Could the United States conquer the planet?

[QUOTE="sethman410"]Its so sad to see people underestimating the U.S. military so much. Look at death comparisons in the U.s war with Iraq or any other wars in recent history. 3k to 500k in Iraq war. Hmmm.SilentFireX

[QUOTE="sethman410"] The simple answer is no. The more complicated answer is also a resounding "no."

Conquering the planet, militarily, then holding the acquisitions is completely unfeasible for practically any terrestrial entity. If you're specifically hypothesizing U.S. conquest of Earth, we are nowhere near powerful enough militarily or economically to defeat all opposition, and then hold the newly acquired territories for any amount of time. Sure, we could launch all of our nukes, and effectively wipe out the planet, ourselves along with it, but what's the point of that? Even our cultural influence has been in a moderately steady decline, with our preeminence reaching its height in the late 80s to mid 90s or so. Our current fiscal and foreign policies are grossly ineffective, and that, coupled with the insurmountable task of conquering the entire planet, and neutralizing any and all opposition makes "global conquest" a madman's piped dream at best.

A calculated, covert effort over multiple decades to undermine all foreign national governments, and perpetuate a global dependency on the United States would ultimately cripple our own existence, and never succeed in creating any lasting global empire. There are far too many contingencies for that to ever occur.

Wtf i didnt write that, quoting failLiftedHeadshot

Already done. McDonald's has achieved victory.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]With me as an evil dictator the skies the limit....Palantas

I reconsider my opinion, then. Palantas would like the following job title:"DeputyQuartermaster Chief ofStaff, Alcohol and Female Uniforms."

hahaha....

no.

It could rolf stomp most militaries in a conventional sense. but it could never hold down the world resistance. It's already fairly exaserbated holding down Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst maintianing it's bases overseas and conducting operations over Libya.

and if you say, But the nukes!

then you'd have retaliatory nuclear fire from every other country. Not to mention what is the worth of a world that has been nuked over.

[QUOTE="sethman410"]Its so sad to see people underestimating the U.S. military so much. Look at death comparisons in the U.s war with Iraq or any other wars in recent history. 3k to 500k in Iraq war. Hmmm.Palantas

500,000. 500,000? You should explain that figure?

With me as an evil dictator the skies the limit....LJS9502_basic

I reconsider my opinion, then. Palantas would like the following job title:"DeputyQuartermaster Chief ofStaff, Alcohol and Female Uniforms."

Umm, look at the spendings. Yeah i know its 3rd world but Russia failed hard to invade Afganistan years ago and we didnt have a problem invading it did we? Thats proof. sethman410

Wow, because you clearly dont know anything about military strengths.sethman410

Furthermore, a failed Soviet war in Afghanistan, and our "success" in Afghanistan, if you really want to try to claim that, speaks nothing towards the effectiveness of a multi-front war against the entire world. Ever heard of Vietnam? Well, a funny bit about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is that it's actually referred to as the Soviets' Vietnam War.

hahaha....

no.

It could rolf stomp most militaries in a conventional sense. but it could never hold down the world resistance. It's already fairly exaserbated holding down Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst maintianing it's bases overseas and conducting operations over Libya.

and if you say, But the nukes!

then you'd have retaliatory nuclear fire from every other country. Not to mention what is the worth of a world that has been nuked over.

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Umm, look at the spendings. Yeah i know its 3rd world but Russia failed hard to invade Afganistan years ago and we didnt have a problem invading it did we? Thats proof. SilentFireX

Wow, because you clearly dont know anything about military strengths.sethman410

Furthermore, a failed Soviet war in Afghanistan, and our "success" in Afghanistan, if you really want to try to claim that, speaks nothing towards the effectiveness of a multi-front war against the entire world. Ever heard of Vietnam? Well, a funny bit about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is that it's actually referred to as the Soviets' Vietnam War.

EDIT: i actually already explained why its not insanity. Examples: spendings, k/d ratio (rather in 3rd world countries or not), and finally da spendings! The end.

Umm thats funny, I dont think you understand why we failed in vietnam. I suggest you do the research why we failed in vietnam. Thers a really good reason bud. Just research this stuff. I hate explaining in big paragraphs. IM not that type. K thanks.sethman410

No we don't have enough boots to fight india, China and Russia alone not even counting the rest of the world. The countries with the least allies almost always lose just look at history. I think we could easily take Canada and Mexico though without outside interference.Tetrarch9

Yes, 500,000. Thats what "k" means. You learnt something today.sethman410

He was not questioning the meaning of "k". - Your condescending attitude is a bit off-putting, at least in my opinion, man.

Obviously, he was questioning the figure "500,000" itself. You might be interested to know that the entire combined combatant force for the Iraqi military (and insurgents post-Saddam,) do not total to even 400,000. That being said, the enemy Iraqi combatant (and insurgent) losses only total 38-70,000 in their entirety.

The number you were thinking of is actually the combined, estimated number of CIVILIAN deaths in Iraq since the initial invasion: 654,965.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

I reconsider my opinion, then. Palantas would like the following job title:"DeputyQuartermaster Chief ofStaff, Alcohol and Female Uniforms."

The number you were thinking of is actually the combined, estimated number of CIVILIAN deaths in Iraq since the initial invasion: 654,965.

