Also I love these videos 👍

LMAO! How about Oppenheimer: "Hold my beer!" 🤡

🎉

US: make a movie?

Wait, we'd have to steal our script from Britain and France and then refuse to pay our bills until one left our big club and the other glowers, makes their own, and then we sheepishly say sorry for being gits....😉😜 History, not actually in films...

Indeed - F R E E D O M I S N O T F R E E .

I was in the Netherlands while at a concert last Sept.. You guys are so nice.. Everyone i met was super nice. Love the country and the people.

Always was the case. Every NATO airforce which does not officially have tactical nukes has aircraft capable of using them as a backup measure. Same goes for navies and their missiles and torpedoes, by the way. NATO interoperability includes alliance-wide contingencies for this sort of thing.

At the cost of the security and prosperity of the suckers not in the club :p

🇳🇱🤜🤛🇺🇸

If things get out of control The F 35 is our last deterrence Of defense it is small invisible to radar

@@mm72213 how they know if stealth jet really invisible to radar. as of know they test using their own radar not other country radar.

how is it badass. It can carry a maximum of 4 missiles. And cant even fly mach 2

Nuclear war will never happen because every big corporation will loose everything.

@@waynereloaded87before the gulf war people said that the Bradley fighting vehicle hardly had any armor. That it was a sitting duck and a useless vehicle. Well what did we find out about armor in the gulf war?? Was it that the Bradley was a weak waste of money? No. We found out that anything on the battlefield that gets hit by a main battle tank round is destroyed, no matter how thick it’s armor. The Bradley turned out to be one of the best fighting vehicles ever put into the field because it’s fast and light and technologically advanced. The armor didn’t matter at all. You say that F35 only holds 4 missiles and can’t go Mach 2. When missiles fly at Mach 4 and can pull a sustained 30gs what’s the difference between Mach 1.6 and Mach 2? A plane with a pilot onboard is never going to out run nor out turn an s400. The game has changed. Keep up.

Look up ‘first strike’ and what that could mean. You’re welcome.

@@sqwk2559 I'm sorry you don't know my background. I'm fully aware of first strike and all of it.

You only need roughly TWO kinds of nukes: (#1) "strategic" ICBMs that travel up to Mach 26 --- or up to 9 times as fast as the F-22 flying with afterburners --- carrying up to around 14 MIRVs (each MIRV, released from the ICBMs at terminal velocity or half way, having up to 500 KILOTONS. ICBMs are land based; and then there's the Trident 2/Trident D5 that both the US Navy and British Royal Navy carry.... each Trident 2/D5 or SLBMs may also carry up to 14 MIRVs (90KT each) or 8 MIRVs (up to 500KT each)... Or. (#2) "tactical" B61-12/13, gravity bombs --- with "variable yields," depending on the particular "tactical" needs/targets, with each having up to 340 KILOTON blast yield. Or minimally, around 1 KT blast yield. As a reference point: the smaller fission-based nuke bomb, first one, dropped on Hiroshima, had a 15 KILOTON blast yield. The larger, 10,000lb "Fat Man" FUSION bomb dropped on Nagasaki had a 21 KILOTON blast yield. That means if an ICBM can carry up to around 14 MIRVs and each MIRV can have up to 500KT blast yield, each MIRV has over 23 times the blast yield of FAT MAN. That means the US doesn't need more than a few hundred ICBMs and the 500+ tactical B21-12/13 carried in the F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, B-1, B-2, B-21, B-52, etc. As the video noted, the "nuclear bomb sharing program" also allow Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy to carry those B61 bombs, too.... So, then, Russia can keep 5,000 to 6,000 nukes & they would simply make her ECONOMY WEAKER, because nukes are very expensive to produce and to maintain and Russia, despite being 90% as big as the US and China combined, in land size, has only 50% of the economy of the state of California... and it WILL GO BANKRUPT ---- like what happened to the USSR (when it had up to 30,000 nukes) ---- if it channels too much of such a small economy into a non-consumable/non-usable military weapon like NUKES.

