Could the United States conquer the World?

[Undesired Walrus]

I was just re-watching the West Wing (again), and was interested in the bit in which the President's Chief of Staff (John Spencer) yells at President Bartlet (Yet doesn't advocate the following): 'You could conquer the world'. This occurs after Bartlet goes into a mad rage and suggests bombing half of Syria.

The States sits ontop of the most powerful military in all history. Could they do it? And I mean in the traditional sense of conquer, as in the Roman or Mongol invasions (I don't want to hear anyone say 'Well, in a sense they have conquered the world by..').

[oldhat]

No.

No one wants to get drafted into an occupying army.

We're better at hiring fascist thugs and corporations to do our colonialism for us.

[geni]

MAD says no. MAD asside still no. Oh it could probably get the whole of the americas with enough effort and ruthlessness but beyond that the need for a high level of control of the seas would be problematical. Modern submarines are rather good at what they do makeing moveing men and material across the atlantic and pacific on the kinds of scale needed for a sucessful invasion problematic.

[Captain.Sassy]

Yes, but supposing you go MAD and everyone launches everything.

Would the American CandC functions be resilient enough to command, and could the USA's residual miltary forces be sufficient to conquer, what remains of the charred post-apocalyptic wasteland? (This, according to some simulations I've run on Sid Meier's Civilization III software, is actually a plausible scenario, though the Egyptians will likely remain a formidable force in South-East Asia well into the 2600's)

[Seriously- No, though I really do wonder how well the US forces would fare in conventional war against a well equipped adversary.]

[Comsat Angel]

If by "conquer" you mean "occupy a poisonous irradiated lifeless wasteland", then, yes, quite possibly.

If by "conquer" you mean "convince everyone that American English and a polyester uniform is the way to go", I believe the documentary TV series Star Trek proves you correct.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

The States sits ontop of the most powerful military in all history. Could they do it? And I mean in the traditional sense of conquer, as in the Roman or Mongol invasions (I don't want to hear anyone say 'Well, in a sense they have conquered the world by..').

No. For that kind of conquest, you need boots on the ground. Lots of them. Lots and lots and LOTS of them. More than an order of magnitude more than we've got right now. We just don't have enough boots to do that, and no interest in getting enough boots, because having that many boots would serve no purpose other than that and we're just not interested.

[Undesired Walrus]

How many boots?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy

[Seriously- No, though I really do wonder how well the US forces would fare in conventional war against a well equipped adversary.]

I'd imagine the US would crush any European rival into the dust. In a conventional war, I don't think the US can be stopped. Now in a limited war we might be much worse off. But no I don't think we could conquer the entire world. If people in the US were joining the military at the rates they were in WWII it'd be one hell of a bloody war, and also probably cost-ineffective so it won't happen.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

How many boots?

Well, we needed around 150,000 just for Iraq, which is about a 200-to-1 ratio of population-to-occupiers. Given similar ratios on a global scale, we're talking on the order of 30 million troops. Add in the need to rotate troops through theater to give soldiers a break from deployment (as we do with Iraq), and you could easily be talking 90 million troops to conquer the world. We don't have enough people to do that.

[Brainster]

Quite simply, what's the point? There's no value to conquering the world. I mean, if we were going to turn everybody else on the globe into slaves so that we could lead a life of comparative ease, I suppose I could see it, but otherwise it's a waste of time.

[GreyICE]

There's no amount of conventional forces and no quality of conventional weaponry or armor equipped to withstand a Hydrogen Bomb.

So, no. No way. Not a chance. Not a shot in hell. Frik, we couldn't conquer FRIKKIN VIETNAM - the only way we were going to win was a complete genocide (hell, we killed nearly 4 million Vietnamese, we were close anyway).

That, by the way, is the reason we don't do it. Nearly four million dead, in one war. Genocide, for lack of a better word. That's the price when we choose to 'conquer.'

[geni]

Originally Posted by Kthulhut Fhtagn

I'd imagine the US would crush any European rival into the dust. In a conventional war, I don't think the US can be stopped.

