Amen. This is one of the reasons a huge military like China still needs to think twice about attempting to invade Taiwan, whose main island is extremely mountainous and 100km of open water off the coast of China. Necessary achievements like air superiority are essentially out of the question when your helicopters only have enough fuel for a one-way trip and have nowhere to land. That's assuming they make it across the strait to begin with. Their only shot is to throw the kitchen sink at them and hope for the best, but the losses they'd incur while doing so would be obscene.
So, let’s build a nation surrounded by ocean, no beaches but all high cliff sea walls, and a curved transparent roof covered in grease so any bombs or paratroopers just slide off it into the ocean.
It always amazes me how Malta is never mentioned in having the smallest army. We only have around 2000 soldiers, no tanks , a very small navy and only a few aircrafts without weapons and only used for search and rescue.
Yeah except no one can get to malta with its position in the meditteranean except european powers, as the strait of bosporus and the strait of gibraltar are heavily guarded and cant fit a large navy. Europe and Turkey are all on good terms with malta, so its actually quite defended
Isn't it true that a lot of your military strength is used as symbolism and tradition? Been to Malta recently and went to your cannon museum and valetta, and the historian mentioned this.
My Country belize only has 1k soldiers. 0 tanks 1chopper with no weapons 1 small air craft with no weapons Only about 10 vehicles to transport soldiers and most of the time are In garages Coast guard with about 5speed boats lol that's it.
Weakest: 10. Panama 0:12 9. Central African Republic 2:55 8. Gabon 6:37 7. North Macedonia 9:33 6. Eritrea 13:40 5. Suriname 17:07 4. Sierra Leone 19:54 3. Somalia 23:11 2. Liberia 27:12 1. Kosovo 31:02 Strongest: 10. Pakistan 1:03 9. Brazil 4:12 8. United Kingdom 7:50 7. France 11:05 6. South Korea 15:00 5. Japan 18:10 4. India 20:54 3. China 24:21 2. Russia 28:00 Honourable Mention: Bhutan 31:40 1. United States Of America 32:00
Just from the military equipment taken from Russia, Ukraine's military has tripled in size - which is even better than what they've managed to destroy.
@@kylejay8493 VERY different levels of tech. Zero offense meant to Ukraine, but they are only still fighting because of Western equipment - and they still may lose. Russia always fights wars of attrition with heavy, heavy losses.
I was expecting this to be more about things like geography, social cohesion, ect. A strong army is important, but is by no means the deciding factor on how difficult a country is to take over.
I used to be an American Paratrooper and I often trained with nato militaries and I’ll I have to say is this. The British Paras are by far the best trained fighting force over ever seen in operations. I guess when you’re a small homogeneous force it’s easier to train all of your men to that degree. Cause they put us to shame tactically speaking in small unit movements
Idk when I trained with them in a joint operation in jrtc we gave them the easiest task and they got mass cassed, dropped the ball and put us a day behind on insert so we had to land many miles before our original insertion to the box and having to ruck much further through the woods, they got embarrassed, but could just be a fluke
You should take cybersecurity into account in your military powers vids. A modern military is worth nothing if it gets heavily disrupted by cyberattacks in the first hours of defending itself
@@dinamosflams lol no? It s even the other way around. China is behind in terms of cryptography, that s the reason they invest in quantum networking, to bypass the need of cipher algorithms
I heard that this is a large focus with the UK military which is why the planned on retiring their challnger tanks to focus more on cyber warfare since they don't have the number to compete on land warfare.
not too crazy.. the U.S entertained its troops many many times whilst they were in afghanistan and iraq, from comedians, celebs and many song artists. held massive concerts and such for them. can be justified by saying they were "bummed out" by being deployed so its almost the same thing
@@legendaryryan1623 But the Chinese soldiers were in training, and the US Soldiers were in an army. And where did u hear of celebs? Lol US Only had prostitutes
I believe in all of these videos a lot of key factors are missing when it comes to war, as anyone that has served or has any military experience will know, defeating someone in battle does not just happen because you have more numbers than them or better equipment...although it does help. Things such as the morale, combat experience, leadership, level of training and skill of each individual is vital in war because if any of these are lacking it can turn tides. One soldier that is extremely skilled with a basic rifle is better than 10 that don't know how to use their good ones. or as Napoléon put it, "if you build an army of 100 lions and their leader is a dog, in any fight, the lions will die like a dog. BUT if you build an army of 100 dogs and their leader is a lion, all dogs will fight like a lion.”
As someone who also has military and a small amount of general DoD experience, this point you lay out should be obvious to those who have been on any type of real-world battlefield, so I 100% agree. An additional point to keep in mind though, concerning technology and gear, we really have no idea what kind of weapons innovation the internal services (think triple-letter agencies, organizations like DARPA, and private defense contractors like Battelle) have come out with that 99.99% of people are not privy to. This same sentiment goes for the other world powers like China, Russia, Western European powers, S. Korea, etc.. This is largely a hunch, but I gua-ran-tee you that there are weapons tech at minimal functional prototype stages that would likely blow most of our minds. A modern hot war would be very interesting, not to mention terrifying for those parties involved. *EDIT:* There are multiple reasons why the U.S. Defense budget dwarfs even China by 2.5 times and "conspiracy theorists" talk about a 'Black Budget'.
@@ADPax10 yeah 100%, if a full scale war were to kick off it would have very little firefights between small groups with the tech and weapons advancement nowadays…whole divs would be getting wiped out in weeks if that
The most important part though is the alliances of the nation. For example if a country is in NATO they're essentially untouchable no matter how small the army,same for any country that has an official alliance with Russia or China. If they don't have an alliance but good relationships it will also be important like what happens in Ukraine (Russia facing heavy sanctions and also Ukraine constantly receiving equipment from the west and even some mercenaries). If it's let's say a middle Eastern country with no alliances (cough Afghanistan) things will be easier
The video was titled about what would be the hardest to annex, or invade, but it ended up being about only military power. These may share, and the military power does make invasion harder, but geography and other things play a role too. For example: The Swiss military may not be the biggest (Excluding the reserve force), but Switzerland is way harder to take over than you would think. Period.
Though not mentioned in the basically UScentric video, even us in Australia would be hard to invade. Not only is our climate against invasion, the geography can be a challenge, being mostly sparsely populated desert, the requirement for long supply lines, at least initially, is also a problem. The only way an invading force can get here is via sea or air.
I'd say Finland is up there too. Thousands of lakes and forests that makes it difficult to invade. Rough terrain and lots of swamp like terrain. Forcing you to invade on the roads where you can easily control the enemy and make them suffer for every inch of land they take
@@ThePersonWhoAsks yea. And that was just the winter when everything was frozen over. That wasn't when the swampy areas would be too much of a problem. The tracks of the heavy russian tanks on wet mud in the middle of swamps, lakes and forests would also be an easy target.
Agreed - the title is really misleading. In the UK part, for example, it talked entirely about how the UK struggles to project power over distance without US help (referencing the Falklands - 8000 miles away) and didn't even reference how easy/hard it would be to invade.
I have to say this, because I am British. When Argentina first invaded the Falklands an incredibly small group of Royal Marines disabled lots of important equipment for a war like submarines and artillery. Eventually when they were told to surrender to keep them alive by the Great British government, the Argentinians had to count how many Royal Marines there were, because they did not believe that such a small group of incredibly brave soldiers could have caused so much damage and disruption.
@@BisexualPlagueDoctor Thats just a fact. My uncle was an Airborne Ranger. He eventually became an instructor. Taught airborne how to jump. He had been Airborne for years. Did hundreds of jumps. Before they had him teach other Airborne, he had to go to England and train with SAS or whoever.
Here’s a fun fact: Denmark does not have a standing military. We don’t have an army. We have a defence. To be fair our neighbour is Germany and we all know how well that went for us last time
Brazil also has some major advantages, a huge population, and terrain so horrible that even Brazil strugges to develop itself, Brazil has lots of costal cities, most of the major cities are costal, what folks don't realize is that vast majority of second tier cities are in highlands (wich spreads all over across the continent) , and are filled with with military hqs It would be easy to invade Brazil, but incredibly difficult to hold or retreat.
That all also makes it so no one really can invade them. They're far larger than the rest of the countries in the America's save the US and the fact that the US has maintained the idea for over a century that the America's are their sphere of influence and threaten war with anyone who'd attempt it. This almost lead to WW3 when Cuba aligned with the USSR and that was just an internal rebellion. The US is the only one who could invade and they have zero reason to do so.
Poise, São Paulo mesmo tem vantagem no terreno, destruindo os túneis que conectam a capital ao litoral, os militares não podem subir apenas contornar pelo Rio de Janeiro ou Paraná e nisso já perdem muitas horas tempo suficiente pra armar baterias antiaéreas na cidade e proteger as rodovias adjacentes
@@gamenisgezond4464 Then again Swedish vikings weren’t the feared ones as they mostly traded in the east. Its the norwegian, danish and icelandic vikings that were a real threat
What? Sweden has a strong military and makes world class aircraft and other weapons. It scores close to Canada and Ukraine which both have quite powerful militaries.
They’re openly lying. The Uk refused any help from the usa in the falkland wars and the war last 74 days. Also 100 British marines thrashed 1500 American soldiers in war drills.
Exactly I'm pretty sure a few us cargo ships are used to help with logistics but that can be expected when the conflict is 1000s of miles from home and the nearest base is only about 2/3 the way there
We don't have the biggest army, but we have the NHS lolololololololol Regardless, we have nuclear weapons, submarines, carriers, modern airforce, and who knows what cyberwarfare tech
India has 3 Aircraft carrier, 2 operational and 1 under construction, Its developing it's own 4.5G Tejas MK2 and 5th Gen AMCA. India's missile program is one of the deadliest and most advanced program with a huge line of versatile weponery. India is also developing it's own arsenal of weapons to decrease it's dependencies over US or Russia
Agree. India is an up and coming industrial economy. Their economy will soon outgrow BRICS and they will want to snuggle up with the economies of NATO nations and it's protection from GYNAHH!!!.
Mig 21 of Indian airforce is not comparable to modern jets but it should be noted it is the most advanced variant of mig21 and it did shoot down one f16 before getting shot down. And IAF already has several squadrons active for su30mki and mig-29upg and Tejas . And for tanks there is 2000~ T90S/MS and 2000~ t72mk1/mk2
also in India china border clashes of 2020 - INDIA only lost twenty personnel, while china only officially announced death of only 4 personnel but it was reported by a Australian media agency that 38 pla soldiers drowned in the water and died that day so total goes up to = 4+38=42 . So india clearly defeated china.
Brazil have a solid defensive military, they have enough troops and tanks to defend against any other south american country and have the navy to over power any other navy in the area other than America. All it means is they would struggle really bad as an offensive force without air superiority, but they have enough defensive units to be able to deter an enemy from attacking them not to mention the land itself being very difficult for an occupying force to navigate through. Its a good balance to be fair
Paises gigantes territorialmente nunca serao invadidos, pois quem tentar vai fracassar. E so se basear em total de soldados e equipamentos nao diz nada, pois vejam a Russia, segundo mais forte nesta lista, esta sofrendo para derrotar a Ucrania que nem na lista aparece. Ah vao dizer q eh pq EUA/Europa estao ajudando, oras nao podemos esquecer to Pacto do Rio, que exige e demanda que todos os paises do continente americano protejam uns aos outros em caso de invasao estrangeira, ou seja, seria impossivel algum pais de outro continente tentar algo.
