Could the United States conquer the planet?

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

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

sethman410

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] k? thats how you talk lmao. You act superior and congratulations. Because that the hell has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Like many of your posts are off-topic. sethman410

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

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="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sethman410"] of course they would have a hard time in middle east because so many times terroritsts use human shield. And like the same situation in vietnam, hard to identify enemies and friendlies. We are also trying to protect civilians which is the reason why its hard.sethman410

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sethman410"] of course they would have a hard time in middle east because so many times terroritsts use human shield. And like the same situation in vietnam, hard to identify enemies and friendlies. We are also trying to protect civilians which is the reason why its hard.sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Yes, that but also hard to identify friendlies and enemies. they also had to protect umm forgot what to call them, scouts? SilentFireX

Well, that was a huge factor of why the U.S. lost otherwise it would be easily winnable.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Yeah I think you would basically have to exterminate 90% of the population in the ME to control the region. There's a reason why that place has been at war with western forces since thousands of years. But the west kind of keeps stubbornly trying to mess with them.SilentFireX

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I'm off topic? As I recall I quoted you talking about the Viet Nam war. So then you were saying about off topic?

LJS9502_basic

Does anyone in here have any knowledge on Sun Tzu....Its obvious the United States is obviously using Deception constantly, Why do you think they are such a super power? they are going by Sun Tzu's techniques and they can not be destroyed....they learned from their mistakes after Vietnam

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] talking about politcians is off-topic...sethman410

Why I don't believe the US can conquer the world, for the one and only doubter in this thread:

1.) Public support. Take a look at how much popular support the Afghan and Iraqi occupations have enjoyed since, say, 2005. I can probably count the people who actually currently support the 2003 Iraqi war on my fingers, with the thumbs left over. How much popular support do you think we can muster for a global take-over? The absolute first thing the opposition will say is, "We can't afford it, and 'international law' forbids it," and it'll die in Congress (or even sooner, with the President).

2.) Who goes first? Which do you think is the best first target for our big game of Risk? Should we tackle the biggest threat (China, with 2 million troops) first? Or stay closer to home, and take Canada? No matter who you decide should be taken first, be prepared for the immediate ramp-up of the rest of the world's militaries, and watch the difficulty increase exponentially.

3.) Occupation. Say we did manage to eliminate Canada first (because the bacon is awesome, eh? :P ). How do you propose to hold it? The population won't thank us for taking them over. How many troops do you wish to assign to hold the largest nation in surface area, and still have enough troops to take your next objective?

4.) Ganging up. Finally, what's to stop the remaining nations from deciding that we're too big of a threat to allow us to simply plow on with our objective. What's to stop them from pooling their navies to shuttle troops to our first objective to stiffen their military and force us to back off... or worse, to invade us while our defenses are thinned outby our invasion?

It's not our military strength that stops us... it's strategy and practical reasons that do.

Not when you were talking about the reasons the Viet Nam war turned out as it did...:|LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="sethman410"] Yes, that but also hard to identify friendlies and enemies. they also had to protect umm forgot what to call them, scouts? sethman410

That is how we got to this discussion. I have still seen absolutely nothing whatsoever in this topic supporting the notion of a possible U.S. military conquest of the world. Hell, I expected some suggestions of cultural conquest, but that's not even being addressed lol.

Of course not. They haven't the numbers to subjugate the entire planet.

Why I don't believe the US can conquer the world, for the one and only doubter in this thread:

1.) Public support. Take a look at how much popular support the Afghan and Iraqi occupations have enjoyed since, say, 2005. I can probably count the people who actually currently support the 2003 Iraqi war on my fingers, with the thumbs left over. How much popular support do you think we can muster for a global take-over? The absolute first thing the opposition will say is, "We can't afford it, and 'international law' forbids it," and it'll die in Congress (or even sooner, with the President).

2.) Who goes first? Which do you think is the best first target for our big game of Risk? Should we tackle the biggest threat (China, with 2 million troops) first? Or stay closer to home, and take Canada? No matter who you decide should be taken first, be prepared for the immediate ramp-up of the rest of the world's militaries, and watch the difficulty increase exponentially.

