirely) and significantly undervalued and underperformed in antiaircraft performance. They had pretty great torpedoes however, when they weren't blowing up on the deck/in the tubes. I enjoy playing IJN in wargames of various types, as I enjoy the doctrine, but once the Americans get air superiority on your zeroes (any time past 1942-43 usually) it's all over. Clevelands have pretty nasty surface gunnery too. "light " cruiser my ass. USS Helena's SG Radar is also a strategic problem for American early warning capability. BBs arent useless however, they're still useful for shore bombardment. Just too expensive these days, and superceded by cruise missiles on SSBNs.

@Izual001

5 ай бұрын

@@stcredzero Their lower rate of fire was countered by hte destructive power of the 18 inch shell. Yamato also had radars, but as far as I know the American ones were superior.

The US' pullout game is at Mormon levels.

@BronsonJM

5 ай бұрын

lol idk, as a Mormon i can confirm we have a ton of kids. Ima hand this one over to the catholics.

@BonusHole

5 ай бұрын

I think the big mistake is attributing Western losses in the Middle East to loosing. We didn't really try. We just started wars with a lot of noise and hype as justification and then we kept it going as long as possible until Trump came into Office and ended them. We can't really use Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of Western power exertion. They where bankers wars to colonise oil and gas pipeline real estate and to install Central Banks. Not attempts at conquering Iraq and Afghanistan. Our 'losses' in these countries did remove some strategic advantages yes. But the West could just hit Iran with serious firepower from afar off until it imploded if we really wanted to.

@gabrielalvespereira3750

5 ай бұрын

​@@BronsonJM The catholics number at 1.4 billion. 1.8 billion if you count greek orthodox catholics on the list. Catholicism is literally THE christian church. I'll hand this to the luterans

@user-re5if4ke6u

5 ай бұрын

@@gabrielalvespereira3750 what is greek orthodox catholics?

@robertdolcetti450

5 ай бұрын

Technically, the Greek Orthodox is the general name we give to churches in the East which are in schism with the Church over various facts. But there are churches, such as the Byzantine Rite Catholic Church which is in the East but are currently in communion with Rome and are thus still Catholic.I think that is what he is talking about.

Winning for Iran would mean not being occupied, that’s the best case scenario for them.

@tangosmurfen2376

5 ай бұрын

Winning for Iran means conquering Saudi-Arabia and surrounding Arab states

@tatsuya2112

5 ай бұрын

No, i'd argue winning would entail not having their opponent use scorched earth tactics, with the potential use of WMD's. I don't see a iran war or any middle eastern war winnable without using draconian tactics like that, hence why unless your willing to go that far, don't try to fight one and just contain them.

@lostcauselancer333

5 ай бұрын

Being occupied by the US is a lot better than being occupied by the Mullahs.

@Legendary9000

5 ай бұрын

@@tatsuya2112winning for Iran would be a revolution establishing a democratic western friendly state again

@midragga

5 ай бұрын

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Glad to see you're doing more Geopolitical stuff. I've been missing the old alternative history content.

@sayeem4741

5 ай бұрын

Same bro

@sayeem4741

5 ай бұрын

Like civilizational alternative history

@matthewmizrachi1877

5 ай бұрын

He doesn’t do them anymore, he said it was a phase in high school for him on an Instagram AMA story one time awhile back

@scottanos9981

5 ай бұрын

He came back from the milk store 🥲

@thinkpolhub

5 ай бұрын

exactly especially recent events also he as predicted alot about the future now we are getting into the future so it's interesting to see how consistent some theories will be

Anyone else here after the missle attacks on Israel?

@dario5178

3 ай бұрын

A few bad decisions away from hell

@alinaddaf2474

2 ай бұрын

I'm reading your comment from Iran.

Taking notes on this video after what has just happened 😅

As a Latin American I’m genuinely scared of the level of internal division the us has today. These thing never end up well. Not even here in Argentina the political spectrum si so divided.

@1mol831

5 ай бұрын

Different places have different problems.

@gabingston3430

5 ай бұрын

At least you guys have Señor Afuera as your prime minister (EDIT: president) now.

@Metalgarn

5 ай бұрын

Depends on how you define never ending up well. It ALWAYS leads to conflict and its only a matter of time before there is major internal conflict in the US, that's just a given. But we've had worse internal divisions before, the 1st one turned out pretty well... we call it the Revolutionary War. The 2nd one didn't turn out great, as it created exactly the type of governance we fought to be independent from in the first place. The 3rd one might just return us to being a free country again or it might cement the power of the ruling elite for another century, hard to say.

@pedroleuenberger4270

5 ай бұрын

@@gabingston3430 haha he’s the president. I don’t know how he’s seen outside Argentina but he has shown great moderation and willingness to dialogue in order to get most political parties behind his back and I’m sure that if his reform are carry out my country will prosper.

@pedroleuenberger4270

5 ай бұрын

@@1mol831 sure and I rather have your internal division than my inflation rate haha

Battleships didn't go irrelevant overnight. They still were the only big force appliers that could operate under bad weather conditions, or for a while at night. Not to mention shore bombardment. The main reason we consider them to be obsolete to air is because at the beginning, Japan sniped tf out of a lot of battleships with airpower, and later on their battleships got routinely dunked on by American air power as their war effort fell apart (and they never had strong anti-air to begin with), so these specific situations color a lot about how we view them.

@colinbielat8558

5 ай бұрын

An honestly, there hasn't been an actual new battleship design since the 1940's. With the current advances in technology and using current shipbuilding theory, a purpose built design could in theory be viable, especially considering defensive AA weaponary would not be relying on hand cranks for aiming. The main issue is the US still maintains a pacific theater mindset when it comes to naval theory and while that is fine, flexible thinking needs to exist instead of entrenched dogma.

@gryph3911

5 ай бұрын

Never thought about it this way before. Thanks for giving me more to think when it comes to the viability of the battleship.

@zachariahhoots1735

5 ай бұрын

@@colinbielat8558 I agree and would argue that anti ship missiles aren't what the carrier was to the battleship but what the anti tank gun was to the tank. The defenses on tanks had to evolve but they were still extremely viable and important.

@colinbielat8558

5 ай бұрын

@zachariahhoots1735 we tend to romantize aircraft carriers because of the battle of Midway and films like top gun. However personally I find them to be a huge strategic liability when you consider how much a single one cost to build and the value of the aircraft on board and the required training for the pilots, the loss of a single one would create a strategic vulnerability for years to come. I think they worked best not as a battle carrier role as we currently have them fill but as an escort carrier, spreading the aircraft over a few smaller carriers allowing for redundancy and faster launching of craft. But personally I feel we could design a battleship that uses significantly less crew than an aircraft carrier without compromising on AA defense or firepower. It all depends on how the hull is designed and if it can realistically survive an anti ship cruise missile. And that is possible. There was a reason we used them as a target to test nuclear bombs, so just imagine what we could design today. And on the subject of tanks, they are just returning to their orginal battlefield role of armored breakthrough and direct infantry support. You won't see huge open field tank battles anymore, they will be held in reserve to breakthrough enemy lines to encircle them.

@Somerandomguy524

5 ай бұрын

Modern war ships are little more than missile platforms, and that is all that really matters, the ability to launch as many missiles as possible as quickly as possible, and the ability to intersept said missiles when on the receiving end, also, if possible, you want to avoid return fire at all, which is why they put a heavy emphasis on range and detection. Old school ballistic naval cannons are pretty much uselss and if they do exist they are just for show, ships will never voluntarily get close enough to the enmy for those kind of weapons to be effective.

"Targeted missles with GPS can knock out can knock out an aircraft carrier easily" is certaintly one way to tell me you know nothing about modern military hardware.

@MrAngryCucaracha

5 ай бұрын

Maybe you can elaborate on why that is not the case for those of us who lack your expertise in modern military hardware.

