NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday I was driving home from a day trip with two friends when one of them suggested that the United States should use its vast power to conquer the world, and is confident that we would be able to do so with little trouble (oddly forgetting Imperial Japan and NAZI Germany).

I tried to explain to him that we don't have the man-power or fuel to do so, but he wasn't convinced. I'm sure some of you could help me educate my 'armchair general' friend by answering my question, and would be very appreciative if you would do so.

http://vida.web.elte.hu/img/try_and_stop_us_m.png

Well, advanced technologies of foreign armies plus the US depending on much of the world for economic support, not forgetting 300 miilion against 5.5 billion isn't really a fair fight.

You can just about keep Iraq "under control", and you've nearly lost Afghanistan, so good luck with the rest of the world.

You;'re right. We don't have the manpower. To conquer means to hold, and just how could a nation of 300 million garrison a world of 6 billion?

The only way would be to employ such overwhelming force - like WMDs - as to vastly depopulate the world.

Of course, there's the minor issue of WMD-armed nations who might oppose us. China, and most of the EU nations for example.

But the main reason is the US does not have the will to be a conqueror. We're not nazis. We have no Hitler.

The US has just completely failed to effectively conquer two third world countries, whose weaponry consided of little more than sharp sticks and pieces of fruit.

It can blow up the world if it wanted to, but it could never conquer it. There have been far mightier empires in the past that never got close to total global domination.

Yesterday I was driving home from a day trip with two friends when one of them suggested that the United States should use its vast power to conquer the world, and is confident that we would be able to do so with little trouble (oddly forgetting Imperial Japan and NAZI Germany).

I tried to explain to him that we don't have the man-power or fuel to do so, but he wasn't convinced. I'm sure some of you could help me educate my 'armchair general' friend by answering my question, and would be very appreciative if you would do so.

First off, how old is your friend?

I have had it to here with teenage wannabe fascists who drool and get a hard on every time they read a WW2 book, see US troops on the news or play Warhammer games.

If he does fit into that stereotype, then ignore him, he will grow out of it, hopefully.

If not and he is dead serious and an adult, then forget some lame reply dealing with manpower and resources.

No one outside the US want to give up their hard won freedoms and in the case of Europe, the welfare state and socialised health and education systems.

If the US ever tried to invade the UK, I'd be the first to pick up a gun and pump lead into US troops.;)

If the US ever tried to invade the UK, I'd be the first to pick up a gun and pump lead into US troops.;)

Really? You don't think the armed forces would get to that before you?

The US has just completely failed to effectively conquer two third world countries, whose weaponry consided of little more than sharp sticks and pieces of fruit.

It can blow up the world if it wanted to, but it could never conquer it. There have been far mightier empires in the past that never got close to total global domination.

Name an empire that has been mightier than the US.

I tried to explain to him that we don't have the man-power or fuel to do so, but he wasn't convinced. I'm sure some of you could help me educate my 'armchair general' friend by answering my question, and would be very appreciative if you would do so.
If the US can't even control two small countries, how could they control all of them?

Name an empire that has been mightier than the US.
British, Mongolian. They actually controlled huge countries.

The US has just completely failed to effectively conquer two third world countries, whose weaponry consided of little more than sharp sticks and pieces of fruit.

It can blow up the world if it wanted to, but it could never conquer it. There have been far mightier empires in the past that never got close to total global domination.

I'm sorry but I laughed when I read this and finally decided to post in the forums.

The second half of your statement is fine. I agree with you there.

The first part, howevever, is idiotic, even if you are being sarcastic. I doubt it was a piece of fruit that injured and deafened one soldier in Iraq.

Why can't the US conquer the world?


Who the hell would want to? The world sucks! :p

Name an empire that has been mightier than the US.
The Chinese, Persians, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Mongols, want me to keep on going?

Who the hell would want to?

The US! Haven't you been paying attention?! *slaps*

The first part, howevever, is idiotic, even if you are being sarcastic. I doubt it was a piece of fruit that injured and deafened one soldier in Iraq.
Do I really need to point out that it wasn't exactly 100% serious?

Name an empire that has been mightier than the US.
Depends what you mean. If you mean guns and nukes, then obviously none; you're judging history through 21st Century specs. If you mean in terms of influence and land conquered, then many.

The US! Haven't you been paying attention?! *slaps*

Ow!

No, I really wasn't. *points* ooh! Shiny object! *pounces!*

The Chinese, Persians, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Mongols, want me to keep on going?

Are you kidding? The Egyptians didn't even have ironworking. We have nuclear fusion. We're mightier!

Are you kidding? The Egyptians didn't even have ironworking. We have nuclear fusion. We're mightier!
*sigh-ety sighs*

The Chinese, Persians, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Mongols, want me to keep on going?

Really, they're mightier? You want to bet on any of the above past empires over the United States? You know, that big country with the guns, and the chemical weapons, and the nuclear weapons, and the biological weapons, and the planes, the trains, the automobiles?

You think a Roman Legion would hold up to an artillery barrage, or a napalm strike? Or a that a Mongol Tumen could overwhelm a battalion, or a platoon or company, for that matter?

Name an empire that has been mightier than the US.

say the empire of alexander the great

or the mongolian empire of kublai khan

or the russian tzarist empire at its peak (i'd like to see the US trying to conquer Syberia)

or the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne

ah... and of course the Victorian Britsh Empire... probably the greatest empire ever

*sigh-ety sighs*

...plus the Egyptians weren't really a world-conquering empire. Like any civilization they fought with their "primitive" neighbors but weren't known for conquer and domination. Unlike say the Mycenaen Greeks, the Romans.

But since none of them had McDonald's, they fail. :)

Really, they're mightier? You want to bet on any of the above past empires over the United States? You know, that big country with the guns, and the chemical weapons, and the nuclear weapons, and the biological weapons, and the planes, the trains, the automobiles?

You think a Roman Legion would hold up to an artillery barrage, or a napalm strike? Or a that a Mongol Tumen could overwhelm a battalion, or a platoon or company, for that matter?
You are a bloody genius, aren't you. I mean in terms of impact over the world, and for their time. They were much mightier, and left some culture behind for the rest of the world.

Something the US hasn't done.

You are a bloody genius, aren't you. I mean in terms of impact over the world, and for their time. They were much mightier, and left some culture behind for the rest of the world.

Something the US hasn't done.

Hard Rock Cafe. :D

Depends what you mean. If you mean guns and nukes, then obviously none; you're judging history through 21st Century specs. If you mean in terms of influence and land conquered, then many.

Keep in mind that the US has conquered a lot of land. It is a third the size that the Mongol Empire was at its peak, and has ten times as many people living within its borders. Furthermore, we have a strong influence over South America (see Guatemala, for example).

Really, they're mightier? You want to bet on any of the above past empires over the United States? You know, that big country with the guns, and the chemical weapons, and the nuclear weapons, and the biological weapons, and the planes, the trains, the automobiles?

You think a Roman Legion would hold up to an artillery barrage, or a napalm strike? Or a that a Mongol Tumen could overwhelm a battalion, or a platoon or company, for that matter?

you people obviously have no sense of proportion...

in their time those empires comanded proportionally more economical, political, cultural and military power than the US can dream... so please get your "oh we are sooo better coz we have things that go boom" mentality of this thread and replace it with some sense...

Really, they're mightier? You want to bet on any of the above past empires over the United States? You know, that big country with the guns, and the chemical weapons, and the nuclear weapons, and the biological weapons, and the planes, the trains, the automobiles?

You think a Roman Legion would hold up to an artillery barrage, or a napalm strike? Or a that a Mongol Tumen could overwhelm a battalion, or a platoon or company, for that matter?

Ah. Your problem is that you're judging by technology. On that level it's a rhetorical question. However, for the point you were trying to prove, you have to take into account the technologies that each of those was facing, in which case, a number, if not all, of the given examples are valid.

Hard Rock Cafe. :D
Bah!

If only I had your awesome powers of ruining a sensible argument with crazyness!

You are a bloody genius, aren't you. I mean in terms of impact over the world, and for their time. They were much mightier, and left some culture behind for the rest of the world.

Something the US hasn't done.

So you move on to personal attacks because you failed to make yourself clear in the first place?

Wow, that's mature. :rolleyes:

you people obviously have no sense of proportion...

in their time those empires comanded proportionally more economical, political, cultural and military power than the US can dream... so please get your "oh we are sooo better coz we have things that go boom" mentality of this thread and replace it with some sense...

Singular, not plural. So, relax.

Bah!