But still they are hard to invade .. Russians may see a new revolution or coup against current dictatorship of Putin ( i like putin as a person ,but people of Russia may hate him for this unwanted Ukrainian war , which gained less , lost much ) .. That may change rankings .. India and China may go up ..
@@vandematram4 I feel right now China could go right into Siberia no problem and Putin's only response be nukes or suicide.... Russia is probably in like 5th place on this list.... and it depends on the conflict type, Vietnam? Afghanistan? David beats Goliath all the time...
hmm idk china is definietly higher than russia(on paper because we are yet to see them in a real battle) but India is a little behind because most of the indian weapons are russin made and a liitle old for the current time(they are in the 2000s era) but at this rate india might go up but china is definetly on top because they have wayy too much🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑@@vandematram4
Although the uk’s army may not be what is used to be, we have the most highly trained soldiers and special forces on the planet with centuries of experience and we live in an island to shield us from attackers
Doesn't matter how big your army is its how well they are trained, British have some the best trained troops in the world, just look at the paratroopers and SAS also look at wars UK been in how out numbered they been and still won battles
@@orphandestroyer I'm pretty happy about it, sure the taliban aren't the best, But having peace after 20 years is a big thing. They can't keep women from going to work and school forever
Let's get it right Japan was deprived of any military capability after WW2, it's not that they enjoyed being pacifist's and they had no choice but to be protected by the US. Japan was not allowed an offensive Military after WW2 Unlike Germany which was allowed to increase it's military power. Japan is still prohibited from establishing a military force, it's also not allowed to solve international conflicts through violence. So there is a valid reason Japan is considered to have a weak military.
It's also the reason Japan is the 3rd wealthiest country in the world. No military spending need as much. Imagine the US not needing to waste money on military spending and putting it elsewhere?
Its depressing how japan is the only major country on earth that has to have its foreign relations and its military dictated by foreign powers, including its greatest enemy China. China sees itself as entitled to having aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and an aggressive imperialistic military but freaks out if Japan buys missile defense systems or tries to build any ship more powerful then a defensive destroyer. Can you imagine if Germany got to dictate what vehicles the russia military could build or if America got to decide if China was allowed to build any air defenses?
21:44 inferior Indian MiG-21 took down a Pakistani F-16 before going down. Indian armed forces NEED equipment upgrades, but what it lacks in equipment, it makes up with extremely capable defence personnel.
Proud Aussie here, can say with pride I've worked along side our American, English, Japanese, Canadian, new Zealand and French brothers, all professional all the best at what they do 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
@@Therabidrabbit89 Doesn't matter? You're not very bright, are you? Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish soldiers aren't English, nor do you see English flags on British military uniforms. It's not like people call you a Kiwi either, right?
This video fails to take in quite a few things when discussing America. How well a country can defend against a foreign invasion has a lot to do with geography and it's honestly unbelievable how perfect the geography of America is for defending against invaders. Not to mention roads and borders with Canada and Mexico were set up with military goals in mind. And that's not even taking into account the fact that a large chunk of the population owns a firearm. There would be so much guerrilla warfare
^^^ *this.* The United States’ geography is so incredibly impressive for defense against foreigners that it’s almost feels like cheating. Not only are there the vast oceans to the east and west, but also allied nations to the north and south. Even if you managed to somehow get past the oceans undetected, you’d have to go through the largest navy in the world and the air force before ever reaching land. Framing the two coasts are also two enormous mountain ranges-the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachian Mountains. You also brought up the point of the insane amount of citizens armed with firearms. I currently live in a community where hunting is the hobby of the majority of people-they know how to use those fire arms and are not afraid to. Next is the sense of patriotism. A country will fight harder than _ever_ when their country is on the line. It’s completely different than being the ones invading others. Also did I mention how the United States can be energy and food dependent? Cutting off trading or outside help wouldn’t do much since the United States can sustain itself with its vast amount of resources. Plus there is almost every biome here imaginable and foreign soldiers cannot prepare for everything. I’m not even going to bring up how every country in NATO would have to come the the US’s aid. I’m only scraping the surface here as well 😂
Military strength is not a good measure of a country's overall strength. Things like the projection of soft power (nuclear weapons for example as deterrent) obviate the need to maintain a big standing army and strategic partnerships like the ones the UK has with the US makes the countries less appealing as target for invasion. There is a single fact not addressed by this video, COSTS. Maintaining a standing army can easily bankrupt a country and should only be done if there is a real threat to its sovereign integrity. One look at how the US spends around 5 times the amount of money on its military than the other 5 top militaries in the world COMBINED shows how costs can spiral out of control. Many countries maintain minimal military strength simply because they have no imminent threats that require continual spending on defense.
Your forgetting some of these counties do have the ability to build nuclear weapons but cannot because of a world treaty. So if their nation was into a threat,yes they can actually build their nukes,so if your American be kind to your neighbors without weapons of massive destruction.
I am Brazilian, and I must say that our military lack experience just because we haven't fought a war in ages, and it wouldn't be a simple task to invade Brazil. The forests are too difficult to even just walk, the rivers are too large and violent, and we have ecossistems that can't be found anywhere else, like the Caatinga and Cerrado, what means that no other country can really think about having an easy time fighting in our beloved land. Soldiers from the US, UK and other superpowers come to Brazil to train for warfare in jungles. (Sorry for the bad english)
Na verdade temos experiência militar sim!!! O exército brasileiro esteve envolvido em diversas operações, principalmente em operações de paz da ONU durante toda a Guerra Fria. Lutamos em Israel, Egito, Líbano, Chipre, República Centro Africana, Haiti, etc... Etc... As vezes com milícias organizadas, chefes do crime, a máfia, exércitos rebeldes, etc... Etc... Até nisso o vídeo está errado
@@gabrielmac369 não dá pra se comparar a experiência de ALGUNS militares com toda a contingência que compõe o exército, menos de 10% desses militares ativos talvez tenham alguma experiência de guerra.
To invade a country located in American continental, invaders can’t be an outsider because it’ll become a threat to USA & Canada… That’s why this continent is so quiet for now…
To invade a country located in American continental, invaders can’t be an outsider because it’ll become a threat to USA & Canada… That’s why this continent is so quiet for now…
To take OVER though? This channel rarely considers military experience and geography, which is one of the most important things in this scenario. UK would be one of the hardest to take over based off these two
Yep there's a reason the mainland hasn't been invaded since 1797 lol and that wasn't successful or well organised. Also we've been relying on "soft power" more and more now apparently (or so I've read) which could be argued is more beneficial to us considering where our country is placed (between the Atlantic Ocean/USA andCanada and Western/Northern Europe, both of which we have relatively good relationships with-despite leaving the EU). Frankly I'm glad we don't have a massive military, so long as the money saved is used for things like the NHS and other social programs-its a different world today than it was 100yrs ago or even since the Cold War
@@shambhav9534 sorry I've been trying to send you a link about the invasion but my comment keeps disappearing for some reason. I'll try again but it was the French who invaded in Pembrokeshire so if you look that up you'll find out-it didn't go well at all lol I'll give the link a try again
@@nightmareparanormal yep for sure they could take us over especially as we rely on them for a lot of our military capabilities (intelligence being a large one as well as using their satellites) and those things alone would make us extremely vulnerable but like you say it wouldn't happen because it's just not in their interests at all
Think they got this blog very wrong. For a start the UK has 2 carriers, latest typhoon fighters, some say better than the F35. The 45s Building new ships type 31, 32, 83, Astute attack subs, Dreadnought Nuclear subs. Challenger 3, not to mention the Starstreak, Brimstone, Meteor. missiles. I guess these blogs are so outdated they have to fill their videos with something.
@@bettabasics643 south. Yes we have good equipments but only available to very few divisions or brigades. Majority of us are stuck with very outdated equipments.
I love you guys no lie, the narrator has the best voice ever to fall asleep to awhile learning all types of cool stuff I been following you guys for the last 4 years, keep up the great work
UK is an island and that alone with very experienced military with hundreds of years experience, it is very difficult. You missed out on basic info man!
Yeah I think this list is somewhat incorrect. Geographic size doesn’t make a country powerful so I wouldn’t be fooled. I’m sure the country would be more than capable of defending itself.
What you mean? They love the UK lol, most every American does.. and being an island is obsolete in this day and age, since we don't have to rely on the direction of the wind to get ships places lol
U.S. Hypersonic capability is a total secret. It is guaranteed that if the Russians or Chinese have any new tech, the U.S. has the HELLO KITTY version of the same thing.
Very true, but it also means if a war was to break out they might not be able to defend themselves as well as they wanted to but it is certainly a good thing they speak of “lack of experience”.
We saw in February 2021 when Pakistan captured Indian pilot and shot down aircraft. Abinandan pilot was captured. Currently in modern time we know where India stands in comparison to Pakistan.
@@kryp3096 USA never got 50% of its personel captured in Vietnam, whereas abhinandan shot down a F-16 before going down and was handed back to India after being in the fear of an invasion.
Well, you are completely mistaken..... The 1970s Mig-21 flown by Wing Commander Abhinandan Vartman shot down 2 Modern Pakistani F-16. The only problem was the old plane could not manage to fly any longer. Nevertheless, our Air Force has now purchased a dozen of Rafael.
Another weakness of Brazil, perhaps the most important one, is the cost of high-level/high-ranking personnel, which takes a huge chunk of the army budget (which is disproportionately large already), and holds back other investments.
Well to be fair our true problem is that our military see themselves as many things, except a military force Teenagers get in for the easy money, adults stay to avoid job market, High-Ranking military thinks of themselves as some sort of high society. And nobody looks like they could fight anything other than civilians
The thing about South Korea is though, that even though they only have 1/3 of the Korean North Army numbers, each one of their soldiers is probably well-equipped and well-trained enough to take out 5 or 10 North Koreans each.
@@Jack1994hoo nuclear bombs are a myth of the CCP media and can lick my nuts lol. For reals though I feel bad that N Korea is constantly threatening them with it. The south really hasn't done anything to deserve the ire of the north at all. Just because they were smart enough to adopt a viable system of government and have a hogher standard of living and full bellies without being "in the party." They are rightly mad at us, but the south koreans are innocent.
Youre talking about they dumped a few billion in wasted projects....they give out billions every year to other countries. I doubt it hurts them very much
Well, this didn't age well for Russia. We have Boy Scout troops in the US that could mop the floor with Russian conscripts. They'd be better trained, better equipped, better armed, and better lead.
As we are seeing, those Russian numbers are greatly inflated, based on vast numbers of non-functional equipment. Tanks that will never run again, missiles that mis-fire, incompetent, dispirited, poorly led personnel. Though at a horrific cost in lives and destruction, it’s invasion of Ukraine has done the world the favor of revealing just how rotten to the core it’s military has become. Time for a change of leadership, an acceptance of rule of law and some form of government that grants rights and a say over governance to it’s people.
