I'm not sure anyone that has considered an invasion of the USA truly understands how many people in this country are thinking about this very scenario daily, and actually hoping that somebody is dumb enough to try.

the war fatigue over Vietnam and Iraq was largely due to the fact that we did not have to be there. they were not wars that posed an existential threat to the US. Fighting on American soil will not produce the same fatigue

The Appalachian region alone would make Afghanistan look like a walk in the park.

The Siege of Stalingrad in WWII lasted 6 months and was conducted by 600k German forces and allies, only to be defeated. At 450,000 population at the time, it was slightly larger than St. Louis is today. If the world turned on us, then they'd have to face and win a few hundred Stalingrads.

The first problem I see with Canada's brilliant plan to kick off the invasion of the US by taking several cities in Maine (3:40), is the difficulty in finding several cities anywhere in Maine.

As much as the US is divided right now, I can’t think of a more unifying event than an invasion of the US by the rest of the world. I can only imagine what sheer dread an invading soldier must be imagining at the thought of having to face tens of millions of heavily armed Yanks fighting not just for our country but from annihilation.

I had a conversation about this with friends not from the US and they all said they would fight for the US even if it were against their home country. Wild

I love that for this to be considered a conceivable idea the entire world has to put aside their differences and come together to even maybe have a chance

Foreign invaders: Whew, those coastal cities were a meat grinder. America: yeah, and they're the ones who don't like guns.

The short answer is a direct invasion would be extremely difficult to even attempt let alone succeed. But assuming the entire world is invading it would be possible, but still extremely costly. The US could inflict horrific losses just as it falls back across the oceans which would make the actual land invasion that much harder. But then comes the next problem, there are more guns in the US than there are people. It would become the largest insurgency in human history and not even the US could win a 20 year insurgency in Afghanistan. And this is all assuming the US maintains that it won't carry out first strike nuclear attacks if it was being invaded. Something that is almost as unrealistic as the entire world joining together to fight the US. If you want to stop America, it's far better to pit its people against themselves and let the house fall onto itself.

Alaskan here. Godspeed brothers, we'll hold 'em off for as long as we can.

When I lived in Germany a lot of people seemed to underestimate the shear size of America. If started a trip in the far west side of Texas and drove east for 12 hours, I’d still be in Texas, and that’s in my good gas mileage, aerodynamic, air conditioned car and not getting shot and ambushed ever few miles. And don’t get me started on trying to get through the Rockies in an army, that’d be a logistical nightmare from hell no matter the season

The Louisiana bayou alone puts a shiver down my spine. Then there are states like Utah,Idaho,Wyoming, parts of Colorado, the Dakotas, Texas, etc.. an invading force would literally have to fight for every blade of grass and every rock and tree.

As a Canadian, I know we don't have the most fearsome reputation but I would not let my big brother USA go down without a good fight. I'm not alone i'm sure.

I grew up in the Appalachain mountains of PA, and I can say with confidence that any fighting in that terrain would be some of the most brutal combat ever seen. Whether conventional or guerilla, someone is being bled white.

As an American it might seem odd to others in other countries watching us constantly arguing politically and we do however ive seen a few times in my life when either the community i was living in had a natural disaster and came together or on 911 when the whole country was visibly pissed off and wanted revenge within hours. Japan thought we were soft and assumed we would sue for peace after pearl harbor was attacked but that just pissed us off in a time when the country wanted to stay out of war - that anti war opinion changed in hours. Attack the U.S. directly and there is no doubt who did it ,we would fight to the last man and woman i promise .

I mean we CAN be invaded. It would turn out REALLY badly for whomever did it.

I am from Arizona that served in the Army. I was stationed in the South. Those Southern boys are armed to the teeth and will come up with the most genius ways of blowing stuff up.

The war fatigue in the US only exists because the past few wars have seemed pointless to its citizens and a massive waste of resources and human life to make already rich politicians and oil barrens even richer. But that wouldn’t be the case in the event of defending our home land. We would instantly put aside our petty political differences and would come together to defend our land.

Not to mention the U.S. Army National Guard. They practice this. Each State has one even Puerto Rico has one. They would be the initial defense force and could further train and command local volunteers. VA and TX have their own separate state volunteer miitias too.