@bobbycarlin6136

5 ай бұрын

@MrAngryCucaracha to explain it in the most simple terms possible, hitting an aircraft carrier at sea is a very complicated process. For starters, aircraft carriers are a moving target and they move quite a bit faster than one might think. So it's not as simple as programming a flight path for a missle based on GPS coordinates like it is for a static target. The missle will need to keep track of the carrier and its current location and be able to adjust course mid flight. For anti ship Ballistic missles this is usually handled by satellites. Without delving too much into US anti satellite warfare capabilities, it is very safe to say that Iran would no longer have access to satalite guidance systems. Any onboard guidance from a Ballistic missile's warhead would be jammed/deceived by SLQ 32. By the time the warhead is close enough to the target for burnthrough to occur, the warhead will be traveling too fast to course correct and fall harmlessly into the ocean. This also goes for Chinese antiship Ballistic missles. Cruise missles are another option but they are also susceptible to jamming and are much easier to shoot down after being detected by airborne radar. The United States has already demonstrated in recent weeks that they are more than capable of defending themselves from Iranian built cruise missles. There is publicly available information that can be used to verify everything I just said which shows the creator's statement was made without doing any serious research. I understand he is a KZreadr trying to get views and not a subject matter expert. But saying that it would be easy for Iran to take an American aircraft carrier out of the fight is just blatantly false.

@advicepirate8673

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, the Houthis use Iranian missile tech. They've been taking a lot of swings at American Navy vessels and can't pull it off. A carrier won't be anywhere near that close, and it has its own network of support ships. Invading Iran would indeed be profoundly stupid, but not because carriers would be sunk.

@arabiansavage

5 ай бұрын

Iran has hypersonic ballistic missiles, something America tried and failed to develop. These missiles are deadly accurate, and they can easily overwhelm American naval defenses, since Iran has hundreds of thousands of these highly precise and sophisticated missiles.

@bobbycarlin6136

5 ай бұрын

@ahmedal-masri101 you are living in a fantasy world my friend. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to cope. You clearly did not pay attention to anything I said. The fact that you say "hundreds of thousands" proves you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. Hypersonic ballistic missles are incredibly expensive to develop and produce. The American and Chinese militaries could not afford to feild thousands of such weapons. Even if Iran spent every cent of its puny GDP on such weapons, it would never be able to come close to such a number. Go spread disinformation somewhere else.

The Iranians are all talk. All their "retaliations" make them look weak

@arthas640

12 күн бұрын

Friendly reminder that the US once crippled their navy in a matter of hours and even that involved the US purposefully holding back and not striking at any preapproved targets

I really don't want another Middle Eastern War. America's track record for wars recently has been terrible. This would be one more costly misadventure.

@careyfreeman5056

5 ай бұрын

We're not putting boots on the ground there (SF not withstanding) anytime soon.

@EatMyShortsAU

5 ай бұрын

I think any war would be similar to what they did with the Houthis recently. Precision airstrikes on military, nuclear and perhaps industrial targets.

@1mol831

5 ай бұрын

@@EatMyShortsAUwhich means nothing happens

@EatMyShortsAU

5 ай бұрын

It would still a lot of damage economically and save a lot of lives compared to having boots on the ground@@1mol831

@MelkorTolkien

5 ай бұрын

​@@content_enjoyer4458It is our problem. It is our taxes paying for this.

Before watching: I think the US could underestimate the defensive potential of cheap FPV quad copter drones. As the Russo-Ukrainian war is showing every day now: these drones are insanely effective in mass precision striking every single enemy soldiers or pieces of machinery on the battlefield. They are also dirt cheap (cheaper than a regular artillery shell). A precision guided bomb with the capability to hover, search for targets over long times and to strike exactly the spot they need.

@user-cz9jj2em2v

5 ай бұрын

Another before watch: I think America might underestimate the need for sheer manpower. One lesson of the war has been the need for mass

@likeAG6likeAG6

5 ай бұрын

Ukraine war degraded to FPV and arti spam & trench sitting only because both powers lack air and have at the same time good anti-air. Against strong air force all those low-tech solutions from Ukraine war are irrelevant, war will also end much faster, more like in case of Iraq, when actual city occupation might take months and be somehow problematic but most of industrial and military potential will be destroyed in a span of few weeks. So the whole war comes to question if US will be able to wipe out Iranian anti-air forces, and I think the answer is yes.

@buddermonger2000

5 ай бұрын

​@@user-cz9jj2em2vMass can be achieved through firepower. Which the US has in spades. And it's a specific issue unique to the Ukraine war in that no-one involved really did the prep for a long war. Compared to the US who has legendary planning abilities complete with pre-positioned stockpiles specifically meant to counter issues regarding munitions shortages.

@buddermonger2000

5 ай бұрын

The biggest thing that those drones are useful for is reconnaissance. And they do tend to die quickly as a result. Secondly, it's worth noting that said war is lacking in air superiority much less air Supremacy. When you have air Supremacy you have ISR free from attrition. It's also worth noting that the US is actually currently training for drone swarms and with far bigger precision munitions. You're absolutely correct in the effectiveness of said munitions, but the US owns the sky from day one. There's little for those drones to defend against when command and control is bombed out thus depriving your units organization and supplies.

@buddermonger2000

5 ай бұрын

​@@likeAG6likeAG6Yeah no way they don't wipe out the Iranian air forces. The most modern stuff they have are airframes that the US is actively retiring or already retired. I think they capped out at the oldest generation F-16s. Plenty fine for BVR kills with F-35 and even other, more modern, F-16s will blow them out of the sky. They don't have a domestic fighter industry. Or at least not a capable one.

Hope you're doing well in the new year thank you for such outstanding content.

Back here after Israel "retaliated" against Iran tonight

@user-wj9qj6yta15

2 ай бұрын

Same bro

Assuming the US isn't lying or wrong about its anti missile capabilities on naval vessels, Iran will struggle to maintain a production rate for missiles higher than the carrier group's ability to attrit them

@thinkpolhub

5 ай бұрын

can buy lots from China, North Korea it's basically going to turn into a proxy war

@SystemsPlanet

5 ай бұрын

The US could build $1k drones using FPV and take out the $10k drones.

@ChristoffRevan

5 ай бұрын

​@user-mw4ji1vn2zThe US is literally pushing out laser shooting turrets on ships that take out things like drones for a few dollars of electricity...the US really doesn't have much to fear

@joshuamueller3206

5 ай бұрын

It only takes 1 to get through to render a super carrier useless, it does not even have to sink it, and Iran has thousands of missiles, but a carrier strike group has them in multiples of 80.

@viysnjor4811

5 ай бұрын

@user-mw4ji1vn2z Why are you assuming we're just going to sit there doing nothing but trading missiles for drones and not, you know, actually taking their cities or obliterating their military bases in the meanwhile? Suddenly its not a war of attrition but a race against the US pocketbook, which is theoretically endless btw, a race that Iran does not have much hope of winning, drones or not.

I agree with most of this except your take on the aircraft carrier being "obsoleted" by rockets and missiles. Aircraft carriers are tools in combined arms warfare. Yes in a close quarter Straight of Hormuz situation an Aircraft carrier would be vulnerable, however you would simply never send it into a situation where its overwhelmed like that. You use its force where its appropriate and most effective and aircraft carriers still offer exceptional value and utility to the Navy. Also aircaft carriers are ALWAYS part of a battlegroup with many supporting ships and submarines, they never go alone. Furthermore new weapons and aircaft technology will keep carriers relevent for the foreseeable future. China, Japan, France are all building new Carriers. This is the same argument ignorant people use to say that drones have made tanks somehow obsolete. These platforms are tools and you need to use them correctly in the context of the battle. Any weapon can be destroyed if employed improperly and without supporting units. Its the classic battle between armor and firepower technology, things are always evolving.

@felipeignacioavilapizarro3698

5 ай бұрын

Question, how many days of attrition can a carrier battle group sustain against swarms of cheap drones (any sane commander would send AA saturation point strikes against it) before they have to go back to port to rearm the vertical launch ports? how many days of ammo is there in such ports? how many can the US industrial capacity produce per day? the issue is a single carrier Lost or damaged and you have a political and military nightmare

@cattledog901

5 ай бұрын

@@felipeignacioavilapizarro3698 You could ask redundant questions about every other kind of weapons ability to sustain a battle and the ammunition available. The point is the Carrier group offers capability that is still immensely valuable to winning a war and isn't somehow obsoleted by rockets or drones, you need to employ it correctly where it maximizes it strengths and minimizes its weaknesses. Furthermore future microwave and laser weapons will render drone waves irrelevant and have essentially unlimited magazines. A nuclear powered aircraft carrier with unlimited energy is perfect for that kind of weapons energy requirements. Again technology is always evolving to counter threats.

