Why the United Kingdom is the Worst Place to be if WW3 Breaks Out

Believe it or not, it will take that nuclear missile just 20 minutes to go all the way from Moscow to London. What has England in the crosshairs of Putin? Check out today's epic new video as we examine where the UK has gone wrong and why it may be the worst place in the world to be when World War 3 kicks off.

🔖 MY SOCIAL PAGES

💭 Find more interesting stuff on:

All videos are based on publicly available information unless otherwise noted.

[Naxirian]

Yeah I'm from the UK and a lot of this is inaccurate or out of date information. Fact check these things for yourselves because this video is just sensationalist to try and get views.


The SA80 segment in particular is just straight up wrong. He's pulled his information from Wikipedia and it's based on the original rifle design from the 80's. The design has been improved multiple times since then and they are considered to be a reliable and capable weapon now. The weapon *is* right handed only, but soldiers are trained to fire it that way regardless of whether they are left or right handed, and it is not an issue. The American M4 and M16 are also right handed designs, and you don't hear anyone freaking out about those.

The Challenger 2 tank is one of the best and most advanced in the world, and the Challenger 3 refit is making them even more capable and helping to integrate them better with other NATO forces. We don't have a huge amount of them, but we have less need of tanks when we're an island, our navy and our air force are more important to be able to project military power beyond our island home, and prevent hostile forces from landing here in the first place.

F-35's are not the only modern fighters that the UK has, we also have the 4.5 gen Eurofighter Typhoons (thanks to those who corrected this), and we have a lot more of those, more than twice as many as we have F-35's. We also have a programme underway to develop a 6th generation fighter in cooperation with Italy and Japan.

The UK's Type 45 destroyers are extremely capable anti-aircraft vessels that make anything Russia has look dated, and our navy is more than a match for Russia's. They don't even have a fully operational aircraft carrier right now, whilst our small island nation has 2 brand new state of the art carriers. We have additional submarines and frigates under construction, in addition to those already in service.

I have no doubt we should be increasing the size of our military given the current world situation, but it is nowhere close to as dire as this video creator would like to make it out to be. Our troops are far better trained and motivated than Russia's are, and you can bet that our military is closely watching how our equipment is performing in Ukraine and what tactics are being used in what is really the only recent war that has been fought between 2 nations using modern equipment. We're close to bringing anti-drone directed laser weaponry into service and have been considering sending it to Ukraine for field testing in the real world. The British military is still cutting edge, even if it's not as large as it once was.

[ryno]

Manager: You're still coming to work tomorrow.

[Loneman_OG]

many factual inaccuracies that it's _almost_ laughable! 🙄

[TheCatBilbo]

"Put the kettle on, love - we've got less than 20 minutes"...

[YsterperdGaming.]

Me Sitting in South Africa safe from Ww3. But Country been destroyed by the government itself.

[jrm]

I would die within the first hour. My house is like 3 km from a big airbase in EU that has US nukes stored confirmed. 🥰

[scsutton]

Listen, if it does, we'll go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint and wait for all this to blow over. How's that for a slice of fried gold?

[Samaldoful]

Huge amounts of misinformation, but for what reason? Total incompetence or more sinister reasons?

[EvenWaysMusic]

But if Russia launches nukes at the UK, then the UK just launches back and Russia loses too... It's Mutually Assured Destruction. And number of nukes isn't important either. The UK's 215 or so is enough to pretty much end an entire continent let alone a country. People forget how powerful these newer ones are compared to the ones used in WW2

[danielgrayling]

Well at least it will be a bit warmer for a change.

[samsnook]

Did you spend the 1st half telling us how bad our military was then the 2nd half saying how great our military was?

[drex]

The UK has been hearing the same sort of stuff in various forms for its entire existence

[garethmatthews]

you failed to mention the uk is a nuclear armed country

[terencebrown]

WW3 has already started, and I am alive and well in England.

[Fthegagenda]

As an American that fought with the Brits in Iraq, let me tell you one thing….they will literally never surrender to anything, they just don’t give up and they don’t panic. The ultimate stoic soldiers and they taught me a lot. I always say that the Brits are like having a dog by your side that will stop at nothing to protect you. love from the states. ❤

[GGJAMALK]

Blud is so mad at the uk for some reason like bro obsessing over it in its video titles 💀😂

[truefortune]

Being in the UK would not be the worst place in the event of world war 3.

