So let's say America declared war on the world. All of it,

>>32762342
What's the strategic goal?

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-10 at 9.26.57 PM.png (1MB, 1544x714px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1544x714px

>>32762371
The capitulation and annexation of every nation on Earth. America doesn't have to "hold" the territory necessarily, just officially own it.

>>32762342
We'd probably end up taking over a lot of land and then stuck in a hold out with the stronger nations fighting us.
Assuming we don't start making retarded decisions like Hitler and maintain what we realistically can defend.
I don't think we'd ever get to conquer the whole world.

>>32762342

It might not be out of the realm of possibility that we could kick the whole world's ass. Holding any of it would be a pain in the ass though. Imagine a global insurgency.

>>32762342

Nuclear prevents such a thing from ever happening by any nation.

>>32762342
>The American population was 100% behind the war
it would probably still have to draft 30% of the population to do it. it's not enough for 320 million people to hold a favorable opinion of something.

File: 213413241324.png (581KB, 500x496px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 500x496px

>>32762342
>Fighting a fucking four front war
It's like one guy who's really good at martial arts taking on 30 street thugs at once, it doesn't if he's fucking Bruce Lee, mans gonna get curb stomped.

>>32762342
We'd lose. The idea that we could take over the rest of the world is ridiculous.

>>32762757
To be fair, our ridiculously strong navy would easily take care of two of those fronts.

>>32762757
What kind of camo is this?

File: 1483835317178.jpg (1MB, 1915x1788px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1915x1788px

>>32762771
Not really

The US' military sits at 2nd largest. Not only that it has the culture to pop out more fanatic soldiers, the industry to arm those soldiers, and the force projection to get those soldiers out there by the time the "first wave" of attacks begin. No World War bitching about cutting down men in the prime of their youths. That's only speaking for the ground operations.


The US currently holds 90% of the worlds aircraft carriers (if you count 'rine corps escort carriers) which are the biggest factor of any global campaign. When talking about naval warfare the US literally made an Anti - Torpedo Torpedo just because it was a conceived threat and everyone said it couldn't be counter acted. But the Military stared at them and said "Watch me".

The J-31, Any Sukhoi, Euro Fighter isn't even on par with the F-22 in fighting capability. It sure as hell doesn't match Radar and Concealment on the F-35.

Quite fuckin' frankly my dude, The US is 20 years ahead of any military. The statement above about having the second largest Military is based purely on statistics and "current military numbers". 1/3rd of China's military are ghost soldiers mustered about from college in time for roll call then repatriated back. US has full time Reservists and active duty, not including all the state guards that also get deployed.

In the most literal meaning applicable: It would be a Curb stomp.

>>32764100
Also take into account the US has been in a ton of well known ground wars against formal forces and insurgents since World War 2.

The other 3 big contenders (China, Russia, India) haven't. Unless you count the minorities getting uppity. But its not the same as a whole country on a single division.

korea
vietnam
somalia
iraq
kosovo
afghanistan

this triggers the eternal burger
>inb4 muh debil dogs muddafugga muh strongest army muh warfighters

>>32762342
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It_HNVp_ykY

>>32762342
The entire population being only ~330 million, holding territory would be a nightmare.

>>32762342
You'd have to commit genocide, lots of genocide. We couldn't possibly police that many people. If we destroyed crops and spread disease in densely populated areas like Europe, India, East Asia we might be able to emerge from the chaos victorious. I can't imagine how brutal the following insurgencies would be

>>32764326
see
>>32762397

>>32762342
>The American population was 100% behind the war and wouldn't back out like in Vietnam.
thats not how it works.

>>32762342
>how long would it take?
>100% behind the war
until every american is dead

>>32762397
That still doesnt define the parameters of what "officially owning" a country is. Like do we have to completely suppress the inhabitants of a country for a week to claim it or can we just land a dude on their soil, call dibs, and move on?

>>32764289
the us has literally never won a war by itself

even wwii doesnt really count since the russians and commonwealth did much of the heavy lifting on the western front and the us had trouble fighting fucking japan (which was getting donked by china more than the us anyway)

america hasn't "won" a war since ww2 "draw" in korea we lost vietnam we did topple saddam but we just abandoned iraq to deal with problems we started. afganistan is still happening but it aint going well. how the fuck do you think we could take the world unless we just randomly decided to airstrike every inch of land on earth.

>>32762342
On the offensive? Rekt within weeks. Immediate nuclear exchange cripples most of the countries with the capability to invade the US, but also leaves the US's offensive capabilities almost none. With the rest of the world focused on re-building, the US commits itself fully to attacking its immediate neighbors in massive, marauding hoards. The fighting devolves into small, petty battles all over Mexico and Canada. With no central command, this tribal warfare continues indefinitely, or until someone in Europe or Asia recovers enough to come mop things up.

>>32764421
Same anon here. To add to that, I would like suggest the maneuver to, seizure, and occupation of a nations capital for at least 2 weeks to count as claiming official ownership. Just to give a consistent "goal" for speculation.

>>32764423
>US trouble fighting japan
>US
>trouble
>in pacific

you fucking nips need to tell yourselves whatever you can to make it seem like you were winning the pacific campaign

Uh that's already happened. The US controls all sea trade routes and no one can do a thing about it.

