WI: What type of Non-Nuclear force would it take to reasonably conquer The United States and hold it effectively?

[Zachowon]

And when New York, LA, and Washington DC surrender, the war is basically over, and the FBI will be responsible for the people who disobey Washington DCs orders. It turns over to a policing/occupation work.

When the President surrenders, probably 90% of the US military will comply. And those soldiers will then be assigned to clearing out the mine fields layed. And there's a fair amount of chance the will to resist will be mostly broken in some 4-6 years of campaigning anyways. People eventually get tired of being bombed and losing. At some point, the navy will mutiny.

Edit: the problem is in part the US is not homogeneous. Not only will not everyone be willing to fight to the end, but if it looks like the invader is going to win, some 10-40% of the population will enthusiastically collaborate and aid them!

I can tell you right now, an invasion of US land will not end in surrender until the military is completely destroyed and the populace no longer lives.

The president would be evacuated most likely to Norad and that is where everything would be fought from.

Nothing any invading country would be have would be able to get into there.

 

[JagerIV]

No. That's silly. The US will surrender some point between 1-10% casualties. Probably lower the quicker the war, and the more obviously pointless continued resistance is. People, in general, are not suicidal. Unless the invader is going to impose truly terrible cost, surrender, especially a negotiated surrender, becomes preferable to continuing to fight.

I'm certainly not going to pointlessly burn my entire family solely to sate some ego of "americans never quit!" Nonsense. Most people wont either.

Expecting Americans to be even more insane than WWII japanese is just being silly.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Okay question for everyone, if the hypothetical world state had an army that was equal in quality to the US and in proportionate equality(that is bigger) the same navy and air force, what would the outcome look like then?

Command and control would still be a much bigger issue for the hypothetical upgunned world state, giving the United States military a significant advantage in practical efficiency that would go a long way towards equalizing the "proportionate" firepower of the world state. Realistically, the upgunned world state would be more powerful than the United States, but *not* powerful enough to actually launch a successful invasion and occupation. It pretty much just forces the United States to fortify and militarize our borders.

 

[JagerIV]

Command and control would still be a much bigger issue for the hypothetical upgunned world state, giving the United States military a significant advantage in practical efficiency that would go a long way towards equalizing the "proportionate" firepower of the world state. Realistically, the upgunned world state would be more powerful than the United States, but *not* powerful enough to actually launch a successful invasion and occupation. It pretty much just forces the United States to fortify and militarize our borders.

My concern on such a situation the US can't sustain attrition for all that long. Nazi Germany suffered some 6% military casualties, which for the US would be equivalent to about 20 million casualties. However, Nazi germany has better demographics than us. There's about 60 million people theoretically in the age bracket suitable for military service 25-54 males. This population would basically have to support more or less the entire rest of the economy. About 1/3 of the population is either over 65 or under 14, about 100 million people. A fair amount of the adult working age woman, between age of 15-64, a population of about 100 million, is not going to be able to worked all that hard to maintain the war effort.

I could see the US military collapsing from a lack of manpower available within even 1% military casualties, about 3-4 million.

The general anayisis also assumes that the US can exist under siege and blockade for extended period of time: 12% of the GDP is imports. Losing $2.5 trillion dollars of imports hurts. If the bombing can inflict an additional $2-3 trillion in damage, about 10% of GDP per year, the economy steadily degrades and falls apart, and with it the nations war-making capacity. Hell, the doubling, quadrupling of military spending to support mass high intensity combat probably alone does some 3-4 trillion dollars of damage to the economy! Before the effect of strategic bombing!

 

[Zachowon]

My concern on such a situation the US can't sustain attrition for all that long. Nazi Germany suffered some 6% military casualties, which for the US would be equivalent to about 20 million casualties. However, Nazi germany has better demographics than us. There's about 60 million people theoretically in the age bracket suitable for military service 25-54 males. This population would basically have to support more or less the entire rest of the economy. About 1/3 of the population is either over 65 or under 14, about 100 million people. A fair amount of the adult working age woman, between age of 15-64, a population of about 100 million, is not going to be able to worked all that hard to maintain the war effort.

I could see the US military collapsing from a lack of manpower available within even 1% military casualties, about 3-4 million.

The general anayisis also assumes that the US can exist under siege and blockade for extended period of time: 12% of the GDP is imports. Losing $2.5 trillion dollars of imports hurts. If the bombing can inflict an additional $2-3 trillion in damage, about 10% of GDP per year, the economy steadily degrades and falls apart, and with it the nations war-making capacity. Hell, the doubling, quadrupling of military spending to support mass high intensity combat probably alone does some 3-4 trillion dollars of damage to the economy! Before the effect of strategic bombing!

