Can United States Conquer the World?

This whole thread is ridiculous. So I guess I'll contribute...

The current state of the world - where the US military is so relatively powerful - came about because the other powers (or potential powers) have largely acceded to the US being the military superpower. They are counting on the US being discrete with it's vast power - i.e. David Cameron does not spend a lot of time worrying over a surprise US strike on London. As a result, they can spend their money on other things - read this week's Newsweek about the new British defense budget, for example.

If the political situation in the US changed, then so would the balance of power. The US armed forces today are strong, unbelievably lethal, and global in scope. Any they could (and would) be countered by a combination of powers if the US suddenly turned evil.

I would point out that the current arrangement - in place since 1991 or so - is so popular that even after the US started an 'evil' war against Iraq that everyone protested, no one actually DID anything to counter the US. The French, for example, for all of their shouting, did not lay down 6 aircraft carriers to challenge US control of the Atlantic.

So unless the US is REALLY aggregious, nothing will change. The US will not militarily conquer the world because it already is doing so without an army, and the only military actions will be in response to rogue states or terrorism. The rest of world will decry the American military, criticize Americans for eating too much red meat, and do nothing to change it because they live protected by it.

Mike Turcotte
 
This whole thread is ridiculous. So I guess I'll contribute...

The current state of the world - where the US military is so relatively powerful - came about because the other powers (or potential powers) have largely acceded to the US being the military superpower. They are counting on the US being discrete with it's vast power - i.e. David Cameron does not spend a lot of time worrying over a surprise US strike on London. As a result, they can spend their money on other things - read this week's Newsweek about the new British defense budget, for example.

If the political situation in the US changed, then so would the balance of power. The US armed forces today are strong, unbelievably lethal, and global in scope. Any they could (and would) be countered by a combination of powers if the US suddenly turned evil.

I would point out that the current arrangement - in place since 1991 or so - is so popular that even after the US started an 'evil' war against Iraq that everyone protested, no one actually DID anything to counter the US. The French, for example, for all of their shouting, did not lay down 6 aircraft carriers to challenge US control of the Atlantic.

So unless the US is REALLY aggregious, nothing will change. The US will not militarily conquer the world because it already is doing so without an army, and the only military actions will be in response to rogue states or terrorism. The rest of world will decry the American military, criticize Americans for eating too much red meat, and do nothing to change it because they live protected by it.

Mike Turcotte

I absolutely agree with you.

It is an interesting exercise though, so I thought I would throw something into the ring instead of the usual "no way, the US could never do it .. insert military reason here without thinking it through all the way". You will note that the first few posts were just that.

Given time, the world could counteract an aggressive North America. Not quickly though. First of all, like the West during the 1930s, it would have to agree (or notice) that a dangerous power was serious about its intentions. Secondly, it would have to rearm and hope that the North Americans did nothing to upset that process.

Sadly, our history is littered with governments and peoples ignoring a great danger (or evil... I give you Rwanda for example as a recent case) until it bites them in the ass.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
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.

The french submarine force is actually frequently out on missions, in part because it needs the training, and in part because unless you missed it, France has a lot of small bits of land where showing the flag is a good idea and they're not always sending the frigates.
 
The french submarine force is actually frequently out on missions, in part because it needs the training, and in part because unless you missed it, France has a lot of small bits of land where showing the flag is a good idea and they're not always sending the frigates.

you don't send boomers to show the flag off Polynesia

they go to an out of the way patrol station and try not to be spotted

Navies generally follow patterns. Surface forces and occasionally SSNs are used for your show the flag and standard patrol operations. You do not use boomers, a strategic platform, for that role. They are vital national assets and their principal purpose is survivability. The US Navy, as well as the RN and Japanese Maritime Defense Force are generally considered the experts in shadowing other nations submarines. Although specific details are classified, rumor has it that the USN and RN do and did routinely shadow Soviet (and now Russian boomers and SSNs) as well as Chinese boomers and SSNs. Hard information is very difficult to get, but it would appear that should it be required, the USN could indeed bag a French boomer while it was on patrol prior to it launching.
 
Last edited:
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...


respectfully, this is exactly the same was what you have been doing. You have claimed that the USA could easily launch a first strike agains the entire world and totally neutralise their nuclear capability without them ever being able to respond. You have not provided any actual evidence to support this claim. You have repeatedly claimed that Russia is much weaker than it was, and while that may be true that does not mean that they lack the capability to respond at all.

You whole argument is based on the fact that the US could blow everyone to hell from total safety, this is a false assertion and the responsibilty is on you to PROVE this before anyone needs to disprove it.

Fact is that you dont know what capabilities Russia and China have (not to mention the other nuclear powers out there) and so you are making huge assumptions as to what they can do in order that your scenario becomes workable. You assume that the nuclear subs will be in their bases, or that you can somehow find and destroy them in the vast oceans of the world before they can launch their missiles at the US.
You are also assuming that everything goes absolutely right for the USA, while everything goes wrong for the rest of the world, who are caught completely off their guard against a nuclear attack.
Sorry, but you are in serious ASB territory here.
 
Last edited:
...show me the money!

Seeing the question from a slightly different angle -

what would be the price tag for world conquest in US$?

My impression is, that US Forces (actually all NATO and comparable forces), while being incredibly effective and lethal, work on a very extensive cost basis. Anything that gets sunk/shot down, however remote the possibility, costs quite a lot of taxpayer's....errr...of Chinese money. ;)

Now, I know that in the situation of a total war, calculations and priorities are different than what we are used to (also when it comes to casualties), but still...

