It seems like some people confuse extermination with conquest. Also I am surprised the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces are somehow understood to be without any retaliatory capacity. This last notion is utterly absurd, especially if you take into account the vast landmass they have at their disposal. The basic reality of nuclear deterrent still stand and MAD is every bit as real now as it was in the sixties.
Can United States Conquer the World?
- Thread starter Rex Romanum
- Start date
to take all the points one by one
Von Adler... there are 100 million Mexicans actually, not 40 million.
Gustavas, my point is that you don't have to occupy the world. At least not for a long time. You break the back of possible creditable challengers, and build your Imperial Army. Such an Army is immune to the political pressures that cause conventional armies to have to go home because it is a mercenary army. Such armies have been very successful in the past. The Roman Army 2nd Century AD - 3rd Century AD was such an Army and it was extremely successful. If the US Military had used Roman methods to conquer Iraq, there would not have been a 10 year counterinsurgency campaign. For that matter, if it had used World War II methods, the problem would have been solved much sooner.
I offer this to you... would the Sunnis have been able to believe that they had been tricked into defeat if 100 B52s had carpet bombed Baghdad into rubble (think Tokyo raids), and the US Military had been liberal in its use of napalm and carpet bombing in the march north? Would there had been a 1st or 2nd battle of Fallujah if World War II tactics had been used? As it was, US military casualties were light even when the US military was fighting with the gloves on. Consider how quickly resistance would have been effectively demolished in the initial invasion if harsher methods had been used to wipe out the resistance. Or for that matter, the US had gone in with 9 divisions instead of 3 (which was possible with the forces available to the US Army at that time.. it would have taken longer in preparation but the forces were there. Spearhead would be the same, just use NG brigades to hold the line of communications and occupy key points)
By the way, although the US imports some oil from the Mideast, most of the US oil supply is from the Western Hemisphere or Nigeria. The primary customer for Mideast oil is Europe, Japan, China, and India.
Once again, you do not have to occupy the world to conquer it. You simply have to eliminate any possible challenger, force the remaining nations to toe the line by military blackmail (and if the Americans crush the Europeans and East Asians, do you really think that the rest of the world is going to refuse American demands in the face of possible national extinction?)
Krull, your objections are valid... Australia is important because it had become the primary source of raw materials for East Asia.. specifically for China and Japan, and control of it means you cripple their industry without having to literally destroy it. It is also easy to control as the population is concentrated in only a few scattered cities, and the potential as a vast base is pretty obvious. It also gives America (Now, much less in the situation laid out) firm bases for space tracking, and launch sites for southern hemisphere and south polar orbits.
Note that the US is capable of building a much larger ABM system then is currently deployed. Yes, such a move would scare the piss out of the Russians and Chinese... but the Russians are not at this time technologically or monetarily able to match any American arms build up, while the Chinese aren't there yet either in terms of technology. The only nations that could...potentially...are Japan and some of the Europeans, and one thing that the Americans have that the Japanese and Europeans do not have is thousands of spare nuclear warheads sitting in storage and the infrastructure to build more. It takes years to build that, and certainly an evil American empire would get its forces ready first.
Finally Krull, as I pointed out, the whole thing is indeed impossible politically or morally for the United States to do as currently governed or organized. It would take some catastrophe to change our system or provide the will for such as change. But the question I am attempting to answer is whether or not North America has the raw power to do so and I think it does.
The Volunteer US Army peaked in 1987 at 18 regular divisions, plus 3 Marine divisions, plus about 30 Reserve and National Guard Divisions (including separate brigades that could have been organized into divisions). The peak US Army in the Cold War had a few more divisions above this number (once again if you count 3 brigades as a division for this purpose.. there were a fair number of separate brigades). The peak World War II US Army numbered 89 Divisions, plus 6 Marine Divisions with a population of about half of the current USA. It took 3 years to get that number, but it was done. A similar massive increase in the Navy and Air Forces also occurred. Note in World War II only 1 American division was ever permanently eliminated (the Phillippine Division), while several were badly mauled (mostly during the Battle of the Bulge), all were rebuilt before the end of fighting in Germany. In spite of the fact that Russia and Germany built hundreds of divisions, a very large percentage of these were eliminated, and the bulk of both of those nations had half the firepower of a US Infantry Division (which was essentially fully motorized at will).
