Read for yourself.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.htm

Russia is actually part of the Partnership for Peace(PfP) Alliance that NATO formed in 1994.

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

bconngemini, what you said is just ridiculous. With two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military is already struggling. In fact, many officials at the Pentagon have expressed their concern that the U.S. military is stretched to a degree that it would not be able to effectively counter conflicts that might arise in other parts of the world. Considering this, the idea that the U.S. can militarily take over the world is just ludicrous.

This thread is fun.

I can't believe some people actually find the scenario realistic or even somewhat plausible.

Total War is a matter of production and manpower above anything else. The U.S. have lower production than even the EU alone, not to mention the rest of the world combined. Manpower wise they have trouble even getting enough troops for their current adventures.

While technology, and current military hardware, or course matters - the U.S. might start ahead, but the rest of the world would quickly catch up and grossly outmatch them in a Total War scenario were they switch their economies to war production and research.

Hmmm...

Well, first off, Germany was at war with much of the world but not "all of it".

Second, I think your question is impossible to really answer. All things being equal, the United States of today could most likely destroy the standing armies of pretty much any country on this planet. But considering how much trouble they have in securing those countries after they win their set piece opening battles, I don't think what you propose is realistic.

If they could barely hold onto Iraq (and we are questioning their ability to "win" in Afghanistan), how effective are they going to be holding, say, the VAST expanse of Russia?

In order for the United States to do what you propose, it would have to cease being the United States. It would have to turn into a dictatorship with no concept of human rights, enact a permanent war economy, and of course engage in full conscription and mobilization.

- WHD

The U.S. couldn't beat the north in Vietnam despite its best efforts, and its had its well documented troubles while occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine how much trouble the U.S. would have if it was fighting insurgencies in the 190 or so countries in the world at the same time. Ha!!

The US military now is not the same military that fought during the Vietnam War. Politics played such a huge role in how US fought the war that they never really had a chance to win it.

Taking over the world and keeping it are definitely 2 different things, so I agree with that. The thread really isn't to be taken seriously anyhow, as it's absurd to begin with.

What's changed?

Despite whatever advancements have come with the U.S. military in the last 40 years, it's still fairly obvious that it has no idea how to forcefully occupy a country with an inspired insurgency. (yes i realize Vietnam doesn't quite fit that description, but you know what i mean)

Yes we could defeat any military in the world. But at what cost to us in money and lives.
And after we won, the whole world would be like Iraq and Afghanistan are now. Millions of troops need to "control" the areas. And thousands being killed everyday, all over the world just like they are now. We could win the war, but the occupation would destroy us.

It would be interesting so see how you intent to handle fighting AND occupation at the same time (since the US couldn't defeat the entire world at once, just by and by), all of this while running your logistics through foreign bases under constant threat of armed resistance.
Anyone seriously believing the US could 'take over the world' suffers from an overdose of Hollywood and neocon PR-BS.

Who said it needed to be at once? Our biggest problems are going to be Russia, China, and Europe; if we target the right areas and establish the right colonies in the right places, assumiably weakening them to begin with, we'd be able to do it over several generations. We'd be able to be autarkic if we took control of Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean, particularly with the right economic policy, which would certainly be easy enough.

In order to 'take over the world' you would need to convince your population of the necessity to conquer the evil Europeans or to end the unnatural secession of Canada and Mexico and bring them back home into the US of A where they (after some recordcleaning) historically belonged to anyway, and this would certainly not go unnoticed by the rest of the world.
That means the conquest would have to be 'at once', or the rest of the world would start to prepare for war and, as soon as the US attacked the first country and thus demonstrated their determination to pull through with this scheme, would begin to form an alliance against the US.

This 'conquering the world' is an all-or-nothing prospect. Either you could pull it off at once, or not at all.

Canada's always been American culturally, although retained by the brits after the revolution, and, suprisingly, the modern belief in continentalism isn't at all uncommon with concerns to Mexico.

Concerning the idea the rest of the world would prepare for war, China's highly dependent on foreign resources, Europe's highly dependant on Scandanavian and Russian resources(oil), and Russia's highly dependent on their Siberian resources. The biggest tracts of land we'd need outside of North America would be Sapmi and Siberia, and the biggest areas thereafter would mainly be along shipping routes, such as the Panama Canal, Singapore, Gibralter, and, most importantly, controlling the straight of Hormuz. As long as we has Canadian and Gulf oil resources, we'd be fine while most of the rest of the world would atrophy if we shut it down. However, the biggest factor would be taking control of Siberia, otherwise shutting down the straight would be devasting, but there'd still be oppurtunity for them to continue.

The point isn't wether they would fall quickly to the US because of domestic support for 'Anschluss', the point is that it would signal to the rest of the world early on that the US is serious about military conquest.

