6:30 I'm not a specialist but I think that the allusion of France being the single one having nuclear weapons is due the fact that their nuclear arsenal is their own, it belongs to them while for the UK it is US owned nuclear arsenal so I guess UK can't use it as they wish or aren't fully sovereign on it.
all wrong, we talk in the video about the EU, which is the truth since England is no longer part of the EU, BREXIT, you know at least, the English chose to vote to leave Europe! and the French nuclear armament is much more important than that of the English!! do not look at Wikipedia, it is false!! France has more than 500 nuclear warheads!!
thank you for your recognition of what happened in Dunkirk, most people don't know that France had to defend the Netherlands, the UK, Luxembourg and Belgium along with itself in that time. Whilst all these countries gave up in some way or another, France kept fighting.
Hi, just a little comment like this, France is the Only nuclear power of EU+UK, because the others members only have US made warhead that they can't use by themself but france make his own nuclear weapon and can use it like they want
not only is France much bigger than the UK, it's also the country with the largest Exclusive Economic zone in the entire world, with 4,514,000 mi². That's why it has to have a good navy, air force and ground force.
I saw that many have told about UK nukes... but the problem is that UK nukes aren't as independent than french ones. The vector used to launch british nukes are .... americans. French nukes are using french vectors... that make a HUGE difference. Let say.... Hitler bis arrived in power in USA... and now a war between US and UK begins suddenly... UK resist well, USA exaspered by Brits launch 2 or 3 tactical nukes to break through british defenses... no possibility to answer back with nukes for UK. Sure it's a "what if..." ... but I would recall that everyones in 1991 were so sure that the russian bear was definitively sleeping a winter for eternity. When many (in which France) decided to abandon the conscription and to reduce their land army strength because of that, some voices began to say "what if Russians were dreaming awaken that the russian empire can live again, the nostalgy of its ancient greatness etc... most of deciders LAUGHED... we know the result nowadays... Putin is not Gorbatchov nor Eltsine, he is more like Staline and Hitler together. France hasn't this problem even in Theory or in case of USA... It is then understanding that France is the one Putin is attacking the most in words since Macron have told that all possibilities and solutions were on the table. France did have wished to play the diplomatic savor for both sides, letting the door open to Russia (when Macron said we shouldn't humiliate Russia) BUT now that is clear that Putin had fooled and Cheated France to put a stone in the western alliance, Macron said words Putin didn't expect. No one remarked that 500 billions of euros in 6 years for france, it means the equivalent of 6 trillions dollars for USA, it's a colossal effort, superior than any of the other Europeans. You need to combine UK and Germany to have the same investments and efforts in the period 2024-2030. It's important to help Romania, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria, Czech rep, Slovakia and Greece to receive the first "choc". They are the first line of defense of the western democracies. Eastern these democracies, you have the Russians and the Turkish (they're the black duck of Nato, I have absolutely not any confidence in Turkish, they have an integrist islamist dictaro, Erdogan is the little brother of Putin).
7:10 Wrong. France has been preparing the programme scorpion since nearly 20 years, develloping technologies and vehicles for at least the last 15 years. Programme Scorpion hasnt started when the first vehicles of the army started to be renewed back in 2020. Programme scorpion, technologies and the ideas that came with, is older than the US project.
I am not going to bank on the legendary perfidy of the English for having truncated the original video explaining why France was better prepared. But still somewhere doubt haunts me.
USA = 155 mm EXCALIBUR / FRANCE = 155 mm KATANA France does not need GPS munitions type EXCLIBUR since we produce a GPS KATANA munition! in addition, we have an anti-tank munition, the 155 mm BONUS munition, it is an intelligent munition with a range of 8 km when firing over a hill or a forest, once in flight, the munition opens and releases two sub-munitions which are directed towards enemy targets, they will glide to the target, once at the right height, a jet of molten metal hits the heavy tank or armored vehicle setting fire to the vehicle (same principle as the NLAW missile, which is manufactured in a French company THALES UK!)
A part of the NATO agreement is actually each country meeting a threshold set forth by the alliance of how much of their GDP is to he spent on defense. U.S. foreign military bases aren't meant for large scale defense but for rapid response and support and to act as a deterrence. They bolster a countries own military not take the place of it.
@@skaven3188 yeah we should and we did it in the past but the USA is our greatest allies almost like an adopted son for some people so we don’t want to risk loosing that. They didn’t react very well the first time we did and still nowadays the French-bashing event is still active because of this. USA is to susceptible to let us leave without felling betrayed. 😅
lmao the problem is the U.N. is the biggest established alliance on Earth and and they're combined forces are almost non existent. The problem isn't America is supposed to protect them. The problem is Europe has become entirely too complacent that no wars will break out and Britain's military is the best example. Current day the British military is almost in a worst case scenario. Horrendously outdated equipment and there's literally a shortage of soldiers right now
The UN is not really an alliance in the sense you seem to be referring to here, nor is it meant to be some kind of supranational government or have its own military. Frankly, trying to do any of that would instantly destroy the organization because the individual nations are not going to cede sovereignty to it. Maybe one day the world will be more prepared for something like that to emerge though. For now, the UN is a essentially a forum for nations to talk to each other, work through issues, build international support for various things, and set norms. Its primary and most important mission is to give the most powerful nations a way to talk and avoid direct conflict, which it has been mostly successful in.
