The Problem With Modern War
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2018
- The problem with modern war? It's unbalanced and the explanations given to how certain things have occurred are often laughably absurd.
In Incoming, The Templin Institute discusses the theories and ideas found across alternate worlds.
New episodes every week.
Other Divisions & Branches:
🔹 Patreon | / templininstitute
🔹 The Templin Commissary | shop.templin.institute
🔹 Twitch | / templininstitute
🔹 The Templin Archives | / @templinarchives
🔹RUclips Membership | / @templininstitute
🔹Submit Your Episode Idea | ideas.templin.institute/
Communications & Media:
🔹 Website | www.templin.institute/
🔹 Discord | / discord
🔹 Facebook | / templininstitute
🔹 Twitter | / templinedu
🔹 Instagram | / templininstitute
🔹 Subreddit | / templininstitute
🔹 Mailing Address | Unit 144 - 919 Centre St SW Calgary, AB T2E 2P6
Background music: “White Atlantis” by Sergey Cheremisinov. User under a Attribution-NonCommercial License.
Ending music "Battle Forever" used under license from Shutterstock.com.
Narration by M.A.R.C. 
Развлечения
Want to join us on Discord? Here’s a link to our server! discord.gg/Nwu83gQ
The Templin Institute North Korea couldn't invade Rhode Island even if they had the Death Star.
The Templin Institute
Can you make a video on the SCP Foundation could they even support themselves in the real world?
The Templin Institute the possibility of a second American civil war would be believable in a modern war setting especially how relevant today with the polarization of politics ever since the 2016 elections and extremism of the far right and left like the alt right and antifa just like the political state of Germany republic after ww1 with communist and far right would killing and fighting on the streets and the rise of the nazi party or the after the invasion and defeat of Iraq forces the real fight was the rise of insurgency groups that was real conflict. American history is full of internal conflicts that divided them such as slavery expansion in new states or territories such as the bloodbath of Kentucky that lead to the civil wars, or prohibition and the rise of the mafia, the reconstruction and the rise of the kkk, and the civil rights movement, and the divisions over the Vietnam wars, and finally the the war on terror. These events cause internal conflicts, especially in the 2010s events like terrorist attack that are now domestic, mass shootings, and what to do to stop these have divided Americans even more. You should do a video on a second american civil war.
The Templin Institute I agree with you but I think that World in Conflict: Soviet Assault did the best in America invaded story. By saying we are deployed everywhere else and our generals never thought something like this was possible (portrayed as arrogant) and they do say that the Soviets wanted a beachhead to make China agree to join the war.
You want a really dicey modern war game? It ain't even ethical to mention it, but suppose the US federal government were weakend, distracted, or both, and the states themselves turn on each other. Not realistic right now, but just fast forward a couple decades. The 2040 US Civil War. I don't even like thinking about it.
“Commissar we are at war with America, should we fire the nukes?”
“No we will deploy paratroopers”
“In the capital?”
“No a random suburb in Ohio”
I'M GOING TO THE ONE PLACE NOT CORRUPTED BY CAPITALISM, SOACE!
-Some Soviet premier, red alert
*edit-space not SOACE
*edit-The premier is Tim curry
@country baller *OUR* COMMENT IS CRINGE
Yes Dow it usa Dope a nuke
"We must waste our bullets on every schools"
That's because they want to eliminate Ohio.
Hearts of Iron taught me that anything is possible
Historical Focuses are off, we're fucked.
@@spartan11payne we ARE the historical focuses now
Fuck it, Tannu Tuva world conquest speedrun
@@Dadouf112 laughs in paratroopers
POLAND WORLD DOMINATION SPEEDRUN!!
I think calling it an American civil war with outside nations picking different sides could get you some cool USA battles.
Thats what Ive gone for with a story Ive been working on for a few years now, although with the way events have unfolded in the past couple of weeks, I may not have to look very far for inspiration.... It may end up writing itself, as scary as that sounds.
Ima Popo if you’re talking about left vs right politics in the US, it wouldn’t really be much of a war. The right are a bunch of yee-yee boys that have basically all the privately owned firearms in the country. The left have bike locks and get triggered by loud noises. I know who I’d put my money on.
But I would be interested to hear what your take on this would be.
@@ArchangelUltra Everyone think a second american civil war would be the left versus the right, but to be honest, my money would more be on different states deciding they wanted to go solo and settle a few scores against each other. Not just Texas deciding to return to be the lone star states, but I could see California doing the same, or even cities like New York trying to go city-state, or even northern states deciding they want to be Canadians (which could add Canada as an interested party in this scenario).
Of course, I'm no American myself, so I don't know the full details on your internal politics, so any possibilities I've mention could be completely unrealistic. But hey. Alternate History is fun.
Archangel Ultra listen to the It Could Happen Here podcast, breaks down the possible likely scenarios of another american civil war. it’d be (gov + pro gov militias vs anti gov + anti gov militias vs religious extremists (including evangelical extremists important because many right wing government officials are evangelical christians) vs state formed militia groups. i see it starting off a clear 3-6 way war and eventually turning into a puzzle of fronts due to the social structure and the way states are structured in the united states.
@God Bless America The U.S was a British colony and started off with many wealthy men and women and scholars and engineers already present. They did not start from scratch where did you hear that?
if anything, US invading someone would be more believable fictional scenario
U.S. soil remains untouched and it’s been in multiple wars
@@ano3758 You can't compare Vietnam with Russia. The reason why the U.S struggled against Vietnam was because of the guerilla tactics the vietnamese used.
@@incelisshowing3247 Pearl Harbor, Aleutian Islands campaign, Revolutionary War, so on//
@@bangbootz2878 not only that but the political pressure aswell
@@ano3758 We lost Vietnam for 2 main reasons. The first reason we lost in Vietnam was the draft. All the draft really did was force people who didn't want to be soldiers into combat, not only giving us a military with lower morale, but also scaring the shit out of the public in the process. The second reason we lost the war in Vietnam was that we did pretty much nothing against the North. American soldiers throughout the war just sat in South Vietnam and tried to defend it until a point where North Vietnam would just give up. Assuming China doesn't send half a million troops in response like they did in Korea, had we pulled an all out invasion on North Vietnam like we did Iraq they would've been crushed incredibly quickly. The entire failure of the Vietnam War was as a result of the poor political decisions. It's about as fair to say Vietnam proves America is a bad fighting force as it is to say 1940 proves Britain is a bad fighting force.
Fallout: "War Never Changes"
Metal Gear: "War has changed"
Warhammer 40,000: "There is only war" or "There is only the God Emperor"
Either way, you have plenty of Machine spirits to pray to.
Modern War in a nutshell -> Bad Company: "He said i can blow up anything."
sounds about right
+TheLPRnetwork Ramirez! Overlord ordered you to nuke that tango hotel with your whisky!
Captain Angel FOR THE EMPEROR!
Man, we really need more analysis of Ace Combat countries and organizations
and how the fuck ace combats version of germany played 2 big nations agenst each other AFTER they nuked themself
HungryHunter Some things are best left unexplained
Ikcatcher like how they even build in secret a giant ksat with nukes on it? Yeah better is it.
HungryHunter It was a small group of butthurt Belkans, not the whole country.
not if you lose the drones to some third world hackers like we have today.
Also Lag and hardware errors make one drone pilot less an option then a high payed pilot.
Personally, one idea I've toyed with for a modern war brought to U.S. shores setting is one where through a combination of economic collapse and political instability, America descends into a civil war between numerous warring factions. As a result of this, several world powers are drawn into the civil war to support their proxies and allies on the ground, hoping to create an America that is favorable to their interests. Instead of dramatic landings and surprise invasions, such world powers can thus rely on ports, airbases and beach heads held by their respective proxies and allies on the ground to bring their own troops in. I feel like such a setting would be able to bring about that dramatic imagery of iconic and familiar landmarks being turned into warzones while still maintaining believability. The biggest problem with any overseas invasion is establishing a beach head. But if the invading power already has allies on the ground which can secure a beach head on its behalf, that problem is suddenly eliminated.
