Yeah, I'd like to think that would be true regarding any Western European nation or Japan, and possibly South Korea. Not Canada though, they need to start learning the hard way that it'll take more than syrup and hockey to survive. (jk)

@@ahoyforsenchou7288 I don't know. You can do a lot of damage with syrup and a hockey stick.

@@williamjordan5554 as someone who was once knocked out and concussed by a hockey stick I can confirm this. Those things are fucking lethal 😂

It never will happen we’re always there for them no matter what

Unless the UK starts, then they would ally with the EU first and foremost. Thankfully no armed conflict will likely ever occur between the 2.

I think type of gun makes a big impact too... a 9mm vs a bolt action rifle shooting .30-06 or an AR15 is going to be a big difference. I'd be curious to see how many pistols vs rifles vs shotguns in the UK.

@@patty3299 This is a actually an excellent point. The U.K. relies heavily on Germany (Heckler and Koch, Ruger), the U.S. (Colt especially), and Turkey (Tisas, etc.) for its armaments.

Not to mention much of its artillery (and other heavy equipment, with the exception of light fighter aircraft) being manufactured by the U.S.

It’s a running joke that started because France got wrecked by the 3rd Reich during WW2 but this joke currently has no basis in reality. Nowadays, the French arguably have the most powerful military in all of Western Europe.

There have been only a few instances of France surrendering easily. France has won more wars than any other nation(1.115).

They are just very Nationalistic which is smart. They don’t want to fight except for their own country benefit. Yes they have that mercenary army as well which is unique, they take anyone from Europe, many criminals join

no Poland and Hungary not a big loss :)

@@didierlemoine6771 And then Poland has to go through another foreign occupation for 100 years. Seems like you like the EU.

@@American-Orthodox-Christian im european and i like Europ with no borders for people :)

@@didierlemoine6771 you also seem to forget why poland is nationalistic in the 1st place.

@@American-Orthodox-Christian Poland does not care of EU like Hungary

Ireland UK NZ and aus have alot in common. None more so than Ireland and Britain. But Canada? They are as foreign as you can get. They just happen to be in the commonwealth

while meanwhile the one who"s really winning are the covid-19 not even the military can stand a chance against that one

Haha. "Best friends." I think you have to consider a whole lot of other very important factors that will show you that in this scenario the UK would not really be the USA's best friend.

The purpose is overtake by the fact the biggest ennemy of US armed citizen are US armed citize.

@@tm.8399 The price we pay to stay unconquerable even by our own government theoretically.

@@williamjordan5554 Your gun would be useless against your gov, unless your ar 15 can damage a tank, helicopter etc...which it doesnt, that was effective 200 years ago when it was musquet again musquet, and even saw, the regular army won (civil war), because of the the training, the cohesion and experience of their leaders. No country in the world is unconquerable on its own. And your private gun would be absolutely useless against a regular army. The price you pay is killing more people than a real war for your own country, only thing topping that would be the covid.

@@tm.8399 300,000,000 guns could cause a lot of trouble for an occupying force of whatever origin. Think Vietnam multiplied by thousands. And don't think some national guard forces with their armories and ex-military won't flip sides. You don't know Americans.

@@williamjordan5554 Vietnam is a jungle where tank and armored car can't progress. Vietnam were heavily armed and reinforced by China. Much more that any civilian in the US can use now, from lmg to tanks and heavy artillery. You are in a world full of hypothetical coup d'état by the army, some national guard may or may not accept it, whily you are imaging a world full of biaised view, you are killing each other.

@Prof81Wil you did not understand their comment.

The US can touch EU territory easily.

@@williamjordan5554 the US will be with EU, always economical interest first

@dobatag no America will see its interest first :)) and England is small and poor :)

The point is - with US v UK scenario, the UK can’t really attack US mainland, but with UK v EU then UK can attack continental EU

Sure but can you first protect your capital before you make any commitments.

@@kenich2611 those dweebs were let in lmao

No, it wouldn't. It's pure logic.