The idea that McDonald's being natuonalized would be enough to cause all the world to forget how much they hate each other to unite to crush us made me laugh out loud. I mean this genuinely it was a great hypothetical with great conedic affect.

As Chris Rock so eloquently once said "The US took Iraq in a month. The whole world wouldn't even be able to take Baltimore in a month!" At this point, I don't think the U.S. could even invade the U.S.! It is ridiculously big and LUDICROUSLY well armed. Giving the American people a common enemy at which to direct their rage would be the worst mistake the world ever made.

Once again, without asking, Simon has provided an over analyzed answer to our shower questions. Thank you.

One key oversight with the land forces building up in South America is the Darien gap. There would be no feasible way to move any worthwhile amount of forces or run supply lines up from the continent by land. Also, would have to consider the mountainous terrain of central Mexico. Moving an army in from the south would be so slow and difficult at best until closing in on the border. American bombers would have plenty of time to keep them from getting that close.

Not to mention one thing about the guerrilla tactics. All the American veterans. We spent the last twenty years studying and insurgency. We've been learning counterinsurgency tactics. And most of us have no rules of engagement anymore. All of us are willing to teach this to the others.

For the west coast, you forgot about the coastal mountain ranges, like the Cascades, Sierra Madre, etc. An invading force would never even get close to the Rocky Mountains, because these high mountain ranges would be virtually impassable if defended.

Very impressive Knowledge of the Lower 48 US States. A couple points that could be added is the Logistical Struggle of moving large numbers of troops and equipment through Panama (the very definition of a choke point) and the strength of the Air Force in Alaska, which is set up to defend the Tip of the spear of a full scale Russian Assault. Great work Warographics.

American Geography: it’s all fun and games until the mountains start singing “Country Roads”

As an addendum, I would also like to point out that any South American military force attempting to move into Central America CAN ONLY do so via seaborn transport. This is because there are NO ROADS that connect Panama with South America, and the area along the Panama/Columbia border is heavily jungle and mountainous. While there are trails that might be used (drug smugglers have many such overland routes), good luck getting a modern mechanized military through that.

I think it's safe to say that if the ENTIRE world tried to invade the US it might be able to do it. The fact that it's not a guarantee just goes to show how utterly OP the US military is. I've seen a Nimitz class aircraft carrier and it's hard to even put into words how big those fuckers are, and they aren't even the new ones.

I love how Alaska is written off as an easy place to take even though it’s some of the roughest and most dangerous land on earth with some of the roughest and most well armed populations on earth

I love this analysis because it’s just “a dozen reasons not to try it”. Also something you didn’t mention, the average US soldier is better trained and equipped than almost anyone, and our logistics and command personnel are objectively the best in the world at what they do.

It honestly feels like a question I’ve heard asked a hundred times over but the McDonald’s origin story brings a whole new level to the argument

I lived a lot of my life outside of the US, from the former Yugoslavia to Germany. I live in the Midwest US now and all I can say is good luck. Police forces here could take a lot of military forces, and if they have any, and I mean any type of military backup shit good luck is all I can say. Like a Japanese General I belie it was said "invading the USA is impossible, there's a gun behind every blade of grass"

I been hoping for this scenario for such a long time. Give Americans a blatant reason to come together for a cause and you will see something beyond astounding.

Thank you so much for this information

"All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years." - Abraham Lincoln

I think it's important to consider a few things: Alaska has a massive amount of guns. Most people there are by nature survivalist who have experience with the incredibly harsh involvement. There are a lot of gangs in the coastal cities. The militarized police force. The insane amount of survivalists who prepare for that exact situation. And the list goes on

We also don't want to mention that we do have a 3 prong response system. 1 police 2 nation guard/air guard then 3 military, and that doesn't even involve civilians (which yes was mentioned)

Outstanding scenarios and details. These guys are excellent. Oh, btw, what a battle it would be

Lets add one thing missed. While we talked about the militias, we didnt talk about the inner city gangs. Philly, Chicago, NYC, LA, etc. Can you imagine if all the rival gangs, who know the cities extremely well decided to work together against an invading force.

You should do more wargames! Pick a few countries worth comparing or some current potential conflicts. These hypothetical videos are outstanding.

I don’t think a lot of people realize how tightly knit the Veteran community is across the country. That wound be a juggernaut alone.

