Can the US Fight 3 Wars at the Same Time? - VisualPolitik EN
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 11. 2023
- Go to www.holzkern.com/visualpolitiken and Enjoy Holzkern's exclusive Black Week deal: Buy one, and get the second at 50% off! Don't miss out on the biggest discount special of the year at Holzkern, available until the 27th.
Today the US is financially and operationally up to its neck in at least three hot zones: Ukraine, the Taiwan Strait, and Israel. The result is that the oval office, or rather the oval pressure cooker, is now under enormous geopolitical stress. Because each of these three hotspots needs, in its own way, - and I say this because they themselves ask for it - economic and military assistance from Uncle Sam. And that's why we here on VisualPolitik came up with a few questions: How is the US sustaining these three war fronts at the same time? Will the US giant be able to finance these campaigns? What exactly are they costing? Well... we are going to see all this and more as the video unfolds.
Join the VisualPolitik community and support us on Patreon: / visualpolitik
#USA #Military #America
Go to www.holzkern.com/visualpolitiken and Enjoy Holzkern's exclusive Black Week deal: Buy one, and get the second at 50% off! Don't miss out on the biggest discount special of the year at Holzkern, available until the 27th
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
What America really needs is more smaller weapons/defense tech companies so the research and manufacturing isn’t so concentrated in just a few big companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, Boeing, Norththrop etc. At least all these conflicts are helping really boost the F35's production efficiency after all the price overruns.
We all know it ain't gonna happen, the U.S politicians are already too much influenced by the big weapon manufacturers.
I worked at what is now the largest of the bunch as a design engineer, and I remember a VP saying to me many decades back that the defense industry would go the way of the US automotive industry, to a big three, basically, and he was oh so right. He has held several top tier posts in govt, chaired space committees, etc. One VERY smart guy. His name's Norm Augustine. I agree with you, BTW. There are economies of scale to very large corporations, but a lot of downside, as well.
The F35 per unit cost, if you go look at it, and take lifetime maintenance into account, is already less than F16s, produced today, would be. Everyone thinks the F35 is ungodly expensive, and up front it is, but overall, nope, cheaper than any fighter produced in a very long time, temporally adjusted dollars.
I’m of the opinion that what the US needs more is to stay out of other continents business and to stop being so deep in debt. Trade relations need to be protected sure but the US doesn’t need to be involved in every fight everywhere all the time.
@@BlackRaven-cv7zmWho else is going to step up to defend free trade and sovereignty? If America embraces isolationism, then uncontested China will take control of the South Pacific, Iran will take control of the Hamiz straight, and Russia will take control of eastern Europe.
We used to, they merged into the company's you just named; it will happen again. We need to socialize our military industrial complex then re-privatize the industry as NPO's. National Defense shouldn't be a for profit industry and people can still get paid well to do what they're already doing without spending billions extra for "Stock holders".
Subsidizing American arms manufacturing isn't really "fighting a war".
1:43 did you even watch the video?
plus us military was built to fight 3 theatres at once. been planning and training last 75 years and its much easier when we arent doing any fighting but instead just making money off it. More wars is good for US. Our economy is making money off them right now.
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
@@AcidBombYTWe wont be fighting in just three theaters though. We are woefully overextended and, our hubris will be our downfall. Our political leadership suffers from the delusion that, we can fight the entire world at the same time and win. Pride cometh before the fall.
@@pin65371were the worlds reserve currency plus the most highly industrialized country . We can well afford this debt
Weapons systems wise US can fight more than 3 wars at the same time. However ammo wise. That is another topic. My opinion is that smart weapons are way too smart, way too expensive and way to slow to produce and procure. That is a bottleneck for US military might.
a very good point, but a lot of these scenarios leave out allies and their support. But yes, ammo production needs to ramp up.
plus us military was built to fight 3 theatres at once. been planning and training last 75 years and its much easier when we arent doing any fighting but instead just making money off it. More wars is good for US. Our economy is making money off them right now.