Logistics is the killer. The UK had a hard time with shipping around the falklands. Trying to mount a trans-atlantic invasion against an opposition with a fairly effecive submarine and airforce is unlikely to prove viable.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Well, we needed around 150,000 just for Iraq, which is about a 200-to-1 ratio of population-to-occupiers. Given similar ratios on a global scale, we're talking on the order of 30 million troops. Add in the need to rotate troops through theater to give soldiers a break from deployment (as we do with Iraq), and you could easily be talking 90 million troops to conquer the world. We don't have enough people to do that.

The counter argument is that it is posible to hold areas with far lower troop numbers. Either through skilled diplomacy, finding local proxies or shear ruthlessness.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by Kthulhut Fhtagn

In a conventional war, I don't think the US can be stopped.

Despite the reasons for the invasion, I was amazed by the speed and success of the US's intial invasion and removal of Saddam.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by geni

The counter argument is that it is posible to hold areas with far lower troop numbers. Either through skilled diplomacy, finding local proxies or shear ruthlessness.

That was just a ballpark figure. Even if you drop my number by an order of magnitude (which I don't think is realistic), you still end up with a number for our occupying force of about four times our total current active and reserve military. Aside from all the other objections (simple logistics requirements exceed our current capacity as well, and we're also ignoring nukes), we definitely don't have the required number of soldiers.

[Paulhoff]

It has already, just turn on the local radio stations.............

Paul

[DC]

No, never.

[hgc]

Yes! Just as soon as we're done conquering Iraq and Afghanistan, we're moving on to the rest of the world. Getting hold of China will be a breeze.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. For that kind of conquest, you need boots on the ground. Lots of them. Lots and lots and LOTS of them.

We can make more boots! Vast armies of boots!

Of course, there'll be some pinko pacifists who'll object, but all they have is open-toed sandals.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

We can make more boots! Vast armies of boots!

I'm not even sure of that anymore. Where are the current army's boots made?

[sugarb]

No. Our allies could destroy us if we tried. And can you even begin to imagine what it would take to invade China?

[Paulhoff]

I should have said it this way........

Just go over seas, listen to their radio, you'll think your in America with all the Rock music.

Paul

[SezMe]

I remember driving through the god-forsaken desert in Abu Dhabi out in the middle of nowhere in bored to tears. I turned on the radio out of desperation. The best reception (and it was very good) was American country music.

[Algebra34]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Could the United States conquer the World?

Probably. But could they hang on to it?

[Meadmaker]

The problem with conquering the world, in a military sense, is that you have to conquer the entire world simultaneously. 5% of the world just can't do that.

Oh, and if nuclear weapons are used on a large scale, the US would be destroyed to a sufficient level that it couldn't put any army at all in the field beyond its borders.

[Regnad Kcin]

If we were to equip our forces with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads, then sure!

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by sugarb

And can you even begin to imagine what it would take to invade China?

Yes: a Mongol horde.

[thinkingman]

Hopefully not. They need to fix the US first. There are enough problems in the US.

[Clare Swinney]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The problem with conquering the world, in a military sense, is that you have to conquer the entire world simultaneously. 5% of the world just can't do that.

What about if it is done by stealth? The term "evolution by stealth" was used in regard to the formation of the North American Union wasn't it. Quiet takeovers accomplished in back rooms. People bribed, threatened, killed, lied to and manipulated. The take over achieved bit by bit under the public's radar. The Pentagon regards what is happening now as largely an information war, hence the deluge of propaganda flowing from all the Hitlerian mainstream media organs.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Despite the reasons for the invasion, I was amazed by the speed and success of the US's intial invasion and removal of Saddam.

Saddam's forces were lacking a very important element of modern warfare, air power, air support, and cover. That put them at a severe disadvantage. (Other reasons as well.) That any number of company and battalion sized formations fought bravely (if vainly) before it was all over is a credit to their resolution and toughness.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Clare Swinney

What about if it is done by stealth? The term "evolution by stealth" was used in regard to the formation of the North American Union wasn't it. Quiet takeovers accomplished in back rooms. People bribed, threatened, killed, lied to and manipulated. The take over achieved bit by bit under the public's radar. The Pentagon regards what is happening now as largely an information war, hence the deluge of propaganda flowing from all the Hitlerian mainstream media organs.