Years ago there was a wargame made by the creators of the game Axis and Allies called Fortress America. It had America being invaded from the Southern border, Pacific coast and Atlantic coast. Initially the invaders have an advantage, however as the game drags on and the ennemy supply lies come into play, the invadrs face problems. If the American Player can hold off the initial attacks, America will usually win in a war of attrition. In Real Life, its my guess hat invders would face the same logistical and tactical problems. It the worst case America could use a "Chicken Bone" strategy meaning, and invader could very well gain a victory in the invasion, but end up choking to death trying to swallow the victory. Besides with the amoint of guns and ammo in the hands of American civilians, an invader woul face godawful amounts of partiisan and guerilla activity trying to pcify the country. It would be costly or a victorious eneny in terms of money, soldiers, and equipment.

Abraham Lincoln once said "if all the armies of Europe, Africa and Asia were to be lead by a man like Bonaparte, they would not be able to get a drink from the ohio" and more recently Yamamoto "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" really puts into reality of a scenario like this

Invasion from South America would be seriously impeded by the Darien Gap. There are no roads connecting North America and South America, because a section of jungle on the south side of Panama is too heavy. There are people who cross it - Venezuelan refugees in recent times - but it is extremely harrowing.

As much as we know it's impossible, this is a well researched and presented video

Many Americans don’t like our intervention in foreign wars (Vietnam, Iraq etc) but an invasion of our homeland would without question unite every single American citizen and we are a VERY well armed populace… as the famous quote goes “there would be a gun behind every blade of grass”

The fact that the US military is possibly bigger then the public knows is crazy

I'm a bit surprised the fact that the US would immediately invade Canada and capture the country before it could be used as a staging area wasn't brought up. Canada has roughly 60,000 or 70,000 men, and they get run over by an invasion from the south. That would open up huge tracts of land to use as a battlefield, and the US has significant experience fighting in Alaska and Canada.

I absolutely love your setup for this scenario! It made me guffaw and giggle 🤣

Really great video

Abraham Lincoln said it best. He knew once the US stretched from the East Coast all the way to the West Coast, it will be essentially unassailable. His one point was that if the US were to fail, it would be done by Americans themselves. The exact speech he made has been misquoted several times, but the general gist doesn't seem to dissipate. In the Lyceum address Lincoln said, “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

There is a big difference between losing the will to fight when your military is fighting a war in a foreign country that doesn't benefit your country or your people in the slightest versus fighting a war on your own soil to protect your own country and your own brothers. As you said look at Ukraine for an example of this type of determination in War. The US population may lose interest in fighting wars in other countries but considering the patriotism throughout America I highly doubt very many people would lose interest in protecting their own country from an invasion regardless of the cost

We are FAR more likely to take ourselves off the board than for an outside force to take us down, in my opinion.

I am having a difficult time imagining the premise that the whole of the world would cooperate. Still a fascinating analysis!

This was fun, although there was a distinct lack of addressing the probable attacks against opposing infrastructure and assets. The US isn't best known for playing defensively.

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." -Abraham Lincoln (Jan. 27, 1838 : Springfield, Illinois)

We're a house who fights with eachother, but you come at us and the giant gets angry

“Rocky Mountains or Appalachian foothills” there. Fixed it for you.

There's also the small fact that, as I understand it, there is simply not enough logistical capability to actually move forces to the continental US. Having significant expeditionary capability is actually rather unusual, with most national militaries being geared for the defense of their homeland.

Imagine landing on the east coast and meeting the Appalachian Mountains and its inhabitants. It would be like the door-dash equivalent for those wanting the valor of defending the country without the inconvenience of leaving their own property 😂😂😂

I think he said it best, this scenario haunts our dreams. Key word is dreams not nightmares we look forward to it.

Absolutely excellent, TU.

As an American the fact that publicly our military is that big is wild I’m sure we have a lot of other things up our sleeve but our conventual arsenal is nuts

Shortly before WWI kicked off, Kaiser Wilhelm II was visiting Switzerland. He asked his Swiss hosts "How does such a small country protect itself from an invasion?" A Swiss government official responded "All the Swiss people step out their front doors, fire one shot, and the war's over." There's a reason why Switzerland wasn't invaded in either world war, and it isn't because of their banking system.