Just like Latakia and Tartus were the beach heads by which the Russians brought their troops into Syria, a Chinese invasion of America would make more sense if it turns out that San Francisco was captured by some sort of pro-Chinese American militia which then used the city to allow Chinese ships to dock and unload troops and supplies into California.
That would be a much more believable scenario. A weakened and disunited America is easier to invade and influence.
*laughs in Kaiserreich* that's exactly what happens in that hoi4 mod. Some civil war scenarios cant be avoided and the 2nd American Civil War is one of them. USA will split into at least 3 faction (the socialists in the rust belt, the republicans/possible authoritarian in the south, and the Federal govt) Depending on the situation, the east coast could break away and become a Japanese puppet, and New England can break away to be a Canadian puppet.
Turns out there's a game like that called Shattered Union, where you can play as different American regions or as a European expeditionary force.
@@imperator5228 Nice game, if you're into turn-based tactics. Minimal graphics, though, which is probably why it didn't really catch on. Plus, of course, the scenario being unappealing to the American market.
dude, don't give 2020 ideas
The video should be renamed "the problem with invading the US". I still enjoyed it but I wish it would focus on the subject alluded to in the title rather than a specific scenario.
Expected analysis about how modern wars are mostly about destroying your enemy's economy, watched a rant about games depicting invasions of the USA. Bruh.
I agree.
Pre-american civil war era was the only time u.s could be invade by a super power
Well most depictions of modern war in video games/movies involve a country invading the US, so I'd say it's fairly accurate.
Joshua Robinson i dont think thats true statistically. Most games about wars take place elsewhere. Most war movies are not about US invasion and most war games dont involve battles on US soil. Some do but its mostly terrorism instead of actual war.
Additional note on the Russian part: Even *if* Russia managed to invade US soil, they'd be far more likely to strike Alaska than New York, as Alaska is a stone's throw away from Russia and would not require getting past all of the EU member states.
So basically the Fallout universe, but with Russia instead of China?
GlobalistPotato Yes
Exactly, as nasty as Siberian weather can be, it does not have modern armaments and alliances with the person you're trying to invade. Plus Alaska used to be Russian, it's probably the easiest territory to conquer to convince your population that the war is legitimate.
Teineeva aside from the baltic states that is...
Even then, there's still a whole lot of places where the US' allies would intercept and possibly destroy or at least slow down the Russian advance. A land/sea invasion of the US by Russia just seems extremely unlikely if the Russian forces have to cross through Europe first.
The most unrealistic part of Russia's invasion of the US in Modern Warfare was the fact that they attacked the East Coast. It would be far more believable for them to attack the West Coast since they would only have to cross the sparsely populated Pacific Ocean instead of the going around the entirety of Europe undetected. Plus it would be almost impossible for US allies to get their forces into a position to cut off Russian supply lines. Their only option would be to counterattack Russia's western border, and historically that's been a bad idea. Obviously this is assuming that everyone doesn't just nuke each other in the first half hour though.
Except for the US navy positions in the pacific, Australia's navy positions in the pacific, and Japan's navy positions in the pacific. On top of that 100,000 men are continually based on the west coast. Plus you would have to deal with Hawaii first considering it's the location of numerous navy vessels and aircraft that would be detrimental to any invasion force. Oh also Midway, and Guam both contain airfields you'd have to take out.
Not sure that land invasions of Russias western border would be as bad today as it has historically. With modern materials and fabrics readily available to all armed forces and especially any force already operating in cold climates, the cold winters should be less of a problem. Thanks to modern vehicles such as decent trucks and even huge transportplanes and helicopters, not to mention preservation techniques to transport food without spoiling it, the logistical nightmare of "burnt earth strategy" is not as bad anymore.
Fakjbf There also the problem of logistics you would need a supply a insane amount of ammo and food across the pacific
Fakjbf The sheer size of the Pacific makes that even more unlikely, believe it or not. Towards the end of WW2, the US Navy and the Royal Navy used gigantic fleets to attack Japan, but they also relied on even larger logistical support fleets that are mind-boggling in scope and complexity. That was even before the planned invasion of Japan itself, which would’ve been the largest maritime feat in human history by a large margin, Bearing in mind that Hawaii would need to be conquered before any invasion of the western seaboard could happen, an invasion of the western US (not including Alaska, which would be pointless to attack) is simply insane. Trying to manage a war of that scale with supply lines thousands of miles long is virtually impossible.
Cailus Griffin excellent point but a another major downfall of that strategy would be the colossal mobilization of navy & army asset given the US an amble warning to the possibility of Invasion through the pacific
There's something an American friend told me about the USA that seems to be rather fitting: Every Walmart is practically a miniature military fortress in the event of an invasion.
With all the resources already inside, many of the shelves making good rifle racks and the top floors having windows to shoot out of, if the US Military fortifies every single Walmart, the invaders would have to fight a battle of attrition or just resort to nukes.
The latter meaning that it's not even an invasion anymore.
Daniel Heggem
Yeah, but where are you gonna get a cruise missle for every Walmart in America?
@@Arbiter-dz5qr Sure if they were able to do so completely unimpeded by the two largest airforces in the world.
Russia has never lacked in munition stockpiles it's the reliable delivery that's the issue with havimg all of one carrier and maybe 15 modern Gen 4.5 airframes.
@@Arbiter-dz5qr I'm sure there's something called anti air
@@Arbiter-dz5qr You're acting like Russia successfully invading the US is even remotely possible LOL. The far more realistic idea is the US invading Russia.
@Daniele Lombardo Most likely, a few mortars and maybe a howitzer if they have one spare.
A wallmart will be a veritable fortress against infantry but as soon as some armour or artillery turn up, it's game over.
"Strangereal is a perfectly believable blend of realism and experimental technology..."
Even in *our* world Grunder Industries wouldn't be able to attempt to take over the world as many times as it has and suffer zero consequences.
What about Disney? Disney could do that...
I mean Grunder is just an Alegory for Blackrock or the Munition company like Colt and HK. I mean why America really like to invade other peoples country like Afghanistan, is because of the Munition Company and US defense budget.
i always cringe with the Homefront intro. Kim can't even invade SK but here he manages to conquer all of East Asia
is homefront the name of the film at the start?
Crack Stain No homefront is a mediocre game. The movie in the begining is Red Dawn
Yeah i forgot that chinese want Conquer whole South east asia
@maverickM249 A lot of people didn't pay attention to the storyline, so don't expect people to realize the fact that it's an alternate history game, including Templin (since Homefront was included).
Joel Schembri though I don’t think even the Chinese wanted a conventional war with the US, let alone an invasion of the US. It’s much easier to pursue the diplomatic and economic route for world hegemony rather than military conquest nowadays.
Ah, World in Conflict, such a time treasure. Interesting to note, it has a very active modding community and their is one that makes the game a conversion to the modern era rather than its 90's setting. It also has multiplayer through the community's support. I would definitely enjoy seeing the institute playing it.
stinger913 World in Conflict is the best Strategy game in history.
Edward Collier Its multiplayer is overly dependent on teamwork, tho. There is no option to play pure 1v1 ala Starcraft.