>>32764326
Yeah, the only reason England could conquer half the earth was because of their massive population which vastly outnumbered their subjugates

>>32764451
It went so well that you had to use the bomb on them

>>32762342
We could. Half the nations (the ones that currently find themselves at disadvantage) would ally with us in exchange for preferential treatment.

For example, against China we would have Vietnam, South Korea, and Japan as allies. Against Russia we would have Norway, Poland, the Baltics, and so on.

Around this time you're realizing that's what we're doing already. The United States is already in the process of subduing the last resistance to their hegemony over the world.

>mobilize the nation against some foe
>use those extra funds and manpower to complete SDI
>open the global invasion by neutralizing every nuclear power
>begin conventional invasion of planet Earth starting with the Americas

Done.

File: 1452178809604.jpg (43KB, 582x741px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 582x741px

For the US it is an impossible logistical task to
meet the military and cultural preparations needed for total war. Even if everybody in the country is instantly determined to serve the cause simply moving the troops and supply chains would take so much time that the rest of the world has time to react and prepare, if only the preparation being everyone agreeing that the US is a major threat to world peace.

After the war starts things are predictable. As soon as any major party suffers a great defeat at a conventional front they will launch a tactical nuclear warhead as a warning. From there the exchange of tactical nuclear weapons escalates into full global nuclear war.

The world will be bombed to shreds and there is no reason why america would recover faster than the allied rest, forcing the US to finally sign the capitulation. The Nürnberg Trials will get a sequel and the US will never be fully restored.

>>32764025
Macroblock.

>>32762342
That would be retarded and would require the US to increase its current active military 100 to 200 fold. Do you have any idea what an operation to take over the entire world would cost? Unless you promised every person enlisted, every manufacturer, and every worker parcels of foreign land and their pick of foreign waifus in lieu of pay, but even then if America went rogue that way the other countries might just say fuck it and nuke us.

>>32764504
>implying you're not 1/4 japanese

>>32762342
HAHAHA
US has never won a war.
Biggest victory US had in WW2 was convincing everyone they won and not the Soviets.

>>32762342
Rest of world has more nukes and less ground to nuke
Excluding nukes, we simply wouldn't be able to to defeat all ground forces, we'd either get worn down fighting stuff and get finished by Russia and China, or we'd attack them first and by the time were bogged down in central Africa and Europe we'd just capitulate
Simply not enough men and ammo, and if we're doing total war, then I'm sure the rest of the world would fight tooth and nail back

>>32764149
>Also take into account the US has been in a ton of well known ground wars against formal forces and insurgents since World War 2.
and lost pretty much all of them.

File: Are you being serious now pullo..png (202KB, 319x403px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 319x403px

>>32762342
America gets turned into a wasteland by the rest of the worlds nuclear arsenal.

Failing that America annexes Canada and probably makes some headway into south america before a coalition force is mobilised and America is slowly ground down by the weight of the rest of the worlds resources and manpower.

>>32765100
We won the civil war

File: Banzai.jpg (396KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1920x1080px

>>32762342
Does American morale waver or is America basically going to do a grorious nippon and fight to the last child and last round?

Because if not, American morale is gonna collapse fairly quickly when American civvies start going hungry and dying.

File: How amusing.gif (993KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 250x250px

>>32765421

>>32762342
We couldn't even keep the fucking Middle East, fighting dudes in black pajamas with 50+ year old, rusted to shit AK's.

File: 0809202504243_37_1374316098893.jpg (491KB, 1600x1252px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1600x1252px

>>32765479
Don't forget Vietnam as well.

>>32762342
>So let's say America declared war on the world.
eh, i think we basically did that already.
we've basically got our dick in everyone's ass and have had for the last 60+ years

>>32764100
>not biased in any way

>>32765562
That too but the US army was a lot different back then so I figured I'd use a more modern example.

>>32762742
See that's what I thought too, but I'm not so sure that any powers that be would be willing to turn the US into a wasteland. Ornery populace aside, there would be more than a few countries vying for that real estate.

We could definitely take Canada and Mexico though

>>32764289
The thing to consider here is, the scenario allows for complete support and there are no countries to look down on the US for going scorched earth. War is way easier when hearts and minds aren't in play

>>32765633
Actually occupying Mexico would be quite the challenge I think, as you end up not just with the cartels to deal with, but also with a growth in nationalist insurgency.

File: ss (2015-06-26 at 08.26.40).jpg (51KB, 452x298px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 452x298px

>>32762342
>Could America take over the world
Conventional war? Nope. US will be cut off from web, satellite uplinks and all infrastructure located outside American continent. That infrastructure and that bases were key for US global domination and victory over USSR. Without them US loses almost half of it's power projection capabilities. And don't forget - former NATO allies know how to jam all your communications, they know most of your codes and they know how most of your systems work.
With 100% population support US alone can beat the shit outta any country on planet. Including Russia. But against coalition of few world's power - naaah.

>>32765687
Mostly the cartels. The insurgency would be about as impotent as reconquista. Machismo aside,Suddenly becoming part of America wouldn't hurt a whole lot of feelings since a lot of the population is tired of the near total corruption of their whole country. Besides, not like the current relationship isn't beneficial already.