On top of that I understand he wanted to be critical, but he make few mistakes regard US: 1) US is in position allowing them test future solutions. Though some didn't pay of another did (Boston Dynamic). 2) Zumwalt tech would be used in promising actual next generation of ships. 3) LCS were intended as coastal guard, but cost overruns make clear that it is cheaper to buy Frigates. 4) F-35 is actually good, just still didn't reach maturity. But it would be mass produced in near future. 5) US has hypersonic missiles from 70's and they actually would install them on Zumwalt.
The comments about the UK needing the US' help with fuel and use of their airstrips are quite odd. It's a battle thousands of miles from home, of course it would be easier to buy/borrow some fuel from a few hundred miles away vs shipping it thousands of miles. And of course they would use US air bases if it means easier win conditions and convenience.
they also used a us airstrip in a airbase lent to america by the british. i fell like the british militery was downplaying in this video no mention if its modern airforce or 2 carriers
I know, who wouldn't use allied help to launch a war 8,000 miles away? They launched faster than they would have done if they didn't have help, but with a few more months they would have been able to do it alone.
Except US police aren't militarized save for Riot and FBI response teams. Most of them just have an AR or a shotgun if needed but most training is devoted to investigation.
@@Darqshadow lol you’ve never had a swat team which moved and acted just like a house clearing assault team bust into your house because someone SWATING you. Even small town cops all have M4’s these days. That is militarized goof
There is nothing special about that as almost all other countries have done that too. In other words the UK's power isn't increasing in relation to their peers.
@@incumbentvinyl9291 our only ‘peers’ would be Russia & China. We don’t necessarily have enemies. Russia has been declining since 1991, and china is facing serious problems such as lack of faith in the government & decreasing power (recent) in their economy
@@TheWeekday2100 Using what logic would those be your only ''peers''? How has Russia been declining since 1991? That's an absurd claim that proves that you know nothing about the world around you. What lack of faith in the government in China? The living standards of the Chinese people has improved very significantly the past few decades. What proof do you have of lack of faith for the government? Are you sure you're not talking about the British government?
Irish resident here! I was honestly expecting Ireland to be listed at #1 weakest. The fact that it has been omitted from this is hilarious. You can cross-check the specifics in your own time, but I'm fairly certain that we have the following: a few "attack" helicopters (yeah, sure); x1 "big boat made of steel" - wait for it - "with a cannon on it" (snorts); trained armed forces of a few thousand, who are ground forces only, and carry - wait for it - swords (you'll have noticed this if anyone followed the Queen's visit here back in '11, or whenever it was); 0 air force to speak of; o ground forces to speak of; 0 navy to speak of. Why is this so important? Ireland, as is evident to anybody, is arguably the most important nation on earth for undersea internet and comms cables. We're the last stop before America going west, and the first stop for them heading east. Nobody cares about Iceland **whose airspace is fully protected by NATO** and, is therefore, really just an extension of the US, and Greenland and Faeroe Isles are technically just vassal states of Denmark. Also, no one lives in either territory. For the US, Ireland also supersedes Portugal in this instance due to language - for the US' 'ease-of-comms', its Ireland. There have been frequent documented cases of Russian spy ships moored off the western Irish coast (google it), who are blatantly and flagrantly spying on Ireland's undersea cable network to the US completely unimpeded. So long as they remain outside of our 12 mile nautical territory, they can do as they please. We have 0 navy or air force to deter them - or indeed to deter any nation who wishes to do the same. Sure, there exist "not-so-secret" arrangements with Downing St. that the UK would "leap to our defense" in the event of a hostile act/invasion, but what if an attack were to be launched on both the UK and Ireland simultaneously? Can it really be expected that Britain's Defense Forces should sacrifice their own to save Ireland's? And isn't this just, well, a bit insane of an assumption to make for the times we're living in? Everyone touts this whilst forgetting one majorly-imperative Achilles heel: Ireland is *not* a member of NATO, and making us now just 1 of 4, alongside: Malta, Cyprus and Austria. AT doesn't need to join as its surrounded on all sides by NATO members; Cyprus will probably end up being incorporated into NATO once Turkey is inevitably admitted, and Malta is about as threatening to X military as Trump on a horse. (no offence Malta but, lets be real here: no on cares). For allegedly being "the wealthiest nation on earth" heading into 2024 (give me a break), but more accurately, an independent, crucially-located, North-Atlantean, **NON-NATO**, relatively-close-to-Russia, GIGANTIC island nation - which, in case we've forgotten, stands at the GATEWAY to Europe and is really the most geopolitically-important nation on earth geographically speaking - I'm really sorry guys, but Ireland absolutely has the world's weakest military because we have none. I declare this debate open! 😅 And I'll brb btw: I think I see a Russian frigate unloading snooping deep-sea robots down to the seabed just off the horizon, presumably to hack into Biden's direct line to Leinster House. Snoop snoop snoop.
I remember in Afghanistan I saw a convoy of UK troops leaving the wire for patrol on a vehicle that looked like a oversized Polaris ranger with a rollbar. We asked them what happens if they’re hit with an IED in a vehicle with no armor? They said “oh then we die”
The F35 always gets lumped with over-expensive military failures. Other than huge costs, the program is a huge success. This plane redefines what is possible. And the 4th gen planes you mention are getting a second life precisely because of what the F35 can do in the air.
Absolutely. Improved versions of the the F-15 and F-16 are being used as weapons carriers for the F-35 because the navy and the air force are mostly integrated on the same targeting and radar systems.
What about Vatican City? Technically they are a nation and the Swiss Guard is their standing military. Which should land them in the top 3 weakest militaries, even with the defensive portions of the Lateran Pacts.
When I think about invading a country, I think about just how well situated and set up the united states' of America is. Geologically. Militarily, technically, Navy strength. The only thing that would compromise a invasion would be if some enemies some how took over Canada or Mexico but all of that would be very difficult because all 3 nations would most likely support each other to maintain stability. So the chance of s sneak attack is only likely with a ballistic missile or something..
@@ShermanMark1 You might want to rethink your statement about chinese troops in Canada. There are no chinese troops in Canada unless you are referring to chinese immigrants which admittedly we have, but I daresay that most of them would fight to stay free of china.
@@sattyre6892 nah you just obviously haven't heard of China having troops training in Canada and they even sent us a video clip of them doing it in Canada
@@ShermanMark1 take your propaganda somewhere else. Right now, my government is really at odds with your government. My government being Canadian, and I'm guessing your government being China,
Brazilian Air-Force actually thinks itself to be toe to toe with the bests of the world, some even say they could resist a invasion by the USA. And the air force holds the highest technology among the 3 forces. Trust me, I'm an Air Traffic Controller. Japan has changed it from "self-defense" to "pro-active defense" and now it includes all their neighborhood and allies, so now it's extra-territorial and can intervene international conflicts like an almost regular army.
They are poorly trained, poorly equipped, very few volunteers and their Navy and Air Force are both jokes. Their cyber warfare capabilities are also nill. Just a bunch of guys in uniforms, basically...and they have nukes (weak ones) but the delivery systems can't get past even basic counter-ICBM tech.
@@sterlingcampbell2116 i’m pretty sure since 2010 North Korea has sunk more ships more then America and you have no Way to determine how well trained their troops are and there anti-air force is filled with Battle proven equipment so you’re wrong
I think being dismissive about the UK here is quite poor. With their economy they could be at war for a very long time and the entire nation is known for bandying together to defend themselves. I would say that Australia, UK, New Zealand and Israel probably have the best army training and all ahead of the US. Indonesia has the best shooters in the world amongst their well trained troops. However you cannot deny the might and technology of the US to be sure. Brazil could certainly handle its own defense I've no doubt. Australia would be hard pressed defending its large area with a small force, however we do have the volunteer Northern Crocodile marine force, The Cassowary Strike force, The Drop Bear Paratrooper Commandos and the Fly Airborne Division. Australia would only defend itself from land forces in a line down the Great Dividing Range and land east of there, The Perth environs and the Adelaide Hills and land west of there. I am not sure about Tasmania though.
The information in this video also just isn’t correct. Britain did not need to rely on the US for aid during the Falklands - it was just easier and less costly to do so. Why on earth would we source all our fuel here when America (our ally) is much closer to the Falklands. Also, the information this video says about the UK not remaining a dominant military power for much longer is just utter bogus. If anything, I think we’ll inevitably see further military spending. The world is seemingly becoming a more unstable place. Many states have already began to increasingly militarise.
"Northern crocodile marine force" 😆🤔 Is that a joke or a real thing - I do know aussies have funny names for things but that has me thinking, Joke or Real ??
I'd like to disagree with the mention of the F35 not being good, its in its early testing stages and still has the least amount of failures compared to any other US plane during testing. Furthermore I would like them to start F22 production again but sadly it's way more expensive and not worth it yet
@@ipant1056 Now, I don't know too much more than the average person does about the F22, but I'd assume the military could essentially revamp it's internals and engines with newer equipment, although it still holds up fine off the ground
@@Tavemanic I usually would agree with you but the internals are pretty modern 1990's-2000's tech and replacing them currently would be a waste of money and could cause big issues if not done correctly or if somethings overlooked
@Aurora First of all, CNN news channel is controlled by the United States. Therefore, they wouldn’t want the American origin F-16 to lose it’s market potential as well as its credibility when it was shot down by a much less advanced fighter jet. And hence, CNN news channel is selling fake propaganda.
It should be noted tho, that invading Amazon is almost if not totally Impossible. Not only because local forces are excelent jungle fighters with its soldiers coming mostly from Native American Tribes with milenias in jungle experience, but it drastically lacks infraestructure. Just getting a normal car into the city of Manaus is a Challenge that can take weeks (if you ever manage to get there), i cant even imagine How hard It would be to get an entire army and suplies without getting ambushed in an insane amount of situations.
I'm Brazilian too, and the thing is that no one would invade the Amazon, not directly, because it makes no sense, if a foreign country wanted to take our resources they would obviously try to take the cities first and take down the government, instead of invading the jungle.
@@rafaelalodio5116 Yes, but the main cities are thousands of kilometers away from the amazon and many of them have more than 10 million people, which means they're hard and expensive to control. This topic became quite interesting in the context we are currently in. Look at Russia's invasion of Ukraine with their convoys having a hard time reaching Kiev on pavemented roads. Imagine the challenge the same convoys would have to reach the capital of the Amazon, Manaus? It would not be possible. Tanks stuck on mud, roads suddenly becoming rivers, bridges collapsing, roads literally disintegrating in front of your eyes, etc... Ambushing a military convoy crossing any point in such a scenario would be "easy" task
@@_Bruno_Cesar_ My point is that an invading force wouldn’t have to do any of that, they would need to take control of the major cities, which are mostly in the coast (that would make it a little bit easier), and after taking control of the country they could simply use the civilian infrastructure to explore whatever resources they want to take. Not saying that would be easy, I’m saying that no one would need to actually invade a forest to achieve that goal, that would be dumb.
@@rafaelalodio5116 Dont forget Brazil is a federative republic. Taking a city doesnt mean you conquered an entire country, especially a country the size of Brazil. Just look at Afghanistan. Conquering Rio, for example, would mean little to nothing to Manaus, which is the capital of the Amazon. You cant easily explore the amazon without conquering Manaus. And above all, doesn't exist a country in this world that could fully take control of Rio or SP if the population is against the intervention. Controlling Rio, SP and BH (almost 40 million people) all at the same time is almost impossible without deploying less than a million troops.