That is what i really enjoyed about that game, that you have to work together ( as well as you can with strangers)
Indeed, it makes almost everything very plausible, a Soviet Invasion of Seattle is not out of the question if most of the US and NATO are more focused on combatting the Soviets in the Eastern Hemisphere.
does it have high system reguirements
You know the saying, “Never start a land war in Asia.” Well the exact same thing applies not just to the U.S. but all of continental North America. Even if a nation was able to successfully start an invasion, that army now has to capture and hold not just the America, but also Canada, and Mexico. Even though the three nations have invaded each other and fought in the past, and Mexico U.S. relations are bad right now for an obvious, orange, reason. The three will still likely come to the defense of each other. Mexico would still much prefer having the U.S. on it’s border than Russia, China, or North Korea, and vice versa.
Now ask the question, who in their right mind is going to want to fight over Nunavut, Iowa, or Chihuahua, other than the people who live there? That’s coming from an Iowan.
Not to mention the scale and geography on north america, you can drive from Berlin to Paris in a couple of days, want to drive from New York to Vancouver? That's almost 3,000 miles and you'll have to cross 2 mountain ranges along the way. Modern armies have issues fighting irregular troops in mountains, imagine a US armored brigade held up in the rocky mountains whatever road they're blocking would be effectively impassable. Some areas in NA are difficult to travel through without there being a war on and defenders blowing up the roads and bridges.
nilloc93
Ex-friggin-actly
@@nilloc93 The US's width is nothing compared to its greatest defence; the two oceans on either side. EVERYTHING has to be shipped thousands of km across oceans infested with the US navy. Want to learn from an actual historic example? During the D-day operation, despite the allies having stockpiled resources in Britain and having made temporary floating docks to land on the beaches, they still had to scramble to secure a deep water port on the French coast or risk running out of supplies. And that invasion was only crossing a relatively short body of water.
ocadioan not completely there are some parts of Alaska that are within visual range of Russia and in the winter that’s frozen over so maybe if Russia and China pooled there resources invaded through Alaska and went down even then they have to get air superiority and Alaska has a pretty huge airbase and then they have a maybe a week at best before most of the US military is mobilized so they could maybe get to northern Calafornia if they ignore Canada and drive non stop
@@jameson1239 The road network in Kamcha can best be described as non-existent. If they want to go that way, they will have to first build a series of roads that make the Siberian railway project look like a light task. Then they get to Alaska, where there also isn't a proper road network.
All hail the mighty kingdom of ERUSEA and our glorious princess
You mean the FUCKING DOG
“Stop thinking so small. It’s salvation on a far grander scale.”
Long live the federation of Osea
DONT YOU SEE??
Ehhhhhh,
Belkas better
"If I told you that the Republic of Emmeria had just been invaded most people's response would be 'Wait, where's Emmeria'?"
My Response is 'Those Stovie bastards are at it again! Time to call Garuda 1'
De Havilland Vampire The Belkans are surely behind this!
Belkans are behind everything!
It's most likely caused by The Grey Men
Damn belkans
Belka always getting in to something.
I believe World in Conflict is probably the most realistic of them all. It's "semi-modern" The game starts already several months into the war with a surprise attack on the West Coast city of Seattle. How they manage to do that? well most U.S forces are in europe fighting the Soviets and with that it provides the perfect distraction to invade. However, they never manage to conquer the entire West Coast. or even advance a lot, they just take the city and surrounding towns and thats it.
Yeah, and although parts of it are a little fishy (Like a Chinese-Soviet alliance when at the time both hated each other), it was overall a good game and I enjoyed playing it.
Not to mention the trouble they have from american civilians. In one cutscene, one character says, "Everywhere we went, we were greeted with bullets".
It also has the benefit of being back when the Russian military was at it's height and could conceivably be considered in the same league as the US.
It also made sense because conquering the US wasn't their primary objective. It was to destroy an R&D facility for the Star Wars program, paving the way for soviet nukes.
@@YaboitheCadian yeah, they pretty much committed a war crime to pull it off.
What I find ironic is the presentation that USA being invaded. It would rather be quite the opposite - the USA would be the invading force.
Even if we take the aggressive US foreign policy over the past decades aside, the US is in a much better position to invade other nations.
With the assistance of NATO, an invasion of Russia could be attempted, albeit I doubt any success would be made even conventionally. It is however a more probable scenario and Russia's military doctrine is that of defense.
USA has a greater amount of aircraft, ships and carriers to assist in a naval invasion of another country, another formidable foe would be China.
Again, it is quite unlikely for the US to succeed in achieving victory over these nations. Yet I emphasize that it is a more probable situation, even more if we take the USA's attitude with other nations.
This assumption I made is based on conventional warfare, if nuclear weaponry is involved, then there wont be a clear victory for sure.
Then you can't pander to american patriotic pride about resistance and freedom
I actually think a modern invasion of Russia could succeed. You don't have to hold Siberia or anything. Conventionally, Russia's military is pretty weak. their greatest strength is their nukes, but we're talking about conventional war here. It's not like the US or NATO would commit the same mistakes of not planning for the Russian winter, like Hitler and Napoleon.
In any war US-China, China would win only by having a fuckton of People to throw at the US, and by having the US collapse faster under it's Civil Tensions.
China would collapse too tho.
@@enderkatze6129 Number of men in your army is a moot point in modern warfare. Saddam Hussein had a million-man army, but was brought low in a couple of weeks by a 200,000 invasion force. It's about overall force applied, where, and when. Even in ancient times, a smaller army could defeat a larger one by using local superiority and clever tactics. Also don't forget logistics, what the US military excels at (the US can supply an expeditionary force in Afghanistan indefinitely, for instance).
@@eXcommunicate1979 historical example: Spartans
Estovakia's unprovoked attack on Emmeria was a very important moment in my childhood
The U.S. has always had one key advantage against invasion, it's Geography. The best way to invade the U.S. is through Mexico, even then you would still have to deal with Ft. Hood, TX which is the largest military base in the U.S.
Texas in an of its self is fortress with a high military presence. Any attack would need to be swift but the resistance from that state alone would bog down any attack where the rest of the nation will be able to respond and counter attack and not to mention I doubt Mexico would just layover while a foreign power invades without making a big scene about it.
Or through canada
@@torinjones3221 dont underestimate Canada they got a strong defense. Also their military is heavily networked with ours we constantly train together on task forces together.
Torin Jones the thing about Canada is that it’s pretty much conjoined to America politically, culturally, economically, and militarily. For pretty much all conceivable scenarios Canada would be an ally of America and there’s little to no threat from the gov itself. A blitzkreig through Canada would not work for the simple massive size of Canada, unlike Europe it would take weeks for a ground force to get from Alaska to mainland America.
Uhhhh I think the desert and logistics of mounting a large enough military action through Mexico is the problem, not tExANs hAVe gUnS
The most *realistically looking* (though not realistic in itself either) scenario would be a war between Iran/Pakistan/India(in whatever combination since it's always changing) as a result of local conflicts going hot. This would pull USA, EU, PRC and RF into the conflict as nondirect combatants AND might put them into it on different sides as well as subtly threaten this turning into a bigger conflict(ie PRC attacks India in support of Pakistan, PRC and RF had another border clash, RF and EU had a series of small engagements while no one is looking and many others). It also would mean a very variable situation in terms of nuclear question interfering with the story and would mostly leave it free to authors interpretation.
you already have that going on in syria
I think a better scenario is China stars a shooting war in the South China Sea with a US ally. Then while the US and allies are busy fighting China in Asia, Russia figures that they can start a fight in the Balkans or somewhere without a US/NATO response. The land war in Europe and naval war in Asian would also have some strong undertones of WW2 that a good writer could play with.
kokofan50
lol. Yeah, except 1)China is biggest economic partner of USA and vice versa. 2)China is always looking into one single direction to expand - Russia. 3)neither of this major countries is interested in upsetting the status quo as despite what bs you've heard, they're all allies even if sometimes it doesn't seem so. They're all premanent members of UN SC as well as such exclusive and renown establishment as "nuclear club". The unspoken law of which is "don't fight your equals, when you can fight someone weaker".
