What if the USA responded to every war crime and geneva violation?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Without getting into the political or philosophic issues involving this sort of scenario, lets look at the practical.



This would require the U.S. to intervene militarily

In the USSR during any number of ethnic cleansing efforts and acts of aggression, up to and including Afghanistan

In the PRC against the Great Leap Forward.

In the Pakistan Civil War (i.e. Bangladesh)

In Biafra

In Iran (both against the Shah AND the Ayatollahs)

In Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Uganda AT THE SAME TIME

In Libya, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Burma AT THE SAME TIME (and effectively at the same time as the Western Africa interventions)

Across half of South America more or less continually from 1945 onward (better than half of the time suppressing dictators the U.S. supported)

In Israel (ya, sorry, had to go there)

etc.

There is literally not enough money on Earth to support the force structure needed to achieve this (especially since, post 1949, the U.S. can no longer use strategic air power except in response against an enemy that used it against the UNITED STATES first). There are likely too few America males fit for military service to make this happen (hell there are just likely too few AMERICANS regardless of gender)

Just inflicting a complete military defeat on the PRC would require at least the same size force that the U.S. assembled in toto for WW II while also having sufficient troops readily available to respond to every other hot spot on the planet AND still maintain a force structure large enough to engage and defeat any direct opponent to the U.S.

Forget all the moral issues, which are legion, or the political blowback, which would be unimaginable. Without WMD (which are, of course, themselves contrary to international law, excepting response in kind) this is utterly impossible. Not impractical, impossible.

Only way to do this would be something like Heinlein's "Space Patrol" where you have folks ready willing and able to put a nuke on any bad actor or (shameless plug warning!) a set-up like the A4 from AANW.
 
Without getting into the political or philosophic issues involving this sort of scenario, lets look at the practical.



This would require the U.S. to intervene militarily

In the USSR during any number of ethnic cleansing efforts and acts of aggression, up to and including Afghanistan

In the PRC against the Great Leap Forward.

In the Pakistan Civil War (i.e. Bangladesh)

In Biafra

In Iran (both against the Shah AND the Ayatollahs)

In Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Uganda AT THE SAME TIME

In Libya, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Burma AT THE SAME TIME (and effectively at the same time as the Western Africa interventions)

Across half of South America more or less continually from 1945 onward (better than half of the time suppressing dictators the U.S. supported)

In Israel (ya, sorry, had to go there)

etc.

There is literally not enough money on Earth to support the force structure needed to achieve this (especially since, post 1949, the U.S. can no longer use strategic air power except in response against an enemy that used it against the UNITED STATES first). There are likely too few America males fit for military service to make this happen (hell there are just likely too few AMERICANS regardless of gender)

Just inflicting a complete military defeat on the PRC would require at least the same size force that the U.S. assembled in toto for WW II while also having sufficient troops readily available to respond to every other hot spot on the planet AND still maintain a force structure large enough to engage and defeat any direct opponent to the U.S.

Forget all the moral issues, which are legion, or the political blowback, which would be unimaginable. Without WMD (which are, of course, themselves contrary to international law, excepting response in kind) this is utterly impossible. Not impractical, impossible.

Only way to do this would be something like Heinlein's "Space Patrol" where you have folks ready willing and able to put a nuke on any bad actor or (shameless plug warning!) a set-up like the A4 from AANW.
Assuming any of that happens, of course. ;)
 
Lets see...

Assuming the policy comes into effect via ASBs (probably required for the stipulations of the OP) in ~May, 1945, and that the US applies it equally across the board to enemies, allies, itself, and others....

Mistreatment of surrendering enemy personel and POWs in US custody is universally prosecuted. Rheinwiesenlager camps are upgraded and the ICRC is given immediate access. German POWs in camps in the US are released quickly after VE Day. Summary execution of surrendering Japanese is now being strictly prosecuted, affecting the Battle of Okinawa. Rapes will also be treated seriously.

The US will immediately object to treatment of German and Japanese POWs by it's allies. France, Denmark, Norway, and I forget who else will face US objections to using POWs in clearing minefields.

Then there's the problem of Soviet treatment of POWs. This will present the first serious issue to the policy. There's also the anti-semitic violence in the USSR and in their occupied countries and ethnic cleansing.

In the Pacific, the fire bombing of Japanese cities will be stopped. When atomic bombs become available, they won't be used on cities. Downfall plans will have to be modified - no chemical attacks will be permitted. The invasion may actually be prevented in favor of a blockade.

There're the starters for just 1945, ignoring more minor cases.
 
Top