@felipeignacioavilapizarro3698

5 ай бұрын

@@cattledog901 so how many laser and microwave AA systems does a carrier battle group have today? the issue is, as always logistics, ask the British, they could easily lost the Falklands war (their admission) when the Argentinians almost sunk their supply ships. If the US gets a decisive first strike, sure, if they have a protracted war, considering the drain that the Ukraine war is on NATO industrial capacity, I would not be so confident. You think logistics are redundant? why the Sherman or the T-34 were better instruments of war than the panzer IV D through... M? or the Panzer V? was it the gun? the armor? the optics? the radios? even the crews? what good state of the art everything matters against maintenance, logistics or streamlined manufacturing, all the unglamorous redundant questions that win wars. another example, the Bundeswher service rifle shat the bed in a famous incident where a German platoon was assaulted for hours and hours in Afghanistan if memory serves me right (or irak, same sand) and the rifles warped because of the heat, so they had to revisit the design after the incident. when was the last time a nuclear carrier battle group was attacked?

@EatMyShortsAU

5 ай бұрын

I agree that they are not obsolete but they are vulnerable and losing just 1 or 2 would be massive lost when it comes to lives, military equipment and financial cost.

@cattledog901

5 ай бұрын

@@felipeignacioavilapizarro3698 And how many "drone swarms" are there today that couldn't be handled by the carrier groups current weapons? Suicide drones at this point in technology that have the range and payload to even damage a warship aren't available in numbers that would make a meaningful swarm. And who said logistics don't matter? You sure love to go on strawman tangents. The point is yes a carrier group has a limit of ammunition but so does a tank company or a fighter squadron. Every platform needs to have proper logistics to sustain it, so do aircraft carriers. Your point is completely redundant, all platforms need to be employed correctly with proper logitisics to be effective.

should change the title to who will win because its a reality and not speculation anymore.

@raabi2129

3 ай бұрын

Yep gonna happen soon.....

@EgoisticAxis606v2

3 ай бұрын

@@raabi2129 you think it would lead to a regional war. I don’t think it would lead to a world war.

@raabi2129

3 ай бұрын

@@EgoisticAxis606v2 not world war... But perhaps another cold war/proxy war....

The same people who always win. Raytheon, Boeing, whoever else makes missiles and warplanes.

Very good video. I’m a gulf war vet and my only real critique is when he talks about fighting through the mountains of Iran being like World War I trench warfare. It would not be like that because of drones and AI artillery. It would be wholesale slaughter like we’re seeing in Ukraine. I’ve never seen anything like it. Back when I was in you would get a break when you dug out your foxhole and then you could chill out and eat. These poor guys are having bombs dropped on them by drones in the foxholes.

@natoslayer2907

5 ай бұрын

There was a a period where war became less of a blood bath with the rise of guerrilla warfare, but with modern technology today, being the boots on the ground in an active warzone is a death wish.

@gabrielalvespereira3750

5 ай бұрын

​@@natoslayer2907 Guerrila is becoming more and more the standart strategy, simply because digging holes on the ground is basically the ONLY way ANY fucker would survive a 24/7 bombing raid on their ass. No amount of money, pussy or glory warrants the risk of death, so desertions are all time high too.

A couple of notes for you: 1: Carriers don't ever go anywhere on their own. It's an entire strike group. They have support ships and missile ships which are extremely effective at taking out incoming missiles (see houthi rebel attack interceptions) 2: Bombing effectiveness has massively improved over earlier iterations with gps guided munitions. Operation Desert Storm is a good example and the goal is to take out said missile sites. 3: The United States has constantly adapted its fighting doctrine and has 20+ years of fighting insurgent forces. It would be a slog, but one with air, naval, and land superiority in firepower. 4: The United States has munitions specifically designed to work in entrenched mountain positions, though it doesn't matter as missile launch sites are typically not inside caves. 5: The Iranian Air Force is so ancient and cobbled together that they have zero capacity to engage any US aircraft apart from unmanned surveillance drones. 6: Ukraine has been entirely reliant on US weapons systems in repelling Russia (though other countries have contributed a lot). None of their aircraft can operate in Ukraine airspace because of US systems. The general consensus is "What's the reason for the fight?" If the US goes in and just says "Lets fight it out", morale will be nonexistent on the US side. If Iran were to conduct an attack against the US directly, that's a very different story.

@knowledgeiswealth.

5 ай бұрын

I think he doesn't know how air superiority works and how effective air strikes are. Aircraft carriers are the one who delivers it😅 + a bunch of stealthy mfkers And he talk a load of bullcrap on war doctrines

@johnsmith-ol9qj

5 ай бұрын

Bro…. We had all this and still lost in Afghanistan agains guys on tacomas with Russian Ak-47’s from the 50’s and 60’s.

@carlbruh6059

5 ай бұрын

Yes, but the war was won. The insurgency would be dealt with until ​the US leaves. After that, Iran would be far worse off than we found it. @johnsmith-ol9qj

@Andy-ss8yg

5 ай бұрын

Ah yes another false flag Attack

@knowledgeiswealth.

5 ай бұрын

@@johnsmith-ol9qj we didn't lose we just get out from there Taliban was hiding inside caves after we got out they came out of cave and took over

One issue in the US as well is that many servicemen say that the current military leadership is terrible

29:05 My father's generation fought for Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Many of them were anti-Islamic Republic. Many of them were revolutionaries, just part of other groups like the liberals, Marxists, Islamo-socialists, and others. These men went to serve their country and many were persecuted by the state after and sent to jail. The Iranian Revolution didn't start out as an Islamist uprising. It was started by various different guerrilla groups. Khomeini said he would be a figurehead and wanted to go to Qom as kind of a Vatican thing. Then he got to Iran and started consolidating power. The war gave him a great opportunity to eliminate his political rivals and consolidate the tyranny. They executed literally tens of thousands in their campaign of terror (I guess you'd call it a Green Terror). So I am under no illusions that Iran going to war would lead to a cadre of now-well trained men who would overthrow the government because this government has already been through this and they know the playbook.

@jackm2293

5 ай бұрын

interesting comment. Thank you and best wishes to you wherever you are.

@IronWarrior86

5 ай бұрын

It wasn't a revolution as much as it was a Coup. It was an armed takeover by the radical islamists.

@JjkJjk-or9kc

5 ай бұрын

Well the regime will fall one day no regime remains standing forever not even the current system of USA will

@mudra5114

5 ай бұрын

Getting rid of the Shah was the dumbest decision ever. 😂😂😂

@ZahdShah

5 ай бұрын

@@mudra5114 The westerners got rid of the Shah due to his mistake in revealing his ambitions. He was a threat. His replacement was either Communists/socialists or Islamists. Communists wouldve just served the USSR, so the West chose Khomeini and harboured him in his exile. This would lead to Iran remaining a suppressed country.

Ha? I'm 13 minutes into the video, and I have no idea why you assume that the US would want to INVADE Iran. The only thing the US would aim to do is to take out Iran's nuclear and military installations and capacity, and potentially some of its oil processing ones. A large part of it can be done through aerial bombardment without a single boot on the ground. At the 30 min mark now, and still can't wrap my head around why on earth you would think that an actual ground invasion is likely. In its current political state, the US would NEVER attempt to invade Iran. The most it can do is degrade its military and power projection capacity in the region. And yes, they could easily blunder it.

@jonathanjacob5453

5 ай бұрын

Future US foreign policy can be inferred from the policy papers published by the various think tanks. The policy is to provoke Iran to respond in a way that would justify war. Unfortunately Iran is not biting on the bait.

@grasshopper4826

5 ай бұрын

This is a far more likely scenario, there is little to gain from a conventional invasion. The fragile Iranian economy can be toppled by targeting oil infrastructure in the south, destroying nuclear and drone facilities that threaten 3rd party allies and degrade the IRG to the point that armed revolution becomes more plausible within Iran itself.