Any scenario that starts with direct confrontation between superpower and member of military alliance of another superpower is just a sign of lazy untalented writer, who's trying to go for either shock value or cater to morons, who believe in such cliche scenarios popularized by generations of such authors.
kokofan50 I kinda agree with you but here’s how my Scenario works
China and japan have a fight in the Senkaku‘s so China declares war on japan America comes to japan’s aid NATO, South Korea, Taiwan, and others join America While Russia, North Korea and most other members of the Shanghai treaty organization join China.
China invaded Taiwan,the senkaku’s ,Okinawa, Vietnam and help North Korea try to invade the south while Russia invaded Eastern Europe, Hokkaidō and former soviet states.
The problem with PRC/Pakistan/India is that you are misinterpreting Asian international relations. If two members start fighting, the third is almost guaranteed to step in and act as mediator, not pick sides, because there is much to gain in prestige and influence by being the peacemaker. Western-style alliances only happen if a given state is sufficiently "westernized," namely Japan.
To put it simply, Italy bombed Libya after coalition forces decided to destroy Libya. This was counter to Italian interests since they had invested heavily in the Libyan state, but alliances forced their hand. In Asia, the worst friend is the one that compels you to do something against your own self-interest. Ergo, they avoid situations of compulsory action and usually look to increase options. This is why the Philippines can still be very pro-US while at the same time courting China.
To bring it back to your examples:
PRC has nothing to gain by attacking India absent of Pakistan's interests, ergo Pakistan would never try to compel China to attack India. This is why they consistently keep China out of any sort of India-Pakistan conflict.
PRC and RF have already settled all their border disputes. Furthermore, PRC and RF have a mutually beneficial situation currently, though shaping RF into an extractive country is easy but not good for the long-term. Putin knows this but his hands are mostly tied. It's possible that he will try and compel the US to resolve the trade war to get something out of PRC, but Putin will do this likely to strengthen succession because a liberal is due in power soon and that could screw things up with the EU, so he won't do it now.
RF and EU is slightly more likely but Eastern European states are chafing against the Western ones from a political standpoint and it is far more likely that RF just continues the soft power influence.
The only likely scenario is over China and Taiwan, and it would likely happen after a settlement between North and South Korea.
"Invasion on the US would be near impossible"
*laughs in Canadian*
Woah, take it easy on the maple syrup bud.
People should look up war plan red (us plan for war with Britain and her commonwealth)
Daeviin well played.
@Johnathan Johnson Never say never many great nations in there prime thought the same, but then a rival arose and toppled them, or there power began to wane and the became victims of invasion. The USA is no different either or special.
@Johnathan Johnson >laughs in Pax Americana
More like obesity and no hablo en espanol world
Ah, that ace combat plug brings joy to my heart.
As a *huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge* Ace Combat fan, I was not expecting this amount of praise of it, and yes, I totally agree with you that creating a "semi alternate universe" is the perfect setting for a modern warfare game, another great solution is to create a new setting completely inexistent in the real world, like in Front Mission Huffman Island, a island which made two allies become enemies for a short while, and most of the conflicts happened there...
The problem with that is the existence of weapons and vehicles that simply shouldn't exist and the only distinguishing things between each nation is their flag as I've only heard a few characters in that game that don't speak with an American accent. I mean what's the difference between Osea an Belka other then geography? They both use the same aircraft and firearms, they speak the same language. How does Edge have a Beretta when that company doesn't exist? I could go on but I won't.... but I could.
An easy solution to one of these issues would be re-naming everything like what Valkyrie Chronicles did with their WW2 weapons.
The tabletop RPG 'Twilight 2000' posts a Soviet invasion of Germany to stop unification in 1995. The players join the action after the nukes and the front is in central Poland and has been fragmented. No military structure in Europe still exists, there are marauders, mixed NATO/WP player parties, China was hit hard by nukes and Bangkok to Shanghai is like a wild east setting.
All NATO units are just trying to get home, for age for food and gasoline, and gather bullet casings to use as currency in the city state of Krakow.
America is included in two ways. The main one is a civil war between the military gov't in DC, and the civilian gov't iin Reston. Also at play is a neo fascist 'New America' in Florida, and a militant Mexico taking southern California, NM, AZ, and Texas while the US is in civil war chaos while most of its army is in Europe. Texas wins independence from Mexico almost immediately.
The game was written by veterans and seems to be the most believable third world war scenario I've seen. It's sequel, 2300AD, is set 300 years later during an interstellar war against an alien menace.
They did an updated version called Twilight 2012 where a US v Russia showdown happened in the Middle East over the oilfields of Iraq. Both sides went nuclear and the setting is much like it was in the original, but with modern tech.
Yeah. I have Twilight 2013 on my shelf. It's not very good in my view.
"to stop unification"? Strange, considering USSR was proposing united, but completely demilitarized Germany from basically day 1, but ok. Whatever does the job for those guys:D
+TheArklyte
If the completely demilitarized Germany plan was revoked, that they wouldn't want unification then now would they?
+LordVader1094
I'll answer the obvious with an likewise obvious counter question: have nuclear armed missiles in Turkey caused Caribbean Crisis?;)
However why would NATO try to forcefully unify Germany is still a question to me.
Watching this after the USA and Iran conflict.
same
Is it really a "conflict"?
@@weasle2904 Nah
There was no war or battle or anything really though
Oh man, I remember when this was the top of the news and not the GIANT piece of shit pandemic and economic worries that happened just a month after
Every commercially viable WWIII scenario starts with three hard-coded premises: 1) the US must be the good guys, at least relatively speaking, or at least noticeably supporting the good guys. 2) the PRC cannot be the bad guys. 3) No special weapons, except locally and for dramatic effect. For those not up on the lingo, a weapon is special if you need authorisation by your country's political leadership to use it. So, nukes and bioweapons; chemicals were considered at the disposal of operational/theatre commanders during the Cold War by both NATO and WarPac. Both sides fully expected, and trained, to fight on a chemical battlefield, yet that reality has never made it into any games.
Points 1 and 2 limit your options drastically - specialist titles like Operation Flashpoint and ARMA can get away with it, not least since a lot of their appeal is platoon- to company-level online combat. However, do note that the original OFP steps back in time and has rogue Soviet units invade a totally fictional island somewhere.
Actual geopolitical reality does not enter into it. And frankly, the average gamer couldn't meaningfully assess that, in any case. Even the ones who can, as often as not, do not care to do so. Gamers are not in the habit of doing to games what critics have been doing to books and films forever, analysing and critiquing them on their content (the story they tell, and how they tell it), rather than their presentation (graphics/sound/pretend realism).
Let's not even start on operational principles; judging by their product, game designers (or at least FPS designers) know little to nothing about those. To start with, it is an axiom of modern war that you try to avoid the cities. Urban warfare is a meat grinder that will be won by the side best able to sustain casualties, and no one, not even the PRC or India have unlimited manpower. It's also a leveller - superiority in arms, training or doctrine means far less in the city than out in the open. It is, however, fun to *play*, which is why FPS are mainly about urban warfare.
Strangereal huh?
ACE COMBAT WINS AGAIN!
OregonCT the best Combat is Ace Combat
Ace Combat does a great job in building it's own nations in a creative and believable way. Osea is like Japan and the USA put together. Yuktobania and Estovakia are like the USSR, China, and Eastern Europe together. But my favorite is Bella, which is like a modern version of fascist Germany.
Ace Combat has the most fascinating modern wars in gaming, and that's due to both it's world and technology available.
Love the strangereal setting. You can use real world modern tech while still having full creative freedom and total control of the world's history.
BELKA DID NOTHING WROOOOOOOOONG
BurnOseaToTheGround
Apparently Italy in some form exists in Ace Combat
@@m1a1abramstank49 or the ethnic italian
“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.” - Abraham Lincoln
Laughs in british
@@lindajanedalley8346 You didn't reabsorb us into your empire, though, and were beaten into a stalemate.