I don't think you realize how stubborn the US is. the invasion of the homeland of Freedom will not have a surrender. The country will fight till we all die.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

My concern on such a situation the US can't sustain attrition for all that long.

There's a huge difference between suffering attrition as an invading power that's out to conquer someone else, versus a nation standing in its own defense. Unless we're invoking magical morale effects, the will of the "rest of the world" to invade the United States will run out long before the will of Americans to resist.

 

[JagerIV]

I don't think you realize how stubborn the US is. the invasion of the homeland of Freedom will not have a surrender. The country will fight till we all die.

This is a county were about 50% of the country would rather surrender to communists than be called racists, and another 10 to 20% support the communists!

Whoever the invaders are, if their at all reasonable, 10% will be enthusiastic colaborators, 40% will want to be on whatever the winning side is, 40% will just want to keep their head down, and 10% will be enthusiastically pro US. And of that 10%, 10% will die for a known lost cause eagerly, and the rest will convince themselves being alive for the peace to continue the ideal of America and agitate after the fact is more useful than dieing in a losing war.

Your in a bubble of the most patriotic 1% of the US, the group that signs up for the military. The US produces about 100,000 people like you a year.

Die hard American government supporters are rare. Most, like me, would prefer being a living American than dying for the vanity of the American government in a losing the war.

 

[Deleted member 88]

In my specific world state scenario, a large section of the population would surrender or be fifth columnists because they are committed cosmopolitans, have some grudge against American government or society, or because they simply didn't wish to die.

 

[Sailor.X]

This is a county were about 50% of the country would rather surrender to communists than be called racists, and another 10 to 20% support the communists!

Whoever the invaders are, if their at all reasonable, 10% will be enthusiastic colaborators, 40% will want to be on whatever the winning side is, 40% will just want to keep their head down, and 10% will be enthusiastically pro US. And of that 10%, 10% will die for a known lost cause eagerly, and the rest will convince themselves being alive for the peace to continue the ideal of America and agitate after the fact is more useful than dieing in a losing war.

Your in a bubble of the most patriotic 1% of the US, the group that signs up for the military. The US produces about 100,000 people like you a year.

Die hard American government supporters are rare. Most, like me, would prefer being a living American than dying for the vanity of the American government in a losing the war.

They aren't as rare as you think. Get away from the liberal cites and go into the hinterland and you will run into the warrior culture. I grew up in it. My family comes from a long line of warriors. Back during the Yemesse War we fought the British Empire to a stand still. Unlike the Aztecs and the Inca we didn't crack or colaborate. We showed them true gurrella warfare. So much so they had to get the Cherokee and the Catawba to betray us. And we all know how that turned out for those two tribes in the end. We fought the British again the the Revolutionary war (Because Revenge is a dish best served cold) And in the War of 1812. In the Civil War we served the Union and put a boot up the Confederates asses. In World War I we put fear in the hearts of the Germans that faced us. And in World War II showed the Japanese what true Warriors were. And from then on we have served the Union as the one group that would always answer the call to battle. We abhor weakness and don't suffer traitors. Push comes to shove we will fight and die to the last man. It is our nature. But you will never understand us.

 

[Zachowon]

Why would the US surrender to an invading force? When the people are willing to kill and invade your homeland, perhaps making your life worse then anything else?

Defending a city would be more beneficial then leaving them to die. Force the enemy into the cities.

I still doubt people would surrender As much as everyone thinks.

If someone is going to take your land and rule under a heavier thumb, why would you let them?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

They aren't as rare as you think. Get away from the liberal cites and go into the hinterland and you will run into the warrior culture. I grew up in it.

Warrior ethos and culture might well be more common among rural populations, but it is far from exclusive to them. I'm an urban liberal, and I still very much grew up in that same ethos, in a first generation immigrant family that came to the US after fighting in two back to back wars in their own lifetime, and many more in history.


Edit: Now, I figure you and I, we probably wouldn't often agree on the direction this country should go. But we are absolutely together in the conviction that it's our choice as American citizens, and fucking nobody gets to take that away.

 

[Sailor.X]

Warrior ethos and culture might well be more common among rural populations, but it is far from exclusive to them. I'm an urban liberal, and I still very much grew up in that same ethos, in a first generation immigrant family that came to the US after fighting in two back to back wars in their own lifetime, and many more in history.

Exactly I have many friends that immigrated from countries that were warzones. They served with me in the US Navy back during Desert Storm. They ain't gonna let this country fall without a serious fight.