You assume that the U.S. would be on the U.K. side, but they would be as neutral as possible, only giving financial aid and trying to find a solution, because the U.S. wants to keep both parties as allies. I don't think so, they will stay out of it for a long time and if only support Finaziall. Because the EU is a much more important trading partner, strategically more important it would be more difficult and worse to implement because it is strategically ineffective. And it would only bring disadvantages to most countries, especially the US. They would lose a lot of control over the world, they would lose markets and it would be extremely costly. The countries would take a lot of money and losses, although the countries with both parties work closely together and have many common projects. And the other important nations would also interfere, which could be the end of the US hegemony, which they would not risk.

@@Janoip Exactly. That's what I said in another comment.

But this is a no support battle

@@someonerandom7351 The US wouldn't allow the UK to go it alone. They just wouldn't.

@@jaydisqus3353 oh trust me I know we won’t we always have each other’s backs, hell I’ll go over there and help B)

@@someonerandom7351 Even a peacenik like me would support arming up and heading over. These videos are really honest about what would happen.

@@jaydisqus3353 but thankfully that would never happen, I hope

I’d like to think so, but that is not certain. The current US President was part of an administration that didn’t support Brexit, Mr. Obama even came to England to support the Remain vote before the Brexit vote.

@@anthonyhantonh brexit was an idiotic idea thought up by the equivalent of Trumptards in the UK. We suffered through Trump, they gotta suffer through Brexit.

@@Vendrix86 so you agree. Biden, in this hypothetical scenario, is more likely to side with the EU. That’s what I was saying.

@@anthonyhantonh I mean the whole point of this unlikely scenario was no allies/nukes so not really.

No offense but both the EU and UK are allies, from a pragmatic point of view the EU is the better choice.

There were 19 million guns sold in just the first 6 months of 2020.

@@krayzy932 a lot by first time owners to

It’s cute how excited you are about how many guns Americans have you must really be in love with your guns

@@johnwhite345 it’s cute how smug you are about the comments, you must really love yourself more than anyone else does.

bigger allies to EU than britain for sure !

The UK doesn't provide a lot strategically for the US, but the EU countries do.

@@MaSsiVeGaming1 eu countries also don’t meet the money Target for Nato. Security uk usa are the only countries to do it

Fair vlogs Uk UK cheats about its NATO military spending. UK spends less than 2% nato requirements. only USA, France, Poland, Estonia, and Greece spends the 2% nato target. so u need to post a real stats instead of ur Brit propaganda stuff.

Nah, Germany would essentially put themselves in charge of any major war, and the rest of the EU would agree because they know Germany could get it done (plus, they have the largest military).

@@Leon-bp6kb Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek.

sigh....it's a hypothetical war assuming EU is fully united against the UK....something you and the bloke with the hat doesn't understand for some reason.

And hypothetically russia will definitely invade to regain those fallen communist countries.

@@dmarklatham Yeah, given that in regards to strength and unity Germany is the weakest it's probably ever been. I mean, just imagine following Angela Merkel into war. Big yikes!

They have reacted to him before. Particularly the US vs UK one.

Yes, I believe that's exactly what the narrator means when he says "we're talking about a fantasy world" lol

@dobatag tip top

ANGLOSPHERE UNITE

llies. I don't think so, they will stay out of it for a long time and if only support Finaziall. Because the EU is a much more important trading partner, strategically more important it would be more difficult and worse to implement because it is strategically ineffective. And it would only bring disadvantages to most countries, especially the US. They would lose a lot of control over the world, they would lose markets and it would be extremely costly. The countries would take a lot of money and losses, although the countries with both parties work closely together and have many common projects. And the other important nations would also interfere, which could be the end of the US hegemony, which they would not risk.

I don't think they'd be too happy about British troops returning to their lands. Looking at the history I reckon they'd prefer the EU troops 😆

If this scenario did happen, and Republic of Ireland didn’t sign a peace pack with us than we have no further to choice to send troops into Northern Ireland, I love my fellow Irish cousins but I know the history will not agree with us in circumstance.