>>32765745
>Without them US loses almost half of it's power projection capabilities. And don't forget - former NATO allies know how to jam all your communications, they know most of your codes and they know how most of your systems work.

And why would they not alter these systems prior to going full retard. Furthermore we don't know if OPs scenario allows for any nations siding with the US, the US going Roman empire or if the US has to systematically burn every country to ash before it's successfully taken

File: clausewitz6.jpg (21KB, 250x288px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 250x288px

no, this is so stupid on so many levels.

some of which are nukes, defense advantage, attrition, dependence on foreign resources, extremely limited power projection (given the scope).

you could make your question less stupid if it was a matter of the entire world trying to invade the us. excluding nukes, they could have a chance.

>>32765813
The problem is the only time I can see America successfully annexing mexico is one in which the rest of the world is indifferent, America gets its shit together and successfully defeats the cartels in a fairly inevitable manner.

Any other situation massively complicates matters and results in a rapidly growing insurgency, which I think its unfair to dismiss.

Although in truth the real threat is the cartels turning to ideology in order to gain legitimacy and foreign support.

>>32762342

May as well just initiate with nukes. Cuz that's what it will come too anyway. If we are committing to total war in the classical sense, why even fuck around?

>>32765479
Too be fair we also armed and trained a lot of them in the 80's, we didn't deploy a massive force, and the desert is a shithole.

File: IMG_0306.jpg (121KB, 882x527px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 882x527px

>ha the US never won a war!
>the US would be obliterated in a day!
>mfw eurocucks truly believe they aren't being occupied
>yfw you realize why none of them are allowed to own weapons without a tight registry

>>32764504
The bomb was used because the alternative was the USSR invading Japan, killing most of the people, and gaining a whole new country

>>32764504
LeMay's firebombing alone decimated 6 cities before the Atomic Bombing. Japan has the tech to breakout of the NPT and make plutonium nukes and h-bombs fairly quickly. Like in less than a few months.

>>32765479
Dude we didn't even really try to completely win anything the middle east, basically we kicked in their door, redid their government, and decided to let haji do whatever

I could take out Canada myself without even needing a sidearm

The rest of the world would be fucked into jewish slavery within a decade

HEIL (((TRUMP)))

HEIL VICTORY

HEIL OUR JEWISH OVERLORDS

File: shiggy diggy.png (230KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 640x360px

>>32766047
>yfw you realize Europe is so cucked they would be raped my two factions, The US and ISIS.

>>32765902
Yeah its certainly possible, and given the vagaries of the OP there are tons of possibilities from total war to applying a ton of social lubricant and incentive to Mexico over time since there's no time frame. If it's not a "you have 5 years to conquer the Americas" kinda thing it could work in a somewhat diplomatic sense or masking it as a hard war on the cartels. But if the US just went apeshit over night and started burning anything within strike distance of a base the whole thing would be pretty short in terms of the USs loss

>>32766047
>muh bases
One short range ballistic missile per base or, with more preparations, something like that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xapCyuJMf0

>>32766098
>We didn't really try

America invaded two different countries, spent large amounts of treasure, political capital and a not insignificant amount of its soldiers blood.

The US actually tried quite hard to achieve its goals in the middle east, it just screwed the pooch due to poor leadership and possibly biting off more than it could chew.

>>32766166
So in short, OP really should have put more thought into the parameters of this question, or at least more than "none whatsoever" and probably limited the scope of this question a bit.

>>32762342
Opening shots of such a war would involve tech we don't have done yet.
1. Complete cyber warfare trashing the computer hardware, let alone the internet which was designed to be bomb proof in the first place. EMPs might stop the enemies economies for a while, but you just pissed them all off.
This would require an orbital platform with nukes and anti satellite weapons to prevent further launches.
2. SDI was diddled with, but we don't have the motivation to make a moon base, let alone a mass driver. Dropping a school bus sized rock on a city is cleaner than nukes and a deterrent by terror alone. The Chinese claim they will be there in the next 10 years.
2. No fusion powered flying battleships in orbit, yet. How are you going to rapidly deploy the troops with drop ships? A one off custom shuttle or a xm-33 prototype isn't a force.
3. The US is dependent on certain material supplies from overseas, coupled with just in time short inventory cycles could stop things cold in a few months.
4. Our strategic reserve of oil would have to be multiplied by a HUGE amount to fuel long term actions. The US Navy burns 140 million a day in oil alone. Assuming our so-called friends of late across the pond would just blockade or make the cost to astronomical levels.
5. Pluto nuclear powered scram jets could bring the hurt to several theaters at once and orbit for prompt strikes. Who cares about the environment? Like dominoes pizza, it can deliver there under an hour given that they can't claim 30 minutes.
6. Learn to live with fallout, love your local glass craters. Dropping 10-20 years of life expectancy ad a few percentage upticks of birth defects. At least there would be more glass parking lots over there to build strip malls and McDonalds for burgers.

File: 1444941489490.jpg (155KB, 800x739px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 800x739px

>>32762342
Depends a bit on what other nations would ally against US, if none then about this would happen:

USA dominates seas, and manages to make small beacheads on continents, owns all islands. Some areas of the sea are too far to defend feasibly and a lot of areas are mined to hell, the war would grind to a deadlock forever.

That is with magic powers though, Naturally going to war with all the world would cut all trade, so USA could not keep up with the grueling demands of war against other western countries.

