Could The U.S. Conquer The World?

[HULKSTER]

I have always been curious as to how much of the world the U.S. could conquer if it decided to go on a Nazi German-like tear across the world, using it's great military/industrial complex, as well as top-notch, best trained troops equipped with the best weapons and equipment ever known to man. So, do you think the U.S. could conquer more of the world as compared to the maximum amount of the world that the Germans conquered in WWII?

 

[gymrat]

LOl i was thinking of this the other day.

 

[Fast Twitch Fiber]

We have a lot of high tech gadgets but I don't think we have the number of troops necessary. Plus, there's too many nations with nukes.

I think that if another country went on a Nazi tear they would find themselves on the receiving end of an ICBM with a nuke in it rather quickly. It will be interesting when an Arab nation acquires some nukes and the ability to launch one into Israel. My guess is Israel would retaliate and the whole Middle East will end up being destroyed. I don't think it will be long before one of those nutty Islamic countries develops nukes. Iran apparently is just about there...

 

[russian_power]

Even if America did conquer the world it could never hold the ground. There would be too many citizens of countries rising against the americans. Not enough americans to do it. I don't believe anyways that america could conquer the russian hordes and chinese humungous armies anyways unless nuclear or bio and chem weapons were used. If america had about another 4-6 million troops than maybe. But the russians could! J/k

 

[HULKSTER]

Hopefully, I get to go on that tour of Egypt that I've always wanted to go on before Cairo gets destroyed. Although they would probably be one of the last countries in the Middle East/North African area to get lit up.

 

[russian_power]

Hey, do you think america is going to attack other mid east countries? What I find strange is that America has so many troops,an obvious overkill for Saddam in the gulf. They have the numbers to take syria,egypt (egypyt is an ally),jordan and lebanon,Iran. I hope this will not happen because the American people I don't believe would like to conquer this region. America should've used special forces like in Afghanistan to take out Iraq. It could be done. Why the large buildup for such a percieved weak nation?(iraq)

 

[Fast Twitch Fiber]

Iraq's not that weak. We let them get away with a lot of their conventional weapons in the last war. We hardly touched their elite Republican Guard troops. Also, we really don't have a lot of troops in that region now. Only about 300,000. That's not many to conquer a nation. Also, our leaders want to make sure there are as few American casualties as possible. I'm not 100% convinced that this war is the right solution, but if you're going to go into a war, it's better to be well prepared than get caught with your pants down.

 

[HansNZ]

Militarily the US is the most powerful, but it is not militarily possible to conquer the world. Have you guys forgotten about vietnam already? Have you forgotten the lessons learned by the Nazis in Yugoslavia?

The US is conquering the world. But it is doing so with a much better strategy. It is called globalisation. The US's economic power means that you have to be its friend.

Here is an example of how economic power can be used to control countries: The US will give the Australians a free trade agreement for their support over the Iraq crisis. New Zealand (which opposes the US's Iraq policy) will not be included. This will have a massive impact on our local economy as investment moves to Australia which will have open access to US markets. NZ firms will have barriers, (either tariffs or outright denial of access), so economies of scale will benefit Australian producers and push NZ producers out.

Why is it you think that so many countries governments support the US when their populations do not, and when the US's case is so transparent? It is all these other unseen factors which are at work.

 

[p0ink]

The US will give the Australians a free trade agreement for their support over the Iraq crisis. New Zealand (which opposes the US's Iraq policy) will not be included. This will have a massive impact on our local economy as investment moves to Australia which will have open access to US markets. NZ firms will have barriers, (either tariffs or outright denial of access), so economies of scale will benefit Australian producers and push NZ producers out.

Why is it you think that so many countries governments support the US when their populations do not, and when the US's case is so transparent? It is all these other unseen factors which are at work.

that just gave me wood.

