@@Ezekiel903 then you don't know much about those Americans those terms are just used to distinguish ourselves we have more in common with each other than we do Europeans
@@leandrochavez6480 US sends team of SEALS to take Guinness brewery by swimming up the Liffey.Threaten to blow it up with a suitcase nuke...Ireland immediately surrenders!
Donegal is invaded every summer by Americans...they usually just wander around in poorly-fitting raincoats and ask for directions to places that they are already in.
Imagine looking up from your pint in Ireland to see the two largest militaries in the history of the world (by overall spending) converging on your island. And somehow England isn't even involved.
@@janusprime5693 That is not so true but still, what is your point? The spanish did it and nobody else Still today is quite impossible. If you think it is so easy, you think that the rest of the world was and is stupid but you. Go ahead and try. Not even conquering a thing or discovering any new land. Just take a ship made of wood and try to get somewhere and survive. Go. What you think is hard, the spanish did even lots of time harder and better. Get over it.
Only if you use Blinkov strategies. Seriously, I see no reason the US would give the EU 6 months to fortify ireland by attacking minor islands near Africa.
@@thomasjenkins5727 The US would need that time to assemble everything for a large scale naval invasion. In the end the EU should still be able to reinforce Ireland fast enough.
As an American, I can guarantee the thought of slapping a shit ton of missiles on cruse ships for troop transport has been bounced around the pentagon a time or two.
More likely hidden on transport ships like the Brits did in WWII. We saw what one boatload's worth of potassium nitrate can do to a harbour. Now place that ship entering a strategic harbour, and no matter who destroys it, the harbour will be devistated.
@@Chrischi4598 The economy is a relevant factor that Binkov takes into account if it makes sense. In this video it hardly matters, as the US and EU are roughly on par, but the Warsaw Pact would have a huge Inferiority in 1989. Easy strategy to win for the West: Prolonging the war and out producing the East.
The NVA wasn't a bad army, but the 1989 Bundeswehr was 5 times bigger, had more modern equipment, was better funded and in a better Geostrategic situation. They wouldn't last 2 weeks.
M8 the EU is not at continent, Europe is, the EU hosts a population of around 500 million and Europe around 700 million that difference is 200 million people that u just forgot about
@@greggmurray9507 The EU makes up 60% of Europe's population, the US 57% of NA, so in terms of population it would be practically the same (continents proportion). The thing is that the US itself is also nearly a continent if you say the EU is nearly a continent.
@@MDP1702 the Eu has about 100m more people in it than the us according to current statistics my man. I wasn't disputing that however, just calling johannes out for being a smart arse.
@@greggmurray9507 Well, you also sounded like a smart arse with your rebuttal. That the EU has 100 million more doesn't matter, it is about whether you can call the EU a continent anymore than the US, and I don't agree with that. Even in terms of landmass they aren't much difference. The US has 40% of North America's landmass and the EU 44% of Europe's landmass, and the US has double the landmass of the EU. I can understand the original comment in terms of number of countries (1 vs 27), but in terms of continent, it would be continent vs continent (or neither being a continent). So I can also understand the comment of Johannes. Your's however doesn't make much sense to me though.
I just very much appreciate that the force icons use appropriate vehicles. Its a little thing, but it makes these videos so much more fun than if it was "generic tank icon"
@@juliuszkocinski7478 most of their videos are good, but I enjoy their non-political content like the SCP videos more. They seem US-biased in their geopolitics or hypothetical war related videos.
I’d be interested to see an “Unholy alliance” with the US and Russia against the EU, or US and Russia vs Asian countries. Or perhaps world powers (US, Russia and China) vs the world
Well that is pretty much a given. Opening a two front war with Russia invading from the east and the U.S. invading from the west would be impossible for the EU to defend against. Russia's land gains would also make room for the U.S. to establish air bases. And don't forget that Russia could cut off much of Europe's energy supply. It'd be over before it started. Plus, if the U.S. had access to Kaliningrad, that alone is a game changer.
I suppose EU could do the same but with China, attacking its n°1 ennemy already fighting a fairly strong European Army would be more than worth it to expand its influence
@@mrronron7328 They could, but I'd assume China would take advantage of this war on their own. Russia would benefit far more from cooperating with the U.S. than China would from working with the EU.
@@Tom_Cruise_Missile I think it is important to factor on, that some parts of europe still have a very good and or strong relationship with russia. In the end, it would come down on who attacks who, and for what reason. A US trying to invade europe, would probably create a lot of incentives for the europeans and the russians to become more friendly with each other. And China would propably just try to further its own goals while everyone is occupied. Thank god this is just a thought experiment.
@@MrGreenTabasco It's possible. It depends on what the United States offers them and the situation at the time. The U.S. would likely offer them a lot more than the EU, since the EU would be more directly affected by any deal made, but on the other hand fighting with the U.S. would mean the war is on their doorstep... not super inviting if the E.U. isn't very occupied on land.
@@Tom_Cruise_Missile or maybe EU will invite Russia into the EU instead so that they could have sufficient equipment to withstand US assaults', and be more self sufficient with US naval blockade. US is not going to stay in the Mediterranean sea for long, if it is at war with EU, anything US crossing the Suez or Gibraltar could be spotted by EU and gets destroyed.
At the start the smaller nations would have an advantage to push but once Germany mobilised it would win or if the conflict fit drawn out longer would be a German victory.
sorry, but this videos make no sense at all!! what is the purpose of upload such bullshit??first time i saw such a bullshit, and astonishing how many subscriber he has!!
@blah blah the only superpower who is the UK's closest ally, and vice versa. It would be EU that would be shifting themselves begging the UK to remain neutral.
Good point. Poor visibility is very likely. Atlantic Irish coasline is mainly sharp and craggy too. Landing points would be limited and so defensible. History surely tells us Coastal invaders need a collossal advantage in war. As he says himself USA only has a very minor tech advantage vs the whole EU and some EU nations are USA level pure tech wise. Of course he has USA winning. Most of his subs are probably american as it's english language content. RUclipsrs creators are all natural populism whores.
@@Thomes-Maisling He has the US "winning" because it gains something in the projection. If a war is fought to a standstill, but one side captured territory it didn't have before and the other one does not, that is a marginal victory. The key word here is marginal.
The Netherlands (alone without NATO support) vs an economical stagnating Venezuela that conquers the nearby Dutch ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao). Can the Dutch Navy take them back? Can the Dutch repeat what the English did with the Falkland Islands in 1982? How strong is Venezuela, which is also standing on it's own. The Netherlands is not allowed to use the 20 or 30 American based nuclear warheads.
@@giupetr968 You might be surprised, The Netherlands might have a small military but it's highly advanced, and it has some power projection. It's economy is ranked 16 of the world, not bad for such a small country. There is some power projection, but it would be interesting to see how Binkov would see these two militaries collide and whether the Dutch can take back the islands. Also the Dutch can operate from two other islands which belongs to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in this case Saba and Saint Martin.
@@Snowwie88 I'm not saying The Netherlands is weak, I'm just saying it's a small country with small resources and it's too far. A war against Venezuela - with no allies involved -, it would have an high cost that Amsterdam couldn't support for a long term. Venezuela is poor, but it's a far bigger country. Then they have frigates and they can use their fighters (Sukhoi 30 and F-16). On the other hand, Dutch could not use their air-forces, because they are too distant and they have not air-carries to bring fighters on the war stage.
Binkov didn't account for the local boy-racer light cavalry that are on constant patrol around the roads of Donegal, with intimate knowledge of every boreen and speed-trap they would form a formidable resistance. Also Ballyshannon will be renamed as Ballystalingrad after all this.
@@bluemeriadoc It's like they didn't do any research on how the U.S. fights our wars... We don't land on beaches we land on scorched wastelands where any conceivable cover is ash on the winds and our enemy can't twitch for 1,000 miles without exploding. Good old overwhelming force!
A problem at 7:30. Those routes go through British waters. You said in part 1 that countries outside the EU (which includes the UK as of the 31st Dec 2020) are neutral. Britain can't remain neutral if it allows EU supply and troopships to go through its waters, as this will make the US think the UK is on the EU's side. However, if the UK sinks EU military and ships, the EU will retaliate in some way. Also, the UK takes charge of the defence of the airspace of the British Isles, which includes the Republic of Ireland. Any threat to the ROI in terms of fighter craft is the UK's responsibility to deal with., which means the UK can't remain neutral. If this type of war does occur, the UK will probably be the broker of a peace deal or at least a ceasefire.
On point! Neutral countries often fight anyway. It’s very hard to stay out of war completely. Switzerland had fights with both Germany and the USA during WW2: ruclips.net/video/FILxoQyKzDg/видео.html
@@tomendruweit9386 Actually, they are. They are greatly counted, in fact. Because going into a neutral country's waters allows them to waltz up, and arrest you for violation of their sovereignty. So, if the EU put ships through British waters, the British can seize them, and don't have to give them back until the war is over.
The UK would sink and nothing more would happen... EU and Russia combined still don´t have good enought Naval and Air Assets to cross either the Atlantic or Pacific so they would protect costal assets and islands (those likely would not fall and the US would withhold further attacks to not lose all Naval assets opening them up for invasion) and the sheer amount of Landbased forces on the EU+Russia side would make any attemp at landing a suicide run basicaly no one wins and the UK loses
@@tomendruweit9386 Except the US bought in bulk, whereas the EU bought in the short term... So, whilst the US might not be able to get new ones... They'll still have many, many rifles and rounds. Plus the parts and capabilities to fix them.