The #1 problem for invading... a civilian population that is fully armed. Estimated number of firearms in civilian possession is 434 million. 🤔

I understand this is a hypothetical scenario, with a defensive theme based on repelling invasion. But I don't think America would react in a totally defensive posture. Expect airstrikes against strategic targets such as enemy ports and assembly areas, targets of an existential nature (Bye-bye, Three Gorges Dam! Bye, China!), leadership decapitations ("Putin? Oh no, won't see him no more...") and all kinds of things to wrest the initiative away from any invader.

Thanks Simon!!! I'm a a US citizen so this was great news for me. I have read that the Japanese decided not to invade the continental US because they expected to encounter an American with a gun behind every blade of grass...

Something to seriously think about in this scenario: the idea of landing troops in South America and moving north through Central America is not just outlandish, it's impossible. The Darien Gap in Southern Panama is home to the most dense jungle in the world and acts as a natural barrier between North and South America. Panama intentionally left this part of its territory completely undeveloped in order to prevent the Colombian Army from ever marching northward to re-annex Panama, not to mention to prevent the drug cartels from being able to drive into Panama to ship drugs because there are literally no roads through the Darien Gap. The terrain in the Darien Gap is so unforgiving, that no military would ever be able to move northward from South America. This would then force the global coalition into landing their troops in Central America itself for their southern front, where they are more likely to be intercepted by the Air Force or American warships operating in the Gulf of Mexico, or the Pacific, assuming there are deep water ports to sustain such landings, though that would be very few in number. Also, there is another hypothetical scenario to consider in a war between the US and the World: one in which America goes on the offensive first when it sees global opinion shifting against it. Suddenly, the overseas bases that this video describes as liabilities that would be encircled become staging grounds for operations that would harass host nations (if they aren't pulled out immediately beforehand) while broader forces are at play, such as the US 5th Fleet blockading the Persian Gulf and US Marines seizing Saudi oil fields, putting a stranglehold on the world's oil-driven economy, or US Naval Forces in the Atlantic establishing a picket line in the North Atlantic that bottles Europe in while submarines hunt anything that moves in those waters, keeping much of the rest of that ocean largely clear. It is entirely possible that the US could wage war against the world without there ever being a possibility of the continental US being invaded at all, when the US has made considerable commitments to developing the world's best logistical support network and support fleet of ships and aircraft to rapidly deploy troops and supplies worldwide. Few nations, if any at all, have the level of logistical capabilities as the US does, as we're seeing in Ukraine, logistics required for sustained operations beyond one's borders. It's those lack of logistics, as this video points out, that would result in land forces on the Northern and Southern fronts being annihilated before those forces can be reinforced and resupplied from overseas. I know the point of the video was to ask if the US could be invaded, which would assume a defensive posture by the US, but it certainly stands to reason that the world wouldn't ever begin to be able to invade the US if they don't first clear out overseas American forces or deal with the very real possibility of the US being able to put a chokehold on the global economy if it seized oil fields in the Persian Gulf. This would be a Step Zero before the world would even be in a position to contemplate an invasion of the US.

It would be quite hard for any country to land on the US in the first place. Their navy and air force are OP compared to every other nation.

