5 Reasons You Shouldn't Mess With The USA REACTION | OB DAVE REACTS
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 июл 2024
- Enquiries - officeblokedave@gmail.com
Reactions from OB Dave and Ash!
Merch - office-bloke-dave.myspreadsho...
Patreon - / officeblokedave
Original Video - • 5 Reasons You Shouldn'...
#obdaveandiamash #obdave
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS 
Развлечения
MURICA!! Happy 4th fellows Americans… our UK cousins…..sorry we had to.
Thank you hello from Nashville Tennessee
@@brettboulette5106 right outside of Knoxville here lol
GR Michigan ❤
Iowa here Happy 4th
Cousins from across the pond ♡
Great example of our allies not spending funds on defense because they expect the US to defend them, but I spent 3 weeks training with Brit firefighters at RAF Wadington Lincolnshire, great people very well trained, top notch professionals, great memories
The reason we do not sell them is the nuclear reactors. They are so highly classified. Even the sailors on the carriers are not permitted in the reactor rooms. Of the 5000 plus sailors on board, less than maybe 100 have clearance to go in the reactor rooms. The reactors are so powerful that during the aftermath of a tsunami. one of our carriers docked and used its reactors to power an entire city. That's in addition to supplying the boat's needs.
Absolutely correct. It cracks me up when folks ask me when they send a carrier to a place that has just been pounded like a volcano or tsunami. Folks only think of the military aspect of the ship. Not the simple fact that people live on that ship. And can do the same for folks when they get there. Power, Water, Food, Bed space, medical supplies, etc...
I was that one a submarine for 21 years 3 years overall of training before I was left alone on watch
You don’t just buy a nuclear powered carrier like you’re buying a used row boat.
Respectfully, this is nonsense. To address your second point first, no one is jerryrigging unapproved electric cabling into the reactors of any US carrier to power anything off ship, much less a city. For one, there are absolutely no procedures for this from NAVSEA or the NNSA, for two there are much better options to provide power in emergency situations, these little things called generators, than to dock an essential part of US military hardware.
No, a US carrier did not dock and power an entire city. Unless you're thinking of the USS Lexington CV2... In 1929. The Lex did dock in Tacoma and used its coal powered boilers and 4 turbo generators to provide about one quarter of Tacoma's energy needs for a month following a drought, nothing to do with a tsunami, nothing to do with modern aircraft carriers or modular nuclear reactors. This would not occur in a similar situation today given the ability to quickly deliver better alternatives by air or freight.
As for 'less than maybe 100 have clearance to go in the reactor rooms', on a Nimitz class carrier 100 crew would be about the absolute minimum within the Reactor Department, you're looking at 200-500 crew with RCT training and radiological control operations who can 'technically' enter the reactor compartment, although you would be correct the true figure for how many of these actually DO enter the reactor compartment would be well below 100 given the fact no one can enter the compartment surrounding the reactor without any good reason for being there; this compartment is completely inaccessible during reactor operation which is the majority of the time. This also excludes the several hundred naval dock workers or external organizations of third parties with clearance to enter the reactor compartments to complete checks and maintenance, of which the US Navy trains approximately 3,000 crewman annually to enter the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command and Nuclear Enlisted Commissioning Program.
@@Elias_Avraham I did pro bono work some years back for a group that wanted to bring the JFK to Miami or Boston as an attraction, like the Midway.
The Navy is incredibly diligent about preserving the legacy of some ships, but I never understood why they would prefer to scuttle/scrap some vessels than to exploit their recruitment potential.
Yeah, I understand it’s a minefield for them to navigate the solvency of the municipalities/consortiums that want these vessels…their plans to assure financial success so they don’t rust from neglect, etc. …but still.
There must be a deeper political reason that I don’t understand.
Retired US Navy man here; when you see the photos and video of all of the ship together it's just a photo op. When operating the ships are spread out over a very large area and in constant communication.
