DBWI: Make the USA the strongest military power on earth

With a POD that is no earlier than the start of the Spanish - American war, make the United States of America the strongest military power on this planet (purely economic power, even exerted via export of armaments, does not count).
Bonus points if the USA is the first nation to develop nuclear weapons.
More bonus points if the USA actually uses some of its nukes, but is not nuked in return.
Good luck!
 
While the USA is an economic superpower, for some strange reason it never keeps a large military outside of wars... perhaps getting rid of isolationism might prevent that?
 
I know this is a bit of a long shot but hear me out, what if the Soviet Union never backstabbed Germany in 1940? Maybe if the Soviet had stayed neutral for longer the United States may have been dragged into the Second Great War and reinvigorated it's economy? The nations of Europe might have been more dependent on the US to stand against the USSR so instead of the EU-USSR cold war you might have seen the US playing a leading role in the Western world instead of it's obsession with keeping communism out of it's own continent and nothing else?
 
With a POD that is no earlier than the start of the Spanish - American war, make the United States of America the strongest military power on this planet (purely economic power, even exerted via export of armaments, does not count).
Bonus points if the USA is the first nation to develop nuclear weapons.
More bonus points if the USA actually uses some of its nukes, but is not nuked in return.
Good luck!

I dunno. Tough one - the USA has no real interest in expansion, and with the British Navy protecting the oceans, the trade, etc, there's very little motivation there.

I know - how about this: Have the British get involved the European war of 1914-1917. And yes, on the side of the French. Rather than standing aloof, watching it's European Imperial rivals bleed each other white, making a ton of cash selling weapons, and having the French and German navies trash each other, have them get involved - early - say in 1914. Maybe the Germans do something dumb like violate Belgium's neutrality or use submarines against merchant ships or something. Then the British get slammed as much as anyone else - heck they might even win - but they still get slammed. Without the economic boost of that war to British industries, they might not be able to maintain their Empire, and the US steps in to help fill the void...

Mike Turcotte
 
The main problem with this is that the U.S has never needed to field large military power, because massive oceans separate it from any other large economy. It's very hard to effectively project power against a continental nation from such a distance - and that logistical nightmare means that the U.S never really has a need for significant forces.

There are two ways of changing that.

The first would be creating a rival power on the American continent. With a 1898 POD, that is rather hard - you'd have to massively screw the U.S into a more destructive 2nd civil war of some sort, and either bring back the CSA or make a Mexico-wank. A somewhat plausible scenario would feature increasing rivalry with the British Empire, but that too creates many logistical problems for the British - Canada may take off a huge burden from supply lines as a base, but you would still need to bring troops in from all over the Empire. Exempting a spontaneous war, cooler minds would most probably prevail after a while and thaw relations. Though less-sane minds coming to power might be the POD. But it's still hard to get anything more than a powerful naval build-up.

Another way would be to have the U.S want to project its power abroad. Given how well isolationism served them, and how much sense it makes for a nation in their position, it's hard to see what would create important overseas U.S commitments that would need a powerful army. Colonial Ambitions in the Pacific and the Carribean are possible, but it's hard to get them to be anything more than limited naval skirmishes. After all, the U.S would face many of the same logistical problems fighting abroad that foreign powers would face fighting in the Americas - very long supply lines. That could, I supposes, be solved by gaining important allies abroad, and providing support in their conflict; but the only place that would be powerful enough to turn that into a massive military buildup would be Europe, and I have no idea why the hell the U.S would want to involve itself in one of the European wars for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
 
Actually I think in OTL, the US was the most powerful military.
We had naval superiority. Our air force had strategic & tactical capabilities.
Our Army & Marine Corps were probably not the largest ground force, but it was probably the best equipped.
And we had the A-bomb and had used it.
Our troops were deployed globally.
But - we reduced forces significantly in the late 1940's
Had we maintained our military at the end of WW-2 levels, we would have indeed been the largest.
But the real key, is not the size but the political will to use forces.
I think our military force has always been used reactively rather than in a pro-active manner.
We have always built and used forces based on what others were doing, not necessarily what was best for the US.
If we didn't have a bogey man to challenge military development and employment, we would decline to a defensive force.
 
The US military is immensely strong for the purposes the Pentagon feels are wanted / needed. Probably the best 'specialized' forces in the world. And considering the Birmingham Project was a joint British/French/US project to develop the first nuke I'd say the US did develop nukes at the same time as the Euros... The fact that it was the British to drop the bombs on Niigata and Kokura doesn't change the fact that it was done off US occupied Saipan Island... hell, considering the Brits and French quit Japan to deal with their respective empires and the USSR and left us 'holding the bag' so to speak.

The POD for 'the strongest' military in the world is a relatively easy one. Hitler betrays Stalin first and/or FDR gets re-elected in 40. Stalin's 'Winter War' surprise attack against Poland/Germany succeeded in the surprise part but failed miserably in everything else except making Germany proper a walkover when France/Britain finally invaded in 43. Had Stalin gone after Finland in 39-40 as was the original target before the KGB got Hitler's notes the Red Army might have actually been prepared and blooded to fight against the tough as nails Wehrmacht. It also might have stopped the trickle of war material from France/Britain/US TO Germany between the 'Duel of the Tyrants'.

FDR was much more for joining the war against Germany. Willkie was an isolationist and would have kept the US out of any conflict in the 40's had it not been for the insane Imperial Japanese attacking Pearl, Singapore and Haiphong on Dec 7, 1941 as well as the Soviets. FDR might have also decided to supply the Soviets over Germany rather than going with the Realpolitik game F/B were playing.

