In short, it depends upon what type of war you're talking about. Wars of conquest are pretty much over for the near future, because only the United States has the logistics and supply chain capacity to occupy another nation. If every nation in the world were to combine their forces they would still be hard pressed to occupy a sizeable nation without the US because they simply don't have the lift capacity.

Holland is ditching its military since 1945, because Germany is no longer a threat, since 1948, because it became a part of NATO, since 1992 because the Soviet Union ceased to exist and since a couple of years because we ran out of money. That said, I think that's all no problem, if we have some kind of plan, which we ehm... don't.

"In short, it depends upon what type of war you're talking about. Wars of conquest are pretty much over for the near future, because only the United States has the logistics and supply chain capacity to occupy another nation."
No it's not. Great Britain could probably occupy Ireland. Ireland could occupy Iceland. Iceland could occupy the Faroer Islands. Small countries can still very well occupy smaller countries.

The Germans occupied western Europe with relatively few forces. They didn't put up much of a fight. The secret is occupying a wealthy country that is poorly defended, because they will gladly collaborate because they are risk averse. Poor countries are harder to occupy, because the people have little to lose.

War isn't a thing of the past but wars in Europe might be. And why would Holland care about anywhere except Europe? No need when they have NATO to foot the bill.

For an overseas war that is true, however there are plenty of nations out their who have the ability to occupy a neighbour, where the logistics are far easier to manage.

"Is war now a thing of the past because of consequences?"

I think war has largely (but not entirely) become a thing of the past for developed countries due to extensive ties of trade and corporate ownership. So many big American corporations have plants in Mexico that they would pull out all the stops to prevent any possibility of war between Mexico and America impossible, for instance.

Old-fashioned wars will only come if the existing structures of corporate ownership break down or if someone (Saddam Hussein, for example) tries to upset the global economic apple cart, but those kinds of problems can usually be dealt with without need for war.

I imagine the only way war returns to Europe is if Salafists take over a country or Turkey decides Bulgaria is looking at it the wrong way.

@ Putin

Couldn't disagree more. Poor countries are far easier to occupy as the people a generally so pissed off with their own rulers that they see exchanging them with a new bunch as no real hardship. Poor left wing countries tend to be harder nuts to crack in this regard, as they generally have a perception of being in it together.

I think the armed forces need to be split into two. One; a large body of conscripted soldiers and reservists, in case shit really hits the fan one day. Two; a small body of highly trained specialists, marines, SEALs, commandos, pilots etc.

Sorry, but no conscription in this country. The draft was outlawed and if they actually tried to re-enact it using the selective service roles, there would be a rebellion.

All I know is the Soviet occupations of the Baltics and the German occupation of portions of western Europe were relatively bloodless affairs. Bohemia was the richest region of eastern Europe and it fell to the Germans without even lifting a finger. I don't think the Bessarabians put up much of a fight when the Russians moved in. The Albanians fell in days to the Italians while the impoverished Ethiopians put up more of a fight. Britain also seemed to have a harder time in the portions of its Empire that were poorer relative to the richer (poorer, more conservative Indian states seemed to have a bigger problem with British rule than the richer ones too). Not sure about the French since all of their colonies seemed to be poor. Spain's most loyal colony was the relatively prosperous Cuba.

@ Draugnar

Even if a second Pearl Harbor happened and we were really ripshit pissed off at someone? The draft could still happen, and happen successfully.

It didn't happen after 9/11. Instead they enacted "stop-loss". It would take an act of Congress to reactivate the draft and Congress ain't got the balls to even think about it.

My dear Draugnar, I beg to differ.
There are 437 males serving in the 113th Congress, and, omitting the odd missing testicle, 874 testes representing our nation, while only 196 ovaries do. I might be presumptuous in assuming that Draugnar thinks that 874 testes are enough testes to reactivate the draft, but two North Korean ones at a time have done that for quite some time.

@putin, besserabians didn't put on a fight? I myself have besserabian roots and my grandma is from there, and I can tell you, the besserabians did put up a fight, and those that did, including thousands of those who submitted were brutally murdered in the woods by Russians with hidden machine guns.

So don't call them "bloodless affairs" you ass.

I actually find both Putin and Octavious convincing on the point, and I'm not sure which would be the correct take.

@ Draugnar

We didn't need a draft for that particular war, but if the American people were angry enough and we needed a veritable fuck-ton of new personnel, public opinion would beg Congress to reinstate the draft.

Where was this fight? The Soviets gave an ultimatum for Romanian evacuation and the Romanians promptly evacuated from Bessarabia, even though they had 2 million troops under arms.

Just because the troops left doesn't mean there isn't a fight.
Iraq? Poland? Russia? France? Look at their resistance. I don't know about Bessarabia, in fact I never knew it existed till now.
Speaking of the draft, it could very well happen in a war, just that it would have to be a very large scale war. A Vietnam draft will never be implemented again.

Great, then where was the Iraq style insurgency in Bessarabia from 1940-1941, or 1944-1990?

And I'm sorry but France is not a good example of fighting in the face of occupation.

Say what? France is a great example. They tied down lots of German troops away from the coast. They gave a lot of information to the allies. They did better than the Dutch, Danish, and maybe the Belgians.
And yet again, I'm learning about Bessarabia.

I don't think the US can win wars while relying on reservists and National Guardsmen, and continually raising the age limit of enlistment. A draft is likely in the event of another large-scale mission.

Fantastic, let's return to a draft so that we can throw away another generation forced to fight wars for old people sitting behind their desks in the capitol. Who in the world would "beg" for that? I don't think I've ever met someone from the United States that supports the draft.

If there is actually a draft I'd rather just give the middle finger to the SS than sign up. If I'm going to join the armed forces (which I might, but not for the USA), I'll be doing it on my own accord.

Get real. There are plenty of active duty non-reserves in the armed forces.

@firewok - It isn't the number of balls. It's the size and fortitude and shriveled up old lawyer balls kept in a jar by their wives have neither the collective size nor strength to get the job done.

@putin, you're forgetting that Romania's ally, Germany was already losing the war, and there was a coup by the prince to dispose of Antonescu who would have ordered the troops to stay and fight. You can't compare that to the early conquests by Germany, which really were bloodless with little to no opposition. Also, armed forces aren't the only ones to put up a fight, peasants are usually the ones to do so, its usually the nobles that give in.

Germany required few administrators in occupied France. Very few Frenchmen joined the resistance. A greater number joined the Milice - anti-partisan paramilitary. Less than 20% of the French army joined De Gaulle in exile in Britain. To the extent there was any armed resistance in France it was at the end of the war, the last 18 months. Most of what counted for 'resistance' was acts of sabotage or intelligence gathering.

But.......they're French....waving white flags is like a national pastime or something.

"@putin, you're forgetting that Romania's ally, Germany was already losing the war, and there was a coup by the prince to dispose of Antonescu who would have ordered the troops to stay and fight."

Germany was most certainly not losing the war in the summer of 1940. If you mean Romania's previous ally - France - had lost then yes you're correct.

It really doesn't matter what the reasons were for not fighting, the fact is they didn't fight.

And I'm waiting on details of any kind of significant and sustained Bessarabian insurgency.