Army does that too, but on a much smaller scale. If you're close enough to whisper, we can both be taken out by one grenade. Back off, use hand and arm signals.(Edit: Army gets mad if you're within meters. Navy getting pissed if you're within kilometers makes sense.)
This is a few years old at this point. The USS Gerald R. Ford is on active deployment, and, the second Ford Class ship, the USS Enterprise, is almost complete. In fact the Ford made a port call last year at Portsmouth. They actually had to anchor outside the port, and, ferry personnel between ship, and, shore with her small boats.
Our ships are too damn big for pier side docking. We need our liberty boats.
The Enterprise is the 3rd Ford class carrier. The Reagan is also active, I believe.
@@ronb6152 Launched but set to be commissioned in 2025. It is also called the John F. Kennedy as the Reagan is a Nimitz.
@n3v3rforgott3n9 so I was correct that the Enterprise is the third, I just got the seconds name wrong.
10:45 I served on a US submarine, and I became very skilled at walking while the vessel rocked, though it rocked quite a bit more slowly than most people might assume. A submarine doesn't typically move as much, as it's usually beneath the surface roughness, and it of course has a round keel. I also never had difficulty returning to land.
17:00. During the late 1980s there was a definitive slogan that MADE sense! "Peace through Superior Fire Power." If BOTH sides arm themselves with "superior" arsenals then both sides negate themselves! That is how Reagan & Gorbachev ended the Cold War in 1991.
agreed but a new leader in Russia - delusional scary to have a delusional enemy
Btw they usually don’t dismantle them. They sit in a harbor and are used for some parts but if WW3 kicked off we could probably have them up and running in a year or so
They do scrap quite a lot. My ship was the supercarrier USS Constellation (CV-64), which I was on for its last 2 deployments, then decommissioned in 2003. It got towed to Brownsville here in Texas, and then was scrapped. The last bits were sent off for recycling in 2017.
@@peensteenMy first float was aboard the Okie (USS Okinawa, LPH-3) in 1990 for familiarization cruise; hated it got struck in 1992, then CONEXed in 2002.
8 months -
They are dismantle them now there doing the enterprise now nimtz is next takes years because of nuclear power plant
@@peensteen I was on the Kitty back in the early 90's. I believe she's been scrapped as well now.
I was in the US Navy and worked the flight deck of a carrier. I remember at first I thought it was massive.. by the end of my deployment not so much.. But, it was fun, hard work, but some great memories.
Costs WAY more to develop the technology than buy that which already exists, from the USA. If the UK hasn't been keeping up with development you're starting nearly from scratch. That'll cost a lot more, you'd have had to have been doing it all along.
There’s also running costs to maintaining and supplying carriers as well. The cost isn’t just acquisition cost.
The #1 reason why you don't buy a used carrier off the US is because the cost to operate these ships doesn't make budgetary sense. The reason why the US replaces them is as they get older their cost of operation goes up dramatically and it becomes cheaper to just build a new one.
The UK's 2 carriers, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, and, HMS Prince of Wales, are a good bit smaller, lighter, with smaller crews, and, are conventionally powered. For example, the Queen Elizabeth is 284m long, displaces 65,000 tons, and, has a crew of 679. The Ford is 333m long, displaces over 100,000 tons, and, has a crew of 4539.
But more modern. It doesn't need nearly as much crew.
HMS QEII missing a modern air wing?
@@williambranch4283 They're building it slowly.
17:20. Dave still thinks the United States does not have Nukes in Space targeting this Planet 😂. Sweet Child of Spring.. Yes all Our Satellites are friendly. However if we Fall Down, So does this entire Planet Earth with Ourselves, Like Toy Soldiers. Unfortunately that is the truth. All my Nation, the United States ever wants to say is " Won't You come out and Play with Me?". We are still New, yet with unprecedented Power.