If the war had gone WW1 with France being assaulted yet again rather than the 3 year Sitzkrieg Britain and France might not have enough economy, military to continue to govern their Empires postwar. The Germans and Japanese really eviscerated the USSR too, with Stalin panicking and calling his Siberian troops all the way to Europe and then ordering them back when the Japanese struck and then ordering them back to Europe again after Leningrad and Kiev fell.

It's quite unbelievable now how close the US was to being jolted out of its isolationism permanently and worldwide rather than just with regard to the Far East (Japan, Korea, Manchuria, China, Philippines, Transamur) and of course its natural sphere of influence in North and South America. But I certainly don't envy the French with Indochina and Algeria, Italy with Libya and Abyssinia or Britain and the continued troubles in Rhodesia nor any of them in the clusterfuck that is the Middle East...

ooc: Transamur is Russian Siberia, Stalin really effs things up and Japan goes for both a 'Southern' AND 'Northern' resource area (mostly Northern) which eventually leads to a 'successful' invasion of the Kamchatka Peninsula and much of Siberia (i.e. the Trans-Siberian railway). The whole area is jointly occupied by F/B/USA after Japan surrenders with the US sending much of the lend/lease that would have gone to the USSR to help rebuild. The people of Transamur are rich enough and strong enough to tell the Soviets to take a hike when they eventually come back to 'reunify' the country since the USSR is a lot poorer due to no lend lease and Germany/Poland/East Europe being occupied/allied to a strong F/B.
 
Last edited:
OTL.

The USA IS hands down, the strongest military power on Earth since 1991. It was probably stronger, by a small margin, even earlier.
The USA developed nuclear weapons first.
The USA used them against Japan without getting nuked back.
 
OTL.

The USA IS hands down, the strongest military power on Earth since 1991. It was probably stronger, by a small margin, even earlier.
The USA developed nuclear weapons first.
The USA used them against Japan without getting nuked back.

Way to totally ignore the cooperative aspects of the program there Yogi... I know the Eurotrolls love to claim that they were the firstest with the mostest (even the OP kinda leans that way) but trolling right back with USA did it ALL is just sinking to their level... :( We had the sheer economic/industrial might, the French had the land for the tests in the middle of Sandville, Algeria, and the Brits had the long range 4 engine V Bombers to carry the thing where B-17's couldn't.

ooc: :D
 
I tend to think it's not possible to get the US to become the world's premier military power without making it at least some kind of imperial power first -- of course, talk about that, and people start yelling"ASB! How could a former colony who rebelled against the premier empire?"

Well, you actually give a good example of where that almost happened -- after the Spanish American war, plenty of Americans thought we should keep our possessions in the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and possibly Cuba. To have them get their way, you could have McKinley either less on the issue in his second term*, and keep Bryan from succeeding him.

I'm perfectly open to debating this...

*or possibly have the attempt on his life succeed -- Roosevelt strikes me as s guy who could make the US imperialist if there ever was one
 
I tend to think it's not possible to get the US to become the world's premier military power without making it at least some kind of imperial power first -- of course, talk about that, and people start yelling"ASB! How could a former colony who rebelled against the premier empire?"

Well, you actually give a good example of where that almost happened -- after the Spanish American war, plenty of Americans thought we should keep our possessions in the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and possibly Cuba. To have them get their way, you could have McKinley either less on the issue in his second term*, and keep Bryan from succeeding him.

I'm perfectly open to debating this...

*or possibly have the attempt on his life succeed -- Roosevelt strikes me as s guy who could make the US imperialist if there ever was one

True... it would have been interesting if Hawaii became a territory through the failed coup of 1893 rather than a protectorate/state through the 1945 and 1959 referendums.

The US has always had an imperialist streak, after all what was Manifest Destiny or the Mexican American War? It's just that except in a few instances outside of the North American continent its imperialism has never won out over the 'splendid isolationism' and 'non involvement' the Founding Fathers advocated. Overall though I'd say that is a good thing. The State of Liberia has a GDP equaling all of it's African neighbors 2x over because President Bryan actually started paying attention to it...

ooc: The US keeps military bases in its Spa/Am War 'territories' like Gitmo/Manila/San Juan. Hawaii has had an 'enhanced relationship' with the US having a major base in Pearl and having the vast 90%+ majority of its business with the US which later leads to protectorate and statehood.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but why on Earth would the U.S. ever want to get militarily involved in other countries? We had enough domestic problems of our own that had to be taken care of than to spend that money on building military power.
 
I tend to think it's not possible to get the US to become the world's premier military power without making it at least some kind of imperial power first -- of course, talk about that, and people start yelling"ASB! How could a former colony who rebelled against the premier empire?"

Well, you actually give a good example of where that almost happened -- after the Spanish American war, plenty of Americans thought we should keep our possessions in the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and possibly Cuba. To have them get their way, you could have McKinley either less on the issue in his second term*, and keep Bryan from succeeding him.

I'm perfectly open to debating this...

*or possibly have the attempt on his life succeed -- Roosevelt strikes me as s guy who could make the US imperialist if there ever was one

Ir Roosevelt were the president, if Roosevelt were president ...

come on the guy was too much for its own political party, even as a war hero is ASB they let him repeat as a President ...

What about a long stand off, with another country ... don´t know, maybe the Czar do not fall in the first great war or Stalin does not blunder in the 2? naah, Russia is to backwards to be a serious contender, maybe the British/Japanese Alliance keeps running, and allied themselves with the Mexicans, producing a "Red (for the coats, of course) scare"?

What would be called? hot peace?
 
Top