Top 7 most anticipated videos from Binkov’s Battlegrounds in the near future. *1.) United States vs. India* *2.) Brazil vs. Hispanic South America* *3.) The Americas vs. Afro-Eurasia+Oceania* *4.) South Asia vs. Southeast Asia* *5.) India vs. Arab World+Pakistan+Afghanistan* *6.) Vietnam vs. Thailand* *7.) United States vs. Canada*
@@zachthehun3531 Some dudes who were angry about Northern Ireland being British caused major issues. I don't think you want to know what happens when a completely foreign force invades a part of Ireland.
@@ieuanjones7615 that’s actually not true. The Americans have conducted successful counter insurgency campaigns in the past. They’re just not as famous as the American’s failures.
your forgetting the IRA in northern Ireland (a paramilitary terror organization) who are well versed in guerrilla warfare and would be a thorn in the yanks side
UN NAVY vet here. At roughly 9:20 you mentioned that the us navy would have to have planes in the air 24/7 to cover ships and troops from air attack. This is already true. We had f18s in the air at all hours of the night. Flight ops never end my friend.
I think the point is having "enough" planes. I don't know about US Navy doctrine, but it's safe to assume they don't keep more than a few planes in CAP, while the EU forces would attack with dozens of planes.
@@rare_kumiko Exactly, you can have a few fighters in the air 24/7 from a given carrier, but against a large air threat, you need more than that, and the simple fact is that pilots will need rest and planes will need maintenance, fuel, and reloads.
Some of those EU resupply missions to Ireland are sailing and flying through British waters and airspace. This would not be tolerated by Britain, if it was a neutral in this conflict.
What i've learnt so far from discussions with friends and family and the knowledge from Binkovs videos: many people greatly overestimate the force the US can project overseas without massive amounts of prepwork and simultaniously underestimate the effect distances have on reactiontime.
Just look at the US military in DC right now. Full of obese mcdonalds superstrokers. US military is a joke, just like the stability of the country and gov. US Supremacy propaganda is now losing its effect.
@@useritiswhatitis4655 the military is a joke??? Are you dense or what?? Do you even do research at all?? The US military trains more then any other in the world. That military is still the best in the world and can still decimate any other military.
@@ericnoonan616 So much cope. The US hasn't won a war since ww2 which the Soviets were carrying the Allies the entire time. The only war the US won by themselves was against the Mexicans in the Spanish-American war.
@@christopherlue9096 ???? US is literally falling apart. Corporations ruling buying political power with politician puppets while the all the races fight each other? Cities crumbling, poverty rising. Richer getting richer. So much freedom bro. You tards going to be coping for four long years under Biden.
@@useritiswhatitis4655 last I checked the US won every war they was apart of. If it was for the US then Europe would have fallen to Germany and Russia so be more grateful punk. Another thing is what other country can do what the US military does?? Non so stop being a fool and go do your research. You have only showed you hate the US thats why you say the lies you say. Remember when America falls the entire world falls. Every nation on this planet relies on the US so yea hope for its destruction because then all countries get to suffer also.
Britain: “America be careful with Ireland they’re really good at guerrilla warfare” America: “nah chill I got this” (proceeds to get stuck in a decade long guerrilla war)
In reality, I suspect Ireland would quickly find out that they really aren't part of the EU. No way is the EU sending 300,000 troops to Ireland as long as Russia sits next door just waiting for an opportunity.
@@7MishMash I get it. But Ireland was part of the UK until not too long ago and shares an unrestricted border on a fairly small island with the UK and is just miles from the English coast. That's a bit different. But I get your point.
In reality Britain would jump in to the defence of Ireland, Britain isn't at threat from Russia so that's 100,000 troops, a solid air force and a good Navy before reserves start rolling in. This isn't about reality though, this is an all out war between two entities only
@@Tonk1e The EU being behind on technology is just make believe: There is a reason the US bought European frigates (the FREMM) or sonar from Thales. There is also a reason why they try to buy EU tech firms. The US failed against farmers in flip flop so them winning any land in Europe is just laughable.
It'd be a pain in the ass to invade Ireland... Either that, or it'd be easy as fuck, because the Irish don't care. One of those "don't fuck with us, we won't break your kneecaps".
@@accurategamer7085 Ireland would be an absolute nightmare for tanks and other heavy armour that the US war doctrine relies so heavily on. Bogs, small bridges, narrow motorways, lots of backstreets... You're not getting tanks or APCs anywhere in this country, nevermind the fact the countryside is mostly ditch, fieldd and forests so you'd have to treat each and every one of them as if they're full of troops before moving on. It's just a logistical nightmare to try and capture nevermind the fact you'd have to hold it while under siege constantly.
@@joejones7035 That's pretty funny, I think I heard someone say the same about American invading Afghanistan about two decades ago, and some Soviets back in 1979.. Guerilla warfare is a real thing that's saved countries in the past and had saved Ireland itself for 80 consecutive years, I think you should factor that in as well beside your conventional warfare.
People saying the U.S. would bomb everything, until every 27,30, 35, and 40mm SHORAD system enters the chat and intercept every bomb and missile. Lets also not get into how if the EU was to secure the small part of Ireland the EU uses L/52 artillery that vastly overmatches the L/39 guns the U.S. uses.
Britain would instantly cut off from its possessions overseas and the US focus its invasion against Britain and ignore the rest(aside from nearby Canada, Guiana, and Caribbean islands) War Plan Red in the 1930s would much more interesting as Britain and America are kinda par
then the eu forces will rise exponentially since as for france and other eu countries i suppose we used to have military service for all male above 18 and ended in late 90's so count all men in france and germany and belgium and spain and portugal and italy able to fight in and the army became one of the largest in the world because for france only it would mean at least 5 million men power added
@@antoinedenis9922 The question is, would France have enough equipment at the ready to hand out to the added numbers? On top of that would France have the required infrastructure to keep theese huge numbers supplied for possibly years. And take war time conditions into account as well meaning that there is always the chance that the enemy is able to sabotage parts of your infrastructure, depending on how good your counterintelligence is. And let's also take into account one of the most important rules in warfare: No plan ever survives implementation.
Well, the comments replying to you seem to address former servicemembers being recalled to service. If you are addressing the general population having firearms and operating as partisans, EU and U.S would be very different. The EU has strict gun laws and low gun ownership, so the population would probably have to get a hold of captured enemy weapons or be supplied by government forces before they can have sufficient firepower to raise up large partisan units. For U.S. citizens, many own firearms, and among those, many have multiple guns with lots of rounds in storage. The laws on type of guns and ammo capacity is also much less strict, so I’d imagine partisan units in the U.S. would enact pretty brutal casualties on the enemy, especially since many who own guns also train tactically and learn to fight with guns rather than simply shooting as part of hunting or match competitions.
I’d be interested in watching a follow up to this but with the UK on the side of the US, giving the US a place to launch operations from. I wonder how much that would change the outcome.
I think the US bases would be an advantage. It would be like having hundreds of airborne units all over enemy territory behind enemy lines. These bases could be used to do first strikes to disable a lot of the advantages of the EU such as airports and other infrastructure. Eventually they would be wiped out but the damage they could cause before that point might tip the scales.
ArmouredSpacePony I realize that they couldn’t be held but they could do considerable damage before being overwhelmed. You have concentration of troops who know local infrastructure and locations of native army bases which could be hit with either direct assault or guerrilla tactics
@@warandconquest6522 They would not have any chance to fight and would get overwhelmed instantly by being bombarded into oblivion or, more likely, surrendering.
They would have a hard time since a lot of people support the EU, plus the IRA would most likely rebel making it easy for the EU to invade the isles and subsequently seizing some ships from the british too with minimal losses, most likely the queen wont like this very much.
Pieter van der zwaan idiotic comment! You honestly believe the EU are capable of taking Royal Navy ships and Britain doing nothing about it? GCHQ would have Europe’s internet, communications, power grids, air traffic control, healthcare under siege within the hour without 1 bullet even being fired
Ultimately, the biggest flaw I see with this scenario is with the UK staying completely neutral. Who the UK would side with, and to what level would very much depend on the specifics of how they end up getting dragged into the conflict, but they would end up being dragged into the conflict somehow. With that in mind, I'd love to see scenarios for both the UK siding with the US and for UK siding with the EU.
@@jbx- attacking healthcare organizations are a violation on the Versailles treaty and, air traffic that would drag the whole world against the british if that would happen.
@@pietervanderzwaan4295 I think the ROI would ditch the EU anyway as the Irish have always loved America and their bloodlines/families are heavily invested in the US, and it would ensure no friendly fire between NI-ROI. A lot of Brits might support the EU but at the end of the day more Brits are against the EU than the US, so worst case scenario Britain would fall into civil war or large scale civilian skirmishes for those in support/against US/EU. Also consider the UK heavily relies on the US for its military and political backup whenever UK wants to posture up against the likes of Russia/China, so it works better in UK's favour to support its historically closest and by far most powerful ally. Brits stopped caring about losing the Empire and its massive naval power when they realised they can just get their big eldest son to do that particular work for them.