Short answer: No. Long answer: Noooooo. Intelligent answer: No, because of geography, the size of available U.S. forces and also logistics are hard. Most countries can barely deploy their forces in a significant capacity across their borders, let alone across the world. None of this is an attack on the channel, I really liked this episode. Just a few observations: The biggest hurdle to cross is that most other Armed Forces in the world barely organize cooperation across branches within their own military, let alone with partners across languages and cultures. Meanwhile while there's still competition among the US military branches, you do NOT see commanders disobeying or countermanding orders in a joint task force because "Oh well they're Navy brass and I'm an Air Force pilot. You have to talk to Air Force Operations to get me to target what you're telling me," and in many other armed forces that's still the case. There's also the fact that it doesn't matter if you have 10,000 tanks if you can supply them only 50 km from a railway depot (looks at Russia). Same thing for "all those submarines." Cool, but most of the world's subs aren't build for transoceanic operations, they're coastal patrol boats. Those "other aircraft carriers" are also not nearly as capable as the Nimitz or Ford classes, though the De Gaulle is alright and eventually the PLAN does want to build similarly-sized carriers. The idea that simply Zerg-ing the USN or USAF would overwhelm them is just not reality, when you consider that most warships in other navies are Corvettes, Frigates, or at most, small destroyers who don't have the range or weapons to do operations in the deep Pacific, which would be the primary theater of naval operations. Goes double for aircraft, where the USAF has a huge advantage in aerial refueling. Even if they were to refuel over US territory, that still extends their range far into the Atlantic or across the borders, whereas most non-us air forces don't do aerial refueling at all, meaning their predominantly 4th gen aircraft would be limited to bases closer to the front, and more vulnerable. It also means less aircraft could actually participate in the conflict overall, since you need space to actually park and service the aircraft. You can't just "amass forces" like a HOI game. You have to be able to line up and deploy and supply and service and rotate those forces dexterously in order to avoid simply making the USAF send you GPS-guided welcome gifts. "Seattle, San Diego, Phoenix would be vulnerable." Yes, the city where the nuclear submarines are based, the city that's the HQ to US Pacific Fleet and 1st Marines, and the city where the Air Force literally trains their F-16 and now F-35 pilots. Sure sounds like easy pickings. Even the EMP angle doesn't make much sense when you think about it. When the Allies invaded France, they actually had to stop bombing strategic points in the country because they figured they'd be slowing themselves down more than the Germans in the long run. Destroying the infrastructure the invaders would need to supply and transport their forces in a push to the interior would be a really stupid move, not to mention likely push the civilian population much more in favor of continuing to resist (see literally every attempt at strategic bombing campaigns for further info). Not to mention the US could return the EMP favor pretty easily from longer range. Or just destroy satellites. Like almost all of them. Also I'm pretty certain that most navies/air forces simply don't have the correct ordnance to sink US carriers. You can't just lob a bunch of "generic missiles" at the target and wait for the health bar to drop to zero. Only larger anti-ship missiles have the oomph needed to actually damage a ship that large enough (and fast enough) to sink it. So really we're just talking about navies that actually focus on anti-capital ship weaponry, which again trims down the actual effective pool of hardware. Those remote US military bases include Guam, Diego Garcia, Lajes Field in the Azores, and Puerto Rico. Some of those, especially the Azores and Puerto Rico would make excellent areas to launch strategic strike campaigns from to hit logistics nodes or targets of opportunity.

I'm in Nebraska, USA. Spot on with the protecting ones own plot of land. Differing ideology turns to unity and a duty to armed intervention of civilians

The funniest part of this to me would be if an enemy did get boots into the states... like the timing and planning on pushes and offensives would be ridiculous. Gotta wait until winter to take phoenix. Gotta wait until summer to take Chicago, and then Gotta wait for a lucky day to get Seattle

As an American you know how we threw your tea off the boats well this time it'll be me teabagging you Simon Bring It On lol

One addundum to the Guerilla warfare aspect: State and Local Police. There are more cops in the US that most countries have soldiers in their armies. They usually know the area the police like the back of their hand. They would become very handy in coordinating between Partisans and the military. I remember heading that during the Battle of Britain, the Government of the UK gathered / had info on local police and was expected to use them if Operation Sealion ever came to be.

That was actually a really cool analysis! One thing to consider - timing. You'd have to attack in narrow windows in the Spring and Fall to have any hope of fully using any land attack. In the Winter, the north would be a frozen hell hole, and that northern border would be absolutely brutal to cross. In the Summer, you'd be dealing with absolutely brutal heat trying to push a land force through central America, which already would be a challenge thanks to a lack of good infrastructure. Maybe a hurricane or two as well. Could definitely go on but the US is insanely hard to attack even without military superiority. Let's hope we never nationalize chicken nuggies though.

LOL ! "The Empire Strikes Back." Best one-line description of the War of 1812! Still chuckling...

Something that was left out the eastern seaboard has barrier islands running almost the entire length. There's some channels that lead in to large ports and inslets for smaller boats. Any amphibious landing would have to get past them to land

In any invasion scenario, you can also expect the US to use all the alien technology it's currently hiding.