America's ability to project power overseas is entirely depending on their overseas bases, otherwise the US military would waste so many assets just securing their logistics that it would make waging war very hard indeed.
Going after Siberia for example would mean to take on the Russians AND the Chinese (who, as you pointed out, do depend a lot on foreign resources), they would not let the US cut off the sea lanes and then stand by and watch the US army invade Siberia. All this while maintaining Japanese goodwill who are in a position to cut off the sea lanes from the US to Siberia.

As for Gulf oil, this would be a lot harder for the US to secure than for, say, Europe. We could move the oil to the North by pipeline, avoiding the Strait of Hormuz alltogether. While the Strait itself could equally easy be shut down for ALL shipping, including tankers bound for the US. Keep in mind, we are talking about a world switching to wartime economies. That means there might be shortcommings in the civilian sector, but theree would certainly be enough resources to maintain and expand the military.

Which is a fair point, and I'm not convinced of our ability to take on the rest of the developed world single-handedly, either; however, my remarks were in response to the comments that we'd be able to conquer the world but not hold it. Assuming we'd be able to defeat the combined European, Russian, and Sinic forces, it'd be much easier to take and hold Siberia and world shipping lanes than the world as a whole, and simultaneously provide us with the ability for future conquest.

Another concept is to what degree of dominance is required for "world conquest"; for instance, if we should be able to have Columbia conquer central America, Equidor and at least parts of Venezuela in return for ownership of the Panama Canal, and they acted under our hegemony, would that constitute conquest?



Yes, but that'd require total reconstruction of infrastructure, and in the meanwhile 40% of the world's supply of oil is unable to transport. The EU imports 82% of it's oil, 30% coming from Russia, meaning we could immediately severe 50% of their oil supply and even more with actions into Siberia. Again, most of the foreign oil to the US comes from either Canada or the Gulf of Mexico, which means securing these sources foremost, particularly with infrastructure improvements, would negate any of the devastating effects of shutting down the straight of Hormuz that would be incurred in Europe and China.

North america wouldn't have a hope in hell of conquering 5 billion people two oceans away who have the collective resources of asia, africa, europe in their grasp and who would see your designs years in advance. Your bases overseas would be overrun, then you would have to operate from your own shores, in the end you would be fending off invasions from them. You could not even conquer China, let alone Russia, and the developed states of Europe.

You have no hope in hell of competing with the rest of the world when it comes to building ships, planes, tanks, etc. You would be outbuilt, overpowered and defeated just as Germany was. Total war would imply total economic mobilization for war, and you only compose 20% of the world economy and 5% of it's population.

Plus the will of your people to attack every other country on earth just for the hell of it is...let's just say...non-existent. Not that it matters anyway, world conquest is no longer possible through force, with the advent of nuclear weapons.

Oh, and you would need at least 100 million troops in the initial attack. Won't happen.

Igor, are you familiar with the concept of attrition? We wouldn't have to conquer the world at once, merely starve Europe and China of resources. The biggest issue would be the conquest of Siberia, which would be the most important maneuver, and while I'm not so cocksure of our ability to take it while starving the rest of the world's trade, we wouldn't be in so dire straights as you assume.

And would you do that by teleporting russia and the rest of Asia + Africa out of existence? All the resources they could ever need are buried on the giant contiguous landmass they occupy. Attrition is precisely why you wouldn't have a chance. You would eventually get bogged down on multiple fronts and simply run out of men before resources even came into play.

You really think you could have access to middle eastern oil while being at war with all of asia and europe at the same time? You expect your country to blockade the rest of earth? Can your ships operate on land too? Would China continue offering generous loans while you were attacking them?

Remember, this would be a total war, blocking a few sealanes wouldn't do anything. New land routes would be opened. Trucks can carry oil too.



Wedged between China, Russia, Europe, fat chance. Your airforce could not project itself into heavily guarded russian airspace. You could at best protect the beach head for some time before enemy land forces showed up and pushed everything back out to sea. They would vastly outnumber you locally in the air, and on land. A navy cannot conquer and hold land, and that's your biggest advantage, initially of course, until the rest of earth just builds a navy 10x the size of yours while you are busy trying to create beach heads, playing ping pong with millions of troops.

This is the most hair brained hypothetical I've ever come across.

Do you know how to go back a few posts? The vast majority of oil used in the US is either domestic, Canadian, or Mexican; we'd be autarkic while staying on the North American continent. Europe, on the other hand, imports 82% of their oil, and would face severe shortfalls by the closing of the straight of Hormuz. If you think 40% of the worlds oil can magically be shipped over land, you're mistaken.



If those sealanes happen to be the straight of Hormuz, Gibraltar, Red Sea, and Singapore, you might want to rethink that.

Adaptations to the distribution system can be made, sealanes can be bypassed. This is fact. Block the strait and watch the oil redirect it's course, it will flow over land.