Why are 21st century military forces so shit at conquering?

Hearts and minds bullshit prevents proper conquest

>>2221864
>Why are 21st century military forces so shit at conquering?
Becuase the general public does not want war.

There's no such thing as a traditional war anymore

>>2221864
Superpowers with nukes uphold the status quo.

>>2221864

Mostly nationalism and land inheritance. Every corner of the earth now has its indigenous peoples and shit. You can't unite everything under one religion or king anymore.

>>2221864

Globalism.

None of the major players, not even those allied with one another, will let anyone engage in imperialism again. Corporatism, sure, but not straight up land grabbing like the olden days.

Imagine if the Falklands didn't belong to Britain, but instead used to belong to Britain and one day they decided that they wanted the islands back. Everyone would be jumping down their throat.

Or let's pretend that America suddenly had enough of the Philippines talking shit and they wanted to annex them again. Nope. You can bet your bottom dollar that China would interfere as much as possible in that endeavor.

Basically, everything is terrible and the cement that is the world's borders is just about done concluding its amorphous transformation into a immutable, static series of boundaries.

>>2221864
Tech. MAD and inventions like the internet and drones allow for sneakier methods of prodding at a country that don't require as much of a sacrifice in raw blood and resources. What you don't use, you lose

>>2221864
Because war no longer exists in a traditional sense.
Killing a village stopped the city from recieving food. Nowadays that village would have all these conventions around it and if you even thought about killing a village, even if it would end the war, the '''innocenct civies''' make it unethical.
People being removed from war stopped them understanding what war requires. When those people started waging war it turned into a shit show like a performance sport where you have to win the 'right way' even if it costs your people some lives.

Because you can't just go into brain dead attack against retards and hope to win, look world war I.

Landscape of war changed for 21st century. Its now either complete destruction or subterfuge.

>complete destruction
No country has the will for that, and no other country will allow that.

>subterfuge
Every major player is already doing that. US won the early battle, Russia/China are winning the war.

Technological ability spreads and homogenizes faster than national affiliation/allegience.

>>2221864
The military is a tool to achieve political means. Since conquering new lands isn't really on most politician's agendas nowadays, the armies of the world are generally not prepared for such a task.

>>2222070
>Russia/China are winning the war.
Kek, name one country that is willingly adopting russian or chinese values. The US is unopposed in the culture war.

>>2222317
Belarus and North Korea

>>2222317
Name one country that is willing adopting US values.

>>2222317
> The US is unopposed in the culture war.
US 'culture' is a joke and is widely mocked by everyone, even its allies.

>>2221864
As opposed to the 20th century military which you posted?

Conquest no longer benefits the winner because you can't just loot the losing country and take their people as slaves so theres no point to it

>>2221864
UN security council and Veto rights

>>2222317

Well if your culture stands for nothing but buying useless shit, it's no wonder.

Because nothing is worth conquering anymore. The resources of the conquered are no longer exploited by the conquering nation, only coporations.
The US can conquer Canada for oil, but what's the fucking point when US companies are already there?

>>2221864
Because there are more cost effective ways of gaining resources, globalism and nuclear weapons have made conventional war obsolete.

Wars are now fought by proxy and through cyber attacks.

>>2222476

So why did we 'conquer' Iraq?
I'm not disagreeing with you. But that's what you heard in 2003 all the time, but it doesn't seem like we had to bomb Saddam to gain access.

>>2222714
Iraq had WMD ready to launch.

>>2222317
Rest of the world is progressing, while the US is regressing. It's hilarious.

>>2222714
We didn't conquer them. We liberated them.

>>2221864

they are too nice

ancient armies would BRUTALLY suppress any opposition to their rule

>>2222342

As they eat our food, listen to our music, and watch our movies.

>>2222342
>is widely mocked by everyone, even its allies.

they only do this out of petty jealousy. now continue to enjoy this website created by an american.

>>2223097
Seems better almost in a way, in terms of minimizing suffering in the long run. I'd wager that if the Coalition had spent the last 13 years enforcing western culture under threat of death to Iraqis and levelling cities that had a whisper of insurgency in them it would be in a much stable positiion now.

The locals wouldn't be very happy but at least they'd know that insurgency was pointless.

>>2223111
Noice trips.

Although I have to say that as an American, I don't see our culture lasting through this century. It's just too shitty.

>muh hollywood
>muh wall street
>muh dixie
>muh hip hop
>muh deep dish pizza

It's mostly fucking trash culture designed for mass consumption by the lowest common denominator that wouldn't be popular if not for the military might of the US. You know this to be true.

Because of the concept of human rights.

Ancient empires weren't above genociding entire population to establish order or to conquer. Not possible now.

>>2222058
Sigh...

Basically, because we as humans, on the whole, have evolved beyond our father's lust for blood. We've achieved a higher level of consciousness.

>>2223130
Why would you greentext hip hop

>>2221864

The majority of the large standing armies belong to dead-locked democracies. Reliance on digital networks and people spooked about performing operations without having full-spectrum dominance, which now includes cyberspace and space. The third nuclear arms race to begin this year will allow more proxy wars between third-world nations, not less, which rely more on mechanized blitzes and urban warfare than ever before.

>>2221864
Because we realise how horrible wars of conquest have to be so the powers that be refrain from it and make sure others do as well.

>>2221864
Traditional war doesn't exist anymore. Wars aren't fought for territory, instead it's all done through bombs and proxy.

>>2221864
A lot more people die in modern wars than they did in the past centuries, technology has made war far less of a manly endeavor.

>>2223120

>I'd wager that if the Coalition had spent the last 13 years enforcing western culture under threat of death to Iraqis and levelling cities that had a whisper of insurgency in them it would be in a much stable positiion now.

You'd have to pay up on that wager. If you level a city, you lose all support. You've made everyone your enemy and given them the motivation to oppose you - directly or indirectly. In addition, you'll pay for it even more in international politics as nations start economic sanctions against you.

>>2221864

Because the lesser powers won't do the stand up fight thing anymore. They just hang about looking pacified then land aircraft in your skyscrapers.

>>2222714

Basically because you found it absolutely impossible to take 9/11 on the chin and just admit that the US got BTFO by a sub national group upon whom you could exact no proportionate revenge.