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
@@AcidBombYT Well yes, however US influence on the world stage is declining due to many factors. More and more nations are considering US international monetary policy wreckless, and are trying to get away from the dollar as much as they. For now its hard, however its just for now. To me last visit of Xi to the US in shows who is on top and who is at the bottom. Also as time will pass, weapons will have to become cheaper and simpler and faster to produce. You can have an M982 Exacalibir for nearly 100K, which US will not want to sell to many, or you can have 7-9 inch FPV drone with attached tandem rpg grenade or explosive with shrapnel for like 700-1000 bucks. FPV drones are a true revolution, along with drop munitions small vertical drones like mavic. However FPV is way better option, as they are fast and more dangerous for both infantry and vehicles. I honestly see how any small nation in the future might be able to simply stop almost any advance of almost any military on land simply by having tens of thousands cheap and effective fpv drones. This is not a joke. This is machine gun equivalent for ww1. Or nuclear weapons for late ww2
Support Priority list
1) Taiwan - because it’s most strategic in the United States. It’s going to need the most help. And it’s gonna be the bloodiest.
2) Ukraine - this second because it’s strategic to our European allies and is not essential to US global geopolitical strategy. Needless to say, I still heavily supported it. It’s an economical way to degrade Russian ability.
3) Israel - Quite Franklin Israel has consistently shown it can handle itself with very minimal support from the US. The US just needs to get out of their way and let them handle their business and supply material.
Ukraine has 26 percent of the worlds arable land so their is huge geopolitical interest in controlling it.
@@matthewhungerford1861 yes. And that is one of the reasons why it’s important to our European allies. Farmland is not a strategic concern for the United States.
Without USA help, there will be no Israel to be honest. USA is the reason why Israel exists now
After at least twenty instances of "listen up", "pay attention", check it out" etc, watching generic military footage and getting very public info on the general picture, we finally got to the main big question and then... We should answer it ourselves!
Thank you so much 😢😢😢😢😢😊
As long as its allies stay supportive, yes. The western world United is by far the most powerful. The problem is staying ‘United’
plus us military was built to fight 3 theatres at once. been planning and training last 75 years and its much easier when we arent doing any fighting but instead just making money off it. More wars is good for US. Our economy is making money off them right now.
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
I really like your analysis, Keep up the good work
Probably yes. Precisely because the US doesn't have to involve itself specifically, only support it's allies. And since the US's allies support each other anyway, again, yes.
Probably? You mean, "Yes."
@billythekid9061 well predicting the future is betting against God. So probably yes is as high as a confidence level you can get. But I agree, probably yes.
plus us military was built to fight 3 theatres at once. been planning and training last 75 years and its much easier when we arent doing any fighting but instead just making money off it. More wars is good for US. Our economy is making money off them right now.
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
AcidBombYT that's what the Romans and British empire thought where are they now?
If the US were to go back to WWII style manufacturing of munitions, maybe. But I'm too afraid the US is way too divided now in a way it wasn't in WWII so I'm skeptical. The US ramped up artillery manufacturing but even that is a drop in the bucket compared to what Ukraine needs.
Let's not even begin to talk about the amount of artillery shells being sent to Isreal
Traditional bulk artillery has not been critical to U.S. fighting doctrine since the fall of the Soviet Union. It’s been precision strike munitions via air or rocket.
The only “area fire support” fighting we done is in Syria and against ISIS, where the marines used more artillery in just _6 months_ than they had in the previous *6 decades*
It’s hard to imagine what potential war scenario the US would get involved in where bulk artillery would need to be used against locally entrenched targets.
@@ChuckThree That's the main issue, Ukraine is equipped for a Bulk artillery type of war, but the US and to a lesser extent NATO in general relies on precision guided munitions and airstrikes. It's simply not realistic to give Ukraine F35s and stealth aircraft that the US would use in a conflict similar to the Ukraine war.
US was more divided before ww2 then it is now. If you lived in US you would see were not divided were just practicing our rights.
But don't foreget that the US's doctrine isn't to fight a WWII tyle war with carpet bombing of Japanese and German cities and all that civilian deaths. The current doctrine first demonstrated in the first Gulf war is precision and stealth bombing, where a few F-117 or F-111 destroys the enemy headquarter, ammo depo; where few advanced fighters and tanks wipes out dozens more of enemy's last generation machines like clubbing baby seals. The NATO doctrince isn't to win like the soviets (with overwhelming numbers and absorbing larger casulties). Of course no one can be certain that the current NATO doctrine will still work in the next world war, but we do know the soviet doctrine has so far performed worse.