Imperator i didn’t mean that
Well at that time if Brtitish, Spanish, French, Russians, Prussians, Austrians, Ottomans, Dutch etc. United then Us would loose.
"Invasion on the US would be possible in an alternate world setting---"
Me: Youjo Senki
DEUS VULT! DEUS VULT! DEUS VULT!
Los Los Los!!!
Our Blonde Loli still hasnt step foot on US soil though
still doesn't mean never
@@MCAroon09
"Rifles in ever blades of grass"
Invading America might be possible but it doesnt mean it wont be hell
I think the most believable invasion-of-America scenario was the one in World of Conflict. In that game, the invasion itself wasn't an existential threat to the US - a loading screen map near the end of the game shows that even at its worst, the Russians only occupied a tiny bit of the continental US - it was mostly a gambit to tempt the US into withdrawing divisions from Europe, which would have tipped the balance in the USSR's favour. The initial beachhead was achieved by subterfuge, and the US Navy was drawn off by a major submarine missile strike on Norfolk naval base, causing the fleet to be redeployed to make up for the sudden shortage of convoy escorts.
The Seattle incursion only became a threat on two occasions - the first, the advance on Fort Teller, which would have revealed that the Star Wars program was a bluff, which was the game's handwavey-ish justification as to why neither power had gone nuclear. Second, when the beachhead made by the Russians looked like it was going to be exploited by the Chinese for a major push. However, that second threat didn't have the potential to play out in war-ending manner, because if the player's unit failed to retake Seattle, they were going to nuke it and deny the Chinese fleet safe harbour.
i believe the modern conflicts will include classic invasions less and less. today, it is easier to destabilize a country(be it's territory small or especially massive) from within by paying off certain people or political opposition inside the targeted country to ignite the civil unrest/war, and then stroll in to take the control. any full out invasion like seen in movies or games would be an unnecessary waste of resources like fuel, manpower, money, etc.
What modern war commonly fails to depict is how economically devastating it is to go to war anymore. The gains from conquering a bunch of land are usually heavily outweighed by the cost it takes to maintain a modern army. Most of the resources you would desire or go to war for, you can buy for a lot cheaper from a global market, since everyone wants to turn a profit.
It wasn't nukes that ended global conflict.
It was trade.
Exactly. People want to say the USA invaded Iraq for oil, but it cost billions of dollars. Would be cheaper to buy oil.
@@patrickkenyon2326 Exactly. And we didn't invade Afghanistan for mineral rights, it's the Chinese who have those. Ironically, the US does stupid things for mostly ideological reasons, like Vietnam. The US was actually petitioned by the North for support but, because we wanted the French to join NATO (fun fact: they didn't...at least not until decades later) and because the North was Communist (egads!), we did the opposite. It's really the EU which does things more out of commercial interests (i.e. Iran, where they would rather maintain trade in the short term than solve the longer term issue an emotionally unstable neighbor pretty transparently attempting to obtain nukes).
It can't be understated how important trade is in preventing war today.
If you look in the Middle East for example, the biggest reason Iran hasn't gone to war with the Gulf countries is because both the UAE and Qatar are two of Iran's biggest trade partners. The three countries trade billions in natural gas, energy, electronics, manufactured goods, textiles, tourism, investment, etc. This trade relationship is the biggest reason why the UAE has suddenly started to break with Saudi Arabia in the last few months to pursue a more conciliatory foreign policy with Iran. Its the reason why Qatar was never on board with Saudi Arabia's aggressive anti-Iran foreign policy. Trade with Iran is the biggest reason Jordan, Kuwait, Oman and Turkey have all refused to pursue any sort of active confrontation with Iran. Sure, they're not friends by any means, but they are economic partners. A war with Iran will absolutely hurt them economically.
The entire modern day trade order was created from the post-War Bretton-Woods economic order which sought to prevent war by creating greater economic integration between countries. The theory being that countries would be all the more reticent about pursuing war with one another if their economic supply chains and markets are dependent on producers, suppliers and consumers in other, often times potentially hostile countries. And it is a system that has largely worked.
@@Killzoneguy117 UAE didn't break with Saudis, in fact Qatar did, but more than partners. they're enemies ideologically and economically..
well first, global conflict didn't end, in fact it got wider..
Lot of times threat is more than benefit so they cut the benefits for better reason. trade don't ensure your safety, but you see countries do proxy wars like in Syria or Yemen. it has economical, regional influence and in short term safety. in global market you decide who to sell your resources and logistics. ironically both Russia and US help India with military and nuclear programs because it's the enemy of China and Pakistan. they even sell equipment when they create a war.
Honestly, the ONLY scenario where a foreign power would actually have any chance of invading the continental US is if the US itself has collapsed into a civil war or other forms of anarchy. We just have too many factors in our defensive favor, the most significant of which is geography. Our Navy is unquestionably the most powerful military force on the planet and stopping that let alone getting past it to actually land ground forces would be like trying to cross the Atlantic with a rowboat during a hurricane.
IF the USA fell into a costly and widespread civil war, which resulted in the calling home and participation of our military forces from abroad AND significantly weakened our infrastructure, then it would open the door to possible invasion. But, even then, it would be a suicidal decision. Attacking and holding Hawaii or even Alaska would be feasible in that scenario. But an attack against the mainland would more than likely cause the warring sides to regroup and unite against the common enemy much like the two warring sides of the Chinese civil war against the Japanese. Not to mention, even if they did manage to occupy pieces of America, no citizenry on earth has more firepower and willpower than Americans. We are simply too individualist (often to a fault) to just let someone else rule us.
TLDR: Even if some scenario opened up the continental USA to attack, there is practically zero chance short of nuclear annihilation that would result in any sort of victory for the attacking force.
Yeah, even if you could win a war with the US, I don't see how it would be worth it to conquer the US. You'd face constant resistance from the locals, you'd have to spread your forces thin in order to control the truly massive amount of territory in the US; and it's quite likely that several other major world powers would also declare war on you, since if you're powerful enough to defeat and conquer the USA in a conventional war *and* you're willing to actually do it, you're clearly a major threat to world peace that needs to be removed ASAP.
@Megas Pantelos Sure thing bruv.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has always infuriated me. Firstly, Russia is in no state to invade the United States. Sure they may be able to mount an attack on New York if they got extremely lucky, but anyone with half a brain would know it would be a suicide mission. But more importantly, the game (and most "Modern War" games) totally ignores the elephant in the room; Nuclear Weapons.
But my biggest peeve is that the game forgets Mutually Assured Destruction exists. One of the primary purposes of nuclear weapons is so that no great power attacks another directly because the consequence is total annihilation.
But let's assume for a moment that when Russia attacked with only conventional weapons, the US decided only to respond in kind. However, near the end of the game, a character launches a Russian nuke, from a Russian submarine, to be used as an EMP over DC to "help" the Americans fighting there.
The moment that missile left it's silo, the US would have responded with hundreds, if not thousands of nuclear missiles of it's own. This very scenario almost happened in the real world. Russian radar picked up a satellite launch, which due to miscommunications the Russians were unaware of, and they assumed that this single launch was to create an EMP to disable Russia before a subsequent massive strike and invasion. Cooler heads prevailed, because it was peacetime and they realized it must have been a mistake.
In Modern Warfare, Russia is actively invading the continental US, it is an actual nuke being used as an EMP, and while it is supposed to "help" the Americans, nobody would have any reason to believe it is anything other than a nuclear first strike.
So what I'm saying, is that rather than getting Modern Warfare 3 after MW2, we should have gotten a Fallout spinoff.