3.) Occupation. Say we did manage to eliminate Canada first (because the bacon is awesome, eh? :P ). How do you propose to hold it? The population won't thank us for taking them over. How many troops do you wish to assign to hold the largest nation in surface area, and still have enough troops to take your next objective?

4.) Ganging up. Finally, what's to stop the remaining nations from deciding that we're too big of a threat to allow us to simply plow on with our objective. What's to stop them from pooling their navies to shuttle troops to our first objective to stiffen their military and force us to back off... or worse, to invade us while our defenses are thinned outby our invasion?

It's not our military strength that stops us... it's strategy and practical reasons that do.

Of course not. They haven't the numbers to subjugate the entire planet.

poptart

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] I wasn't the one that brought up vietnam.

sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"] That was not the primary reason for the eventual withdrawal in the least.SilentFireX

That is how we got to this discussion. I have still seen absolutely nothing whatsoever in this topic supporting the notion of a possible U.S. military conquest of the world. Hell, I expected some suggestions of cultural conquest, but that's not even being addressed lol.

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

Why I don't believe the US can conquer the world, for the one and only doubter in this thread:

1.) Public support. Take a look at how much popular support the Afghan and Iraqi occupations have enjoyed since, say, 2005. I can probably count the people who actually currently support the 2003 Iraqi war on my fingers, with the thumbs left over. How much popular support do you think we can muster for a global take-over? The absolute first thing the opposition will say is, "We can't afford it, and 'international law' forbids it," and it'll die in Congress (or even sooner, with the President).

2.) Who goes first? Which do you think is the best first target for our big game of Risk? Should we tackle the biggest threat (China, with 2 million troops) first? Or stay closer to home, and take Canada? No matter who you decide should be taken first, be prepared for the immediate ramp-up of the rest of the world's militaries, and watch the difficulty increase exponentially.

3.) Occupation. Say we did manage to eliminate Canada first (because the bacon is awesome, eh? :P ). How do you propose to hold it? The population won't thank us for taking them over. How many troops do you wish to assign to hold the largest nation in surface area, and still have enough troops to take your next objective?

4.) Ganging up. Finally, what's to stop the remaining nations from deciding that we're too big of a threat to allow us to simply plow on with our objective. What's to stop them from pooling their navies to shuttle troops to our first objective to stiffen their military and force us to back off... or worse, to invade us while our defenses are thinned outby our invasion?

It's not our military strength that stops us... it's strategy and practical reasons that do.

sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] But you were talking about it since you are the person I quoted.;)LJS9502_basic

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! :lol:

Oh...wait...you're serious? :|

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

Why I don't believe the US can conquer the world, for the one and only doubter in this thread:

1.) Public support. Take a look at how much popular support the Afghan and Iraqi occupations have enjoyed since, say, 2005. I can probably count the people who actually currently support the 2003 Iraqi war on my fingers, with the thumbs left over. How much popular support do you think we can muster for a global take-over? The absolute first thing the opposition will say is, "We can't afford it, and 'international law' forbids it," and it'll die in Congress (or even sooner, with the President).

2.) Who goes first? Which do you think is the best first target for our big game of Risk? Should we tackle the biggest threat (China, with 2 million troops) first? Or stay closer to home, and take Canada? No matter who you decide should be taken first, be prepared for the immediate ramp-up of the rest of the world's militaries, and watch the difficulty increase exponentially.

3.) Occupation. Say we did manage to eliminate Canada first (because the bacon is awesome, eh? :P ). How do you propose to hold it? The population won't thank us for taking them over. How many troops do you wish to assign to hold the largest nation in surface area, and still have enough troops to take your next objective?

4.) Ganging up. Finally, what's to stop the remaining nations from deciding that we're too big of a threat to allow us to simply plow on with our objective. What's to stop them from pooling their navies to shuttle troops to our first objective to stiffen their military and force us to back off... or worse, to invade us while our defenses are thinned outby our invasion?

It's not our military strength that stops us... it's strategy and practical reasons that do.