Our standard is that of WW2...two giant theaters at the the same time. War has changed over the decades but the principle still holds. We not only have a vastly superior techincalogical advantage but our military is far superior when it comes to equipment and training. Then theres the logistics. Nobody does logistics like America. Then theres the whole...American production output...push come to shove, we can do what we did before. Americans might love to fight over our differences...but give us common enemies...well...history has shown how that goes.
The US really just has to fight one war, one in Ukraine. It’s not like Israel really needs help with fighting Hamas, they are barely scraping by at this point. It’s like if the US asked for military aid to invade Greenland. Supporting Taiwan would be second priority because China is a significant opponent.
If anything Taiwan should be first, since they're the lynchpin of both US allies and free movement of global trade in Asia, while also being fairly inexperienced with actual combat and softened by decades of a deceptive "peace dividend" with the Mainland.
@@doujinflipand the fact that they make most semiconductors
Thanks for the video.
I wonder if they can fight one war at a time.
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
Back in 1995 the US Military Strategy was being able to fight "2 nearly simultaneous regional conflicts". This began to change in the late 90s after that attacks on Kohbar Towers and the USS Cole as well as humanitarian operations and smaller conflicts where the military began to a focus more on Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW) and fighting in urban environments. IMO today the US will be hard pressed to fight one war. Full disclosure Im a 21 year military veteran
Mid 2010 they explicit went away from this 2 conflicts around the world capability, which was like you said utopian even back in the 2000s.
IMO its more doing policing in urban environment. Urban war fighting is being the king of rubble hill.
Is that why we always go to war with a coalition and not alone?
The financial position of the United States is $269.6 trillion. We can afford wars for the rest of forever.
Were you a former *US* service member…?!
Because your other comments on this channel certainly spew some anti-American sentiment.
"War" is so broad a term, that what you specifically mean is lost on me. The US stood on two countries, half way around the world, with openly and secretly hostile countries bordering both, and held those positions for 10 and 20 years, until we decided it was no longer worth doing. No other nation has this offensive capability, not even close. While vets know what they did, saw, and experienced, this doesn't make them broad authorities on the many aspects of war and national defense. Having said that, thanks for your service, if the US is not position properly in this area, I can't imagine who could be.
I feel that after their botched attack of Ukraine Russia spoke with Iran and China on how they could deal with the West to give them a chance. Their answer was to try to spread the US and the west as thin as possible so that opportunities could arise to allow all three to achieve their goals. I also think this is just waking up the industrial giants of the US and Europe. Not going to work out the way they hoped by the looks of it.
we aren't even really trying very hard to fund any of these 3. we are just sending our old junk
The US could fight 3 wars at the same time if the US citizens truly want it. It all depends on the will of the people.
We are a democracy(constitutional republic)long prolong wars are always bad but yeah the willingness does matter.
As long as there are no body bags coming home the Americans don’t give a damn. The military industry runs overtime and the economy booms. That’s all that matters in an election year.
If we were attacked directly, especially at home, I think the willingness would be there and even though our military has been volunteer for decades now, the draft can be used in worst case scenarios
@@PatrickThomasBrady I agree, however I think a major attack on US soil is pretty much impossible.
lt wont just be three theaters though.
It probably depends on which countries the US is fighting the wars against against top 10-20 countries maybe 2 wars 3 at best depending on which country it is, any country not in the top 50 the only limit is the logistics network.
We used to have a policy to be ready to fight a 2 front war since the Korean war but we relaxed since the fall of the Soviet Union. If pushed against a wall the USA will surprise you.
It’s not the amount sent. It’s the fact people in America are struggling and we still sending
Yes we are sending military equipment. Was all that old equipment going to somehow bolster our economy?
Be that as it may, I really like the phrase "be that as it may".
I have followed you for a while but found that very jaundiced.
0. The war in Ukraine revealed that the United States and Western Europe do not even have the ability to supply 155mm shells for a small war.
1. Currently, it is North Korea that supplies ammunition to the Russian military, and South Korea that supplies ammunition to Ukraine. Sad and strange reality.
3. The price of 150mm shells has tripled from $300 to $900 per shot in the past year, and has risen sharply again since the recent war in Israel.
4. The United States is expected to have more than 150,000 shell production capacity per year by the end of next year, but this is not enough, and the European Union's plan to secure 1 million shells will only be realized three years after South Korea's Hanwha completes a new shell factory in Spain.