It’s kinda like I’ve been thinking it’s kinda piss Allie’s for us Americans if the whole reason the want to be allied is to then not need decent military’s because “we all fight together” lol trust y’all gonna be hold your line or we will be inclined to occupy ya 😂
It's important to note that less than a quarter of Nato members actually honor the spending requirements for their own defense...Now you may get why so many are against the idea of Nato and at the very least want these countries to stop freeloading.
Just for intel, data network in the army is an old thing, the French army, With Atlas and Cobra we had a artillery and counter artillery and coordination system since the 90's.
Maybe it depends on where in the country you live, but I don't hear a lot of complaints that the US is unfairly taking on the responsibility of Europe's security. If there's a complaint that's repeated often it's that the US spends too much money and time abroad, while our own education, infrastructure, and healthcare systems hover near collapse.
We put everything we have into our military. I can see people being upset about that. We have the largest economy in the world, but no free healthcare, unlike many smaller European countries, who take much better care of their people.
@@fluffylittlebear yup, and the military has exclusive contracts with 2 or 3 companies so they get to charge whatever they want and the people are the ones paying the bill. You bring it up at all and the R's lose their minds about defending America and blah blah. Utter stupidity and corruption.
The only complaint I've heard is that some countries in NATO haven't been keep up with their agreed upon contributions. (X% of their GDP, I forget what the details are)
@@christophermichaelclarence6003 the problem is that UK nukes aren't as independent than french ones. The vector used to launch british nukes are .... americans. French nukes are using french vectors... that make a HUGE difference. Let say.... Hitler bis arrived in power in USA... and now a war between US and UK begins suddenly... UK resist well, USA exaspered by Brits launch 2 or 3 tactical nukes to break through british defenses... no possibility to answer back with nukes for UK.
I think that he is a lot comparing forces with just numbers. But quality of equipments is important too, and I think (as a French man) that even in quality we are better than England
One thing info graphics show got wrong is Taiwan is not in control of the most microchip. Only the most advanced microchip companies like global foundry control most of the microchip but are not as advanced as TSMC
Problem is actual military equiment is so expensive. And France cannot send thoushands of modern missiles that cost a million dollars each if not more.
I was raised to believe that WW3 would be over in half an hour and everybody would lose. "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones". --Albert Einstein
UK nuclear strikeforce is in US hands since they need their green light for any nuclear strike. So they are in the same situation than EU countries that have US-controlled nuclear arsenal.
@@AshC-tx8mw Authority arguments are a logical fallacy. Facts are better : "The British government likes to tell us that Trident is an independent nuclear weapons system. The reality is, however, that it is entirely dependent on the United States - both technically and politically. The US and the UK signed the Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) in 1958, a bilateral treaty on nuclear weapons cooperation under which both countries agreed to exchange classified information to develop their respective nuclear weapon systems. The relevant part of the MDA is reviewed and renewed every ten years, most recently in 2014 where the process took place with no parliamentary debate or scrutiny. The treaty permits ‘the transfer between the United States and the United Kingdom of classified information concerning atomic weapons; nuclear technology and controlled nuclear information; material and equipment for the development of defence plans; training of personnel; evaluation of potential enemy capability; development of delivery systems; and the research, development, and design of military reactors’. As a result of this treaty, the UK’s nuclear weapons system is highly reliant on the US. The system comprises three components: the submarines, the missiles and the warheads. The Trident missiles give their name to the system as a whole. These missiles are leased from the US, and the submarines have to return regularly to the US base in King’s Bay, Georgia, for the maintenance and replacement of the missiles. The UK pays an annual contribution of £12 million towards the cost of this base." Source cdnuk dot org You can find many other sources that confirm these facts.
UK and france has the same population (66 millions for uk VS 67M for France). UK has withdrawn from US and then from a lot of local defense contract but not from NATO. If US like trump tried to do leaves NATO, UK is no longer in EU and France is the only one that stay a nuke power and a UN veto right.
Whether the US were part of NATO or not, they would spend the same amount of their GDP on defence. the whole "paying for other NATO countries" rhetoric is completely flawed, because they're not paying other NATO countries anything. If anything, NATO countries are the one paying the US for F-35s etc.
US citizens never authorized or pushed for military bases all over the world. A Government and it's citizens are and have become separate in many cases.
Like we ( citizens) never authorized waging war in Africa , in France too "Government and it's citizens are and have become separate in many cases" .. By the people for the people , my ass....
I thought the blokes were looking stunned by the UK video yesterday,, so here's the proof! Haha! And then hearing that the French are more prepared, geez!! Brexit strikes again!
@@John_Redcorn_ The EU is not a dictatorship, it's like the United States. Every state has a measure of independence. Look at Texas and Florida, very different from New York and Oregon.
The production of "Chips" relies on a logistics chain that spans the globe, involving countries not necessarily friendly towards China and her ambitions. Disrupt access to a single raw ingredient or proprietary technology, and integrated circuit production in Asia is dead.
I dunno why people lump China together with Russia. Their livelihood is entirely dependent on their good relations with west. If anything happened they would either want to be outside of it or support west out of necessity
The A-10 is obsolete against any modern army with manpads and AA, you need to basicly own the battlefield for them to be able to do anything at all, only works against enemies that are very poorly armed, like the talibans. There is a reason they want to get rid of it.