If only I had your awesome powers of ruining a sensible argument with crazyness!

Wit and insanity are greater than the sum of their parts. :)

So you move on to personal attacks because you failed to make yourself clear in the first place?

Wow, that's mature. :rolleyes:
Actually, it was pretty clear what he meant.

you people obviously have no sense of proportion...

in their time those empires comanded proportionally more economical, political, cultural and military power than the US can dream... so please get your "oh we are sooo better coz we have things that go boom" mentality of this thread and replace it with some sense...

I don't think so. In terms of technological innovations alone, the US has had an enormous impact on a truly global society. Like the introduction of the hydrogen bomb and nuclear power. Sure, they "things that go boom," but potentially the "thing" going "boom" might be the human race, so I would say that that is indeed a definite and unprecedented impact with regards to military and political power. The nuclear age drastically restructured the world and will continue to do so.

For the most part it is said that the Greeks, for example, conquered the world because scholars tend to this day to be Western-centric, and assume that whatever they didn't conquer was somehow "not the world" or irrelevant. By intentionally narrowing the view, the world is portrayed as being smaller than it was, so these historical conquerors get credit for conquering larger chunks of the world as a result.

I'm not one to wank the USA or it's accomplishments, but I would be ignorant if I was pretending it hasn't have an enormous impact on society and the world.

The US has just completely failed to effectively conquer two third world countries, whose weaponry consided of little more than sharp sticks and pieces of fruit.

It can blow up the world if it wanted to, but it could never conquer it. There have been far mightier empires in the past that never got close to total global domination.

yeah, the USian military is pretty much the world's most expensive joke. shame that the punchline always seems to involve atrocities even while losing.

For the most part it is said that the Greeks, for example, conquered the world because scholars tend to this day to be Western-centric, and assume that whatever they didn't conquer was somehow "not the world" or irrelevant. By intentionally narrowing the view, the world is portrayed as being smaller than it was, so these historical conquerors get credit for conquering larger chunks of the world as a result.In those times you needed years to sail around the world, nowadays we can use a plane and do it in less then a day.:rolleyes:

Like the introduction of the hydrogen bomb and nuclear power.
That was Britain...

Plus the Romans pretty much invented proper hygeine, changed the face of warfare forever by making the phalanx an ineffective fighting tactic, and had a stupendously large effect culturally on most of the world.[/QUOTE]

Well, American culture has been exported throughout the world, so in a sense, the U.S. has already taken over the world...

Do I really need to point out that it wasn't exactly 100% serious?

That wasn't too dificult to see. This hits closer to home than it ever has so I suppose I'm a little sore on the subject.

That was Britain...

Britain wasn't first with nuclear technology - it was the American's, with the help of the Nazi's.

Britain wasn't first with nuclear technology - it was the American's, with the help of the Nazi's.

The atom was first split in Manchester.

I daresay that if the USA were willing to (openly) use the barbarity of the British or Roman empires, Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be challenges to control.

Genocide and ghettos make populations easy to conquer.

The atom was first split in Manchester.

That makes me smile, for some reason. :p

"Eh up, Vera, com' 'nd 'av a look at me atom."

The atom was first split in Manchester.

:confused: :confused:

Britain wasn't first with nuclear technology - it was the American's, with the help of the Nazi's.
And the help of the British. And to be fair they were our Nazis anyway, we just gave them to the Americans becasue we didn't have the money to do anything with them.

Actually, it was pretty clear what he meant.

Actually, it wasn't. Kthnxbye.

In those times you needed years to sail around the world, nowadays we can use a plane and do it in less then a day.:rolleyes:

Yeah, okay. Powered flight. Invented in the US.

That was Britain...

Meh. The fission bomb then.

Plus the Romans pretty much invented proper hygeine, changed the face of warfare forever by making the phalanx an ineffective fighting tactic, and had a stupendously large effect culturally on most of the world.

Well, no doubt. But the US pretty much invented the foundations of the internet, changed the face of warfare forever by making the standard line-and-column infantry tactics ineffective during the later part of the ACW, and is for better or worse having a large cultural effect on most of the world.

Whether this will last as long as the Roman effect? Only time will tell.

Actually, it wasn't. Kthnxbye.Sorry I forgot you actually had to think for it and that isn't your stongest point.

Yeah, okay. Powered flight. Invented in the US. Concrete, invented by the Romans.

changed the face of warfare forever by making the standard line-and-column infantry tactics ineffective during the later part of the ACW

I don't think that was so much an American invention per se, just the way warfare was going at the time due to the technology being invented only some of which was happening in the US, although the US stuff was pretty important.

:confused: :confused:

So as Rutherford expanded these ideas at Manchester University, he completed his most famous experiment – splitting the atom. He was the first to cause an artificial break-up of an atomic nucleus as well as changing one element into another. This he achieved by firing alpha-particles into an atom. Occasionally one caused part of the nucleus to break off.

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/atomicfirsts/page2.asp

You can't compare empires by what technology they had.

Oh, we invented powered flight! We own the greeks!

Considering we had all this time to build on the knowledge of the greeks, if we didn't have everything they had and a ton more, we would be a third world country.

Concrete, invented by the Romans.

Assembly line production. Henry Ford.

This won't be fair because the modern world just has a lot more technology than the ancient one, so the Romans will lose out on a pure innovation-to-innovation match.

I don't think that was so much an American invention per se, just the way warfare was going at the time due to the technology being invented only some of which was happening in the US, although the US stuff was pretty important.

Well, true, but then I think the phalanx was on it's way out for the same reasons. It wasn't flexible enough and warfare would eventually just show that, with or without the Legion to directly do the honour.

A better example I shoulda used there was iron-clad warships.

Sorry I forgot you actually had to think for it and that isn't your stongest point.

Do I know you?

Do I know you?

:eek:

Everyone knows HC!

He's Dutch.

*Nods*

It really seems that the power of the old empires has been inflated through history. The Roman empire's world was a large part of Europe and Asia and some of Africa. They couldn't even control those areas, and, in the end were overthrown by Barbarians. I mean, when the world doesn't even include one of the hemispheres, it is hard to say they actually controlled the world.

Also, along the lines of cultural influence, the US is quite influential. That is why there are protests to get McDonalds out of certain countries. They don't want the US influence there, because the influence tends to take over a culture. BTW- I don't think that is a good thing, either. It is something that, unfortunately, happens. I mean, look at Japan. That is a country that is heavily influenced by US culture.

ADDED: Anyway, to stay on the original subject, the US could not take over the world. There are other countries with firepower enough to stop the US.

:eek:

Everyone knows HC!

He's Dutch.

*Nods*

...never seen him before...

Is he normally like this? You know, all ornery and insulting?

Assembly line production. Henry Ford.

This won't be fair because the modern world just has a lot more technology than the ancient one, so the Romans will lose out on a pure innovation-to-innovation match. So in their time it was harder to conquer land and to keep hold of it, correct?;)

Do I know you?

:eek:

Everyone knows HC!

He's Dutch.

*Nods*
See?:D

Assembly line production.

Actually, that was invented in England. First done by Garratts (in my town Leiston :p ) in the early 1800's

You;'re right. We don't have the manpower. To conquer means to hold, and just how could a nation of 300 million garrison a world of 6 billion?

You forget about the old British empire ;)

So in their time it was harder to conquer land and to keep hold of it, correct?;)


It took longer in their time, I wouldn't say harder. It's harder to make a qualitative statement about who had it easier because there are so many differences.

Actually, that was invented in England. First done by Garratts (in my town Leiston ) in the early 1800's

Curse you and your education!

Well, at least we had the conveyor belt. :p

You forget about the old British empire ;)

People are a lot more educated as a whole, with a lot better communications than when the British Empire was around. Even without the suicidal fanatacism of the fundamentalists who are making it so hard going in Iraq and afghanistan, you just can't occupy places with those sorts of numbers if a mass of well educated populace take against you. At least I don't think so.

The Chinese, Persians, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Mongols, want me to keep on going?
The British and Russian Empires too. <.<

You forget about the old British empire ;)

Pfft. They couldn't even subdue a bunch of yankees... :D

Oh, we invented powered flight! We own the greeks!
What about Icarus? :p

Plus the Incas will have made balloons to check up on the Nazca lines, too. So there.

Pfft. They couldn't even subdue a bunch of yankees... :D
A bunch of Yanks aided by the French behemoth... <.<

Pfft. They couldn't even subdue a bunch of yankees... :D
Not when said Yanks had the help of the rest of the world, no ;)

ADDED: Anyway, to stay on the original subject, the US could not take over the world. There are other countries with firepower enough to stop the US.