"b-but superior training and technology"
- Mines do not care, sea or land

"b-but US economy is big"
- But not the biggest, and trade is a large part of that.

"b-but US has a lot of people to draft"
- So does the world, most countries would ramp up their drafting and conscription, some countries could just defend themselves as is

"b-but US has always dominated their wars"
- Well against inferior opponents, and looking back, have they really?

"b-but muh biggest navy"
- Even after applying economy, mines, other navies and all the other possible factors on ships.. Ships as of yet cant drive on land.

"b-but"
- No.

If you want a more fun and meaningful discussion, throw in some alliances. WW1 style, divide the world to factions, as it would really go.

File: 19-unforgettable-quotes-from-legendary-marine-gen-james-mad-dog-mattis[1].jpg (80KB, 1190x595px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1190x595px

>>32765143

We killed them a thousand to one, it's just that when you're dealing with a guerillas your options are "eternal police force" or "commit war crimes", and up until a very, very short time ago we cared about things like "what the UN thinks".

Does this look like the face of a man who cares what the UN thinks? When we go to war without reservation we will leave nothing but craters and ghosts in our wake.

>>32765376
>nuclear arsenal

We've been able to shoot most of it down for years, a nuke is only as good as its delivery system.

>resources
>manpower

Unless that force has the ability to teleport they will be facing the world's largest and second largest air forces and a navy bigger than the next thirteen largest combined. It would be a slaughter, and that's even before the question of how well this coalition force would get along when they speak different languages and many of them hate each other's guts. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if a number of American allies outright defected...Japan sure would like those territories in China back, for one. For that matter, who's going to lead this coalition force, Russia? Russia will sell out every other nation on the continent for the chance to devour as much of Europe as it can. The EU? They can't even build a plane without France fucking it up, can't put together a European Army even without the UK there to deliberately gum the works, and are run by bankers and neo-aristocrats. If America decides it doesn't care about playing nice or exerting minimum force, the world is fucked.

>>32766212
>implying the globalists behind the war had goals beyond breaking up existing governments and borders

>>32765902

If we sent our military into Mexico the cartels would be jam smeared on the sand within a few days, it's the corruption of the Mexican government and Obama's impotence that prevented this.

>>32764289
None of those wars were fought with the purpose of annexation though.

>>32764100
>Not really

This, right here, is some of the dumbest shit I have ever read.

Lets just make it really simple why this wont work.

>America declares war on every nation
>all nations cease trade with America
>America realizes this fucking shit was stupid from the start
>America calls the whole thing off.

File: It is not.jpg (178KB, 1024x710px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1024x710px

>>32766802
>We've been able to shoot most of it down for years

Now, I'm sure America has a very good anti nuke system in place, but its not good enough to stop more than a small proportion of the rest of the worlds nuclear weapons, leaving thousands of nukes that can still hit targets within the US, you can't handwave the effects of thousands of nuclear weapons raining down on Americas cities and military installations.

>facing the world's largest and second largest air forces and a navy bigger than the next thirteen largest combined

This is a good point, however the important part about the US being dwarfed in manpower, resources and serious manufacturing capabilities is that this is not going to remain the case for very long.

The rest of your post is a few good points mixed into nationalist wank and lazy stereotyping.

History proves that an external, real, threat unites people better than anything else and a United States that's suddenly experienced a psychotic break and is now attempting to invade everywhere at once (a la Nazi Germany) is a very real threat to the rest of the world.

Modern day Japan isn't interested in trying to "reclaim" its old empire, contrary to hollywood, the Russians aren't mustache twirling villains, just ruthless pragmatists, who have proven before that they are willing to put realpolitik and continued existence over ideology and short term gain. Judging the war time capabilities of the EU by its peace time abilities isn't particularly clever either.

>run by bankers and neo-aristocrats
Not to get political, but this describes the US far better than it does Europe.

>>32766802
>We've been able to shoot most of it down for years, a nuke is only as good as its delivery system.
Ant-ICBM system are not that good and even by some miracle from god himself it stopped 95% of them, it would still be the end of the world.

File: Are you sure about that american.png (102KB, 272x261px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 272x261px

>>32766870
>If we sent our military into Vietnam the commies would be jam smeared into the mud within a few days, its the corruption of the south Vietnamese government and Kennedys impotence that prevented this

>>32767237
>European
>Pretending his country would exist after a month or so
>Pretending Europe has manufacturing capabilities with 20-hour work weeks and baguette breaks

You will end this as either a Russian slave or an American slave. Choose one.

>>32767259

We cared about leaving people alive in Vietnam, that's how they were able to operate. Kill 'em all, burn the villages, burn the jungles, shoot anything bigger than a squirrel, and they can't use most of their tactics.

File: A hanging onto my arm.jpg (105KB, 1000x578px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1000x578px

>>32767340
The problem with Americas intervention in Vietnam wasn't really one of being too lenient on the population (which is generally quite a good idea, as pretty much every successful occupation will attest), it was a large array of issues (shockingly enough proxy wars tend to be quite complicated) but mostly Americas unwillingness to push North, leaving the communist forces a safe place to operate from. Combined with American arrogance/hubris over the belief in its armed forces to bring victory even in the face of confused objectives.
The American choice to not go North wasn't based on humanitarian grounds but more the rather sensible desire to not provoke the bigger communist nations into retaliating and starting world war three.