About the early conversation @3:15 the UN, which comprises most European nations, has a stated minimum gdp % towards defense that all countries involved in the UN organization are mandated to spend. I believe it’s 2% of that country’s gdp. While America has gone well above and beyond only a couple European nations have done so. President Trump back in 2018 stated that the other nations need(and still do) to pull their own weight otherwise those same nations are basically looking at the US and demanding it to look after them. Also from the social aspect a lot of Americans are sick of sending money, materials, and troops to certain areas of conflict only to have most European nations(mostly those who don’t pony up their minimum defense %) moan and complain about the US’s involvement. It’s those facts(the US being the primary contributor to the UN and NATO as well as the near constant bad mouthing of the US) that gets on Americans’ nerves. Most of us anyway. Edit: Just because America has a base somewhere does NOT automatically mean she needs to be involved. It’s entirely circumstance based. Example: if a genocide is being committed then yes absolutely we need to be involved in helping end it. However, if the local powers-that-be are fighting and clearly don’t need aid then no we do not need troops there. I’m sure there are tons of more reasons but to just relegate your position to: oh, they have a base there so the US needs to ramp things up is just nonsensical.
It’s NATO that says spend two percent. Not the UN. The UN is not a defense pact. It doesn’t bother me that America gets bad mouthed by the world, we deserve it if you pay any attention to 21st century geopolitics. We’re the only people who can take criticism and a joke, if you watch someone roast the UK they always get so butt hurt 😂😂 Daz has been the only one I see laugh, but he’s lived outside the UK more than he’s lived in it so he gets it.
Yeah, he's basically saying in his video what Trump was saying about the state of European militaries. Europe needs to pick up the slack and take more responsibility for their own defense.
France has 3000 billions of debt. Thanks to Macron ! And every year we continue to give 20 billion to the European Union... That same European Union governed by a person whom the people have not elected. Sorry if bad English, I'm French.
Regardes les dettes des autre pays à travers le monde, tu te rendras compte que nous somme loin d'être un cas isolé et que cette info n'est d'aucune utilité. T'essayes de nous rendre fragile aux yeux du monde sans regarder autre chose que ton nombril ? Ou juste de faire de la pseudo politique dans les commentaires d'une vidéo qui n'en n'est pas le sujet ?
The readiness "problem" is BS we have an army ready at any time , look at the video of what france did in Mali, we have a really fast acting military, much faster than the US
That's not readiness in the sense of being able to deploy fast somewhere, but to fight a high intensity conflict. As it was not trained because of the needs for the insurgencies conflict, the troops and command lack preparation in the particular domain of high intensity. It's publicly said by the French armies. There is no criticism here, just a fact. Training is permanent because skill is lost with the lack of practice, no matter how good you are, and you can't train for everything at the same time.
What makes people think that taiwan's chip factories wouldn't be destroyed by the allies if China sets foot on Taiwan. I don't know why this channel ignores that it's so obvious.
Without the US's logistics, no European nation would be able to fight a real war. Even in the Falkands War Britian needed the US help logistically. Most of Europe has built their militaries to work as another arm to the US military. I will never have an issue with military spending as long as it's not items such as golden toilet seats. Yes i will acknowledge that there are things we could fix to make having the same military force we currently have but at a lower price. I dont believe that the world will ever know true peace. It would be nice if all our allies split the "policing" equally, sometimes it's easier to unite people under one larger umbrella vs getting a bunch of smaller umbrellas to move together. The US's "policing" of the world is so far from perfect that it's laughable, but it has been better than nothing. Also gives me some sense of security knowing it's the US's umbrella.
Fight a real war, against whom? If it’s just Russia you’re thinking of then the last few years have shown that’s not a great example. Yes the US provided significant support re fuel and intel in the Falklands war but that’s what allies do and we would have won it regardless with our navy and superior forces
Just remember that France has seemed powerful before and then it didn't happen that way. It's not about dog in the fight, it's about the fight in the dog.
Don't worry for the Frenchies : Stonne, siege of Lille, Dunkirk, Bir Hakeim, Normandie-Niemen, SAS 3 & 4, etc 😉 Let's hope this time they won't have an Edward VIII who gives defensive plans to the enemy ...
just a remember that every nations basically loose wars, and most of them were seen as powerful, and in almost every cases were France was seen powerful, they were.
France has never “seemed” powerful. It has always been. To say otherwise is a sign of lack of knowledge. Or simply proof of childishness. Have a nice day btw
@@blackberrythorns yes Turkey is still in NATO. I haven't heard that about Turkey but I have heard that Poland has redoubled their military since the Ukrainian war broke out, and they're not slowing down
@@Jimmyrichard270 turkey is in the fight against israel, along with the entire muslim world including pakistan with nukes. as soon as israel go into gaza the whole middle east is going to explode. us military bases in iraq and syria are already under attack. turkey just said what israel is doing is genocide. i don't think turkey is in nato anymore.
Poland is fast becoming the top military in Europe, Germany has slipped and continues to slip. People have had peace for too long. The world will never have peace. There will always be someone who feels slighted, be it true or perceived.
despite how good that may sound it won’t happen, and probably shouldn’t a few years ago, Nato was almost obsolete, but not now, it was abandon Nato we truly will be on our own, then again, we made it through all the nineteenth century on our own. we just need to revive out manufacturing sector. and focus on building the US economy up. Im not sure we can retreat from the leadership position we’ve had without Russia and China misinterpreting that as weakness.
what we really need is to develop new missile tech, hypersonic, nuclear powered missiles, new nukes and a new ICBM. The enemies must know that any attack on the US will be a suicidal move.
Videos that count and compare the number of planes, tanks, ships, etc., are disingenuous. Example, when stating how many fighters France Vs UK has, quality isn't mentioned. The UK has more than 30 F35s. These planes would completely outmatch any thing the French currently have. BTY, I am not from the UK. I am going to agree to disagree. There is a reason EVERYONE is buying the F35 and not the Rafale.