5. Military power is not built overnight, it takes more than 30 years to restore military power damaged by excessive disarmament, and modern weapons systems are too expensive to create a huge financial burden. In other words, the country's military power is a long-term plan for the next 50 years.
6. From the late 90s to the 2,000's, Taiwan neglected its defense due to its close economic ties with China for about 20 years, and even tried to switch to a military-list system. As a result, there is now a huge financial burden on military investment every year, and the problem is that Taiwan's military power doesn't rise so easily even if it invests huge amounts of money every year.
7. The U.S. does not sell strategic weapons to countries that are not its first-class allies, and Taiwan has requested the purchase of the F-35 and F-15Ex but was rejected by the U.S. government, and has been approved to purchase the F-16V as an alternative, but the F-16V has five units in U.S. production per year. And, the F-16V costs more than $100 million per unit.
8. If you don't prepare for war when it's peaceful, you lose your national power.
Wait? We’re fighting three wars. Since when? Ukraine, Israel, so where is the third war?
Economic cold war with China
Economic with china?
I believe some of the stuff in Africa? I heard that North and South Korea has been amping up, so maybe that? Possibly preparing for the future conflict in Taiwan?
we are in 8(eight) wars today
We have like 3 aircraft carriers in phillipines. We arent in any wars. We are just helping others win.
I think some countries under circumstances may need help in being defended I support Kyiv, and Taipei, maybe Jerusalem because the jews deserve to have a place of their own like we all do
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
Military Industrial Complex: We'll be raining money fellas!
If War ware music there is no doubt The US would be the DJ of this wild party
Short answer: Yes
As long as dollar is the best currency. They are printing them crazy. De-dollarisation may reduce war.
Great video
That's a stupid question, we won WWII and this isn't nearly as tough.
We aren't fighting ANY wars right now, we're helping our allies defend themselves and if Taiwan is invaded WE WILL BE AT WAR.
Edit: 16:08 I can't believe I'm going to say this but as a life long Kentuckian I actually agree with Mitch McConnell, I know I KNOW DAMMIT I KNOW I FEEL DIRTY TOO. But he has a point on this one specific and only matter. I respect him for this more then I ever thought I could, thank you Mitch. (Corrupt thief)
"we" ? bro u need a history lesson. the biggest power in ww2 was USSR, aka russia. basicly fighting russians from moscow to berlin to defeat
You’re not the same people you were back then and especially not your Allies. And I say this as a NATO and USA supporter since you’re the best option. But wwiii would destroy you even if you win. Thucydides’s trap. The real winner would be powers number 3 and 4. So probably India and Southeast Asia. Free to roam as the two pacific powers mortally wound each other
The quick answer is yes. We did in WW2 (Europe, Africa, Pacific). But, not without support from our allies around the world. Our industry has nothing on the impact of our allies around the world, and its their help that keeps waterways safe, prices down, and safety and security UP.
Your country is very different than it was in ww2. Look at high school phys ed requirements alone. Your countries fighting aged men, arent in the shape required to fight a war.
We don't even have 1/10th the manufacturing capability & capacity then we did in WW2, the OLD munition factories are GONE, the few remaining are not in the best of shape, nor can they expand the lines like they're supposed to. The Chinese put out more ships in a single year than the US does in a DECADE, we no longer even have the naval assets to repair the ships and subs we do have, some have been waiting for scheduled maintenance for YEARS, oh, and while they wait they're in no shape to even do a costal patrol, let alone fight a war.
I like watch and im gonna buy it
Simple answer, yes
We have out spent the world combined for decades.
Putin, apart from all everything else to come out of this war, has succeeded in at least one goal, and it's more important than any of their Tactical, Strategic, or even Operational goals. They SEEM to have kick-restarted the "Great Powers Game". This is the most dangerous part of the entire conflict, but luckily Russia seems to also be out on a limb with regards to that. China, theoretically Russia's greatest ally, doesn't seem to want ANYTHING to do with the Ukraine war OR the Middle East, apart from 1. Making peace to raise China up as an alternative peace-broker to the US (which is great! The more genuine peace-brokers we have the better!) And 2. Building up their silk road project to reach Europe by land/Sea, which REQUIRES peace in at LEAST the region of the Middle East that Israel is in. It WOULD'VE also gone through Iran and Russia, if they weren't so heavily sanctioned, but Russia and Iran did that to themselves.