@ahtheh

5 ай бұрын

Whatifist makes videos like a debate. I personally don't think this style is good for KZread videos, but this type of debates are popular in academia where, it is assumed people already know a lot of things beforehand

@That_dawg420

5 ай бұрын

One word: oil

@adadurraman9778

5 ай бұрын

​​@@grasshopper4826and iran will stood back after you hit their oil.?? in retaliation they will make all your semco bases a parking lot. your influence to middle east will be buried for ever thus allowing china to enter this region and faster its bri project

Great video, I hope more people see your stuff

There is a big error in the video you cannot target a moving carrier with gps guidance. You need radar missiles that can be jammed. In the case of Hormuz, laser guidance could be used. Usually GPS weapons receive targets before launch, they sometime can be updated through datalink afterwards but for this you need to track carrier GPS position, and also have a low latency. Also datalink can be jammed. They key factor being that GPS "sensors" are widely used in the civilian world which is why they are so cheap (mass produced). This is what makes jdam's and shahed's so cheap. When complex radar missiles are used against a ship, the price missmatch between offense and defense is much lower. What will probably kill the carrier (and any capital ship) will be camera + AI guidance.

Interestingly, you mentioned how the United States' invading Iran could end up having the people of Iran unify around the regime Because historically that is actually what happened in 1980 before Iraq invaded Iran the Iranian regime was unpopular, but Saddam invading Iran helped to unify the Iranian people around Around Ayatollah Khomeini's regime.

@earlpipe9713

5 ай бұрын

And Saddam was the US's Zelensky of the Middle East back then.

@ThePilot3332

5 ай бұрын

@@earlpipe9713that comparison would make sense if Iran tried to conquer Iraq, not the other way around. And you’re forgetting that the USSR supported Saddam heavily as well, he was convenient for all major powers.

@IronWarrior86

5 ай бұрын

​@@ThePilot3332 So what was the continuation of the war from 1982 to 1988 about then? And why did the Revolutionary Guard Corp commander Mohsen Rezaee in a tv interview recorded just a few years ago say it was a mistake to enter into Iraqi soil in 1982. There was an obsession with taking southern Iraq particulalry the second most important city Basra, but it all failed by 1988. What a doozy.

@ThePilot3332

5 ай бұрын

@@IronWarrior86 Iraq attacked Iran, plain and simple. It would be unreasonable to expect that Iran wouldn't want to knock out Iraq for good by taking away part of its territory. Historically that's what countries on the defensive always did when the attacker lost. Like how Germany had its territory stripped away after losing in WW1 and WW2.

@IronWarrior86

5 ай бұрын

@@ThePilot3332 Sure but Iran never had the capacity to do what the USSR did. And they knew it. Khomeini kept the war going for internal domestic purposes. However making peace after winning back your territory, instead of risking a defeat and humiliation at the end, which is what actually happened sort of, would have been a much wiser choice.

These are out of order in terms of the video but a few things.. 1. I promise you that that early 2000s naval exercise lives rent free in the heads of the navy, from E1 to O10. Because of that we've made real strides in at least attempting to mitigate anti-ship missile and attack craft threats. Obviously they've never been tested past their full capabilities, but the Houthis have certainly tried and so far things like the CWIS haven't even needed to be used as surface to air and air to air missiles have done the job so far. Despite that, the navy and AF would likely preform some type of shock and awe campaign with Iran's anti-ship weapons and infrastructure being one of the primary targets, and its probably pretty unlikely the navy would move into the straights proper until they think they've reduced that threat significantly. 2. Its totally possible that the US will/has fallen behind the curve in terms of doctrine and it will be revealed to us in the next major conflict, but I'd argue that anti-ship missiles are more akin to the development of the AT gun than the carrier to battleship. The AT gun made operating tanks more difficult but not obsolete whereas the carrier filled the same role of the battleship but much better. And in addition, the US constantly takes part in war games with just itself and with foreign militaries. Most of the time these take place with the Opfor pretending to be and trying to emulate the weapons and tactics of potential adversaries. The naval exercise referenced in the video and the advent and employment of things like Aegis and CIWS show that even the navy is capable of adapting. 3. Firepower in mountainous terrain is the key. Not a hinderance. In mountainous terrain the one with more accurate and dominate fires WILL win. If you can destroy that enemy bunker with accurate fires but the other guy can't you will win. Weapons are more advanced than WW1 and you can now do more tactical damage with one HIMARs battery than with several artillery companies. Its like saying long distance communication isn't very viable because phones in 1918 weren't very good when we have cell phones and sat phones today. Air campaigns in WW2, Vietnam aren't the same as today. For D-Day the allies dropped huge amounts of bombs that were meant for the beach defenses but almost all missed, whereas the air campaign in the 1st and 2nd Gulf War rendered Iraq virtually militarily ineffective. 4. Allied bombing in WW2 was effective. 1944 was the highest production year for basically every economy in WW2, but Albert Speer himself said that German production was only about 50% of what it should have been. That's in part, because of slave labor but largely due to the allied bombing campaign. 5. I can't speak very well for the other branches but I can certainly tell you that young mans bravado is alive and strong in the Marines. Many of them have listened to the stories their senior leaders have and the stories of the Corps' past deeds and a LOT of young Marines are chomping at the bit for a chance to cement their legacy in the annals of their beloved Marine Corps. 6. Ukraine versus Russia isn't a display of a less advanced force competing with a more advanced one in the way you think. At first it was a display of what tenacity and vigor get you against an enemy with virtually the same tech. Now with western weapons its a display of how well a smaller army can compete when your weapon systems outclass those of your opponents. 7. I agree with a most of your videos and many points in this one, such as a direct ground engagement with Iran being against the US's interests, but I disagree strongly with almost all of the points you have about the tactical situation on the ground. A lot of people like to overestimate the US's military capabilities and some to underestimate but the US DoD has an enormous budget, some of the worlds brightest minds, trains constantly and consistently attempts to discover and correct shortfalls in tactics and doctrines.

@zachofthebattery2864

5 ай бұрын

one of the best breakdowns i've ever read thank you.

@buddermonger2000

5 ай бұрын

I think the part which isn't discussed nearly as often as it should be is that the tech level on both sides was basically the same. They were two modern industrialized countries duking it out in a war. With the same doctrine. It is two Russian armies. Much more akin to the American Civil War than most other wars

@zachariahhoots1735

5 ай бұрын

@buddermonger2000 I agree. At the start of the conflict and until about a year in, Ukraine largely had the same equipment the Russian had. Now, they're operating with much smaller amounts of Western equipment than Western militaries would use and doing okay. I think Ukraine was a poor example for him to use.

@buddermonger2000

5 ай бұрын

@zachariahhoots1735 Honestly some of the worst. However, I'd actually refrain from saying Ukraine is the smaller army. The trend for manpower for much of the war so far was actually in favor of Ukraine, and the first counter offensive was conducted with personnel advantage. And it's precisely what Russia lacked and was another limiting factor on Russia. But you're right they are absolutely transitioning to western equipment

@bojangles8873

5 ай бұрын

Thank God for a sane fucking take in here. His doctrinal takes were just flat out bad and misinformed.

giving up bagrham airbase was one of the greatest blunders in history

@tritium1998

Ай бұрын

Your guy said Afghans are tougher fighters than you and mountain warfare is impossible.

Fabulous work, Rudyard! Another gold star! ⭐️

I can already see Nikki Haley and Chris Christie salivating reading the title of this video

You severely underestimate the level of paranoia and wargaming US training commands engage in. I understand that seeing trends others don't is your thing, but every US weakness you reference (especially with regards to carriers) is a hot, constantly discussed topic within the Navy.

@colins5142

5 ай бұрын

I think you’re severely underestimating the lack of actual leadership at the top of the US armed forces 😜

@nosferatustg7675

5 ай бұрын

Seeing how the insanely war gamed ukrainian counteroffensive went (And yes, we know that the US and Ukraine planned it alongside each other in several war games) i really dont have that much faith in US leadership's capability to program their capabilities...

@Metalgarn

5 ай бұрын

I'd feel better if the actual military experts got to make those decisions. But all military leaders now are nothing more than unelected bureaucrats and are more politician than military leader. So yes, I am sure there are plenty of people in the Navy that understand the issues but they aren't the ones issuing the orders.

@viysnjor4811

5 ай бұрын

@@Metalgarn Military leaders were never elected..

@VHBEngines

5 ай бұрын

He gets a good gist of things but is lacking on the details. Also anyone who's served and deployed knownhow laughable it is for him to declare we "lost" the "war" in Afghanistan

Fantastic analysis, I loved this video keep up the great content!

"No Iranian ever called me nazi." -Cassius Clay

@EatMyShortsAU

5 ай бұрын

lol well Iranians are Aryan it is where the word actually comes from. They are not "Brown" like how people in the US likes to lump people together.