So in effect, the US is capable of generating probably 200 fully mechanized divisions (including airborne and marine), along with the vast support needed to support such a force. It would take years, but it is possible.
In terms of raw power, the US can generate a vast amount, and only Russia and China could ever come close to that. Which is why you destroy their electronics industry with EMP, their nuclear, air and naval forces with nuclear strikes, and do the same with their shipyards. By the time they recover, it is too late.
Sure, there are details that would have to be resolved (the timing of a nuclear strike to reduce or preclude effective retaliation was a problem the Soviets never solved) but on several occasions during the Cold War era the US could have launched a preemptive strike and utterly destroyed the Chinese and Soviet capability to retaliate to any effective degree (in terms of reducing the ability of the US to carry through what I am suggesting is possible).
I am not saying that America conquering the world is easy, cheap, or even quick.. but it is possible from a strictly economic and military analysis.
Von Adler... there are 100 million Mexicans actually, not 40 million.
Gustavas, my point is that you don't have to occupy the world. At least not for a long time. You break the back of possible creditable challengers, and build your Imperial Army. Such an Army is immune to the political pressures that cause conventional armies to have to go home because it is a mercenary army. Such armies have been very successful in the past. The Roman Army 2nd Century AD - 3rd Century AD was such an Army and it was extremely successful. If the US Military had used Roman methods to conquer Iraq, there would not have been a 10 year counterinsurgency campaign. For that matter, if it had used World War II methods, the problem would have been solved much sooner.
I offer this to you... would the Sunnis have been able to believe that they had been tricked into defeat if 100 B52s had carpet bombed Baghdad into rubble (think Tokyo raids), and the US Military had been liberal in its use of napalm and carpet bombing in the march north? Would there had been a 1st or 2nd battle of Fallujah if World War II tactics had been used? As it was, US military casualties were light even when the US military was fighting with the gloves on. Consider how quickly resistance would have been effectively demolished in the initial invasion if harsher methods had been used to wipe out the resistance. Or for that matter, the US had gone in with 9 divisions instead of 3 (which was possible with the forces available to the US Army at that time.. it would have taken longer in preparation but the forces were there. Spearhead would be the same, just use NG brigades to hold the line of communications and occupy key points)
By the way, although the US imports some oil from the Mideast, most of the US oil supply is from the Western Hemisphere or Nigeria. The primary customer for Mideast oil is Europe, Japan, China, and India.
Once again, you do not have to occupy the world to conquer it. You simply have to eliminate any possible challenger, force the remaining nations to toe the line by military blackmail (and if the Americans crush the Europeans and East Asians, do you really think that the rest of the world is going to refuse American demands in the face of possible national extinction?)
Krull, your objections are valid... Australia is important because it had become the primary source of raw materials for East Asia.. specifically for China and Japan, and control of it means you cripple their industry without having to literally destroy it. It is also easy to control as the population is concentrated in only a few scattered cities, and the potential as a vast base is pretty obvious. It also gives America (Now, much less in the situation laid out) firm bases for space tracking, and launch sites for southern hemisphere and south polar orbits.
Note that the US is capable of building a much larger ABM system then is currently deployed. Yes, such a move would scare the piss out of the Russians and Chinese... but the Russians are not at this time technologically or monetarily able to match any American arms build up, while the Chinese aren't there yet either in terms of technology. The only nations that could...potentially...are Japan and some of the Europeans, and one thing that the Americans have that the Japanese and Europeans do not have is thousands of spare nuclear warheads sitting in storage and the infrastructure to build more. It takes years to build that, and certainly an evil American empire would get its forces ready first.
Finally Krull, as I pointed out, the whole thing is indeed impossible politically or morally for the United States to do as currently governed or organized. It would take some catastrophe to change our system or provide the will for such as change. But the question I am attempting to answer is whether or not North America has the raw power to do so and I think it does.
