Comments by "VisibilityFoggy" (@VisibilityFoggy) on "Could modern Russian military conquer Scandinavia?" video.

  1. Morocco cares about Western Sahara more than anything having to do with the Spanish. They also love being supplied with weapons by the U.S., which would no longer an option if they decided to make war with a member of NATO. There is abundant trade between the two countries as well. Before thinking there will be a war, see how mellow things are at the Tarifa-Tangier ferry port. Nobody has a hand on a trigger.
    3
  2.  @alejandrozuluaga7660  - Ehh, I'm an American and have spent a ton of time in Colombia. Everyone has been extremely cool and friendly to me, personally. If I were to ever move to another country, it would be Colombia (and my family is Irish, lol).
    2
  3.  OdinSon  - They also have high-end USAF fighers on standard rotation at Keflavik.
    2
  4. More likely? Why would and Scandinavian country want to invade a backwards, poor, nuclear-armed wasteland like Russia?
    2
  5. The "build up" is the issue. Nobody is just going to "not notice" tens/hundreds of thousands of troops massing at a border. NATO would end this before it starts. USAF F-22s and RAF Eurofighters would be enforcing a 24/7 no-fly zone at the border and establish indisputable air superiority long before it would ever turn hot. B-52s and nuclear-armed B-2s would be on constant patrol. US, French and UK naval vessels would flood the Baltic with boats armed to the hilt with cruise missiles in days. U.S. Marines would be establishing FOBs on the borders to back up Finnish/Swedish indigenous forces. Plus the whole place would be swarming with special forces from every NATO member state. It's fun to play around with scenarios, but there is a reality here.
    1
  6.  @deinvater2200  - First, I used two acronyms: NATO and FOB. If you don't know what they mean, why are you even engaging in this discussion? Anywho, they didn't "flee" the Chinese. Millions of extra troops were injected into the conflict and pushed their adversary back. It was the opposite of "fleeing." The American troops stayed to fight and pushed both the North Korean and Chinese forces back across the 38th parallel at which point an armistice was signed. Gen. MacArthur was prepared to end the war with another atomic strike but was blocked from doing so by the president. As for the rest of your rant, these conflicts were heavily influenced by American domestic politics. Had the military commanders been free to do what they had to do, the outcomes would have been much different. Vietnam became a war of attrition which the U.S. was soundly winning. There is also (ie. Lebanon) the decision that invading and occupying your enemy, even after they bomb you, is more trouble than it's worth. You seem to reject reality because of your jealousy of a superior military power. May I ask what country you are from? I certainly hope it is not one of the European countries where your defense has been provided by the U.S. for the last 70 years. With "friends" like some Europeans, who needs enemies? Yet President Trump is criticized for finally putting some of you in your place and demanding you either pay us for our presence and sacrifice, or defend yourselves.
    1
  7.  @UmbraHand  - You guys should've bought a gigantic fleet of JF-17s when the empire (UK) denied you the Gripen.
    1
  8. Well, Reagan wasn't sworn in until 1981, so...
    1
  9. Any country with a halfway functioning government could "defeat" and occupy Libya. The question, of course, is why anyone would want to do so.
    1
  10. Most of which would break down on the way to battle.
    1