I really don't see how the F-35 is a superior plane to the French Rafale. Slower, lower flying, less maneuverable, very lower carrying capacity, no super cruise. Stealth? Yes, if it doesn't light its afterburner, if it doesn't rain and if its paint doesn't have any damage. While the Rafale can detect it thanks to its passive infrared system and also thanks to its cameras. The so-called stealth is really just an illusion.
The Rafale would not detect the f35 until it was way too late. It's equivalent night fighting, when one person has night vision goggles and the other doesn't. The person without the goggles would have no chance.@@olivierpuyou3621
I agree on the fact that just counting planes or tanks is absolutely not relevant. But in this case 30 F-35 will not do anything, firstly they are "better" than Rafale only in generation and technologies, in term of capabilities, flexibility and flight performance the rafale have no match (except swedish Gripen and Russian SU-57) , Also, F-35 have issues, they are expensive, they are not produced by UK (that means that pieces, and maybe some payloads are not easy to replace or produce), French pilots are really good and know their aircraft while the British have to learn on those new aircraft, and the French can produces the planes, pieces, missiles (Especially the MICA), ammunitions and maintain their plane without licence, autorisation or another country. F-35 could not change anything even if it was 600 F-35. Aside that, French leclercs tanks are arround 220~ in theory, the half is not in service (only use for reparation pieces) and a little part is not even functionnal + the line of production of those closed in 2007. BUT France have lots of Armored Cars, APC, IFV etc. So yes, just counting and comparing numbers is dumb for obvious reasons, but saying that UK have better quality is false. France army for exemple have fought few wars in Africa, even if it's against milicians with nothing close to the capabilities of a modern G7 or BRICS, France have a bit of experience of real combat and know their capabilities, Britain is doing low intensity counter-terror missions and count on US supply and US transport for their missions. It's not comparable.
At least we will be present and fighting on time. Not just waiting that everyone get tired of dying and having economic crises so we can pop up and « save the day » as thought we didn’t let millions of people die before finally deciding to do ours show. If we have to wait for a certain country that I will not name we would not be forced to surrender on day 1 but on day 0 considering that it will never came on time unless it affect it’s money. Now I don’t want to offend anyone but could you do the same please. That not funny anymore and it stopped being funny after the Cold War. Live in the present dude. Also France as the world record of percentage of winning battle in history and the white flag that you are showing is a French white flag that symbolise monarchy. White flag = monarchy flag from France. So I don’t get it. Why does it represent surrendering ?
@@John_Redcorn_ we are not waiting for other to come certainly not the USA and we never had. Like I said up there if we waited for you we would be already dead. If we really haven’t fight during WW2 and just been waiting for other to came we would already be dead. But I know that some people that think their country is the center of the world think we did. And they need to stop acting like their the best when all they did is pop up when the enemy were already becoming weaker. The French people are really good at revolting, we would have take back the control of our country even without the help of other. It would just has been slower. And if you still consider that France waited for you then remember that the USA wouldn’t exist without them. Yeah I know it was a long time ago but same go for WW2. It was a century ago. So if you want to leave in the past then that fine by me let’s go back to when the French people just sacrifice their heads ( literally ) and their economy for your country and didn’t ask you to pay back which had lead to one of the most bloodiest revolution in history so you can laugh your ass of about the only weak moment of French military in their history.
@@psychomimine Ya know why they planted so many trees along the streets there? So the germans would have some shade to march under. Lol. Thats a good one i must admit 😂
6:30 I'm not a specialist but I think that the allusion of France being the single one having nuclear weapons is due the fact that their nuclear arsenal is their own, it belongs to them while for the UK it is US owned nuclear arsenal so I guess UK can't use it as they wish or aren't fully sovereign on it.
True! We got the most powerful nuclear weapons in UE and we just mastered the Hypersonic missile and our new submarine are as noisy as a shrimp pack.
Add to that our Nuclear doctrine, wich is...Quite nasty.
all wrong, we talk in the video about the EU, which is the truth since England is no longer part of the EU, BREXIT, you know at least, the English chose to vote to leave Europe! and the French nuclear armament is much more important than that of the English!! do not look at Wikipedia, it is false!! France has more than 500 nuclear warheads!!
thank you for your recognition of what happened in Dunkirk, most people don't know that France had to defend the Netherlands, the UK, Luxembourg and Belgium along with itself in that time. Whilst all these countries gave up in some way or another, France kept fighting.
Hi, just a little comment like this, France is the Only nuclear power of EU+UK, because the others members only have US made warhead that they can't use by themself but france make his own nuclear weapon and can use it like they want
hello, no French bashing? I am pleasantly surprised thank you gentlemen!
not only is France much bigger than the UK, it's also the country with the largest Exclusive Economic zone in the entire world, with 4,514,000 mi². That's why it has to have a good navy, air force and ground force.
I saw that many have told about UK nukes... but the problem is that UK nukes aren't as independent than french ones. The vector used to launch british nukes are .... americans. French nukes are using french vectors... that make a HUGE difference. Let say.... Hitler bis arrived in power in USA... and now a war between US and UK begins suddenly... UK resist well, USA exaspered by Brits launch 2 or 3 tactical nukes to break through british defenses... no possibility to answer back with nukes for UK. Sure it's a "what if..." ... but I would recall that everyones in 1991 were so sure that the russian bear was definitively sleeping a winter for eternity. When many (in which France) decided to abandon the conscription and to reduce their land army strength because of that, some voices began to say "what if Russians were dreaming awaken that the russian empire can live again, the nostalgy of its ancient greatness etc... most of deciders LAUGHED... we know the result nowadays... Putin is not Gorbatchov nor Eltsine, he is more like Staline and Hitler together.