The Volunteer US Army peaked in 1987 at 18 regular divisions, plus 3 Marine divisions, plus about 30 Reserve and National Guard Divisions (including separate brigades that could have been organized into divisions). The peak US Army in the Cold War had a few more divisions above this number (once again if you count 3 brigades as a division for this purpose.. there were a fair number of separate brigades). The peak World War II US Army numbered 89 Divisions, plus 6 Marine Divisions with a population of about half of the current USA. It took 3 years to get that number, but it was done. A similar massive increase in the Navy and Air Forces also occurred. Note in World War II only 1 American division was ever permanently eliminated (the Phillippine Division), while several were badly mauled (mostly during the Battle of the Bulge), all were rebuilt before the end of fighting in Germany. In spite of the fact that Russia and Germany built hundreds of divisions, a very large percentage of these were eliminated, and the bulk of both of those nations had half the firepower of a US Infantry Division (which was essentially fully motorized at will).
So in effect, the US is capable of generating probably 200 fully mechanized divisions (including airborne and marine), along with the vast support needed to support such a force. It would take years, but it is possible.
In terms of raw power, the US can generate a vast amount, and only Russia and China could ever come close to that. Which is why you destroy their electronics industry with EMP, their nuclear, air and naval forces with nuclear strikes, and do the same with their shipyards. By the time they recover, it is too late.
Sure, there are details that would have to be resolved (the timing of a nuclear strike to reduce or preclude effective retaliation was a problem the Soviets never solved) but on several occasions during the Cold War era the US could have launched a preemptive strike and utterly destroyed the Chinese and Soviet capability to retaliate to any effective degree (in terms of reducing the ability of the US to carry through what I am suggesting is possible).
I am not saying that America conquering the world is easy, cheap, or even quick.. but it is possible from a strictly economic and military analysis.
only in the case of Russia vs the US. And only assuming the US does not launch a first strike. US Ohio class submarines have missiles with the needed accuracy to hit silos and crack them, as of course to the 450 Minuteman missiles in service. All, because of START Treaty have only 1 warhead each, but it would only be a matter of months at most in a crash effort to give them MIRVs again. Which may happen if START is not extended. The US also has a very significant number of B2s (fully stealth), B1s (pretty stealthy) and some B52s (which in the Cold War were trained to fly low and fast to avoid radar cover). Penetrating the current Russian air defense system is indeed possible with the use of selective attack, penetrating stealth aircraft, low flying cruise missiles and drones to open the way, while space detection can be neutralized by simply sending up a shuttle mission armed with nuclear tipped or even conventional missiles to knock at key Russian satellites for the initial attack.
Its risky, but it is very very possible. If the US expanded its ABM system somewhat, it would even be possible to knock down most of the surviving Russian missiles that manage to reach North America. Sure, some damage would occur, but not enough to stop the US from essentially being the only nation on the planet that retained the ability to destroy every city on the planet in a day or so.
As to the Russian Fleet, they are having serious problems as it is, and have only a few Boomers left. The USN had routinely shadowed Russian submarines since the 1940s. Finding and sinking the current force at the start of war is certainly with USN capabilities.
As far as extermination is concerned..Note I didn't say the US had to kill everyone, it simply has to eliminate the competition as a viable military threat. Extermination is what conquering nations do to ensure that everyone else toes the line and is used as object lessons. Not even Genghis Khan killed EVERYONE, just city dwellers so that the rural populations remained pacified. You don't have to destroy every city on the planet, but if the capability and obvious willingness exists and is proven that the Americans can destroy any country or city that refuses to accept domination, well...domination will occur.
Last edited:
Sorry Galveston but I still disagree with you.
You are labouring under a belief that no matter what the USA starts to do, expanding their military, preparing their people for a massive war etc, that the rest of the world will sit back and do nothing!
