Military Aggression and the United States (split from Random Thoughts 2)

[Cutlass]

Are we talking land size (USA is 4th) or population (USA is 3rd) here?

If you rate things by nominal GDP, the US is first, but the EU is a fairly close second, so the whole exceptionalism thing is isn't actually looking that exceptional.

I find it difficult to believe that there was any time after 1865 that any other single nation could have fielded a military which could have defeated a mobilized USA. What was true was that in most of those years the US was not mobilized for war, and many other nations were. But when the US was mobilized, it was stronger than any other single player.

 

[Ferocitus]

I find it difficult to believe that there was any time after 1865 that any other single nation could have fielded a military which could have defeated a mobilized USA. What was true was that in most of those years the US was not mobilized for war, and many other nations were. But when the US was mobilized, it was stronger than any other single player.

The USA certainly enjoyed a lot of advantages. It could set up industries,
armament factories and military training facilities inland,where there was no
hope of an attack on them. And naval facilities on the huge inland rivers if they
would have been required.

 

[innonimatu]

Imho 1865 is too early. Other mobilized countries were not capable of taking on the USA only because they had adversaries nearby to worry about. But I think the mid 1870s would be a good date. Some time after the transcontinental railroad was firmly established. Until then the US was vulnerable to an attack in the west from some big power such as France or the UK. It had no way to carry the war onto the land of such an enemy (they had good defenses) but suffered from lack of defenses in the territory it had just annexed. Having to fight a war in one's own territory is always damaging.
1914 would be another good date (Panama canal, the ability to quickly redeploy ships and cargo by sea between the two oceans) but by then railroads were more than sufficient for the logistics of defending the still-developing California. The strategic urgency of the canal was outdated by the time it opened.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Imperial alliances and rivalries would have meant that any power that attacked the US would have had one of their rivals joining alongside the US and attacking them. Then before long europe would split into 2 camps; Pro-US and Anti-US resulting in WW1 being fought earlier.

 

[Commodore]

Imperial alliances and rivalries would have meant that any power that attacked the US would have had one of their rivals joining alongside the US and attacking them. Then before long europe would split into 2 camps; Pro-US and Anti-US resulting in WW1 being fought earlier.

That sounds like it could make for a pretty awesome alternate history book or video game.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

 

[Cutlass]

Imho 1865 is too early. Other mobilized countries were not capable of taking on the USA only because they had adversaries nearby to worry about. But I think the mid 1870s would be a good date. Some time after the transcontinental railroad was firmly established. Until then the US was vulnerable to an attack in the west from some big power such as France or the UK. It had no way to carry the war onto the land of such an enemy (they had good defenses) but suffered from lack of defenses in the territory it had just annexed. Having to fight a war in one's own territory is always damaging.
1914 would be another good date (Panama canal, the ability to quickly redeploy ships and cargo by sea between the two oceans) but by then railroads were more than sufficient for the logistics of defending the still-developing California. The strategic urgency of the canal was outdated by the time it opened.

The US in 1865 had the ability to put as much army as possible as far west as Texas-Mexico border. Geography would prevent any European power from landing an army further west than that.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Because you stopped picking fights with countries that were bigger than you.

Why does it seem like everyone is ignoring WWs 1 and 2? I mean does the US get no love for defeating mighty zee Germans? That doesn't count as getting in to some "fair" fights?

 

[red_elk]

Why does it seem like everyone is ignoring WWs 1 and 2? I mean does the US get no love for defeating mighty zee Germans? That doesn't count as getting in to some "fair" fights?

Mostly, no. Without going into details, US intervention in both wars in Europe was largely opportunistic.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Mostly, no. Without going into details, US intervention in both wars in Europe was largely opportunistic.

Forget Germany, what about Japan?

 

[red_elk]

Forget Germany, what about Japan?

War against Japan was 'fair' in the sense that Japan didn't have to put most of their resources into a fight against another opponent.
Japan didn't threaten to invade US mainland though.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why does it seem like everyone is ignoring WWs 1 and 2? I mean does the US get no love for defeating mighty zee Germans? That doesn't count as getting in to some "fair" fights?

Forget Germany, what about Japan?