 

[rsnoble]

No fucking way. And even if we did come out victorius the only people left alive from the radioactive haze would be the politicians living underneath a mountain. The only way this could ever happen would be the slowly deploying of troops on a worldwide basis in strategic locations, and using diplomatic relations to disarm one country at a time starting with the small ones(and when that doesnt work just blow them up), and then attempting to persuade other nuclear powers to destroy their arsenal in turn for economic relief. Damn, that sounds familiar. As far as conquering, possibly yes in a large time frame. As far as controlling, I dont see it. We'll go broke policing the world and go on a vodka binge just like russian power.

 

[HansNZ]

No fucking way. And even if we did come out victorius the only people left alive from the radioactive haze would be the politicians living underneath a mountain. The only way this could ever happen would be the slowly deploying of troops on a worldwide basis in strategic locations, and using diplomatic relations to disarm one country at a time starting with the small ones(and when that doesnt work just blow them up), and then attempting to persuade other nuclear powers to destroy their arsenal in turn for economic relief. Damn, that sounds familiar. As far as conquering, possibly yes in a large time frame. As far as controlling, I dont see it. We'll go broke policing the world and go on a vodka binge just like russian power.

The US wouldn't have any trouble conquering New Zealand.

Because of our geography you'd need to have a fairly well developed military machine to project force to our part of the world.

Our planners figure that any country powerful enough to do that is too powerful for a small country like us to defeat anyway. So essentially our military has been scrapped and turned into an international peace-keeping force. Now we just try to just be friendly to everyone and hope for the best.

 

[the nature boy]

I would think the cost involved to conquer and occupy would be too high. The US would crumble from within.

 

[HULKSTER]

I would think the cost involved to conquer and occupy would be too high. The US would crumble from within.

MUCH LIKE THE ROMAN EMPIRE CRUMBLED FROM WITHIN AFTER CONQUERING MUCH OF THE KNOWN WORLD? But, do you think if the U.S. plundered the gold, silver, platinum and OIL supplies of countries that it would be able to sustain the ability to finance such control of the world, even for a few years?

 

[HansNZ]

MUCH LIKE THE ROMAN EMPIRE CRUMBLED FROM WITHIN AFTER CONQUERING MUCH OF THE KNOWN WORLD? But, do you think if the U.S. plundered the gold, silver, platinum and OIL supplies of countries that it would be able to sustain the ability to finance such control of the world, even for a few years?

The rise of nationalism makes conquest temporary at best. Empires such as the British empire couldn't exist now. People now have a national consciousness which didn't exist in centuries past - as such who ruled them seem irrelevant. Fortunately the British had the forsight to recognise this and dismantled their empire in an orderly way.

The multinational empires within Europe such as Austria-Hungary didn't learn this lesson and spent the last decades of their existence in a constant state of tension and repression which ended with their collapse. The Russian Empire (aka Soviet Union in recent times), which has always been behind the curve historically only disintegrated 12 years ago.

Most systems held together by compulsion are typified by tension and repression. The European emphasis on consensus and coalition building reflects this historical lesson. The USA hasn't quite caught on to this and usually has contempt for the European and UN desire to "rule by committee". Sadly for the USA it's unilateral and aggressive attitudes are starting to rise up and bite it. Sadly it is only with hindsight that Americans will realise this 50 or 100 years from now. I think there will be a few more 9/11s before then.

 

[the nature boy]

yeah but still, the economy is now global. foreign stock markets effect the us stock market, and vice versa. plus we depend on a lot of countries to purchase US goods, and if we roll through and destroy the infrastructure of a good part of the world (which normally happens in war) those countries will no longer be able to purchase US goods since their economies will be in ruin. another thing to look at is that a lot of the US industrial base would have to focus on builing weapons and vehicles and ammo etc, and I'd think that would effect our economy as well.

but sure, we could probably control the world for a few years, but then what?

plus it's kinda hard to predict what countries with nuclear weapons would do.

 

[russian_power]

Ameika wek agin. I hittin vodka in my cribby in the gulag ha~!!!
viofka is russiabn way of life!! drink till yuo puke!!!!! fuck off.

 

[HULKSTER]

Oh, so as you said two days ago, "Yu Americanz r big puzzy, no can drin vodka lik Russians. Don fuk wit da power".