Great video but this channel almost never speaks about geography for example the uk is almost impossible to invade due to its geography which is why it hasn’t been invaded in 300 years
Great video, but to assume the US has no hypersonic weapons is absurd, even china's hypersonic weapons are based off of US tech, I wouldn't be surprised if you US had already found a way to stop hypersonic weapons.
Also love how they say the UK can't project power, despite us having 2 Super Carriers and the largest Navy in Europe. Something tells me this channel has an agenda
@@shingetsu10 Could it be that be that the infographics show makes mistakes on a constant basis and is not a reliable source, only existing to spam out videos? No it can’t be that, no way
I expected much more from the title. It doesn't factor in geography and only vaguely factor in socio-political circumstances and other elements that would have a big effect on a countries ability and willingess to fight.
In defense of the USAF< the F-35 has shown to be the only one of these programs that have actually shown to be a potential success. Yes it has teething problems (very expensive ones), but when has a new piece of military tech not had teething issues? *cough cough* Much beloved M-16 *cough cough*
O brasil e um pais gigantesco, realmente difícil de manter um ocupação, mas em caso de invasões o brasil perde com certa facilidade dependendo do inimigo
Okej but… you dont walk in the amazons in modern war, naval and air combat wil be huge part , maintaining occupation is station troops here and there… you all might pack a huge punch bc of population count and the favelas killing enemys coming in city by foot as ukraine did on russians… but its one punch and wont be supplied in longer term, invest in newer jets than gripen as they are not best in modern day (spoken from a swedie), impressive battlefield tho and im sure not everyone can operate in such conditions
Tomahawks makes things a lot easier, but Brazil has a huge landscape and a mixture of terrains, will be quite hard for the logistics and troops moving here and there. Naval landing might work, but at a certain cost too, will be quite a battle tbh, but we're friends with most of the superpowers, so I doubt any of them would try to invade us 👀 But if we rely on our government, our troops will be stuck with Vietnam war era equipment, sadly...
Without any army, Brazil would be one of the 5 most difficult places to invade. Amazon is a challenge for modern warfare (big terrain, natural protection aggainst armored vehicle and a lot of natural diseases for troops). Northeast is drawght and protected by mountains. A swamp and mountains guard southweast. The only natural vulnerability is the south portion of the country. To occupy Brazil you need to fight Vietnam style war and afganistan style at the same time. Brazil reallies on guerrilla tactics for self defense, that's why it armored vehicles and air defenses are so weak.
Also a couple of other thing to remember are fighting experience. British armies have been in wars constantly over the last 20 years and have massive battle experience which alot of other top countries in the top 10 including Russia which has fallen apart in a real conflict. Also ww2 applied massive costs to the britian including massive costs america made us pay for ships and equipment which we only finally paid off some 20 years ago.
I have to say that Guerilla warfare is a very effective way of beating a superpower, therefore a lot of these smaller countries would do better than it would seem at first
I disagree. Times have changed drastically. Every modern military has technological means to find out where there enemy is hiding. Besides, with global urbanization, once you've taken over the cities, the war is already won.
@@TheStickman419 ''Lol'' The US did beat Afghanistan. Where have you been? Yes, they hid in the mountains, they had no political power. The only reason they came out of their caves is because the USA *left* Afghanistan. Those Islamic groups are basically poorly equipped terrorist cells, not comparable to the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan and had a capable military with semi modern US materiel. France left because of the same reasons why the USA left. It's not worth the money and effort, not because they weren't in control of the situation or hadn't won the war. Guerilla warfare is a thing of the past that has only very limited use in any modern conflict.
and military size doesn’t totally correlate with how difficult it is to invade… geography plays an enormous role
Amen. This is one of the reasons a huge military like China still needs to think twice about attempting to invade Taiwan, whose main island is extremely mountainous and 100km of open water off the coast of China. Necessary achievements like air superiority are essentially out of the question when your helicopters only have enough fuel for a one-way trip and have nowhere to land. That's assuming they make it across the strait to begin with. Their only shot is to throw the kitchen sink at them and hope for the best, but the losses they'd incur while doing so would be obscene.
Yea like Afghanistan
@@boring4975 and the USA, being atlest an ocean away from any real miltaristic threat on each side
So, let’s build a nation surrounded by ocean, no beaches but all high cliff sea walls, and a curved transparent roof covered in grease so any bombs or paratroopers just slide off it into the ocean.
@@OpinionatedZoomer69 *gets invaded by Canada*
It always amazes me how Malta is never mentioned in having the smallest army. We only have around 2000 soldiers, no tanks , a very small navy and only a few aircrafts without weapons and only used for search and rescue.
Yeah except no one can get to malta with its position in the meditteranean except european powers, as the strait of bosporus and the strait of gibraltar are heavily guarded and cant fit a large navy. Europe and Turkey are all on good terms with malta, so its actually quite defended
Isn't it true that a lot of your military strength is used as symbolism and tradition? Been to Malta recently and went to your cannon museum and valetta, and the historian mentioned this.
My Country belize only has 1k soldiers.
0 tanks
1chopper with no weapons
1 small air craft with no weapons
Only about 10 vehicles to transport soldiers and most of the time are In garages
Coast guard with about 5speed boats lol that's it.
Oh and we have outdated m16s
@@losangeles9817 you have america, you’ll be fine
Weakest:
10. Panama 0:12
9. Central African Republic 2:55
8. Gabon 6:37
7. North Macedonia 9:33
6. Eritrea 13:40
5. Suriname 17:07
4. Sierra Leone 19:54
3. Somalia 23:11
2. Liberia 27:12
1. Kosovo 31:02
Strongest:
10. Pakistan 1:03
9. Brazil 4:12
8. United Kingdom 7:50
7. France 11:05
6. South Korea 15:00
5. Japan 18:10
4. India 20:54
3. China 24:21
2. Russia 28:00
Honourable Mention: Bhutan 31:40
1. United States Of America 32:00
Thanks for the list. The video felt like it jumped all over the place.
Tnkx
Thank you
@@cmplx6114 Yeah and Germany. Big cap.
That russia ranking has aged like fine milk lol
I think it is safe to say that Russia may have dropped a rank or two since this came out.
Just from the military equipment taken from Russia, Ukraine's military has tripled in size - which is even better than what they've managed to destroy.
Yall this was 5 months ago chill.
@@kylejay8493 VERY different levels of tech. Zero offense meant to Ukraine, but they are only still fighting because of Western equipment - and they still may lose. Russia always fights wars of attrition with heavy, heavy losses.
Exactly! Not only that, but the revelations of how poorly maintained their equipment is, they shouldn't have been this high anyway.
Definitely 🤣
I was expecting this to be more about things like geography, social cohesion, ect. A strong army is important, but is by no means the deciding factor on how difficult a country is to take over.
in theory Vietnam and Afghanistan were easy too
Agree. I was expecting the same - mountains, lakes, rivers play a big role in the conflict. Examples are obvious - Vietnam, Afghanistan.
I used to be an American Paratrooper and I often trained with nato militaries and I’ll I have to say is this. The British Paras are by far the best trained fighting force over ever seen in operations. I guess when you’re a small homogeneous force it’s easier to train all of your men to that degree. Cause they put us to shame tactically speaking in small unit movements
Idk when I trained with them in a joint operation in jrtc we gave them the easiest task and they got mass cassed, dropped the ball and put us a day behind on insert so we had to land many miles before our original insertion to the box and having to ruck much further through the woods, they got embarrassed, but could just be a fluke
Parakoopa
Meh.
Y'all ever dealt with the Army Ranger Wing (ARW) from Ireland?
You know there is a thing called the Marcos
You should take cybersecurity into account in your military powers vids. A modern military is worth nothing if it gets heavily disrupted by cyberattacks in the first hours of defending itself
And that is the main reason why china is surpassing russia
So NSA who invented SHA? An algorithm we globally use for network security and Bitcoin?
@@printname3608 SHA is from the NIST,not the NSA. And thk god SHA1 isn t used for Bitcoin
@@dinamosflams lol no? It s even the other way around. China is behind in terms of cryptography, that s the reason they invest in quantum networking, to bypass the need of cipher algorithms
I heard that this is a large focus with the UK military which is why the planned on retiring their challnger tanks to focus more on cyber warfare since they don't have the number to compete on land warfare.
Panama 🇵🇦 0:12
Pakistan 🇵🇰 1:03
Central African Republic 🇨🇫 2:55
Brazil 🇧🇷 4:12
Gabon 🇬🇦 6:37
UK 🇬🇧 7:50
North Macedonia 9:34
That part about the Chinese soldiers getting bummed out and having those entertainers cheer them up was crazy.... 😬
not too crazy.. the U.S entertained its troops many many times whilst they were in afghanistan and iraq, from comedians, celebs and many song artists. held massive concerts and such for them. can be justified by saying they were "bummed out" by being deployed so its almost the same thing
@@legendaryryan1623 But the Chinese soldiers were in training, and the US Soldiers were in an army. And where did u hear of celebs? Lol US Only had prostitutes
USO
@@FinMcool21 Have you watched the film 'Good Morning Vietnam'?
I believe in all of these videos a lot of key factors are missing when it comes to war, as anyone that has served or has any military experience will know, defeating someone in battle does not just happen because you have more numbers than them or better equipment...although it does help. Things such as the morale, combat experience, leadership, level of training and skill of each individual is vital in war because if any of these are lacking it can turn tides. One soldier that is extremely skilled with a basic rifle is better than 10 that don't know how to use their good ones. or as Napoléon put it, "if you build an army of 100 lions and their leader is a dog, in any fight, the lions will die like a dog. BUT if you build an army of 100 dogs and their leader is a lion, all dogs will fight like a lion.”
the quote is nice tho
And terrains are also a major factor in war
As someone who also has military and a small amount of general DoD experience, this point you lay out should be obvious to those who have been on any type of real-world battlefield, so I 100% agree. An additional point to keep in mind though, concerning technology and gear, we really have no idea what kind of weapons innovation the internal services (think triple-letter agencies, organizations like DARPA, and private defense contractors like Battelle) have come out with that 99.99% of people are not privy to. This same sentiment goes for the other world powers like China, Russia, Western European powers, S. Korea, etc..
This is largely a hunch, but I gua-ran-tee you that there are weapons tech at minimal functional prototype stages that would likely blow most of our minds. A modern hot war would be very interesting, not to mention terrifying for those parties involved.
*EDIT:* There are multiple reasons why the U.S. Defense budget dwarfs even China by 2.5 times and "conspiracy theorists" talk about a 'Black Budget'.
@@ADPax10 yeah 100%, if a full scale war were to kick off it would have very little firefights between small groups with the tech and weapons advancement nowadays…whole divs would be getting wiped out in weeks if that
The most important part though is the alliances of the nation. For example if a country is in NATO they're essentially untouchable no matter how small the army,same for any country that has an official alliance with Russia or China. If they don't have an alliance but good relationships it will also be important like what happens in Ukraine (Russia facing heavy sanctions and also Ukraine constantly receiving equipment from the west and even some mercenaries). If it's let's say a middle Eastern country with no alliances (cough Afghanistan) things will be easier
The video was titled about what would be the hardest to annex, or invade, but it ended up being about only military power. These may share, and the military power does make invasion harder, but geography and other things play a role too. For example: The Swiss military may not be the biggest (Excluding the reserve force), but Switzerland is way harder to take over than you would think. Period.