Which ones? I know that if at least two first or second world countries took on the US at the same time they wouldn't have a problem, but the thought hadn't crossed my mind that there were any (China aside) that could go toe to toe with us without international support.

(Heh, that sounds pretty naive. . . )

A bunch of Yanks aided by the French behemoth... <.<
And the Dutch... and the Spanish... and anyone else who wanted a go.

Not when said Yanks had the help of the rest of the world, no ;)

Well sure, but then what does that say about the British Empire's ability to rule/conquer the world?

And the Dutch... and the Spanish... and anyone else who wanted a go.
Yay for free-for-alls. ^^

Well sure, but then what does that say about the British Empire's ability to rule/conquer the world?
Britain, challenged (and often overpowered) other imperial superpowers.

USA, can't even control Iraq.

And that says it all. :D

Imagine, if you will, that you are standing in the middle of a vast desert. It is dawn. There is a sign beside you that reads "The point" and directs you to the east. Behind you, to the west, you can see a small group of people walking away and bickering very loudly.

And that's this thread, that is.

It really seems that the power of the old empires has been inflated through history. The Roman empire's world was a large part of Europe and Asia and some of Africa. They couldn't even control those areas, and, in the end were overthrown by Barbarians. I mean, when the world doesn't even include one of the hemispheres, it is hard to say they actually controlled the world.

Also, along the lines of cultural influence, the US is quite influential. That is why there are protests to get McDonalds out of certain countries. They don't want the US influence there, because the influence tends to take over a culture. BTW- I don't think that is a good thing, either. It is something that, unfortunately, happens. I mean, look at Japan. That is a country that is heavily influenced by US culture.

ADDED: Anyway, to stay on the original subject, the US could not take over the world. There are other countries with firepower enough to stop the US.

I agree with you almost completely. The only way we can really show what empire was/is the strongest is by looking at the power of its culture. For example, the Greeks were VERY strong, because of the sheer impact they've had on the entire Western world (not so much when they were at their peak, ironically, but nowadays...)

Likewise, America's also EXTREMELY powerful because of the impact we have on the societies across the globe. Look at Japan: they have a very old, very rich culture, yet they too were "conquered" by America's society. If you were to walk down a street in Tokyo, it'd be hard to tell the difference between that and NYC, say (ignoring the Japanese language everywhere).

But anyway, yes, to stay on-topic, America conquering the world...
Drengen, show me one country -ONE- that can stand up to the US's military power. Seriously.

We stood up to colonial Britain --twice-- and won both times, we defeated Spain, we defeated WWI Germany, Nazi Germany, Moussolini (sp?) Italy, and used the sheer power of our economy and culture to topple the USSR. Now, I may be mistaken, but I'm probably not; weren't they all considered to be world powers? Yet we beat them all...

Britain, challenged (and often overpowered) other imperial superpowers.

Well, so did the US. The USSR, Imperial Japan...

USA, can't even control Iraq.

And that says it all. :D

Not really, it says that the US doesn't have the will to fight this war. And for good reason; it's wrong and stupid.

Doesn't mean that the US lacks the military ability.

And I'm not saying the US could conquer the world, at all.

Likewise, America's also EXTREMELY powerful because of the impact we have on the societies across the globe. Look at Japan: they have a very old, very rich culture, yet they too were "conquered" by America's society. If you were to walk down a street in Tokyo, it'd be hard to tell the difference between that and NYC, say (ignoring the Japanese language everywhere).
America's culture is addictive, but superior it is not. It is like the cockroach surviving a nuclear holocaust... (I should add I have nothing against American culture -- it has many good elements; I just contend that it is not superior).


We stood up to colonial Britain --twice-- and won both times,
With ample aid from Spain and France, among others.

we defeated WWI Germany
http://www.johnreilly.info/wwi.htm You did far less than you imply.

, Nazi Germany, Moussolini (sp?) Italy,
Russia did far more than the USA. Britain also contributed. The USA was not alone.

and used the sheer power of our economy and culture to topple the USSR. Now, I may be mistaken, but I'm probably not; weren't they all considered to be world powers? Yet we beat them all...
The USSR destroyed itself with its idiotic command-economy.

In sum, the US has sole claim to none of these "achievements".

america can conquer the world eh?
i must add brilliant job in iraq and VIETNAM!

The only way would be to employ such overwhelming force - like WMDs - as to vastly depopulate the world.
Of course, there's the minor issue of WMD-armed nations who might oppose us. China, and most of the EU nations for example.
And 15 or so thousands nukes somewhere else.

BTW, actually, highest estimated population lossed for Cold War nuke exchange were about 30% US, 10-20% USSR.

Of course, these would be more if all nukes were targeted at civilians (neglecting military), but still world would be left with a few billions.

Well, so did the US. The USSR, Imperial Japan...
The Cold War wasn't a military clash, and as for Japan, nukes tend to do wonders.

Not really, it says that the US doesn't have the will to fight this war. And for good reason; it's wrong and stupid.
Same with Vietnam then? In which case, I will say the USA has proven nothing. So far it has done nothing to show itself as a true imperial military superpower.

And I'm not saying the US could conquer the world, at all.
You're realistic, then.

The proposed action here is Imperialism. This is expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution.

Furthermore, any such action taken by the American government would need, philosophically, to be done in the interests of bringing Democracy to the peoples of the world (because otherwise, it is Imperialism). However, this is at odds with the philosophy of Democracy, wherein the people are essentially self-governing. Thus, this action is, pure and simple, un-American.

Yet further, it would be technically impossible for the US to conquer the world, in that while it could amass 100% of the world's land-mass in territories, it is against the founding document of the nation for it to annex those territories without the popular vote of the residents approving their own constitution and petitioning the central government for admission into the United States. This is merely a technicality, of course, since the government could easily conquer them and declare them protectorates or somesuch...but an important technicality for the purposes of administration after the military conquest of the earth, since territorial residents cannot be taxed, but merit full benefits of aid and protection.

Why's that matter, you ask? Well, you try to run a global military police state by only taxing (mental math!) 1/18 of the population, while countless sections of the world are in open rebellion and your military can only be taken from that taxable 18%, who must then be paid by whatever is left of that taxable 18%.

Besides, I'm sure somebody in the high-ups would remember not to get involved in a land war in Asia.

You forget about the old British empire ;)

Yes, and they did suck, I mean, such a good job of holding on to it. I mean, all those iron-fisted methods worked so well, why doesn't the US do that in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, wait...

They couldn't even stop the peaceful revolution in India, so don't even try that route.

Well, there's a lot of talk about how the US can't even control Iraq. Well, if the US wanted to go in and setup it's own government and supply even a third of its military power, I daresay that the US would control Iraq. It would be a dictatorship, but the US could easily control Iraq. That's not going to happen. If the US did that, there'd be many more far-reaching consequences.

I agree with you almost completely. The only way we can really show what empire was/is the strongest is by looking at the power of its culture. For example, the Greeks were VERY strong, because of the sheer impact they've had on the entire Western world (not so much when they were at their peak, ironically, but nowadays...)

Likewise, America's also EXTREMELY powerful because of the impact we have on the societies across the globe. Look at Japan: they have a very old, very rich culture, yet they too were "conquered" by America's society. If you were to walk down a street in Tokyo, it'd be hard to tell the difference between that and NYC, say (ignoring the Japanese language everywhere).

But anyway, yes, to stay on-topic, America conquering the world...
Drengen, show me one country -ONE- that can stand up to the US's military power. Seriously.

We stood up to colonial Britain --twice-- and won both times, we defeated Spain, we defeated WWI Germany, Nazi Germany, Moussolini (sp?) Italy, and used the sheer power of our economy and culture to topple the USSR. Now, I may be mistaken, but I'm probably not; weren't they all considered to be world powers? Yet we beat them all...

And I now present: China. I mean, do we have enough bullets to kill them? Then, would we be able to take on the next country? And, let's not even get into countries joining forces to stop the US if it were to try to take over the world.

We stood up to colonial Britain --twice-- and won both times
Stood up to? You invaded us the second time and got kicked out every time you tried. At best it was a draw. :)

Stood up to? You invaded us the second time and got kicked out every time you tried. At best it was a draw. :)
Three cheers for the Emparh! :D

Stood up to? You invaded us the second time and got kicked out every time you tried. At best it was a draw. :)

it took us about 800 years, but we beat them.