 

[JagerIV]

They aren't as rare as you think. Get away from the liberal cites and go into the hinterland and you will run into the warrior culture. I grew up in it. My family comes from a long line of warriors. Back during the Yemesse War we fought the British Empire to a stand still. Unlike the Aztecs and the Inca we didn't crack or colaborate. We showed them true gurrella warfare. So much so they had to get the Cherokee and the Catawba to betray us. And we all know how that turned out for those two tribes in the end. We fought the British again the the Revolutionary war (Because Revenge is a dish best served cold) And in the War of 1812. In the Civil War we served the Union and put a boot up the Confederates asses. In World War I we put fear in the hearts of the Germans that faced us. And in World War II showed the Japanese what true Warriors were. And from then on we have served the Union as the one group that would always answer the call to battle. We abhor weakness and don't suffer traitors. Push comes to shove we will fight and die to the last man. It is our nature. But you will never understand us.

Okay, outlining how utterly unique you are unfortunately doesn't really create great confidence that that there are even 10 million people like you. And I'm not sure even you would be as committed as you say. Certainly not to a suicidal way. Hell, in your own backstory you eventually switched allegiance to the winning side!

In a situation where victory looked hopeless, I'm not sure you wouldn't be in the 90% of the patriots who decide discretion is the better part of valor, that living to fight again in a situation where victory would be possible was better than fighting in a situation where victory was impossible and your death would just long term undermine the ability of the US to continue.

Plus, liberal cities are, well, 50% of the population. Maybe 20-30% depending on how you count it. And hell, its hard to say who would be most motivated to fight or collaborate depending upon who the opponent is. And depending on who the leadership in the US was. If I was conscripted, I would be less motivated to fight as long under a Hillary President than a Trump President. Under a Biden presidency I would be fairly more inclined to outright desert since I would have zero faith in the leadership to make competent decisions, or weren't outright working for the enemy to figure out what just enough resistance looked like to transfer themselves from President to territorial governor with the minimum disturbing of their power.

As I said, there's maybe 10% of the population who are die hard Americans. My family has been in the US for about a 100 years, came over from England and Hungary in the 1900s. We have about 60 years of military service. If America goes bad, we probably move back to somewhere in eastern Europe or southeast Asia. Americans with anything like your historical family comitment to the country is, what, 50 million people who have that kind of deep connection to the country?

Hell, about 20% of the population is Mexican, and mostly came in in the last 50 years. I would not be shocked if about half of them would leave if things got dicey in the US.

Why would the US surrender to an invading force? When the people are willing to kill and invade your homeland, perhaps making your life worse then anything else?

Defending a city would be more beneficial then leaving them to die. Force the enemy into the cities.

I still doubt people would surrender As much as everyone thinks.

If someone is going to take your land and rule under a heavier thumb, why would you let them?

What % of the German population died post occupation after WWII? On either the Western or Eastern side? Unless the enemy is outright genocidal, chance of survival post conquest is above 90%.

You surrender because the pain of continued resistance is not worth whatever benefit you hope to gain through fighting. People have an awful lot to lose in resistance. Including a whole lot of politicians and bureaucrats! A chief of police has a nice house, family, and a good salary, if the salary and comfortable life comes from working for the occupation force tab rather than the American government tax, most people will chose a comfortable life.

If the president would be allowed to continue serving as president, possibly with a bigger salary, just with an appointed governor with veto power over his decisions, or he could fight to the end and be executed, how many presidents would not chose the pay out, keeping their life and 80% of their power?

Now, this is dependent upon the enemy reaching a point where people believe victory is not possible. The share of people who will stop fighting or collaborate if they think victory is still likely is a much smaller portion.

The big disagreement seems to be over how far America has to be pushed to be demoralized.

 

[Sailor.X]

Okay, outlining how utterly unique you are unfortunately doesn't really create great confidence that that there are even 10 million people like you. And I'm not sure even you would be as committed as you say. Certainly not to a suicidal way. Hell, in your own backstory you eventually switched allegiance to the winning side!

In a situation where victory looked hopeless, I'm not sure you wouldn't be in the 90% of the patriots who decide discretion is the better part of valor, that living to fight again in a situation where victory would be possible was better than fighting in a situation where victory was impossible and your death would just long term undermine the ability of the US to continue.

Plus, liberal cities are, well, 50% of the population. Maybe 20-30% depending on how you count it. And hell, its hard to say who would be most motivated to fight or collaborate depending upon who the opponent is. And depending on who the leadership in the US was. If I was conscripted, I would be less motivated to fight as long under a Hillary President than a Trump President. Under a Biden presidency I would be fairly more inclined to outright desert since I would have zero faith in the leadership to make competent decisions, or weren't outright working for the enemy to figure out what just enough resistance looked like to transfer themselves from President to territorial governor with the minimum disturbing of their power.