Though not mentioned in the basically UScentric video, even us in Australia would be hard to invade. Not only is our climate against invasion, the geography can be a challenge, being mostly sparsely populated desert, the requirement for long supply lines, at least initially, is also a problem. The only way an invading force can get here is via sea or air.
I'd say Finland is up there too. Thousands of lakes and forests that makes it difficult to invade. Rough terrain and lots of swamp like terrain. Forcing you to invade on the roads where you can easily control the enemy and make them suffer for every inch of land they take
@@1991beachboy kind of like in the Winter War- a problem like what the Soviet Union suffered
@@ThePersonWhoAsks yea. And that was just the winter when everything was frozen over. That wasn't when the swampy areas would be too much of a problem. The tracks of the heavy russian tanks on wet mud in the middle of swamps, lakes and forests would also be an easy target.
Agreed - the title is really misleading. In the UK part, for example, it talked entirely about how the UK struggles to project power over distance without US help (referencing the Falklands - 8000 miles away) and didn't even reference how easy/hard it would be to invade.
"The Us doesn't have hypersonic weapons"
We just successfully tested them, this year.
we've had them since the 90s most likely but everything advanced like that is hidden
@@kaeelondonnwe've been tinkering with them since the 60s
We had hypersonic missles since the 50s called the icbm.
@@legion5648 I think he means non-nuclear? Idk
@@legion5648 Non-nucleur kinetic impactors, not nucleur warhead tipped ICBM's
I have to say this, because I am British. When Argentina first invaded the Falklands an incredibly small group of Royal Marines disabled lots of important equipment for a war like submarines and artillery. Eventually when they were told to surrender to keep them alive by the Great British government, the Argentinians had to count how many Royal Marines there were, because they did not believe that such a small group of incredibly brave soldiers could have caused so much damage and disruption.
i am british too an they are right.
US may have the stronger military, but the British have better special forces and marines in my opinion
LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS
@@antpra The Falkland Islanders 🇫🇰 overwhelmingly voted 🗳 to remain British and they will.
@@BisexualPlagueDoctor Thats just a fact. My uncle was an Airborne Ranger. He eventually became an instructor. Taught airborne how to jump. He had been Airborne for years. Did hundreds of jumps. Before they had him teach other Airborne, he had to go to England and train with SAS or whoever.
Here’s a fun fact: Denmark does not have a standing military. We don’t have an army.
We have a defence. To be fair our neighbour is Germany and we all know how well that went for us last time
Also, we the type of military that will sink our own marine than let Germany get it.
Germany couldn't even win against Denmarks police forces 🤣
@@askatata thats just a straight up lie
@@askatata It took the Germans only a few hours to invade denmark. Stop lying 🥴
My God guys, that's just a joke...just like the German military now
India makes many fighter jets and has its own aeronautics company.
But as the air force is huge,jets from France were bought at a discount.
Right
English was almost broken
@@ncpdswordshielddivision2240 he definitely can speak more languages than you so chill
@@aahaanarya6825 k
@@ncpdswordshielddivision2240 who?
Brazil also has some major advantages, a huge population, and terrain so horrible that even Brazil strugges to develop itself, Brazil has lots of costal cities, most of the major cities are costal, what folks don't realize is that vast majority of second tier cities are in highlands (wich spreads all over across the continent) , and are filled with with military hqs
It would be easy to invade Brazil, but incredibly difficult to hold or retreat.
That all also makes it so no one really can invade them. They're far larger than the rest of the countries in the America's save the US and the fact that the US has maintained the idea for over a century that the America's are their sphere of influence and threaten war with anyone who'd attempt it. This almost lead to WW3 when Cuba aligned with the USSR and that was just an internal rebellion. The US is the only one who could invade and they have zero reason to do so.
Poise, São Paulo mesmo tem vantagem no terreno, destruindo os túneis que conectam a capital ao litoral, os militares não podem subir apenas contornar pelo Rio de Janeiro ou Paraná e nisso já perdem muitas horas tempo suficiente pra armar baterias antiaéreas na cidade e proteger as rodovias adjacentes
Putin right now: “wright that down, write that down!”
More like:ЗАПИСЫВАЙТЕ ЭТО, ЗАПИСЫВАЙТЕ ЭТО!!!
I agrse
Agree I mean
@@nethercrocodile5859 I bet u used Google translate правдо?
@@Lalapoo11 he probably did for satire?
You could probably take over Sweden with a Golf club and a "can do" attitude.
Hahah, how times have changed, 1000 years back in time we would watch our costs for vikings
@@gamenisgezond4464 Then again Swedish vikings weren’t the feared ones as they mostly traded in the east. Its the norwegian, danish and icelandic vikings that were a real threat
pewdiepie wants to know your location
What? Sweden has a strong military and makes world class aircraft and other weapons. It scores close to Canada and Ukraine which both have quite powerful militaries.
@@kurtsvensson4362 it's a joke
Honestly, what does the infographics show have against the U.K. It’s kinda funny 😂
They’re openly lying. The Uk refused any help from the usa in the falkland wars and the war last 74 days. Also 100 British marines thrashed 1500 American soldiers in war drills.
Exactly I'm pretty sure a few us cargo ships are used to help with logistics but that can be expected when the conflict is 1000s of miles from home and the nearest base is only about 2/3 the way there
Red coats
Yup no mention of two new aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines etc
We don't have the biggest army, but we have the NHS lolololololololol
Regardless, we have nuclear weapons, submarines, carriers, modern airforce, and who knows what cyberwarfare tech
India has 3 Aircraft carrier, 2 operational and 1 under construction, Its developing it's own 4.5G Tejas MK2 and 5th Gen AMCA. India's missile program is one of the deadliest and most advanced program with a huge line of versatile weponery. India is also developing it's own arsenal of weapons to decrease it's dependencies over US or Russia
Agree.
India is an up and coming industrial economy.
Their economy will soon outgrow BRICS and they will want to snuggle up with the economies of NATO nations and it's protection from GYNAHH!!!.
@@joydeepmukherjee689 why would anyone want to invade an open sewer?
2019 tea was fantastic 😂
Mig 21 of Indian airforce is not comparable to modern jets but it should be noted it is the most advanced variant of mig21 and it did shoot down one f16 before getting shot down. And IAF already has several squadrons active for su30mki and mig-29upg and Tejas . And for tanks there is 2000~ T90S/MS and 2000~ t72mk1/mk2
Hehe hi
Yes but American or European will not consider it because of there own embracement 😂😂
you forgot arjun tank @kannan
also in India china border clashes of 2020 - INDIA only lost twenty personnel, while china only officially announced death of only 4 personnel but it was reported by a Australian media agency that 38 pla soldiers drowned in the water and died that day so total goes up to = 4+38=42 .
So india clearly defeated china.
@@kartikkilam9959 In urgency of making video he forgot about doing some research 😂
Brazil have a solid defensive military, they have enough troops and tanks to defend against any other south american country and have the navy to over power any other navy in the area other than America. All it means is they would struggle really bad as an offensive force without air superiority, but they have enough defensive units to be able to deter an enemy from attacking them not to mention the land itself being very difficult for an occupying force to navigate through. Its a good balance to be fair
Paises gigantes territorialmente nunca serao invadidos, pois quem tentar vai fracassar.
E so se basear em total de soldados e equipamentos nao diz nada, pois vejam a Russia, segundo mais forte nesta lista, esta sofrendo para derrotar a Ucrania que nem na lista aparece. Ah vao dizer q eh pq EUA/Europa estao ajudando, oras nao podemos esquecer to Pacto do Rio, que exige e demanda que todos os paises do continente americano protejam uns aos outros em caso de invasao estrangeira, ou seja, seria impossivel algum pais de outro continente tentar algo.
well thats why they are number 8 in a list with over 150 countries
"Russias spot at number 2 has been eroding and likely won't remain much longer"
That aged well
But still they are hard to invade ..
Russians may see a new revolution or coup against current dictatorship of Putin ( i like putin as a person ,but people of Russia may hate him for this unwanted Ukrainian war , which gained less , lost much ) ..
That may change rankings ..
India and China may go up ..
@@vandematram4 cringe
@@vandematram4 I feel right now China could go right into Siberia no problem and Putin's only response be nukes or suicide.... Russia is probably in like 5th place on this list.... and it depends on the conflict type, Vietnam? Afghanistan? David beats Goliath all the time...
hmm idk china is definietly higher than russia(on paper because we are yet to see them in a real battle) but India is a little behind because most of the indian weapons are russin made and a liitle old for the current time(they are in the 2000s era) but at this rate india might go up but china is definetly on top because they have wayy too much🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑@@vandematram4
Thanks for the upload!
Although the uk’s army may not be what is used to be, we have the most highly trained soldiers and special forces on the planet with centuries of experience and we live in an island to shield us from attackers
He was also wrong about how we relied heavily on the US! Not true at all!
They not gonna talk how the uk nuked the us twice 😂
But the UK gave the US independence while it was the british empire
@@deanalli6218 We have never used nuclear weapons before!
the UK is irrelevant, haven't been relevant since 1945 and won't exist in the next 20 years
He be really roasting whole nations🤣what a badass
The 3 most important factors in modern warfighting: Logistics, logistics, and logistics
Doesn't matter how big your army is its how well they are trained, British have some the best trained troops in the world, just look at the paratroopers and SAS also look at wars UK been in how out numbered they been and still won battles
Example of this comment :
F a l k l a n d s
Taliban 😂
*the Revolutionary war*
@@maseehwardak6055 this is pretty sad but true.
@@orphandestroyer I'm pretty happy about it, sure the taliban aren't the best, But having peace after 20 years is a big thing. They can't keep women from going to work and school forever
Let's get it right Japan was deprived of any military capability after WW2, it's not that they enjoyed being pacifist's and they had no choice but to be protected by the US. Japan was not allowed an offensive Military after WW2 Unlike Germany which was allowed to increase it's military power. Japan is still prohibited from establishing a military force, it's also not allowed to solve international conflicts through violence. So there is a valid reason Japan is considered to have a weak military.
It's also the reason Japan is the 3rd wealthiest country in the world.
No military spending need as much.
Imagine the US not needing to waste money on military spending and putting it elsewhere?
Well yes and no as Germany was still forced to limit it's military and if I remember correctly can't have any more than 350000 troops to their name
@@Crashed131963 the us only spends 3% of it's budget on millitary, so it wouldn't change much
@@drakolithe6493 The US spends much more than 3% of its budget on the military.
Its depressing how japan is the only major country on earth that has to have its foreign relations and its military dictated by foreign powers, including its greatest enemy China. China sees itself as entitled to having aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and an aggressive imperialistic military but freaks out if Japan buys missile defense systems or tries to build any ship more powerful then a defensive destroyer. Can you imagine if Germany got to dictate what vehicles the russia military could build or if America got to decide if China was allowed to build any air defenses?
21:44 inferior Indian MiG-21 took down a Pakistani F-16 before going down.
Indian armed forces NEED equipment upgrades, but what it lacks in equipment, it makes up with extremely capable defence personnel.