Your suggested solution is militarily stupid, morally reprehensible and smacks of insecure nationalist dickwaving.

>>32767321
It is ok mr Burger, there is no need to be so upset.

>>32766718
>He doesn't know that Mattis is a huge advocate of "hearts and minds" COIN strategy

>>32767866
>Much like everyone who isn't a dribbling retard

>>32767517

What cucked country do you come from where being a nationalist is a bad thing?

>>32767517
>which is generally quite a good idea, as pretty much every successful occupation will attest
>>32767889
Can you name successful occupation with heart and mind?

>>32767929

America's occupation of Europe. That's what's dumb about this whole question, we'd be invading territory we already have hegemony over.

>>32764100
"2nd largest" and you don't think that the first largest together with France, Russia, and everyone else combined wouldn't be able to put up a front? Air supremacy isn't exactly the same as conquering clay.

>>32764149
Nato nations as well as Russia have fought plenty of wars, but feel free to ignore that.

>>32767929
Most successful occupations are won by winning over the people. Its actually significantly harder to control a territory if its full of people who hate you.

Good examples can be found if you look at (almost) any empire that has ever existed. Britains conquest of India and Romes conquest of mainland Europe were fundamentally achieved by the same methods.

You divide the locals by offering those who side with you positions of power in your new order and destroy the ability to resist of those who oppose you. A tasty enough carrot and a large enough stick are all you need to win the war, to win the peace you need to show the people that you are their best bet for stability and preferably a better life.

Now, if you want examples of why just killing everyone is a bad idea, look at the attempts at occupation made by short lived empires like Japan, the third reich and the aztecs. Brutal repression breeds resentment and the instant the opportunity to resist arises the people will take it and will make occupation hell.

>>32764585
Implying that other nations don't have defenses guarding nuclear production facilities.

>>32767979
Wait, America's occuption of Europe was achieved through WW2, the deadliest and most brutal war ever.
>>32768070
>Britains conquest of India
Not a good example, considering indians fucking hate brits.
>and Romes conquest of mainland Europe Roman pretty much genocided half of the gauls in order for the other half to comply.

They weren't kidding around.

>>32765870
Declaring war on the rest of the world implies that there aren't any allies.

Can't you guys just annex Canada and make us into the next state?

>>32764645
>After the war starts things are predictable. As soon as any major party suffers a great defeat at a conventional front they will launch a tactical nuclear warhead as a warning. From there the exchange of tactical nuclear weapons escalates into full global nuclear war.

And what happens to the rest of the world when it's breadbasket is nuked.

File: What is this.jpg (25KB, 412x235px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 412x235px

>>32768120
>Not a good example
Absolute British control of India lasted for a hundred years and power was only handed over to local rule because Britain was broke from fighting the second world war. How is that not an example of successful occupation?

>genocided half of the gauls

But they really didn't, yes the wars were quite bloody but that characterises most wars of the period.

>>32768210
>Absolute British control of India lasted for a hundred years and power was only handed over to local rule because Britain was broke from fighting the second world war. How is that not an example of successful occupation?
It's not a good example because the indians fucking hate the brits, heart and mind does not work.

>But they really didn't, yes the wars were quite bloody but that characterises most wars of the period.
Roman told the gauls to surrender, or they kill half of the population after they finish the seize, and after the siege, they make the gauls become slaves.

If only we can emulate the romans in modern era.

File: read.jpg (10KB, 244x207px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 244x207px

>>32768275
>the indians fucking hate the brits
Some Indians don't like Britain today, but India as a whole is fine with Britain considering they are still part of the Commonwealth and generally have good dealings with Britain. I'm not sure how the lengthy period of British rule, followed by peaceful transition to trading partner and ally is an example of a flawed occupation.

>The second half of this post
Thats closer to the mongols than the Romans, particularly those who served under Caesar, a general known for his remarkable restraint when dealing with his enemies. The Romans also didn't use genocide as a strategy for conquest in Gaul, they only looted cities and took slaves because it was profitable to do so and one of the few ways to make money on campaign. The overall strategy of Romes legions in Gaul was one of divide and conquer, not just killing people because they're so edgy like that.

>If only we can emulate the romans in modern era
Literally everyone who has tried to do that in the Modern era has had it backfire on them in a spectacular fashion, so please stop being so edgy.

>>32762342
We would win if are ROE was "whatever works" and we also started recruiting people from the countries we occupy

File: Big Mac Attack.jpg (56KB, 325x505px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 325x505px

>>32768137
Suck my Tory dick, you traitorous republican.

File: Haggard German.jpg (343KB, 1232x1505px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1232x1505px

>>32768400
>If we follow the example of the Third Reich, we will win

Why does everyone forget who got stomped in that war?