Not to mention the oceans on either side. Any invading force would have to deal with the same issues that the U.S. did in the "Could the U.S. take the U.K." video, but they'd have a much weaker military to try to accomplish it with. China is the only one that might come close, but they really only have troop numbers, not greater aircraft, ship, and armament numbers than the U.S. U.S. carriers are also more advanced and greater in number, so an invasion from the West would have to dodge all of our bases in Korea, Japan, Hawaii, the Philippines, etc., as well as the West coast. And if they do manage to land their troops onto U.S. soil (because 100% nobody is winning a naval or air war in U.S. territory) then they'd be greeted with hundreds of millions of guns.

Why make someone hold your beer you finish that shit then take care of business

@@wickedkotton5998 Even better. Long as there’s a fresh coldy waiting after.

@@patty3299 Naw, you can't have a dictatorship while you have a queen. And their queen seems immune to both retirement & death, so she's not going anywhere. Besides, death is not the impediment it once was. Keith Richards has been dead for 15 years or so, yet he still shows up at Stones' concerts.

There is one slightly more probable outcome in this scenario... The USA would INEVITABLY join the EU to "friendly tackle the UK" in order to protect their global hegemony and secure ties with their allies.

@@MaSsiVeGaming1 and how would that make sense, Two great powers like USA and EU going against a small nation of 65 million people. Firstly, It will take only a day for the EU to completely roll over the entirety of UK because of size and power between the two sides. secondly it makes sense to compare a war between the great powers like EUvs USA or China vs Russia. Thirdly, it’s laughable to compare the UK military power to that of the European Union.

@@patty3299 I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say? If you meant what would the EU do if the US attacked the UK unprovoked? Attacked should go before unprovoked. Or say attacked without provocation. This is all hypothetical. Then the little dig about the US and oil? You sound like Fred Armisen in a low budget Rob Schneider movie. You mad? Why the hate?

@@patty3299 I feel I may have stuck my foot in my mouth. I misinterpreted your comment. My mistake and my apologies.

If a minor country did it the USA would support the UK. If the EU did it the USA would support the EU.

@@MaSsiVeGaming1 I have to respectfully disagree. I do not see a scenario where the US does not support the UK or vice-versa. Our fates are tied together.

@@Blue_Eyed_Chippewa Of course, it's just a hypothetical scenario and we have the tendency to apply our own biases to it. Not to mention a scenario with any million possible outcomes. However, I think if we apply sense and reasoning to the scenario, in realistic terms with world consequences, then are two slightly more plausible scenarios to consider. 1.) Neutrality. The USA becomes a passive observer to the conflict, whilst perhaps (and plausibly) supplying the UK war effort indirectly, but at the same time avoiding tensions with the EU to minimise the risk of direct conflict and ensure its economic, trade and strategic military ties remain intact to protect its global interests. 2.) The USA sides with the EU politically to ensure a peaceful resolve to the conflict and protect its global interests.

And the US military bases all over the EU make up a large amount of their defense.....also would those bases also be overtaken first by the EU or are they counting them as EU defense numbers? By my reckoning they are doing the latter so it’s incorrect.

You assume that the U.S. would be on the U.K. side, but they would be as neutral as possible, only giving financial aid and trying to find a solution, because the U.S. wants to keep both parties as allies. I don't think so, they will stay out of it for a long time and if only support Finaziall. Because the EU is a much more important trading partner, strategically more important it would be more difficult and worse to implement because it is strategically ineffective. And it would only bring disadvantages to most countries, especially the US. They would lose a lot of control over the world, they would lose markets and it would be extremely costly. The countries would take a lot of money and losses, although the countries with both parties work closely together and have many common projects. And the other important nations would also interfere, which could be the end of the US hegemony, which they would not risk.

lol..

We do have firearms. They're just not as prevalent. The firearms we do have though are hardly outdated. We still have some hefty firepower 😆

how does UK has the best military in the world? what are u smoking my friend?

@@siadwarsame2045 You should probably read that again cause that's not what I wrote.

The US also has many more bases in the EU I personally would disagree with any war with the EU/UK and would likely side with the defender in a war.