Our 2 Decade Tejas Fighter Jets are more superior to newer American F-16s GIVEN TO Pakistan
Tea is fantastic.
@@TheReactiverse thats all your engllish teather taught u before going to terorista
@@markoyt8449 Sheeesh!!!!
@@markoyt8449 teather? engllish? mate maybe try drink some tea
Proud Aussie here, can say with pride I've worked along side our American, English, Japanese, Canadian, new Zealand and French brothers, all professional all the best at what they do 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
being t3rr0r1sts you're right
oh and being wasted by Afghanistan
English or British?
I'm pretty sure you are talking about British soldiers.
Doesn't matter, English British, same thing my dude
@@Therabidrabbit89 Doesn't matter? You're not very bright, are you?
Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish soldiers aren't English, nor do you see English flags on British military uniforms.
It's not like people call you a Kiwi either, right?
@@incumbentvinyl9291 exactly. They came from England so I called them English, always someone gotta argue over technicalities lol 😆
This video fails to take in quite a few things when discussing America. How well a country can defend against a foreign invasion has a lot to do with geography and it's honestly unbelievable how perfect the geography of America is for defending against invaders. Not to mention roads and borders with Canada and Mexico were set up with military goals in mind. And that's not even taking into account the fact that a large chunk of the population owns a firearm. There would be so much guerrilla warfare
^^^ *this.* The United States’ geography is so incredibly impressive for defense against foreigners that it’s almost feels like cheating. Not only are there the vast oceans to the east and west, but also allied nations to the north and south. Even if you managed to somehow get past the oceans undetected, you’d have to go through the largest navy in the world and the air force before ever reaching land. Framing the two coasts are also two enormous mountain ranges-the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachian Mountains. You also brought up the point of the insane amount of citizens armed with firearms. I currently live in a community where hunting is the hobby of the majority of people-they know how to use those fire arms and are not afraid to. Next is the sense of patriotism. A country will fight harder than _ever_ when their country is on the line. It’s completely different than being the ones invading others. Also did I mention how the United States can be energy and food dependent? Cutting off trading or outside help wouldn’t do much since the United States can sustain itself with its vast amount of resources. Plus there is almost every biome here imaginable and foreign soldiers cannot prepare for everything. I’m not even going to bring up how every country in NATO would have to come the the US’s aid.
I’m only scraping the surface here as well 😂
Fk infographics. US has done more for the world than anyone deserves. He is overly critical.
@@Asylia5911 absolute MONEY of an explanation for only some of the advantages for the US and disadvantages for foreign aggression.
@@MichaelGarcia-ez4mj thank you! I’m glad my geography nerd self could be helpful :)
@@Asylia5911 ya just look at world vs US scenarios, sans nukes
Military strength is not a good measure of a country's overall strength. Things like the projection of soft power (nuclear weapons for example as deterrent) obviate the need to maintain a big standing army and strategic partnerships like the ones the UK has with the US makes the countries less appealing as target for invasion. There is a single fact not addressed by this video, COSTS. Maintaining a standing army can easily bankrupt a country and should only be done if there is a real threat to its sovereign integrity. One look at how the US spends around 5 times the amount of money on its military than the other 5 top militaries in the world COMBINED shows how costs can spiral out of control. Many countries maintain minimal military strength simply because they have no imminent threats that require continual spending on defense.
Better to have and not need. Then not have and need it.
The u.s military existing is the reason most of the world can afford to not have military spending
yeah nuclear umbrella is a good thing for countries who can't fight for themselves.........
It’s better to be a warrior in a garden then a Gardner in a war
Your forgetting some of these counties do have the ability to build nuclear weapons but cannot because of a world treaty. So if their nation was into a threat,yes they can actually build their nukes,so if your American be kind to your neighbors without weapons of massive destruction.
I am Brazilian, and I must say that our military lack experience just because we haven't fought a war in ages, and it wouldn't be a simple task to invade Brazil. The forests are too difficult to even just walk, the rivers are too large and violent, and we have ecossistems that can't be found anywhere else, like the Caatinga and Cerrado, what means that no other country can really think about having an easy time fighting in our beloved land. Soldiers from the US, UK and other superpowers come to Brazil to train for warfare in jungles. (Sorry for the bad english)
But your english is good bro
Na verdade temos experiência militar sim!!! O exército brasileiro esteve envolvido em diversas operações, principalmente em operações de paz da ONU durante toda a Guerra Fria. Lutamos em Israel, Egito, Líbano, Chipre, República Centro Africana, Haiti, etc... Etc...
As vezes com milícias organizadas, chefes do crime, a máfia, exércitos rebeldes, etc... Etc... Até nisso o vídeo está errado
@@gabrielmac369 não dá pra se comparar a experiência de ALGUNS militares com toda a contingência que compõe o exército, menos de 10% desses militares ativos talvez tenham alguma experiência de guerra.
To invade a country located in American continental, invaders can’t be an outsider because it’ll become a threat to USA & Canada…
That’s why this continent is so quiet for now…
To invade a country located in American continental, invaders can’t be an outsider because it’ll become a threat to USA & Canada…
That’s why this continent is so quiet for now…
To take OVER though? This channel rarely considers military experience and geography, which is one of the most important things in this scenario. UK would be one of the hardest to take over based off these two
Yep there's a reason the mainland hasn't been invaded since 1797 lol and that wasn't successful or well organised. Also we've been relying on "soft power" more and more now apparently (or so I've read) which could be argued is more beneficial to us considering where our country is placed (between the Atlantic Ocean/USA andCanada and Western/Northern Europe, both of which we have relatively good relationships with-despite leaving the EU). Frankly I'm glad we don't have a massive military, so long as the money saved is used for things like the NHS and other social programs-its a different world today than it was 100yrs ago or even since the Cold War
@@teethgrinder83 Hasn't ben invaded since 1797? Who? I don't know of anyone who did invade in 1797.
I think literally only the US could take over the UK out of any country in the world. But that would never happen.
@@shambhav9534 sorry I've been trying to send you a link about the invasion but my comment keeps disappearing for some reason. I'll try again but it was the French who invaded in Pembrokeshire so if you look that up you'll find out-it didn't go well at all lol I'll give the link a try again
@@nightmareparanormal yep for sure they could take us over especially as we rely on them for a lot of our military capabilities (intelligence being a large one as well as using their satellites) and those things alone would make us extremely vulnerable but like you say it wouldn't happen because it's just not in their interests at all
Think they got this blog very wrong. For a start the UK has 2 carriers, latest typhoon fighters, some say better than the F35. The 45s Building new ships type 31, 32, 83, Astute attack subs, Dreadnought Nuclear subs. Challenger 3, not to mention the Starstreak, Brimstone, Meteor. missiles. I guess these blogs are so outdated they have to fill their videos with something.
As a conscript korean soldier, I can verify true that a lot of us dont get armor. Many of the equipements r badly out dated or barely functional.
Wait north or south ? Because I thought in the south they had good equipment
@@bettabasics643 ofc south you think a North Korean will be on UA-cam?
@@bettabasics643 south. Yes we have good equipments but only available to very few divisions or brigades. Majority of us are stuck with very outdated equipments.
@@warti4080 beat me to it🤣🤣🤣
@@JamesSpazer Thanks for the input. Its always nice to have people with personal experience verifying Infographics' information.
I love you guys no lie, the narrator has the best voice ever to fall asleep to awhile learning all types of cool stuff I been following you guys for the last 4 years, keep up the great work
Canada has polar bears and killer whales on patrol 24/7. Come at us.......we dare you.
Don't forget daddy USA.
Brazil probably has the best trained jungle forest don't underestimate that. USA troops even come to Brazil for training
goated name
In the end, we all go to Brazil.
thats true for pretty much the whole of south america
UK is an island and that alone with very experienced military with hundreds of years experience, it is very difficult. You missed out on basic info man!
Are you surprised? They do that all the time.
I've noticed this channel is regularly biased against the UK.
I noticed this too....
Yeah I think this list is somewhat incorrect. Geographic size doesn’t make a country powerful so I wouldn’t be fooled. I’m sure the country would be more than capable of defending itself.
What you mean? They love the UK lol, most every American does.. and being an island is obsolete in this day and age, since we don't have to rely on the direction of the wind to get ships places lol
U.S. Hypersonic capability is a total secret. It is guaranteed that if the Russians or Chinese have any new tech, the U.S. has the HELLO KITTY version of the same thing.
We do out weird stickers on our bombs dont we
is that supposed to be a bad thing or a good thing like bro I really love hello kitty
@@linaabusriwel1222 Good. It's just an expression.
Brazil have hypersonic aircraft too
current developing but is almost finished
Thanks for helping a brother out I'm gonna need top 20
"Lack of experience." Is the best thing any country can say about its military.🤝👍
Yes. That means the scare effect is enough to protect the country from hostile aggression.
There's nothing wrong with participating in UN peacekeeping forces and gaining experience at the same time
@@spencer4679 Yes, I fully agree.
Very true, but it also means if a war was to break out they might not be able to defend themselves as well as they wanted to but it is certainly a good thing they speak of “lack of experience”.
@@spencer4679 "peacekeeping" using violence? Military is violence, and is never intended to lead to PEACE.
I was just thinking about which Country i should invade then i stumbled across this list. Thank you infographics show! 😀
Fun fact : The Indo 🇮🇳-🇵🇰Pakistan War (1971) led to the surrender of about 93,000 combatants and officials of the Pakistani Army.
That's India 🇮🇳🔥 :-)
Thanks to Russia who helped us
when no one did
We saw in February 2021 when Pakistan captured Indian pilot and shot down aircraft. Abinandan pilot was captured. Currently in modern time we know where India stands in comparison to Pakistan.
@@kryp3096 ya we know .... infographic show already told us 🤣🤣🤣
@@kryp3096 USA never got 50% of its personel captured in Vietnam, whereas abhinandan shot down a F-16 before going down and was handed back to India after being in the fear of an invasion.
22:59 those smiley faces are so real and full of soul
You don't have to defeat your enemy in a war, just make it costly enough to detour the enemy from attacking you
That doesn't help at all with dictators such as Putin around.
Well, you are completely mistaken..... The 1970s Mig-21 flown by Wing Commander Abhinandan Vartman shot down 2 Modern Pakistani F-16. The only problem was the old plane could not manage to fly any longer. Nevertheless, our Air Force has now purchased a dozen of Rafael.
And is planning to make Tejas MK II, a more modern fighter then Rafael.
Pakistan dont have f16 at 1970
@@Amen-Magi he said '1970s Mig-21', Get your education from good university not from Madarsa
@@Amen-Magi I think you don't understand English..... don't try that hard....it will be okay
That also says a lot about the pilots capabilities, it takes brains to be able to take down two way more modern planes. Respect.
Another weakness of Brazil, perhaps the most important one, is the cost of high-level/high-ranking personnel, which takes a huge chunk of the army budget (which is disproportionately large already), and holds back other investments.
Well to be fair our true problem is that our military see themselves as many things, except a military force
Teenagers get in for the easy money, adults stay to avoid job market, High-Ranking military thinks of themselves as some sort of high society. And nobody looks like they could fight anything other than civilians
It would be interesting to see an update in 2023 and Russia’s placement
The thing about South Korea is though, that even though they only have 1/3 of the Korean North Army numbers, each one of their soldiers is probably well-equipped and well-trained enough to take out 5 or 10 North Koreans each.