France hasn't this problem even in Theory or in case of USA... It is then understanding that France is the one Putin is attacking the most in words since Macron have told that all possibilities and solutions were on the table. France did have wished to play the diplomatic savor for both sides, letting the door open to Russia (when Macron said we shouldn't humiliate Russia) BUT now that is clear that Putin had fooled and Cheated France to put a stone in the western alliance, Macron said words Putin didn't expect. No one remarked that 500 billions of euros in 6 years for france, it means the equivalent of 6 trillions dollars for USA, it's a colossal effort, superior than any of the other Europeans. You need to combine UK and Germany to have the same investments and efforts in the period 2024-2030. It's important to help Romania, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria, Czech rep, Slovakia and Greece to receive the first "choc". They are the first line of defense of the western democracies. Eastern these democracies, you have the Russians and the Turkish (they're the black duck of Nato, I have absolutely not any confidence in Turkish, they have an integrist islamist dictaro, Erdogan is the little brother of Putin).
7:10
Wrong.
France has been preparing the programme scorpion since nearly 20 years, develloping technologies and vehicles for at least the last 15 years.
Programme Scorpion hasnt started when the first vehicles of the army started to be renewed back in 2020. Programme scorpion, technologies and the ideas that came with, is older than the US project.
I am not going to bank on the legendary perfidy of the English for having truncated the original video explaining why France was better prepared.
But still somewhere doubt haunts me.
USA = 155 mm EXCALIBUR / FRANCE = 155 mm KATANA France does not need GPS munitions type EXCLIBUR since we produce a GPS KATANA munition! in addition, we have an anti-tank munition, the 155 mm BONUS munition, it is an intelligent munition with a range of 8 km when firing over a hill or a forest, once in flight, the munition opens and releases two sub-munitions which are directed towards enemy targets, they will glide to the target, once at the right height, a jet of molten metal hits the heavy tank or armored vehicle setting fire to the vehicle (same principle as the NLAW missile, which is manufactured in a French company THALES UK!)
A part of the NATO agreement is actually each country meeting a threshold set forth by the alliance of how much of their GDP is to he spent on defense. U.S. foreign military bases aren't meant for large scale defense but for rapid response and support and to act as a deterrence. They bolster a countries own military not take the place of it.
France must leave NATO!
@@skaven3188 yeah we should and we did it in the past but the USA is our greatest allies almost like an adopted son for some people so we don’t want to risk loosing that.
They didn’t react very well the first time we did and still nowadays the French-bashing event is still active because of this. USA is to susceptible to let us leave without felling betrayed. 😅
@@psychomimine
l'avis des Américains on s'en fout
tu travailles à l'ambassade Américaine pour sortir ce genre de chose?
Infographics Show is a terrible source to watch military content.
Lol no,its just hard to hear someone who just straight out say the truths no filter
@@MacmillanYarofailam He doesn't say the truth, he just says pro-US biased stuff.
@@MacmillanYarofailamnah bro it’s really sketchy content and quite subjective, even emotional at times
lmao the problem is the U.N. is the biggest established alliance on Earth and and they're combined forces are almost non existent. The problem isn't America is supposed to protect them. The problem is Europe has become entirely too complacent that no wars will break out and Britain's military is the best example. Current day the British military is almost in a worst case scenario. Horrendously outdated equipment and there's literally a shortage of soldiers right now
The UN is not really an alliance in the sense you seem to be referring to here, nor is it meant to be some kind of supranational government or have its own military. Frankly, trying to do any of that would instantly destroy the organization because the individual nations are not going to cede sovereignty to it. Maybe one day the world will be more prepared for something like that to emerge though. For now, the UN is a essentially a forum for nations to talk to each other, work through issues, build international support for various things, and set norms.
Its primary and most important mission is to give the most powerful nations a way to talk and avoid direct conflict, which it has been mostly successful in.
It’s kinda like I’ve been thinking it’s kinda piss Allie’s for us Americans if the whole reason the want to be allied is to then not need decent military’s because “we all fight together” lol trust y’all gonna be hold your line or we will be inclined to occupy ya 😂
with uk, france, germany, italy and spain, greec and others in europe, i think we're safe ^^
It's important to note that less than a quarter of Nato members actually honor the spending requirements for their own defense...Now you may get why so many are against the idea of Nato and at the very least want these countries to stop freeloading.
And before he russia ukraine war it was only like 3 countries
You don't "ramp down" as much as the UK does, however. You either use your military, or lose it. It's like any other muscle.
Just for intel, data network in the army is an old thing, the French army, With Atlas and Cobra we had a artillery and counter artillery and coordination system since the 90's.
Maybe it depends on where in the country you live, but I don't hear a lot of complaints that the US is unfairly taking on the responsibility of Europe's security. If there's a complaint that's repeated often it's that the US spends too much money and time abroad, while our own education, infrastructure, and healthcare systems hover near collapse.
We put everything we have into our military. I can see people being upset about that. We have the largest economy in the world, but no free healthcare, unlike many smaller European countries, who take much better care of their people.
@@fluffylittlebearIf that free healthcare finna raise taxes then fuck that shit. Better not get hurt then.