@FelixMendelson

5 ай бұрын

​@@EatMyShortsAUyes thats true. Some have been raped by the Islamic invaders and stuff but yes they are even now quite distinct from Arabs for the most part. And they are pretty smart too.

@canchero724

5 ай бұрын

​@@EatMyShortsAUIran is probably more "white" than the super "diverse" USA right now. This shit is hilarious.

Rudyard, I respect your opinion on a lot of things. On particular point regarding aircraft carriers though, I'm going to have to disagree for three main reasons: 1.) GPS guided ordinance is excellent for fixed targets or targets that can be quickly serviced in the kill chain. Aircraft carriers are neither. Despite their size, they are some of the fastest surface combatants on the sea. 2.) More vulnerable does not mean obsolete. There is nothing in the world that can do everything an aircraft carrier can do as well as an aircraft carrier can do them. As such, they are likely to stick around. The only time a weapon system is truly obsolete is when another totally outclasses it in it's role or it's role no longer exists. 3.) There are a staggering number of times very intelligent and informed people have predicted the end of the tank, the end of the helicopter, hell the end of the *bayonet* only to see them decades later still doing their jobs due to technical or doctrinal modifications. I can assure you, the doctrine of the US is not the same as it was in WW2. We do not maximize firepower. We maximize the precision of our firepower. Rudyard, you may want to check your facts about who won Verdun, my dude. As that paragraph went on, it sounded as if you were reaching further and further for talking points until you got something completely wrong.

@nicholaslivingston7273

5 ай бұрын

It is interesting how he takes into account the advancement of missile munitions but seems to ignore the precision guided system that also comes with that advancement giving you a much greater chance to hit precision targets and not needing to do carpet bombing.

@jgw9990

5 ай бұрын

A weapon system can be superceded by more than one new system. Everything aircraft carriers do can be adopted by other ships. US navy officers themselves have proposed this. For example, ground strike can be hived off to arsenal ships which can carry MORE LONGER RANGE MISSILES WITH HIGHER PAYLOADS. The big problem with carriers is they're an all eggs in one basket solution. The loss of a single super carrier will be totally demoralising for America. You only have 11 of them.

@garrettharriman6333

5 ай бұрын

@@jgw9990 Aircraft carriers are not an all eggs in one basket design; you need a large ship to carry an effective compliment of aircraft, and their specialization is the reason you never see them alone. An Arsenal ship has, theoretically as none have been built yet, higher strike potential than an aircraft carrier, sure. What it doesn't have is aircraft. When you arguing that aircraft carriers are obsolete, you're arguing that combat aircraft are obsolete. If that's an opinion you hold, you have the right to it. I personally think that's absurd. The US has 11 super carriers, yes. We have also have 31 amphibious assault ships, which are best thought of as pocket carriers that also give marines a ride.

@jgw9990

5 ай бұрын

@garrettharriman6333 They are an all eggs in one basket strategy. If a carrier group loses its carrier, its just lost about 80% of its offensive combat power and will likely retreat from the field. I don't think Combat aircraft are redundant, and I don't think carriers need to be scrapped. But I do think America needs to consider other fleet strategies. Carriers suck up so much resources that you can't do much else. My preference would be for there to be a smaller number of carriers which have a more specialised role, with some of their current duties hived out to new cheaper ships. As an example - there are a lot of strategic land targets which don't tend to move around, eg enemy airfields, enemy bases, enemy ports - a missile ship with long range missiles can target those. Aircraft can focus on taking out their own kind, and eliminating air defences.

@easonyeung2779

5 ай бұрын

Rudyard doesn't seem to be a geek for military equipment, so he probably wouldn't know this, but the entire reason why the US let something like the F-117 Nighthawk go into production as a bomber despite its pathetically small payload of only two bombs was that two bombs was all that the plane needed with the advent of modern guided munitions.

I’ve recently started watching your videos, and have loved them. Your insight into cultural, sociological, economic and demographic and issues is a joy to watch and listen to. With that said, and with the utmost respect, virtually every claim you made in this video from the 11:20 mark until the 29:30ish point (where you address the constitution and attitudes of the US military at present) is either entirely misunderstood or flatly incorrect. I have a background in military history, an expertise in modern military realities, logistics, strategy and tactics, as well as a high degree of understanding as to what modern Iran looks like on the ground, etc and (again, respectfully) it sounds very much to me like you don’t have much of an understanding of any of those subjects. If I could offer some constructive criticism (I’m not sure if you even read comments), it may be wise to consult with some experts (and by this I don’t necessarily mean some academics, who often in today’s academia have little understanding of these issues likewise) before formulating your thoughts. You’re obviously an intelligent guy who knows a lot about culture and has a good understanding of the modern West from the inside, if you did get a good base of knowledge on these issues I think you’d have some excellent things to say on the subject. For what it’s worth, I’ll keep watching your videos, and I hope you keep making them.

as a Turk, I don't remember any honest statement to Turkey from US all my life. If there was more cooperation, anti-americanism would melt. But there is a blindness on US side, I don't know why.

I already played Battlefield 3 once -- I don't want to have to do it again IRL.

@yoyonn1

5 ай бұрын

@content_enjoyer4458no, you don’t

@Mana-xd2tp

5 ай бұрын

​​@content_enjoyer4458LOL we'll all get fucking drafted because the U.S Military is in desperate need of low-level canon fodder like us. You won't have a fucking choice.

@manniking233

5 ай бұрын

​@@Mana-xd2tp. I absolutely admire the extremely brilliant capacity of Gen Z to be highly cynical about their situations all the time! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@eightyoutube11

3 ай бұрын

@@Mana-xd2tp I’d rather disable myself from the waist down then fight for our country

So I usually agree with your assessments. But I served onboard the USS Enterprise and the USS Bush. And I went through the straits of Hormuz multiple times. Infact my first deployment was pretty much because Iran said they were going to mine it and no longer allow US warships through. While rockets are a concern, we absolutely know how to deal with them. We have many tested systems for removing them from our skies. And beyond that, aircraft carriers are really, really hard to sink. You need to try and speak with some people who have served aboard these vessels. It will likely change your mind.

@fastestfail2645

5 ай бұрын

100%. It's like he thinks the us doesn't know anti ship missile exist and the us would just let them hit. Also he forgot all the stealth aircrafts that could completely bomb the anti ship missiles.

@jimmyjones8676

5 ай бұрын

​@@fastestfail2645 If they have the production they can try to overwhelm the defense systems. For a 12 billion dollar ship a hell of a lot of rockets are needed for it not be a good trade.

@notenote2004

5 ай бұрын

Rockets are one thing, ballistic missiles are another… and Iran has many, many of them!

@kiddaliproducer

5 ай бұрын

Irans Kamikaze drones can effectively overwhelm our air defenses, and it wouldn't take many Russian hypersonics to sink an entire fleet, US military tech is dated, it's not 1990 anymore and Ukraine proved that

@dagda101

5 ай бұрын

Also sinking it wouldn't be necessary. Do you think the US would take the humiliation and PR hit of loosing a fcking carrier? To Iran? I think they would be more open to loosing the war than to win it and loose a carrier in the process. Just think about it, if Iran can sink the US's top asset...what would China or Russia think about it? Anyway, the point is that all Iran needs to do is to create a big enough potential threat of sinking the damn thing as to promt the US to keep it safe, thus reducing its effectiveness. It's unlikely but not impossible that a single shot wouldn't be needed to achieve this.

Great video chief. Keep up the great work.

Great analysis at all levels, very impressive!

One correction: ONLY reasson why Battleships where ousted by Aircraft carriers where the range of the strike it could launch. Battleship can atack , at maximum , targets 30km away . Carrier can atack targets 300km away. thats all there is. Carriers are WAY more vulnerable , but they have longer arms .

@CrystalStarscape

5 ай бұрын

battleship == T-rex

@murasame5071

5 ай бұрын

TRex are awsome@@CrystalStarscape

@jgw9990

5 ай бұрын

​@murasame5071 But that's exactly why the carriers are becoming dated. China has developed ground missiles which can threaten US ships 1000km out. Carriers are outranged. Especially given carrier aircraft often have shorter range due to naval compromises to make them work on carriers in the first place. Missiles can provide greater range than aircraft now. I'm not saying carriers are useless yet. But their role needs to be modified to fleet defence and anti ship duties. Ground strike needs to be delegated to a new type of arsenal ship which can act as big missile trucks. The Us navy have been thinking about aich a ship for decades, but in classic US fashion made a ridiculously overpriced overspecked version in the zumwalt destroyers. A true arsenal ship should be simple and cost about a third of a destroyer.