>>32768375
>I'm not sure how the lengthy period of British rule, followed by peaceful transition to trading partner and ally is an example of a flawed occupation.
Because India used to be a part of the UK, but now India is closer to Russia and the US than the UK.
>Thats closer to the mongols than the Romans, particularly those who served under Caesar, a general known for his remarkable restraint when dealing with his enemies.
Read a book, my man:
http://sights.seindal.dk/sight/766_Julius_Caesar-3.html
>It is estimated that one million persons died in the wars and another million was sold into slavery, draining Gaul of approximately one third of the entire population. Caesar had effected an unprecedented genocide (in modern terms we would talk about war crimes, genocide and crimes against the humanity), all in the name of honour and glory.
>Literally everyone who has tried to do that in the Modern era has had it backfire on them in a spectacular fashion, so please stop being so edgy.
Name me one successful heart and mind operation in the modern era.

It's not about being edgy, it's about being successful.

>>32768419
You know who else is successful in that war? The USSR.

You know what they did?

>>32768419
The third reich lost because of large complex strategic miscalculations. Had they dropped their racist beliefs and just integrated all the slavs they liberated into the army they probably would have won the entire war

>>32768484
>Had they dropped their racist beliefs
The only reason they attempted Barbarossa was because of their racist beliefs in slavic inferiority and desire to gain lebensraum for the pure aryan germans to expand eastward.

The crazy racist part was the core of the reich, it can't simply be dropped.

But all that aside, that is basically my point, if you don't mindlessly genocide people/execute villages because one of your men got shot nearby and instead offer them a future and better alternative they will be much easier to work with and occupy.

>>32768484
and not being retards and invading the Russians, that would be a good start

>>32768536
>But all that aside, that is basically my point, if you don't mindlessly genocide people/execute villages because one of your men got shot nearby and instead offer them a future and better alternative they will be much easier to work with and occupy.
Yep, just like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

War should never be occupation, but raid.

Come in, take all their shit, get out.

>>32768453
>India used to be a part of the UK
Firstly, India used to be a part of the British empire, not the UK. Secondly I'm not sure how you aren't getting the concept of "conquered and held onto a vast landmass that greatly outnumbered the occupiers for about a hundred years before peacefully transitioning to being allies and trading partners" as anything but a successful occupation. Britain isn't trying to occupy India anymore, it stopped being profitable around WW2.
>Read a book, my man
It was a bloody war, slavery was how you recouped the cost of bloody wars. The objective was not "kill all the fuckers", because thats wasteful and stupid, its "kill those who disagree and reward those who side with me"
>Name me one successful heart and mind operation in the modern era
I've never been arguing for "hearts and minds" or whatever the US is calling it, I'm arguing for keeping the population onside and not just killing people because it makes your dick feel big.

To answer your question though, the Malay campaign and Indonesias campaign against Darul Islam.

>It's not about being edgy, it's about being successful
But its not successful, tell me when "just kill everyone" worked for a modern occupation.

>>32768577
Those are very poor examples considering America as a whole lost a lot of money and treasure in those conflicts, not to mention political capital.

Neither raiding or occupation really makes sense for first world nations anymore, far better to get rich off of trading and let your soft power do the work for you.

Conquer? Unlikely. Based off of logistics alone.

Defend against for x amount of time though would be a more interesting hypothetical situation.

>>32762342
Modern conventional wars just make me think how the situation's going to be like on the internet.
Such a universal modem of communication, accessible to anyone, was never before imagined in prior times. You couldn't talk to a Soviet boy back in the Cold War days. Nowadays, you can talk to anybody in the world as long as they have internet service. If the whole world went to war, we'd have people on both sides constantly shitposting at each other. It would be truly fascinating to see.

>>32768670
>Firstly, India used to be a part of the British empire, not the UK
The British Empire is the United Kingdom though.
>Secondly I'm not sure how you aren't getting the concept of "conquered and held onto a vast landmass that greatly outnumbered the occupiers for about a hundred years before peacefully transitioning to being allies and trading partners" as anything but a successful occupation.
It's not a successful occupation, India just becomes its own country, and not an country under the Brits.
>It was a bloody war, slavery was how you recouped the cost of bloody wars. The objective was not "kill all the fuckers", because thats wasteful and stupid, its "kill those who disagree and reward those who side with me"
So let's do that, let's kill all those who disagree and reward those who side with me.
>I've never been arguing for "hearts and minds" or whatever the US is calling it, I'm arguing for keeping the population onside and not just killing people because it makes your dick feel big.
Dude, I just kill whoever disagree with me and reward those who agree with me, you deal?
>To answer your question though, the Malay campaign and Indonesias campaign against Darul Islam.
>Starting in 1956, the government went on the offensive against Darul Islam. The group was severely weakened after its top leaders were killed or captured, and many members surrendered. The government regained full control of Aceh in 1957 after the local branch of Darul Islam surrendered. Factions in South Kalimantan disbanded in 1959 after their leader was killed. By 1962, there were only pockets of resistance in West Java and South Sulawesi.
Doesn't sound like heart and mind, bruv. It sounds brutal.


>But its not successful, tell me when "just kill everyone" worked for a modern occupation.
Chechnya II, the occupation of Phillipines by the US.

>>32768688
Yes, America spent billions to nation build these countries and get nothing from these ends.

Better to just jump in, kill all their dissidents, steal all their resources and get out.

>>32767019
America gdp is only 20%from export. The entire world economy would collapse and America would be fine. We win either way and shows you know nothing of economics.