@@sqwk2559he plays war thunder

Why would a 35, a single seater, have a RIO lmao

badass dont win battles little chipmunk, cheerfulness is your only defense.

@@augustusomega4708haha you’re such a goofball

Eurasia can take all the kooky air platforms uncle buck can dream up, but without runways that birds walking.

@@augustusomega4708Isnt the f35 capable of vtol so it doesn’t need a runway?

@@augustusomega4708 bro its VTOL it doesn't need a runway lmfao. 🤣🤣💀💀🤡

@@autizmo3730 I guess the B1 bomber you just lost in CO was VTOL too, straight down. Clowns laughing is sad 🤣

They buy military equipment from canada

Cost a fortune to maintain them.

@@acupoflegowe also buy new stealth destroyers from Italy.Contrary to limited thinking we understand the rest of the world is a wealth of knowledge and skill!

@@acupoflego The Americans build their own military equipment's. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics are the 3 top 4 weapon and equipment systems supplier

@@j.a.3138 Northrop Grumman and MBDA

Sure it's still an expensive shit box

@@xwarmangle20/1 red flag

It's as expensive as the f15 ​@@xwarmangle

Nah, it's not.

​@@xwarmangle? Play war thunder? Lol

Amazing how humanity evolved. We got so fed up with eating down the food chain that we fell in love with developings tools to help us eating horizontal towards other sides of the chain. lolz.... I hope we all have the most powerful weapons to deter and when needed, try to defend the species, rather than to invade countries like when US did so in recent years except those when DT is in the house.

The real fear is the nuclear subs XD. In some cases not even American radars can ping them without our own subs coming to the surface. We have a small but lethal 14 known in operation. That could be just about anywhere and each balistic stealth sub could have 4 nuclear long range cruise balistic missiles with a radius of nearing 1500 miles. (China on most fronts is a little less than 100 miles from the ocean. ) Where things get nutty though is if the US called in the full strike package. AGM-129A's aka Advanced cruise missiles can loaded 12 a piece onto the B52H we have in the current service is 76. So if you do the math. A true full force of the US military in action with annihilation and not reconnaissance like in Iran and Afghanistan. The true ballistic force of the US would be a total strike package of about 968 nuclear cruise missiles. This would be enough to probably level the great wall, turn Bejing into glass and wipe North Korea if they were involved geographically from the face of the earth. And South Korea would probably turn into an island if the US resorted to that kind of fire power. XD.

The us is also afraid of china lol

probably the only thing it cannot do since most tests have shown the 35 is unable even though it can detect the 22 to compete with the 22 in dog fighting but it out performs the f15s and f16s ironically enough

It can't beat an f16 at dogfighting

It's a tactical nuke, they're more or less designed for smaller targets. So instead of a whole ass city, think a military base.

@@ThatMuricanGuyyeah bruh Little Boy and Fat Man were smaller than 30 KT. Those b61 are leveling cities no problem

They are a deterrent.

it's a nuclear deterrent. unless someone is dumb enough to launch a nuke, the f-35 will never have to use them. but god help them if they do.

To have more wide spread options if there ever was a possibility of a nuclear war :) more aircraft carrying such weapons gives them more flexibility and advantages.