Sure the USA has a large population as well as industrial base, but how exactly do you propose to get those people to volunter to go to war with everyone, including their oldest friends?! Not something you can do overnight thats for sure! It took Hitler about 10 year to build enough support for his war, and that was against nations that the German people were already hostile against, for you to turn the US people against the UK, Canada and everyone else would take a lot of time!
It would also be painfully obvious what you were doing, again giving lots of time to prepare.
And those preparations would doom you. it wouldnt take much for Russia and China (even assuming they dont get help from the rest of the world) to set something up to respond. You would likely see co-operation like never before between these nations, uniting to combat the threat you are starting to pose. And you are seriously underestimating the capabilities of places like Russia and China, unlike the USA they are nations that keep things close to their chests, so you have no idea what they are really capable of.
As others have said before NUKES ARE NOT THE SOLUTION! leaving aside the damage that this response would do to the USA, and for a second lets assume that there was no response (although thats ridiculous). The ecological damage that your strike would do would be immense, you would loose access to the vast majority of your oil supplies, the climate would suffer (which would endanger your food production) and basically you would screw yourselves over.
Also, after using nukes on the world you have clearly marked yourselves as the monsters, and so the survivors in other nations would have problem what so ever with killing your people. The entire world would have only one goal - to destroy the entire USA and all its people.
People everywhere would fight back against you, because you have just proven to them that the only alternative is death, that even surrender is pointless because you clearly have no regard for common decency or behaviour and so your word can not ever be trusted.
Face it, the USA lacks the numbers to conquer the world, they lack the technology to conquer the world (and by that I mean that they are not so far advanced that they cant be beaten or others cant catch up quickly), and they lack industrial base to be able to conquer the world (lets not overlook the vital electronics etc that come from places like China). The only thing that the USA really has an advantage in is ther nuke arsenal. And unless you are willing to destroy the earth then these are not something that you can use often.
Sorry, its a pipe dream you have and nothing more.
You are labouring under a belief that no matter what the USA starts to do, expanding their military, preparing their people for a massive war etc, that the rest of the world will sit back and do nothing!
Sure the USA has a large population as well as industrial base, but how exactly do you propose to get those people to volunter to go to war with everyone, including their oldest friends?! Not something you can do overnight thats for sure! It took Hitler about 10 year to build enough support for his war, and that was against nations that the German people were already hostile against, for you to turn the US people against the UK, Canada and everyone else would take a lot of time!
It would also be painfully obvious what you were doing, again giving lots of time to prepare.
And those preparations would doom you. it wouldnt take much for Russia and China (even assuming they dont get help from the rest of the world) to set something up to respond. You would likely see co-operation like never before between these nations, uniting to combat the threat you are starting to pose. And you are seriously underestimating the capabilities of places like Russia and China, unlike the USA they are nations that keep things close to their chests, so you have no idea what they are really capable of.
As others have said before NUKES ARE NOT THE SOLUTION! leaving aside the damage that this response would do to the USA, and for a second lets assume that there was no response (although thats ridiculous). The ecological damage that your strike would do would be immense, you would loose access to the vast majority of your oil supplies, the climate would suffer (which would endanger your food production) and basically you would screw yourselves over.
Also, after using nukes on the world you have clearly marked yourselves as the monsters, and so the survivors in other nations would have problem what so ever with killing your people. The entire world would have only one goal - to destroy the entire USA and all its people.
People everywhere would fight back against you, because you have just proven to them that the only alternative is death, that even surrender is pointless because you clearly have no regard for common decency or behaviour and so your word can not ever be trusted.
Face it, the USA lacks the numbers to conquer the world, they lack the technology to conquer the world (and by that I mean that they are not so far advanced that they cant be beaten or others cant catch up quickly), and they lack industrial base to be able to conquer the world (lets not overlook the vital electronics etc that come from places like China). The only thing that the USA really has an advantage in is ther nuke arsenal. And unless you are willing to destroy the earth then these are not something that you can use often.
Sorry, its a pipe dream you have and nothing more.