Also, has anyone yet mentioned the possibility of cyber-warfare either as a mean of attack employed by the American Empire, but also as a mean of counter-attack against the US?
 
Also, has anyone yet mentioned the possibility of cyber-warfare either as a mean of attack employed by the American Empire, but also as a mean of counter-attack against the US?

I dont think anyone has brought it up yet, this thread seems to have devolved into people claiming that the USA could jsut nuke everyone before they had a chance to react, therefore handing an instant win to the USA.

Cyber warfare is an interesting point though, given how computer reliant everything is these days. Hacking something like the power grid or rail and traffic systems would do massive amounts of damage, especially if it was timed to coincide with a convential attack.
While some military facilities would be able to stay active on their own power generators, it would cause massive chaos everywhere else which would impede you trying to move your forces around to counter a threat.

So which countries have the best/most hackers? I seem to recall lots being said about China and their cyber abiltities. Maybe their ever constant quest to control the internet has payed off and they have lots of experienced people on the government payroll. Makes you wonder what would happen if they set them loose against the US networks!
 

WarBastard

Banned
So which countries have the best/most hackers? I seem to recall lots being said about China and their cyber abiltities. Maybe their ever constant quest to control the internet has payed off and they have lots of experienced people on the government payroll. Makes you wonder what would happen if they set them loose against the US networks!

Totally anecdotal of course, but I think China and Russia are percieved to be at the forefront of cyberwar (Russia having actually used it once or twice).
 
respectfully, this is exactly the same was what you have been doing. You have claimed that the USA could easily launch a first strike agains the entire world and totally neutralise their nuclear capability without them ever being able to respond. You have not provided any actual evidence to support this claim. You have repeatedly claimed that Russia is much weaker than it was, and while that may be true that does not mean that they lack the capability to respond at all.

You whole argument is based on the fact that the US could blow everyone to hell from total safety, this is a false assertion and the responsibilty is on you to PROVE this before anyone needs to disprove it.

Fact is that you dont know what capabilities Russia and China have (not to mention the other nuclear powers out there) and so you are making huge assumptions as to what they can do in order that your scenario becomes workable. You assume that the nuclear subs will be in their bases, or that you can somehow find and destroy them in the vast oceans of the world before they can launch their missiles at the US.
You are also assuming that everything goes absolutely right for the USA, while everything goes wrong for the rest of the world, who are caught completely off their guard against a nuclear attack.
Sorry, but you are in serious ASB territory here.

actually, I did not say the US could easily launch a first strike, I also said that it would be a high risk move, BUT also that it is possible. Chinese capabilities are very well known and easily available anywhere you care to look. The Russian paper strength is well known, its actually capabilities are estimated at this point from reasonably high to very low, depending on which analyst you ask or read.

NATO navies tracked Soviet submarines from World War II routinely, including the boomers, and the US Navy is still the leader in that capability.

Have you read on the subject or are you going with media assumptions? There are several excellent books on US/Soviet Cold War naval operations and all of them pretty much make clear that the US Navy had a very significant edge over Soviet submarines. This has not changed. The only navies that would be likely to have a decent chance are the other Western Navies (British, French) as far as hiding their submarines, and the problem is that they do not have that many. The British have exactly 4 Vanguard class SSBNs in service, one of which is usually on patrol. The French have exactly 4 Triomphant class SSBNs in service, one of which is usually on patrol.

The Russians, at this time, have 4 Delta III, 6 Delta IV, and 1 Typhoon in service. Of these, figure 2-3 are on patrol at any time depending on Russian budget availability that year. Under START, the US and Russia each have 450 ICBMs, no MIRVS (which includes the submarine missiles as well). The US has been able to continually maintain and upgrade its force, the Russian government has had significantly more problems in this regard.

Essentially, the only nuclear force sizeable enough to survive a first strike is the Russian force.. perhaps. Risky, dangerous as hell, but not outside of the realm of possibility or probability.

Do you know something of this subject or are you making assumptions based on the "everyone knows" thinking method?
 
Totally anecdotal of course, but I think China and Russia are percieved to be at the forefront of cyberwar (Russia having actually used it once or twice).

The Chinese and Russians are both pretty damned dangerous in this regard. US capabilities are unknown, but apparently US defenses are tested a LOT. How often the Chinese and Russian defenses is a good question.

good articles on this
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20051222.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/20090524.aspx

note that the Chinese have problems of their own in regards to cyberdefense
 
Seeing the question from a slightly different angle -

what would be the price tag for world conquest in US$?

My impression is, that US Forces (actually all NATO and comparable forces), while being incredibly effective and lethal, work on a very extensive cost basis. Anything that gets sunk/shot down, however remote the possibility, costs quite a lot of taxpayer's....errr...of Chinese money. ;)

Now, I know that in the situation of a total war, calculations and priorities are different than what we are used to (also when it comes to casualties), but still...

Also, has anyone yet mentioned the possibility of cyber-warfare either as a mean of attack employed by the American Empire, but also as a mean of counter-attack against the US?

we haven't had a big cyber war yet, so everything is conjectural. It potentially could be pretty scary in terms of damage potential. I suspect we will eventually find out though. Certainly before anyone uses nukes on purpose.
 
Top