North Korea seems happy enough to sell off its enormous stockpiles of old weapons, and even supply manpower to Eussia, but, not officially are they sending manpower(they're trying to keep that under the radar) but doesn't seem at all interested in its own war with the West, in the form of War with South Korea. And Iran isn't even *really* supporting Hamas, probably literally thanks to the Saudi-Iranian deal they brokered earlier this year. Iran also seems happy to sell drones to Russia, and to sacrifice Hamas/Palestine, but other than that don't seem much interested in fighting the West either. They probably watched the ease with which the US dismantled Saddam's regime, which they spent 10 years and millions of lives fighting in the 1980's. Sadam theoretically had the 4th most powerful military in Earth,and yet it was almost comically easy for the US+Coalition forces to defeat. Combine that with their memory of the last time there was a direct conflict between the US and Iran, 1988, when the US destroyed half of Iran's navy in 24 hours, and suffering zero casualties whatsoever itself.
So Russia is the only country I see really makin aggressive moves in this great powers game they've started, which is a definite silver lining. As long as the US and China can avoid war, I do not think the world will spiral into a world war.
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
Great analysis.
If I can offer a few points to consider.
1) China 🇨🇳 has a logistics problem, and they know it. Their primary challenge is fuel to keep their economy and war machine going.
2) The European allies are, unfortunately, proving to be wholefully unwilling to ramp up military spending to adequately support Ukraine and increase their own military industrial capacity to support those requirements. On top of that, the European Armies at this point are so underfunded and underequiped. Its questionable if they could mobilize and defend the NATO border without the US essentially doing everything for them.
3) The US is financing all of these conflicts with debt. On top of that. The US debt has now reached $34 trillion, with the US adding $1.6 trillion in NEW debt per year with no plan to even reduce it.
4) Because of the internal problems inside the US. The only ones supporting these endless wars and endless deficit spending is the Boomer Generation of Americans who honestly, don't care how badly they are leaving the next generation of Americans.
5) China is solving its logistics problem with energy by creating a series of oil and natural gas pipelines connecting Russian energy to China through Mongolia.
The US could continue funding foreign wars IF the US was taking care of its people back home. The problem is the US is not taking care of its people.
Sorry to be pedantic, but consideing you've been specific with pronunciation. May I ask why you chose to pronounce Cicero in that manner?
The pronunciation you chose would be closest to the french way - see-say-rown. In which case you might as well use the English pronunciation - SISS-uh-row.
If you wanted to use the way it's said in Italian or modern learnt latin - Chee-cheh-roh.
Originally prononced with Greek influence as kee-keh-roh.
I assume you intented to use the third option.
We can AFFORD many wars at once. But there's a BIG difference between fighting three wars at once and FINANCING three wars at a time.
The US policy has always been to manufacture as much military equipment as possible on its own soil, and then either sell or "donate" it to allies. This is a win-win: allies get subsidized weapons, while the US gets to keep its near-monopoly on arms manufacturing. Both Israel and Taiwan are in a position to manufacture more than enough munitions in the medium-long term, but then they won't be able to use US aid to purchase them. If the situation with Iran and China heats up even more, the US and its allies can (and probably should) negotiate a new paradigm, where the allies manufacture more of their own munitions. This is bound to be very unpopular in congress though, because it could see US factories become less competitive.
Ike warned us about The US Military Industrial Complex.
The world is going to be embroil in indefinite large scale conflict, but first: do you want a fancy watch?
We. Can. Do. Anything. Anyone. At any time. We can do everything, everywhere, all at once….and we invented that phrase 😮
The U.S. has been fighting on many front for decades. Today more of those fronts are known. The U.S. military is effective and efficient. It takes more than an invincible military to win a war.
The U.S.A. must double its efforts in the area of diplomacy, fighting organized crime, protecting itself against global corporations and corruption.
In summary, I rather - if possible prevent a war - than to fight one.
Great video!
¡Estamos
Siempre Listos!
The issue is America isn't fighting to prevent wars. The US gov't constantly provokes wars.
These are just weapon sales though. Those countries will need to pay for those weapons, interest and all.
@@hououinkyouma1458 Sometimes they are weapons sales but the US also gives away a lot of (hundreds of billions of $ worth) weapons and foreign aid.
Humanity's talents always rise to the surface!
No no matter how good America's military is, they can't handle 3 wars at the same time, if that's including world War 3. By the way I live in America.