Sorry, my native language sentence building reared its ugly head. What I meant was "herd 40 million mexicans (the number I image would be needed in order to isolate resistance from the population) OR kill all the mexicans"
I am going to assume you mean all of the major nuclear powers.. which is why the US hits them first
If the US takes out sufficient numbers of ICBMs, and deploys ABMs in sufficient numbers it has a lot less to fear from EMP strikes against North America. It takes missiles to reach the altitudes needed for EMP effects over a wide area.
Krull, I think you vastly overestimate the military power on the planet. Outside of the US, only China is in our league conventionally, only Europe could possibly (as things currently stand) ever develop a conventional force to match us (and that is all of Europe.. combined...), and only Russia has the nuclear forces to match US forces.
I am saying that the Russians have let their nuclear forces dwindle over the last 20 years. Partly due to funding, partly due to inability to deploy replacement systems for their older systems. It is will known that Soviet systems do not last long compared to Western build (or even Chinese built) systems. Russia has not been able to deploy a replacement ICBM (which would be, if ever made operational, equal to the US Minuteman III). They have good submarines, but rarely leave port, and thus a 1st strike would bag most of them. US submarines have routinely tailed Russian submarines since 1945. The first thing the Russians accused us of after losing the Kursk was colliding with it. The US Navy denied it, but did not deny being in the area and there are reports that we monitored the loss of that submarine via sonar.
The only nuclear forces likely to survive a US first strike are some of the Russian ICBMs. Maybe. No other European force is likely to be able to get a shot off if sufficient care is taken.. and the US has plenty of forces to do so.
You do not, I repeat, do not have to nuke every city on the globe, or even many of them in order to establish supremacy. It is pretty clear if the US can take out everyone's nuclear deterrent and their navies and air forces with limited strikes, that any follow up attack would destroy any targeted nation.
Do you really think that the world is going to challenge the evil North America so postulated once that is clear?
archaeogeek
Banned
I am saying that you underestimate russia significantly, as well as the other nuclear powers; if they find out the nukes have been launched, unless a magical ASB were to come make Star Wars actually more than a bluff, the only thing that will dominate the world is rubble.
currently deployed or deployable US ABM systems
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm3.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/bmd-2007.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kei.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/gbi.htm
if all else fails, the US could always resurrect the Nike-Zeus systems
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/nike_zeus.htm
it had problems (as it used a small nuclear warhead to ensure target destruction) but those could be dealt with (better computers now, better radars now, better rocket motors etc) so that nuclear warheads could be dispensed with
The main reason the US at this time does not have a massive ABM system is because of treaty, lack of perceived need, and budgetary (no need, so no large scale funding). However, the US government as it is now could buy a large scale system and deploy it within a few years... far faster than anyone else could. Certainly an evil North America would have that kind of ability.
The system that was canceled that was going to be built in Europe was to defend Europe, not North America. The US CONUS system is already deployed and mostly completed. It could be expanded within a reasonable timeframe.
In other words, Stars Wars was not ASB, nor is it now.
archaeogeek
Banned
Obviously I assume it will be as much of a success as the patriot missiles... Not field tested, billions on high tech that will be dependent on stuff that will break should an EMP strike happen.
Not that I'm that interested in going on, I assume you'll reply with more "america fuck yeah" wank. Hint: In the real world, mistakes happen, people defect, intelligence leaks, equipment malfunctions, and the enemy is a thinking person.
Not that I'm that interested in going on, I assume you'll reply with more "america fuck yeah" wank. Hint: In the real world, mistakes happen, people defect, intelligence leaks, equipment malfunctions, and the enemy is a thinking person.
actually as a weapons system the Patriot did pretty well and continues to do so (when used). I am not assuming 100% success for any system, nor do I feel the need to "wank". The current strategic situation, as it stands right now and for the next few years is that the US will continue to have dominance and could achieve absolute domination in a nuclear war.
That obviously will change, and is one of the few times since World War II when that has occured (the last time was 1954-1963). But it is where we are right now.
It is hardly a 'wank' to point that out.
A few dozen hydrogen bombs setting off an EMP effect and the US enters the early 19th Century and a few dozen may well be a generous estimate.
