Could the United States conquer the planet?

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"] No, it's not off-topic. No nation could possibly recruit its maximum number of able bodies to serve in a conflict. The nation military's infrastructure alone could not support such a massive enlistment. Even with that being the case, there is no feasible way every Chinese person could be trained to be an effective soldier. Such training could never succeed. Please rethink the logic on that a bit.OrkHammer007

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]As compared to the 1 million active US servicemen, it most certainly is on-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?

sethman410

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[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

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="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] It still counts. Look at Russia in the begginning of in world war 2, same thing happend. Many didn't train well and didn't have supplies. So...sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"] Thank you, lol. He didn't realize he was contradicting his own claim by establishing the existence of such a large hypothetical enemy force.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Erm... you guys are just talking about active troops. How about let's max out numbers. K thanks.sethman410

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]As compared to the 1 million active US servicemen, it most certainly is on-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?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Erm... you guys are just talking about active troops. How about let's max out numbers. K thanks.sethman410

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

dercoo

You wouldn't need to reduce everything. You'd need to reduce a certain number of high value targets. That's still not the same thing as conquering, of course.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Numbers are not the most important ingredient....particularly when they don't have the supplies for said numbers.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Numbers are not the most important ingredient....particularly when they don't have the supplies for said numbers.

SilentFireX

EDIT: In fact we actually paid China to make stuff for the U.s. We give chinese the supplies and they make stuff then ship those stuff that says "made in china" back to the u.s. Its true. :/ So actually those stuff should be said "made in usa"

Ever wonder why theres riots at walmarts in the u.s. couple years ago?

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.

No. Its glory days are way over. Its economy needs to recover and you guys have GOT to cut your spending!!!!

Already done. McDonald's has achieved victory.

sonicare

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] How you know? You got a time machine? The U.s. is number one in manufacturing, so explain how you know again? Sure, it might not be 600 million but FAR MORE than 2 million "active troops" world war 2 says hi.sethman410

No. Its glory days are way over. Its economy needs to recover and you guys have GOT to cut your spending!!!!

Calvin079

That'll be inevitable. Military funding will have to be diverted to domestic requirements and thus the defensive wall of the US will be lowered a little.

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Oh did you forget that the u.s. could also recruit? Yeah. It's off-topic because its about maxing out both sides numbers, not what is currently active right now. Because if the u.s. plans to conquer, they would recruit many more. So....sethman410

In terms of artillery and armor... are you suggesting that we stuff the surplus military personnel in Abrams MBTs to roll ourselves from Shanghai to Tibet?!?

Please tell me if you ever make general of any armed service... I'll make sure at that point to stock my survival bunker and ******* disappear for a decade. The fallout from your mismanagement of the US military might settle out by then (at least, I hope so, for the sake of my kids). Until then, please learn that military strategy in the real world is not the same thing as strategy in an RTS.

[QUOTE="Calvin079"]

No. Its glory days are way over. Its economy needs to recover and you guys have GOT to cut your spending!!!!

poptart

That'll be inevitable. Military funding will have to be diverted to domestic requirements and thus the defensive wall of the US will be lowered a little.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]Up to... what was that number again? Oh, yeah...120 million.. Now it's a 5-to-1 numerical advantage to the Chinese, militarily. Still **** odds.

OrkHammer007

In terms of artillery and armor... are you suggesting that we stuff the surplus military personnel in Abrams MBTs to roll ourselves from Shanghai to Tibet?!?

Please tell me if you ever make general of any armed service... I'll make sure at that point to stock my survival bunker and ******* disappear for a decade. The fallout from your mismanagement of the US military might settle out by then (at least, I hope so, for the sake of my kids). Until then, please learn that military strategy in the real world is not the same thing as strategy in an RTS.

EDIT: sorry forgot to explain better. Umm the u.s. had superior air force that time and destroyed their industries. We today would do the same and then numbers do not mean anything. Quality wins. THe u.s. has number 1 manufactoring power, so supplies shouldn't be a problem for boots on the ground.

[QUOTE="Fundai"]Conquer North America? NoSilverbond

If by conquer, you mean to forcibly establish and maintain control over, then no. Far too few boots for that.

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Did you forget the quality of air force, artilllary, tanks, and navies? Chinese navy and air force is nothing compared to U.s.sethman410

In terms of artillery and armor... are you suggesting that we stuff the surplus military personnel in Abrams MBTs to roll ourselves from Shanghai to Tibet?!?

Please tell me if you ever make general of any armed service... I'll make sure at that point to stock my survival bunker and ******* disappear for a decade. The fallout from your mismanagement of the US military might settle out by then (at least, I hope so, for the sake of my kids). Until then, please learn that military strategy in the real world is not the same thing as strategy in an RTS.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="Calvin079"]

No. Its glory days are way over. Its economy needs to recover and you guys have GOT to cut your spending!!!!

LJS9502_basic

That'll be inevitable. Military funding will have to be diverted to domestic requirements and thus the defensive wall of the US will be lowered a little.

I'm pretty sure it's the third biggest part of the budget.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="poptart"]

That'll be inevitable. Military funding will have to be diverted to domestic requirements and thus the defensive wall of the US will be lowered a little.

GreySeal9

I'm pretty sure it's the third biggest part of the budget.

I give up. It's impossible to debate someone who pulls arguments from nowhere and literally makes up strategy as he goes along, and I have much better things to do than smash my head on that particular wall. :roll:

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]You do not conquer territory with an air force or navy; both services provide support roles for the actual conquest.