There are several strategic and logistical considerations that would likely influence Russia's military decisions in a hypothetical global conflict. Here are the key points:

1. Distraction of Firepower.
   Concentration Risks: By focusing its military efforts on the UK, Russia would inevitably divert its resources and attention away from other significant threats. This would leave it vulnerable to other adversaries, particularly those with considerable military capabilities such as the USA and NATO allies.

2. USA's Military Superiority:
   Larger Arsenal: The USA possesses a vast and technologically advanced military arsenal that surpasses Russia's in several domains, including nuclear capabilities, air power, and naval strength. Engaging with the UK could provoke a robust response from the USA, complicating Russia's strategic position.

3. Geopolitical Constraints:
   -NATO Allies: Many of Russia's neighboring countries are NATO members, which would likely respond aggressively to any Russian offensive. These countries, along with other global powers, would pose significant conventional military challenges to Russia not to mention the closer strategic missiles on their borders that would be a priority for Russia.

4. UK's Defensive Capabilities.
   Military Strength: The UK, though smaller in size and population compared to Russia, has a well-equipped and professional military. Its nuclear deterrent, advanced air force, and strong naval presence could inflict substantial damage in any confrontation.

5. Strategic Missteps:
   Global Isolation: Aggressing the UK could result in severe international condemnation and further isolate Russia diplomatically and economically. This would weaken its strategic position globally.

   Domestic Defense Priorities: Historically, Russia has placed a significant emphasis on defending its extensive borders and maintaining internal security. Diverting too many resources abroad could undermine these efforts.

6. Doctrine of Defense vs. Aggression:
   Defensive Strategy: Given the potential repercussions, Russia might find a defensive posture more sustainable. This involves bolstering its own defenses, leveraging its geographic depth, and utilising asymmetric tactics to deter aggression.

Therefore, the UK is a relatively safe place during any conventional conflict due to the reasons mentioned. However, should a conflict escalate to an all-out nuclear war, the only relatively safe places would be in the very southern hemispheres, such as parts of Australia, New Zealand, or remote areas of South America. Even then, the aftermath would severely compromise modern-day living conditions due to nuclear fallout and the ensuing environmental and societal disruptions.

7. Nuclear Fallout Considerations:
   Northern Hemisphere Risk: The northern hemisphere, where the majority of the world's nuclear powers are located, would be the worst place to be during a nuclear conflict due to the higher density of potential targets and fallout zones.a Nuclear bomb would be an air burst for maximum affect.

   UK's Geographical Advantage: The UK's island location and prevailing westerly winds could mean that radiation from a nuclear fallout might disperse more quickly compared to mainland continents. This geographical factor might offer a marginally quicker reduction in radioactive contamination for the UK compared to other northern hemisphere regions.


In summary, while the UK might not be the safest place in the event of a global conflict, it is certainly not the worst in fact it could prove to be one of the few places where one hundred years later in the aftermath of such devasatuon would be one of the strongest countries to emerge from the darkness. The strategic and geographic factors could offer some relative advantages, particularly compared to other locations in the northern hemisphere during a nuclear event.

Nuclear war cannot be won. The MAD doctrine is very real. Whether you like it or not or a keyboard soldier. Any country with nuclear weapons can annihilate our way of life. The UK is one of those countries so it would be signing your own death warrant to attack it. There is nowhere safe on earth. The same is said for any modern nuclear power. Russia and USA have the ability to annihilate the world many tines over.

War will achieve nothing accept perhaps reset the earth and it's resources. But what did the innocent animals do?  The fact that war is still happening and we are still not spending money on improving all of our lives show how primitive we still are.

[thenunbus]

You lost me at SA80.. I believe you meant the L85A2.. calling it an SA80 is like calling an M4A1 an AR-15

[benmarron]

this guy is on pure fearmonger mode i swear to god xD

[mrnatty]

I wouldn't be so smug, if war broke out every country in the world would be dramatically affected.