If there’s anything that the last 100 years of military history has taught us, it’s that the US is totally typical of maritime empires that get into trouble every time they try to act like land empires. Sink the mighty Imperial Japanese fleet? No problem. Subdue a bunch of rice farmers or goat herders in some Third World backwater? Sorry - can’t get it done even in 10 or 20 years of trying.
We should stick to what we’re good at.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
In one of these examples, atom bombs were used. In the other, the were not. This is only proof that the will to win a war is what matters.
I wasn't aware that nukes were used to sink the IJN you fucking mouthbreather
>The US nuked the Imperial Japanese fleet
>t. Hasn't heard of the Nuking of Midway
Right, but atom bombs wouldn’t have been able to be used if we couldn’t get close enough to Japan for our bombers to launch with them, which wouldn’t have happened if the IJN wasn’t basically wrecked by the time the atom bombs were dropped anyway. Also, I’m including air forces in the “maritime power” category, because they’re much more similar to a traditional navy than traditional infantry. Both are technical services, both strike from a distance, neither can hold territory on their own. The US is a sea/air power, and in that realm faces little to no serious competition, but it’s never really been any good at being a land power, and its attempts to do so have always ended badly.
inb4 “What about that time we beat the Nazis?” No you didn’t. 85% of Wehrmacht combat casualties were inflicted by the Red Army. US involvement was somewhere between symbolic and insignificant.
No land army in the history of mankind ever did occupy a foreign country for long, because soldering and policing are very different tasks.
Only in the modern age the boundaries got muddied via "Hearts and Minds" nonsense.
You steamroll and move on.
Occupation must lead into colonisation handled by a local milita that is on your side, then you slowly start integrating the region into your own.
Alternatively you ignore the defacto independence of the general populace and stay content with holding key hubs and extracting ressources.
Good post.
While there are key differences on an operational level, the overall synergy between air and naval power was proven in WWII and perfected during the Cold War by the Americans.
>Subdue a bunch of rice farmers or goat herders in some Third World backwater? Sorry - can’t get it done even in 10 or 20 years of trying.
You are aware that the US could have won the Vietnam war in less than a few months? All they had to do was invade North Vietnam. Iraq & Afghanistan; those shit holes could have been resolved in a year.
In every event Liberal politicians and American Socialists held us back from doing what needed to be done. We are as powerful as Rome or Britain ever were at their zenith. Our problem is we have a subversive element who are willing to fuck America. Just to be kings of the ashes.
>literally regurgitating Dolchstoss
top kek
>No land army in the history of mankind ever did occupy a foreign country for long, because soldering and policing are very different tasks.
>Only in the modern age the boundaries got muddied via "Hearts and Minds" nonsense.
>You steamroll and move on.
Listen to him OP Look at all Conquests before the modern era. You slaughter and then Colonize. No matter what the leftists try to tell you the "Imperialist" European powers were remarkably benevolent in the historical context. The U.S. is even more benevolent than these. If any Roman or Mongolian or Chinese Emperor were put at the head of the U.S. military with the knowledge of how to use it. There would be no Vietnamese or Afghani people to even speak of.
>implying gooks weren’t absolutely wrecked
Check those casualty statistics comrade
>The US is a sea/air power, and in that realm faces little to no serious competition, but it’s never really been any good at being a land power, and its attempts to do so have always ended badly.
This is fundamentally founded on a misunderstanding of all land powers, which the U.S. definitely is. Land powers are land powers pretty much exclusively towards nations near their borders. Neither Germany, France, Russia, China, or really and other historical "land power." Would look like much of a land power try to fight a war outside of the immediate proximity of their borders. Just look at the miserable failure of the Germans in North Africa, Mongols attempting to attack Japan, and the counter example of the Japanese successfully overrunning a traditional land power, China. Also note that the Russians also famously lost a war against the "naval power" Japan, a war fought near their own borders no less. The Russians also failed to achieve their objectives in the land war in Afghanistan. So for all this talk of "land powers" and "Sea powers" their doesn't seem to be much historical evidence. Bringing things back to the U.S. though, the US Army is the dominant land force in the Norther Hemisphere. It is absolutely uncontested. Of course the U.S. is a "land power." It's forces are relatively uncontested on land. Take Gulf Wars 1 & 2 as evidence of that. It's continued dominance in Europe, and its ability to keep North Korea, one of the largest standing land forces in the world, at bay.
tl;dr for a litany of reasons the USA is unmistakably one of, if tTHE most formidable land forces on the Earth today. Definitely, the single greatest at force projection, and beyond a doubt the dominant terrestrial power in its hemisphere.
But they did tho?
The bulk of the fleet was put into nuclear testing after their government capitulated to nukes
Nukes stopped the war, then after the war they nuked the fleet
>No land army in the history of mankind ever did occupy a foreign country for long, because soldering and policing are very different tasks.
How long did the British occupy Ireland? How long did the Turks occupy Greece? How long have the Chinese occupied Tibet?
>you German goys definitely weren't stabbed in the back
>please ignore the bolshevik revolution we tried to launch mere months after the Armistice, we were totally on Germany's side in the years before during the war
I believe the general distinction between "land" and "sea" powers isn't so much about their main medium of fighting wars as it is their focus on bordered or expeditionary warfare. The traditional "sea powers," the UK, US, and Japan, are generally seen in opposition to the Eurasian land powers of France, Russia, and (sometimes) Germany, but all 3 of the sea powers have shown themselves to be just as effective at ground warfare as their continental counterparts.
LOL
The IJA was a fucking joke. Yes, it managed some gains against a China that had been weakened by nearly a century of basically nonstop civil war, starting with the Taiping Rebellion. And yes, it managed to crush tiny, closeby Korea and capture some of the most farflung colonies of European countries that were busy fighting for their existence against Nazi Germany. Not too impressed.
The US hasn’t won a land war cleanly since 1865. And yes, I’m including Desert Storm in that - if you find yourself fighting the exact same enemy a dozen years later, then you really didn’t beat him the first time. No, it doesn’t matter why.
As for the British, they’ve been irrelevant since they bankrupted their empire in the Great War - if you can call that a victory.
>I’m including Desert Storm in that
Then you're dumb. I more or less agree with the rest of your points, though. However, I'm not sure if any power has won a land war "cleanly" if any of the United States' and Britain's victories in the 20th century don't count. The only 2 land powers that won anything in the 20th century would be Russia and France, and they both experienced the total collapse of their governments multiple times in that period.
I love how petty the whole thing was.
>Japan attacks Pearl Harbor
>US retaliates by destroying its navy, firebombing its population centers, and nuking 2 of its cities
>War finally ends with Japanese capitulation
>”But wait, we’re not done, we’re gonna tow the Yamato, pride of the Imperial Japanese fleet, out to some Atoll and nuke the shit out of it.”
>What is lend/lease
Go back to history class.
If by "bulk" of the fleet you mean Nagato and Sakawa. Maybe you mean bulk of the remaining fleet after the USA was done tearing it to shreds in conventional warfare.