In terms of artillery and armor... are you suggesting that we stuff the surplus military personnel in Abrams MBTs to roll ourselves from Shanghai to Tibet?!?

Please tell me if you ever make general of any armed service... I'll make sure at that point to stock my survival bunker and ******* disappear for a decade. The fallout from your mismanagement of the US military might settle out by then (at least, I hope so, for the sake of my kids). Until then, please learn that military strategy in the real world is not the same thing as strategy in an RTS.

LJS9502_basic

I give up. It's impossible to debate someone who pulls arguments from nowhere and literally makes up strategy as he goes along, and I have much better things to do than smash my head on that particular wall. :roll:

OrkHammer007

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] .... Dude. Do you know how germans lost in WW2? Their industries got destroyed thus ther last years of war they were very low on supplies. Ding ding! WE today would destroy everyone else's industries then put our boots on the ground! Then they would be hopeless. Oh, the Germans had the best troops and tactics during that time. sethman410

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] .... Dude. Do you know how germans lost in WW2? Their industries got destroyed thus ther last years of war they were very low on supplies. Ding ding! WE today would destroy everyone else's industries then put our boots on the ground! Then they would be hopeless. Oh, the Germans had the best troops and tactics during that time. sethman410

I read Ww2 books alot and play little RTS ever. So... I think I win.sethman410

and play little RTS ever. So... I think I win.sethman410

play little RTSsethman410

Are you f***ing serious?

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="Calvin079"]

No. Its glory days are way over. Its economy needs to recover and you guys have GOT to cut your spending!!!!

LJS9502_basic

That'll be inevitable. Military funding will have to be diverted to domestic requirements and thus the defensive wall of the US will be lowered a little.

You may be right, but personally I doubt they'd stop foreign aid - the US would still present a philanthropic front for the sake of international relations. But give it a year and we shall see.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] .... Dude. Do you know how germans lost in WW2? Their industries got destroyed thus ther last years of war they were very low on supplies. Ding ding! WE today would destroy everyone else's industries then put our boots on the ground! Then they would be hopeless. Oh, the Germans had the best troops and tactics during that time. sethman410

Germany lost the war because they spread themselves too thin due to the meddling of Hitler...who also forced and ill advised attack into the USSR at the wrong time.LJS9502_basic

....IM pretty much an expert on WW2.sethman410

You are most certainly not.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="poptart"]

That'll be inevitable. Military funding will have to be diverted to domestic requirements and thus the defensive wall of the US will be lowered a little.

poptart

You may be right, but personally I doubt they'd stop foreign aid - the US would still present a philanthropic front for the sake of international relations. But give it a year and we shall see.

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"]and play little RTS ever. So... I think I win.coolbeans90

play little RTSsethman410

Are you f***ing serious?

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Germany lost the war because they spread themselves too thin due to the meddling of Hitler...who also forced and ill advised attack into the USSR at the wrong time.LightR

EDIT: not to mention those 1 million were actually recent recruited trooops. The Wehrmacht were all on the Eastern.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Or we leave the ME and stop foreign aid. Actually the military budget is not a very big part of the budget to start with....LJS9502_basic

You may be right, but personally I doubt they'd stop foreign aid - the US would still present a philanthropic front for the sake of international relations. But give it a year and we shall see.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sethman410"] I read Ww2 books alot. I know alot bout this stuff. trust me, they lost because of u.s. superior air force. Yes, that waas also the reason. But imo, industries being destroyed was the biggest reason. And that reason you just gave is the 2nd. Man, im telling you. We shocked the germans by our superior air force. They made a mistake not researching into the warplanes until then it was too late. It forced the Germans to fall back in the east because they started to get low on supplies.

sethman410

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Or we leave the ME and stop foreign aid. Actually the military budget is not a very big part of the budget to start with....LJS9502_basic

I'm pretty sure it's the third biggest part of the budget.

Yeah, it does come out to about 20%, but the thing is, 20% is actually a pretty big part of the budget. To compare, Medicare and Medicaid is 23% of the budget and it is the thing we spend the most on.

Defense spending comes pretty close to social security.

[QUOTE="sethman410"] ....IM pretty much an expert on WW2.coolbeans90

You are most certainly not.

:lol:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="poptart"]

You may be right, but personally I doubt they'd stop foreign aid - the US would still present a philanthropic front for the sake of international relations. But give it a year and we shall see.

LightR

[QUOTE="sethman410"] ....IM pretty much an expert on WW2.coolbeans90

You are most certainly not.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Had Germany been fighting on one theater it would have been much different. And the German Air Force wasn't a joke dude.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] ....IM pretty much an expert on WW2.GreySeal9

You are most certainly not.

:lol:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="poptart"]

That'll be inevitable. Military funding will have to be diverted to domestic requirements and thus the defensive wall of the US will be lowered a little.

poptart

You may be right, but personally I doubt they'd stop foreign aid - the US would still present a philanthropic front for the sake of international relations. But give it a year and we shall see.

I'm pretty sure foreign aid is a pretty small part of the budget, so I'm not sure it would make much of a difference if you eliminated it. I think if you trimmed the military budget and got rid of the wasteful spending there, you might be able to come up with alot more than what we spend on foreign aid.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

You are most certainly not.

SilentFireX

:lol:

I actually dream of being an WW2 historian one day. I teach my mom many things about it. Im pretty much an expert.

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

:lol:

sethman410