No 😂 no it wouldn't. We only just patched things up with Ireland, if we sent troops back there I'm sure they'd join the EU Coalition

First of all we have two carriers not three and when the original video was made the second one wasn’t in service

🇳🇱🤝🇬🇧❤️

lel

Britain only invades the Dutch for pancakes with stroop and a quiet smoke😉🥞

Not at all. The U.S. needs the E.U. *way* more than the U.K. due to it being the gateway for every major combat theatre in the eastern hemisphere, and to serve as a buffer against the Russian Federation. Not only that, but a ton of our military resources are located in Germany (and to a lesser degree, France). It makes the U.K.'s strategic value and potential contribution to American hegemony look rather small in comparison.

@@willsofer3679 Buffer from the Russian Federation? how so, the Russian Federation is a risk to the EU, not the US. Worst case, the Russians take over and we're buying wine from a guy named Igor instead of a guy named Marcel. The Atlantic Ocean is our buffer from the Russian Federation. The only reason to fight in Europe at all is to defend Europe. Your argument boils down to "Europe is more important because we need access to Europe to defend Europe". It's a tautology, not an argument.

@@NVKyleBrown I'd be inclined to agree with you, but that's not actually what I meant. The U.S. military divides the world into regional theatres, and the Middle Eastern/Central Asian (arguably the most important), the African, and parts of the Indo-China theatre are accessed through Europe. It's a matter of logistics, and the strategic value of where Europe is in relation to the rest of the world. It's why we allot so much of our overseas resources to places like Ramstein. It's not actually about Europe itself. It serves as a buffer because that's where Russia has most of its expansionistic goals. It's a first front, but mainly in the case of the U.S. securing resources elsewhere, and the interest in securing Europe in order to do so. Europe is also a major regional military power, so helping them helps us with both projection and aid in conflicts.

@@NVKyleBrown Given how hostile the US reacted to our nation trading with Russia it appears that Russia is more of a threat to the US Empire than to Europe. Without Europe the US empire returns to a pre-WW2 state, while the Russians take over (not that I think they could, but let's assume for a second) and become a superpower once more. Russia-Europe and China vs. the US doesn't seem favourable. The US very much benefits from denying Europe to a third Superpower - that's Geopolitics 101.

@@Diomedene That war game allowed the US to attack other countries to cut off supply to the major military powers while this one would not. Not to mention the US vs EU would most likely be asking if the US could invade the EU which means it’s on the offense trying to occupy countries rather then defend against them.

@@notanoob8163 The scenario is everything. Taking over another country, vs defending yourself from that country invading are two very seperate propositions. But, taking over a country with the US helping to defend that country is tipping toward "invading the US" in terms of difficulty. With serious US support, there would be very few countries that could not mount a successful defense against any other hostile.

The commonwealth, I don't believe have any military obligations to the UK, however I can't see them backing the EU Coalition in any way.

@@Diomedene A highly unrealistic outcome only a dummy could come up with...

Yeh bots

if you are a boy yes bots if it is a girl boys xD

France has nukes. Germany has voluntarily none and could produce them within 2 month. Same with spain. We are talking about western industrialized countries here.

France has more nukes than uk snowflake! and EU doesn’t care about little Britannia lol.

I'm pretty sure the us at this point sits on the largest oil reserve followed by Russia then Saudi arabia

@@wickedkotton5998 Yeah...that is part of the joke...but you have obviously never seen the US&Oil memes 💯✌

For god's sake it's unrealistic because that's the point, it's supposed to be a fun hypothetical scenario to think about, not an actual milliary evaluation.

They literally say in the beginning 'it's a fantasy war.'

I don't think so, they will stay out of it for a long time and if only support Finaziall. Because the EU is a much more important trading partner, strategically more important it would be more difficult and worse to implement because it is strategically ineffective. And it would only bring disadvantages to most countries, especially the US. They would lose a lot of control over the world, they would lose markets and it would be extremely costly. The countries would take a lot of money and losses, although the countries with both parties work closely together and have many common projects. And the other important nations would also interfere, which could be the end of the US hegemony, which they would not risk.