Justafan IV Let's not forget the Russian invasion of Europe, although I never understood if that was after or during the U.S invasion
Don't forget the clusterfuck that is the coast during that battle. Why are the Russian and American ships so close and concentrated in this one spot?
At least Russia has a land route to Europe. As mentioned in the video, it is inconceivable how Russia could organize the forces necessary to bypass the worlds most powerful air force and navy, and cross thousands of miles of open ocean, without anyone noticing.
And I think the European invasion was supposed to be concurrent with the US attack, which again begs the question of how Russia got the forces necessary to attack the entire Western World at once and somehow be winning.
To look cool, obviously.
The Modern Warfare trilogy would actually make for a decent Great War backstory, if their modern-day setting were replaced with the retro future Fallout aesthetic
Ahhh, Ace Combat....
"Yo buddy, still alive?"
gO daNsE WiT dE aNgEls
Or
Can you hear me?
@@furinick YOU SOLITARY NOW
@@0uttaS1TE
ace combat 7 is out now
And thanks freind... See you again
I’m sure the Romans thought it was impossible for the Carthaginians to reach Rome and ransack Italy. So, not impossible, just highly improbable.
Jack Ohlander
The difference is that Hannibal had the help of former Roman allies to do what he did. If the allies and vassal states were committed/loyal to Rome, Hannibal would have died in the Alps.
also, Hannibal used a paradigm shift in war to make that possible. Rome was unassailable because the mountains were in the way. Hannibal's genius was to decide the mountains weren't in the way, and therefore Rome WAS assailable. The US is unassailable because the world's oceans are in the way, and filled with american carrier groups. If any other nation decides that that shouldn't be the case, and just resorts to moving assets differently, the US is far less invincible.
The US has been shown in the 2016 elections to be extremely vulnerable to psychological manipulation by foreign powers. Recent cyberwarfare attacks have been successfully conducted by nations as small as Iran and North Korea. State-sponsored terrorism has also proved effective: see 9/11. And, of course, there's always the nuclear option, which could be possibly paired by transporting troops and assets on ballistic trajectories using heavy-lift rockets or theoretical hypersonic transports to take and hold ground.
@sol1d gh0st Weapons change
w a r never changes
I love how often you guys use Ace Combat's Strangereal as a reference for so many videos! It's definitely a great universe with tons of lore.
I saw the WiC shout out but I'm kind of sad you didn't go into how the game itself actually tears apart this idea of Russia invading in both the base and its expansion Soviet Assault.
By the end of SA, not only does the Colonel believe this was a terrible mistake, but he ends up shot for it. For then the KGB officer to turn around and agree and get a deal to save those troops that stayed with him to escape. A KGB officer, who mind you, is supposed to represent the central office's viewpoints which were that invading the United States is a sound strategic position.
Soviet Assault, it was the only expansion released for World in Conflict and let you view the invasion of Germany and the United States from the soviet side.
Soviet Assault DLC
William Brayton World in Conflict is such an underrated gem, and yeah, it is a more grounded take on an invasion of America, from how the Soviets had to use regular freighters to how they were greeted in virtually every town with gunfire and a very angry populace. They guaranteed that by the time the war comes to a close, what’s left of the Kremelin will hang and Moscow sacked.
Not no mention they barely even manage, with a strong surprise attack, to break free of the Seattle area, and have to call on Chinese help to have a chance of holding onto their little pocket.
I thought that was just map pack expansion! I didn't realize it actually added onto the story.
If somebody told me Ameria had been invaded I'd ask if they had a lisp
*Emmeria
Why the fugg did this show up on my recommended just now.
You're going to Iran son
Oka
@Big Prick russia will . *russia national anthem starts
@Big Prick fallout shelter theme starts as a nuclear war starts
Big Prick
*China : finally I can eat my dumplings in peace*
The US should not worry about foreign invasion cause geography is on their side, politics is what they should be concentrating on, as politics determines whether there will be civil disruption or not(ex. BLM protests).
You call BLM civil disruption?
@@Void_Wars my bad I meant BLM Riots. They don’t solve anything but cause violence. BLM’s message is the only good about the movement.
When you spoke about COD/MW. I noticed you missed a couple things.
First you are right in what you said. Russia having to conceal the largest mobilisation in history. Sneak past Nato & U.S. surveillance & sail through crowded water ways. All with out being noticed is very unlikely.
You forgot to mention that all this happens a day after the airport attack, which is flat out impossible. It takes roughly a month to sail across the Atlantic.
This means that the Russian invasion force had to already be in position. At least 24 hours off the U.S. coast.
Now as a former U.S. soldier the most believable invasion I've scene with out being an alternate version of our world until the point of the war. Is World in Conflicts invasion of Seattle.
In this scenario the Russian Navy has distracted the U.S. Navy which allowed a large group of unmarked container ships to sneak past & into Seattle's harbor.
Nex Gamez yeah but one day after the attack to get that many troops and armored vehicles to the us would still be a massive red flag to everyone on the planet
The "day system" in old MW is just to create a chronological order of events, not literally a time frame of said events.
Though what I found funny is that the Soviets were simply stopped at Seattle, once the US caught wind of the ships they would’ve been embargoed from any supplies
imagine if that happened irl. some well known ultra-nationalist radicals calling for open war with the west who fought on the same side of the civil war as the current government shoot up an airport in a string of terror attacks then Russian police find a single body away from the actual massacre itself that they claim is CIA.
within 24 hours a suspiciously well prepared and organized Russian paratrooper divisions are in Virginia.
EVERYTHING about this screams false flag.
So, is the place he is referencing at the end the Ace combat world?
Yes.
Captain Angel I believe so.
Hell yeah brother.
Strangereal is the fictional world of the ace combat series
Yee
A scenario where the Confederate States of America won the American Civil war or at the very least one where the war ended in a permanent stalemate/standoff like what north and South Korea have been in for over half a century would be an awesome setting for a modern war story.
Alternate history where every single country in the world gets so pissed off at the US that they collectively unite together for an attack against them, now, it’s a fair fight
Laughs in 120.5 guns per 100 people.
@@valerianperuser1615 Super duper cringe.
@@maru4252 y
please do a short lore video about strangereal
They already made a video about Yuktobania
Muhammad Iqbal Hamdisyah only this one
Muhammad Iqbal Hamdisyah i think he thinks about not specific country but whole planet
Ace Combat Fan has some good videos talking about Strangereal lore
To be honest I thin Luxembourg is the only nation which currently stands the chance of taking on all of nato and antering the US-american mainland.
Viorp You forgot about the mighty sealand.
Well I proposed an equal fight now fun in the US is instantly obliterated.
f
f
What about a Grand Fenwick? (The Mouse That Roared)
4:16 favorite scene from ace combat 6
Strange real fiction is so underrated as you can throw anything you want and have that creative freedom that many can enjoy, possibilities are endless
The Fallout series takes a middle ground between Ace Combat and modern warfare media: It took place in alternate universe that diverged after WWII and gave plenty of plausibility for whatever geopolitics Tim Cain + other writers needed for the backstory. China was able to launch an invasion of Alaska in the 2060s and hold half of the state for over a decade. At the same time, the United States was able to launch an invasion of China in the 2070s and eventually was overrunning the Chinese - until the nukes started flying of course. Details of the war haven't been fleshed out, but I think you're right that supply lines are fragile and naval combat is fierce. I suspect the U.S. had control of the sea and China had to use an overland route in Russia + control of the Bering Strait to sustain their occupation of Alaska.
that game story constantly fluctuates. i mean the governments in that game are all pretty much evil and happily lies. so we as the player do not really know the truth. for instance, we all know Alaska was taken back, but in fallout 4, the Chinese submarine captain seems to laugh at the idea that the US drove the Chinese away from Alaska. And we are told that the US is winning and carving a route through china, but is that true? the only information in game comes from the US government.