@murasame5071

5 ай бұрын

yes , i agree but there is one but. there is no evidence that those chinese missles actually work @@jgw9990

@TheGreenKnight500

5 ай бұрын

​@@jgw9990Unlike Battleships, I can imagine carriers being useful for a long time to come. They're basically mobile military bases. I don't think there's a better way to transport all those aircraft over such a long distance. If they become more vulnerable to missiles, new strategies for how to safely position and protect them will have to be developed. Just like with the "tanks are obsolete" discussion, I think the actual role carriers play can't be easily replaced yet.

It’s always about the determination. The US is not losing wars, it’s losing interest! That’s a significant difference.

@jonathanjacob5453

5 ай бұрын

The outcome is the same.

@ZahdShah

5 ай бұрын

no its gaining interest. On the usury debts its in to finance these wars LOL. An iranian war would bankrupt you or cause hyperinflation

@bjmcmahon722

5 ай бұрын

There is a difference, but still no winning

@ironmonkey1512

5 ай бұрын

US hegemony is fading as we speak. Technological, academic and social all deteriorating.

@jonathanjacob5453

5 ай бұрын

@@ironmonkey1512 Indeed. There is very little the US can do that others can’t anymore.

Sorry to dismiss this, but the misunderstandings and blindspots have left your analysis almost entirely inaccurate.

@jchan2299

5 ай бұрын

What misunderstandings and blindspots do you mean? I'm generally curious, not trying to sound snarky.

@joshkarpatkin2642

5 ай бұрын

This guy's entire ideology is: America bad because America woke

@jchan2299

5 ай бұрын

@@joshkarpatkin2642 I disagree. It's not as simple as America is bad because it's woke. It's that America is in a state of decay because it is going woke. And then lists off the ramifications of going woke. But I am interested to hear any points and data refuting his points and data.

@kenhiett5266

5 ай бұрын

​@@jchan2299​ It would take a 3 or 4 page essay to refute the particulars, so I'll point out a glaring omission that undermines his argument at the level of premise. The question this video is based on is the wrong one. Setting nuclear aside, the U.S. military would achieve surrender in a relatively quick landslide if an all out war for survival was at stake. The conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and even Vietnam were akin to policy initiatives. We haven't engaged in an existential conflict with clearly defined parameters of what winning means since WWII. The question that should be asked is if a conflict with Iran would be popular enough to use the full might of the U.S. military's capabilities in the first place. Considering Iran's total inability to challenge on U.S. soil, what could lead to a situation like that? Other than the liberation of Kuwait, these conflicts in the middle east have been a balancing act in service of what the political dynamics will tolerate.

@jchan2299

5 ай бұрын

@@kenhiett5266 you make a lot of good points. I do want to say when executing a war I'm not sure it's a full on conclusion though. The US may have air dominance but as it's been pointed out by a Marine to me, the Air Force doesn't hold ground. Executing a ground campaign in rugged terrain is another ball game against a dug in "semi-advance" force. I think he did a good job in highlighting that. I do wonder too the amount of forces that would be dedicated to the war in theory and how many would remain in reserve and how many would remain as deterrents in other locations. It just feels like a lot of variables for any foregone conclusions. I do question the resolve of the American people to stomach losses that would come with a war of this nature also. And that's a huge component in this as well past the first 3 months.

This video MAY become revelent right now

The arms dealers of course!!!

@a3cools115

5 ай бұрын

jews?

@thinkpolhub

5 ай бұрын

Blackrock....

@darksu6947

5 ай бұрын

​@@thinkpolhubSmokerocks

I literally had a conversation with my friend (a military brat) about how deadly and stupid it’d be if the Biden admin chose to war with Iran right before seeing this uploaded. Hilarious

@paul.hogan720

5 ай бұрын

@@content_enjoyer4458 you have lost every war since vietnam

@jhoughjr1

5 ай бұрын

Don’t forget Korea we lost the shit out of that war .

@johnprince2943

5 ай бұрын

@@paul.hogan720 US hasn't lost any war buddy. '

@Godfrey544

5 ай бұрын

@@johnprince2943 You've lost ALMOST every war since vietnam

@pewpew9193

5 ай бұрын

​@Godfrey544 No, the US has never lost a war because they "lost". They've just only been waging wars that they never really cared about the outcome of. Korea? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Could have all been turned into parking lots if the US actually cared to. All those wars were political wars that were abandoned when they were no longer politically useful. It's not like Iraq wasn't a cakewalk. The 4th largest army on Earth offered almost no resistance. The US defeated them 2 seperate times with lightning speed. The US was thoroughly dominating North Vietnam. Public opinion ended the war, not North Vietnam. The US occupied Afghanistan for 20 years. New government & everything. Leaving was again, a politcal move. As for the Korean War, you should probably ask a South Korean what they think. I'm guessing they're pretty happy to not be ruled by the communists.

Astute insights, as always.

This aged well

Can we get another video on WW3? Seems like a good time to update your outlook based on recent development

@Azurethewolf168

5 ай бұрын

I mean there’s always a chance, but it’s likely not to happen just considering the amount of problems and potential damage it would cause globally, now is not the time

@TheFish711

5 ай бұрын

@@Azurethewolf168is there ever a good time for world war? Lol

@Azurethewolf168

5 ай бұрын

@@TheFish711 no but it’s mostly due to pressure from governments due to rational thinking and decision making, which ends up causing unforeseen consequences and then more governments join in

@Azurethewolf168

5 ай бұрын

@@TheFish711 I guess if you mean: is there a good time for to reset the world order? Then now and the same time that WW1 happened is pretty good

@LucasFernandez-fk8se

5 ай бұрын

@@Azurethewolf168that would be the reason for ww3. They don’t have world wars when things are going swimmingly. The last world war started because Germany had hyper inflation and the U.S. a depression. Today America has hyper inflation AND is going through a silent depression while China is going through an even bigger depression with an unemployment spike, along with every nation having a resource crisis. World war 3 is more likely to start now than 2003 when everything was going swimmingly and the economy was prosperous 🤷‍♂️

Winning a war requires abandoning rules of war. Whoever is the most brutal is going to win.

@misanthropic4ever

5 ай бұрын

@@herethere5637 Not that I want it to happen, but if the United States was actually abandoning the rules of war and getting brutal, we would never lose. That is unless a lot of countries teamed up on us, which they would probably rightfully do if we did that. Using weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological while specifically targeting civilians would be devastating to any country.

@saadsyed8671

5 ай бұрын

The US does that. They just are the only who won’t get punished. Think of the amount of American war crimes and how hard it is to find them.

@seto_kaiba_

5 ай бұрын

This isn’t true. Winning war isn’t about bare brutality, its about strategy and resources.

@misanthropic4ever

5 ай бұрын

@@seto_kaiba_ Maybe if you’re dealing with people who are willing to stop fighting and accept defeat. If you’re dealing with people who will fight to the death you have to go all the way. This isn’t an endorsement of that action. We shouldn’t be in these situations all the way on the other side of the planet. I feel like the further you are fighting from home the less likely you are the good guys.

@mg5786

5 ай бұрын

@@saadsyed8671 Lol the US is always fighting with the gloves on in order to maintain worldwide political standing. Just because you whine that they’re warmongering does NOT mean they are fighting anywhere close to their full potential.

Begs the question: what is your channel now? I would say you’re an alternate future channel! It’s intillectually entertaining content either way so welcome back!

You missed one very critical aspect of the US Navy. It's submarine fleet. All of it's attack submarines are capable of carrying precision guided cruise missiles. Four Ohio class ballistic missile subs had their tubes ripped out replaced with 154 cruise missile tubes. These can all be fired while the boats are submerged. It would be these that would go in and strike first. Their targets would be the Iranian air and missile bases to clear the way for the surface fleet to operate safely. They'd also completely wipe out the Iranian Navy while they were at it. That's not a hard thing to do. The US Navy previously destroyed or crippled half of Iran's navy in a mere 8 hours in the late 80s during Operation Praying Mantis.

