3 ms·
> And the real clincher: the US hasn't taken on a power capable of defeating it since the 1940s Laughable I’d say it hasn’t happened since the revolutionary w
by foogazi 5y ago
> And the real clincher: the US hasn't taken on a power capable of defeating it since the 1940s
Laughable
I’d say it hasn’t happened since the revolutionary war
- pc86 5y agoI don't know as much about the European theater but had a few major battles gone differently in the Pacific the war would have, at the very least, ended much differently.
- philistine 5y agoyeah but could have Japan defeated the US? It's clear they could have won their objectives, but Japan could not have rolled tanks all the way to New York to defeat the US.
- barry-cotter 5y agoOnce Japan was at war with the US it had already lost. They’d have been better off invading the British and Dutch colonies and hoping the US wouldn’t get involved.
- barry-cotter 5y agoIndeed, if the US had just blockaded and mined the seas around the Japanese home islands and ignored the rest of the Pacific Theater the war would have been over in a year, possibly two. Surrender or starve to death. Those are the joys of not being self-sufficient in food and going to war with an economy more than four times the size of yours.
- barry-cotter 5y ago1812 the US achieved none of its war goals and had its capital burned to the ground. If the British hadn’t had higher priorities in Europe things could have gone much worse. Not like they won in Korea either.
- plasticchris 5y agoOr Vietnam. Or Afghanistan.
- m1gu3l 5y agoNone of those wars were about winning them, just acclimating an anesthetized public in to accepting the military industrial complex.
- philistine 5y agoYou're right. Hitler or Hirohito winning their war means something so utterly small compared to the US losing theirs.