@@fluffylittlebear yup, and the military has exclusive contracts with 2 or 3 companies so they get to charge whatever they want and the people are the ones paying the bill. You bring it up at all and the R's lose their minds about defending America and blah blah. Utter stupidity and corruption.
The only complaint I've heard is that some countries in NATO haven't been keep up with their agreed upon contributions. (X% of their GDP, I forget what the details are)
@@facelesscalvin1667 We could have lower taxes AND free healthcare if we didn't act as the entire world's police force.
“France is the only nuclear power in the EU.”
“What about us?”
“We’re not in the EU.”
“Oh yeah, oopsie.”
Within the EU, France is the only one that possess Nuclear weapons
I know Britain also has.
@@christophermichaelclarence6003 the problem is that UK nukes aren't as independent than french ones. The vector used to launch british nukes are .... americans. French nukes are using french vectors... that make a HUGE difference. Let say.... Hitler bis arrived in power in USA... and now a war between US and UK begins suddenly... UK resist well, USA exaspered by Brits launch 2 or 3 tactical nukes to break through british defenses... no possibility to answer back with nukes for UK.
@@jean-Pierre-bt8xw I see. Thanks for enlightening me
@@christophermichaelclarence6003 at your service Messire ;)
I think that he is a lot comparing forces with just numbers. But quality of equipments is important too, and I think (as a French man) that even in quality we are better than England
One thing info graphics show got wrong is Taiwan is not in control of the most microchip. Only the most advanced microchip companies like global foundry control most of the microchip but are not as advanced as TSMC
Problem is actual military equiment is so expensive. And France cannot send thoushands of modern missiles that cost a million dollars each if not more.
I was raised to believe that WW3 would be over in half an hour and everybody would lose.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".
--Albert Einstein
That just isn't true though.
It wasn't true then, but with the reduction of the number of warheads by both teh US and Russia, it is really not true now.
UK nuclear strikeforce is in US hands since they need their green light for any nuclear strike. So they are in the same situation than EU countries that have US-controlled nuclear arsenal.
And your authority for that is?
@@AshC-tx8mw Authority arguments are a logical fallacy. Facts are better :
"The British government likes to tell us that Trident is an independent nuclear weapons system. The reality is, however, that it is entirely dependent on the United States - both technically and politically.
The US and the UK signed the Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) in 1958, a bilateral treaty on nuclear weapons cooperation under which both countries agreed to exchange classified information to develop their respective nuclear weapon systems. The relevant part of the MDA is reviewed and renewed every ten years, most recently in 2014 where the process took place with no parliamentary debate or scrutiny. The treaty permits ‘the transfer between the United States and the United Kingdom of classified information concerning atomic weapons; nuclear technology and controlled nuclear information; material and equipment for the development of defence plans; training of personnel; evaluation of potential enemy capability; development of delivery systems; and the research, development, and design of military reactors’.
As a result of this treaty, the UK’s nuclear weapons system is highly reliant on the US. The system comprises three components: the submarines, the missiles and the warheads. The Trident missiles give their name to the system as a whole. These missiles are leased from the US, and the submarines have to return regularly to the US base in King’s Bay, Georgia, for the maintenance and replacement of the missiles. The UK pays an annual contribution of £12 million towards the cost of this base."
Source cdnuk dot org
You can find many other sources that confirm these facts.
But France not
@@Maxyukii Yup, that what I implied in my initial comment.
the big problem is americans who never went to war calling french cowards when they are virgins
But the true question being, is the blue of the middle chair a hole or a part of the chair ?
UK and france has the same population (66 millions for uk VS 67M for France). UK has withdrawn from US and then from a lot of local defense contract but not from NATO. If US like trump tried to do leaves NATO, UK is no longer in EU and France is the only one that stay a nuke power and a UN veto right.
Whether the US were part of NATO or not, they would spend the same amount of their GDP on defence. the whole "paying for other NATO countries" rhetoric is completely flawed, because they're not paying other NATO countries anything. If anything, NATO countries are the one paying the US for F-35s etc.
US citizens never authorized or pushed for military bases all over the world. A Government and it's citizens are and have become separate in many cases.
Like we ( citizens) never authorized waging war in Africa , in France too "Government and it's citizens are and have become separate in many cases" .. By the people for the people , my ass....
we're brothers my beloved rostbeef
I thought the blokes were looking stunned by the UK video yesterday,, so here's the proof! Haha! And then hearing that the French are more prepared, geez!! Brexit strikes again!
Except that (1) the clip about the UK seemed very unreliable/inaccurate and (2) defense has nothing to do with Brexit, you mug
This has zero to do with brexit 🤦♂️
@@John_Redcorn_ If they were still in the EU, there would be more money coming into the economy, less tariffs etc.
@@Skeezer66 and also under the thumb of brussels
@@John_Redcorn_ The EU is not a dictatorship, it's like the United States. Every state has a measure of independence. Look at Texas and Florida, very different from New York and Oregon.
I hope we stop that mess with Russia and don't go to war
They forgot to count german, austrian and russian soldiers in the british number of soldiers.
Pakistan also is a nuclear power and friendly with Russia not only Iran ,China or North Koreea
The production of "Chips" relies on a logistics chain that spans the globe, involving countries not necessarily friendly towards China and her ambitions. Disrupt access to a single raw ingredient or proprietary technology, and integrated circuit production in Asia is dead.
I dunno why people lump China together with Russia. Their livelihood is entirely dependent on their good relations with west. If anything happened they would either want to be outside of it or support west out of necessity
Tanks and armored vehicles come in AFTER the A-10s have removed all thermal signatures with AGM-65D's (IR mavericks) .