My husband is a Navy Vet who spent years on aircraft carriers. He didn’t experience any ill effectives from being onboard but he has told me a few stories about huge storms and incredible waves that would break 30 feet or more over the bow, with the ship pitching and rolling. That terrifies me personally, but I love boats and have been on a variety including cruise ships for up to a week. It never bothered me but I was never in a huge storm, thank God. 😁
I am a retired US ARMY veteran, and during my service, we worked with the British military numerous times. It was always special to work with your military. Your military might not be as big as ours, but damn, your military uses their equipment to the MAX! Specifically, while working on CH-47D and CH-47F helicopters, your pilots would put the helicopters through maneuvers are pilots were forbidden from executing, thus your pilots would break structural parts of the helicopter that we had never seen broken before. I have much respect for your military as they demand way more performance out of their equipment and their troops, whether it be special operations troops or their pilots. I am glad our countries are allies! If you guys had the same numbers as us, you would make our military look silly. I am not kidding! So, don't be too down on your own military! For their size, they DEFINITELY hold their own in any conflict. Loved your reaction to this video.👍👍❤❤
I was lucky enough to go on a father son 2 day cruise on the U.S.S. America. I had a blast and I was 12! And yes! Aircraft carriers are huge! It was scheduled to be decommissioned and it was. But they wanted to test it's structural integrity. They removed any fuel (it ran on Deisel) and oil, because it was supposed to be an artificial reef underwater. It took 2 weeks to sink it! Eventually they had to add explosives inside of it to scuttle it. It was impervious to all of our sea fairing weapons!
I was in the US Navy for 20 years and yes you get your sea legs after about 1 week. And the sleep is amazing with the rocking and rolling and ambient noise. I was on small ships so sometimes in rough seas it was like being in a canoe in river rapids. We do sell or give away some ships. Or scrape them and use them for artificial reefs. @ of the one I was on are such. Also this video is older and under our current administration our military has been focus on the wrong things. Love you two and your content. I hope Dave your sparky course is going well. Ash how is your new job going?
Thank you so much for sharing! That’s super interesting! I start my new role end of this month - very excited!
Firstly, the Nimitz requires 6000 crew members to operate and youd need 70+ planes to get the most out of it
The other problem is. Even if the UK was allowed to purchase one, the maintenance is where the true cost is. Maintaining not just a carrier, but a super carrier. Thats a hefty expense that the US can afford. The gerald ford carrier for example is like 1/5th the UKs entire annual defense budget in initial cost alone.
So the UK already is struggling to finance all the planes and maintenance needed for a single smaller carrier you guys built. How could you expect to purchase a super carrier, maintain it, find the crew for it, and supply the planes. Its very difficult as is.
This also is made worse when considering the UK has been struggling to meet enlistment goals as is.
I was on the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier, about the only way you know the ship is moving,is when it turns
Guys, i love your work on reactions, always brings joy. and yeha we're friends as people, much room for improvement right
Most of the time when a big ship is retired the us turns it into a museum
If you get seasick, you're gonna want to go to the deck and stand midship. Keep your eyes on the horizon. Midship moves the least in choppy or heavy seas, and the horizon doesn't move. It helps to reduce or resolve seasickness by keeping you and your brain stable.
Re: lightning storms...in Gainesville, Florida, I had the pleasure of witnessing one that was so high up, there was no thunder...
Hello friends in the UK. Please know that the US are your allies--hahaha! What you are watching is YOUR military & defense system. :o)
Yup and the rest of the free worlds .
No, I was stationed on an Aircraft Carrier Cv-64 USS Constellation, worked on the flight deck, you don't get rubber legs getting off, you run off😅
As a child in the 50’s and 60’s we had school drills in case of nuclear attack by Russia, two special Civil Defense channels on radios that were marked by the manufacturer, etc. So the acronym then was MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. If either attacked with nukes, they would also be destroyed so quantity as well as diversity (bombers, ICBMs, submarine-launched) became part of MAD deterrence. Armed B-52 bomber wings were cycled so some were always in the air at classified orbit points. It was a somewhat scary time, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis and how close things actually came to reaching the tipping point.