It's worth noting that Saudia Arabia desperately wants U.S. safety guarantees, so they would probably be willing to let the U.S. stage from there in exchange for those.

@adspur

5 ай бұрын

I truly believe the uptick in other Islamic terror groups is being funded secretly by state actors to give Iran another threat to contend in.Imagine if the Kurds and Azeri started a fuss suddenly.Balochi ethnic area is hot right now.Ethnic groups wanting a different path for their people is one issue in that particular area of the world

@chrisahearn789

5 ай бұрын

Plus the Chinese can't project the strength needed to back up any security guarantees they'd potentially make. Plus China getting closer to Russia could cut the Saudis out of the Chinese oil market.

@alexiel4406

5 ай бұрын

I think that even if the Saudias didn't like the US they would be on board just because its against Iran

@blackseed9293

5 ай бұрын

Iran would not let you stage and just chill. They would obliterate the oil fields and destroy most of the troops. You guys are like an old prize fighter remember yesterday years

@anthonyk423

5 ай бұрын

@@blackseed9293 US could destroy Irans oil field and freeze most of their accounts. You need money to fight a war

Yeah i think you're on the wrong side of the Dunnings-Kreueger regarding modern war. I think you need some reevaluations regarding how firepower wins wars. You're right manpower is required so drones cannot replace soldiers. However, the reason German output spiked was because it had officially committed its entire economy to the war effort which it had been reluctant to do. Separately, air power won the day in the 3 desert wars as advances in precision munitions allowed not just destruction of strategic assets, but the ability to destroy air defense and command and control assets, something impossible during WW2. This allowed units to roll over now disorganized and effectively leaderless units who thus offered little resistance. Fundamentally, still completely possible in mountains. Though you're correct regarding mechanized pushes in them.

I thought it was so interesting around minute mark 17:00 how the theory of disruption, the process by which small companies beat out industry leaders, is the same way small countries can beat large ones.

"You want to be an Alexander, but in me you will not find Darius" Shapur ll to roman emperor Julian

Over on the mountain, thunder magic spoke: „Let the people know my wisdom, fill the land with smoke“…

What everyone in favour of the war forgets us that while we could win, it would be so costly china and russia would instantly take advantage.

Nailed it on this analysis.

9:42, Azerbaijan is NOT a sunni country. It is Shi'a.

@an0nycat

5 ай бұрын

Well, we can consider that Azerbaijan is a proxy of Turkey... 😅😅

24:30 - The North Vietnamese did not win the Americans in battle. We kicked their asses in almost every single battle we had with them, including their master plan the Tet Offensive. But they punched us where it hurts the most - Public opinion, and that's how they won. To that regard, the key factor to fight and win insurgency warfare and smaller militaries in their home territory is by the might of one major factor - resilience. The defender naturally has more resilience because he is fighting for his home. If the attacker can't gather his public to fully support the war, no matter how long and bloody it may be - It's doomed to fail. This is true especially for democracies.

@FelixMendelson

5 ай бұрын

Democracy what a joke . You need to be a millionaire to run for anything and in the end your just a parrot for lobby groups . Just ugly actors , mostly Finlands PM was pretty hot IMO . DAMNED FINNS

@WhoAreYouForYou

5 ай бұрын

@@content_enjoyer4458 Support the other side

@BoneistJ

5 ай бұрын

North Vietnam themselves said after invading the south after the US air support had been withdrawn that had the war lasted 2 more years, they would have to have sued for peace due to being completely out of manpower.

@mikelitten7489

5 ай бұрын

@@BoneistJBringing cameras and allowing the media and ignorant public to opine on warfare was the end of us being successful in war. War has always been ugly, it will always be ugly, nothing has changed. Stop letting the public dictate war policy.

@deriznohappehquite

5 ай бұрын

@@BoneistJ And, notably, Vietnam was a wake up call that caused the U.S. military to reinvent much of its doctrine.

I enjoy your videos, but I need to offer a correction: India has not become one of the United States best allies. The governments of the two countries share perspectives on certain issues for example, China and Israel. However, they have polar opposite views when it comes to Russia.

One thing you didn't mention is the importance of debt in war. Wars are always payed for primarily by debt and require a surge of debt based spending at the onset. Surging debt now is very dangerous, and would be a hard sell to Americans.

If there is a war, it will be over the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and general global access to the Suez Canal. Maritime trade is already going around Africa in response to what has been going on for the past few months. Also, the US is well aware of the power of missiles and pretty much every US ship has anti-missile technology. Aircraft Carriers are still useful so you can have air dominance without a land-based ally nearby. Piloted aircraft are still useful since they can outmaneuver anti-air fire whereas drones or missiles cannot. The big question is this: how effective is Iran's military? Iraq was able to fend them off, and then that same Iraqi military was crushed in the Gulf War and the War on Terror. The Taliban chose not to engage the US military directly and instead fled to the mountains where they knew the US would not be able to use large-scale tank or airplane operations (the US also refused to genocide the local population as the Soviets did, which could have changed the outcome of the war there dramatically).

@easonyeung2779

5 ай бұрын

I believe that Rudyard is forgetting the fact that aircraft carriers don't travel alone but in carrier strike groups and each of the surface ships should have their own anti-air capabilities. In fact, we're seeing their capabilities right now off the coast of Yemen where repeated missile and drone attacks by the Iranian-supplied Houthis have done nothing to either US naval ships or cargo ships they're protecting since Houthi munitions keep getting shot down. They're doing it so easily that the captain of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier in the area (Chris "Chowdah" Hill) is just casually posting on twitter about giving his crewmen cookies, letting them sit in his captain's chair, and playing with a ship dog. Meanwhile, the Houthis are making propaganda videos about how strong and mighty they are while US and British aircraft are bombing their assets with impunity.

@dekel2246

5 ай бұрын

Well said

@dekel2246

5 ай бұрын

Also Israel would definitely get involved and help America deploying with American a lot of its own troops it have a sizable army with a lot of experience so that would help and America have a giant base in Qatar

@TheSeargentStriker

5 ай бұрын

The Iran army you talk about was a completely different one during the Iran-Iraq than it is today. On one hand iran just went through a tumultuous revolution and was disorganized also you said that Iraq „was able to fend them off“ this makes no sense since Iraq was the one invading with a superior military. Also Irans military strategy today is completely set up on asymmetric warfare and making the cost of an invasion as high as possible. An invasion of Iran is going to be exponentially more costly than Iraq

@predomalpha5596

5 ай бұрын

I was under the impression that Iran successfully fended off the Iraqi military

I think the correct answer to the title question is "All the enemies of the United States and Iran except for the United States and Iran." It would be a nasty war that would cost both sides more than they could possibly hope to gain.

24:15 hamas’s attack into israel was a surprise attack so ofc its gonna seem effective, Ukraine has the backing or had the backing of the entirety of nato both financially and logistically and finally the Taliban just waited until we left because they knew they had a significantly better chance of winning against afghan security forces rather than the Americans

Murica! RAAAAAA! 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🟥⬜🟦🟥⬜🟦🛻🌎🌍🌏AMERICAN VALUES WORLDWIDE BABY! RAAAAAAAAA! 🌍🌎🌏🦅

Tribal people that live in mountains are notoriously hard to conquer ie Afghanistan, dagistan, even the scottish Highlands was only mapped after the highland clearances in the 1800s

@tritium1998

Ай бұрын

Afghanistan has been among the most conquered places in history.

@user-jr8ch2ji1l

Ай бұрын

@tritium1998 attempts at conquering maybe but successful not many

I love how consistent the narrator's voice patterns are.

GREAT TIME TO POST THIS VIDEO GOTTA SAY!

Good analysis

One thing you missed, while discussing the draft. All military retirees, under age 65, are subject to recall. Everyone calls it "retirement" pay, but its actually retention pay. But I do think the same statements you said about recruiting, and the draft, generally apply to the military retirees. Since, as a whole, we are more right leaning then the general population.

I think that you should make a video that includes a handful of mini alternate histories. When you think of all of the benefits it makes sense. I’m sure a lot of the viewers would love this too.

17:10 "as far as I can tell, the US has kept a World War Two era doctrine of maximizing firepower." *spits coffee* "American command has also become less fluid over the last few decades." WHAT?????