$61 billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine:
Here's your ten tanks, five AA guns, one airplane and 6 bullets!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Reminds me of "Executive Order" by Tom Clancy.
04:13 - Could you get a new intro?
in direct confrontation they will resort in deep high tech means as its quick and saves alot
Im tired of living in interesting times...
How does the massive unsustainable US debt affect all this? Could we afford 3 wars?
Boy, you’d think there’s oil under that land!
The giant is still sleeping.
3.5 if you count Iran proxies. But with all the big powers being tied up in their own Afganishstan like situation, idk if the current world order could hold
What is the US’s current Afghanistan?
@@jakeroper1096 Not full scale afganishstan but the three proxies conflict could add up to be that bad
Yeah sure why not? Sounds fun
Yes easy
Americans should care more about Americans, I agree with the jingoist Republicans in that. HOWEVER, huge aid to these three countries (countries now supremely in our debt who essentially are dependent on us for the foreseeable future) is promoting world peace under American authority. If you look at it from the Trumpist perspective, and even from the Mitt Romney perspective, our contribution to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan is the most worthwhile money spent in the last 40 years, every weapon to these countries keeps an American soldier/conscript out of Asia, Europe and the Middle East. If America engaged in a war, or was forced to, say, with NATO, I wouldn't want to fight, shit, nobody would, and so money to keep our allies on top looks absolutely fucking A-OK to me.
You can argue about American imperialism all you want, I'm just choosing to look at it as a senator or as Biden, pros vs cons.
Helping Ukraine stand up to Russia, or Taiwan to China, has a direct advantage to the American people. Imagine the problems that a stronger Russia or China could create for the US, even an isolationist America.
Hello
“What would you do if you had a trillion dollars?”
“I tell you what I’d do man, 3 wars at the same time.”
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
Yeah, can't even properly support your own economy and Ukraine now.
Oh Hell No!
Can the US sustain these financial aid packages? Absolutely not. We face shut down every year and sometimes 2x a year
Yes, but it would be expensive and problematic
When was there not multiple wars going on though?
the USA and europe can easily bear the burden BUT at some point we will need to work towards a wartime economy
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
The US can fight multiple wars and win like Julius Caesar famous "Veni Vidi Venci" . Came, Saw, Conquered.
Cold war? More like hot war
Now I need to see Monthy Pythons Flying Circus :D
No, seriously...I hope the US can do even more and defends Armenia if its necessary.
Going to be more then 3 wars. Probably 5 at least.
Mitch McConnell’s entire political career depends on the arms industry’s in his electoral district. In short he thrives on war and will vote for it every time,not because he likes war but because jobs in his district depend on it.
no
wasnt your logo purple? congrats or i am just stupid
We aren't doing nearly enough, quickly enough. But at least we are doing better than last time the world was at war.
Fight? Yes. Do any good with it or win? No.
Also i would hardly count Israel as being a "War" the USA takes part in, in the same way they do for Ukraine.
In fact, Israel keeps saying they don't need Help from the USA and for once i'd hope the USA would not feel obliged to get involved there.
They should keep focusing on Ukraine, since Ukraine actually needs Help compared to Israel.
Prost & Cheers from the Alps
US has already pivoted toward the Pacific and that the only war it would engage in.
There’s 100% faith Israel can fend for itself against all Middle East aggressors without US intervention.
There was significantly less faith Europe could successfully counter a Russian incursion. Depletion of Cold War stockpiles fighting in Ukraine and disbanding of Wagner have minimized that concern. But pre-Ukraine the consensus was Europe would fall if Poland and Finland were quickly overrun and Britain abstained from crossing the channel.
Source: I spend too much time with government people in McLean and Arlington, Virginia
What makes you think we can't win when we won both world wars and have remained the sole global super power since WWII? Sure we thought the USSR were our peers but we know better now. I do agree we should do more for Ukraine, we should provide a no fly zone, more ammo, and let them use the ammo wherever they need to in order to win the war.
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
Now if only these countries that are fighting would pay for the weapon systems that would be great. But I disagree that we could fight even 2 wars. We don't have enough people that understand how to manufacture stuff anymore. Close enough isn't good enough for military equipmen. But please star a war and we will find out.
The u.s. can do it. The problem is the americans hate seeing momey to help other countries. While the u.s. is dealing with their own issues.
People are understanding until their lives are impacted.