...I recall the "air raid" drills when we sat on the floor under our little wood desks in school. As if the desk would protect us from injury of a nuclear strike...😂 15:50
This video underplayed how incredibly destructive the ICBM (land based) and the Trident (sea based) nuclear missiles truly are. The Ohio-class submarines can carry 20 Trident missiles on a single submarine. Each Trident missile can be configured to carry multiple warheads with different size of kilotons. For instance, you can have a single Trident missile carry up to eight 475 kiloton warheads with each warhead able to be programmed to target a different city. You can get more than 8 if you have a smaller kiloton warhead which they have that configuration as well. The missile gets the warheads very close to the target so that the individual warheads can then separate and hit their targeted city. Just to give a reference how much 475 kilotons is, Hiroshima was 15 kilotons and Nagasaki was 21 kilotons. So each submarine has the potential to launch 160+ nukes depending on how each missile is configured. The U.S. has 14 of these submarines that go undetected so even if a country bombs every inch of America and it's allies, these subs can appear out of nowhere and a single sub can destroy the world.
Nuclear power is great. Nuclear weapons, not so much.
I have to say as Americans we like to think are the toughest and the best. I got to train with the Royal Marines when I was in the military. The Brit’s are some tough guys. And I had great time in the UK.
Lol not to say others aren't good in their own right but yes homie we USUALLY have the best the toughest the estests of the ests. If not we will 🫴 me back and then have the best. That's just the way we roll.
When you are generating dust to which you are allergic, wearing an N-95 will help a lot. Unlike using an N-95 for microbial isolation, you can re-use one without cross contamination. Particulates are not contagious. This also applies to peak hay fever season, Most people can sleep wearing an N-95. If there is a lot of irritating dust, goggles might help, but I've never tried to sleep wearing goggles.
Trident II D5 ballistic missile
Main article: UGM-133 Trident II
The Trident nuclear missile is Britain's nuclear deterrent. Carried only by the four Vanguard-class submarines, the missiles travel up to 7,000 mi (11,000 km) at over 13,000 mph (21,000 km/h). Each Vanguard boat can carry up to sixteen missiles, and each missile can deliver up to eight warheads. Each variable yield warhead can have a yield up to 100 kt.[35]
We also have missile systems to knock out nukes or icbms in flight
Understand...The cost to maintain an aircraft carrier is beyond your GDP. Add the support ships and planes. That's your entire nations GDP...Training, supplies and salaries, medical for 7000 people.
You never realize how big a carrier is till you get right up on it. And BTW, America has 47 active carriers 11 of which are considered nuclear powered fleet carriers. Not all carriers are nuclear. The Ford class is bigger than the Nimitz class in this video. The 11 carriers have twice the deck space of every carrier on the planet by Double!
if you buy the ship..you also need to be connected with the supplier for parts in case of repair and retrofits. I can't imagine they'll just hand you containers of these parts and tech. Then there is the logisitcs of training your navy on a whole separate operating system. which means you wouldn't be able to just move sailors from one ship to the next without consequence.
19:53 as for the MTAR program the first Major test happened a week ago and it hit a moving Target with such accuracy the pentagon reported to the public meaning it soon will be in mass production the test impressed military leaders in the USA
Crossed the Pacific east to west pm a US navy ship/t takes about 3 days to get your sea legs and yes you do feel the street rise and fall under you.
Great channel, love your content! I'm a retired submarine sailor, so we didn't really get sea legs. It would be great for Ash, just feels like you're on a plane, except on the surface. 🤢
Sounds smooth when you’re under water at least!
@1:42 The US Budget is nearly $900 Billion (830.25 Billion Euro).