Two months later, the situation has gone worse for the US.

Also, remember, the Isrealis have shown F 35 can violate Iranian airspace with impunity. The head of their airforce was fired over this. That will be catastrophic.

@ronmka8931

5 ай бұрын

lmao it was a lie by the israelis to sow confusion, there was no F-35

@Emrod82

5 ай бұрын

Iran will lost the conventional air war on the first minutes of the war, obviously. But they aren't bad with drones and that will be a issue.

@jeremygair4007

5 ай бұрын

@Emrod82 the question is, for how long and how often. They'll certainly send much more than the Houthis you can count on that

@ronmka8931

5 ай бұрын

the f35 story was a psyop btw

@jeremygair4007

5 ай бұрын

@@ronmka8931 no reason to believe you

My main issue with Afghanistan or Vietnam being able to beat back foreign invasion is that both nations had to suffer occupation to do so and even still suffered insanely one sided k/d ratios with the Americans. The fact that most Iranians live in cities means they have a large portion of the population unaccustomed to a guerrilla lifestyle and therefore the U.S. could leverage its control over population centers to kill Iranian resistance in this scenario

@jonathanjacob5453

5 ай бұрын

Can you give us the probability of the scenario you described happening?

@Patson20

5 ай бұрын

And more importantly a large portion of Iran is actively opposed to the government and they've had to put down riots with the military lately. It's an urban population used to comfort and starting to demand democracy.

@jonathanjacob5453

5 ай бұрын

@@Patson20 it almost sounds like you described most countries on the planet. I doubt any population wants to see their country invaded, their people killed and gouvernement appointment by some foreign power.

@ChickenVeggi

5 ай бұрын

Occupying Urban areas can be just as or even more painful. The reason Taliban mostly fought in the mountains is because their support base was mostly rural. Whereas Urban people were either ambivalent or supportive of the central government. But in Iran's case US will have to face both Urban and Mountainous guerrilla warfare

@Dogmeat1950

5 ай бұрын

North Vietnam was never occupied by the U.S and the U.S wasn't allowed to take the gloves off. "Police Action"

When you say "modernity", it sounds like a dirty word. I then realized that it actually is. Our current century sucks.

As an Iranian living in Iran: the hatred that the general public has against the regime is tremendous. More than 80% of Iranians demand a regime change, and the best strategy for the US is to 1- put maximum pressure on Iran's regime. 2- maximum support for the people, which is your natural army on the ground. 3- Support the opposition of this regime (the most popular opposition for Iranians is Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi). Conquering Iran is so hard and costly. Counting on Iranians to regime change, however, is so feasible and cost effective. Most Iranians have become so liberal during these four decades, and by a regime change, the US would have a strong ally in the region. It also dramatically decreases the spread of radical Islam in Western societies.

I served in Afghanistan and i can assure you those guys were beaten. We took Afghanistan in just about the dane time it took for iraq and just became an occupation. If the objective was obliteration it would have been extremely easy. Those ppl are ONLY good under occupations because they have no where else to go and we oppose strict rules and limitations on our military. Iran may be a harder objective due to geography but make no mistake. If we want to destroy an enemy it wouldnt be that difficult

@shadowofhawk55

5 ай бұрын

I think Iran would be an easier occupation for the fact Rudger mentioned there's many dissident groups we could turn against the Persians as well as the fact that its a Civilized country, not goat herders or rice farmers that can disappear into the wilds.

@VHBEngines

5 ай бұрын

@@shadowofhawk55 didn't even consider that. Great point

@shadowofhawk55

5 ай бұрын

@@VHBEngines Thanks

@retineyzer1670

5 ай бұрын

@@shadowofhawk55 But Iran is united not under persian ethnisity, but shia islam. Iran is very stable right now and is very hard enemy for USA couse their man have passionarity and backbone after enduring wars, revolution and complete isolation. USA can't win without drafting young man, regular army isn't enough

@shadowofhawk55

5 ай бұрын

@@retineyzer1670 Rudger outright says there are plenty of entities within Iran that don’t like the dominant power. Also with air dominance you don’t need ten thousand men storming the beaches you just need a few hundred to move through the ashes.

While I do appreciate your use of geography and history to demonstrate how quickly a battle can go wrong. I think you underestimate how valuable the purported capability of American air power would be. With this I mind I’d considered the war to be more of coin flip, not being suprised if America does win and does what it always does, lose the hearts of locals and leaves, and not being surprised if Iran held tight and grinded the American effort into dust

@1mol831

5 ай бұрын

A new Afghanistan

@johnprince2943

5 ай бұрын

@@1mol831 US won Afghanistan war easily.

@RA9U1

5 ай бұрын

@@johnprince2943 Who is celebrating and parading around in US equipment in the streets and centers of Kabul? American soldiers? American allies?

It would be super cool if the text walls omitted the bottom 20% of the screen so they could be read while the video is paused on the TV.

Mostly agree but I have to say that the US carrier fleet is not obsolete. In fact the carrier will remain the primary force projection tool for centuries. However the weapons employed by a carrier may have to change.

Its a beautiful thing to me as an Iranian. For 2500 years our empires have protected the core land of Iran, and now the land is our best protection.

Hello! I've been wondering... would it be possible for you to do a series of short videos where you put yourself in the POV of each of the US current allies where you describe each sides geopolitical needs? That'd be awesome.

That was very interesting, a lot of stuff oh this scenario I've never thought of. I found the later analysis of our right side politics to be unpleasant to sit thru but, nothing in it seems impossible as a worst case scenario for the US. Watch this after your Russia's fall video, also very good. Keep up the good work. I'm a center lefty, but appreciate this op and analysis.

Who else is having Carter Era flashbacks during the Biden Regime?

Saying that an invasion would be like WWII tactics of "Maximizing Fire Power" " is plain incorrect. For a better understanding of how the US fights, you need to look up Air, Land Battle, and its spiritual successor Multi-Domain Operations. It is a lot bigger than "plane go boom". Additionally, while a naval invasion involving marine landings in the south would likely be a significant effort, I think the main effort would be ground and air assaults to the west through Iraq. Stealth bombers would likely conduct SEAD, and open a corridor for Airfield seizures to cripple Iranian air. None of this would be possible without global allies and a major regional buildup of troops and supplies. Everyone would know what was about to go down, and the US would not start a fight it didn't think it couldn't win.

@jonathanjacob5453

5 ай бұрын

You should be the one commanding the US side in the Pentagon war games.

@captironsight

5 ай бұрын

@@jonathanjacob5453 Im just a guy who read the book.

@accountnumber1234567

3 ай бұрын

I was thinking the same thing regarding a land invasion. We would amass troops in Kuwait, and Iraq wouldn't be given a say in the matter.

Time to find out if Whatifalthist knows about military strategy

@kden9772

5 ай бұрын

I was dissapointed

.You don't know anything about the geo-strategic position of Iran, but the Pentagon knows very well what will happen in the war with Iran, because the Pentagon has simulated the war with Iran several times with a computer simulator, which resulted in a disastrous and complete failure.

Btw I already have had PIA for ~ 4 years. It’s absolutely essential… was able to watch my soccer games through my US apps while in UK for the last few weeks.

your explanation of why battleships became obsolete wasn't quite right. It was more about the development of anti-ship missiles with superior range to cannons than the airpower of aircraft carriers.

I think aircraft carriers are still relevent. Lazers have made insane progress and will replace anti air. They can stop missles quickly, cheaply, and more effective.

@charlescassels3826

5 ай бұрын

The advantage of carriers and the more modern flights of Arleigh Burkes is that their offensive capabilities are modular. An air wing can be replaced with more modern planes as long as the flight deck can support the size and weight. The VLS cells of the destroyer can take any number of missile tubes, so long as the ships system can communicate with the missiles. Both of these systems are going to remain relevant for decades to come.

@1mol831

5 ай бұрын

@@charlescassels3826but are they vulnerable to underwater drones? Or torpedo swarms

@charlescassels3826

5 ай бұрын

@@1mol831 no more than any other boat or ship, and they carry the very tools that counter or neutralize those threats.

@tiglishnobody8750

5 ай бұрын

@@charlescassels3826 Like what?

@thomasleewens-horsey8341

5 ай бұрын

@@tiglishnobody8750depth charges and sonar?? if you look at ukraines unmanned suicide boats it would offer a much scarier alternative