The A-10 is obsolete against any modern army with manpads and AA, you need to basicly own the battlefield for them to be able to do anything at all, only works against enemies that are very poorly armed, like the talibans.
There is a reason they want to get rid of it.
About the early conversation @3:15 the UN, which comprises most European nations, has a stated minimum gdp % towards defense that all countries involved in the UN organization are mandated to spend. I believe it’s 2% of that country’s gdp. While America has gone well above and beyond only a couple European nations have done so. President Trump back in 2018 stated that the other nations need(and still do) to pull their own weight otherwise those same nations are basically looking at the US and demanding it to look after them. Also from the social aspect a lot of Americans are sick of sending money, materials, and troops to certain areas of conflict only to have most European nations(mostly those who don’t pony up their minimum defense %) moan and complain about the US’s involvement. It’s those facts(the US being the primary contributor to the UN and NATO as well as the near constant bad mouthing of the US) that gets on Americans’ nerves. Most of us anyway.
Edit: Just because America has a base somewhere does NOT automatically mean she needs to be involved. It’s entirely circumstance based. Example: if a genocide is being committed then yes absolutely we need to be involved in helping end it. However, if the local powers-that-be are fighting and clearly don’t need aid then no we do not need troops there. I’m sure there are tons of more reasons but to just relegate your position to: oh, they have a base there so the US needs to ramp things up is just nonsensical.
It’s NATO that says spend two percent. Not the UN. The UN is not a defense pact. It doesn’t bother me that America gets bad mouthed by the world, we deserve it if you pay any attention to 21st century geopolitics. We’re the only people who can take criticism and a joke, if you watch someone roast the UK they always get so butt hurt 😂😂 Daz has been the only one I see laugh, but he’s lived outside the UK more than he’s lived in it so he gets it.
I can tell he's biased. He repeats that lie about Trump. While not saying he wanted a base in Poland!
Yeah, he's basically saying in his video what Trump was saying about the state of European militaries. Europe needs to pick up the slack and take more responsibility for their own defense.
France has 3000 billions of debt. Thanks to Macron !
And every year we continue to give 20 billion to the European Union... That same European Union governed by a person whom the people have not elected.
Sorry if bad English, I'm French.
Regardes les dettes des autre pays à travers le monde, tu te rendras compte que nous somme loin d'être un cas isolé et que cette info n'est d'aucune utilité.
T'essayes de nous rendre fragile aux yeux du monde sans regarder autre chose que ton nombril ? Ou juste de faire de la pseudo politique dans les commentaires d'une vidéo qui n'en n'est pas le sujet ?
God, we're so fucking based it's not even funny anymore.
There are jokes about the French surrendering with that title.
The readiness "problem" is BS we have an army ready at any time , look at the video of what france did in Mali, we have a really fast acting military, much faster than the US
That's not readiness in the sense of being able to deploy fast somewhere, but to fight a high intensity conflict.
As it was not trained because of the needs for the insurgencies conflict, the troops and command lack preparation in the particular domain of high intensity. It's publicly said by the French armies.
There is no criticism here, just a fact. Training is permanent because skill is lost with the lack of practice, no matter how good you are, and you can't train for everything at the same time.
Finland is in NATO now
Reatcion a View to kill film 007 e canzone sia dei Duran Duran
E poi di Grace Jones nel film May Day
What makes people think that taiwan's chip factories wouldn't be destroyed by the allies if China sets foot on Taiwan. I don't know why this channel ignores that it's so obvious.
Without the US's logistics, no European nation would be able to fight a real war. Even in the Falkands War Britian needed the US help logistically. Most of Europe has built their militaries to work as another arm to the US military.
I will never have an issue with military spending as long as it's not items such as golden toilet seats. Yes i will acknowledge that there are things we could fix to make having the same military force we currently have but at a lower price. I dont believe that the world will ever know true peace. It would be nice if all our allies split the "policing" equally, sometimes it's easier to unite people under one larger umbrella vs getting a bunch of smaller umbrellas to move together. The US's "policing" of the world is so far from perfect that it's laughable, but it has been better than nothing. Also gives me some sense of security knowing it's the US's umbrella.
Fight a real war, against whom? If it’s just Russia you’re thinking of then the last few years have shown that’s not a great example. Yes the US provided significant support re fuel and intel in the Falklands war but that’s what allies do and we would have won it regardless with our navy and superior forces
Just remember that France has seemed powerful before and then it didn't happen that way.
It's not about dog in the fight, it's about the fight in the dog.
Don't worry for the Frenchies : Stonne, siege of Lille, Dunkirk, Bir Hakeim, Normandie-Niemen, SAS 3 & 4, etc 😉
Let's hope this time they won't have an Edward VIII who gives defensive plans to the enemy ...
just a remember that every nations basically loose wars, and most of them were seen as powerful, and in almost every cases were France was seen powerful, they were.
France has never “seemed” powerful. It has always been. To say otherwise is a sign of lack of knowledge. Or simply proof of childishness.
Have a nice day btw
great so that's were our money is going.... instead of public transportion, or more money for hospitals. cool 👍
I don't know how old these videos are but I've been hearing that Poland has the strongest military in Europe
turkey had the strongest military in nato eurasia but i don't think they're in nato anymore.
@@blackberrythorns yes Turkey is still in NATO. I haven't heard that about Turkey but I have heard that Poland has redoubled their military since the Ukrainian war broke out, and they're not slowing down
I’ve heard Germany is probably the most serious European nation about increasing their military capabilities.