Yes, I was a US Navy Lieutenant and yes after long periods at sea you do get your sea legs especially in smaller vessels. I was on a Spruance Class Destroyer and because you are constantly making balancing adjustments while you walk to keep from hitting things when you get off the ship and the ground is not moving your knees can buckle without warning because you are still subconsciously trying to stay stable. I remember after leaving the ship when we returned from a 6 month deployment I was walking down the pier with my wife and my knees buckled without warning. 😂
Served aboard 5 USCG cutters from 82ft to 378ft long (about 3yrs sea time). Longest I sailed without touching land was two weeks crossing from New York to Scotland. Had 40ft seas for 18 hours south of Iceland. Yes, I used to have sea legs when leaving the ship. Sailed aboard the tall ship USCGC Eagle. Served as escort to the Carrier Eisenhower. Amazing watching night flight operations. F-14 Tomcats used to dive bomb on us for training. One Tomcat flew by supersonic about 100ft from the bridge of my ship.
Fortunately for me i was on a big enough ship where i never got sea legs. It helped that we hit ports . I was at see for 4 months straight and thay was interesting to say the least.
A lot of our equipment is either put into storage, warehoused and put into shipyards, you know put away for safe keeping. Some equipment is maintained for possible future use if needed you just in case we need it again. I just saw a report that US is going to take two old world war 2 battleships out of mothballs to possibly send them over to the Pacific which are the USS Wisconsin and the USS Iowa that will be reinstated. We also are still building new warships in fact about 2 months ago Bath Iron Works shipyard just finished building a new destroyer and launched it for sea trials. They’re about an hour away from where I live. I think there may be some videos about the ships and aircraft that are stored away and the government still maintains it might be worth checking out someday if you have some time. Oh by the way you guys have some great reactions.
Happy 4th of July. I was a Medic in the North Carolina Army National Guard from 1981 to 1987.
I have been on the World War II Battleship USS North Carolina. It was decommissioned and is anchored in my Hometown of Wilmington, NC. The Battleship was huge.
The USs Gerald R Ford has already been built and on Deployment.
I was in the USN for 4years...And yes you "sea legs" are a real thing.
Any country in NATO probably doesn’t need to worry too much about how much it spends on its military when the USA will have to get involved in any military conflict involving NATO anyway. Sad but true.
Trump might pull out of NATO so they will have to worry
Love OB Dave n Ash!
The U.K. decided about 10 years ago that the only way to keep up with the United States militarily is to buy American military equipment. The U.K. is only one of two countries that the United States uses as military researchers and contractors. So we fund it, and a lot of British scientists help to develop our technology.
Really appreciate the acknowledgement of financial disparity within NATO. Post WWII, this arrangement made sense. America has been proud to keep the seas safe and deter or quash any would-be repeats. But its long past time for Europe to step up.
The Newest Carrier cost around 13 Billion to build
Happy 4th. We love our UK bros and sisters.
Countries also don't like to buy because of the sheer maintenance cost and you'd have to hire and train an entire generation to provide maintenance to most systems
One thing they didn't mention on the nukes are the Ohio-Class nuke subamaries the US has. And then you have some of the nuke subs that were converted to firing Tomahawk missile carriers and they carry over 100 Tomahawk's.
I live in the united states and was in the military for fifteen years. I just want to say thanks, and we love the British people .. god bless them.❤😊😊😊😊
GRF IS A AWESOME CARRIER IN USE NOW!!! WOW!!!
The flight deck of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is 4.5 acres in size.
The cost of maintaining a carrier, particularly one that has reached retirement age and is not designed to function within the capacities of existing support infrastructure, would be close to the cost of building another HMS carrier. It seems like it would be a good investment, but when you really look at it you wouldn't be getting a bargain and that's without even factoring in the air wing.
Consider that the HMS Queen Elizabeth is the largest vessel ever constructed for the Royal Navy with a displacement of 65,000 tons and a crew of 1600.
The Nimitz class with a displacement over 100,000 tons and a crew over 5,000 would be a real struggle to maintain, even at a bargain price. Not to mention we're talking about ships that have already seen 50 years at sea. I would love to see them live on among allies, but sadly I think they're destined to be scrapped.
The retired Naval ships and Aircraft are not sold, they are put into mothball fleet in case of a major conflict they will be brought back in to service.