Here’s the thing: massed troop assaults against American forces which hav air support is a bad idea due to MOAB’s, WCMD’s and JSOW’s. This is especially the case for tanks for the SFW is specifically designed to counter armored assaults. During the ‘03 Iraq War, entire units up to the battalion level were wiped out in a single air strike using SFW’s iirc
@@Damo2690 just because u don’t have air superiority don’t mean u can’t conduct air strikes. Plus remember a good portion of the American air arms comprises of stealth aircraft. Yes I know stealth aircraft aren’t infallible but it vastly increases the chances of the aircraft getting through
@@lightspeedvictory French long waves radar can detect stealth planes and its range cover from ireland to morocco. While still useful, it will be very expensive for the US (a single stealth plane cost a LOT)
It drove me crazy that satellites didn't come up at all. Satellite usage to confirm aircraft, munition, ship, supply part locations, etc and then send off some Tomahawks!
@@antoinedenis9922 I don't agree with it, due to all the hazards it makes in space, but the US has proven that it can shoot down satellites in the past. What would stop them from doing it again?
@@antoinedenis9922 No EU country has shot down a satellite and I question whether the EU would do it anyway. I could see a few countries raising a big enough stink to not allow it to happen at all or at least delay attempting it late enough that the US would be able to gain valuable intel.
Honest question: why didn’t the us bomber fleet play any role? The has 140 active bombers, including the 20 B2 stealth bomber. Before such an invasion I could imagine a giant bombing run taking out military and civilian infrastructure. See Iraq... By using stealth, cruise missiles and bombers the entire infrastructure and military in Ireland could get crippled!
@Massimo Hack b52 aren’t getting used the way they were used in Vietnam. The B52 mainly deploys a wave of Cruise Missles. Look the the videos of operation room on desert Strom. The first attack wave was launched by cruise missles on b52s They could probably launch the missles after crossing half/two thirds of the Atlantic
@@MajinOthinus - True, but Europe's long-range air defense network is not particularly potent (neither is the U.S.'s) and much of it relies on U.S. equipment. NASAMS, for example, uses the American AIM-120 missile. And the S-300 unit they spoke about belongs to Greece and is stuck in Cyprus and would not be transported to Ireland.
How to settle this dispute rather quickly... US: *attacks EU* EU: *Fights back* Also US: Oh Russia, feel free to invade whatever parts of Eastern Europe.
@@chickenhunter4694 US: India, on my mark, unleash hell on China. China: N.Korea attack US. US: Asia-Pacific nations attack N.Korea-China. Pakistan: ffs wtf do I do?! Middle East explodes. Britain: sips tea. I'll just wait for all this to blow over and checkmate... Commonwealth Empire rules 100% of Earths landmass, nuclear fallout permitting.
Basicly US going to collapse from civil unrest and giant strikes as most of it's population are descendents from European migrants,l. Plus working with totalitarian governments would basicly mean that people would tear down White house for basicly being fascist imperialistic state... yeah, Russia would win the most in this scenario xD
To the people saying Irish or italian americans would defect let me make this painfully clear the term irish or Italian American is just used to distinguish ourselves an Irish American and Italian american have more in common with themselves than an Irishman or italian
Quite true... - None of the Italian-Americans partaking in WW2 ever dreamed of defecting... Even the US-Mafia types were on America's side, as is pointed out somewhere in "The Godfather"...
Yeah, basically this. I always cringe when an "X American" thinks themselves an actual part of whatever country their ancestors were from while having no real connection to it at all.
@@Timbo5000 it's a slight cultural connection built upon by immigrant communities besides without irish americans what reason would we have to get drunk on saint Patrick's day
at least as irish-american I can predict american who are descendent of irish will feel uncomfortable with USA occupy Ireland and will likely start civil war 2 to coordinate with IRA within 5 years or more I don't know how long.
The Dutch actually actively work with the USA in training, unlike most of the EU. So, actually... Yeah. But, then again... Helaas, Nederland heeft bijna niks. Super-close allies, but... Yeah. I can assure you that The Netherlands would opt out of the war, themselves. They prefer neutrality, like Switzerland. They just also like money, hence joining the EU.
@@Pand0rasAct0r_ They really don't. Nowhere near enough. Not to mention, many of their governments are uncooperative with one another. Mobilization and the unification of tactical decisions, capabilities, and equipment would take months, if not years, before becoming somewhat useable. Source? I lived in Europe for five years, and had plenty of time to listen to Dutch soldiers gripe about Germans, Germans gripe about literally everyone, the French gripe about Germans and Italians... So on and so forth.
@@MrJinglejanglejingle yeah. No. The Dutch and German armies are at this point deeply integrated. Dutch tankers drive German owned Leopard IIs. Dutch troops are in the German command structure. German marines are under Dutch Command. Parts of the German Air defense are under Dutch command. In a war with between Germany and the US with Dutch neutrality the German army would have serious issues if otherwise. Realistically they would not be able to stay neutral.
@@9SMTM6 Knowing the Dutch as well as I do...? They'd stay neutral. They rely far too much on trade with the USA, as well as with Germany. Most of their food imports come from the USA, with the rest coming from Germany. They can't risk upsetting either side, so they'd go full Swiss, and refuse both sides. They can't really defend themselves very much, though, so... Its likely Germany would just take over in a few days, as it did the last time the Dutch and Germans had a major military disagreement...
Two considerations not mentioned are the ground to air and ground to ground capabilities that US infantry regularly carry in the Javelin Missile systems for tanks and helicopters as well as the US's ability to create a port in austere locations. The lack of a suitable port to reinforce land forces may not be that much of a detriment.
@@rkevo9112 yup. But as it's a US based weapon system and the previous episodes assumption that the EU nations would be unlikely to make more quickly. Specifically I was referring to their use by infantry during ground invasions before heavier weapon systems like tanks would be able to come into full force.
The US would always be at a disadvantage here as heavy military infrastructure is always positioned near potential enemies, not really around the Western European mainland.
@@qabbala1015 Uh the US is at an disadvantage trying to conduct a amphibious landing on Western Europe. As OP said, US don't have any bases intended for making such landings on Western Europe. US do however have bases for actual potential enemies.
@@qabbala1015 - Which combined with the distance, would be why it would be impossible for the EU to to invade. But invading across an ocean is quite hard, if you don't have major accessible and supportable bases nearby. The US (with help but it could have been done with just American forces) invaded Iraq and took out its military but it had a long time to built up in bases in Kuwait. If the US had the UK on its side it might be a different story. Partially because of the UK's own forces, but even more so because of local basing and resupply. Then the biggest battle would be the defense of the UK, and the rush of US forces there. Once that's done Ireland would be vulnerable. But even after that actually landing on the mainland of Europe would be difficult (although an invasion of France might in that scenario be easier than invading Ireland was in Bonkov's video. Yes the EU's defenses would be more numerous actually on the mainland, but the US would be able to gain air superiority (without such superiority an invasion would be a suicide mission), with much of its air force flying out of British (and perhaps conquered Irish) bases and airports. Of course the whole scenario is a bit crazy, but that's true of many of Binkov's hypothetical wars (Eu vs UK, Russia invading Canada with the US doing nothing, Australia vs NZ etc.). Doesn't keep them from being interesting.
@@qabbala1015 it doesn't matter how large your forces are if you can't project them easily. The US has the best infrastructure in the world for power projection but almost none of it is geared towards western europe. Almost anywhere else in the world would be an easier target.
Im suprised Binkov didn't touch on how suicidal it would be for the US navy to attempt to enter the meditarianian through the straight of Gibraltar, going through such a narrow waterway would leave US Ships at the mercy of not just Land based Missiles but artillery, and land based army and air forces too, it would be much easier for them to access the Meditarian through the Suez canal, but all it would take to block the entire thing would be a hidden anti ship missile launcher sinking a single ship.
That's kind of interesting. Thing is, none of them have any meaningful power projection to take the fight to the UK, and Britain has nowhere near enough fighters or ships to take the fight to them either.
Europe wouldn't lose, but it would get absolutely wrecked by aircraft and missiles. Tactical victory for them maybe, but in terms of damage 100% a U.S. win.
Hmm, if I was US I think I would first take Iceland (not Greenland) because of better infrastructure and giving US a forward base of operations that is much close to the battle, yet far enough from it to be defensible.
Well yeah probably. But it all depends, 1939 USA was quite weak, had a decent navy but that war about it. 1945 US is a monster, but its biggest asset( the Navy) would be completely useless and would get sunk by Canadian Aiforce if coming too close to Canada. Ground war would be a pain in the ass, but nothing could pierce modern leopard tanks. Body armor, scopes and semi/automatic rifles would give canadians an advantage, only problem is number, but once Canada mobilise the population it would win. Todays Canadian economy is biggest than US economy at the time and the population difference would be less than today, as the US had around 130 million people compared to the 325 of today. Id give the win to Canada
@@Justinian506 its more difficult than that. us and soviet studies has shown that even dozens of nukes at the end of ww2 isnt going to stop an army as large as the soviet or american one instantly. canada only has maybe 100-150 aircraft able to bomb(and no actual bombers), i dont think thats gonna dent a army of 16 million that us had in its military forces in ww2. i also dont think canada's army of 50,000 is gonna stop the ww2 americans either.