Why's that matter, you ask? Well, you try to run a global military police state by only taxing (mental math!) 1/18 of the population, while countless sections of the world are in open rebellion and your military can only be taken from that taxable 18%, who must then be paid by whatever is left of that taxable 18%.
I'd say it's impossible to run such a state regardless of how many you tax. The chains of command will be so corrupted that the system will dissolve in a few years.

The Cold War wasn't a military clash, and as for Japan, nukes tend to do wonders.

The Cold War was a "challenge" of one superpower by another, however.

Japan, well, it's hard to say Japan lost simply because of the nukes when by that time we were already doing the same amount of damage by ridiculously huge fleets of bombers. Plus a nuke doesn't really invalidate things on a who-has-more-power scale, quite the opposite really.

Same with Vietnam then? In which case, I will say the USA has proven nothing. So far it has done nothing to show itself as a true imperial military superpower.

I never said it was "imperial." Imperial implies a policy that isn't really present.

The US has indeed proven a few things in our short history though and it wouldn't really be honest to say it isn't a superpower. Though I guess that depends on the definition of "superpower," a silly term to begin with.

You're realistic, then.

I like to think so...

Europa Maxima: Just because that historian says it happened that way, doesn't mean it did. What to other historians say about it? Don't give us some lone guy. Give us something with more credentials, please. Need a little more support than one guys opinion.

I never said it was "imperial." Imperial implies a policy that isn't really present.

The US has indeed proven a few things in our short history though and it wouldn't really be honest to say it isn't a superpower. Though I guess that depends on the definition of "superpower," a silly term to begin with.
It's definitely an economic superpower, and one with the means to defend itself. I am just curious why some people in this thread think it could rule the world unchallenged.

I like to think so...
It was intended as a compliment. :)

America's culture is addictive, but superior it is not. It is like the cockroach surviving a nuclear holocaust...

And now you compare the US culture to a cockroach... how mature...

With ample aid from Spain and France, among others.

Yes, but who held on for most of the war, waiting for everyone else to join in?

http://www.johnreilly.info/wwi.htm You did far less than you imply.

...riiiiight...

Russia did far more than the USA. Britain also contributed. The USA was not alone.

The fact that we were not alone does not mean that we were the deciding factor. I mean, seriously, France as a sovereign nation didn't exist (why can't that be the case now :p ?), Britain was being carpet-bombed almost nightly, and Russia was suffering astronomical casualties in their march to Berlin. If the US didn't intervene with our money, food, manpower, etc., Hitler could have easily pushed back the Russians back into Russia (during springtime, heh) and subdued them. Fact is, WWII would have been lost to the Allies had the US never intervened like we did. Admit it.

The USSR destroyed itself with its idiotic command-economy.

I take that to mean that Reagan's heavy-handed dealings with the USSR had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with its fall, which is, of course, totally false.

In sum, the US has sole claim to none of these "achievements".

Oh, really? That's news to me. I mean, I think you just "proved" false every history book I've ever read...

It's definitely an economic superpower, and one with the means to defend itself. I am just curious why some people in this thread think it could rule the world unchallenged.

Ignorance? Seriously, I don't know who could honestly think that. Unless we're talking a completely hypothetical situation in which suddenly everyone in the US is 100% committed to unlimited, naked foreign aggression at any cost. Then there's always the untried-but-probably-true method of nuke first, mop up later and enjoy the eerie aftermath before radiation kills everyone.

But then if we're talking completely hypothetical nations, a hypothetical Jamaica could rule the world too. :)


It was intended as a compliment. :)

I'm bad at taking compliments.

Thanks though. :D

Yesterday I was driving home from a day trip with two friends when one of them suggested that the United States should use its vast power to conquer the world, and is confident that we would be able to do so with little trouble (oddly forgetting Imperial Japan and NAZI Germany).

I tried to explain to him that we don't have the man-power or fuel to do so, but he wasn't convinced. I'm sure some of you could help me educate my 'armchair general' friend by answering my question, and would be very appreciative if you would do so.

Forget the manpower and the fuel. We haven't the right to do it.

The US has indeed proven a few things in our short history though and it wouldn't really be honest to say it isn't a superpower. Though I guess that depends on the definition of "superpower," a silly term to begin with.
Well, this term suggests that the power in question which is far stronger than just major powers without this status...
But, political correctness aside, I agree. It would be more factually correct to say that the older countries just ceased to be major powers. Not only they were overshadowed, but they lost or got rid of their empires and high military focus which kept them major powers in the past.

Yes, but who held on for most of the war, waiting for everyone else to join in?
The British were winning before others came to the US' help. It would've lost otherwise. Britain was at a disadvantage because of the US' distance, but still had the upper hand.

...riiiiight...
Try disprove it.

The fact that we were not alone does not mean that we were the deciding factor. I mean, seriously, France as a sovereign nation didn't exist (why can't that be the case now :p ?), Britain was being carpet-bombed almost nightly, and Russia was suffering astronomical casualties in their march to Berlin. If the US didn't intervene with our money, food, manpower, etc., Hitler could have easily pushed back the Russians back into Russia (during springtime, heh) and subdued them. Fact is, WWII would have been lost to the Allies had the US never intervened like we did. Admit it.
Actually, Russia carried the burden of the war. It did far more than the US. Therefore, I will admit nothing of the sort.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm

The US played a part. But it is not the reason for victory.

I take that to mean that Reagan's heavy-handed dealings with the USSR had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with its fall, which is, of course, totally false.
Its economic system was much of the reason why it was such a failure.

Oh, really? That's news to me. I mean, I think you just "proved" false every history book I've ever read...
I doubt you've read many at all, then...

Why can't the US conquer the world? The same reason the military doesn't seize power and rule the country with an iron fist: There's no political will to do so.

And more than that, conquering the world it expensive, and a lot of people die. Why do that we can get rich from international trade, and culturally come to dominate the world.

Ignorance? Seriously, I don't know who could honestly think that. Unless we're talking a completely hypothetical situation in which suddenly everyone in the US is 100% committed to unlimited, naked foreign aggression at any cost. Then there's always the untried-but-probably-true method of nuke first, mop up later and enjoy the eerie aftermath before radiation kills everyone.
Sounds like WW 3 material. ^^

Three cheers for the Emparh! :D

U-S-A!
U-S-A!
U-S.... oh whoops.

I'd like to remind those of you who are suggesting nuke-flinging as a possible stratagy that we could only fire so many of them before the o-zone layer is gone and we all go blind. . .

Or so says 'The Hundredth Monkey'.

Edit: Completely ignoring the fallout that everyone is accutely aware of anyway.

Actually, Russia carried the burden of the war. It did far more than the US. Therefore, I will admit nothing of the sort.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm
The US played a part. But it is not the reason for victory.
Agreed. Actions of the US shortened the war, but they were more aimed against Japan and taking control over already broken Germany. The Allies could do it, it would take more time and lives, but still - while both Britain and Russia were hit hard, they still stood steady, and German empire was doomed.

Because Russia is in the way. Russia always wins.

Europa Maxima: Just because that historian says it happened that way, doesn't mean it did. What to other historians say about it? Don't give us some lone guy. Give us something with more credentials, please. Need a little more support than one guys opinion.
I wish that guy sourced the historians he used. His viewpoint (at least the factual premises he bases it upon) are not just the opinion of one lone guy though. Germany's victory in WW I was a very likely scenario.

This historian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson) tends to deliver good work on WW 1 history and counterfactual histories. He is among those that contend that Germany's defeat was not a necessary outcome.

Well, the situation in WW I was totally different to the sitauation in WW II

Germany had more powerful allies in the west. And Russia was defeated 1917. But I doubt that they would have the power to break through the Manignot-line. Perhaps they would have made a piece with the allies in the west, without conquering it. Both sides were tired of the war.

In WW II, Germany almost stood alone in Europe. Well, there were Italy, but they were more a problem than a help. And they had allies like Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Croatia, and Blugaria. Many of them were German puppets, and none of them was a real military power.

After Stalingrad, the Germans started loosing the war. At this time, America didn't interfere in Europe - there were only the Sovjetunion and the Brits in North Africa. They didn't have the manpower to defeat Russia - they didn't have it in WW I, but there they sucesfully staged a Coup. In WW II, they didn't have this option.

And as the same reason, the USA never could conquer the whole world - They might be stronger than every other army - but not stronger than all of them together.

Because the entire formerly non-USian population would commit mass suicide.

Yeah, okay. Powered flight. Invented in the US.

Nope. Possibly powered heavier than air flight, but not just powered flight.