What North American Union? Did I miss a memo?

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by hgc

Yes! Just as soon as we're done conquering Iraq and Afghanistan, we're moving on to the rest of the world. Getting hold of China will be a breeze.

We are not trying to conquer them, though.

[Darth Rotor]

Quote:

Could the United States conquer the World?

What would be the point of that?

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by geni

MAD says no. MAD asside still no. Oh it could probably get the whole of the americas with enough effort and ruthlessness but beyond that the need for a high level of control of the seas would be problematical. Modern submarines are rather good at what they do makeing moveing men and material across the atlantic and pacific on the kinds of scale needed for a sucessful invasion problematic.

It is utterly impossible for people not deep inside the Pentagon to know how well the US can currently detect and track enemy submarines. Presumably these same people also have a decent handle on other countries' similar abilities. One hopes anyway.

Recall 20 years ago under Reagan when some Japanese company designed and built very quiet submarine rotors and sold them to the Soviets. The US raised a stink and the Japanese government was embarrassed. The US claimed it would take $1.5 billion to counter that new technology.

One thing's for certain, though -- the (public) technical details of all that are probably way off from the reality.


Much of the (Western) world has slacked off on military, relying on the US to keep up the big iron ready to move at a moment's notice. I have no doubt many in Europe feel they don't need to spend much because there's no real threat from Russia. This is the "real" reason -- yet it's believed while not realizing why there's not much threat: it would be pointless against the US.

It's like a modern anti-vaccine person whining that you don't need vaccines because there's no mumps or polio. Indeed, they probably cause problems.

Those stupid vaccine companies! Er, US military!

Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, other former Eastern Bloc countries, are all a little more open to Big Daddy helping protect them, having been, you know, not free, and within the lifetimes of people who aren't exactly octogenarians.

[Captain.Sassy]

Originally Posted by Beerina

It's like a modern anti-vaccine person whining that you don't need vaccines because there's no mumps or polio. Indeed, they probably cause problems.

While I agree with you to a certain extent, I think this is a poor analogy to counter arguments about the 'security dilemma'.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy

While I agree with you to a certain extent, I think this is a poor analogy to counter arguments about the 'security dilemma'.

I agree. Do you have a better one?

[geni]

Originally Posted by Beerina

It is utterly impossible for people not deep inside the Pentagon to know how well the US can currently detect and track enemy submarines. Presumably these same people also have a decent handle on other countries' similar abilities. One hopes anyway.

The US is far from the only country that is involved in submarine and ASW. I would be somewhat suprised if say France doesn't have a pretty good idea as to how hard submarines are to detect. The evidence also suggests that a diesel electric submarine, dead in the water and below the thermocline is very hard for current tech to detect.

Quote:

Much of the (Western) world has slacked off on military, relying on the US to keep up the big iron ready to move at a moment's notice. I have no doubt many in Europe feel they don't need to spend much because there's no real threat from Russia. This is the "real" reason -- yet it's believed while not realizing why there's not much threat: it would be pointless against the US.

Georgia would disagree.

Quote:

Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, other former Eastern Bloc countries, are all a little more open to Big Daddy helping protect them, having been, you know, not free, and within the lifetimes of people who aren't exactly octogenarians.

Logistics however suggest increaseingly that in the sort term the big dady would have to be Germany.

[Delscottio]

What time-line are we talking about? More importantly how much time would the US be allowed to beef up current military forces?

[Captain.Sassy]

Originally Posted by Beerina

I agree. Do you have a better one?

Not really, cause I think security dilemmas are real.

Okay wait...

It's like if one vaccine starts building up its military to protect itself and the second vaccine interprets this buildup as a threat and so consequently invests in its own military, which is then viewed by the first vaccine as having justified its initial military investment and justifying further military investments to deter possible invasion by the second vaccine.

The dilemma can perhaps be overcome by both vaccines increasing transparency in military expenditures and engaging in confidence-building diplomatic relations.

[sugarb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes: a Mongol horde.

Ah, quick But...if we're conquering the world, we'd need those Mongols to be 'mericans, right?