Except for the nukes
@@Jack1994hoo nuclear bombs are a myth of the CCP media and can lick my nuts lol.
For reals though I feel bad that N Korea is constantly threatening them with it. The south really hasn't done anything to deserve the ire of the north at all. Just because they were smart enough to adopt a viable system of government and have a hogher standard of living and full bellies without being "in the party." They are rightly mad at us, but the south koreans are innocent.
The way these vids are going the next one is gonna be “how to build your own polish invasion force with only $20”
LOL
I can singlehandedly invade Poland with a stick.
@@djamelhamdia134 with its rap sheet most people can
Youre talking about they dumped a few billion in wasted projects....they give out billions every year to other countries. I doubt it hurts them very much
Right! If they are concerned about wasted money there are a few other US agencies that have squandered at a much higher and consistent rate.
Well, this didn't age well for Russia.
We have Boy Scout troops in the US that could mop the floor with Russian conscripts.
They'd be better trained, better equipped, better armed, and better lead.
As we are seeing, those Russian numbers are greatly inflated, based on vast numbers of non-functional equipment. Tanks that will never run again, missiles that mis-fire, incompetent, dispirited, poorly led personnel. Though at a horrific cost in lives and destruction, it’s invasion of Ukraine has done the world the favor of revealing just how rotten to the core it’s military has become. Time for a change of leadership, an acceptance of rule of law and some form of government that grants rights and a say over governance to it’s people.
On top of that I understand he wanted to be critical, but he make few mistakes regard US:
1) US is in position allowing them test future solutions. Though some didn't pay of another did (Boston Dynamic).
2) Zumwalt tech would be used in promising actual next generation of ships.
3) LCS were intended as coastal guard, but cost overruns make clear that it is cheaper to buy Frigates.
4) F-35 is actually good, just still didn't reach maturity. But it would be mass produced in near future.
5) US has hypersonic missiles from 70's and they actually would install them on Zumwalt.
Typical westerner spreading fake propaganda while trying to justify it with "dictator bad, I love democracy"
*its
You got that wrong trice, impressive.
Sorry your facts are incorrect...
🇮🇳 Indian Air Force operates
36 Rafale already Delivered
260 Sukhoi-30 MKI
65 Mig-29
135 SEPECAT Jaguar
45 Dassault Mirage 2000
24 Indigenous Tejak MK-1 (8+73 in order)
70 Mig-21 Bison
Source?
@@praddumnvats6759 it's official...
@@praddumnvats6759 source: Trust me Bro
@@criesandthrowsuponthefloor608 Fake ID...😂
@AFKSOLITUDE Fake ID... Fake Name... 😂
The comments about the UK needing the US' help with fuel and use of their airstrips are quite odd. It's a battle thousands of miles from home, of course it would be easier to buy/borrow some fuel from a few hundred miles away vs shipping it thousands of miles. And of course they would use US air bases if it means easier win conditions and convenience.
they also used a us airstrip in a airbase lent to america by the british. i fell like the british militery was downplaying in this video no mention if its modern airforce or 2 carriers
I know, who wouldn't use allied help to launch a war 8,000 miles away? They launched faster than they would have done if they didn't have help, but with a few more months they would have been able to do it alone.
Look at all the teaboos coping
i know, he didn't mention any of the huge positives of the uk military
@@blink182bfsftw dude you're a blink 182 fan, come on
The greatest defense: having absolutely nothing that anybody would want.
Meanwhile in the dessert
I’m pretty sure there are militaries out there that USA’s militarized police forces could defeat if they were turned into an army.
Except US police aren't militarized save for Riot and FBI response teams. Most of them just have an AR or a shotgun if needed but most training is devoted to investigation.
The national guard does just that. We can be deployed overseas
@@Darqshadow lol you’ve never had a swat team which moved and acted just like a house clearing assault team bust into your house because someone SWATING you. Even small town cops all have M4’s these days. That is militarized goof
Thanks this will be useful for my plan
We, britain, ever since 2020 we’ve increased our military budget, so we will be strengthening our military
There is nothing special about that as almost all other countries have done that too. In other words the UK's power isn't increasing in relation to their peers.
@@incumbentvinyl9291 our only ‘peers’ would be Russia & China. We don’t necessarily have enemies. Russia has been declining since 1991, and china is facing serious problems such as lack of faith in the government & decreasing power (recent) in their economy
@@TheWeekday2100 Using what logic would those be your only ''peers''?
How has Russia been declining since 1991? That's an absurd claim that proves that you know nothing about the world around you.
What lack of faith in the government in China? The living standards of the Chinese people has improved very significantly the past few decades. What proof do you have of lack of faith for the government? Are you sure you're not talking about the British government?
Irish resident here! I was honestly expecting Ireland to be listed at #1 weakest. The fact that it has been omitted from this is hilarious. You can cross-check the specifics in your own time, but I'm fairly certain that we have the following: a few "attack" helicopters (yeah, sure); x1 "big boat made of steel" - wait for it - "with a cannon on it" (snorts); trained armed forces of a few thousand, who are ground forces only, and carry - wait for it - swords (you'll have noticed this if anyone followed the Queen's visit here back in '11, or whenever it was); 0 air force to speak of; o ground forces to speak of; 0 navy to speak of. Why is this so important?
Ireland, as is evident to anybody, is arguably the most important nation on earth for undersea internet and comms cables. We're the last stop before America going west, and the first stop for them heading east. Nobody cares about Iceland **whose airspace is fully protected by NATO** and, is therefore, really just an extension of the US, and Greenland and Faeroe Isles are technically just vassal states of Denmark. Also, no one lives in either territory.
For the US, Ireland also supersedes Portugal in this instance due to language - for the US' 'ease-of-comms', its Ireland. There have been frequent documented cases of Russian spy ships moored off the western Irish coast (google it), who are blatantly and flagrantly spying on Ireland's undersea cable network to the US completely unimpeded. So long as they remain outside of our 12 mile nautical territory, they can do as they please. We have 0 navy or air force to deter them - or indeed to deter any nation who wishes to do the same.
Sure, there exist "not-so-secret" arrangements with Downing St. that the UK would "leap to our defense" in the event of a hostile act/invasion, but what if an attack were to be launched on both the UK and Ireland simultaneously? Can it really be expected that Britain's Defense Forces should sacrifice their own to save Ireland's? And isn't this just, well, a bit insane of an assumption to make for the times we're living in? Everyone touts this whilst forgetting one majorly-imperative Achilles heel: Ireland is *not* a member of NATO, and making us now just 1 of 4, alongside: Malta, Cyprus and Austria. AT doesn't need to join as its surrounded on all sides by NATO members; Cyprus will probably end up being incorporated into NATO once Turkey is inevitably admitted, and Malta is about as threatening to X military as Trump on a horse. (no offence Malta but, lets be real here: no on cares).
For allegedly being "the wealthiest nation on earth" heading into 2024 (give me a break), but more accurately, an independent, crucially-located, North-Atlantean, **NON-NATO**, relatively-close-to-Russia, GIGANTIC island nation - which, in case we've forgotten, stands at the GATEWAY to Europe and is really the most geopolitically-important nation on earth geographically speaking - I'm really sorry guys, but Ireland absolutely has the world's weakest military because we have none.
I declare this debate open! 😅 And I'll brb btw: I think I see a Russian frigate unloading snooping deep-sea robots down to the seabed just off the horizon, presumably to hack into Biden's direct line to Leinster House. Snoop snoop snoop.
alternate title: what countries you should avoid and what you should invade
So The Infographics show secretly has a private army capable of invading any country? Cause that would be impressive if they are able to do it
Most world powers: you can't touch this
Japan: *Hold my sushi*
Lol
This is incredible. I was just wondering about this.
I remember in Afghanistan I saw a convoy of UK troops leaving the wire for patrol on a vehicle that looked like a oversized Polaris ranger with a rollbar. We asked them what happens if they’re hit with an IED in a vehicle with no armor? They said “oh then we die”
Brazil needs the landmass taken into account. You might capture cities on the coast, but that's a logistics nightmare waiting for an owner.
The F35 always gets lumped with over-expensive military failures. Other than huge costs, the program is a huge success. This plane redefines what is possible. And the 4th gen planes you mention are getting a second life precisely because of what the F35 can do in the air.
In the last 2 months 2 of the planes have crashed into the sea.. that is not a good record
Absolutely. Improved versions of the the F-15 and F-16 are being used as weapons carriers for the F-35 because the navy and the air force are mostly integrated on the same targeting and radar systems.
@@HaiLsKuNkY deluded
Plus, there are countries willing to buy f35 jets for some reason.
@@HaiLsKuNkY yes, but its still weird that many nations are still buying the f35 jets for some reason.
What about Vatican City? Technically they are a nation and the Swiss Guard is their standing military. Which should land them in the top 3 weakest militaries, even with the defensive portions of the Lateran Pacts.
If war happens, let’s go to Greenland, anyone in ?
Switzerland might be a better idea
Any Scandinavian place is a good idea.
The US will invade it, better go to Argentina like certain Austrian painter.
New Zealand
I'm going to Switzerland
When I think about invading a country, I think about just how well situated and set up the united states' of America is. Geologically. Militarily, technically, Navy strength. The only thing that would compromise a invasion would be if some enemies some how took over Canada or Mexico but all of that would be very difficult because all 3 nations would most likely support each other to maintain stability. So the chance of s sneak attack is only likely with a ballistic missile or something..
Not to mention the US has so many military bases on its borders that it’s practically impossible to invade it
Yeah well Mexico I in the Bricks now and China has a ton of troops stationed in Canada so what you are saying is not true anymore
@@ShermanMark1 You might want to rethink your statement about chinese troops in Canada. There are no chinese troops in Canada unless you are referring to chinese immigrants which admittedly we have, but I daresay that most of them would fight to stay free of china.
@@sattyre6892 nah you just obviously haven't heard of China having troops training in Canada and they even sent us a video clip of them doing it in Canada
@@ShermanMark1 take your propaganda somewhere else. Right now, my government is really at odds with your government. My government being Canadian, and I'm guessing your government being China,
The Liberian Armed forces being commanded by a Nigerian Major General sounds crazy to me 😂😅
Brazilian Air-Force actually thinks itself to be toe to toe with the bests of the world, some even say they could resist a invasion by the USA. And the air force holds the highest technology among the 3 forces. Trust me, I'm an Air Traffic Controller.
Japan has changed it from "self-defense" to "pro-active defense" and now it includes all their neighborhood and allies, so now it's extra-territorial and can intervene international conflicts like an almost regular army.
With the Gripen they would be.
You know it’s bad when North Korea isn’t even in the top 10 despite having atomic weapons and over 1 million active-duty troops
They are poorly trained, poorly equipped, very few volunteers and their Navy and Air Force are both jokes. Their cyber warfare capabilities are also nill. Just a bunch of guys in uniforms, basically...and they have nukes (weak ones) but the delivery systems can't get past even basic counter-ICBM tech.