OrkHammer007

EDIT: Those are just "active" troops. Imagaine World War 3, many of those would be recruited.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Yes, so what? But you kept bringing up stuff that is off-topic. I was only responding to the person that brought up vietnam because it was something to do with this thread. Why dont you go back and read.sethman410

No. It's really a simply lesson of history. What happened to Persian, the Babylonians and the Romans? Try to conquer the world and you only get burned. ferrari2001

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Actually, China has at least 600 million (including females.)sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I did read. And I quoted what I wanted to reply to in this thread. And your idea about guerrilla war wasn't quite accurate. The US could certainly win a war where that was the status quo. That's how they won the Revolution. However, the US doesn't want to attack civilians so it's not as easy. But with no conscious.....there would be no problem. The US is militarily capable but not morally willing to go that route.

SilentFireX

World no. North and South America? You bet theres no one who could stop them

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="sethman410"] I agree. Let's go back on topic shall we?sethman410

[QUOTE="ferrari2001"]No. It's really a simply lesson of history. What happened to Persian, the Babylonians and the Romans? Try to conquer the world and you only get burned. angry_roman1011

I don't know what you think the definition of "on topic" is, but LJS's post most certainly was addressing the topic. SilentFireX

[QUOTE="angry_roman1011"][QUOTE="ferrari2001"]No. It's really a simply lesson of history. What happened to Persian, the Babylonians and the Romans? Try to conquer the world and you only get burned. sethman410

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] Oh yeah, addressing "sub-topics" but he was saying such things that has nothing to do with the main topic of this thread.

sethman410

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Actually, China has at least 600 million (including females.)sethman410

EDIT: Those are just "active" troops. Imagaine World War 3, many of those would be recruited.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]No, they don't.

SilentFireX

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] Oh yeah, addressing "sub-topics" but he was saying such things that has nothing to do with the main topic of this thread.

sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]No, they don't.

EDIT: Those are just "active" troops. Imagaine World War 3, many of those would be recruited.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Is this thread not about the US military capabilities?SilentFireX

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="sethman410"] CIA factbook says otherwise which is more reliable. Sorry :(sethman410

.... You just proved my point and proved yourself wrong. Its still 600 million FIT. Lol.sethman410

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="sethman410"] CIA factbook says otherwise which is more reliable. Sorry :(sethman410

Do you realize that if you do "max out" their military, it adds up to more than twice the total population of the US? Are you still sure that we'd prevail against the PRC given such numbers?

You have NO idea what you're talking about. You quoted their "manpower available for military service", which refers to the amount of their population which is of age to serve in the military. Their active military only numbers at roughly 2 million.SilentFireX

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"] You have NO idea what you're talking about. You quoted their "manpower available for military service", which refers to the amount of their population which is of age to serve in the military. Their active military only numbers at roughly 2 million.OrkHammer007

Do you realize that if you do "max out" their military, it adds up to more than twice the total population of the US? Are you still sure that we'd prevail against the PRC given such numbers?

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

You have NO idea what you're talking about. You quoted their "manpower available for military service", which refers to the amount of their population which is of age to serve in the military. Their active military only numbers at roughly 2 million.SilentFireX

Do you realize that if you do "max out" their military, it adds up to more than twice the total population of the US? Are you still sure that we'd prevail against the PRC given such numbers?

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="sethman410"] DUH. But let's max out the numbers. Because if the U.S. ever attempted to conquer the planet, those would be 600 million would be recruited. Ding ding! So, those "active 2 milllion" is also a bit off-topic.

sethman410

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="sethman410"] DUH. But let's max out the numbers. Because if the U.S. ever attempted to conquer the planet, those would be 600 million would be recruited. Ding ding! So, those "active 2 milllion" is also a bit off-topic.

sethman410

If you'd take a look at one of my posts a bit up on the page, he was purporting that to be the combined death total of enemy combatants in Iraq. He later admitted to being mistaken about that when confronted with data from the CIA factbook.SilentFireX

Ooooo...why didn't he tell me that?

@sethman: So what about the 36k figure? I'm just asking because based on my experience, most soldiers actually in combat didn't have a 12:1 KDR.

[QUOTE="sethman410"] DUH. But let's max out the numbers. Because if the U.S. ever attempted to conquer the planet, those would be 600 million would be recruited. Ding ding! So, those "active 2 milllion" is also a bit off-topic.

Do you realize that if you do "max out" their military, it adds up to more than twice the total population of the US? Are you still sure that we'd prevail against the PRC given such numbers?

If by conquer you mean reduce everything to radio active dust, then yes. Yes we can

The problem is conquering ourselves in the process....