>>32768168
>America
>breadbasket
I don't think a single quality product comes from the US. The biggest loss would be military aid and education but even then people study here and leave. And if we're attacking them they won't want our military aid anymore so they could give a rats ass

>>32768120
>Not a good example, considering indians fucking hate brits.
But that's wrong you faggot.

The brits did commit a bunch of atrocities and India remembers them but they also remember all the nation building that the brits did and that the people before them were actually worse.

They also remember the massive advances that India gained as a result of british occupation. Civil government, education, industrialisation...

Start talking to Indians, they have a very nuanced view of the Raj, it's more like "We wish they hadn't massacred so many people but we really like the tea, the roads and the schools." They also more or less transitioned India into something that resembles democracy when they called it a day, rather than just letting shit fall in a heap.

>>32764100
>cringey screencap of a cringey "muh F-35" post
>cringey post
why am I not surprised

>>32769281
If they did commit a bunch of atrocities, then it ain't heart and mind either.

>>32768747
>just kill everyone
>the occupation of Philippines by the US
Huh?

The US liberated Philippines, thought about shit for a minute, then made friends with the guerillas and said ok to being independent.

Philippines is arguably the exact opposite of what you're talking about.

Or do you mean the 'successful' Japanese occupation of Philippines?

>>32766802
>The EU? They can't even build a plane without France fucking it up
You mean Germany.
If it wasn't for France Airbus wouldn't even be a thing in the first place.

>>32769311
>If they did commit a bunch of atrocities, then it ain't heart and mind either.
They didn't do them against the castes that they game power to, it was against the resistance.

India was so divided and polarised that resistance was highly sectarian and could be oppressed piecemeal. Many of the worst atrocities were at the end when they were losing India too, which sped up the process because that what massacres tend to do.

And like I said, Indians have a nuanced view of the British rather than a black&white one which someone (you?) in the reply chain was arguing.

>>32762342
No.

What would be the point anyway?

It's not possible to conquer then, dominate every nation on Earth. And, why would it be desirable?

>>32769319
I'm talking about this:
>Throughout the war, American soldiers and other witnesses sent letters home which described some of the atrocities committed by American forces. For example, In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger wrote: "The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog..."[85] Reports were received from soldiers returning from the Philippines, that upon entering a village, American soldiers would ransack every house and church and rob the inhabitants of everything of value, while those who approached the battle line waving a flag of truce were fired upon.[86]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War#American_atrocities

>>32769336
So basically, it's okay to commit atrocities against the resistance?

That's all I ask for.

>>32764668
Dude what?

>>32762342
no, no, no, no

>>32768480
Equipped their meat shields with lend lease equipment and drowned the nazis in Russian peasant blood.

>>32768881
So if America no longer had foreign goods being imported everything would be just fine, right? Or you think the rest of the world will happily continue trading with America while it attempts to subjugate the whole world through military force? Educate yourself.

>>32762342
No, because no trade would crash our economy as it exists today. No economy means no war production.

>>32769632
They raped, killed and recruited people who they occupy from.

>Could America take over the world, [...]
No.

So many assets and so much critical infrastructure is hosted around the world by friendly nations, that the moment they all turn hostile, America will not be able to operate at all in Asia because all the infrastructure for accessing communications and satellites is hosted in third countries, eg. Pine Gap in Australia.

Also, I imagine all of the foreign-posted service members would get almost instantly rounded up and detained. Think about the shitstorm that was Edward Manning, now imagine the sheer complexity at trying to plug the thousands of security holes as every service member is interrogated in an effort to gain systems access. In the short term, America would basically be forced to firewall out any and all external communication from the rest of the world as they sort through and verify where the fuck everyone is posted.

War isn't about simple manpower, information is critical and technology must be widely distributed to work effectively in the modern era. This wouldn't normally be much of a vulnerability, but in this scenario it's a critical weakness.

File: 1481158485571.png (36KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1024x1024px

>>32765587
>>32766942
>>32768037
>>32769295
>>32765143
>>32768055

Butthurt

>Implying Air superiority not being A central theme in every war since WW1
>Implying unhindered waves of Napalm, WP, dumby bombs, Patriot missiles and JDAMs wouldn't easily defeat any conventional force/ put down insurrections. No people no problem.
>Implying past American wars were "Lost"
>Implying I'm an American

You people will say anything for $0.02

File: 1479846389762.png (228KB, 453x650px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 453x650px

>>32768484
>Had they dropped their racist beliefs...
Didn`t they have SSs from several countries and places? I don`t think it`s that simple..

>>32769281
The poor Indians used to love it when those domestic British officers would come round (the name escapes me) because unlike the Indian officials they dealt with the bongs used to rock up on a motorbike kindly and fairly sort out whatever issue the people had, rather than just dick them around with beurocracy, incompetence and a sense of superiority complex like the local Indians with power did
That's at like the turn of the 20th century though, British weren't always nice to the Indians, but they certainly improved life in the long run

>>32768736
You are exceptionally delusional, simultaneously when the fist shots are fired, internet will be shut down for good due to cyber attacks and long range balistic missles targetting communication centres. Sorry to ruin your dream, but there won't be any shitposting or meme wars, rather 'holy shit I'm dying from radioactive dust'.

>>32771232
Yeah, but not in Germany. They used people who were useful, like in most conflicts.

>>32762397
Nations are a lot easier to hold if you remove all their people.