I know this video was primarily focused on the military vs militaries aspect of a U.S invasion and how the geography of the U.S would play a role in it, but it’s often overlooked in videos like this just how extreme our weather is compared to other nations and how that would narrow the window for any kind of invasion. During the summer, we have massive tropical storms/hurricanes, sandstorms, heat waves and hundreds of tornadoes. Then during the winter, we have catastrophic blizzards and cold spells that at times can make Siberia seem warm. Any invasion would have to proceed very quickly to avoid being caught in any weather pattern that any military couldn’t feasibly prepare for without making significant supply line sacrifices.

Foreign forces: "Hey, do you want California back?" USA: "Nope!"

Our military power at home combined with civilian firepower is a force that simply cannot be invaded. We would have to severely deteriorate economically and militarily for that to even be a possibility of a land invaded assault.

*cue Habitual Linecrosser’s depiction of the F-22 ecstatically being unleashed upon the hapless foe*

Why are you in every single informative video I look up

By the numbers alone, armed civilians will outnumber the invading force by multiple factors. I genuinely would like to see a calculated scenario of the described invading force vs JUST the generalized armed civilian population.

I feel it wouldn't be out of the question for the US government to distribute military stockpiles to the public and provide basic training if things got desperate. Could you imagine what Cletus and Barney might manage to do with an M2 Browning and a few boxes of cartridges in the face of an infantry column. A couple of good ole boys could reenact D-Day on I-20 then high tail it in their F-150 they had Uncle Bubba cover in steel plates for armor

I know Simon won't get the reference, but WOLVERINES!!!

I was kinda hoping i wasn't gonna be well still here alive type thing for this mess but their early wasn't expecting them so soon.... great

Honestly, globe lack of mcnuggets is probably the only thing that could unify the globe

I find it interesting that people seem to think having more guns than people is odd or extreme. It takes a minimum of 5 to cover all your basic firearm needs. A pistol, shotgun, .22LR, a full sized rifle like a .308 or 30.06 and your carbine like an AR or AK. Sometimes you want a more specialized tool, like for bench rest shooting. Then there is upgrading to a better quality gun. It isn't hard to find yourself with 10 or more. Its like having saws. There is a circular saw, a jigsaw, a chainsaw, a pole saw, a coping saw, chop saw, miter saw and more. My wife might think i have too many saws but they each have a purpose. Guns are the same way.

The entire Pacific Northwest can render itself almost completely unsuitable for an invasion and become unusable for anyone in a single afternoon during the summer months just by dynamiting a handful of mountain highways across the Cascade Range, forcing a bottleneck into the super exposed Columbia River Valley. And that's during the early summer months when there aren't wildfires (which, who're we kidding, there are always wildfires now. Some of them now have their own wikipedia pages). Starting in late october early november, chaotic rainfall can and does, flood out and wash away entire highways and towns. After mid-november, the entire region becomes a nightmare of heavy snowfall, avalanches, and dangerous alpine terrain. The coastal areas become almost undriveable in the snow because of the topography. There's reasons we call it Snowmageddon every Christmas. And Cali gets mad wildfires and extreme heatwaves too, plus earthquakes. The Southeast of the country has swamps, heatwaves, hurricanes, and the killer tornadoes. And the Plains get the blizzards and the big tornadoes Anyone trying to invade the US has to come dressed to fight in Russia, Afghanistan, and Vietnam ALL AT ONCE... and then just peel off layers at diff times of the day... while fighting a bunch of militias The US would be a logistical nightmare to invade

This is why Man in the High Castle is a ridiculous show.

The movie "The Wolverines", provides the best scenerio

It's wild how many non military Americans are ready and prepared for this exact situation. As someone snuggled up against the rockies, the thought has never even crossed my mind.

Two words forces gather in South America. Darien Gap. The Darien is virtually impassible by mechanized forces due to the combination of terrain (mountainous) and environment (rain forest). The Darien is the only portion of the Trans-America Highway that has not been constructed due to these (and many other) considerations.

Wonderfully entertaining video and thought experiment. Of course, it is a ridiculous notion. But it does make one think about the possibilities of nationalizing McDonalds!🤣

This is a bad ass concept for a video

Absolutely love how Simon delivered the opening with such gravitas and conviction! 😁

Honestly, Ive been having a rough week and within 45 seconds you got me laughing out loud. Thank you for the fun video!