America: "Didn't we used to sponsor your terrorist activities so you could stay free?" Ireland: "Yeah fam, why you bring it up now?" America: "Because everyone loves irony"
@@abraham2172 The U.S.’ European force projection being centrally located in Germany means Brussels, Berlin and Paris never start shit in the first place
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: clcr.me/BinkovsB_Raid and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days
Eww, Raid: Shadow Legends 🤢🤢
3:00 what about the radars from other EU countries? What about EU intelligence?
Please do countries vs countries they are more intersting
Bro you just posted cringe
@@ifureadthis_urgay I personally wont play it, but if Binkov gets money out of the transaction, I understand. Its hard running a business.
Irelands defensive assets:
- Has several hills.
No hilly areas can resist the high ranges missiles even Himalayas also.
Lmaoo
That's actually a really good advantage, hell that's why the Iranians have lived this long, and why did Iraqis are still giving us such hell.
@@anarchyandempires5452 There's no real comparison of Ireland's landscape with Iran's.
@@anarchyandempires5452 Iran is mountainous same as Afghanistan. Ireland is either flat or hilly with not much larger natural land barriers.
Imagine a universe with three irelands of which one is EU friendly, one is british, and one is american. That is HoI4 level border gore.
what a stupid video, i'm sure all Irish, German, French, Italian american will fight against their own home country!
ah a fellow hoi4 player i see
@blah blah no. They do. They hate their country now so they want to come here
@blah blah understandable 😑
@@Ezekiel903 then you don't know much about those Americans those terms are just used to distinguish ourselves we have more in common with each other than we do Europeans
Ireland would position all of its defensive assets around the Guinness Brewery
imagine how many "reservist" can that Brewery summon if sends a world wide call for aid
Lol
😂
😂
@@leandrochavez6480 US sends team of SEALS to take Guinness brewery by swimming up the Liffey.Threaten to blow it up with a suitcase nuke...Ireland immediately surrenders!
Donegal is invaded every summer by Americans...they usually just wander around in poorly-fitting raincoats and ask for directions to places that they are already in.
LOL LOL so true.
sick burn
lol
we are scouting
I’m American and that was funny
Imagine looking up from your pint in Ireland to see the two largest militaries in the history of the world (by overall spending) converging on your island. And somehow England isn't even involved.
We’re just across the Irish Sea watching and sipping tea in the rain
Scotland and Wales also. Poms?
Best comment of the day 🤣🤣, come out you blac......who the feck are they
Ah feck, back to me pint.
Winner: Switzerland
Reason: Spectator Mode
Anyone in Europe and not a red or blue colour is the winner
Dang Swiss are too cheesy xD
Imagine Little Andorra in the hills between Spain and France
we can defend our self, don't worry!!
Uk as well
"come out ye stars and stripes"
And fight me like a man
I dunno why Europeans are so keen to fight Americans... Why is that? I have an idea, but I am curious to know your opinion.
@@phantomfreeman283 Not keen for a fight just decided to make a joke
@@markbenjamin1703 Oh, sorry. My misunderstanding.
Make America Great Britain Again
So what did we learn? That invading other continents across vast oceans is hard.
The spanish did it 500 years ago with ships made of wood, pushed by their arms and the wind and guided by the stars thanks to the faith, freedom...
@@fuerademijardin5129 For the most part they were a couple hundread years ahead technologically lol
@@janusprime5693 That is not so true but still, what is your point? The spanish did it and nobody else Still today is quite impossible. If you think it is so easy, you think that the rest of the world was and is stupid but you. Go ahead and try. Not even conquering a thing or discovering any new land. Just take a ship made of wood and try to get somewhere and survive. Go.
What you think is hard, the spanish did even lots of time harder and better. Get over it.
Only if you use Blinkov strategies. Seriously, I see no reason the US would give the EU 6 months to fortify ireland by attacking minor islands near Africa.
@@thomasjenkins5727 The US would need that time to assemble everything for a large scale naval invasion. In the end the EU should still be able to reinforce Ireland fast enough.
Every youtuber: raid shadow legends is the best game
Literally everybody: I DON'T CARE
Us invades EU
Britain: *Sips tea*
US: conquers over seas territory
UK: tea sipping intensifies
Sitting here with my tea in the UK reading this comment.
@@MasterTheSwag nice Californian wine watching this 🍷😋
"And you said brexit was a bad idea!"
@@Tom_Cruise_Missile COVID made brexit the best desicion we ever made 😂
As an American, I can guarantee the thought of slapping a shit ton of missiles on cruse ships for troop transport has been bounced around the pentagon a time or two.
More likely hidden on transport ships like the Brits did in WWII. We saw what one boatload's worth of potassium nitrate can do to a harbour. Now place that ship entering a strategic harbour, and no matter who destroys it, the harbour will be devistated.
Imagine Disney and Carnival Cruise ships full of soldiers, marines, and American firepower steaming across the Atlantic
Maybe an idea for a future video: 1989 East vs West Germany
Too late, the weak economy of the USSR would not allow that.
@@lars9925 yeah because these videos care about economic preconditions and impacts...
it’s about comparing tactics and material
@@Chrischi4598
The economy is a relevant factor that Binkov takes into account if it makes sense. In this video it hardly matters, as the US and EU are roughly on par, but the Warsaw Pact would have a huge Inferiority in 1989.
Easy strategy to win for the West: Prolonging the war and out producing the East.
Easy win for the Federal Republic. 500.000 soldiers and the second strongest air-force within NATO.
The NVA wasn't a bad army, but the 1989 Bundeswehr was 5 times bigger, had more modern equipment, was better funded and in a better Geostrategic situation. They wouldn't last 2 weeks.
The Invasion of Ireland codename: Operation We're After Your Lucky Charms.
Lepercon: *sweats Profusely* this is end game my friends
Operation: Magically Delicious
Operation green clover
Operation Guinness.
there is pots of gold in them hills
Britain seeing the US fight a whole continent: Just like your old father.
M8 the EU is not at continent, Europe is, the EU hosts a population of around 500 million and Europe around 700 million that difference is 200 million people that u just forgot about
@@johannesholdgaard5757 well done smart arse, but most of that continent just happens to be in the EU so the mans comment stands.
@@greggmurray9507 The EU makes up 60% of Europe's population, the US 57% of NA, so in terms of population it would be practically the same (continents proportion).
The thing is that the US itself is also nearly a continent if you say the EU is nearly a continent.
@@MDP1702 the Eu has about 100m more people in it than the us according to current statistics my man. I wasn't disputing that however, just calling johannes out for being a smart arse.
@@greggmurray9507 Well, you also sounded like a smart arse with your rebuttal. That the EU has 100 million more doesn't matter, it is about whether you can call the EU a continent anymore than the US, and I don't agree with that.
Even in terms of landmass they aren't much difference. The US has 40% of North America's landmass and the EU 44% of Europe's landmass, and the US has double the landmass of the EU.
I can understand the original comment in terms of number of countries (1 vs 27), but in terms of continent, it would be continent vs continent (or neither being a continent). So I can also understand the comment of Johannes. Your's however doesn't make much sense to me though.
I just very much appreciate that the force icons use appropriate vehicles. Its a little thing, but it makes these videos so much more fun than if it was "generic tank icon"
*cough* the infographics show *cough*
@@juliuszkocinski7478 most of their videos are good, but I enjoy their non-political content like the SCP videos more. They seem US-biased in their geopolitics or hypothetical war related videos.
It would be incomprehensible if they didn't lol.
Me, in Ireland: *"Hmmm... Interesting... [Inhales] COME OUT YE..."*
“Shit. Seamus! It’s happening again! Get the Armalite!”
The IRA would probably love it if the US were to attempt to attack Ireland :P
@@theshinygoldenemperor2422 Armalite? You mean an American gun we provided you? Checkmate, paddy.
Meanwhile North of the Border requests for a UK issued passport outstrip demand
@theshinygoldenemperor2422 the armalite is a PIRA thing, which is a northern ireland thing, not Republic of Ireland thing.
I’d be interested to see an “Unholy alliance” with the US and Russia against the EU, or US and Russia vs Asian countries. Or perhaps world powers (US, Russia and China) vs the world
Well that is pretty much a given. Opening a two front war with Russia invading from the east and the U.S. invading from the west would be impossible for the EU to defend against. Russia's land gains would also make room for the U.S. to establish air bases. And don't forget that Russia could cut off much of Europe's energy supply. It'd be over before it started. Plus, if the U.S. had access to Kaliningrad, that alone is a game changer.
Jesus Christ that's so unholy it makes me want to stop being an atheist
Endwar?
@blah blah but britain and france have more nukes than China
@blah blah i don't think anyone will survive a nuclear war
Ships roll up to Ireland - everyone shouting youll do fookin nottin
*US soldiers cocking rifles and loading rounds*
*Irish uncorking bottles and grabbing chairs*
Right lads, where are the hurls. Let's do a Cú Chulainn on them
USA: invades ireland
Britain: not bad, kid.
EU: Declares war on the U.S.
America to Russia: "So I heard you guys want to expand into Eastern Europe. Well boy, do I have an offer for you!"