>>32771232
>Confederates weren't racist, they had black slaves.

>>32771543
>not use foreign people
>U RAICIS
>use foreign people in their military
>U RAICIS

kys

The South Americas would instantly capitulate, though the population would remain riotous and need a strong occupation force.
Canada would politically fold within a few months of border invasion and occupation and would remain virtually unaffected.
The Pacific Rim would need only minimal occupation forces, with Japan and South Korea probably capitulating very quickly. Elimination of Kim Jong Un would cripple North Korea and the DMZ would encapsulate the entire country. This would stage the first major front of the war as the US moves to secure the South China Sea and push inland.

This sets up the interesting part - inevitable war with Russia and the question of the EU. While Britain could possibly capitulate politically early on as a puppet gov't, the rest of the EU would be markedly less willing. With American pressure from the West and Russian expansionist pressure from the East, though, I think they'd fold for the lesser of two evils but I'd expect a lot more fighting here.

The final question would be then what to do with the Middle East and Africa. Potentially control of the Middle East could be transferred to Russia as a bargaining chip and let them handle the region. In Africa the only truly important regions would be the mediterranean coast which the EU can be expanded to handle and South Africa which would require naval invasion and northern pushes up through the continent. We'd be seeing Vietnam 2.0

File: shiendlerslist.jpg (144KB, 1000x542px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1000x542px

>>32771551
It wasn't their recruitment policies that made people call them racist, bud.

>>32771563
>Canada would politically fold within a few months of border invasion and occupation and would remain virtually unaffected.
Can you spell 'insurgency'?

File: Smug Frauke.jpg (756KB, 2407x3000px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 2407x3000px

>>32771564
like clockwork

File: Buttfuck-Soul-Patch-Green-1000.jpg (234KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1000x1000px

this is the inner voice of America during this scenario

Now with the Trump-Putin alliance it could be posible to rule the world doing whatever we want, but it would be imposible to occupy large amounts of territories and maintain them under control.

File: classic-WWF-WWE-Ric-flair-woo-13815349244.gif (1020KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 500x373px

>>32764434
Truman pussied out like a total pillow biting fag.

LET'S BE REALISTIC HERE, if those assholes hadnt given russia the nuke info, we could have bombed a flat glass road, all the way from Seoul to moscow WITHOUT ANYONE BEING ABLE TO SAY A DAMN THING! WOOOOOOOO!

>>32765427
>American morale is gonna collapse fairly quickly when American civvies start going hungry and dying.
LOLNO.

motherfucker, we only get meaner and crazier when our blood sugar drops son. we will invent new warcrimes to shock everyone into a nervous breakdown.

we wouldnt do the whole germans selling their asses for the short of a chesterfield, and getting the right to lick the inside of a candybar wrapper.

we would go full on black crusade/

>>32771543
there were quite a few mulattos in the confederate forces, and even the officer corps. shit didnt get weird til the whole abolitionist movement faggotry purposely starting shit got way out of hand.

the largest slave owners in the south were black freemen. one was a barber from new bern NC.

>>32771734
>"you've heard of the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, now get ready for the *spins wheel* SYSTEMATIC PATHOGEN RELEASE of *throws dart onto world map* MANCHESTER"

>>32771635
Can you spell "border occupation"?
Let the insurgents do whatever they want inside Canada, all we have to do is maintain the gun pointed at Trudeau's head and enforce our borders. Nobody gives a shit if Canada wants to atrition itself to death.
Same with South America and the Pacific Rim, we just need the government to capitulate and keep running the government, insurgency will be their problem and we can strip their military down to a National Guard and let them handle it. We'll have Vichies all over the world.

>>32771793
"If we hold the cities, we hold the country!"
You could have been a military advisor for Gorbachev

>>32771797
That's not what I said you retard. We don't need to occupy anything, we just need individual surrenders from each country and we can make them sign the same legislations as the Empire of Japan completely undermining their pre-treaty authority, diminishing their militaries and effectively making them puppet governments.

Insurgency simply isn't our problem, aside from standard occupation of military bases and joint protection forces for the new government we don't care about the population's political wankery, especially if it's happening out in the sticks.
Of course, acts of terrorism would be treated as such by both the Occupied and the Occupier - and god help the poor terrorist who draws the ire of a world congress directly headed by the United States

>>32771826
>we can make them sign the same legislations as the Empire of Japan completely undermining their pre-treaty authority
The only reason the Japanese abides the conditions of that treaty tens of thousands of troops "stationed" in their country.
Oh, and the decade long occupation.
Oh, and their God Emperor told them to endure American servitude.

You can't grind away a nation the spirit of a nation with a piece of paper and some signatures.

>>32764484
They were holding only small parts of those countries, and they needed to ally themselves to the local lords (like Putin in Chechnya). This system worked much better than the French system were they tried to remove the rulers. Also, the Brits were fighting primitive guys equipped with sharp sticks.

america is full of numales

>>32767340
I would really like to see inside your head, how you people think your previous wars were. Like they were games, soldiers werent afraid and fighting for their lives in the jungles/deserts.
> I- It'll be different now guys! REALLY shoot the enemies this time!
>N- no more games, now we actually bomb the sand niggers! Load the REAL bombs this time, not those fake ones we've been dropping for decades.