@@sterlingcampbell2116 i’m pretty sure since 2010 North Korea has sunk more ships more then America and you have no Way to determine how well trained their troops are and there anti-air force is filled with Battle proven equipment so you’re wrong
@@avus-kw2f213 Haha, whatever you say, champ
@@aquapotato.. still better than the Taliban
@@aquapotato.. imagine 5 million Taliban with nuclear weapons and paramedics that have got to make it to the top 10
I think being dismissive about the UK here is quite poor. With their economy they could be at war for a very long time and the entire nation is known for bandying together to defend themselves. I would say that Australia, UK, New Zealand and Israel probably have the best army training and all ahead of the US. Indonesia has the best shooters in the world amongst their well trained troops. However you cannot deny the might and technology of the US to be sure. Brazil could certainly handle its own defense I've no doubt. Australia would be hard pressed defending its large area with a small force, however we do have the volunteer Northern Crocodile marine force, The Cassowary Strike force, The Drop Bear Paratrooper Commandos and the Fly Airborne Division. Australia would only defend itself from land forces in a line down the Great Dividing Range and land east of there, The Perth environs and the Adelaide Hills and land west of there. I am not sure about Tasmania though.
fax
The information in this video also just isn’t correct. Britain did not need to rely on the US for aid during the Falklands - it was just easier and less costly to do so. Why on earth would we source all our fuel here when America (our ally) is much closer to the Falklands. Also, the information this video says about the UK not remaining a dominant military power for much longer is just utter bogus. If anything, I think we’ll inevitably see further military spending. The world is seemingly becoming a more unstable place. Many states have already began to increasingly militarise.
"Northern crocodile marine force" 😆🤔
Is that a joke or a real thing - I do know aussies have funny names for things but that has me thinking, Joke or Real ??
@@lewisbates7951 ik mate this guy slates the uk in almost every video he can.
@@stevenmack9948Don’t make fun of the name 😒
I'd like to disagree with the mention of the F35 not being good, its in its early testing stages and still has the least amount of failures compared to any other US plane during testing. Furthermore I would like them to start F22 production again but sadly it's way more expensive and not worth it yet
As far as I'm concerned the F22 needs a few upgrades and it can hold up for years to come
@@Tavemanic what upgrades do you think it needs?
@@ipant1056 Now, I don't know too much more than the average person does about the F22, but I'd assume the military could essentially revamp it's internals and engines with newer equipment, although it still holds up fine off the ground
@@Tavemanic I usually would agree with you but the internals are pretty modern 1990's-2000's tech and replacing them currently would be a waste of money and could cause big issues if not done correctly or if somethings overlooked
F-22 production/repair is costly thanks to politics.
So...theres that.
Countries, you better take your notes.
I like how the US helps almost all the countries on this list.
It’s a strategy to take over and rule those countries. Wake up and see what they doing! They basically colonialists trying to take over
@@zinhle_dladla Out of principle you should move to Africa. Stop using the colonists' technology like smartphones and the internet.
"helps" turning them into puppets, sure.
@@zinhle_dladla Last time i cheked, you are using the app made from the colonists. Leave to app now then.
@@gababa4286 you say that while using a phone built in china... how ironic...
21:51 India’s Mig-21 Bison had also shot the more advanced F-16 of Pakistan. You should check your source of information infographics show.
@AuroraIndeed
@Aurora lol it wasn't
@Aurora First of all, CNN news channel is controlled by the United States. Therefore, they wouldn’t want the American origin F-16 to lose it’s market potential as well as its credibility when it was shot down by a much less advanced fighter jet. And hence, CNN news channel is selling fake propaganda.
Wrong, The eritrean airforce has 7 MIG-29 multi-role fighters , 2 Sukhoi Su-27 multi-role fighters, 6 italian Aermacchi MB-339 trainer / ground attack jets and 6 Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters.
Excellent! Thanks!
It should be noted tho, that invading Amazon is almost if not totally Impossible. Not only because local forces are excelent jungle fighters with its soldiers coming mostly from Native American Tribes with milenias in jungle experience, but it drastically lacks infraestructure. Just getting a normal car into the city of Manaus is a Challenge that can take weeks (if you ever manage to get there), i cant even imagine How hard It would be to get an entire army and suplies without getting ambushed in an insane amount of situations.
I'm Brazilian too, and the thing is that no one would invade the Amazon, not directly, because it makes no sense, if a foreign country wanted to take our resources they would obviously try to take the cities first and take down the government, instead of invading the jungle.
@@rafaelalodio5116 Yes, but the main cities are thousands of kilometers away from the amazon and many of them have more than 10 million people, which means they're hard and expensive to control.
This topic became quite interesting in the context we are currently in. Look at Russia's invasion of Ukraine with their convoys having a hard time reaching Kiev on pavemented roads. Imagine the challenge the same convoys would have to reach the capital of the Amazon, Manaus? It would not be possible.
Tanks stuck on mud, roads suddenly becoming rivers, bridges collapsing, roads literally disintegrating in front of your eyes, etc... Ambushing a military convoy crossing any point in such a scenario would be "easy" task
@@_Bruno_Cesar_ My point is that an invading force wouldn’t have to do any of that, they would need to take control of the major cities, which are mostly in the coast (that would make it a little bit easier), and after taking control of the country they could simply use the civilian infrastructure to explore whatever resources they want to take.
Not saying that would be easy, I’m saying that no one would need to actually invade a forest to achieve that goal, that would be dumb.
@@rafaelalodio5116 Dont forget Brazil is a federative republic. Taking a city doesnt mean you conquered an entire country, especially a country the size of Brazil. Just look at Afghanistan.
Conquering Rio, for example, would mean little to nothing to Manaus, which is the capital of the Amazon. You cant easily explore the amazon without conquering Manaus.
And above all, doesn't exist a country in this world that could fully take control of Rio or SP if the population is against the intervention. Controlling Rio, SP and BH (almost 40 million people) all at the same time is almost impossible without deploying less than a million troops.
@@_Bruno_Cesar_ My grandfather was stationed in Manaus during WWII. He said the excessive heat and humidity almost killed him.
You totally forgot about the Laser & Weapons System the US has on top of unmanned surface vessels, unmanned aerial combat aircrafts
One Ohio class sub can destroy and country , does the US even need new tricks?
Us failed the laser weapons test.
Great video but this channel almost never speaks about geography for example the uk is almost impossible to invade due to its geography which is why it hasn’t been invaded in 300 years
He made a video on it
thanks for the guide, i am gonna try this out
What about CANADA?!?! Everyone either dismisses us or includes us with Britain or the United States… definitely prefer the US though lol
Canada is the USA ‘s little brother.
Great video, but to assume the US has no hypersonic weapons is absurd, even china's hypersonic weapons are based off of US tech, I wouldn't be surprised if you US had already found a way to stop hypersonic weapons.
Agreed
No, they've just announced a development program. The US was shocked that China has developed it already.
@@stevengruber57 The US defense contractors were messing around with hypersonic missiles during the 80's and 90's.
"china's hypersonic weapons are based off of US tech"
Source?
I'd like to know how the United Kingdom did not hold its own in the war of the Falklands? I consider 8 to 1 losses to be holding your own
It stated that it couldn't have done that without help from the US. It doesn't matter how good you can do if you can't get there
You really did not pay attention
Also love how they say the UK can't project power, despite us having 2 Super Carriers and the largest Navy in Europe. Something tells me this channel has an agenda
@@evancourtois7778 that may have something to do with the UK being thousands of miles away geographically when in comparison to the US
@@shingetsu10
Could it be that be that the infographics show makes mistakes on a constant basis and is not a reliable source, only existing to spam out videos?
No it can’t be that, no way
I expected much more from the title.
It doesn't factor in geography and only vaguely factor in socio-political circumstances and other elements that would have a big effect on a countries ability and willingess to fight.
Good Stuff, You should do one on smaller countries and islands like the Caribbean Islands
In defense of the USAF< the F-35 has shown to be the only one of these programs that have actually shown to be a potential success. Yes it has teething problems (very expensive ones), but when has a new piece of military tech not had teething issues? *cough cough* Much beloved M-16 *cough cough*
My uncle had always told me he cursed the m16 multiple times during Vietnam. How far its come is wild
@@Travster93 How many commies did he shoot?
Remember strategy is also important so if you have a huge arsenal it won't matter if you don't know how to use it.
So like Man United Have Ronaldo,Varane,Rashford,Sancho,Bruno but still draw and lose
Make nuke, detonate nuke!
Thanks needed this
Talking about invading Brazil is easy, the hard part is invading and keeping it as an occupied territory, operation Surumu sent it's regards. 🇧🇷
O brasil e um pais gigantesco, realmente difícil de manter um ocupação, mas em caso de invasões o brasil perde com certa facilidade dependendo do inimigo
Okej but… you dont walk in the amazons in modern war, naval and air combat wil be huge part , maintaining occupation is station troops here and there… you all might pack a huge punch bc of population count and the favelas killing enemys coming in city by foot as ukraine did on russians… but its one punch and wont be supplied in longer term, invest in newer jets than gripen as they are not best in modern day (spoken from a swedie), impressive battlefield tho and im sure not everyone can operate in such conditions
Tomahawks makes things a lot easier, but Brazil has a huge landscape and a mixture of terrains, will be quite hard for the logistics and troops moving here and there.
Naval landing might work, but at a certain cost too, will be quite a battle tbh, but we're friends with most of the superpowers, so I doubt any of them would try to invade us 👀
But if we rely on our government, our troops will be stuck with Vietnam war era equipment, sadly...
The Brazil's biggest self-defense weapon is it's diplomacy
Without any army, Brazil would be one of the 5 most difficult places to invade. Amazon is a challenge for modern warfare (big terrain, natural protection aggainst armored vehicle and a lot of natural diseases for troops). Northeast is drawght and protected by mountains. A swamp and mountains guard southweast. The only natural vulnerability is the south portion of the country. To occupy Brazil you need to fight Vietnam style war and afganistan style at the same time. Brazil reallies on guerrilla tactics for self defense, that's why it armored vehicles and air defenses are so weak.
Also a couple of other thing to remember are fighting experience. British armies have been in wars constantly over the last 20 years and have massive battle experience which alot of other top countries in the top 10 including Russia which has fallen apart in a real conflict. Also ww2 applied massive costs to the britian including massive costs america made us pay for ships and equipment which we only finally paid off some 20 years ago.
I have to say that Guerilla warfare is a very effective way of beating a superpower, therefore a lot of these smaller countries would do better than it would seem at first
I disagree.
Times have changed drastically. Every modern military has technological means to find out where there enemy is hiding.
Besides, with global urbanization, once you've taken over the cities, the war is already won.
@@TheStickman419 ''Lol''
The US did beat Afghanistan. Where have you been? Yes, they hid in the mountains, they had no political power. The only reason they came out of their caves is because the USA *left* Afghanistan.
Those Islamic groups are basically poorly equipped terrorist cells, not comparable to the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan and had a capable military with semi modern US materiel.
France left because of the same reasons why the USA left. It's not worth the money and effort, not because they weren't in control of the situation or hadn't won the war.
Guerilla warfare is a thing of the past that has only very limited use in any modern conflict.
If anything, outdated aircraft can be used as kamikaze weapons
Am I the only one who feels like they had already done this not too long ago?
Me too
I’m pretty sure the video you are talking about is only about the “Hardest countries to invade”