Neither Japan nor Germany were as "big" as the United States, certainly not in economic terms or in terms of power-projection. Evidently so: the US won what amounted to two simultaneously wars without ever really breaking a sweat. By the time the United States began to start throwing its weight around outside of the Western hemisphere, it was a superpower in the making.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Neither Japan nor Germany were as "big" as the United States, certainly not in economic terms or in terms of power-projection. Evidently so: the US won what amounted to two simultaneously wars without ever really breaking a sweat. By the time the United States began to start throwing its weight around outside of the Western hemisphere, it was a superpower in the making.

But doesn't that just make @Commodore 's point that its impossible to "pick on somebody your own size" when nobody is "as big"?

Mostly, no. Without going into details, US intervention in both wars in Europe was largely opportunistic.

That's just changing the subject. The issue was folks accusing the US of essentially always punching down. My response is that WWI and WW2 were not punching down by any stretch of the imagination. Your response that both wars were "opportunistic" is not only wrong... its irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

Even so... "opportunistic"? The US lost 117K people, including 116K military. Calling the US involvement in WW2 "opportunistic" is a little bit specious. Also, this:

Japan didn't threaten to invade US mainland though.

is patently false, as Japan most certainly threatened to invade the US mainland, and in fact did launch multiple attacks on the West Coast of the US during WW2.

 

[red_elk]

That's just changing the subject. The issue was folks accusing the US of essentially always punching down. My response is that WWI and WW2 were not punching down by any stretch of the imagination. Your response that both wars were "opportunistic" is not only wrong... its irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

By opportunistic I meant specifically the time when second front was opened - Germany was exhausted and wasn't an equal opponent even disregarding the fact that most of its troops were fighting on Eastern front.

Also, this:
is patently false, as Japan most certainly threatened to invade the US mainland, and in fact did launch multiple attacks on the West Coast of the US during WW2.

Okay, they occupied Aleutian islands and killed 6 US civilians... not exactly the same as turning LA into Stalingrad.

 

[Lexicus]

But doesn't that just make @Commodore 's point that its impossible to "pick on somebody your own size" when nobody is "as big"?

Commodore wasn't wrong about that.

My response is that WWI and WW2 were not punching down by any stretch of the imagination.

We were more powerful than Germany and Japan combined.

is patently false, as Japan most certainly threatened to invade the US mainland, and in fact did launch multiple attacks on the West Coast of the US during WW2.

The first sentence of your link is:

The feasibility of an attack on the continental United States by Imperial Japan was considered negligible, with Japan possessing neither the manpower nor logistical ability to successfully mount a full-scale invasion of the U.S.

Shelling the coast and bombing Oregon twice were just nuisances, not serious attacks.

 

[Cutlass]

By opportunistic I meant specifically the time when second front was opened - Germany was exhausted and wasn't an equal opponent even disregarding the fact that most of its troops were fighting on Eastern front.

It's hardly 'opporunistic' on that part of the US that Japan declared war on the US on Dec 7, and Germany declared war on the US Dec 11. Neither of these events were the decision of the US government.

 

[Traitorfish]

But doesn't that just make @Commodore 's point that its impossible to "pick on somebody your own size" when nobody is "as big"?

There is more than a century between 1814 and 1941, and America spent that century very scrupulously avoiding fights that it had any realistic change of losing. That's not a criticism, as such; it's certainly a smart move, if you can get away with it. But it doesn't support the notion that the world was kept in check by the overwhelming power of an army that the United States only intermittently remembered that it actually had.

 

[uppi]

Even so... "opportunistic"? The US lost 117K people, including 116K military. Calling the US involvement in WW2 "opportunistic" is a little bit specious. .

That is less than 0.1% percent of the population of the US at that time in a war that killed 10% and more of the population of several participants. Compared to all others, the US got the most for the price they paid.

"Opportunistic" might be a bit harsh, but it is less specious than the claim that the US defeated Nazi Germany. If anyone can claim that, it is the Russians.

 

[red_elk]

By calling US actions opportunistic I didn't mean to condemn it. It was logical thing to do in their situation, nobody expects them to show altruism in international affairs. When USSR declared war against Japan in 1945, it was also opportunistic, despite Soviet help was requested by Roosevelt in Yalta.

 

[Cutlass]

By calling US actions opportunistic I didn't mean to condemn it. It was logical thing to do in their situation, nobody expects them to show altruism in international affairs. When USSR declared war against Japan in 1945, it was also opportunistic, despite Soviet help was requested by Roosevelt in Yalta.

Yeah, that still kind of ignores the fact that the other guys started it.