I take that to mean that Reagan's heavy-handed dealings with the USSR had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with its fall, which is, of course, totally false.

Stalin had much, much more influence on the fall of the USSR than Reagan.

The US has just completely failed to effectively conquer two third world countries, whose weaponry consided of little more than sharp sticks and pieces of fruit.

It can blow up the world if it wanted to, but it could never conquer it. There have been far mightier empires in the past that never got close to total global domination.

ancient roman empire? hem hem?

i believe they conquered most of the known world at their time, save the Asian countries and bits of southern Africa... :p

After Stalingrad, the Germans started loosing the war. At this time, America didn't interfere in Europe - there were only the Sovjetunion and the Brits in North Africa. They didn't have the manpower to defeat Russia - they didn't have it in WW I, but there they sucesfully staged a Coup. In WW II, they didn't have this option.

Check your facts - Operation Torch started before the turning point during the Battle of Stalingrad

ancient roman empire? hem hem?

i believe they conquered most of the known world at their time, save the Asian countries and bits of southern Africa... :p
Britain ruled 1/4 of the world at its height I believe. Russia the most in terms of landmass though. Either way, Britain came far closer than the US to global domination.

Nope. Possibly powered heavier than air flight, but not just powered flight.

I meant powered, manned flight. That still work?

I meant powered, manned flight. That still work?

Nope, that would have been the Frenchman Giffard back in 1852.

Nope, that would have been the Frenchman Giffard back in 1852.

Grr, fine. The aeroplane, then.

Grr, fine. The aeroplane, then.

The glider was invented in the USA?

The glider was invented in the USA?

The term aeroplane typically refers to any fixed-wing aircraft, also known as airplane. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroplane_%28disambiguation%29).

Specifically the type of fixed-wing aircraft that is manned and powered by propellers.

GRAR!

Um, tell him he's a fucking Idiot.

ancient roman empire? hem hem?

i believe they conquered most of the known world at their time, save the Asian countries and bits of southern Africa... :p

The world known to who, exactly? I believe the Incans and Native Americans may have known about North and South America. Besides, the Romans were in contention with the Greeks fairly constantly and were destroyed by Barbarians. You see, the biggest problem with comparing ancient countries to modern countries is scope. The scopes are much different. It's like comparing apples and The Simpsons. There is no comparison.

You;'re right. We don't have the manpower. To conquer means to hold, and just how could a nation of 300 million garrison a world of 6 billion?

The British managed to hold an Empire of ~400,000,000 from a home populatio of about 15-20 million.

But that was when most of the guys they were fighting had spears and not AK47s.

Three letters - M.A.D.

it took us about 800 years, but we beat them.

you forgot to add that little thing called the First world War Happening at the same time

Yesterday I was driving home from a day trip with two friends when one of them suggested that the United States should use its vast power to conquer the world, and is confident that we would be able to do so with little trouble (oddly forgetting Imperial Japan and NAZI Germany).

I tried to explain to him that we don't have the man-power or fuel to do so, but he wasn't convinced. I'm sure some of you could help me educate my 'armchair general' friend by answering my question, and would be very appreciative if you would do so.

im getting in a lil late in this but why cant the US conquer the world? well its because the world will fight back. win or lose we will fight and there will be no end =) no empire lasts forever

Check your facts - Operation Torch started before the turning point during the Battle of Stalingrad

Hmm, you better check your fact on the number of troups employed in Torch and Stalingrad. And on German losses.

As for the "Hitler driving Russians back in 1944" go read something on operation Bagration.

That was Britain...

Plus the Romans pretty much invented proper hygeine, changed the face of warfare forever by making the phalanx an ineffective fighting tactic, and had a stupendously large effect culturally on most of the world.[/QUOTE]

I would love to say we did, but in this case I think the US demonstrated both first. Though I think it was Germany who first demonstrated the nucleur fission reaction.

Yesterday I was driving home from a day trip with two friends when one of them suggested that the United States should use its vast power to conquer the world, and is confident that we would be able to do so with little trouble (oddly forgetting Imperial Japan and NAZI Germany).

I tried to explain to him that we don't have the man-power or fuel to do so, but he wasn't convinced. I'm sure some of you could help me educate my 'armchair general' friend by answering my question, and would be very appreciative if you would do so.

Whether America can conquer the world all depends on where you draw the line between conquering the world, and destroying it.

You forget about the old British empire ;)

Lets see:

UK pop at empire height: ~48 million
Population of Empire:~500 million
World population: ~2.26 billion
(~25% of the worlds population controlled by 2% of it)
For every briton there were 9 other people in the empire

The US population: 300 million
World population: 6 billion
5% of the worlds population.
If the US achieves the same ratio as the UK it would control 50% of the worlds population.

The UK achieved this before guerilla warfare was so wide spread as a concept. So my answer would be that the US would not succeed.

Really, they're mightier? You want to bet on any of the above past empires over the United States? You know, that big country with the guns, and the chemical weapons, and the nuclear weapons, and the biological weapons, and the planes, the trains, the automobiles?

You should consider the proportions, and compare the empires of old with the tech and army level of the same age and places (world was a lot smaller in the ages of the Roman empire: only neighbouring states mattered).

The US-vs-Russia military power ratio nowadays is inferior to the Roma-vs-India of -let's say- 1st century of the Christian era... yet Roma didn't invade India. The Romans knew there was India, but they avoided such a troublesome military engagement. Even Alexander the Great couldn't invade India.

Also, about big country with high tech level: some German (don't remember whether it was Hitler or someone else, maybe even in WW1) said that if Napoleon had had telephones, Russia would be part of France. Well... when the Nazis tried to invade CCCP, they had telephones, radio, airplanes, railroad artillery, tanks, chemical weapons... and we all know how it ended.

Tech isn't everything, after all.;)

Check your facts - Operation Torch started before the turning point during the Battle of Stalingrad

Ooopss...

Well, where were still the Italians - the Allies wouldn't have needed the help of the USA in North Africa, Italy would cause enough problems for the Germans. :p

Here's a nice joke: 1939, Churchill said to Hitler: "In the last war, we had the Italians. Now it's your turn!" ;)

Actually, Russia carried the burden of the war. It did far more than the US. Therefore, I will admit nothing of the sort.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm

The US played a part. But it is not the reason for victory.
..

I agree with you on your point that the european theatre of war burden was mainly on the Russians and the US sometimes overestimates their contribution here.

However, the US involvement was definitly decisive in the pacific theatre of war against Japan as the other major allies were too busy trying to contain Nazi Germany. I don't think the other allies would have been in a position (especially France) to then go and deal with Japan while keeping an eye on Germany.

Ooopss...

Well, where were still the Italians - the Allies wouldn't have needed the help of the USA in North Africa, Italy would cause enough problems for the Germans. :p

Here's a nice joke: 1939, Churchill said to Hitler: "In the last war, we had the Italians. Now it's your turn!" ;)

Yea, a friend of mine is the grandson of General Trinca - commander of the Italian AF for some years during the fascist regime - , who was sacked by Mussolini because he dared to tell him that Italian AF wasn't ready to fight a war against Britain.
Mussolini, the ultimate idiot.

Btw, damn Churchill... we Italians did a good job in diverting a lot of the Empires' forces south instead of west, after all. (sorry, bit of national pride).

well after nuking the rest of the world...................................................
ymmv

Furthermore, we have a strong influence over South America (see Guatemala, for example).

I disagree. The US may have had a strong influence in SA on the 70s and 80s when they supported many SA dictatorships, but with left winged presidents taking control of many SA countries and with the growing anti-US sentiment, not anymore. Even economically SA is becoming more dependent of the EU and Asia.

another reason is you dont have the economic power to do so, your economy is failing and there are trends of moving away from the dollar, china is looking to slowly reduce its dollar holding. this is exsacerbated by the Oil training market in Iran being conducted in Euros and the trend of investing in the Pound Sterling as a strong currancy. America is running on a deficit in spendin and cannot continue to do so, if they do chances are their economy will collapse daging the world into recession, whereas the world will have some means to get out of it the US will be stuck



The fact that we were not alone does not mean that we were the deciding factor. I mean, seriously, France as a sovereign nation didn't exist (why can't that be the case now ?), Britain was being carpet-bombed almost nightly, and Russia was suffering astronomical casualties in their march to Berlin. If the US didn't intervene with our money, food, manpower, etc., Hitler could have easily pushed back the Russians back into Russia (during springtime, heh) and subdued them. Fact is, WWII would have been lost to the Allies had the US never intervened like we did. Admit it.

they were talking about WW1

and the US did play a role however if u take any of the countries out of that equasion then the war would ahev been lost ( if u take the british rolls royce engine out of the mustang(and lets not get into hollywods portrail of the us winning the battle of britian, it was the bitish plains and lots of pilots from poland which did) if britian didnt pet the us use its shores as a staging post, if russia haddnt gotten involved, if there ws no french resistance movement, each country played a key role no one factor was decisive because without the others it was doomed to fail

Back to the point about why it couldnt would be that it wouldnt be able to control the EU, the EU nations would be united against amaerican agresion aginst them, the british french an german armys would present a significant challange (especiall as we dont do the whole shooting our allies) not to meantion the rest of the europes armies, also russia has a 'observer' seat in most of the eu chamers and meetings, it is a key aly aswell agression against europe would also be agression against russia,

and then there is china..........