1 I see your argument and profoundly disagree. The nuclear aspect of these planes is not to be taken lightly due to the risk of sudden and catastrophic escalation, even with low yield payloads comparable to the largest conventional bombs. Since the actual nuclear threshold has never been crossed since 1945, we have no idea how the escalation dynamic and strategic calculus would play out, particularly when many of today's world leaders or would-be leaders present with psychological issues and do not appear to be entirely rational actors (Putin the psychopath, Trump the narcissist, Biden and Sunak also seem to lack strategic empathy and have been doubling down on some very questionable decisions lately). Furthermore, "Hiroshima sized nukes" were physically very large due to being fission only and hence much less efficient use of fissile material compared to a thermonuclear (fusion powered) Cold War or contemporary nuclear weapon. Even a "tactical" nuclear weapon available today is a thermonuclear weapon at least on par with Fat Man or Little Boy, in fact these B61 gravity bombs have a dialable yield up to 400 kilotons. Due to the precise targeting of modern weapons, anything over 100 kilotons is overkill, easily enough to completely level a global megacity. The delivery method is basically irrelevant once the nukes start flying, the extent of the escalation remains uncertain. The blasts could easily kill 100's of millions, but the effects of nuclear winter have been simulated with up-to-date computer models and shown to be much worse than the Cold War predictions of the '80s. It would take fewer than 100 such nuclear strikes on combustible targets to inject enough soot into the atmosphere to block out the sun for at least a year, resulting in nuclear winter and global famine, let alone the total devastation of the belligerent nations and worldwide radioactive contamination. The US and Russia each have around 6,000 nukes in storage today with around 75% available at short notice, a fraction of the height of the Cold War but still enough in the event of total Armageddon to destroy every major city in the world 3 times and block out the sun for 10 years. This would cause almost every nation on Earth to run out of food and undoubtedly the end of modern civilisation. A single F35 could quite easily be the beginning of the end of it all.

Nuclear weapons are used all the time? Hahaahaha. Also, they said the tactical nuke droppd by an f35 could be twice as powerful as hiroshima so try listening

It's a known defect on the early Carrier variant. The front strut is too loose under compression. There are shots where the bounce is so violent it dislodged the pilots 500k dollar helmet that is linked to all the guidance systems. Its been, or is being, rectified.

Well, every time any other nation has raised the point of NATO's doctrine of "first use" of nukes, the conversation in western media and politics always gets shut down.

@@wyldhowl2821 One thing for sure, the level of political correctness and virtue signaling in the political sphere is what is going to be the undoing of the US and NATO. If they want to be an effective counter to Russia and China, then they are gonna have to let the military guys do their damned job, and not be hamstrung by public opinions which are far disconnected from reality.

That makes no sense. If it could be anything, why would thr enemy assume the worst

@@YampaYak-vd1xo I mean, if you launch a ballistic missile with a reduced yield, the enemy is still going to see a strategic nuke heading their way. They will respond accordingly.

wouldn't be surprised. "Bombs away, carriers away, see ya!" *disappears from radar*

Not recently. It was found in South Carolina awhile ago.

F-35C and all other carrier aircraft don't have the luxury of dedicated aerial refueling aircraft. The most they can get is from an F/A-18E/F that can be configured to provide a small amount of fuel as a mini aerial tanker. A cannon is largely dead weight, and that space could be better used for more fuel

😆"Stealth Plasma"... good one!

all 3

The B61 nuclear glide bomb fits into the internal weapons bay on the F-22.

@@jqmachgunner2577 yes but the beast mode is tacking more on an deafts the same reason for the internal bay you miss the point

Don't be fooled about our equipment people forgetting our top pilot's are training usa and all nato without our skilled military us be nothing. All the goods and no idea so we get brits too help lol

Keep coping, America ruled this world.

​@@CalvinHsuChenwhat world are you talking about

If an aircraft can carry, fly and successfully drop tactical nuclear weapons i would assume its considered nuclear capable

Best thing is the F-16 is so agile it can fly up it's own asshole while also drinking Jeremiah Weed.

There would be nobody in America to ask that question if it did.

thing is it doens't show on radar until within the range or by the time bomb bay doors open and close if you do pick it up well thats already the end, unless something goes wrong with its stealth such as drop tanks not dropping etc

The fact that it can hold, fly and drop them

@@NorwegianCollector_ I thought so, but apparently that was a major factor for chosing F35, so there has to be something else...