[QUOTE="Tetrarch9"]No we don't have enough boots to fight india, China and Russia alone not even counting the rest of the world. The countries with the least allies almost always lose just look at history. I think we could easily take Canada and Mexico though without outside interference.sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="Tetrarch9"]No we don't have enough boots to fight india, China and Russia alone not even counting the rest of the world. The countries with the least allies almost always lose just look at history. I think we could easily take Canada and Mexico though without outside interference.Tetrarch9

They are already conquering the planet....They own around 130 countries and there is only 191 countries i believe...so yes they are conquering the world

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] Umm thats funny, I dont think you understand why we failed in vietnam. I suggest you do the research why we failed in vietnam. Thers a really good reason bud. Just research this stuff. I hate explaining in big ass paragraphs. IM not that type. K thanks.sethman410

So obviously the troops did their job. Now if you must resort to ad hominem attacks then we have nothing to discuss.

They are already conquering the planet....They own around 130 countries and there is only 191 countries i believe...so yes they are conquering the world

cee1gee

[QUOTE="sethman410"] No... I swore that its only iraqi combatants. I researched this stuff. It doesnt include civilians. If it does, it would be at least over a million deaths total.SilentFireX

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

The politicians.....no need for a big paragraph.;)LJS9502_basic

So obviously the troops did their job. Now if you must resort to ad hominem attacks then we have nothing to discuss.

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="sethman410"] No... I swore that its only iraqi combatants. I researched this stuff. It doesnt include civilians. If it does, it would be at least over a million deaths total.sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"] OH ok... You think you are really smart or somethihg? Because everytime i look at ur posts, you act smart. Just dont post if you dont know anything about military strengths. K thanks.

So obviously the troops did their job. Now if you must resort to ad hominem attacks then we have nothing to discuss.

[QUOTE="sethman410"] I dont get it. They dont even have the air force or no one else does that rivals the u.s. well. if the u.s. can't conquer the planet, you guys better agree with me on this part, we can easily defend against the whole planet. If not, just dont post because it shows you lack info about military strengths.SilentFireX

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Considering you have not elaborated on what reasons you think the Viet Nam War failed....North Viet Nam was ready to fall when the politicians pulled the plug.

So obviously the troops did their job. Now if you must resort to ad hominem attacks then we have nothing to discuss.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="sethman410"] I dont get it. They dont even have the air force or no one else does that rivals the u.s. well. if the u.s. can't conquer the planet, you guys better agree with me on this part, we can easily defend against the whole planet. If not, just dont post because it shows you lack info about military strengths.sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Considering you have not elaborated on what reasons you think the Viet Nam War failed....North Viet Nam was ready to fall when the politicians pulled the plug.

So obviously the troops did their job. Now if you must resort to ad hominem attacks then we have nothing to discuss.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"] Please check your facts again. India most certainly does have an air force, (with over 170,000 active personnel and over 1500 aircraft.)SilentFireX

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] what I think!?!??! Noo, actually you need to do the research. it was very difficult and thats what i know for sure. So whatever that reeason is, was the reason why u.s. lost. (Hint: hard to identify the enemies and friendlies.) research away!sethman410

Yes, 500,000. Thats what "k" means. You learnt something today.sethman410

Dun dun DUNN!! Yeah, Palantas learned something. Now that we have that out of the way, please explain that figure.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] what I think!?!??! Noo, actually you need to do the research. it was very difficult and thats what i know for sure. So whatever that reeason is, was the reason why u.s. lost. (Hint: hard to identify the enemies and friendlies.) research away!sethman410

They had a hard time with Afghanistan and even now is not fully controlled so the whole world might be a little bit too much for them. I think they could destroy most of the world if they wanted though, they have the technology and weapons to do it.kuraimen

[QUOTE="cee1gee"]

They are already conquering the planet....They own around 130 countries and there is only 191 countries i believe...so yes they are conquering the world

SilentFireX

I did research. But you haven't posted anything to support your opinion.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="sethman410"]Yes, 500,000. Thats what "k" means. You learnt something today.Palantas

Dun dun DUNN!! Yeah, Palantas learned something. Now that we have that out of the way, please explain that figure.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]They had a hard time with Afghanistan and even now is not fully controlled so the whole world might be a little bit too much for them. I think they could destroy most of the world if they wanted though, they have the technology and weapons to do it.sethman410

Yes, 500,000. Thats what "k" means. You learnt something today.sethman410

Dun dun DUNN!! Yeah, Palantas learned something. Now that we have that out of the way, please explain that figure.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]They had a hard time with Afghanistan and even now is not fully controlled so the whole world might be a little bit too much for them. I think they could destroy most of the world if they wanted though, they have the technology and weapons to do it.sethman410

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] so? i dont think you know the big factor of why u.s. lost.

sethman410

The Vietnam War was most certainly "lost" as a result of its massive unpopularity and infighting within the US political system regarding its legitimacy.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] so? i dont think you know the big factor of why u.s. lost.

sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]They had a hard time with Afghanistan and even now is not fully controlled so the whole world might be a little bit too much for them. I think they could destroy most of the world if they wanted though, they have the technology and weapons to do it.kuraimen

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] As I said the war was unpopular and the politicians pulled the plug....LJS9502_basic