The u.s. has to be cautious otherwise China might take an advantage of the situation.
Well is cheaper than involved them.
The better question is will US allies be deadweight or freeloaders?
Ukraine wont win because we dont want them to. We want them to stay stuck in war with Russia and not win to wear Russia down. Ukraine winning is bad thing for US. US goal is to just destroy as much of soviet army and keep russia bogged down for as long as possible and to us that is winning. US goal is for the US to win and whether Ukraine wins or even exists doesnt matter to us. US wins when both Ukraine and Russia are destroyed LOL. Thats why we dont give them all the weapons or enough ammo that would hurt US. We only give them enough that will destroy Russia while at the sametime allows Russia to destroy Ukraine. Its genius, who cares about Ukraine.. To us in the US.. Ukraine is Russia and we are getting them to destroy themselves. Ukraine will never be in NATO or EU. Its all a game so WE win and not YOU,
Unfortunately, my country has been moronic military wise. I know our guys are really great and fought a lot of the "interesting" places in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the politicians haven't properly built up the army for more traditional warfare
Always have money 💰 for wars but we can’t afford to take care of our own domestic affairs 😂
WW1, WW2, and 9/11 proved that there's a pretty shallow lower limit on how much we can stand down and look inward.
No. The simple fact is that they need their allies to start stepping up and carrying the burden with them, from all over the world. But, their allies, for the most part do NOT have the political will to fight any wars. The "West" (including America, Asia-Pacific and European nations), collectively have all the fire power to make short order of their threats, but they have been bending over to Xi. They need to take strong military action. Boots on the ground. It is unpopular now. BUT, if they had reacted when Russia invaded Ukraine, it would only have been one front, and that war would have been over by now (with Putin in chains). Instead, the middle east is a powder keg with a fuse which has already been lit, and China is waiting to pounce on Taiwan.
So because the US more or less helped ignite the war in Ukraine, the rest of us should join in? I personally think my country should ease up on the whole Ukraine thing
I don't know man, China invading Taiwan is still in the "maybe" part and at the end of the day Ukraine and Israel are pretty localised
Israel is, as you say, localised. However, Ukraine is not. If Putin defeats Ukraine, where would he turn next? The Baltic States? Poland? Putin wants to regain the Soviet terrories as a restored Russian Empire. A stronger Russia would be a direct threat to the US.
Ukraine is over, israel remins to be seen.
Yes. US if neccessary can do what it has done in WW2 era. Fighting in Europe and Asia, and war in Europe is extremely easier than in 1944.
Yes they can why not its daddy sam bro
That's why Roman Empire fell
Whatever happens, short of nuclear war, the geography of the US is its greatest defense. Whether or not we succeed in any war, the US will indefinitely have the intact infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities to rebuild and rearm ourselves and our allies.
Taiwan is not "a war front" (yet) - Taiwan also PAYS for the weapons they get, so they are regular purchases directly from the arms-makers, not from US-Arsenals!
Israel hasn't truly requested aid either as far as I know, so the US is nearby (ready to render aid should Iran for example enter the conflict), but so far they aren't fighting, so this doesn't really strain US supply lines either!
Ukraine? Yeah, that is an active warzone, but the US isn't supplying Ukraine alone! The UK, Germany, France, Poland etc. are also giving arms and other supplies!
Taiwan and Ukraine seem to be more important as far as trade and manufacturing beyond their respective borders (SE Asia & Europe). Israel is important to buoy rapid forward capabilities in the oil region.
Why can't these countries especially taiwan and Isreal pay for these equipment since they are relatively rich.
Or they pay for it at a discount. Or they are paying for it but we call it aid.
A discount is good right since US also making money since the labor and production is in USA
In a short answer to all of this Yes Yes it can with the will of the people all behind the effort the USA can do anything it puts it mind to🇺🇸
Yes America can fight three wars at the same time easily
This is simply a matter of scale and determination.
For the USs enemies/rivals, simply waiting for the isolationist parties in the US to hold power is all they need to do.
This is why China was not pleased with Russia about the Ukraine war.
I imagine China is equally unhappy about the current situation in Gaza/Israel.
As far as i can see. The 'enemies' of the US have 2 apparent choices.
1, do nothing and wait... potentially forever.
2, attempt to attrit the American will to support foreign countries in their conflicts.
As it stands it is possible that option 2 is what we are seeing here.
