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

[Zachowon]

Whilst I haven't got the faintest idea of how to subjugate the United States (I know that defeating its navy, securing the West or East coast for supplies, and not treating the populace like shit might factor into it), in terms of defeat on the battlefield I believe it to be quite achievable, although most certainly not from "peer" powers, nor would the defeat be total. For example, a US Corps strength formation of about thirty thousand men is going to choke fuck a Russian or Chinese force of similar size.

I'd say, troop for troop, the most potent threat on the battlefield for the US would be a British, French or (to an extent) Japanese formation of similar size. That is an engagement the US could lose. Thusly, if that were part of a major engagement, that is a flank or main thrust that evaporates.

I actually would say those that we have trained with before to be worse as we generally work with them and know how they operate

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I actually would say those that we have trained with before to be worse as we generally work with them and know how they operate

Really? I mean, sure, you'd know how they operate, but trooper for trooper they are far better trained, equipped and disciplined than what the Chinese and Russians are pumping out.

 

[Zachowon]

Really? I mean, sure, you'd know how they operate, but trooper for trooper they are far better trained, equipped and disciplined than what the Chinese and Russians are pumping out.

I don't know if they are better trained equipped and disciplined then russians. Chinese sure but not russians.

The US Infantry is the best infantry in the world, and that equipped with the numbers and training they get constantly has them above and beyond any first world peers. We may look and act like jokers, but when it comes to war no one does better then the US in this day and age at the infantry scale.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Yes but technology counts too. As does attrition.

If the World coalition has an army of say 900 million compared to let’s be generous and say 100 million Americans, it can take up to 8 casualties per American and still come out victorious.

The only way America wins against a world state is either nuclear weapons which are off the table; or attriting the invading force so badly that the world can’t raise another army.

If you take 8/9 casualties, you lose. Your demographics and economy will be fucked permanently. Any discussion of the rest of the world conventionally beating the US basically involves the assumption that the rest of the world behaves like a colony of space ants.

 

[JagerIV]

I don't know if they are better trained equipped and disciplined then russians. Chinese sure but not russians.

The US Infantry is the best infantry in the world, and that equipped with the numbers and training they get constantly has them above and beyond any first world peers. We may look and act like jokers, but when it comes to war no one does better then the US in this day and age at the infantry scale.

Yet we lost to the Taliban . .

I'm not really sure US troops are actually all that spectacular in a broad sense. Our current biggest advantage, listening people talk about our performance in Afghanistan was that we were actually willing to do risky things that risked casualties, and had the raw material capacity to perform operations that, for example, the Canadians simply didn't have the material capacity to carry out.

Our soldiers certainly aren't bad, but they're not super men either. Plus, well, this war will probably be won or lost in the air and sea anyways. Which comes down to a material question of how long we can sustain the immense expense of an extended naval and air operation against active opposition. Which comes down to questions of how much damage bombings/blockade do to the US economy and how much suffering can be realistically born.

Those are both very hard things to predict: we don't really know what happens to a US under blockade: there's nothing that can't really be routed around, but there's also obviously a tipping point: economies collapse slowly, then all at once.

 

[Zachowon]

Yet we lost to the Taliban . .

I'm not really sure US troops are actually all that spectacular in a broad sense. Our current biggest advantage, listening people talk about our performance in Afghanistan was that we were actually willing to do risky things that risked casualties, and had the raw material capacity to perform operations that, for example, the Canadians simply didn't have the material capacity to carry out.

Our soldiers certainly aren't bad, but they're not super men either. Plus, well, this war will probably be won or lost in the air and sea anyways. Which comes down to a material question of how long we can sustain the immense expense of an extended naval and air operation against active opposition. Which comes down to questions of how much damage bombings/blockade do to the US economy and how much suffering can be realistically born.

Those are both very hard things to predict: we don't really know what happens to a US under blockade: there's nothing that can't really be routed around, but there's also obviously a tipping point: economies collapse slowly, then all at once.

The Russians also lost to the Taliban. The Chinese lost to the Vietnamese, France lost to the Vietnamese.

We technically never lost. We also never went full warfare and are doing COIN with Hearts and Minds in well. Mind.

If we did what we did during Vietnam but add in not caring at all for civilians id they are combative...
Well let's just say the Taliban would have been wiped out.

The reason we never really beat the Taliban is the force the populace to work for them, and so it makes it harder to use the hearts and minds to support ones army with information when the enemy turns everyone into your enemy. Or possible one.