At one point you could have controleed the world economically however that is faiding, also whoever claimed it hs influece in south america i beg to differ with the recent elections. i would say Hugo Chavez and his growing influence

However, the US involvement was definitly decisive in the pacific theatre of war against Japan as the other major allies were too busy trying to contain Nazi Germany. I don't think the other allies would have been in a position (especially France) to then go and deal with Japan while keeping an eye on Germany.
The truth of the matter is that they were all necessary to win the war, which is exactly why I object to the US claiming all the glory for it. If the other Allies had not contained Germany, the US would not be able to focus on Japan. It works both ways.

The truth of the matter is that they were all necessary to win the war, which is exactly why I object to the US claiming all the glory for it. If the other Allies had not contained Germany, the US would not be able to focus on Japan. It works both ways.

I am glad we are in agreement then.

But anyway, yes, to stay on-topic, America conquering the world...
Drengen, show me one country -ONE- that can stand up to the US's military power. Seriously.


Vietnam ?

The US has just completely failed to effectively conquer two third world countries, whose weaponry consided of little more than sharp sticks and pieces of fruit.

It can blow up the world if it wanted to, but it could never conquer it. There have been far mightier empires in the past that never got close to total global domination.


Well I would suppose this is because we are ahearing to these arguably "humane" tactics and demure.. however, when it comes to world domination, one must often resort to what I would consider otherwise "brutal"... tactics .

Let us not forget Germany and Japan were well on their way to victory before they crossed Russia before finishing off the Allied armies in Britian.

the US couldn't conquer the world, cos Europe wiould unite and kick your sorry arse's ;)

Not when said Yanks had the help of the rest of the world, no ;)

And the Brits needed the Germans to help them. And France is hardly the rest of the world, no matter what their opinion of themselves was.

Vietnam ?

American politics and public sentiment defeated the US military in Vietnam, not the Viet Cong. Something people have a tendency to forget.

The British and Russian Empires too. <.<

For size Russia maybe but I don't think I'd quite say them.... Napoleonic France did a lot in a few years... then they got owned.

The US has just completely failed to effectively conquer two third world countries, whose weaponry consided of little more than sharp sticks and pieces of fruit.

It can blow up the world if it wanted to, but it could never conquer it. There have been far mightier empires in the past that never got close to total global domination.

WE COULDN'T EVEN PACIFY MOGADISHU!

the US couldn't conquer the world, cos Europe wiould unite and kick your sorry arse's ;)


Canada too! (and maybe even Australia)

Name an empire that has been mightier than the US.

The Roman empire, The British Empire, The Empire of Alexander The Great....need I go on?

And the Brits needed the Germans to help them.
Ah yes, the might of Imperial Germany... oh... wait... it wasn't even a country at this point...
and France is hardly the rest of the world, no matter what their opinion of themselves was.
In both wars, the French were a very large power, and in both wars, it wasn't just the French - in the first, it was the Spanish and Dutch, as well as more minor nations like the Danish, and in the second it was a smaller array of states, but the whole us-fighting-Napoleon thing really helped the US quite a lot.
American politics and public sentiment defeated the US military in Vietnam, not the Viet Cong. Something people have a tendency to forget.
American morale was astonishingly low by '73 on the battlefield as well as at home. It was a shattered fighting force, let's be honest.

American politics and public sentiment defeated the US military in Vietnam, not the Viet Cong. Something people have a tendency to forget.

Yet defeated the US was. [/yoda]

In any case, they stood up to the US millitary and prevailed. Which was the question.

American politics and public sentiment defeated the US military in Vietnam, not the Viet Cong. Something people have a tendency to forget.

Ah, it seems that also some Americans belive in their own "Dolchstoßlegende".

Well, perhaps the US Army wasn't defeated militarically in Vietnam, after loosing 52.000 soldiers, while over 4 Mio. Vietnamese have died. But they couldn't acheive a victory and break the resistance of the vietcong.

If the USA would have been able to pacify the Vietnam - the resistance in the media and on the streets would have been much lower.

Do you know the principle of democracy? That an army should retreat, if the people don't like the war?

Ah, it seems that also some Americans belive in their own "Dolchstoßlegende".

Well, perhaps the US Army wasn't defeated militarically in Vietnam, after loosing 52.000 soldiers, while over 4 Mio. Vietnamese have died. But they couldn't acheive a victory and break the resistance of the vietcong.

If the USA would have been able to pacify the Vietnam - the resistance in the media and on the streets would have been much lower.

Do you know the principle of democracy? That an army should retreat, if the people don't like the war?

No. That's all to complicated. US foreign policy is based upon sounding poncy at cocktail parties and implementing a policy of 'smashy smashy' abroad.

The Roman empire, The British Empire, The Empire of Alexander The Great....need I go on?

Arrgh! Is anyone else getting tired of people repeatedly giving examples of greater empires? It's even worse, because the answers are always the same. As I stated earlier, it's really hard to compare the ancient powers to modern ones, so I don't even think the question is valid, much less the answer.

Arrgh! Is anyone else getting tired of people repeatedly giving examples of greater empires? It's even worse, because the answers are always the same. As I stated earlier, it's really hard to compare the ancient powers to modern ones, so I don't even think the question is valid, much less the answer.Any free seats in this ride? These are always a hoot.

Any free seats in this ride? These are always a hoot.

Is it true that everyone in finland knows latin? I recently read that in the times - the proper one, not the NY version.

Is it true that everyone in finland knows latin? I recently read that in the times - the proper one, not the NY version.Yes. Everybody in Finland knows everything there is to be known. It's just the fucking education system, you know. It hurts to know that much, but hey, social democracy... what can you do...

Yes. Everybody in Finland knows everything there is to be known. It's just the fucking education system, you know. It hurts to know that much, but hey, social democracy... what can you do...

I can understand. Even thinking about that hurts my brainbox - cranium in finnish I think.

You all should dumb yourselves down and join the rest of the happy people.

Actually, Russia carried the burden of the war. It did far more than the US. Therefore, I will admit nothing of the sort.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm

The US played a part. But it is not the reason for victory.

Actually...based on your link, it was by far the most important nation involved in the victory.

Ribbentrop's view

Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:

* Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
* The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
* The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.

And since the Soviet Union would have had a much more difficult time defeating the Germans without American arms...you can bet the war would have been far longer and bloodier without American assistance, even if the end result would have been the same.

And for those who claim that the Soviets "won" the war...consider this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_Lease

Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back on production of nonessentials severely, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military/industrial economy.

For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. US supplies of waterproof telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical.

People are telling me the Russians would have made it to Berlin by May of 1945 with a token air-force, and with only 1/3 the trucks and less than 1% of the trains needed to move men, fuel, ammo and food?

I don't hardly think so...

...and to head off other arguments.

A total of $50.1 billion worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union

---

Another good one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

Merchant tonnage

1. United States = 33,993,230
2. United Kingdom = 6,378,899
3. Japan = 4,152,361
4. Commonwealth = 2,702,943
5. Italy = 469,606

Materials

Coal

In millions of metric tons

1. Germany = 2,420.3
2. United States = 2,149.7
3. United Kingdom = 1,441.2
4. Soviet Union = 590.8
5. Japan = 184.5

Iron Ore

In millions of metric tons

1. United States = 396.9
2. Germany = 240.7
3. United Kingdom = 119.3
4. Soviet Union = 71.3
5. Japan = 21.0

Crude Oil

In millions of metric tonnes

1. United States = 833.2
2. Soviet Union = 110.6
3. United Kingdom = 90.8
4. Germany = 33.4 (including 23.4 synthetic)
5. Romania = 25.0

Not to mention that despite significant contributions from the British Empire (including India, Australia and New Zealand), it was still the U.S. that did the bulk of the fighting that eventually defeated Imperial Japan...though China has as much of a claim to that victory as anyone else.