@@Jimmyrichard270 turkey is in the fight against israel, along with the entire muslim world including pakistan with nukes. as soon as israel go into gaza the whole middle east is going to explode. us military bases in iraq and syria are already under attack. turkey just said what israel is doing is genocide. i don't think turkey is in nato anymore.
Poland is fast becoming the top military in Europe, Germany has slipped and continues to slip. People have had peace for too long. The world will never have peace. There will always be someone who feels slighted, be it true or perceived.
Hopefully the u.s in 2024/2025 will leave nato when we get a good president in office
despite how good that may sound it won’t happen, and probably shouldn’t a few years ago, Nato was almost obsolete, but not now, it was abandon Nato we truly will be on our own, then again, we made it through all the nineteenth century on our own. we just need to revive out manufacturing sector. and focus on building the US economy up. Im not sure we can retreat from the leadership position we’ve had without Russia and China misinterpreting that as weakness.
what we really need is to develop new missile tech, hypersonic, nuclear powered missiles, new nukes and a new ICBM. The enemies must know that any attack on the US will be a suicidal move.
Remind me witch is the only country that ever called NATO for help?
Videos that count and compare the number of planes, tanks, ships, etc., are disingenuous. Example, when stating how many fighters France Vs UK has, quality isn't mentioned. The UK has more than 30 F35s. These planes would completely outmatch any thing the French currently have. BTY, I am not from the UK.
I am going to agree to disagree. There is a reason EVERYONE is buying the F35 and not the Rafale.
no f35 can't
I really don't see how the F-35 is a superior plane to the French Rafale.
Slower, lower flying, less maneuverable, very lower carrying capacity, no super cruise.
Stealth? Yes, if it doesn't light its afterburner, if it doesn't rain and if its paint doesn't have any damage.
While the Rafale can detect it thanks to its passive infrared system and also thanks to its cameras.
The so-called stealth is really just an illusion.
The Rafale would not detect the f35 until it was way too late. It's equivalent night fighting, when one person has night vision goggles and the other doesn't. The person without the goggles would have no chance.@@olivierpuyou3621
I agree on the fact that just counting planes or tanks is absolutely not relevant.
But in this case 30 F-35 will not do anything, firstly they are "better" than Rafale only in generation and technologies, in term of capabilities, flexibility and flight performance the rafale have no match (except swedish Gripen and Russian SU-57) , Also, F-35 have issues, they are expensive, they are not produced by UK (that means that pieces, and maybe some payloads are not easy to replace or produce), French pilots are really good and know their aircraft while the British have to learn on those new aircraft, and the French can produces the planes, pieces, missiles (Especially the MICA), ammunitions and maintain their plane without licence, autorisation or another country.
F-35 could not change anything even if it was 600 F-35.
Aside that, French leclercs tanks are arround 220~ in theory, the half is not in service (only use for reparation pieces) and a little part is not even functionnal + the line of production of those closed in 2007.
BUT France have lots of Armored Cars, APC, IFV etc.
So yes, just counting and comparing numbers is dumb for obvious reasons, but saying that UK have better quality is false.
France army for exemple have fought few wars in Africa, even if it's against milicians with nothing close to the capabilities of a modern G7 or BRICS, France have a bit of experience of real combat and know their capabilities, Britain is doing low intensity counter-terror missions and count on US supply and US transport for their missions.
It's not comparable.
Surrender
Average Virgin Cringe Brainless Fatherless Anti France Troll Fanboy taking Copium over here ⬆️
Like US in Vietnam or recently in Afghanistan?
Mofo couldn't stop a plane in 2001 asking us to surrender lmao
France’s ww3 plan: spend money on building up its military….then surrender on day 1 🏳️😂
I have news for you: WWII ended almost 80 years ago. The world is slightly different now.
At least we will be present and fighting on time.
Not just waiting that everyone get tired of dying and having economic crises so we can pop up and « save the day » as thought we didn’t let millions of people die before finally deciding to do ours show.
If we have to wait for a certain country that I will not name we would not be forced to surrender on day 1 but on day 0 considering that it will never came on time unless it affect it’s money.
Now I don’t want to offend anyone but could you do the same please. That not funny anymore and it stopped being funny after the Cold War. Live in the present dude.
Also France as the world record of percentage of winning battle in history and the white flag that you are showing is a French white flag that symbolise monarchy. White flag = monarchy flag from France. So I don’t get it.
Why does it represent surrendering ?
@@psychomimine its actually still funny 😂. If you’re always waiting on someone else to come to the rescue, well…u steelmanned the joke
@@John_Redcorn_ we are not waiting for other to come certainly not the USA and we never had. Like I said up there if we waited for you we would be already dead. If we really haven’t fight during WW2 and just been waiting for other to came we would already be dead.
But I know that some people that think their country is the center of the world think we did. And they need to stop acting like their the best when all they did is pop up when the enemy were already becoming weaker. The French people are really good at revolting, we would have take back the control of our country even without the help of other. It would just has been slower.
And if you still consider that France waited for you then remember that the USA wouldn’t exist without them. Yeah I know it was a long time ago but same go for WW2. It was a century ago. So if you want to leave in the past then that fine by me let’s go back to when the French people just sacrifice their heads ( literally ) and their economy for your country and didn’t ask you to pay back which had lead to one of the most bloodiest revolution in history so you can laugh your ass of about the only weak moment of French military in their history.
@@psychomimine Ya know why they planted so many trees along the streets there? So the germans would have some shade to march under. Lol. Thats a good one i must admit 😂