|
Canada and Mexico still exist.
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
Cythereal posted:The Mexican army isn't going to make the US shake in its boots anytime soon, and neither is Canada's. The US would also presumably be fighting defensively, and it's just as geographically huge as either neighbor - the US military could afford to trade space for time, and is large enough to likely deal with either invasion. I think the only real problem either could present would be guerilla warfare given the sheer size of the borders involved. I meant the point that 'the US is defended by two oceans' is rather invalid if there's two big, hostile landing grounds to the north and south of the country. It's not like the 'rest of the world' needs to force a landing in New York, they just need to funnel troops into Canada.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:True, but getting those troops from France to Canada is a big loving deal if you have the USN ca. 1945 standing in the way. Even once you land them, it's still a royal loving nightmare getting supplies to them. Yes, but there will also be land based RotW aviation operating out of Newfoundland and Iceland etc. The US meanwhile will have to establish airbases in mainland US from scratch. That carrier and submarine fleet in the Pacific needs to make it to the Atlantic across the very toe of South America without any friendly or even neutral ports of resupply. (The Panama canal is very unlikely to be useable.) And depending on how this clusterfuck happens, the entire European theatre USAF might end up stuck in a hostile UK at the start of the war and lost. Fangz fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jul 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
I just want to know what faux pas Roosevelt did to unite the entire world against the US.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
Koramei posted:"what would the Germans have had to do to win Stalingrad?" "Oh that's way too far into Gay Black Hitler territory, the amount of counterfactuals that'd have to take place makes discussion absurd" There's a difference between an undirected prompt 'what if...' and a question that is seeking a particular answer 'how to make X happen'. Especially with something as vague as 'win Stalingrad'.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:How is "How could the 6th army win Stalingrad" vague ? It is incredibly vague. Look at all the things it could mean, in roughly ascending order of improbability: 1. Just get into the city? 2. Boot out all of the Soviet defenders from the city? 3. Hold the city until summer 1943? 1944? 4. Extract themselves safely from the encirclement and score a strategic victory that way? 5. Make Operation Uranus not happen? 6. Actually defeat the entire Soviet counterattack? 7. Actually accomplish the objectives of Case Blue and make it to the oil fields? Then hold it? 8. Win the war? If this was a game, then the Germans *did* win Stalingrad, they had more of their guys in the city than the Russians and held a higher percent of the city, they score 200 vp.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
The other fallacy is that the question pretends that the solution to German victory is simply a matter of them doing the right thing, as if the millions of red army forces were merely a punching bag.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Modern armour has hilariously high RHA equivalent protection against kinetic penetrators, like several meters worth. Sure if you slap a modern tank with 152 mm of HE it will sweep the outside clean, but I highly doubt you'd get more than a mobility kill out of it. Well, if you can flip the tank then it's probably hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:Yes it was. The Union was something like 97% of the economy/industrial capacity of the United States and had the largest field army in the world. I don't know how large the French army was in the 1860s, but if you use the Mexican intervention as a measuring stick for how many troops they could reasonably deploy, you're talking about ~40,000 men. The British army in the 1860s was around 200,000 and they're not going to be able to commit all of that to the actual fighting either. I suppose you could assume they could contribute as much as the French did in Mexico. I think you're unwisely ignoring the political situation though. Support for the war was not exactly enthusiastic in the North, and such a change might well tip the tide towards a settlement.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
my dad posted:The opposite would be far, far more likely, considering it would change the narrative of the war from "Let's fight fellow Americans because reasons (admittedly pretty good and valid reasons)" to "Holy poo poo, foreign invaders!" I dunno, there might be a short term increase in jingoistic pride, but with the prospect of blockades and a war that might drag on indefinitely, war weariness will probably build rapidly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:People for some reason like to claim that this is a thing but how many wars have been actually ended due to civilian casualties and weariness? Maybe you can make an argument that it was a factor in WWI after four years of constant blockade of a non-self sufficient nation, but the claim of civilians forcing the war to end is oft repeated with little evidence. Germany was bombed to rubble