Each ICBM has MULTIPLE warheads that 20x aBomb each.
We actually keep a lot of them in near-ready state, in the case a major global conflict kicks off, American doctrine dictates that we need to be able to fight at least two fronts, so that means we could even be required to open a third front. Also, the older the tech gets the more costly it is to maintain and operate, it would be likely that if we were dismantling something it would be sufficiently old that it'd cost a military like the UK too much to maintain and operate. It'd be cheaper for them to commission and maintain their own modern fleet of carriers than grabbing a couple old American ones and maintaining them.
Will never see what was reverse Engineered from Roswell at Wright Patterson AFB
You probably could buy them. We're about to sell some subs to Australia shortly.
We're not a problem for the earth. Heck the planet was once molten rock. We're a problem for what's on the surface.
To your last comment, exactly. I say this any time people are worried about climate change… the earth will be just fine… WE will not. And that’s how you know it’s a load of bs when people talk about doing things “for the planet”… Mother Earth will do just fine.
@@The1SSGrant Just because the Earths climate will rebound, doesn't mean we should absolutely trash it. Which is the main concern of people like me who worry about earths nature in our lifetimes.
@@delnaro I didn’t say we should trash it. You’re making a false equivalence. The climate change AGENDA is bs and will not help humanity. That doesn’t mean you can’t be responsible and have care regarding the earth. Also you said “in our lifetimes” which supports my point… we care about the earth because we’re worried about us… not the earth. There are solutions and things you can do to actually take care of the earth but the solutions put forth by the climate change advocates are a net negative for humanity, not a positive.
Sneezy my ass it seems like a bowl hit🔥 u both looked stoned hell yeah🔥😎
No, please mess with the USA. We will hurl insults at every opportunity, but we appreciate our allies and constructive criticism is a good thing. I remember the Falklands. Y'all did the best refueling operation just to make a point. And Rick Jolly running the Red and Green Life Machine.... absolute legend. We look across the pond and say "We need to be like them".
Love you OB Dave... I won the first Office Blokes hat from that channel and it was sent straight from you, appreciate it. A few days ago on the facebook, a few of your countrymen told me that America is a quantity over quality military and Britain would eat America alive in war... and that America did not help in WW2, but rather was just taking credit. I expect and know that you know this is not true.
You only get sea legs for the first time you go out I was stationed aboard a destroyer at sea for 3 days and I was a bit wobbly when I first got off but after many years I never felt it again
With advancements in AI and unmanned technology, we are slowly moving towards sci-fi movies like “transformers” and “the terminator” becoming non-fiction.
British carriers handle 38-40 aircraft and need about 1600 crew to operate. The US carriers handle 70 plus aircraft and require about 4300 crew to operate. The UK doesn't have the resources to crew or operate more than 2 US type carriers. They may also be hard pressed to supply the support vessels needed to form a decent Carrier Battle Group. The UK has about 60 active navy vessels, the US has 280 plus. That being said, a couple of US Carrier Battle Groups could defeat any other single countires entire navy in no more than a few days.
my nickname is Sparky at 75 Us Navy trained world travel for business
If the buttons are pushed? The only thing left on this planet will be cockroaches, and Keith Richards
😂😂😂😂😂😂 maybe just Keith Richards, I’m pretty sure he hung around with king tut, when they were kids
Correct Dave, strength through power is a deterrent.
Hee description of a carrier sounds exactly like my description of standing in front of mout Rushmore for the first time.
We have TWENTY aircraft carriers.
Eleven of those are "Super Carriers". 🇺🇲
More recently, the Manta Ray ... underwater naval drone ;)
Welcome come construction lol. I lasted 6 years. Good luck brother!