How would the war have differed if we'd sat on our side of the pond and done nothing? Would Japan stay out of the war with Russia forever? Would the British Empire in Asia have fallen? Would the Brits and Russians been able to produce everything they needed with both nations essentially facing two fronts?

I'm not trying to pick fights here...or trying to slight other nations and their contributions. I'm just sick...sick...sick of people writing off the U.S. efforts in WWII as unneceesary to victory.

They were entirely necessary...just like those of Britain, Russia, China, France, and a long list of others. :)

Ah yes, the might of Imperial Germany... oh... wait... it wasn't even a country at this point...

What the hell does that have to do with it?

During the American Revolutionary War, Landgrave Frederick II of Hesse-Kassel (a principality in northern Hesse) and other German leaders hired out thousands of conscripted subjects as auxiliaries to Great Britain to fight against the American revolutionaries. About 30,000 of these mercenaries were hired, and they came to be called Hessians, because 16,992 of the total 30,067 men came from Hesse-Kassel. Some were direct subjects of King George III; he ruled them as the Elector of Hanover. Other soldiers were sent by Count William of Hesse-Hanau; Duke Charles I of Brunswick-Lüneburg; Prince Frederick of Waldeck; Karl Alexander; Charles Alexander of Ansbach; and Prince Frederick Augustus of Anhalt-Zerbst.

THOSE German soldiers. Sent by those German leaders, at the behest of the British King.


Shit, shucks, and other comments. It's 2:15am. I am going to bed already!

Nighto.

The US could destroy the world but it could not conquer it.

It is easier to destroy something than to take it and hold it. I really doubt that the US could take and hold China, considering the vast population difference, let alone the rest of the world.

It's really a matter of manpower.

I decided ill post.

China thats more powerful than the US we hardly hear anything about those communists but with such a large amount of people and such a large land mass i really don't think the US is that great.

The us is not the most powerful country it is falling apart with you all voting democrats.

Germany/ Ussr there just as good as the US The Us couldn't control the world because its to weak and everyone would rebel the americans live on there own in there own land. Everyone gets pissed off with the americans because they are so bloody annoying.

The us is not strong enough to take on any of the other world powers.

The us is not strong enough to take on any of the other world powers.

*snickers*

Judging by the grammar and typos in your post...I will attribute this statement to an utter lack of knowledge on the subject of potential armed conflicts.

The us is not the most powerful country it is falling apart with you all voting democrats.


Oh yes, because you know, the Democrats have been the ones shaping policy for the last half decade. Obviously if the country falls apart it's the fault of the minority party.

Actually...based on your link, it was by far the most important nation involved in the victory.

Not true. It mentions various opinions of historians, one of which is that the US was a contributor, but not the decisive factor. The USSR played as large a part, if not larger, in bringing down Nazi Germany. So much is irrefutable. The US played its part by holding back Japan, really. As I said, all the Allies played a huge part. The US has no special position. If this makes you sick, too bad.

http://vida.web.elte.hu/img/try_and_stop_us_m.png

I had a t-shirt with this on it. I wore it around for fun. Got alot of laughs and a few grins. Although one of my good friends borrowed it and it has never returned. :(

Germany/ Ussr there just as good as the US

Where is 'Ussr'? I can't seem to find it on a modern map.

Not true. It mentions various opinions of historians, one of which is that the US was a contributor, but not the decisive factor. The USSR played as large a part, if not larger, in bringing down Nazi Germany. So much is irrefutable. The US played its part by holding back Japan, really. As I said, all the Allies played a huge part. The US has no special position. If this makes you sick, too bad.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
Don't worry, I say exactly the same to the Russkis who think they single-handedly won WW II.

Don't worry, I say exactly the same to the Russkis who think they single-handedly won WW II.

Ok. Then that is fair! :D

Furthermore, we have a strong influence over South America (see Guatemala, for example).

Learn the difference between present and past tenses please.

Furthermore, we had a strong influence over South America.

This is a true statement, whereas

Furthermore, we have a strong influence over South America

Is just plain false.

Learn the difference between present and past tenses please.

Furthermore, we had a strong influence over South America.

This is a true statement, whereas

Furthermore, we have a strong influence over South America

Is just plain false.

You need to learn the difference between coup and influence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenada

Furthermore, consider the deforestation of the Amazon by American-owned companies, drilling of Latin American oil by American-owned companies, Guantanamo Bay, the $1,000,000,000 dollars of military aid sent to Colombia in 2001.

Just because it isn't a direct attack does not mean it isn't influence.

Barring nukes, it would be child's play for the US to conquer the entire world through a policy of targeted genocide based on our superior air, naval, and economic power. We would simply need to raze all agricultural areas, cut off the food supply of the enemy, and allow him to starve to death while running frequent bombing raids. We could also interfere with trade via our superior navy. Also, our economy is much better off than that of the rest of the world, ensuring easier production of military goods. However, the presence of nukes complicates the issue. We could always resort to subterranean bunkers and a policy of out-breeding the enemy, but that sounds somewhat too much like science fiction.

Barring nukes, it would be child's play for the US to conquer the entire world through a policy of targeted genocide based on our superior air, naval, and economic power. We would simply need to raze all agricultural areas, cut off the food supply of the enemy, and allow him to starve to death while running frequent bombing raids. We could also interfere with trade via our superior navy. Also, our economy is much better off than that of the rest of the world, ensuring easier production of military goods. However, the presence of nukes complicates the issue. We could always resort to subterranean bunkers and a policy of out-breeding the enemy, but that sounds somewhat too much like science fiction.

Now, that's more like it.

The US has just completely failed to effectively conquer two third world countries, whose weaponry consided of little more than sharp sticks and pieces of fruit.

It can blow up the world if it wanted to, but it could never conquer it. There have been far mightier empires in the past that never got close to total global domination.


i dissagree,if the u.s. chose to be malicous,no one could stop us,not china..the great threat...nor anyone else.

if we wanted to be diabolical...well i'll leave that to all the armchair experts here...

but i doubt many countries could defend their infrastructure from us...from that it is a hop skip and a jump to people being oure bitches...we can count on the french to play ball..lol...j/k

seriously...no one can go toe to toe with us...pretty obvious if you ask me...but you wont,you will call me a war monger...discussion over.

i hate war.

Could the US conquer the world? No.

seriously...no one can go toe to toe with us...pretty obvious if you ask me...

Not alone maby, but do you seriously think that if the US chooses to conquer the world, other countries would just wach other nations fall and wait for an invasion to their own?

I don't think so. I think they would unite and America would fall. The EU and China alone pose a formitable force against the US. And i'm sure Russia would not stand still if europe gets invaded by the US...

If the US would wage war on EU, China and Russia (at the same time) it could not win.

Not to mention other nations (even the smallest ones) around the globe...

Look at Iraq, it still ties a large number of us troops there. What if the same happens all around the world? America could not sustain such a war. And it's economy would allso fall...

Atleast thats my opinion, but i'm not an expert at these things...

This is still going on?

The age of conquest is over.

The military will not be used to conquer and hold countries anymore. Well that is if they have economic capabilities.

Don't think anybody would get too pissy if countries like Rwanda were taken over.

You forget that it is more than likely that heavier than air flight was powered by Richard Pearse, a humble man from the humble village of Temuka in New Zealand which was at the time of his flight part of the British Empire.

In terms of my own opinion, many people in this thread have discounted the challenges that the British Empire faced. One person commented that guerilla warfare had not been invented significantly, well, the British certainly faced guerilla warfare against the Maoris with the New Zealand Wars, as well as the Boers in South Africa, and in both cases they won.

Not true. It mentions various opinions of historians, one of which is that the US was a contributor, but not the decisive factor. The USSR played as large a part, if not larger, in bringing down Nazi Germany. So much is irrefutable. The US played its part by holding back Japan, really. As I said, all the Allies played a huge part. The US has no special position. If this makes you sick, too bad.

Read my statement again...I said that according to the link YOU posted, the U.S. was the most important of the Allied nations.

I'll even quote it again...since it didn't seem to sink in the first time.

Ribbentrop's view

Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:

* Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
* The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
* The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.[/QUOTE]

This was not some historian talking...this was Hitlers freaking foreign minister.

When two of the three reasons listed by von Ribbentrop are directly related to American efforts, and the other is indirectly linked to those efforts, how can the claim that the Russian effort was more critical than the American effort have any basis in fact, when even the Nazi's implied otherwise?