Almost every anti-america faction in the middle east is causing problems, Russia appears to be willing to die on its hill, Africa is heating up. And so on.
Iran and Russia at the very least appear to be trying to push the willpower behind American support for... anyone.
China as far as i can tell is doing its own thing. Waiting till those two run out of steam/doing just enough to keep them proped up.
Great Power competition. Love to see it. (Not)
What is in the American interest?
Taiwan- microchips from TSMC.
Middle East- Avoiding Islamic terror.
what is their interest in The Ukraine or Azerbaijan?
And who exactly appointed "The Sherriff?"
if the eu builds up its inudstry definetly they can already push russia to a standstill and if they uppgrade their factories/output they can defeat them alone
Yes, they can, but the question is, could they win?
It depends on what you mean by “win”. Sun Tzu said “To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” The US was able to subdue the Islamic State in Afghanistan simply by leaving behind their weapons and passively supporting the Taliban.
@@MiguelDLewis the talibans aren't ISIS, also they didn't subdue them for 20 years, they were fighting talibans who were using guerrilla warfare tactics.
@@user-td2jw9ze2c I never said the Taliban is ISIS. Go back and read what I typed.
One thing, just one thing we all have and need to never forget is "Weapons Business" . You can do any business BECAUSE its a F***ing grey zone.🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
No.
Amidst the myriad opinions swirling around current events, I lean towards a world where the United States takes center stage, as opposed to one under the dominance of Russia or China. Yet, with that acknowledgment, a modern vision for humanity is imperative - one that looks ahead, grounded in reality, addressing complex issues such as the status of Taiwan or Ukraine from a fresh perspective.
Acknowledging that China and Russia, akin to the U.S. with Cuba, exert influence within defined spheres, it becomes evident that sustained warmongering is an unsustainable solution. Instead, true leaders should envision a scenario of global collaboration and cooperation among superpowers. Rather than perpetuating tensions, let there be a vision for a world where these influential nations collectively craft a forward-thinking, futuristic plan for the globe - one that prioritizes the well-being of humanity.
In the 21st century, amidst the era of space exploration, it's crucial to transcend antiquated notions of conflict between nation-states and embrace a mindset that strives for shared prosperity and a harmonious future for all. Sadly, no visionaries in today's global politics have emerged to engage adversaries in this thinking. And Eisenhower's comments on the industrial-military complex are a reality of today's times.
Its actually 4 war now that Venezuela wants to invade its neighbor😂😂😂
Lmao showing all the presidents speeches and then finishing with Biden hahahahha holy fuck how far we have fallen
Yes they have and shadow government
It's a mistake to count money and weapons together the way you are. The US exports for more expensive systems than China and Russia do. If you're talking about actual guns, China exports more than the US.
It might be less a question of priority than a question of what can be accomplished for the resource expenditure. Israel can absolutely beat Hamas. They are vastly more powerful than their adversary and international patience for their self-defense is limited so that conflict will have the quickest resolution with the least expenditure. If Taiwan can be kept out of a war, it is probably the second-cheapest conflict for Washington to achieve its goals in. If America has to fight a proxy war with China over Taiwan, China has vastly more resources and military power than any of America's other geopolitical rivals, so maintaining the status quo in Taiwan is paramount.
Ukraine is a bit more tricky, since Russia has the stronger war machine than Ukraine, and it's already a hot war. Washington either has to ramp spending up to give Ukraine the resources to win, threaten to cut support to get Ukraine to the bargaining table, or publically do the first and quietly threaten the second to pressure both sides into a compromise, but Uncle Sam has hedged his bets and has put only limited pressure on Putin to avoid Russian threats of escalation and no pressure on Zelenskyy to avoid giving its allies excuses to moderate their positions on Russia. The administration would probably have an easier time getting the hawks on the right to fight with their populist wing if they seemed to have a plan to end the conflict or if Ukraine was making visible progress. The sad truth is that, right or left, American politicians have a long tradition of declaring any perceived stalemate as an intractable quagmire that must be abandoned when the conflict belongs to a president of the opposing party.
Russia can't win without throwing millions of bodies at Ukraine. They may have a bigger machine but Ukraines is higher quality. Although at this point it looks like that tech isnt going to be enough. Neither can break the others defense in any meaningful way and both have made major blunders. The biggest problem is they both are to close in ability in to many areas.