I suppose EU could do the same but with China, attacking its n°1 ennemy already fighting a fairly strong European Army would be more than worth it to expand its influence
@@mrronron7328 They could, but I'd assume China would take advantage of this war on their own. Russia would benefit far more from cooperating with the U.S. than China would from working with the EU.
@@Tom_Cruise_Missile I think it is important to factor on, that some parts of europe still have a very good and or strong relationship with russia. In the end, it would come down on who attacks who, and for what reason. A US trying to invade europe, would probably create a lot of incentives for the europeans and the russians to become more friendly with each other. And China would propably just try to further its own goals while everyone is occupied. Thank god this is just a thought experiment.
@@MrGreenTabasco It's possible. It depends on what the United States offers them and the situation at the time. The U.S. would likely offer them a lot more than the EU, since the EU would be more directly affected by any deal made, but on the other hand fighting with the U.S. would mean the war is on their doorstep... not super inviting if the E.U. isn't very occupied on land.
@@Tom_Cruise_Missile or maybe EU will invite Russia into the EU instead so that they could have sufficient equipment to withstand US assaults', and be more self sufficient with US naval blockade. US is not going to stay in the Mediterranean sea for long, if it is at war with EU, anything US crossing the Suez or Gibraltar could be spotted by EU and gets destroyed.
Germany vs all its small neighbours (Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Luxemburg)
That's just ww2 phased down. Also I see you forgot an important country, luxembourg.
👀
At the start the smaller nations would have an advantage to push but once Germany mobilised it would win or if the conflict fit drawn out longer would be a German victory.
@@speedy01247 yeah sorry
We allready did that a while ago, we startet out pretty good but when the other big boys got invaulved the Party was over
so whos going to be killing eachother in the comments today?
Im not ready for the comments here...
@@rinharter7758 lol its already gotten to a shitshow so theres that lol
RAID apologists vs. real gamers.
sorry, but this videos make no sense at all!! what is the purpose of upload such bullshit??first time i saw such a bullshit, and astonishing how many subscriber he has!!
@@Ezekiel903 you just proved my point lol
UK : grabs popcorn
Switzerland: Ayy yo pass me some!
@blah blah umm why?
@blah blah no we wouldn't. We would be on the US's side. No way we side with the European Reich.
@blah blah the only superpower who is the UK's closest ally, and vice versa. It would be EU that would be shifting themselves begging the UK to remain neutral.
@blah blah the UK is americas lap dog
Any landing on the west coast of Ireland would be at the mercy of appalling weather, its hard to imagine anything more suicidal.
Unless it was the Shannon estuary and down around the Dingle pensunila and possibly Cobh?
@@jamesjanson6129 Yeah that starts to radically narrow the landing points though, making defence more manageable for the defenders
Good point. Poor visibility is very likely. Atlantic Irish coasline is mainly sharp and craggy too. Landing points would be limited and so defensible. History surely tells us Coastal invaders need a collossal advantage in war. As he says himself USA only has a very minor tech advantage vs the whole EU and some EU nations are USA level pure tech wise.
Of course he has USA winning. Most of his subs are probably american as it's english language content. RUclipsrs creators are all natural populism whores.
@@Thomes-Maisling don’t need to get so butthurt
@@Thomes-Maisling
He has the US "winning" because it gains something in the projection.
If a war is fought to a standstill, but one side captured territory it didn't have before and the other one does not, that is a marginal victory. The key word here is marginal.
The Netherlands (alone without NATO support) vs an economical stagnating Venezuela that conquers the nearby Dutch ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao). Can the Dutch Navy take them back? Can the Dutch repeat what the English did with the Falkland Islands in 1982? How strong is Venezuela, which is also standing on it's own. The Netherlands is not allowed to use the 20 or 30 American based nuclear warheads.
Netherlands has not the economy and a blue water fleet for a so distant fight.
Realistically, less Falklands, more Operation Dessert Storm.
@@giupetr968 You might be surprised, The Netherlands might have a small military but it's highly advanced, and it has some power projection. It's economy is ranked 16 of the world, not bad for such a small country. There is some power projection, but it would be interesting to see how Binkov would see these two militaries collide and whether the Dutch can take back the islands. Also the Dutch can operate from two other islands which belongs to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in this case Saba and Saint Martin.
@@giupetr968 They do have the economy, the question is whether they have invested enough (for this scenario) into the armed forces in the past years.
@@Snowwie88 I'm not saying The Netherlands is weak, I'm just saying it's a small country with small resources and it's too far. A war against Venezuela - with no allies involved -, it would have an high cost that Amsterdam couldn't support for a long term. Venezuela is poor, but it's a far bigger country. Then they have frigates and they can use their fighters (Sukhoi 30 and F-16). On the other hand, Dutch could not use their air-forces, because they are too distant and they have not air-carries to bring fighters on the war stage.
Binkov didn't account for the local boy-racer light cavalry that are on constant patrol around the roads of Donegal, with intimate knowledge of every boreen and speed-trap they would form a formidable resistance.
Also Ballyshannon will be renamed as Ballystalingrad after all this.
If there’s anything I’ve learned from watching Binkov vids, it’s that amphibious assaults are very difficult to pull off.
Both in video games and in real life.
Russia should've watched his videos.
Remember "44? What happened there on Normandy? And that's with older Tech
I love how well this illustrates that just a few bad decisions, could cost either side EVERYTHING.
yes, going for a land invasion before sinking the navy and conducting massive strategic bombing and cyber attacks is a very bad strategy
@@bluemeriadoc It's like they didn't do any research on how the U.S. fights our wars... We don't land on beaches we land on scorched wastelands where any conceivable cover is ash on the winds and our enemy can't twitch for 1,000 miles without exploding. Good old overwhelming force!
A problem at 7:30. Those routes go through British waters. You said in part 1 that countries outside the EU (which includes the UK as of the 31st Dec 2020) are neutral. Britain can't remain neutral if it allows EU supply and troopships to go through its waters, as this will make the US think the UK is on the EU's side. However, if the UK sinks EU military and ships, the EU will retaliate in some way. Also, the UK takes charge of the defence of the airspace of the British Isles, which includes the Republic of Ireland. Any threat to the ROI in terms of fighter craft is the UK's responsibility to deal with., which means the UK can't remain neutral. If this type of war does occur, the UK will probably be the broker of a peace deal or at least a ceasefire.
Very good point.
good points
On point! Neutral countries often fight anyway. It’s very hard to stay out of war completely. Switzerland had fights with both Germany and the USA during WW2: ruclips.net/video/FILxoQyKzDg/видео.html
Things like neutral waters are generally not counted only Land movement
@@tomendruweit9386 Actually, they are. They are greatly counted, in fact. Because going into a neutral country's waters allows them to waltz up, and arrest you for violation of their sovereignty. So, if the EU put ships through British waters, the British can seize them, and don't have to give them back until the war is over.
What about USA+UK vs EU+Russia? That would be interesting
The UK would sink and nothing more would happen... EU and Russia combined still don´t have good enought Naval and Air Assets to cross either the Atlantic or Pacific so they would protect costal assets and islands (those likely would not fall and the US would withhold further attacks to not lose all Naval assets opening them up for invasion) and the sheer amount of Landbased forces on the EU+Russia side would make any attemp at landing a suicide run basicaly no one wins and the UK loses
Blinkov did USA vs uk already
Doctor J he meant uk with USA not against USA
Blutwind how would the uk sink 😂
@@Blutwind adding Russia is overkill
Me “Irish” laughing at this knowing damn well that we do not have the technology nor the manpower to take on the US
Rob it's EU men and tec.....not us
@@ahutch4882 half the eu tec is us tec and a eu men are trained with NATO
@@royalteluis623 And half the US weaponory (icluding the M4) is build by H&K and the US troops are also trained with NATO
@@tomendruweit9386 Except the US bought in bulk, whereas the EU bought in the short term... So, whilst the US might not be able to get new ones... They'll still have many, many rifles and rounds. Plus the parts and capabilities to fix them.
@@MrJinglejanglejingle they have some reserves but not enugh to keep on fighting for too long (except ammunition)
Commonwealth vs EU
That would be interesting
First time I've seen Ballyshannon referred to as "urban".
*soldier runs into tent looking shaken
General, they've taken Seán Ógs
How about Rep of Ireland Vs UK in 1972,when Ireland was planning to invade Northern Ireland as a scenario? Or even modern day?
@@jamesjanson6129 He's done a video on UK vs. EU in which he suggested the UK would be able to occupy the Rep of Ireland fairly quickly.
England: "Still want to rejoin the EU?"
Scotland: "On second thoughts..."
why would we want to join the EU 🤔 nobody’s ever conquered us never will 🇬🇧👍
@@jonwilko6305 Scotland forever?
@@jonwilko6305 Remember when the Dutch installed a king in GB and you guys loved it so much you called it the Glorious Revolution? I remember
@@Timbo5000 you mean when the British asked them to remove a king
@@jonwilko6305 you forgot william the conqueror
Ireland occupied?
"Come out ye Black and Tans", starts playing in the background
Lol, it's the US this time and not the UK, would be more of 'Come out ye Marines and SEALS' or something like that
For Americans?