I would have thought that the Russian winter and Hitlers steadfast inflexiblity made more of a contribution to the German defeat than the Russian military.

When two of the three reasons listed by von Ribbentrop are directly related to American efforts, and the other is indirectly linked to those efforts, how can the claim that the Russian effort was more critical than the American effort have any basis in fact, when even the Nazi's implied otherwise?

Ribbentrop's view

Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:

* Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
* The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
* The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.
And I can shift the focus by bolding other phrases too. It means nothing. Each factor has a different weight - not all are equal.

And another thing - just because Ribbentrop estimated things to be such, does not make him infallible; historians, with the advantage of hindsight, may be able to offer a better overall assessment. My conclusion remains; the US is not the sole reason for WW II victory on part of the Allies.

OK. I'll bite, why on earth, would the US want to try and take over the world? We can't even agree amongst ourselves.

Well, not just us but good luck with anyone trying to rule the world. With all the different cultures, beliefs, customs, etc... it would be hell to live in. Just think if we combined Europe with the US. They would be pissed off with our guns and prudishness while we would be pissed off with thier socialism and crazy laws. (For further proof, think EU combining with the Middle East)

Could the US conquer the world? No.



Not alone maby, but do you seriously think that if the US chooses to conquer the world, other countries would just wach other nations fall and wait for an invasion to their own?

I don't think so. I think they would unite and America would fall. The EU and China alone pose a formitable force against the US. And i'm sure Russia would not stand still if europe gets invaded by the US...

If the US would wage war on EU, China and Russia (at the same time) it could not win.

Not to mention other nations (even the smallest ones) around the globe...

Look at Iraq, it still ties a large number of us troops there. What if the same happens all around the world? America could not sustain such a war. And it's economy would allso fall...

Atleast thats my opinion, but i'm not an expert at these things...


Well, I know we wouldn't have to worry about the UN at all. All they'd do is talk, condemn, and pass resolutions, and those 3 things would be continued indefinately......... :D

Seriously, who ever said that the US wanted or even thinks about conquering the world? ........

or is this just another one of NSG's fantasy debates....

And another thing - just because Ribbentrop estimated things to be such, does not make him infallible; historians, with the advantage of hindsight, may be able to offer a better overall assessment. My conclusion remains; the US is not the sole reason for WW II victory on part of the Allies.

I never said the U.S. was the sole reason for Allied victory in WWII.

In fact, if you reread my first post, you will see that I specifically stated that it was a group effort on the part of the Allies. Every major nation's contribution was essential to victory.

Historians might be able to offer a better overall assessment, but noone credible that I am aware of has directly contradicted Ribbentrop's view.

One person commented that guerilla warfare had not been invented significantly, well, the British certainly faced guerilla warfare against the Maoris with the New Zealand Wars, as well as the Boers in South Africa, and in both cases they won.

the origional ira used guerilla warefare against britian and won.

Why can't the US conquer the world?.

Probably due to the amount of serious revolts and rallys of the free-thinking people who inhabit the United States

The world is a big place. If we were ruthless enough to do whatever it took, we could take Iraq & Afghanistan. We could probably take Iran, and possibly the whole ME. But coulld we conquer AND HOLD India and China, each of which has more than 3X our population? And Europe would be formidible if they actually got POd enough to fight, not to mention Russia. And we'd have to hang on to whichever nations we'd conquered while fighting the ones we hadn't.

With nukes, destroying the world is possible. However, military conquest of the world is just as impossible now as it was when the Romans tried. It's just too big.

the origional ira used guerilla warefare against britian and won.
Don't see a united Ireland, don't see the British out of Ulster, define won!

Seriously, who ever said that the US wanted or even thinks about conquering the world? ........

or is this just another one of NSG's fantasy debates....

Next time, try to read the first post of a thread. It would answer your question nicely.

Don't see a united Ireland, don't see the British out of Ulster, define won!

note i said origional.
they accomplished the majority of ireland to be free. but then they split in two and went downhill from there.

The US has just completely failed to effectively conquer two third world countries, whose weaponry consided of little more than sharp sticks and pieces of fruit.

It can blow up the world if it wanted to, but it could never conquer it. There have been far mightier empires in the past that never got close to total global domination.

You obviously haven no tenable grasp of anything remotely resembling a decent understanding of the world. Okay, maybe remotely. All tangents aside, I am utterly convinced by your first statement that you are either grossly misinformed or willfully ignorant of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq. To assert that the US has "failed to effectively conquer" Iraq and Afghanistan implies that you understand the purpose of both endeavours to be "to conquer." In fact, this is not the case, and has not been so from the beginning. First, in Iraq, the initial goal was to topple Saddam Hussein (the reasoning for this was the pursuit of "WMDs" in the region), but the overriding military and political objective, for whatever rationale, was to facilitate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. However, now we have a second objective: to establish a legitimate, democratic government capable of stabilising Iraq and governing on its own. Now, depending on you definition of "conquer," I fail to see how this is not conquest: Iraq's military has been effectively destroyed, and any army, as the fighting arm of a central government, does not exist to oppose the American (and Allied) presence; Iraq's government cannot currently stand on its own; and virtually all aspects of national unity have been destroyed. Thus, American and Allied forces are an occupying force in a conquered land. And in Afghanistan, there never was any such goal to "conquer" the nation--and there is no reason to. The government still stands and the illegitimate soldiers who threaten the political stability of the region are being pursued by the combined forces present in the country. Now you tell me, where a nation that cannot support itself is not conquered; and how, in a nation such as Afghanistan, the US has "failed" to conquer when there was no possibility to "succeed" in conquering, as there is no goal or initiative to do so.

Barring nukes, it would be child's play for the US to conquer the entire world through a policy of targeted genocide based on our superior air, naval, and economic power.
Hahaha. No. China, for example, would be utterly impossible to do this to. You can't really commit genocide with naval and air power. You can blockade ports, fine, but there's no real way to stop people growing food of their own by air.
We would simply need to raze all agricultural areas, cut off the food supply of the enemy, and allow him to starve to death while running frequent bombing raids.
We Brits sort of dealt with that in World War two. We came out of it alright, and we're pretty risilient, as people go.

Try to do it to Russia and your resources will be utterly wasted. Just remember that these people lived through Stalingrad, lived through slash-and-burn (which was basically a voluntary version of what you're doing) and lived through the purges of Nazi Germany.

You might have got away with it in Vietnam, but you are so very wrong if you think that the world will put up with your crap for more than about a week.
We could also interfere with trade via our superior navy. Also, our economy is much better off than that of the rest of the world, ensuring easier production of military goods. However, the presence of nukes complicates the issue.
You don't have nearly enough oil to do that. You'd last very little time on your own stocks - if the whole world's oil is set to run out in 20-30 years, then the US'll probably run out of its own oil in about 6 years or summit.

And we saw what happened to Nazi Germany when it ran out of oil, didn't we?
We could always resort to subterranean bunkers and a policy of out-breeding the enemy, but that sounds somewhat too much like science fiction.
It takes 18 years and about 9 months to get decent fighters. And if you're underground, your soldiers will all have rickets from an early age. No chance.

I never said the U.S. was the sole reason for Allied victory in WWII.

In fact, if you reread my first post, you will see that I specifically stated that it was a group effort on the part of the Allies. Every major nation's contribution was essential to victory.
Alright, then we are in agreement.

The United States can take over the world culturally, though not through borders. It can't be done.

They can, however, kill every man, woman, child, dog, cat, rat, plant, sasquatch in the world seven times over. That's a pretty neat trick.

The US has just completely failed to effectively conquer two third world countries, whose weaponry consided of little more than sharp sticks and pieces of fruit.

It can blow up the world if it wanted to, but it could never conquer it. There have been far mightier empires in the past that never got close to total global domination.

That's because those past empires were more then willing to do very nasty things to the people they conquered in order to keep them in line.

Had the US adopted the same policy used the Romans, Mongols, or Persians, places like Falluja would simply be a burnt hole in the ground, and to hell if the people killed were innocent or not.

The United States can take over the world culturally, though not through borders. It can't be done.

They can, however, kill every man, woman, child, dog, cat, rat, plant, sasquatch in the world seven times over. That's a pretty neat trick.

But not the cockroaches. That's why we need to develop what I like to call Bioroachwarfare. That is, a section of the government dedicated entirely to constructing biological weapons so that, when the time comes to wipe out all life on earth, those cockroach bastards don't look so smug.