Still don’t see how China can even maintain the logistics to have a static war in Alaska. Remember, China is running out of oil and is traditionally a land power.
@@mxn1948 Latest lore suggests that China still had control of Alaska while the USA managed to land in China, quickly cutting deep inside its territory thanks to the use of tactical nukes.
I will be honest, the World in Conflict invasion scenario far more believable
In all honesty, that wasn't even the primary goal, the Soviets only invaded with the hopes the US would divert forces from the front in Europe and the USSR could break the stalemate
"The Canadians, have bombed, the Baldwins."
What a relevant recommendation!
In homefront the revolution, its set in an alternate timeline where north korea pretty much invented modern apple in 2005.
That's Homefront 2, though. What they showed was Homefront 1, which is China reskinned as North Korea.
Ace Combat AND World in Conflict? VERY nice.
The first thingthat has to happen for me is an explanation of how the US and her Allies (particularly NATO) had some sort of falling out which led to the USA leaving the group. Then I would need an explanation to how the US Fleet was destroyed or damaged enough to leave enough space for a large invasion possible. That is, of course, for the "Realistic MOdern Day" route.
T R U M P
My god Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation was my favorite!
7 blew 6 out of the FOOKIN water
Ace Combat's music is honestly the best thing.
characters were pretty badass
Mobius One, Fox Two!
Oh! Jean Louis has been hit!
Wardog 4, fox 2!
Eagle 20, Fox Two!
Ghost Eye: SLASH! (The AWACs operator if you shoot the EML from the CFA44 :) )
CorpalBrandon Gene, get a grip! You've got to take over command.
What are the cinematics used? cant really see it in description, nor google it. good footage
I have always wondered why there hasn't been an expansion of Strangereal's potential. I would love to see it!
I propose an alternative solution if you want to turn US cities into battlefields. Depict a second american civil war. This obviously still has potential problems such as it's very unlikely and it's also bound to get political really quickly.
But here me out. I don't think that these problems are insurmountable, unlike CoD:MW and Homefront's scenario's are, and a clever writer could make this work for them. For example, let's say a near-apocalyptic event happens that undermines modern society like a massive sun flair destroying electronics, a powerful zombie virus, or something like that. It's not enough to end civilization but it does put it in a hot frying pan. Enough to induce a government to enforce extreme measures to survive which naturally creates opposition. This could also help avoid offending dems or repubs by saying such a cataclysmic event would change the political landscape to something unrecognizable while still keeping the setting vaguely resembling the modern world.
What do you guys think?
Reminds me of Jericho, a TV show that had nuclear terrorist attacks on American cities leading to a Second Civil War between two groups claiming to be the legitimate government. It avoided being super political by being a simple power struggle in the aftermath of a cataclysm.
@@pach6678 it went political late in the second season but it was about how the new government was really not the federal government but an empire in the aftermath
Bruce Wayne an American civil war isn’t unlikely. Have you seen the aftermath of the 2016 election?
I think that if a Second American Civil War were to start, I don't think politics is a good enough reason. If so, I believe that it would have to have multiple factions rather than two sides like the first one. These factions (in my opinion) would break off due more to their own state interests and economic reasons. But that's just my take.
Politics doesn't seem like it would cause another civil war at the moment. Just because it is divisive does not mean that it is a cause for war, something neither party would want.
@@timdecoursey287 how about social and Economic struggles paired with a unpopular government doing a very controversive choice like banning guns and reducing civil rights. Such an aggrigated climate could surely ignite a spark leading to a second civil war but with less fokus on states vs states but a proper civil war
Ps: just mix in some covert foreign Manipulation through social media with lies etc. and you have a formula for foreign invasion
Actually, it doesn't have to be a full-scale invasion, just the illusion of one. In the 1990's, when the US and allied forces were planning to invade Kuwait, a small team of US Special Forces (a SEAL team) essentially made the Iraqi forces believe they were being invaded by a full regiment from the sea. So the same thing could work: small special units would make it look like a larger force was invading to essentially cause chaos and stress out defenses.
Besides, US pop culture is so full of these "Invasion USA" scenarios that I think it'd be really easy to do with the right people and location.
Hard to trick someone when they have spy satellites and modern radar.
@@benlawton5420 you can trick the people so they go histerical and make wrong decisions. If people can believe the earth is flat, they can believe an invasion, especially if they see their town turn into a warzone, no matter what the government says.
@William Wykoff no, only some of them.
TI: "The Republic of Emmeria has been invaded."
Most people: "What's an Emmeria?"
Me: "Scramble all fighter. It's time for f*cking crusade!"
Dance with the Angels
I gotta say, I do love all the clips from World in Conflict. Good stuff :)
Hearing the word "Strangereal" it was a surprise but a damned welcome one
I honestly thought this video was going to be "The problem with a conventional war in a modern setting.. everyone has nukes and everyone's allied"'
Really surprised nukes and defense alliances weren't even mentioned. I also don't like how the video focuses so heavily on media depicting a fictional invasion of the United States of America, while the rest of the world has been reduced to a two line footnote of being a good alternative to "provide the same level of spectacle." This video doesn't dig in to the real problems of modern war at all.
It just seems really weird to me to not talk about "The problem with modern war" on a global scale, or from a perspective which isn't American. There's lots of media depicting fictional modern invasions of Europe, Asia and Russia. Places where a fear of invasion is much more tightly knit into their culture.
It's not even subtle, the video starts with "There's a moment that seems to pop up in almost every depiction of GLOBAL modern war - the calm and quiet of an AMERICAN suburb" and ends with "All the arguements I just made are completely invalid if a chain of events prevents the United States from achieving the global hegemony it currently enjoys". Well hey, what about the rest of us?
This is a waste of a good title and subject, the video should be renamed "The problem with a conventional invasion of the American continent" or maybe "The problem with the plot of MW2 and Homefront". And there's nothing wrong with those titles, but when the video is this heavily catered to Americans, it really shouldn't be named something this vague.
Remember MAD though. They would more likely start a conventional war because no-one wins in nuclear war.
I feel as though the "everyone's allied" aspect, is half of the reason we fought WWI (or, more so you guys, and we chimed in like a month or two before the war ended) and the "everyone has nukes" would greatly damage, but not destroy a nation's military... unless the nations responsible for deploying said weapons could care less about the possibility of a nuclear winter (which would then simply turn the game into an "apocalyptic scenario" game)
True, most of the really popular media depicts the US as someone everyone wants to invade even though it is impractical and it's much better to take down the US's fleets so they can't interfere that much
That is because the video is focused on modern war's depiction in fictional content, not a realistic future scenario. It's basically tipping off writers to avoid certain pitfalls other fictional content falls into.
im pretty shocked that this long freaking essay u wrote got 73 likes lol i guess people actually took their time to read it 🤔 and u must've made some good points, im not gonna read it tho lol
Hey Marc, what’s your opinion on the believability of Red Dawn? (The original movie from the 80s)
Lol who's watching this after all the recent ww3 crap going on?
I will always LOVE the raw amount of Ace Combat exposure on this channel, because it really does do a great deal of these issues correctly.
Gotta keep the hype alive for Skies Unknown!
The nostalgia for long time fans is going to be great.
The Templin Institute at this rate I prefer Release Date Unknown; let's hope that gets fixed at E3
Shame I've never played the series, since I was young I've always wanted a combat aircraft game, but the best I've got was non-combat flight simulators and Battlefield 3-4 I'd definitely give it a shot if anyone knows where a good place to start is.
Ace Combat 4, 5, and Zero are great. Ace Combat 6 is one of the newer ones, however it's on xbox 360 only and the story is pretty run of the mill. There was Ace Combat Infinity on the PS3 that was free to play with microtransactions for more playtime but the game servers are shut down now since Ace Combat 7 is soon to be released. I'd say wait for Ace Combat 7 to release or try one of the older Ace Combat games available, excluding Ace Combat Assault Horizon which was absolute garbage.