@@120mmsmoothbore2 probably a remix
@@cLaw27 "Come out ya Uncle Sams" 😁
@@oneoff2798 ha! best one yet! 😄
Top 7 most anticipated videos from Binkov’s Battlegrounds in the near future.
*1.) United States vs. India*
*2.) Brazil vs. Hispanic South America*
*3.) The Americas vs. Afro-Eurasia+Oceania*
*4.) South Asia vs. Southeast Asia*
*5.) India vs. Arab World+Pakistan+Afghanistan*
*6.) Vietnam vs. Thailand*
*7.) United States vs. Canada*
USA vs the rest of America.
Us would lose against mighty Arjun tank 🗿
Those maple men have yee’d their last haw
@@graze1177 and India stands no chance against the Vatican /s
Canada: we've beaten them before in the War of 1812, surely we can beat those Yankees again.
Come on! The EU is always blue on maps! 🇪🇺😉
@Your Majesty, Isn't this hypothetical war about the USA declaring a war against the EU? Does that not make them the bad guys?
@@digdug1431 Americans think they're always the good guys.
@@digdug1431 history is written by the victors, my friend.
@American Patriot we were the bad guys in all the wars we started
@@masterofalltrades_ you are a bad guy alone
Right lads, get your hurls and head for the hills. There’s training to do
Hurls. lmao🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Everybody gangsta until the Irish win a rebellion against the US
They wouldn’t do shit
@@zachthehun3531 That's funny, the US have never won in a war where the enemies have been insurgents/guerillas.
@@zachthehun3531 Some dudes who were angry about Northern Ireland being British caused major issues. I don't think you want to know what happens when a completely foreign force invades a part of Ireland.
@@ieuanjones7615 no one did this
@@ieuanjones7615 that’s actually not true. The Americans have conducted successful counter insurgency campaigns in the past. They’re just not as famous as the American’s failures.
your forgetting the IRA in northern Ireland (a paramilitary terror organization) who are well versed in guerrilla warfare and would be a thorn in the yanks side
Vietnam 2 electric boogaloo
Not a "terror organisation"!! Freedom fighters!
@@kierangreene6714 Freedom fighters don't murder civilians
they can't even take their island back from the british
US has nothing to deal with guerilla tactics. LMAO. Isn't that what we have bèen fighting in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?
UN NAVY vet here. At roughly 9:20 you mentioned that the us navy would have to have planes in the air 24/7 to cover ships and troops from air attack. This is already true. We had f18s in the air at all hours of the night. Flight ops never end my friend.
I think the point is having "enough" planes. I don't know about US Navy doctrine, but it's safe to assume they don't keep more than a few planes in CAP, while the EU forces would attack with dozens of planes.
@@rare_kumiko Exactly, you can have a few fighters in the air 24/7 from a given carrier, but against a large air threat, you need more than that, and the simple fact is that pilots will need rest and planes will need maintenance, fuel, and reloads.
Some of those EU resupply missions to Ireland are sailing and flying through British waters and airspace. This would not be tolerated by Britain, if it was a neutral in this conflict.
Good point.
Dad and son do a traditional British bonding exercise of fighting the entire fucking continent
What i've learnt so far from discussions with friends and family and the knowledge from Binkovs videos: many people greatly overestimate the force the US can project overseas without massive amounts of prepwork and simultaniously underestimate the effect distances have on reactiontime.
Just look at the US military in DC right now. Full of obese mcdonalds superstrokers. US military is a joke, just like the stability of the country and gov. US Supremacy propaganda is now losing its effect.
@@useritiswhatitis4655 the military is a joke??? Are you dense or what?? Do you even do research at all?? The US military trains more then any other in the world. That military is still the best in the world and can still decimate any other military.
@@ericnoonan616 So much cope. The US hasn't won a war since ww2 which the Soviets were carrying the Allies the entire time. The only war the US won by themselves was against the Mexicans in the Spanish-American war.
@@christopherlue9096 ???? US is literally falling apart. Corporations ruling buying political power with politician puppets while the all the races fight each other? Cities crumbling, poverty rising. Richer getting richer. So much freedom bro. You tards going to be coping for four long years under Biden.
@@useritiswhatitis4655 last I checked the US won every war they was apart of. If it was for the US then Europe would have fallen to Germany and Russia so be more grateful punk. Another thing is what other country can do what the US military does?? Non so stop being a fool and go do your research. You have only showed you hate the US thats why you say the lies you say. Remember when America falls the entire world falls. Every nation on this planet relies on the US so yea hope for its destruction because then all countries get to suffer also.
Wrong analysis Binkov! The US would feint a move towards Ireland, but then land everything at Normandy!
"It worked the last time, it'll work this time!"
It's vs the EU.
@@ahutch4882 Yeah? Your point being?
@@coenogo my mistake I read that as Norway Not Normandy.
@@coenogo They are not germans, only we are allowed to pull the same trick 3 times sucesfully
Guys, guys, you don't need to fight over me. You can both send Ireland money :3
It's commonsense really. "You want my help, pay up.""Don't threaten me either, remember what happened in Northern Ireland.... "
we would fight to protect you then we spend our money to buy guiness and drink a pint in a pub with you how about it?
@@antoinedenis9922 I am strongly pro euro. We need to stand up to the non European, American menace.
A swedish turtle approves this video
@Adolf Hitler wait I thought ur ded.............
Yes and A vending machine approves it as well
Thank you Swedish Turtle
Britain: “America be careful with Ireland they’re really good at guerrilla warfare”
America: “nah chill I got this” (proceeds to get stuck in a decade long guerrilla war)
This is some 'Nam S*I*
Decade? We invaded Afghanistan in 2001. And they wear underwear.
@@James-kp8mg I think you may be confusing guerrilla with commando.
@@Thomes-Maisling For Ireland it's both.
@@James-kp8mg IRA will bomb tf out of your country trust me... England has been the victim 😂🤣
Here I am watching a video about an imagined world war 3 and it comes down to bundoran and Ballyshannon just down the road ahahah
didnt bundoran beach have saving privare ryan filmed on it?
Found that hilarious also, having gone to Bundoran for a bitta kayaking as a kid lol
@@rkevo9112 I believe it was filmed in Curracloe in Wexford
Ireland has never been this important! The whole of the western hemisphere dependent on it. Its great. I almost want it to happen
Thanks for the video. And I always really appreciate your message of peace at the end!
US troops show up in Ireland and about half are greeted with “welcome home lads”.
In reality, I suspect Ireland would quickly find out that they really aren't part of the EU. No way is the EU sending 300,000 troops to Ireland as long as Russia sits next door just waiting for an opportunity.
It says no other countries participate.. You think China will only watch if all pacific is empty? Russia wont test Alaska?
@@7MishMash I get it. But Ireland was part of the UK until not too long ago and shares an unrestricted border on a fairly small island with the UK and is just miles from the English coast. That's a bit different. But I get your point.
@@kcgunesq we won our War of Independence 100 years ago.
In reality Britain would jump in to the defence of Ireland, Britain isn't at threat from Russia so that's 100,000 troops, a solid air force and a good Navy before reserves start rolling in. This isn't about reality though, this is an all out war between two entities only
@@Tonk1e The EU being behind on technology is just make believe: There is a reason the US bought European frigates (the FREMM) or sonar from Thales. There is also a reason why they try to buy EU tech firms.
The US failed against farmers in flip flop so them winning any land in Europe is just laughable.
I'm from Ireland 🇮🇪. I found the video really interesting many good topics raised. But I found it quite liked the invasion of Ireland various parts.☘👍
It'd be a pain in the ass to invade Ireland... Either that, or it'd be easy as fuck, because the Irish don't care. One of those "don't fuck with us, we won't break your kneecaps".
@@MrJinglejanglejingle ire land would be the easiest place to invade geographically, I'm mean look at that shit.
@@accurategamer7085 Ireland would be an absolute nightmare for tanks and other heavy armour that the US war doctrine relies so heavily on. Bogs, small bridges, narrow motorways, lots of backstreets... You're not getting tanks or APCs anywhere in this country, nevermind the fact the countryside is mostly ditch, fieldd and forests so you'd have to treat each and every one of them as if they're full of troops before moving on.
It's just a logistical nightmare to try and capture nevermind the fact you'd have to hold it while under siege constantly.
@@120mmsmoothbore2 america has 33,000 special forces soldiers, ireland has 7,000 regular soldiers ireland wouldnt stand a chance.
@@joejones7035 That's pretty funny, I think I heard someone say the same about American invading Afghanistan about two decades ago, and some Soviets back in 1979..
Guerilla warfare is a real thing that's saved countries in the past and had saved Ireland itself for 80 consecutive years, I think you should factor that in as well beside your conventional warfare.
15:00 idk if ballyshannon counts as urban defence
People saying the U.S. would bomb everything, until every 27,30, 35, and 40mm SHORAD system enters the chat and intercept every bomb and missile. Lets also not get into how if the EU was to secure the small part of Ireland the EU uses L/52 artillery that vastly overmatches the L/39 guns the U.S. uses.
Been waiting for this one
Video idea: modern US vs the the British empire
Finally, I've always wanted to see children in Ottawa pledge allegiance to the US flag
US would win because better tec
Britain would instantly cut off from its possessions overseas and the US focus its invasion against Britain and ignore the rest(aside from nearby Canada, Guiana, and Caribbean islands)
War Plan Red in the 1930s would much more interesting as Britain and America are kinda par
...Better tech does mean the US wins in the end, but... THEN AGAIN, a portion of the British Empire was the US...