As I said, there's maybe 10% of the population who are die hard Americans. My family has been in the US for about a 100 years, came over from England and Hungary in the 1900s. We have about 60 years of military service. If America goes bad, we probably move back to somewhere in eastern Europe or southeast Asia. Americans with anything like your historical family comitment to the country is, what, 50 million people who have that kind of deep connection to the country?

Hell, about 20% of the population is Mexican, and mostly came in in the last 50 years. I would not be shocked if about half of them would leave if things got dicey in the US.



What % of the German population died post occupation after WWII? On either the Western or Eastern side? Unless the enemy is outright genocidal, chance of survival post conquest is above 90%.

You surrender because the pain of continued resistance is not worth whatever benefit you hope to gain through fighting. People have an awful lot to lose in resistance. Including a whole lot of politicians and bureaucrats! A chief of police has a nice house, family, and a good salary, if the salary and comfortable life comes from working for the occupation force tab rather than the American government tax, most people will chose a comfortable life.

If the president would be allowed to continue serving as president, possibly with a bigger salary, just with an appointed governor with veto power over his decisions, or he could fight to the end and be executed, how many presidents would not chose the pay out, keeping their life and 80% of their power?

Now, this is dependent upon the enemy reaching a point where people believe victory is not possible. The share of people who will stop fighting or collaborate if they think victory is still likely is a much smaller portion.

The big disagreement seems to be over how far America has to be pushed to be demoralized.

We never switched sides. We were betrayed by the Cherokee and Catawba. Separate tribes from us and not a monolithic group. The only times we fought along side the British was in World War I And World War II.

And no we will not surrender to a foe that outnumbers us. We didn't in any war we fought in. Even at the end of the Yemesse war we low key killed the bastards one by one.

 

[JagerIV]

The Americans and the British were the same people! You chose one faction of British to fight a different faction of British. What portion of the British force you fought in the beginning were Americans who you later fought with in the Revolutionary war?

Edit, and even then, that puts you in a tiny, tiny portion of the US. How many Yemesse are there left? 1,000? 10,000? One day's combat? one months? People with even a 100 years connection to the country are probably a minority.

I think people are just overestimating how willing people are to die en mass. Hell, the Confederacy gave up with about 5% casualty among their free populations. Well, let me rephrase that, the Confederacy was incapable of continuing the fight with about 5% casualties. Nazi Germany likewise simply could not continue the fight after about 5% military casualties. So, at a high end, it seems like most countries simply cannot continue resistance past about 5% military casualties. Which, in the US, would be about 15 million people.

I think, for a number of reason, our maximum casualty tolerance is probably a bit lower than both those cases, probably more in the 3-10 million, towards the lower end the more demoralized/subverted the US is pre-invasion. The larger the portion of the US who starts the war with either a positive view towards the conqueror, or enters the war believing the US has lost before the war begins, the lower the casualty tolerance before breaking will be.

 

[Sailor.X]

The Americans and the British were the same people! You chose one faction of British to fight a different faction of British. What portion of the British force you fought in the beginning were Americans who you later fought with in the Revolutionary war?

We didn't join in until the Battle came to South Carolina. Which was in the days of the Partisans. Which was after the Declaration of Independence.

Edit: And for the Record I am Santee not Yemesse. We fought in that war with our Edisto Allies.

 

[Zachowon]

Warrior ethos and culture might well be more common among rural populations, but it is far from exclusive to them. I'm an urban liberal, and I still very much grew up in that same ethos, in a first generation immigrant family that came to the US after fighting in two back to back wars in their own lifetime, and many more in history.


Edit: Now, I figure you and I, we probably wouldn't often agree on the direction this country should go. But we are absolutely together in the conviction that it's our choice as American citizens, and fucking nobody gets to take that away.

We can disagree on what we think politically, but once we are invaded and have a common enemy threatening our country. We will unite

 

[JagerIV]

We didn't join in until the Battle came to South Carolina. Which was in the days of the Partisans. Which was after the Declaration of Independence.

Okay, well, congratulations for not fighting on the losing side of a war. Most people aren't in your situation. Most people's historical memory involves being on the losing side of some war. Which is also generally not the end of the world. Losing sucks, but isn't necesarily the end of the world.

 

[Zachowon]

So, remeber what happend to the USSR in A-stan? China in Vietnam? That is what would happen here. People that know the terrain, people wont just roll over if some guy with a gun tells them too. We have seen that enough with police shootings.

It will be a war that will not only destroy the worlds economy but end with a death toll so high communism would blush

 

[ShadowArxxy]

So, remeber what happend to the USSR in A-stan? China in Vietnam?

Which China in Vietnam? I'm not being sarcastic here -- there's over a dozen wars, "rebellions", and "uprisings" having to do with Chinese invasion and occupation of Vietnam, across the past two thousand years.