Modern wars are not fought over land or resources, but politics and ideologies. Nowadays, wars are fought through proxy, the korean and vietnam wars between NATO and CSTO, and more recently the proxy war in the middle east by the saudis and iran.
Oil can still be a major reason for wars. If the resource is valuable enough, people might well fight over it.
It's still over resources, albeit less directly.
Wars are still being fought for resources, but the nature and manner of controlling those resources has changed. The cost of war (especially modern war) is far too prohibitive for there not to be some sort of financial compensation for winning. War is, whether defensive or offensive, always an investment. There has to be some sort of return on victory beyond "Our side won."
hell ya, oil is still a reason. www.wpainc.com/Archive/Reagan%20Administration/WFM%20Papers%20from%20Reagan%20Archives/Iran-Iraq/Presentation%20on%20Gulf%20Oil%20Disruption%205-22-84.pdf
even if modern wars were fought over ideologies (which i wont 100% agree with) resources would still serve as motivations for war. if country of opposing ideology controls the resource you have to gain control over it as there is no better way to spread your ideology than economic and military power
Bro I love HOME FRONT!!!!
I'm pretty happy you used that game footage
3:49 just like red dawn, which you showed at the beginning
Always glad to see Ace Combat getting a shoutout!
Well, Ace Combat does not usually have problems with having unexisting countries on an unexisting globe becouse of the great storytelling in every good AC game. To be fair, all ACs located in our world have always created less feeling then those from Strangereal 1 and Strangereal 2
Warwolf 300 and USA vs russia is not intresting but conflict in strangreal are soo intresting
Indeed. My favourites were the Belkan War and the Circum Pacific war
A poza tym, siema pl
I’d honestly enjoy a game where if the United States is invaded, you’re not on the front but instead in the back evacuating citizens
i like the soundtrack in your videos. makes your videos perfect honestly!
I was more invested in the world of Strangereal in ace combat than whenever anything is set in the real world. But then, I do love worldbuilding and lore so it fits me quite well
I always thought Ace Combats approach was a good one. Also, AC 5 is amazing. Best story in any air combat game ever.
I like AC:0
Damo2690 yeah I like AC zero too more..
Denazon Ace Combat is an underrated series
AC4, AC5, AC0
The holy trinity
Callsign-YukiMizuki 6 and x too
This is one of the reasons why I enjoy futuristic wars.
Where does that visual effect come from? Where that blue diamond waves up and down as you speak?
world in conflict had a pretty good setup for the invasion, i found it believable
Agreed, though i can't help but think they would have sent in Spec Ops units to infiltrate through Alaska before the invasion to cause some chaos.(there is a movie with similar plot to this which i'm getting the idea from but i forget the name of it)
ruben g e for me I still found it just as full of holes as Red Dawn because while they did go into major detail on the events that occur even still highly unlikely to occur because it just requires too many things on the north Korean side going right in order to succeed.
@Xadion
Their main reason of invading US is to destroy the US anti ballistic missile program that is located near Cascade Falls.
This will enabled Soviet forces to enjoy the superiority of their nuclear weapon being unstoppable. That is why the General are willing to nuke the Cascade Falls alongside with Banner units.
I always had an idea for a movie where the American revolution took place in the modern day. It’d totally be believable and suspenseful. In this universe, the British are still an empire and rule over the modern day thirteen colonies. And since they aren’t even a nation, the US wouldn’t have any nukes, it would also give audiences the perspective our forefathers had when they faced the most powerful military of their time.
The only problem with that is that Britain wouldn't own the whole land mass of the US no interests there and they wouldn't have been able to just buy it off the Spanish and French who did own those lands so the British would only control the east coast largely maybe up to the Mississippi river
@@808INFantry11X
That would be a problem. Because if that did take place in a modern setting the new world probably would have been discovered before their equivalent of the 1850's. Also the problem of supply lines Brittain had in our time line wouldn't even exist because planes and modern boats.
@@marrqi7wini54 good point. My explanation was in a more realistic setting like back when the British Empire still owned the American Colonies say the Revolutionary war never happened or was quashed Britain had not interest on owning the entire continent not with its assets India and the rest of Asia they proabably would have stuck most mostly to east coast because they wouldn't have the manpower or willingness to expand. Without the US there would be not real incentive to create the Panama Canal so that changes many variables.
Could you imagine World War 1 and 2? You guys would have been in it for the whole war and there would be a lot less people bragging that America won the wars.
Likely, nuclear weapons wouldn't have been invented as the English would see no reason to retaliate against the Japanese Empire. World War 2 would have been the Eastern Europe and the CommonWealth of the British Empire likely working with the USSR to stop Japanese expansion into British Territories in Asia.
Honestly, this, with more modernized weapons based off technology from the fallen German y and Nazis would make for quite the strategy game.
A game with modern weapons where meat grinders are acceptable. Wow
That thumbnail be reminding me of one of my greatest moments in gaming
What's that background footage at 2:10, it's really cool!
I love the strangreal Ace Combat reference here.
Ace combat 6 Was FANTASTIC! Great story and a world where the wars seemed believe able.
Go dance with the Angels!
Personally I like zero. 6 felt cringey with all that angel bullshit
What movie was that in the first part
"UYR does not have that problem"
Yup, they've tried to invade Sand Island, but Wardog and the Nuggets get 'em :P
Nice Shoutout to Ace Combat 👏
An Invasion of The United States by Russia, is nearly completely impossible or simply would result in a mayor loss by Russia. The Reason is quite Simple: 1. It is near impossible to send a force large enough undetected. 2. US has by far the larger Navy, therefore would be able to cut of supplies with relativ easy in a certain amout of time. (Russias Navy is a Defensive one). 3. Over America USA would have the definite Air Supiority
What if in a hypothetical scenario the bearing strait freezes enough for soldiers and mechanized infrantry to walk/drive on it? Does the US have enough icebreakers?
Does anyone know how he gets that audio cube thing that shows the sound frequencies?
What was the movie scene from at the beginning
I think an alternate history set in the 1960s where the Cuban missal crisis has evolved into a global nuclear war would be believable. Seeing troops in hazmat suits fighting it out in the irritated streets of Europe would be an interesting video game setting
I don't think it needs to be that extreme. It's not so much that the US is uniquely powerful, but that the rest of the world isn't. WWII devastated almost all participants, the only ones who enjoyed a true golden age was the USA, especially since they didn't have to fight on home soil. All that's needed is a world where the US didn't get such lopsided results from a war, and invasion becomes much more likely.
devak true that would work how ever for that to happen there would have to be a much greater divergence from reality the United States got its advantage from its massive wartime economic boom in addition to the fact that it was one of the only industrialized countries in the west that hadn’t been bombed to rubble for the us not to come out on top after WWII would require either Germany acquiring long range missiles like the proposed V3 which never got of the drawing board or a Japanese invasion of the west coast.
In any case an alternate history where this happens would require the war to go on much longer than it. Either better German technology which would give Germany more time to hold back the Soviet Union or America being preoccupied with japan which would allow Germany to concentrate its resources on the eastern front also expanding the war. In short the Soviets would also likely be worse off and would be at the same level as America post war and would be unable to launch an invasion.
Tl,dr ounce a country with America’s resources and population was Mohbilelised by a global war it would become a global power house. Although I like the direction your theories headed in it would require a great divergence from reality where as mine would only require a miscommunication or a few ships crossing an imaginary line into Cuba
For more info on how close we came to WWIII look up Stalinslav petrov
thats why i love acecombat
one thing to consider about invasions is establishing a beachhead, you never let your enemy establish a beachhead because once they do it's almost impossible to regain lost ground.