in WWII, as was Japan, and Russia. None of those countries surrendered. Similarly, military collapse forced the Confederacy's surrender, not popular weariness from the very effective blockade and shortages. I'd say that wars not ending due to war weariness, if it does happen, is a somewhat modern phenomenon, actually. Historically wars ending in negotiated settlements because 'oh gently caress it it's not going anywhere' is very much the pattern. Consider the 100 Years War, the negotiated ending to the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years War, the War of 1812, Russia suing for peace in WWI... The authorities ultimately decide that trying to attain the goals of the war no longer justify the cost - relatively few wars are ended by one side crushing the other. The cases you point to are atypical because they correspond to wars that were considered existential, and significant proportions of the US population did not consider allowing the independence of the CSA to be an existential threat. I'm not commenting on the idea of strategically causing civilian casualties to force an end to the war because that's not what I'm talking about. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jul 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:The HYW ended with England completely ousted from the continent except for Calais and the Valois fully in control of the French crown. That is not war weariness, the French achieved their territorial and political aims. Yes, but it also ended in no sense with the English militarily crushed with soldiers in London. The English could have chosen to continue escalating the conflict. But the reality was that they couldn't afford to. The French's aims were to get the English to accept the situation, not to merely momentarily occupy most of the contested territory, and it was weariness and financial hardship that did that. The map at the war's end was not so militarily different from how the map looked at several points during the war.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
How does that Frigate compare to the destroyers and destroyer escorts at Samar?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Did they have any kind of water purification outside of turning the water into alcohol? Boiling works. Otherwise they just avoided water that tasted or looked odd, and if there were nasty stuff in it, they just got sick. I mean what sort of water purification do animals use? This was long before the germ theory of disease also.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Didnt we pretty much invent the concept of war crimes after the fact in 1945 because the Nazis werent criminals per se? (By whose laws, Nazi Germany)? Meanwhile Im pretty sure armed rebellion by US citizens against the US government is a crime, namely treason. Hague Convention was 1899.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:No, its an argument against the "tyranny of the majority". When a portion of the population, through majority public vote, force their will on the "minority". It is democratic in the strictest sense of the term but its an awful idea, because it leaves the "minority" angry and feeling repressed and without representation. Unsurprisingly this can result in conflict. Its not "undemocratic" to appreciate this and that its not a good idea to force one's value onto others. Even if they are lovely values. There are better ways than through force. I will point out that the 'South' is not some uniform block. Though the majority did not vote for Lincoln in the south, some did, and even more voted for Douglas or Bell's anti-seccessionist platform. If you were making an argument against the tyranny of the majority, then it would seem that about half the confederacy ought to have immediately secceded back to the Union because it seemed like their views weren't being represented. And that's ignoring all the slaves that can't vote. EDIT: Anyway I was disagreeing with the notion that "the concept of war crimes was invented after the fact in 1945", which I don't think is true at all. International enforcement was certainly changed after WWII, and the Nuremberg trials put it into a more legalistic framework, but it's not like the concept was entirely alien. The general non-legalistic concept of 'this guy did bad poo poo and shall be punished' goes back further still, probably to at least the fall of Assyria. Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
Ignoring slavery, I generally think the moral issue with secession is that it hands power to geography. If the people who live on top of the gold mine have the right to leave and take the gold mine with them, this means that political power becomes not doled out according to the needs of the population, but the geographical wealth of each locality. There's no real way to ensure that resources are therefore shared to the benefit of all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:So you're a riparian rights kind of guy. Reading the wikipedia, it sounds like the opposite of what I favour?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Sorry for current affairs stuff, but I couldn't resist.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Where did the Force 10 filmmakers get those T34s from?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
I want a gloriously depressing Warsaw Uprising game.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2016 15:20
|
|