@17:11 The "nuclear football" as it is called requires more than the Saturday Night Live skit of hitting the wrong button. The President is only one link in that chain. And, without asking ages, and knowing your ages in the "Cold War" I lived through the 80's, 90's, and so on to see that even when nuclear weapons have pushed the world to the brink, cooler heads prevailed. I guess it has some to do with the winds as my father used to say, not too mention the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) treaty between the US and the Soviet Union. That treaty isn't just lip service, as it shows that could the US destroy Russia? Yes. Could Russia destroy the US? Yes. But, in the end, we destroy each other as the radioactive trade winds unleashed on the other would simply destroy everything in its path (aka shoot first, and die from your own bomb).
Proud to be an American, but the reality is that it’s not just the US that would be involved in a real World war. It’d be NATO as a whole and you can’t discount how much countries like the UK, France, Germany, etc. would add to our overall strength and military might. Respect to them all.
Also I agree, Tsar Bomba is terrifying, but a good anti-alien mothership weapon for sure 😂
The tsar Bomba was a one-time test. Russia obviously have nukes, but they aren't Tsar Bomba level bombs as that one wasn't practical for actual use. It was too big (as in physically) it makes more sense to have smaller bombs that plans can cary more than one of or ones that you can launch on avaliable rockets.
The US had it's own overpowered nuke they tested once but will never use or mass produce for the same sort of reasons. The US one wasn't as big as the Tsar, but it was still impractical.
I spent my time on submarines, if the surface got choppy, we went deeper. No keel so if we are on the surface, we roll quite a lot.
28:10 Mark! 10,766 Views + Mine! 😎 1.1K Likes/Thumbs Up + Mine! 👍 I just subscribed! You're welcome, and thanks! 😊
Notes: Dave, congratulations on having such a lovely wife! 🎉
"Ash"? 🤔 I love your T-shirt! ❤
As for the video that you viewed, I wish that the makers of such videos would do a better editing job! They pull from so many stock sources that they have inaccuracies in them! Like showing a Russian rocket while talking about our missiles and including a space shuttle launch platform! 😮
I was a gun owner. I sold my gun. I like peace -not war.
While the Earths diameter is about 8000 miles, the illustration seemed to showed the circumference which is 25,000 miles. An important distinction.
The U.K lacks the facilities to maintain a Nimitz Class Nuclear Carrier. So selling one to the Brits wouldn't be cost efficient.
I hate to say it.. but all countries that are friends with America.. don't feel the need to spend money on military.. since America will spend all it's money defending everyone! Plus.. Americans are ready and willing to give their lives to protect everyone! So to simply rely on America.. I get it! Saves you money and your own people for sure! lol
Yeah it looks like a bumblebee at 20k feet in the air traveling at Mach fuck
No taxation... in our faces
Us Gerald r ford was in Portsmouth in 2019
The future of warfare is massive swarms of battlefield drones.
Britain does have very advanced technology, more than you guys seem to realize perhaps. Britain and the US share a large majority of their military tech, even nuclear technology. British Aerospace for instance designs weapons directly for the US military, and not outdated technology but for instance things like the railgun.
The tsar bomba was a one-off test. It's not something that was mass produced.
one of the funniest things i think of when it comes to stealth. if the russian government had listened to its R and D they would be the experts. it was a ussr scientist that came up with the numbers n stuff. but he got laughed at. somehow making it to the usa we ran with it
I think the F1-17 Nighthawk is all but retired now. But they still keep them flying for a few things, just not actively.
The aircraft carriers flight deck is 4 and 1/2 acres.
she said why are they testing it on our planet lol
In an increasingly divided country, the American armed forces are almost universally loved. Those opposed to war hold politicians responsible for sending them to war.
The US has the highest expenditure in support of NATO, hence why we don’t have healthcare or many societal options many other first work countries have. Poland only surpassed US spending because they bought a lot of tanks from the us this year. Which country supplied the aid though.
Fat electrician has some of the best military videos on RUclips.
Wars has also became a lot shorter compared to how they used to be, just look at Europes history alone. You got the 100 years war, the 30 years war etc.
USA spends 3.5% of their GDP and the agreement is 2%.
So, not only do we spend the highest percentage, we have the highest GDP so it is not even close. USA spends more than the next 9 countries combined.