WWII US vs WWII British Empire is fairer
Just one of these times I want the armed Civilians involved.
then the eu forces will rise exponentially since as for france and other eu countries i suppose we used to have military service for all male above 18 and ended in late 90's so count all men in france and germany and belgium and spain and portugal and italy able to fight in and the army became one of the largest in the world because for france only it would mean at least 5 million men power added
@@antoinedenis9922 The question is, would France have enough equipment at the ready to hand out to the added numbers? On top of that would France have the required infrastructure to keep theese huge numbers supplied for possibly years. And take war time conditions into account as well meaning that there is always the chance that the enemy is able to sabotage parts of your infrastructure, depending on how good your counterintelligence is. And let's also take into account one of the most important rules in warfare: No plan ever survives implementation.
Well, the comments replying to you seem to address former servicemembers being recalled to service. If you are addressing the general population having firearms and operating as partisans, EU and U.S would be very different. The EU has strict gun laws and low gun ownership, so the population would probably have to get a hold of captured enemy weapons or be supplied by government forces before they can have sufficient firepower to raise up large partisan units.
For U.S. citizens, many own firearms, and among those, many have multiple guns with lots of rounds in storage. The laws on type of guns and ammo capacity is also much less strict, so I’d imagine partisan units in the U.S. would enact pretty brutal casualties on the enemy, especially since many who own guns also train tactically and learn to fight with guns rather than simply shooting as part of hunting or match competitions.
Britain just quietly sipping tea
I would consider the amount of surplus cruise missiles the U.S. has at it's disposal.
One Northern Ireland was bad enough...
US invading Bundoran lmao
"If I say it's safe to surf this beach... it's safe to surf this beach!"
Maybe another thing to consider is that there is an agreement between the UK and Ireland that means the RAF wil protect Irish airspace
Not against the US. The EU could go **** themselves.
Only as long as Ireland maintains its neutrality.
No chance they would risk British lives for terrorists that dislike them.
More realistic would be Britain siding with the USA to conquer the EU
Are you joking?
The only deal that would allow that is Ireland rejoining the United Kingdom
I’d be interested in watching a follow up to this but with the UK on the side of the US, giving the US a place to launch operations from. I wonder how much that would change the outcome.
The reputation of the UK would be destroyed for centuries to come.
@@afisto6647 How?
The UK would get invaded and crushed by the EU before the US could send and meaningful amount of troops there
@@UUUU-dn9wz the EU doesn’t have the sealift capacity to launch an invasion of the UK.
@@fwmeese the combined EU navy is strong enough to achieve control over the Royal navy in the British channel
The Gripen jet would be excellent in the beginning of the invasions as they don't need runways to take off or land
I'm afraid the good Commissar has contracted RAIDS. The prognosis is poor to say the least.
Cyber warfare could also be included in the scenario.
I think the US bases would be an advantage. It would be like having hundreds of airborne units all over enemy territory behind enemy lines. These bases could be used to do first strikes to disable a lot of the advantages of the EU such as airports and other infrastructure. Eventually they would be wiped out but the damage they could cause before that point might tip the scales.
ArmouredSpacePony I realize that they couldn’t be held but they could do considerable damage before being overwhelmed. You have concentration of troops who know local infrastructure and locations of native army bases which could be hit with either direct assault or guerrilla tactics
@@warandconquest6522 They would not have any chance to fight and would get overwhelmed instantly by being bombarded into oblivion or, more likely, surrendering.
I know it's against the rules of the scenario but it would be very interesting to replay it with the UK coming in on the side of the US.
They would have a hard time since a lot of people support the EU, plus the IRA would most likely rebel making it easy for the EU to invade the isles and subsequently seizing some ships from the british too with minimal losses, most likely the queen wont like this very much.
Pieter van der zwaan idiotic comment! You honestly believe the EU are capable of taking Royal Navy ships and Britain doing nothing about it?
GCHQ would have Europe’s internet, communications, power grids, air traffic control, healthcare under siege within the hour without 1 bullet even being fired
Ultimately, the biggest flaw I see with this scenario is with the UK staying completely neutral. Who the UK would side with, and to what level would very much depend on the specifics of how they end up getting dragged into the conflict, but they would end up being dragged into the conflict somehow. With that in mind, I'd love to see scenarios for both the UK siding with the US and for UK siding with the EU.
@@jbx- attacking healthcare organizations are a violation on the Versailles treaty and, air traffic that would drag the whole world against the british if that would happen.
@@pietervanderzwaan4295 I think the ROI would ditch the EU anyway as the Irish have always loved America and their bloodlines/families are heavily invested in the US, and it would ensure no friendly fire between NI-ROI. A lot of Brits might support the EU but at the end of the day more Brits are against the EU than the US, so worst case scenario Britain would fall into civil war or large scale civilian skirmishes for those in support/against US/EU.
Also consider the UK heavily relies on the US for its military and political backup whenever UK wants to posture up against the likes of Russia/China, so it works better in UK's favour to support its historically closest and by far most powerful ally. Brits stopped caring about losing the Empire and its massive naval power when they realised they can just get their big eldest son to do that particular work for them.
Here’s the thing: massed troop assaults against American forces which hav air support is a bad idea due to MOAB’s, WCMD’s and JSOW’s. This is especially the case for tanks for the SFW is specifically designed to counter armored assaults. During the ‘03 Iraq War, entire units up to the battalion level were wiped out in a single air strike using SFW’s iirc
You need air superiority for that. Iraqi airforce is not quite equivalent to eu countries with top of the range airforces
@@Damo2690 just because u don’t have air superiority don’t mean u can’t conduct air strikes. Plus remember a good portion of the American air arms comprises of stealth aircraft. Yes I know stealth aircraft aren’t infallible but it vastly increases the chances of the aircraft getting through
@@lightspeedvictory French long waves radar can detect stealth planes and its range cover from ireland to morocco. While still useful, it will be very expensive for the US (a single stealth plane cost a LOT)
do a hunger game scenario, all vs all
Regarding the quick deterioration of the internal situation, it might be possible that instead EU, the main target of the USA can be the USA itself.
Do a Hypothetical War on The EU vs BRICKS.
thats would just be EU vs russia+china, india could maybe supply manpower and thats pretty much it
So World War 3 grinds to a halt outside Bundoran. At least all the lads can go play in the amusements afterwards.
have you considered satellites?
It drove me crazy that satellites didn't come up at all. Satellite usage to confirm aircraft, munition, ship, supply part locations, etc and then send off some Tomahawks!
@@cornpowa eu as a large anti missiles protection guided by satellite so no point
@@antoinedenis9922 I don't agree with it, due to all the hazards it makes in space, but the US has proven that it can shoot down satellites in the past. What would stop them from doing it again?
@@cornpowa so do we as i said there is no point in equal forces
@@antoinedenis9922 No EU country has shot down a satellite and I question whether the EU would do it anyway. I could see a few countries raising a big enough stink to not allow it to happen at all or at least delay attempting it late enough that the US would be able to gain valuable intel.
Aww, I thought all the Raid ads were finally gone.
You know you can just skip 1 minute ahead in the video, right?
@@mullahman5128 No shit Sherlock.
That wasn't my point.
Honest question: why didn’t the us bomber fleet play any role? The has 140 active bombers, including the 20 B2 stealth bomber. Before such an invasion I could imagine a giant bombing run taking out military and civilian infrastructure. See Iraq...
By using stealth, cruise missiles and bombers the entire infrastructure and military in Ireland could get crippled!
Europe isn't Iraq.
@Massimo Hack b52 aren’t getting used the way they were used in Vietnam. The B52 mainly deploys a wave of Cruise Missles. Look the the videos of operation room on desert Strom. The first attack wave was launched by cruise missles on b52s
They could probably launch the missles after crossing half/two thirds of the Atlantic
@@Chrischi4598 Sure they could, but that still isn't enough. *Europe isn't Iraq.*
@@MajinOthinus - True, but Europe's long-range air defense network is not particularly potent (neither is the U.S.'s) and much of it relies on U.S. equipment. NASAMS, for example, uses the American AIM-120 missile. And the S-300 unit they spoke about belongs to Greece and is stuck in Cyprus and would not be transported to Ireland.
@@VisibilityFoggy Yes but we have Aster15/30
How to settle this dispute rather quickly...
US: *attacks EU*
EU: *Fights back*
Also US: Oh Russia, feel free to invade whatever parts of Eastern Europe.
eu: hey china and russia wanna team up and take down that country that has been a thorn in your eyes for half a century?
@@chickenhunter4694
US: India, on my mark, unleash hell on China.
China: N.Korea attack US.
US: Asia-Pacific nations attack N.Korea-China.
Pakistan: ffs wtf do I do?!
Middle East explodes.
Britain: sips tea. I'll just wait for all this to blow over and checkmate... Commonwealth Empire rules 100% of Earths landmass, nuclear fallout permitting.