The possibility of the US deploying and developing/inventing all these weapon systems without the rest of the world noticing or responding is nil.
The possibility of the US deploying and developing/inventing all these weapon systems without the rest of the world noticing or responding is nil.
This and all your previous posts are utter crap, leave your self deluded world and join us in the real one or come back when you start puberty!
Most of your assessments are rather sound, even though I still believe you are underestimating the Russians. They have been building their missile force to ensure a asymmetric deterrent and I believe that even a US first strike would miss quite a few of their cheap mobile platforms. Of course the US would come out a 'winner' after the exchange, even though that would sound rather hollow in what would constitute a post-nuclear war world.
It is rather fascinating that the notion of 'winning' a nuclear exchange has somehow been rehabilitated, maybe it never went out of style?
But the whole premise of this whole conquest fantasy is that somehow someone exchanged the whole US population for puppets under the control of a evil mastermind puppeteer. Granted, that is a recurring american nightmare, but about as likely as if that puppeteer turned out to be Ronald McDonald.
I reached puberty 35 years ago.. which means I also remember the Cold War, studied nuclear warfare in college, and pay attention to what actual developments are.
I have also been reasonably respectful of contrasting views.. unlike apparently you.
You have an actual point or merely insults?
I also remember very well 1983-84 when there was a real concern that World War III could actually break out, and if it had, I for one was probably doomed (living between two major refinery complexes and next to the Johnson Space Center). So I do not underrate just how devastating such a war would have been or could be now.
My Sociology Class: Nuclear War and Society, had as a final exam question: "If the Soviet Union were to strike the City of Houston, what are the likely targets and effects" (3-5 page answer required).
Last edited:
Keep in mind that I have from the get go said that from a moral point of view the US could not or would not ever do such a thing.. short of some catastrophic event changing our government and society. I just said that it is militarily possible in the right circumstances.
so technically, the United States could not conquer the world... but a North American government with the military power of the US as of now potentially could.
You are right though... to put it mildly, it would be risky as hell to try
delivered how.. in the context of the scenario I have suggested
You should get your facts right, before starting a timeline like that.
The Plateau d'Albion IRBM site was deactivated in the mid 90s and these missiles did not have the range to hit the US.
The French strategic nuclear arsenal is onboard its SSBNs, which cannot be sunk in a first strike scenario, unless you have them all trailed and sunk, before you start launching nukes at France.
I am also interested in seeing how the US is supposed to find and kill the Russian mobile ICBMs.
Seriously people, if you disagree with what I am suggesting on the grounds of feasability.. then by all means come up with exactly why it is not so.
Use actual evidence or points or something, instead of "nukes are evil therefore what you say is impossible". Keep in mind that Russia is not the military power by any stretch that the Soviet Union was and is not likely to be for at least another decade. China is about a decade away at best as well.
So make your case, just don't make blanket statements.
I already addressed that it would be morally impossible for the US as currently organized and the current climate. (keep in mind that the Democracies firebombed whole cities in World War II, so apparently democracies are pretty flexible morally when it comes to Total War).
You want to debate, I will debate you and if you make a good case, I will actually give you credit.
Otherwise, what is the point of posting other than to attempt to show smug superiority.
Use actual evidence or points or something, instead of "nukes are evil therefore what you say is impossible". Keep in mind that Russia is not the military power by any stretch that the Soviet Union was and is not likely to be for at least another decade. China is about a decade away at best as well.
So make your case, just don't make blanket statements.
I already addressed that it would be morally impossible for the US as currently organized and the current climate. (keep in mind that the Democracies firebombed whole cities in World War II, so apparently democracies are pretty flexible morally when it comes to Total War).
You want to debate, I will debate you and if you make a good case, I will actually give you credit.
Otherwise, what is the point of posting other than to attempt to show smug superiority.
most of those ships, like US boomers, are in port at any given time. Some would be at sea, and yes, they would have to be trailed and sunk at the start of the operation.
The French land force was deactivated in 1999 actually. But presumably could be reconstituted if the French reacted to a suddenly dangerous North American arms build up.