@@TomGB-81 XD
Basicly US going to collapse from civil unrest and giant strikes as most of it's population are descendents from European migrants,l. Plus working with totalitarian governments would basicly mean that people would tear down White house for basicly being fascist imperialistic state... yeah, Russia would win the most in this scenario xD
@@lewycraft 🤣
Whoever narrated this has never had the experience of ordering a "light beer" in an Irish bar 😂
Thank you, Comrade!
To the people saying Irish or italian americans would defect let me make this painfully clear the term irish or Italian American is just used to distinguish ourselves an Irish American and Italian american have more in common with themselves than an Irishman or italian
Quite true... - None of the Italian-Americans partaking in WW2 ever dreamed of defecting... Even the US-Mafia types were on America's side, as is pointed out somewhere in "The Godfather"...
Especially since it’s been several generations since large waves had immigrated to USA.
Yeah, basically this. I always cringe when an "X American" thinks themselves an actual part of whatever country their ancestors were from while having no real connection to it at all.
@@Timbo5000 it's a slight cultural connection built upon by immigrant communities besides without irish americans what reason would we have to get drunk on saint Patrick's day
I know right, by the same logic America would never have fought for independence as everyone was British
Us declares war on the EU
Bankrupted countries relying on the EU
We leave now
Poor Ireland 😔
First time?
We've suffered worse.
@@gavinhillick Suffered worse, and still don't give a fuck.
@@gavinhillick I know, hence my comment.
at least as irish-american I can predict american who are descendent of irish will feel uncomfortable with USA occupy Ireland and will likely start civil war 2 to coordinate with IRA within 5 years or more I don't know how long.
What an interesting video
Us : lets land in Normandy and take France that will work
Germany and France : Laughs in MG3
4:25 My coworker is in the Dutch reserves and he says most of them do train quite a bit. Not sure about the other EU countries though.
The Dutch actually actively work with the USA in training, unlike most of the EU. So, actually... Yeah. But, then again... Helaas, Nederland heeft bijna niks.
Super-close allies, but... Yeah. I can assure you that The Netherlands would opt out of the war, themselves. They prefer neutrality, like Switzerland. They just also like money, hence joining the EU.
Not just that but EU troops train together literally all the damm time. 😂
@@Pand0rasAct0r_ They really don't. Nowhere near enough. Not to mention, many of their governments are uncooperative with one another. Mobilization and the unification of tactical decisions, capabilities, and equipment would take months, if not years, before becoming somewhat useable.
Source? I lived in Europe for five years, and had plenty of time to listen to Dutch soldiers gripe about Germans, Germans gripe about literally everyone, the French gripe about Germans and Italians... So on and so forth.
@@MrJinglejanglejingle yeah. No. The Dutch and German armies are at this point deeply integrated. Dutch tankers drive German owned Leopard IIs. Dutch troops are in the German command structure. German marines are under Dutch Command. Parts of the German Air defense are under Dutch command.
In a war with between Germany and the US with Dutch neutrality the German army would have serious issues if otherwise. Realistically they would not be able to stay neutral.
@@9SMTM6 Knowing the Dutch as well as I do...? They'd stay neutral. They rely far too much on trade with the USA, as well as with Germany. Most of their food imports come from the USA, with the rest coming from Germany.
They can't risk upsetting either side, so they'd go full Swiss, and refuse both sides. They can't really defend themselves very much, though, so... Its likely Germany would just take over in a few days, as it did the last time the Dutch and Germans had a major military disagreement...
Two considerations not mentioned are the ground to air and ground to ground capabilities that US infantry regularly carry in the Javelin Missile systems for tanks and helicopters as well as the US's ability to create a port in austere locations. The lack of a suitable port to reinforce land forces may not be that much of a detriment.
irish army have javellins too
@@rkevo9112 yup. But as it's a US based weapon system and the previous episodes assumption that the EU nations would be unlikely to make more quickly.
Specifically I was referring to their use by infantry during ground invasions before heavier weapon systems like tanks would be able to come into full force.
@@rkevo9112 About 50 of them.
The US would always be at a disadvantage here as heavy military infrastructure is always positioned near potential enemies, not really around the Western European mainland.
Yeah, the US industry is only 6 thousand miles away and protected by the largest navy and 2 largest air forces in the world. What a disadvantage
@@qabbala1015 Uh the US is at an disadvantage trying to conduct a amphibious landing on Western Europe. As OP said, US don't have any bases intended for making such landings on Western Europe. US do however have bases for actual potential enemies.
@@qabbala1015 - Which combined with the distance, would be why it would be impossible for the EU to to invade. But invading across an ocean is quite hard, if you don't have major accessible and supportable bases nearby. The US (with help but it could have been done with just American forces) invaded Iraq and took out its military but it had a long time to built up in bases in Kuwait. If the US had the UK on its side it might be a different story. Partially because of the UK's own forces, but even more so because of local basing and resupply. Then the biggest battle would be the defense of the UK, and the rush of US forces there. Once that's done Ireland would be vulnerable. But even after that actually landing on the mainland of Europe would be difficult (although an invasion of France might in that scenario be easier than invading Ireland was in Bonkov's video. Yes the EU's defenses would be more numerous actually on the mainland, but the US would be able to gain air superiority (without such superiority an invasion would be a suicide mission), with much of its air force flying out of British (and perhaps conquered Irish) bases and airports.
Of course the whole scenario is a bit crazy, but that's true of many of Binkov's hypothetical wars (Eu vs UK, Russia invading Canada with the US doing nothing, Australia vs NZ etc.). Doesn't keep them from being interesting.
@@qabbala1015 it doesn't matter how large your forces are if you can't project them easily. The US has the best infrastructure in the world for power projection but almost none of it is geared towards western europe. Almost anywhere else in the world would be an easier target.
@@savaglisic7000 I misinterpreted what you meant lol my bad
Some dude: tells his personal feeling about a conflict
Clowns: this is facts
Im suprised Binkov didn't touch on how suicidal it would be for the US navy to attempt to enter the meditarianian through the straight of Gibraltar, going through such a narrow waterway would leave US Ships at the mercy of not just Land based Missiles but artillery, and land based army and air forces too, it would be much easier for them to access the Meditarian through the Suez canal, but all it would take to block the entire thing would be a hidden anti ship missile launcher sinking a single ship.
The EU lost because Binkov didn't include Malta as part of the EU (which it is).
Could you do the canzuk union battle. Aka Canada Australia and New Zealand vs Britain?
That's kind of interesting. Thing is, none of them have any meaningful power projection to take the fight to the UK, and Britain has nowhere near enough fighters or ships to take the fight to them either.
I rather Canzuk vs the EU.
So you want the UK to invade the UK? Cos the UK is part of Canzuk and you want Canzuk to invade the UK.
This reminds me of Endwar
Germany:what is peace? You have a Island?no territory left behind!
France:facepalm*
Surely it's a stalemate. In the long term no conquest could be completed and US would likely have to cede what small territory it had captured.
Europe wouldn't lose, but it would get absolutely wrecked by aircraft and missiles. Tactical victory for them maybe, but in terms of damage 100% a U.S. win.
Hmm, if I was US I think I would first take Iceland (not Greenland) because of better infrastructure and giving US a forward base of operations that is much close to the battle, yet far enough from it to be defensible.
Iceland is neutral and not part of the EU.
Could Modern Day Canada defend itself from the WW2 USA?
I mean yeah the modern Canadian Air Force wouldn't even be able to be detected by ww2 planes so they could just bomb everything from the sky
Well yeah probably. But it all depends, 1939 USA was quite weak, had a decent navy but that war about it. 1945 US is a monster, but its biggest asset( the Navy) would be completely useless and would get sunk by Canadian Aiforce if coming too close to Canada. Ground war would be a pain in the ass, but nothing could pierce modern leopard tanks. Body armor, scopes and semi/automatic rifles would give canadians an advantage, only problem is number, but once Canada mobilise the population it would win. Todays Canadian economy is biggest than US economy at the time and the population difference would be less than today, as the US had around 130 million people compared to the 325 of today.
Id give the win to Canada
@@Justinian506 its more difficult than that. us and soviet studies has shown that even dozens of nukes at the end of ww2 isnt going to stop an army as large as the soviet or american one instantly. canada only has maybe 100-150 aircraft able to bomb(and no actual bombers), i dont think thats gonna dent a army of 16 million that us had in its military forces in ww2. i also dont think canada's army of 50,000 is gonna stop the ww2 americans either.
USA: release the Free Beer and Mooseburger festival!
Easily
America: "Didn't we used to sponsor your terrorist activities so you could stay free?"
Ireland: "Yeah fam, why you bring it up now?"
America: "Because everyone loves irony"
😂Yep, that's how thing's played out with Bin Laden and with Saddam Hussein and many more, it all breaks down to "chaos causes cash flow"👍
The US govt never sponsored the IRA...Check your history!
No, the US funded terrorists in Northern Ireland to defeat democracy.
We should get a part 3. A war in the pacific and Indian Ocean. Alot of little islands for the US to sweep up from Bassas da India to French Polynesia
Video idea. All the us bases stationed in Germany vs germany
Thats pretty unfair, 30,000 american soldiers against the whole Bundeswehr.
@@abraham2172 The U.S.’ European force projection being centrally located in Germany means Brussels, Berlin and Paris never start shit in the first place
@@koushiro86 Of course, I was regarding the suggestion for a video above.